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
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
1. What steps the Government are taking to encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Before I answer the question, I would like to convey my condolences to the family of Adrian Ismay, the prison officer who sadly died as a result of a terrorist attack in the period since our last Northern Ireland questions. I would like to extend the same condolences to the family of Michael McGibbon, who was brutally murdered in north Belfast, in an attack that has all the hallmarks of a paramilitary assault.
To encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland, the Government have reduced UK corporation tax to the joint lowest in the G20 and legislated to enable the devolution of rate-setting powers to Northern Ireland. Working with the Executive, we are also making progress on the establishment of a new enterprise zone near Coleraine.
Maria Caulfield
I echo the sentiments of condolence expressed by the Secretary of State, and I thank her for her reply. What benefit does she think this inward investment will bring to the local economy of Northern Ireland? In particular, what steps are being taken to ensure that all communities will benefit from it?
Mrs Villiers
There has been significant investment in Northern Ireland in recent years, and it continues to perform beyond many parts of the United Kingdom. Recent good news includes 110 new jobs for Cookstown from CDE; 74 new jobs in Belfast from HighWire Press; and about 70 new jobs in Fermanagh and Omagh. Invest NI reports that it has promoted 37,000 new jobs since 2011 and delivered £2.6 billion of investment to the local economy, benefiting all parts of Northern Ireland.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers so far. She will be aware that key Northern Ireland companies such as Allstate and Almac have had to look outside Northern Ireland to recruit suitably skilled staff in recent times. Has she any suggestion as to how we might ensure a suitable supply of potential staff who are skilled up to take advantage of opportunities offered by inward investment?
Mrs Villiers
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a skilled workforce is crucial for attracting inward investment. Northern Ireland has an excellent workforce, with many highly-skilled individuals, but there is always more that can be done. The UK Government have invested significantly in apprenticeships, which is reflected in Barnett consequentials to the block grant. I know that apprenticeships are also something the Northern Ireland Executive take very seriously, and they are delivering many of them.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that airport connectivity is a vital tool in attracting inward investment? Given that Dublin has announced that it will be increasing its airport capacity by 2020, is it not time Her Majesty’s Government took a decision on airport capacity in the south-east of England?
Mrs Villiers
Yes, the Government will be making a decision on the expansion of airport capacity in the south-east in due course. We are clear that new capacity is needed and that a decision will be made shortly.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
May I personally thank the Secretary of State for the efforts she made in helping to secure a £67 million contract for the Wrights Group in Ballymena, which was very well received there, and for the work she did behind the scenes in securing that contract? Like me, is she appalled, however, by the scare stories and scare tactics being deployed by the remain campaign, which are turning people away from investment because they are scared of the consequences and all this hate activity that is going on? Will she, like me, ensure that, irrespective of the outcome on 23 June, every effort is made to make sure that moneys released to the United Kingdom will be used to attract inward investment in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his comments on my role in relation to the Wrightbus contract. I did press Transport for London hard to go through with that contract, because I think it is important for job opportunities in Northern Ireland and so that we can have great buses for my constituents. On his question about the referendum, I think it is important for all sides to address the facts of the debate in a measured way, so that on 23 June the people of this country can make a judgment based on the objective facts of the situation.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
2. What recent assessment she has made of the level of the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The threat level from terrorism in Northern Ireland continues to be severe. Although many attacks are disrupted and prevented, the callous murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay highlights the lethal nature of the continuing threat. The UK Government remain vigilant on combating terrorism, giving our full support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5 in their crucial work to keep people safe in Northern Ireland.
Henry Smith
I join in the condolences to Mr Ismay’s family. In addition to domestic terror threats in Northern Ireland, what assessments has the Secretary of State made of international terror threats to the Province?
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a Home Office lead, but it is something that I discuss regularly with the Home Secretary, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Ireland Justice Minister and other relevant people. The Government take the matter extremely seriously, as the threat from international terrorism is severe. That is one reason why the strategic defence and security review made such a strong commitment to investing in our intelligence services and counter-terrorism spending, which includes a 30% real terms increase in counter-terrorism spending over the course of this Parliament.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I join the Secretary of State in her words about the killing of Adrian Ismay and also in relation to the brutal slaying of Michael McGibbon, a father of four who was shot on Friday in my constituency. Clearly, that was an atrocious event. Will she join me in commending the courageous words of Mr McGibbon’s widow who has called for people to stand together against these paramilitary terrorists who carried out this atrocious attack? Does she agree that it is vital that we all unite against terrorists from all sides and that we get on with implementing the provisions to tackle paramilitaries in the “Fresh Start” agreement?
Mrs Villiers
I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s statement, Mr McGibbon’s widow is an incredibly brave woman. The circumstances of Mr McGibbon’s death are deeply tragic and heartbreaking. I know that the whole House will feel for his family at this time, and it is utterly unacceptable that, in modern Northern Ireland, there are still people who believe that they can take the law into their own hands and administer this violent, brutal treatment of individuals such as Mr McGibbon. It is utterly unacceptable. I agree with him that everyone in Northern Ireland should join the widow in this case and condemn that horrific and brutal murder.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer. Will she also take on board the fact that a number of prominent republicans have been arrested in North Belfast recently, including some out on licence? It is important that she reassures the community that she is keeping under review the terms in which people who are under licence are out on the streets, particularly Sean Kelly, the Shankill bomber. Does she also agree that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the Attorney General’s decision to order a review into the actions of the Royal Ulster Constabulary when it stopped a terrorist from carrying out a terrorist attack? Will she look carefully at that and speak to colleagues about it?
Mrs Villiers
I agree that it is very important to take seriously revocation of licences. There is a very clear legal framework for doing that. Where there is evidence that a licence should be revoked, it is considered with the greatest seriousness. I also agree that it is vital that we press ahead with full implementation of the “Fresh Start” programme to eliminate the lingering influence of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. The time for those groups has passed. They were never justified under any circumstances and any tolerance of them in Northern Ireland today is to be condemned. In relation to the last point about the public prosecutor’s direction, that is a matter for the independent prosecutors.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the terrorist threat from dissident republican groups to mainland Great Britain?
Mrs Villiers
The threat level is not as severe as it is in relation to Northern Ireland. It continues to be the case that dissident republican groupings have aspirations to mount attacks in Great Britain, but the indications are that their main focus continues to be Northern Ireland, and the Government will remain vigilant in doing everything they can to protect people, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am deeply sorry that Adrian Ismay became the 31st prison officer to be murdered in Northern Ireland, and I do hope that a memorial garden for prison officers will soon be completed in Northern Ireland. The question I want to ask the Secretary of State follows on from the second question of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). The Secretary of State will know that I have already written to her requesting a meeting to discuss why Sean Kelly’s licence has not been revoked. Gina Murray, a very dignified lady, whose only daughter was murdered in the Shankill Road bombing, wishes to have a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss the reasons why his licence has not been revoked. Will the Secretary of State consent to that meeting?
Mrs Villiers
I am certainly happy to have that meeting. In terms of timing, we might have to be careful about the interaction with the decision that I might need to make over the coming days and weeks, but I am sure that we can have a meeting on this matter at some stage.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Despite much progress in Northern Ireland, there remains a terrorist threat, as we saw with the shocking murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay, whose funeral the Secretary of State and I attended. I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and we send our sincere condolences to Adrian Ismay’s family and colleagues. The Secretary of State will also know that there have been explosives found, bomb-making equipment discovered and murders north and south of the border. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, in her opinion, these individuals are acting alone or as part of a more organised and co-ordinated terror group?
Mrs Villiers
A number of groupings are active in relation to the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. They tend not to be terribly cohesive and are subject to increasing and regular splits. They have connections both north and south of the border and, were it not for the dedication and effectiveness of the PSNI and its partners in MI5 we would see these individuals mounting attacks resulting in tragedies such as that which has befallen the family of Adrian Ismay in such despicable circumstances.
Vernon Coaker
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She will know that in recent days in Northern Ireland there have been two terrible shootings, one with fatal consequences—that of Michael McGibbon. I associate myself with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and with the words of the widow. Our hearts go out from this House to all the families and those affected. The PSNI says that the attacks have all the hallmarks of paramilitary assaults, so on the streets of this United Kingdom we have shootings and murders linked to paramilitary activity. It is both sickening and totally unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State tell us more about what happened, and what action she, the PSNI and others will take against those who have no respect for human life or the rule of law?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman chooses his words correctly; this is absolutely sickening. I feel that this case could be like a number we have seen over recent decades in Northern Ireland and be the point at which people there say that this is completely and utterly unacceptable. The police investigation is progressing, with an individual charged with murder, but it is also imperative, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, that we implement the “Fresh Start” agreement proposals, including progress on the strategy that the panel is coming up with. We need to ensure that people have the confidence to come forward and give evidence against these individuals. That has been a persistent problem in gaining convictions, as people are afraid to give evidence in such cases. As a society, we need to do all we can to support and encourage people so that they are able to come forward and give evidence to bring these people to justice.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
3. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on waiting times for Northern Irish agricultural producers to obtain export licences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
Too often the biggest barrier to exports of agricultural goods are health and inspection regimes in destination countries. One of our main efforts involves trying to develop the market to China and other countries and that is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been working closely with Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials and industry to collate information and to address any concerns from destination countries, hopefully cutting out the delays in gaining export health certificates for Northern Ireland suppliers.
Ms Ritchie
Does the Minister agree that although getting an export licence and getting approvals for Northern Ireland food produce already takes too long, the wait for Northern Ireland farmers would become ever longer if we were to leave the European Union and had to renegotiate our trade relationships with some of our nearest neighbours within the European common market?
Mr Wallace
It is certainly in the interest of Northern Ireland farmers and all farmers across the European Union that they have access to new markets across the rest of the world. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is, as we speak, in Washington lobbying hard for more access for UK farmers to sell their beef into the United States. We should recognise that the United Kingdom can do it, but if we do it alongside the EU in things such as the EU-US trade treaty we will gain more markets for our farmers and they will go from strength to strength.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister will know that one obstacle for the agri-food sector, especially the meat industry, is BSE and swine flu certificates. Will he ensure that his Department works hard with the veterinary division to achieve that? We sometimes put all our eggs in one basket with China, but there are many other countries out there with which we can do business.
Mr Wallace
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right. That is why, as I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is in America, trying to get the BSE legacy issues removed so that we can access American markets to sell our beef, which will be great for our beef price. We need to learn from the Republic of Ireland, which has managed to forge ahead with milk exports around the world, which is why it has a better milk price than our dairy farmers.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
4. What discussions she has had with the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive on the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
Ministers have regular discussions with the Northern Ireland parties on a range of issues. The Government’s position on the EU referendum is clear: the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed European Union.
Susan Elan Jones
Many of us were interested to see a survey by a highly reputable Northern Ireland business organisation which suggests that 81% of businesses support continuing EU membership. Why does the Secretary of State think she is right on that issue and those businesses are wrong?
Mr Wallace
The CBI Northern Ireland, 81% of the membership of the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce, and the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association all believe that remaining in the European Union is good for Northern Ireland business and good for the economy. That is why the Government believe we are better off in.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
May I join in the condolences that have been expressed by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, and may I add condolences to the family of Sister Clare Theresa Crockett, the nun from Derry who was tragically killed in the earthquake in Ecuador? Has the Minister heard how many of us are so appreciative of the difference that EU membership has made to the border economy and not just to funding in Northern Ireland under programmes, but to funding models? Has he heard others say that that will be dwarfed by the bounty that we will receive as money is redirected to Northern Ireland instead of Brussels? Does he believe there is a crock of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow?
Mr Wallace
Northern Ireland benefits extremely well from money that it receives from the European Union. There is no pot of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow, so I suggest that we get on and focus on what is right for Northern Ireland, which is remaining in the European Union.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
If the UK does decide to leave the EU, there will be an annual £9 billion hole in the EU finances. As other eastern bloc nations look to join to get more slices of a diminishing financial cake, what opportunities does the Minister believe Northern Ireland companies would have in those circumstances to export to Europe and beyond?
Mr Wallace
The first thing we should recognise is that Northern Ireland business does not agree with the hon. Gentleman and believes that it should remain in the European Union. If people voted to leave the European Union, from 24 June Northern Ireland businesses would unfortunately have to deal with instability for the next two years, which would damage their market.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
It will not have escaped your gimlet-eyed gaze, Mr Speaker, that those of us on Opposition Front Bench are united on the subject, but for months we have had uncertainty about what will happen to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic in the tragic event of Brexit. Two Sundays ago Lord Lawson popped up on the “The Andrew Marr Show” to say we would have a border. Leaving aside the irony of that coming from a French resident whose policy was to shadow the Deutschmark, may we have some clarity on what will happen to the border? Are there any revelations that the Minister would care to share with us?
Mr Wallace
On 24 June the border will still exist. However, if the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union, it would step outside the customs union, which would inevitably affect trade across that border on which Northern Ireland is significantly dependent, because of more bureaucracy, more checks and a slowdown of trade.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I appreciate that the Secretary of State must feel quite lonely in Belfast these days, given that her views on Europe are not shared by the overwhelming majority of the population of Northern Ireland. Can we get to the bottom of the question of Brexit and the border? Her colleague, Nigel Lawson, the former Chancellor, said that leaving the EU would mean rebuilding the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Three days ago she said that that was not the case. They cannot both be right.
Mr Wallace
One thing myself and my right hon. Friend are completely united on is that there will be no return to barbed wire and watchtowers should we leave or remain in the European Union. What there will be, however, is a Northern Ireland that steps outside the customs union, and that would inevitably affect the free flow of trade across the border.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
5. What discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on increasing the level of exports from Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Fixing the public finances to keep interest rates low and deliver economic stability is a crucial part of the Government’s efforts to promote exports. We are also using our diplomatic network around the world to promote exports from Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
David Rutley
Is my right hon. Friend aware that UK Trade & Investment and Economist Intelligence Unit information shows that the career aspiration young people want to fulfil most by 2020 is to run their own business? What steps are being taken to help them achieve their aspirations and to become first-time exporters in the UK and Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
To do that, we are delivering economic stability, and we are cutting national insurance contributions for 3.4 million self-employed people. We are also working with the Northern Ireland Executive through the economic pact to deliver things such as our start-up loans programme for young entrepreneurs and through the taskforce on access to banking, which has delivered £60 million in business finance.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
At a meeting yesterday involving the oil and gas group, Harland and Wolff from my constituency railed against the religious observance of EU regulations that is required of it, unlike its competitors across the European Union. How can we redress the balance so that it can compete equally with its competitors across the European Union?
Mrs Villiers
The Government are certainly doing all they can to ensure that the UK, including Northern Ireland, is one of the most competitive places in the world to do business, which is one reason why we have reduced corporation tax. We are bearing down on unnecessary regulation. I will certainly look into the matters the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to the industry.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
6. What assessment her Department has made of the role of the voluntary sector in dealing with the legacy of the past.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
In working to build consensus for the Stormont House agreement institutions on the past, I have held a number of very constructive meetings with voluntary groups who support and represent victims, as well as with victims themselves.
David Mowat
The Secretary of State will be aware of the reconciliation work performed by the Peace Centre, which is based in Warrington. Support is given to those on both sides of the Irish sea affected by terrorism, although the majority of the funding is provided by the Irish, not the UK, Government. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and members of the Foundation for Peace to discuss whether we can do more on this issue?
Mrs Villiers
I would be very happy to do that. I enjoyed my visit to the Peace Centre, and I have the highest regard for the work done by the centre and its various programmes to support the victims of Northern Ireland terrorism and other victims.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
How much cognisance—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We are discussing matters appertaining to the victims of terrorism, and that matter must be treated with respect, as must the hon. Member.
Tom Elliott
How much recognition and cognisance does the Secretary of State give to victims’ groups representing innocent victims in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I have met a wide range of groups representing victims in Northern Ireland. It is very important that we listen to their point of view in attempting to reach a consensus on how we best address the legacy of the past and establish the Stormont House institutions.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
7. What steps the Government are taking to support tourism in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
The promotion of tourism to Northern Ireland is primarily a devolved matter, but the Secretary of State and I take every opportunity to support it. The new British-Irish visa scheme in China and India will enable visits to both Ireland and the UK, including Northern Ireland, on a single visa of either country, thus encouraging tourism, business links and inward investment.
Tristram Hunt
According to Lord Lawson, the chair of the increasingly absurd Vote Leave campaign, a British vote to leave the European Union would result in the return of border posts and passport controls between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. What modelling has the Minister done on how that might affect the £750 million tourism industry in Ulster?
Mr Wallace
I do not think I need to do much modelling; we should let the businesses of Northern Ireland speak for themselves. They believe it would be wrong to leave the European Union. The free flow of tourists between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is good for Northern Ireland, good for the island of Ireland and good for the United Kingdom economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Whenever I visit the Milwaukee Irish Fest, I hear that when people travel to Dublin and to Shannon airport, they holiday only in southern Ireland. What discussions is the Minister having with Tourism Ireland to ensure that people come to Northern Ireland and enjoy our tourism facilities, which are much better than those in the south?
Mr Wallace
The single biggest challenge for Northern Ireland tourism is advertising its great offerings. The British Open golf championship will be held in Portrush in 2019, and other events include the North West 200, the Ulster Rally, the Giro d’Italia cycling event and the Balmoral show. If we can tell people that those events are out there and that they are on, more people will come north from the south.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Will the Minister consider joining up the Northern Ireland tourism strategy with that for the rest of the United Kingdom, so that we can work together rather than just with Ireland?
Mr Wallace
In all tourism, the best thing to do is to play to our strengths. I will certainly explore that option, and I am also keen to make sure that tourism in the Republic of Ireland dovetails with the offering in Northern Ireland, so that we can encourage people into both Dublin and, indeed, the north of Ireland. We also look forward to, I hope, capitalising on the next series of “Game of Thrones”, which is due out very soon and was filmed in Northern Ireland, north of the wall.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 April.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Nigel Adams
On her 21st birthday in 1947, a young woman declared that her whole life, whether long or short, would be dedicated to the service of our nation. Nobody could possibly argue that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has done anything other than fulfil her promise to the nation with dignity and grace.
People across the country will be marking the Queen’s 90th birthday tomorrow in many different ways. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have joined their women’s institutes in the Clean for the Queen initiative, tidying up our neighbourhoods. Some will raise a small glass and many will have a proper knees-up tomorrow.
When the Prime Minister next has an audience with the Queen, will he pass on my best wishes and those of the whole House to our remarkable monarch? Long may she reign.
The Prime Minister
I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. I will certainly pass on his best wishes and those from right across Yorkshire. Tomorrow is an important landmark, not only for Her Majesty the Queen, but for our country and for the Commonwealth as a whole. She has served our nation with such dignity and ability for so many years—64 years —on the throne. It is right that the House will have the opportunity tomorrow to pay tribute to what she has done, and I know that the whole country and the whole House will want to join me in saying, “Long may she reign over us.”
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am also looking forward to wishing her a happy birthday tomorrow, but until then, could the Prime Minister explain why he is intent on forcing good and outstanding schools to become academies against the wishes of teachers, parents, school governors and local councillors?
The Prime Minister
The short answer is that we want schools to be run by headteachers and teachers, not by bureaucrats. That is why we support the policy. We also support it because of the clear evidence of academies. If we look at converter academies, we will see that 88% of them are either good or outstanding, and schools started by academies see a 10% improvement, on average, over the first two years. The results are better, education is improving and I say let us complete the work.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister has not managed to convince the former Chair of the Education Committee, his hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who said:
“Current evidence does not prove that academies raise standards overall or for disadvantaged children.”
Why is the Prime Minister ignoring evidence of Select Committee Chairs, and so many others, on this issue?
The Prime Minister
The results speak for themselves. Under this Government, 1.4 million more pupils are in good or outstanding schools. Let me take the right hon. Gentleman to a school near where he lives. Let us try the Downhills primary school, which is not far from his constituency. It was in special measures and taken over by an academy, and two years later it was a good school. The question I put to the Leader of the Opposition, and to so many other Labour MPs, is this: why do you want to stand on a picket line under a banner saying “Save our failing school”?
Jeremy Corbyn
As the Prime Minister well knows, every teacher, parent and pupil wants the best that they can get for their schools, and a good education system. Many are concerned about top-down reorganisation. If he will not listen to the former Chair of the Education Committee, will he listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince)? He said this:
“if a school is well governed, well run and performing well, it should be left alone and allowed to do its job.”—[Official Report, 13 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 445.]
Will the Prime Minister explain why good school leaders should focus their time and resources not on educating children but on arbitrary changes imposed from above?
The Prime Minister
Let me make two points on that specific issue. I would say to outstanding or good schools that they have nothing to fear from becoming academies, but a huge amount to gain, and we want even outstanding or good schools to be even better. In truth, academies and greater independence, and letting headteachers run their schools, has been hugely effective. This is something that was started by the Labour Government and given rocket-boosters by this Government. We have seen massive improvements in our schools because of academies, and we say, “Let’s get on with it, finish the job, and give all our children a great opportunity.”
Jeremy Corbyn
I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of the views of people in Oxfordshire on this issue. Councillor Tilley, the Conservative cabinet member for education in the Prime Minister’s county, said:
“I’m fed up with diktats from above saying you will do this and you won’t do that.”
The Prime Minister claims to be an advocate of devolution. Is he not concerned about criticisms from his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who says that
“there is little accountability or parental involvement”?
Does the Prime Minister understand the anger that so many people feel because a system that they do not want is being imposed on them and on what are often already very good if not outstanding schools?
The Prime Minister
It is always good to get a lecture on diktats from someone whose press secretary is an avowed Stalinist, but I will pass over that. Creating academies is true devolution because we are putting power in the hands of headteachers and teachers. Of course we will find people in local government who want to keep things exactly as they are, but one of the reasons I so strongly support academies is that when they fail, they are intervened on so much faster. Local authority schools are often left to fail year after year after year, and I think that one year of a failing school is one year too many. Let us encourage academies, build a great education system, and have opportunity for all our children.
Jeremy Corbyn
Last week, I spent an interesting afternoon at a local school in my constituency. I visited Duncombe primary school, which is a good to outstanding school, and I had a long discussion with the headteacher, parents, parent governors, and year 6 pupils. The year 6 pupils were very interesting. Hawan, Tasnia, Eamon and Maryanne asked me to ask the Prime Minister: why are you doing this? They love their school, and they like it the way it is. They do not want any top-down reorganisation. He has not even convinced the former Education Secretary, Kenneth Baker, who said that he does not “quite know why” the Government are doing this. What is the Prime Minister’s answer to those smart pupils in year 6?
The Prime Minister
My answer to those pupils in year 6 is very much the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave. I have been following his tour of the school, and this is what he said:
“I want to see a family of schools and I want to see them properly funded.”
Of course, with our reform to the national funding formula, there will be fair funding right across the country. With our plans for academies, there will be genuine families of schools that choose to group together. Here is the point about outstanding schools. Not only will they be able to get better, but in groups of academies, they will be able to help other schools to improve. That is why we need this reform: to make good schools even better and to help to raise the aspiration of all. That is what it is all about.
Jeremy Corbyn
We appear to be heading into some kind of fantasy land. The Institute for Fiscal Studies states that school spending
“is expected to fall by at least 7% in real terms”
in the next four years—the biggest cut since the 1970s. So why on earth is the Prime Minister proposing to spend £1.3 billion on a top-down reorganisation that was not in his manifesto? Teachers do not want it, parents do not want it, governors do not want it, headteachers do not want it and even his own MPs and councillors do not want it. Can he not just think again and support schools and education, rather than forcing this on them?
The Prime Minister
Let me answer the question about spending very directly. We protected spending per pupil all the way through the last Parliament and all the way through this Parliament. We are spending £7 billion on more school places to make up for the woeful lack of action under the last Labour Government. That is the truth on spending.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about fantasy land, and I think the Labour party this week entered fantasy land. The Labour party is abandoning Trident in Scotland and it has selected in London someone who sits on platforms with extremists. When I read that the Labour party was going to ban McDonnell from its party conference, I thought that was the first sensible decision it had made, but it turns out that it was not the job destroyer that the Labour party wanted to keep away from its conference; it was one of Britain’s biggest employers. No wonder Labour MPs are in despair. Frankly, I’m lovin’ it.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Q3. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees with the Treasury forecast issued on Monday, which warns that if we stay in the European Union, there will be 3 million more migrants by 2030? Last year, my right hon. Friend and I were elected on a clear manifesto pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. How will we be able to deliver on that pledge unless we leave the European Union?
The Prime Minister
The point about the Treasury forecast is that it takes the Office for National Statistics figures and the Office for Budget Responsibility figures and it does not alter them; it is trying to make a very clear and pure argument—backed by the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday—that shows what would happen if Britain left the EU. There is a demand out there for independent and clear statistics, and that is exactly what the Treasury has provided.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
It is believed that the recent murder of Glasgow shopkeeper Asad Shah was religiously motivated. This week, Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Ahmadiyya Muslim faith leaders launched a campaign across Scotland entitled United against Extremism. Will the Prime Minister join me and colleagues from all parties in supporting the aims of that campaign to support and foster understanding and stand up to extremism?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly join the right hon. Gentleman. This was an absolutely shocking murder. What it demonstrates, and what his question hints at, is that we need to stand up not only against acts of appalling violence such as this, but against the extremist mindset that sometimes tries to justify such events and other such outrages.
Angus Robertson
I am in total agreement with the Prime Minister. The murder of Asad Shah is just the most recent example of sectarian extremism targeting the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK, including reports of Ahmadiyya being refused employment, businesses being boycotted, schoolchildren being bullied and shunned, and people such as Aamer Anwar who have worked to bring faith leaders together facing death threats. Does the Prime Minister agree that such extremism is totally unacceptable in a country where we believe in free speech and religious tolerance? The time has come for all community and all faith leaders of all religions to stand up against extremism.
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree that faith leaders can play a huge role in standing up against extremism and I welcome what they do, but we need to be very clear about what we are facing. The attack on Ahmadiyya Muslims by other Muslims demonstrates once again that what we face is not some clash of civilisations between Islam and Christianity or Islam and Buddhism. What we are seeing is a small minority within one of the great religions of our world, Islam, believing that there is only one way—a violent, extremist way—of professing their faith. This is a battle within Islam, and we have to be on the side of the moderate majority and make sure that they win it. We have to really understand what is happening, otherwise we will take the wrong path.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Q6. The future of services provided by Paignton hospital has been thrown into doubt this week by news that the clinical commissioning group and the local trust are about to launch a consultation that could see it closed with no replacement. Does the Prime Minister share my concerns, and does he agree that it is vital that services are replaced and that the trust and CCG justify their actions?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of the draft proposals concerning Paignton hospital. I understand that no decision has yet been made. The plans are due to be considered by the clinical commissioning group’s governing body. Let us remember that these bodies are now, by and large, clinically-led, and I think that is important. Decisions about what services are required will be taken by that group, but if there are significant changes, they still have to meet four key tests: support from clinical commissioners, strengthened public and patient engagement, clarity on the clinical evidence base and support for patient choice. All those things have to be satisfied.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q2. The air in our cities is both toxic and illegal, with diesel fumes contributing to 800 deaths a week—that is 40,000 a year—so why is the Prime Minister, instead of removing the most heavily polluting vehicles from our streets, lobbying the EU in Brussels, with the Mayor of London, to weaken plans to improve our air quality and save lives?
The Prime Minister
We are investing in better air quality. Since 2011, we have committed over £2 billion to help bus operators upgrade their fleets. We have seen air quality improve between 2010 and 2014, with emissions of nitrous oxides coming down by 17%. When it comes to these standards that we all have to meet, we are working with our car industry. I want a strong car industry in Britain. I am proud of the fact that it has recovered so strongly that the north-east of England now makes more cars than the whole of Italy and that we are a major investor in and builder of diesel engines, but we are going to make sure that it has the resources it needs to meet the higher standards that are set out.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Q7. It is a truth universally acknowledged that fish and chips taste best on the beaches of Skegness, and that is why 4 million people visit those beaches every year. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should work with the Environment Agency, the local enterprise partnership and local councils, build on the work of this Government that has brought jobs and growth, and extend the tourist season and build a billion-pound coastal economy by the end of this decade?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I announced the five-point plan for tourism last year to encourage people to visit UK resorts—both people from overseas and British people—and that is exactly what is happening. Is it not interesting that in the week when we on this side of the House are supporting fish and chips, those on the other side of the House are banning McDonald’s?
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Q4. More than 2,000 people have signed a petition, started by Allisons Chemist in Cockermouth in my constituency, calling on the Government not to cut the funding of community pharmacists. Given the major reports last week regarding the actions of Boots, which now faces investigation by the regulator, is it not time that the Prime Minister and his Government supported independent pharmacists, such as Allisons, which are a vital lifeline for our community and help to keep our high streets alive?
The Prime Minister
We are supporting rural pharmacies —there is a specific scheme to help there—but in the last five years there has been a massive increase in pharmacy spending. As we make sure that as much of the NHS’s resources as possible go to the frontline—the doctors and nurses, the operations and the A&E we want—we have to make sure we are getting value for money in pharmacy, while also protecting the rural pharmacies the hon. Lady speaks about.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Q10. Given his earlier important comments, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the duty of all Members to condemn without caveat all extremism and never to share a platform with any extremist?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are going to condemn not just violent extremism but the extremism that seeks to justify violence in any way, it is very important that we do not back these people or appear on platforms with them. I am concerned about Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London, who has appeared again and again and again—
The Prime Minister
The leader of the Labour party says it is disgraceful, so let me tell him: the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has appeared on a platform with Suliman Gani nine times; this man supports IS. He even shared a platform—[Interruption.] The Opposition are shouting down this point because they do not want to hear the truth. Anyone can make a mistake about who they appear on a platform with, and we are not always responsible for what our political opponents say, but if someone does it time after time after time, it is right to question their judgment.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Q5. News overnight of a management and worker buy-out at Tata Steel Port Talbot will bring hope to the 18,000 people whose livelihoods are supported by the company across the supply chain. It is critical that the UK Government provide all the support they can. Will the Prime Minister become the company’s head of sales and meet personally with Port Talbot’s 20-biggest customers, who make up about 50% of its sales, to ensure that no orders for Welsh steel are lost?
The Prime Minister
We will certainly do everything we can to help the company, including with its customers, during this difficult time. Right now, we are talking with the board of Tata to make sure we answer all the questions it needs answered, because we want to have a proper sales process, with proper buyers coming forward. We want to be very clear that the Government are prepared to support that process and the outcome, and that is exactly what we will do.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Q14. The EU’s security is only as strong as its weakest border, so does the Prime Minister share my concerns not only over Chancellor Merkel’s apparent legitimisation of President Erdogan’s reservations about freedom of speech but crucially over her decision to liberalise restrictions on Turkish visas, given that that country has such a porous Syrian border and such booming identify fraud? Is he concerned that currently Chancellor Merkel seems to be outstripping everyone in making the case for Brexit?
The Prime Minister
First, it is certainly true that a country in the Schengen zone is only as strong as its weakest border—that is absolutely right—but we, of course, are not in the Schengen zone. Secondly, the Schengen zone has decided to offer visas to Turkish nationals, but we have not made that decision, and will not be making that decision. Let us remember, however, that a visa is not a right to go and live and work or reside; it is a right to visit, so let us also be clear that Turks with visas visiting Schengen countries do not have those rights or the right automatically to come to Britain. It is very important to get this clear.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Q8. In the last hour, we have had the devastating news that British Gas proposes to close its Oldbury site, with the loss of 700 jobs. Will the Prime Minister instruct his Ministers immediately to contact the company and the unions and to arrange urgent meetings either—preferably—to save these jobs or, if that proves impossible, to establish a taskforce to create alternative opportunities for this loyal and hard-working workforce?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I heard the news shortly before Question Time. We will make sure that a ministerial taskforce is available to talk to the company and the local community and to provide assistance in terms of retraining and other things.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Mrs Thatcher used occasionally to organise seminars for Ministers, with senior academics, for colleagues like me whose knowledge of modern science, she thought, needed to be improved. Will the Prime Minister contemplate similar seminars for some of his senior and very respected Cabinet colleagues with businessmen on the nature of international trade in today’s world, because some very respected figures appear to believe that one simply turns up and sells goods and services that comply with British-made rules, and that they do not have to comply with any rules agreed with the country to which one is selling. Will he include some of the many businessmen who are putting investment decisions on hold now because of the uncertainty about Brexit after 23 June, which illustrates the dangers we would run if we made our whole future trading arrangements with the outside world as uncertain as some people are trying to make them?
The Prime Minister
I always listen very carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend and will consider such seminars. I hope they will not be as frightening as seminars sometimes used to be under Margaret Thatcher. I remember that one of the very first times I met her, I was responsible for trade and industry research. She asked me what the day’s trade figures were and I did not know. I have never wanted the floor to open up and swallow me any more than at that moment.
The point my right hon. and learned Friend makes, which is absolutely right, is that just because we have friendly relations with a country does not mean that we automatically get good trade relations. We are very pleased that President Obama is coming here this Friday, but it is worth noting that even though we have the friendliest relations with the United States of America, we currently cannot sell beef or lamb to it. The point is that we do not just need good relations; we need nailed down trade arrangements.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Q9. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced the creation of a northern schools strategy, which I broadly welcome. However, I am concerned that all the progress that that might make could be reversed by the forced academisation plans. Why are the Government pushing those plans, which parents in my constituency do not want—plans that even a former Tory Education Secretary describes as plain daft and unnecessary?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman should wait for the outcome of the review that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set up. The point I would make is that some schools that have been failing for year after year have been left in that state by local authorities. We have found that the way to help succeeding schools fly and failing schools to improve is to have academies. The evidence is right there in front of us. That is why we are so keen on progressing this.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
One reason why my right hon. Friend led this party to victory at last year’s general election was our pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Can he therefore tell us, further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), why the Office for Budget Responsibility projects immigration to be above 200,000 a year for the rest of this decade? By what assumptions did it reach that figure, and can he give us some details?
The Prime Minister
To give my right hon. Friend some details, the OBR did not take into account, for instance, the agreements we have just reached with the European Union over welfare and other immigration restrictions. The Treasury document is very clear that it is not about making all sorts of different assumptions about variables, but takes a very clear set of statistics established by the OBR. That is why it was interesting when the Governor of the Bank of England came out and said that it was an analytically robust process. As for the detail, it does not take into account the agreement that we reached in Europe.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q11. In 2009, Michelle Samaraweera was brutally raped and murdered in Walthamstow. Since 2011, a man who is wanted in connection with that crime and seven other counts of sexual violence in my constituency has been evading extradition from India. There have been more than 30 court appearances to date and another one is planned for tomorrow, yet despite the severity of the crime and the delay in those proceedings, there is no record of any ministerial or diplomatic representations from either the Foreign Office or the Home Office. Will the Prime Minister personally commit today to putting that right and to raising the matter directly with his counterpart, Narendra Modi, so that we can finally seek justice for Michelle?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance. The British Government always raise all these individual cases if that is what the victims want us to do, just as we raise cases where there are British people stuck in the Indian justice system. I was not aware of the specific case, but if she gives me the details I will make sure that we raise it appropriately.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
With the President of the United States visiting the UK later this week, may I ask my right hon. Friend to raise the issue of the Chagos islanders? In a report last year, the Government rightly concluded that the islanders have a right of resettlement. Given the US military presence on Diego Garcia, will he raise the case of US assistance for the right of return of the Chagos islanders to the British Indian Ocean Territory?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly discuss that issue, and it is right that my hon. Friend raises it, because many Chagossians live in his constituency of Crawley. What he said is not entirely correct; the National Security Council and the Cabinet have been looking at the situation of the Chagos islanders and reviewing all the options for how we can help with their future. Those discussions have taken place and obviously we need to come to a conclusion about the best way forward.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Q12. Some people think that the worst case that has been made so far to vote to leave the EU is the claim that England is an island. Will the Prime Minister tell the House the worst argument that he has heard from the Brexiters?
The Prime Minister
I think it is probably that we would get out of the Eurovision song contest. Not only would that be incredibly sad, but given that Israel and Azerbaijan, and anyone anywhere near Europe seems to be able to enter—[Interruption.] Australia, too, so we are pretty safe from that one.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend point out to President Obama that in a series of European Court judgments such as those in the cases of Davis and of Schrems, using EU data protection laws and the EU charter of fundamental rights, the EU has established its jurisdiction over our intelligence data and sought to prevent our intelligence sharing with the United States? Will he therefore warn the President that if we vote remain, far from gaining influence in the EU the United States will lose control and influence over her closest ally?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the President will take all of these calculations into account before saying anything that he might have to say. Let me just make two points. First of all, this decision is a decision for the British people, and the British people alone. We are sovereign in making this decision. Personally, I believe that we should listen to advice from friends and other countries, and I struggle to find a leader of any friendly country who thinks we should leave. My second point is that, when it comes to the United States, it is worth looking at what so many Treasury Secretaries have said, going back over Republican or Democrat Administrations. It may not be the determining factor for many people—or indeed for any people—but listening to what our friends in the world say is not a bad idea.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Q13. The average property price in my borough of Hackney is £682,000, the median lower quartile rent for a two-bedroom flat for a month is £1,500, and overcrowding and demand for social housing are the highest I have seen in 20 years. Will the Prime Minister tell my constituents how on earth the Housing and Planning Bill is going to help them?
The Prime Minister
It is going to help them because we are building starter homes for the first time for people to buy, we are extending the right to buy to housing association tenants so they can buy homes—[Interruption.] I notice Lady Nugee giving us the benefit of her wisdom, but many people in her constituency would love to buy a council house or a housing association house. We also have the Help to Buy scheme, which is helping many people get on the housing ladder, and shared ownership as well. All of those things will help. Since 2010, 101,000 homes have been built in London, including 67,000 affordable homes. We need to build many more and to make them accessible to people who work hard and do the right thing. That is whose side we are on.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
On a slightly environmental note still, woodland is much valued—not least for recycling much of our hot air—and ancient woodland is especially valued. With only 2% remaining, it is as precious as the rain forests and its biodiversity cannot be replaced. The Prime Minister has 331 ancient and veteran trees in his constituency; does he agree that this precious habitat ought to be protected in line with heritage sites and national monuments?
The Prime Minister
I am very lucky to have in my constituency an ancient forest, the Wychwood forest, which probably contains many of the trees that my hon. Friend mentions. I shall look carefully at what she says. Perhaps the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we plant more forests, trees and woodland, on which this Government have a very good record.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently and rightly that politics in Northern Ireland was on a more stable footing than it has been for some time. For our part, we will continue to offer strong leadership for a better future in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland are, however, concerned about a two-sided approach to the past, as exemplified by the decision taken this week to investigate a police officer who bravely stopped an IRA bomber from trying to kill police officers at a police station 25 years ago. Does the Prime Minister agree that we have to get behind our security forces, praise them for the work they did in Northern Ireland and not persecute them as we go forward?
The Prime Minister
Let me first pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his Members of Parliament and Assembly Members. It is right to say that politics in Northern Ireland is more stable and, frankly, more productive than it has been for many years. Obviously, these issues around the acts of the past still cause a huge amount of pain and difficulty on all sides of the debate. One thing we have to hold on to is the fact that we have an independent and impartial justice system.
Petition
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition about sports pitches at Shugborough Hall in my constituency of Stafford. I pay tribute to Jeanette Daly who, accompanied by many others from the area of Great Haywood, Little Haywood and Colwich, has done a tremendous amount work on the matter. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the National Trust.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the sports pitches to the south of Shugborough Hall are well used and a valuable asset to local and area teams; further that the pitches have been part of a recreation site for decades; further that the proposals put forward by the National Trust to close the pitches in order to create parkland would have a negative impact on sports provision in Staffordshire and make it harder for local people to pursue a healthy and active lifestyle; further notes that these proposals have not been consulted upon; and further that a local petition on a similar matter has been signed by 1,000 individuals.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call on the National Trust to work with the local community to arrive at a compromise where the sports pitches at Shugborough Hall can continue to be used by local sports teams.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001685]
Border Force Budget 2016-17
Wednesday 20th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Property Ownership in London (Registration) Bill 2015-16 View all Property Ownership in London (Registration) Bill 2015-16 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement setting out the details of the Border Force Budget for 2016-17.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The first priority of government is the safety and security of its citizens, and the Government have always made the integrity of the UK border a priority. We will never compromise on keeping the people of this country safe from terrorism, criminality and illegal immigration.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish the Treasury main supply estimates in just over an hour’s time, setting out estimated budget allocations for the whole of government, including Border Force, for the financial year 2016-17. In advance of those figures being laid in the Library, I can inform Members that these estimates will show that the indicative budget for Border Force is £558.1 million in 2016-17—a 0.4% reduction in overall resource spending compared to the supplementary estimate for 2015-16. At the same time, we will increase capital spending at the border by just over 70%, from £40.1 million in 2015-16 to an estimated £68.3 million in 2016-17. That means that Border Force spending is, to all intents and purposes, protected compared to 2015-16, with increased capital investment to improve the technology at the border, to improve security and intelligence and to strengthen control.
Over the next four years, we will invest £130 million in state-of-the-art technology at the border. Since I became Home Secretary six years ago, we have pursued an ambitious programme of reform at the border to keep this country safe. In the last Parliament we abolished the dysfunctional UK Border Agency, set up by the last Labour Government, and made Border Force directly accountable to Ministers within the Home Office. Since then, Border Force has transformed its working practices, command and control and leadership, and we have invested in new technology such as e-gates at airports and heartbeat monitors at freight ports to improve security, prevent illegal entry to the UK, benefit passengers and deliver efficiencies.
At the same time I have worked closely with my French counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, to secure the juxtaposed controls in Calais and Coquelles, reduce the number of migrants attempting to reach the United Kingdom, and safeguard UK drivers and hauliers travelling through those ports. We have developed a robust, intelligence-led approach to organised crime at the border, working closely with the National Crime Agency, which we established in 2012. We have supported greater collaboration between counter-terrorism police and Border Force, while increasing counter-terrorism budgets to prevent foreign fighters from returning and dangerous terrorists from travelling to the UK.
These reforms are working. Border security has been enhanced. Border Force continues to perform 100% checks on scheduled passengers arriving at primary check- points in the UK. When passengers are deemed a threat to public safety, we can and do exclude them from the UK, and 99,020 people have been refused entry to the UK since 2010. We are disrupting more organised crime at the UK border than ever before. In the past year, Border Force has seized nearly 8 tonnes of class A drugs, more than 2.5 times as much as in 2009-10. Meanwhile, legitimate passengers and hauliers of goods continue to be provided with excellent levels of service.
The Government remain committed to making further investments when necessary to exploit new technology and strengthen controls. As a result, Border Force will grow more efficient year on year, while improving security for the safety of citizens, businesses and the country as a whole.
Andy Burnham
Finally, an answer—and yet another U-turn—from the Home Secretary. Let us be clear: it is Labour pressure that has brought her to the House today, and Labour pressure that has made her back down on her planned deeper cuts in the UK border. Just as we forced her to U-turn on police funding, we have now forced her to U-turn on the Border Force budget. She has spent the last two weeks ducking and diving, refusing to answer questions that I put to her in the House and that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), put to her senior officials—I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his determination. Why could the Home Secretary not answer our questions? Because she has been furiously back-pedalling for the last two weeks, and patching up holes in the Border Force budget.
Let us be clear about what has just been announced to the House. The Home Secretary has announced a revenue cut in the Border Force budget. Let me put that into context. She has announced a budget of £558 million. In 2012-13, the budget was £617 million. It has fallen by more than £50 million on her watch. That is this Home Secretary’s record on border funding. How can she justify it when the terror threat has been increasing all the time? Will she guarantee, on the back of the budget that has been announced today, that there will be no cuts in the number of front-line immigration officers, and that officers will not be replaced by less-trained staff?
The bigger question, however, is whether the budget that the Home Secretary has announced is anywhere near enough. Today, a group of the most eminent police and counter-terrorism experts have written an open letter saying that attacks in Paris and Brussels must be
“a wake-up call for the British Government”
on lax border security.
Worryingly, the letter reveals that the National Crime Agency has evidence that people-traffickers are now specifically targeting weaker sea ports. I have repeatedly warned the Home Secretary about that. Will she accept the call from the group of experts for a review of border security, and for extra resources to plug the gaps?
Those gaps are very real. A whistleblower working at the port of Immingham, the country’s largest freight port, has been in touch with me to reveal that the staff of ferry companies, who are carrying out the Home Secretary’s border exit checks, are simply not trained to do it; that the passports of lorry drivers are not checked on arrival by anyone; and, worst of all, that school leavers are now being recruited to check passports, replacing experienced border officers. Border security on the cheap: that is the reality of what is happening at Britain’s borders today, under this Home Secretary. It is the direct consequence of the cuts that she has already made in the UK border during her time in office—and, unbelievably, she wanted to make even further cuts in the border before we in the Labour party stopped her.
The Home Secretary has spent the last two weeks running scared, scrabbling for loose change behind the back of the Home Office sofa; but, worse, she has weakened our borders, has damaged our security, and is only now pledging to stop the cuts. On an issue of such importance to the British public, she is going to have to do a lot better than this.
Mrs May
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that in so much of what he said he simply does not know what he is talking about. He talks about U-turns on funding, but the only such U-turn we have seen is from a Labour Front-Bench team that now claim to have wanted police funding to remain steady and not to be cut when they actually suggested that police funding could take a 10% cut.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about border security and the National Crime Agency, but I remind him that it was the coalition Government and me as Home Secretary who set up the NCA. The reason why we have a border command that is looking at serious and organised crime across our borders is because of what the Conservatives have done in government. Labour did none of that in 13 long years.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who was of course at one time a Home Office Minister, that it was under Labour that we saw the creation of the dysfunctional UK Border Agency that we had to abolish. We had to change how we dealt with such issues. Under the last Labour Government, there was no operating mandate at the border, and as people came through the primary checkpoints, they were not all getting the necessary 100% checks. We have enhanced security and will continue to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents in Kettering are concerned that we should have the most secure and safest borders possible. While it is true that many illegal immigrants are stopped in lorries in France and on arrival in Britain, far too many illegal immigrants are still in the backs of lorries when they go down the A14 past Kettering towards the north of England or wherever. What more can the Home Secretary do to reassure my constituents that we are going to get even tougher on and stop illegal immigration, which also has a security implication?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is important that we continually review our processes for screening people as they cross the border, and that we ensure that we are stopping people who want to come here as illegal immigrants. That is one reason why we have invested tens of millions of pounds in security at Calais and Coquelles to ensure that it is harder for people to get into lorries to come across the border and harder for them to access the channel tunnel. It is also why we continue to look at improvements in technology that may enable us to put in place equipment that is even better at detecting people when they try to stow away in such vehicles. However, we cannot do that once and expect it to cover everything; we have to keep going at it, which is exactly what we are doing.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
This has been a sorry saga, and it is still not quite clear why the senior civil servant was so evasive before the Home Affairs Committee. What exactly was the hold-up? The Border Force budget requires careful scrutiny and attracts significant public interest. What will the Home Secretary do to make the process for deciding the budget more transparent in future?
What lies underneath the issue is that a fantasy net migration target and budget cuts are leading the Home Office down the path of targeting exactly the wrong people, using the wrong policy levers. Unable to enforce existing immigration rules properly, the Home Office introduces ever more draconian rules, clamping down on skilled workers, students, spouses and refugees. It is using landlords and landladies as border officials and giving immigration officers police powers. Meanwhile, other SNP MPs and I saw with our own eyes in Calais and Dunkirk at Easter how vulnerable children who have family here in the United Kingdom are left in the most disgraceful of conditions. It is immigration control on the cheap.
When will the Home Secretary fix her Border Force budget not to satisfy the ideological pursuit of austerity, but at the level necessary to command public confidence? When will she abandon the fantasy net migration target and set immigration policies in accordance with evidence instead of political expediency?
Mrs May
The hon. and learned Lady mixes up border security and checks with immigration. They are two different issues. She commented on the appearance of a senior civil servant before the Home Affairs Committee. When asked whether the director general of Border Force had been told what his budget was for this year, the individual replied:
“We know what funds the Border Force needs in order to deliver the plan for this year and Charles has them.”
On a related immigration issue, the hon. and learned Lady referred to the question she has raised previously, as have other Members, about the speed at which children in Calais who have family members here in the UK are being processed. We recognised that there was an issue, which is why we seconded somebody to the Ministry of the Interior in Paris to work on this and why we are now seeing people being processed in weeks, rather than months, and in some cases in days .
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
There is nothing worse in this House than manufactured rage at a problem such as this, and I note that the shadow Home Secretary made not a single mention of praise for the excellent job our Border Force staff are doing, which members of the Home Affairs Committee saw in our visit to Calais and Coquelles—it is not through a lack of thoroughness that any drugs or people are getting through. Will she also acknowledge the need to be more flexible, given the increasing number of cases of independent vessels coming across the channel to the Sussex and Kent coasts, in particular? We need to be mindful of that, too.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I echo the comments he has made; our Border Force staff are working day in, day out to protect our border and they do an excellent job. He is right, however, that we always need to be flexible in looking at where people will try to enter the UK as we make ports such as Calais more secure. That is exactly what we are doing. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has been talking to our Belgian and Dutch counterparts about access from ports in those countries into the UK. The whole point of some of the changes we have made in Border Force has been precisely to make it more flexible, in order to respond to need as it arises.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for the detail she has provided to the House today and I join others in praising the work of Border Force, especially the leadership provided by Sir Charles Montgomery. Will she deal with the practical points mentioned last week by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and today by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)? Will she confirm that there are 100% checks on every lorry entering this country, in order to deal with the security and immigration issues? Does she agree that although we have spent a huge amount of money in Calais, we have displaced this problem further into other ports in Europe, and without the co-operation of European partners—without them doing their bit—we will still get people coming into this country who should not be here?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the questions from not only my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) this afternoon, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The point I made subsequently, outside this Chamber, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is that we do undertake checks on lorries but that they vary, so different sorts of checks may be done. Different technologies are used, and in some cases we use dogs. A variety of types of check may be undertaken at the border for the lorries. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as I have just indicated in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), it is necessary for us to be looking at where there may be displacement of people trying to enter the UK illegally. That is precisely what we have been doing, particularly, as I said, with the Governments of Belgium and the Netherlands.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Cuts were made in January by Border Force to the maritime aerial surveillance capability. Has my right hon. Friend been able to reinstate that capability, which is crucial in detecting people who are trying to smuggle into our country and was instrumental in ensuring some of the successes to which she referred earlier?
Mrs May
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are maintaining the capabilities he talked about, but we are delivering them in a different way. He and I have discussed a particular contract that is no longer in place. What Border Force has done is look to see how it can work in a variety of ways to provide that capability, including, obviously, by working with the Royal Navy.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Last year, an asylum seeker was located in my constituency because the courts said it would be unsafe to relocate him in London. He subsequently committed a number of crimes and is now in prison. My constituents have had the burdens on our health service and on our schools of taking 500 asylum seekers and many others over the years. Will the Home Secretary tell me what moves she is making to ensure that there is a fair distribution throughout the UK of asylum seekers, given that there are 500 in my constituency and I believe there are none in either the Prime Minister’s or Chancellor’s? How many are in her constituency?
Mrs May
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my constituency is not somewhere that normally takes asylum seekers, but I am pleased to say that it is taking some of the Syrian refugees under the resettlement scheme that has been put in place. The point is that we talk regularly with local authorities about where it is appropriate for asylum seekers to be dispersed to. Those conversations are continuing and I am pleased to say that a number of new local authorities have come on board. I also gently remind him that we have not changed the system of asylum dispersal; this is exactly the same system that was run by the last Labour Government.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Millions of pounds could be saved for the Border Force budget by having a more efficient removals system. What steps will my right hon. Friend be taking in the light of the findings of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration in his report issued last month?
Mrs May
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we continually look at how we can improve our ability to remove people from this country. That is why we have brought forward changes in a variety of immigration Bills to enhance our ability to do that and, in particular, to make it harder for people to live illegally in the UK. The decisions put through in the Immigration Act 2014 to deal with people’s access to driving licences, bank accounts and rented property are all having an impact in improving our ability to identify illegal immigrants and remove them.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On that point, how many more staff could be deployed to police our borders if the Government were to scrap the landlords’ helpline and use that resource instead to more securely police our borders?
Mrs May
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ensure the security of this country and have illegal immigrants removed from it, he should know that the measures we have put in place in the Immigration Act to ensure that people who are renting property are here legally are having an impact.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK has the strongest borders in Europe, partly because of the Government’s investment in technology at our borders and partly because of the Conservative party’s firm position that we should not join the Schengen system?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Constituents who work on the docks in Grimsby have contacted me in the past few weeks because they are concerned about the level of security around the large transporter ships that arrive into Grimsby bringing millions of pounds worth of goods into the country. They raise those concerns from a humanitarian perspective, but can the Home Secretary assure my constituents that Grimsby’s ports are adequately protected?
Mrs May
As I have indicated, we look at the border security at ports regularly to ensure that it is appropriate for the nature of the business those ports are undertaking. The hon. Lady refers to the humanitarian issue of people who may be being smuggled across the border in transporters, and I say to her that the people who are responsible for that issue are the traffickers who put illegal immigrants into those containers.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
There was indeed praise for my right hon. Friend from the shadow Home Secretary, although it was so below the radar that she might not have noticed it. She was accused of both back-pedalling and performing a U-turn, and I am not aware that it is physically possible to do both—although she has done neither. In praising the work that Border Force does on behalf of all of us in keeping our country safe, what role does she see the Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently before the House, playing in assisting and strengthening the work of Border Force?
Mrs May
It is important that all our law enforcement agencies and those who are responsible for enforcing laws around security at our borders are able to access the various tools and powers that they need. That is why the Investigatory Powers Bill is so important, not just to our security services, but to a variety of law enforcement agencies. I note that one of the points in the letter in today’s Daily Telegraph to which the shadow Home Secretary referred was the importance of access to communications data, which is precisely what we are trying to protect in that Bill.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I recently flew back into Gatwick from overseas, and it took me almost 25 minutes to get through the border. There were 15 desks for staff, only eight of which were open. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a relaxed and patient kind of guy, and I am always happy to wait my turn, but families with children, business people and tourists from all over the world were there. What kind of a message does that send about the welcome to the United Kingdom and the efficiency of our Border Force, and how will this budget help to remedy those kinds of inefficiencies?
Mrs May
There are service standards for people coming through the border at our airports, and we meet those standards. These proceedings are very interesting because, on the one hand, people are calling for more border security, and, on the other, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to get through the border rather more quickly.
Mr Speaker
I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman always looks to be a happy chappie.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I can confirm that the shadow Home Secretary was quite right when he drew attention to the port of Immingham in my constituency because border staff there do have worries. The concerns of residents in the town and neighbouring areas have been heightened following reports last week that the National Crime Agency acknowledged that Humber ports were being targeted. Can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance that resources will be moved to protect the Humber ports if the NCA’s analysis is correct?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend’s point is important and one that I have responded to in reply to a number of questions, including that of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. When we created Border Force and took it out of the dysfunctional UK Borders Agency, we introduced more flexibility in Border Force’s ability to move resources around the country. That is absolutely crucial so that we do not just have static forces at a number of ports and we are able to move them when there is a need to do so, which is exactly what we are doing in relation to the ports on the east coast, of which Immingham is one.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
As the Home Secretary knows, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land border with another country. As both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland lie outside Schengen, co-operation is key. Last week, a representative of Garda Siochana said that they felt hopelessly ill equipped and ill resourced to stand against the threat of terrorists entering the United Kingdom through their borders. Will the Home Secretary address the issue, and can she given any comfort about whether the budget involves proposals or resources to make that access point to the United Kingdom less vulnerable?
Mrs May
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are in regular discussions with the Irish Government about how to improve security at their external border because, obviously, there is the common travel area between Ireland and the United Kingdom. We have already done a lot of work with the Irish Government on data sharing and the sorts of systems that might support improved security, and we will continue that work.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In contrast to some hon. Members who have spoken, I wish to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of Border Force officers at Gatwick, especially with regard to their recent apprehension of terror suspects. May I have an assurance that they will continue to get the support that they need from the Home Office?
Mrs May
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I have said, we now have a Border Force that is more flexible and that is able to use its resources appropriately. The director general is continually looking to ensure that resources are appropriate at ports and commensurate with the traffic that they are experiencing. He rightly praises the Border Force officers at Gatwick who, along with those elsewhere, do an excellent job.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
When will the Home Secretary make a statement on allegations that lapses under her watch allowed terrorists Abdelhamid Abaaoud and Mohamed Abrini to breach this country’s border security?
Mrs May
I say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, in terms of border security and stopping people crossing the border, what is important is not just that we have a border control, as we do by not being a member of the Schengen border-free zone, but that information is exchanged between the parties when that is available. That is exactly what we are working on to ensure that information is available at our borders when we want to be able to stop people.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
May I put it to the Home Secretary that I do not think that she has yet fully answered the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee about 100% checks on trucks? I accept the issue about flexibility, as we might have different situations in different places, but does she accept that there is genuine concern about security in ports up and down the country? How is the cumulative cut to the revenue budget of the Border Force compatible with providing the necessary level of security?
Mrs May
On that last point, I must say to the Labour party, as we have said before regarding a number of other areas, that it is about not how much money we have, but how we spend it. It is about ensuring that we are using money as effectively and efficiently as possible. Ensuring that we have an operating mandate that means that 100% checks on individuals are undertaken at primary checkpoints is something that this Government have introduced and that the previous Labour Government failed to do. All the trucks going through the juxtaposed controls are indeed screened.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Over Easter, a number of my constituents were incredibly frustrated at Manchester airport when they were queuing to go through passport control solely because that passport control was significantly under-resourced. What reassurance can the Home Secretary give that Manchester airport, which after all is our largest international airport outside London, will have adequate resources at its passport control? While she is looking into that, will she also look at the loophole at terminal 3 whereby passengers who transit from Heathrow and have their baggage sent directly through to Manchester do not have to go through a customs check?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman asks about the resources at Manchester airport. I can assure him that we regularly have discussions with Manchester airport about the traffic that is going through it and its requirements, and we judge the appropriate resources that are needed by Border Force. We fully recognise the significance of Manchester airport to which he refers.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
A recent watchdog study into Border Force at Manchester airport showed that one in four passengers from the sample taken got through the border inappropriately, that a whole Ryanair flight was recently missed, with 159 passengers receiving no checks whatsoever, and that £1.5 million was spent on sniffer dogs that—guess what?—sniffed out no class A drugs or terrorists. Meanwhile, business passengers and tourists are suffering interminable delays. The airport is suffering because of a lack of investment in Border Force. The Home Secretary might have protected the budget, but it is not making any improvement whatsoever to a very poor existing service. What does she say about that?
Mrs May
I will say to the hon. Gentleman exactly what I said to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). As Manchester airport expands, we will talk to the officials there and discuss what resources they consider necessary. The issue of a misdirected flight to which he refers is something that we have taken up with Manchester airport with regard to the staff whom it has on the ground to deal with these flights. This is an important issue and we are very serious about how we deal with it.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I concur with the commendations of colleagues for the excellent work that is done by border staff, but numbers are also important—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. A rather unseemly exchange is going on between the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who has just put a question and was dissatisfied with the answer, and the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) who, in the exercise of his duties as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, always feels compelled to display a level of fealty unsurpassed and indeed unequalled by any other Member of the House of Commons. That is not necessary. We all know of the fealty bordering on the obsequious that is on evident display from the hon. Gentleman on a daily basis, but it must not be allowed to interrupt the eloquence of the flow of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins)—or even the flow of his eloquence.
Toby Perkins
I will endeavour to re-find myself, Mr Speaker.
The Prime Minister received a report from experts saying that 30,000 was the right number of Border Force members to protect our borders. Does that still reflect the policy of the Government, and can the Home Secretary tell us how many border staff we currently have?
Mrs May
The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers proposed the creation of an entirely new police force at the borders. When we came into government and looked at what was necessary, we decided to approach the issue in a slightly different way, creating the National Crime Agency and a specific border command within it. The staff operating at borders are not just Border Force, but border command from the NCA and special branch at the ports, and, of course, they also work with immigration enforcement. For the first time in this country, we have a specific border command within the National Crime Agency.
Bill Presented
Property Ownership in London (Registration) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Frank Field, supported by Mr David Lammy, Andrew Rosindell, Mr Gareth Thomas, Tom Brake, Siobhain McDonagh, Wes Streeting, Stephen Timms, Jon Cruddas, Stephen Pound and Mr Virendra Sharma, presented a Bill to require the creation of a register of owners of property in the Greater London area, including details of the name of the owner of each property and the name of the beneficiary owner in the case of properties owned by a trust or similar body; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 163).
Forensic Linguistics (Standards)
Wednesday 20th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Forensic Linguistics (Standards) Bill 2015-16 View all Forensic Linguistics (Standards) Bill 2015-16 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on the forensic science regulator to establish a code of practice and conduct for the providers and practitioners of forensic linguistics in the criminal justice system; to make provision about the required scientific quality standards for the discipline; and for connected purposes.
Our children and young people face an enormous threat from being groomed by radical extremists and paedophiles, facilitated by the internet, social media and mobile technology. The Bill is therefore about the protection of vulnerable people, and it is about the monitoring and analysis of communications between people about whom we need to be really concerned: people who plot and scheme to do others harm; people such as paedophiles and extremists; and people who use modern technology as a tool in their evil business.
Last October, I led a Westminster Hall debate on the use of children as suicide bombers. We know that many of the techniques used in recruiting and grooming such children are the same as those used by paedophiles. We also know that there is software available that will identify the messages and language of groomers, and that, using a variety of tools, security agencies can match those to the voice and language patterns of known individuals. Forensic linguistics is a complicated and relatively new field. Linguistic evidence can involve science, social science and interpretation, and forensic linguistic analyses require a complex set of knowledge and skills. Presently, however, anyone—including you or me, Mr Speaker—can proclaim themselves an expert in forensic linguistics. Consequently, there is a considerable danger of substandard analysis being offered in a court of law.
We need a standardised qualification for analysts and a standardised set of techniques to give the courts confidence that such evidence can be accepted as more than just interesting background. The Bill does not represent sophisticated legislation, as compiling a statutory register would be relatively straightforward. The register called for by the Bill would not need its own regulator, as one already exists: the forensic science regulator. She is already working on including speech and audio analysis as a recognised speciality area, but as textual linguistic analysis draws on interpretative as well as scientific methods, it falls outside her current remit.
I would also draw attention to current codes of practice and conduct for forensic science providers and practitioners, and more generally for expert witnesses in the criminal justice system, that could be adapted to include the practice of forensic linguistics. For setting the accredited qualifications, there are academic institutions with evident authority in this area, such as the centre for forensic linguistics at Aston University. I personally thank the director of the centre, Professor Tim Grant, for his help in developing the Bill. I am also grateful for encouragement from the president of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences and the director of forensic services in Scotland, Mr Tom Nelson. The standard of specialist witnesses and forensic scientists themselves is inherently protean—I know of some people who call themselves forensic scientists, but cannot tell the difference between the sensitivity of a test and the specificity of a test, let alone calculate its predictive value.
I have already said that speech and audio analysis and textual analysis are two different things. The problem for textual forensic linguistics is that many aspects of the work—the determination of meanings in messages, profiling the background of a writer and so on—are a long way from the laboratory-based paradigm. The closest we get to laboratory-based science is in comparative authorship analysis, for which methods are published and tested. The diversity of questions that forensic linguists address and the approaches that they take to those questions means that the forensic science regulator does not cover their work, so there is no way for high-quality practitioners to be identified and used and low-quality practitioners avoided.
There is a need for a mechanism to recognise what should count as quality work in textual forensic linguistics. That could be a register of individuals or methods, or both. The obvious person to hold that would be the forensic science regulator, but that would definitely represent an extension of her current role, hence the need for the Bill.
Where is the proof, however, that forensic linguistic analysis can work? In those cases in which forensic linguistic evidence has been allowed in court, it has proved particularly valuable. For example, it was used in the appeals of Derek Bentley and the Birmingham Six. In many instances across the UK, it has been used to determine the authorship of SMS text messages in murder cases. It has been used to extract the meaning of coded texts and slang terms used in internet chatrooms, often involving conspiracies to murder and child sex abuse conversations. Good forensic linguistic evidence has withstood appeal, yet this excellent work could be undermined due to substandard analysis by poorly qualified and unqualified practitioners.
Although it has strong roots in the UK, textual forensic linguistic evidence is increasingly accepted internationally. Examples of its use include successful appeals against murder convictions in Australia and cases of disputed wills in South Africa. In 1996 in the United States, textual forensic linguistic analysis was used to identify the writer of the Unabomber’s manifesto as Ted Kaczynski, and he was subsequently convicted of running a bombing campaign across the country.
In the United Kingdom, too, textual forensic linguistics has been used in investigations of serious counter-terrorism cases. In 2004, for example, Dhiren Barot was arrested in London and charged on the basis of linguistic evidence linking him to the writing of a conspiracy document. He later admitted to plotting to bomb the New York stock exchange, the International Monetary Fund headquarters and the World Bank, among other targets.
The United Kingdom’s forensic science regulator role was created in 2007 by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). It is good that some progress has been made, but on this issue, Mr Speaker, it is time to put the regulator to work. The Bill would enable the statutory agencies to use information and evidence that they gather through the medium of forensic linguistics to protect more children from predatory adults, and to protect the British public from the likelihood of events such as those that happened recently in Brussels, Paris, Istanbul, Kabul and Pakistan. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Roger Mullin, Ian Blackford, Drew Hendry, Lady Hermon, John Mann, Michelle Thomson and Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg present the Bill.
Roger Mullin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 164).
Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Energy Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 18 January 2016 (Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme)) and 14 March 2016 (Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Message
1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
2. Proceedings on that Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
3. The Message shall be considered in the following order: Commons Amendment No. 7, Commons Amendment No. 6, Commons Amendment No. 8, Commons Amendment No. 2.
Subsequent stages
4. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
5. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. (Stephen Barclay.)
Question agreed to.
Energy Bill [Lords]
14:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 224 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 7A.
Mr Speaker
With this we will consider the following:
Lords amendments 7B to 7S.
Lords amendment 7T, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 7U to 7W, 6A and 6B, 8A to 8C and Lords amendment 2A.
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 2A. If the House agrees it, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Andrea Leadsom
To deliver on our manifesto commitment, the Government remain determined to bring forward the closure of the renewables obligation to new onshore wind in Great Britain. This commitment is based on plans that were signalled well before the general election last year, and that should not have come as a surprise to hon. Members or to industry.
Back in March 2015, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), then Minister for Energy and Climate Change, stated in this House:
“We have made it absolutely clear that we will remove onshore wind subsidies in the future”.—[Official Report, 6 March 2015; Vol. 293, c. 1227-28.]
Prior to that, in December 2014, the Prime Minister, speaking of wind farms, stated in the House of Commons Liaison Committee:
“we don’t need to have more of these subsidised onshore. So let’s get rid of the subsidy”.
We have been absolutely clear all along. The Government’s policy is to bring forward the closure of the renewables obligation to new onshore wind.
To protect investor confidence, the Government have proposed a grace period for those projects meeting certain conditions as at 18 June last year, as outlined in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on that date. The grace period provisions are intended to protect those projects that, at 18 June last year, already had relevant planning consents; a grid connection offer and acceptance of that offer, or confirmation that no grid connection was required; and access to land rights.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As my hon. Friend said before setting out that list of warnings, and as we discussed in Committee, the proposals were in our manifesto, which commanded the support of the British people. Does she agree that we are again on thin ice, with the other place trying to interfere with the Government’s agenda, which has already been voted on by the British people?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. This is a manifesto commitment. Peers should listen to the manifesto commitment of this Government and respect it; that is normal practice, as I understand it.
The Government have taken action on a key concern raised by industry about an investment freeze. The clauses are therefore intended to ensure that projects that meet the core grace period criteria, and which were intended to be able to access the grace period as proposed, are not frozen out of the process. Since proposing this measure, the Government have continued to receive representations from industry suggesting that it supports and welcomes the proposals to address the investment freeze. The Government have also put in place a provision to ensure that an existing grace period for delays caused by grid or radar works will continue to apply.
We now need to get on and complete this Bill. As the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) said in Committee, speaking for the Scottish National party:
“We agree that swift passage of the Bill with clear and consistent RO grace period provisions is needed in order to provide certainty to investors in the onshore wind sector as quickly as possible. The renewables industry fears that the longer legislative uncertainty over RO closure persists, the greater the risk of otherwise eligible projects running out of time to deliver under the proposed grace periods.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 2 February 2016; c. 217.]
He is right.
In addition, these clauses give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations that would prevent electricity suppliers in Great Britain from using Northern Ireland renewables obligation certificates relating to electricity generated by new onshore wind stations and any additional capacity added to existing wind stations after the onshore wind closure date. This is a backstop power that would be used only if Northern Ireland did not close its RO to new onshore wind on equivalent terms to Great Britain.
Since our last debate on this issue, I am pleased to say that the RO in Northern Ireland has closed to large-scale new onshore wind stations with a capacity above 5 MW with effect from 1 April 2016. The Northern Ireland Executive are currently consulting on closing to stations at 5 MW and below.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
On the response of the Northern Ireland Executive, we are going into Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, so will the Minister confirm that this is almost too late for the present Northern Ireland Executive? She wants the Bill to be rushed through and completed, but we will not have a running Executive in Northern Ireland until at least a fortnight after the Northern Ireland Assembly elections.
Andrea Leadsom
I do not agree that we are rushing the Bill through; there has been an enormous amount of time for consultation and discussion. As I said, the Northern Ireland Executive are consulting on closing the RO to stations at 5 MW and below. I can assure all hon. Members that the Government continue to engage with Northern Ireland with a view to effecting closure on equivalent terms to Great Britain.
Since our last debate on this policy in this House, the Government have introduced two further small changes to the Bill. These will provide for the provisions on the early closure of the RO to new onshore wind in Great Britain, the related grace period provisions, and the backstop power relating to the RO in Northern Ireland to come into force on the date that the Bill receives Royal Assent. Amendments 6A to 6B, 7A to 7S, 7U to 7W and 8A to 8C adjust the early closure date, previously 31 March 2016, to the date of Royal Assent. These changes are made in various places throughout clauses 79, 80 and 81, and to both the grid or radar condition and the investment freeze condition.
I was very clear in our last debate on this issue, as was the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the other place, Lord Bourne. The Government do not intend to backdate these provisions.
Before I speak to Lords amendment 7T and the Government’s motion to disagree, let me again say that the Government remain committed to delivering our manifesto pledge to end new subsidies for onshore wind. The final policy, which was agreed at our last debate in this House, strikes the right balance between protecting consumer bills and addressing the concerns of the industry.
The Government do not agree that it is appropriate to include the provision in Lords amendment 7T. The Government want this part of the Bill returned to the state in which it left this House last month. The amendment inserted into the Bill in the other place would allow projects that did not have formal planning consent as of 18 June last year into the RO beyond the early closure date. That would include projects that had an indication from a local planning authority that they would receive planning consent, subject to a section 106 or section 75 agreement being entered into. It would also include projects where the local planning committee was minded to approve the planning application before 18 June 2015, but planning permission was not issued until after that date. To be clear, those projects did not have planning permission as at 18 June last year, so they do not meet the grace period criteria proposed by the Government.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
What would this Lords amendment cost the average consumer, if the full 90 MW we are talking about were deployed?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the amendment is likely to reduce the predicted savings from early closure by something in the region of £10 million per annum, which is a significant figure, given that early closure of the RO is expected to save around £20 million a year in a central scenario, and as much as £270 million a year in the high scenario.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this was one of the most popular policies in the pretty popular manifesto we put to the electorate? We therefore need to get on with implementing it, and the other place should recognise that this issue arose out of the election.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is exactly right: this is a key, popular manifesto commitment, and we are determined to implement it, as we promised the voters of this country we would last May.
Let me turn briefly to amendment 2A, which was agreed in the other place. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the function of determining whether an oil field project is materially complete can be transferred to the Oil and Gas Authority. That function sits outside chapter 9 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 but elsewhere within part 8, so it does not fall within the definition of “relevant function” under clause 2(6) of the Bill. It therefore cannot be transferred from the Secretary of State to the OGA by regulations made under clause 2(2). The amendment simply removes the reference to “Chapter 9 of” from the reference to part 8 of the 2010 Act in clause 2(6), ensuring that this important function can be transferred to the OGA. The amendment is purely technical, and seeks to put beyond doubt that all key oil and gas taxation functions can be transferred to the OGA once it becomes a Government company, as we have always intended.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The amendments we have received from the other place make a number of changes to the Bill. In most instances, as the Minister mentioned, those relate to the commencement of the closure of the RO. That is essentially because of the Bill’s progress through Parliament and the potential charge of retrospectivity against the Bill. It is good that the issue has been rectified, and that the Government have confirmed that they do not intend to backdate the closure of the RO.
However, those changes point to the issue raised in amendment 7T, with which the Government have a motion to disagree. We need to be clear that the amendment is not saying that changing the closure date for the RO for onshore wind is wrong, although I continue to contend that it is. Contrary to the impression the Minister has given this afternoon, developers of projects did not realise that the closure date would be earlier than previously thought. Indeed, the so-called warnings before the general election, which she mentioned, were not about the early closure of the RO, but about future funding for onshore wind in general. Developers of projects knew that the RO would come to an end in March 2017, and many had spent several years—a long period—in the development process before the warnings were issued, and before the policy was put forward in the manifesto and, subsequently, the Bill. Having planned on the basis of the notion that the RO would come to an end, they found out very late in the day that the goalposts had been arbitrarily moved, and that their investment was lost overnight as a result.
Nor is the amendment in any way contrary to manifesto commitments; it is not about the principle of the early closure of the RO, but about the grace periods that follow from that closure process. It is not saying that there should not be grace period exceptions for schemes that, for various reasons, might fall foul of the new, arbitrary cut-off date. By highlighting a small number of projects that have fallen foul of the cut-off date for very specific reasons, it is saying that grace-period schemes should be built on a reasonable level of equity and fairness, and should work within an understanding of proper reasons for exemption; they should not simply impose a few extended, but nevertheless still arbitrary, cut-off dates for projects.
Lords amendment 7T highlights a particularly egregious inequity in the grace-period scheme. This involves schemes that have, even according to the new guidelines laid down in the Bill process, done the right thing throughout by seeking and securing local support. As the Government said earlier in the passage of the Bill, it was to be the sine qua non of permission for the development of any onshore wind in the future that local communities should have the final say in decisions; schemes, it was said, should obtain support, perhaps through local planning approval, and should not, for example, seek to win an appeal on the basis of national determination, having been turned down at local level.
The schemes covered by the amendment fit exactly that description. They have determinedly gone through the local process and engaged with it, rather than standing back and waiting to progress through an appeal. They have won local community support, in each instance through the granting of a planning decision by the local authority. The only issue is that, having gone through that often lengthy process of local consultation, they find that the successful, locally supported outcome has, at the stroke of a pen, effectively been turned into refusal. That has happened because the final planning certificate has not arrived by the cut-off date because of issues relating not to the permission, but to details of section 106 agreements on community benefit or similar issues, or to section 75 agreements in Scotland—that is, issues that arise not as part of the agreement process, but because the agreement has been reached. As these schemes could not produce a final, formal planning certificate by the arbitrary date of 18 June, the scheme as a whole was lost.
Here is the timetable of one such scheme, the Twentyshilling Hill wind farm in Dumfriesshire. The planning application was initially made on 15 March 2013 —a long time ago. It was approved by a planning committee, subject to a section 75 agreement, on 16 December 2014. It was not the fault of the wind farm applicant that the council took a few months to settle the section 75 application. Even so, the application was agreed on 17 June—again, before the cut-off date. However, despite the agreement being public and on the council website, the final certificate did not arrive until 1 July, making it null and void in the Government’s eyes, as the Minister has stated.
In retrospect, it might have been wiser for those and other developers not to take too much time on, or give too much attention to, local agreement, but to instead precipitate an appeal that they might have won. Indeed, when developers have done just that and the appeal decision has arrived after the cut-off date of 18 June 2015—we heard of such instances during the passage of the Bill—it has been accepted because of a provision relating to the grace period. The projects are deemed to have been okay all along and are allowed to proceed. That is frankly perverse, and it falls seriously short of the test of reasonableness and equity that ought to inform any grace period arrangement.
Lords amendment 7T relates to a small number of cases and seeks to restore a semblance of equity to the process. It is based on the principle that the Government themselves promoted as the basis for decisions on onshore wind applications. It is a principle for the future that, incidentally, Labour supports.
I shall explain the equity. If a local planning committee found in favour of a planning decision before 18 June, and the decision was arrived at via a process of consultation and community acceptance of the application, it should be covered by the grace period provisions. This small amendment would affect only about half a dozen schemes. In the overall scheme of things, it would make an insignificant inroad into levy control framework financial provisions, as far as the RO is concerned. It would, however, place a much-needed patch of equity on the grace period structure, and perhaps point the way to addressing seriously a future issue. That issue is this: are the Government intent on ensuring that onshore wind will be built in the future—it is, after all, the cheapest and most cost-effective renewable available—if local communities support the proposals, or do they intend to use national clout to override local wishes in pursuit of an overall closure of onshore wind, at least in England?
Accepting the amendment and finalising the Bill in this way would go a long way to restoring a principle that was supposedly central to the process for the future, and it would demonstrate to local communities that they really will be able to decide and not have their local wishes snuffed out by a fiat from the centre.
John Redwood
I hope that the other place will not delay this Bill further, because many people and parties in this House, and in the other place, wish it to go through to provide measures to help our oil and gas industry, which is struggling with the collapse in the world oil price and the consequent threat to jobs and prosperity that we would like to help alleviate.
I have two main reasons for strongly supporting the Government. First, they are absolutely right to say that our energy is too dear and that their measures are a contribution to tackling the problem of very expensive energy. A tragedy is unfolding in several of our industries, most recently in the steel industry, where the consequences of very high energy costs compared with those of our competitors around the world are manifest, especially the impact on output, profit, loss and loss of jobs. We desperately need to do more to tackle the problem of very expensive energy, so I admire the Government’s urgency in tackling one of its sources. The subsidy withdrawal is entirely appropriate.
One of the problems with wind energy—this makes it a very high-cost way of offering generating capacity—is that back-up capacity needs to be built to generate the power by some other means, because there will be times of the day, days of the week and weeks of the year when there is no wind. At such times, we are entirely reliant on the back-up power, and that requires a full range of back-up. There will always be extra costs involved with such an unreliable renewable source of energy.
On cost grounds, it is vital that we make rapid progress. I think that good notice was given—the election was notice enough, I would have thought. It was a prominent and popular policy. None of us was shy about debating it and we got a lot of support from many people.
The second main reason why I think the Government are right to take this action is that wind is so intermittent and unreliable. Therefore, if there is too much wind, the problems of managing and balancing the system become that much greater. As the Member of Parliament who represents the control centre on Bearwood Road in Wokingham, I am only too well aware of how its task is made much more expensive and complicated the more interruptible and unreliable energy there is on the system. The Government’s measure will be a welcome check on that. It will help it to manage the system better and to provide more reliable power for industry.
If there is too much unreliable power on the system and that power goes down, it is industry and commerce that will take the hit. They will be asked to forgo the use of power when there is no wind, but when we are desperately trying to compete in a very competitive world, surely it is important not just to keep the lights on in people’s households, but to keep the factories turning over.
Callum McCaig
As is so often the case with learning about the workings of this place, sometimes I do not know whether something is a formal rule or a convention. I had assumed that “ping-pong” was a mere colloquialism, but I was surprised to learn from the Order Papers online that it is the formal name for this process. I was never very good at ping-pong when I was younger—I kept taking my eye off the ball, which could also be said of the Government, whose dogmatism in pushing this issue and continuing with ping-pong means that they are taking their eye off the bigger picture. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that the bigger picture for the Energy Bill, at every stage of the process, has been the establishment of the Oil and Gas Authority.
If we simply accept the Lords amendments, which I support, we could finish our deliberations on this Bill and be done with it. They are balanced and sensible and would deliver the pragmatic response that it is beholden on the Government to deliver.
Simon Hoare
I am sure that everybody has hugely pressing engagements, but given the importance of the OGA, and given the state of the oil and gas fields in the North sea, is the hon. Gentleman surprised at the absence of his party colleagues?
Callum McCaig
Sometimes it is better to know the answer to a question before asking it. A number of my colleagues are meeting constituents down from Scotland who suffer from motor neurone disease. Given the hugely debilitating impact that that illness can have on people, and given the impact that Westminster can have on welfare, it is important that a number of our folks are there.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
That is a very fair response, but it is also notable how few Scottish National party MPs were in the Chamber on Second Reading of this Bill, which relates directly to one of the great issues facing the hon. Gentleman’s nation.
Callum McCaig
I started by saying that at one point in my youth I was guilty of taking my eyes off the ball. With these diversionary tactics, Conservative Members are well and truly taking their eyes off the ball. We could discuss who is here. It is disappointing that there are not many Members in the Chamber, and I am not sure proportionately how many Tories are present. I could do some back-of-a-fag-packet sums—that might appeal to them—but instead I shall persevere.
We are talking about 90 MW of onshore wind. The Minister said in Committee on 2 June that
“it is absolutely our intention to give local communities the final say on wind farm developments.”––[Official Report, Energy [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 2 June 2015; c. 76.]
Six of the seven schemes that have received planning consent are in Scotland. The committee dates were 24 November 2014 for West Benhar in North Lanarkshire; 11 December 2014 for Twentyshilling in Dumfries and Galloway; 3 June 2015 for the Chruach extension in Argyll and Bute; 15 September 2014 for the Barlockhart Moor extension; 27 January 2015 for Poniel in South Lanarkshire; 24 February 2015 for Crookedstane in South Lanarkshire; and 5 June 2015 for the Melton Common wind cluster in Hull. Those were all before the Government’s cut-off date of 18 June 2015.
As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested, if we are to put local consent at the heart of this issue, we must respect the outcome and will of local councils that decided to proceed with these schemes, but which through no fault of their own—or indeed of the developers—were not granted planning consent and a decision notice until after this decision. For the Twentyshilling Hill wind farm, evidence to the Committee from the provost and chair of the Royal Burgh of Sanquhar and District Community Council, and the chair of Kirkconnel and Kelloholm Community Council stated:
“Our two Communities number nearly 5000 inhabitants, and, since the closure of the coal mines nearly 50 years ago, have stumbled from crisis to crisis. Despite the problems affecting our area, we are not dependent communities, and both Kirkconnel and Sanquhar can boast good public initiatives and an earnest desire to improve our lot through self-help. Windfarm monies will, at least allow local people the ability to take decisions which will improve the area in which we live.”
Twentyshilling Hill wind farm has the potential to offer life-changing improvement to the lives and living conditions of the populations of Upper Nithsdale. That is local empowerment. We are talking about local consent and support, and Twentyshilling Hill wind farm has unmistakeably got the support of the communities in which it will be set. For the sake of a few points of dogmatic principle from the Government, we are seeing that taken away through no fault of the community or the developer, but purely to persevere unnecessarily. I urge the Government to put their eyes back on the ball and allow the Energy Bill to proceed. If we go back and forth with ping-pong we risk delaying that further.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Let me make a point that I also raised in Committee. I accept that there may not be time for this with some of these schemes, but on a point of principle, if the Scottish Government and the SNP wish to continue these schemes in Scotland, why will they not pay for them themselves?
Callum McCaig
Because there is no mechanism. We discussed that in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman voted against the mechanism that would have allowed that to happen. I do not see how that question focuses on the issue. If we want Scotland to receive support for such projects, that could have been provided.
James Cartlidge
On a point of correction, I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman wanted Scotland to have the power, but that the Scottish Government were not going to pay for it. That is what we discussed in Committee—they were not prepared to pay for it.
Callum McCaig
There were two different aspects, and we had a number of debates. The hon. Gentleman asked how we would do something, but we cannot do it—pure and simple. Let me return to the nub of the matter. People would like pragmatic government, but we are seeing dogmatic government that dismisses the views of communities.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Callum McCaig
I am coming to a close. Such dogmatic government is making communities withdraw their support, and I urge the Government to show pragmatism today.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to listen to a message from the other place and to disagree with it wholeheartedly. A few hours ago the German Government decided that they want to withdraw subsidy from onshore wind schemes, for exactly the same reasons that we in this country are doing so. In previous debates and in Committee, I described my campaign to get this clear manifesto pledge from my party. I will not go through that again—I had only half an hour last time to describe the process and some of the things that I was after, and we are time-limited today—but it all stemmed from the Kelmarsh decision in my constituency.
Members in this place understand how important it is to represent their constituents, but I wish to tell some of those in the other place that it was not only one small village in my constituency that was affected by an onshore wind decision—Hanging Houghton, Brixworth, Draughton, Maidwell, Hazelbeach, Kelmarsh, Yelvertoft, Winwick, Crick, Lilbourne, Badby, Kislingbury, Guilsborough, Watford, West Haddon, East Haddon, Ravensthorpe, Great Oxendon and many more villages in my constituency were all affected by proposals for unwanted onshore wind farms. That is why at the end of the previous Parliament, a letter to the Prime Minister was signed by 101 Members of Parliament in order to get this change. There was a long battle across the Floor of the House about whether we should be subsidising onshore wind, and a clear manifesto pledge by the Conservative party to stop funding it.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) have highlighted small factors within the grace period, but this is a clear manifesto pledge and principle that people in my constituency wanted and expected me to fight for. I will not listen to those in the other House who are determined to bring party politics into this.
There are no Lib Dems in the Chamber today—there are too many anyway, but none of them is here today. Those Lib Dems who fought to reform and get an elected Chamber up the other end of the corridor are now using that Chamber to abuse the democratic process of this country. They know full well what they are doing. When Lord Wallace of Tankerness decided that he wanted to interpret the Conservative party manifesto, it was interesting that many Liberal Democrats who supported him had been defeated by people who supported that manifesto. They lost their seats partly because in their communities they could not defend the onshore wind turbines that the Conservative party had made a clear commitment to get rid of.
Callum McCaig
We are talking about a very small number of wind farms. I do not believe that those Liberal Democrats who would have been impacted by the wind farms that we are dealing with today would have lost to the Conservative party.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I know the hon. Gentleman said that he had a bit of trouble with conventions, and so, obviously, do some Members of the House of Lords. I am trying to remind them of a long-standing tradition and convention in this place, which is that when a party has a manifesto commitment to enact legislation, that legislation should not be overturned by those who are unelected down the other end of the corridor. If we consider who tabled the amendments and voted for this message to be sent to the Commons, we see a whole list of former MPs who lost their seats because of the manifesto that they are now trying to overturn from an unelected place.
I was involved with this manifesto pledge through to the point of delivery, and I sat on the Energy Bill Committee. I am pretty sure that I know what our manifesto pledge was, as did those who voted for it in my constituency—it was on my leaflets and plain for all to see. I wish to send a message to those down the other end of the corridor that they are dabbling with democracy. They are not just fighting for the principle of a grace period for six wind farms; they are determinedly fighting against a clear manifesto pledge by a governing party.
Dr Whitehead
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman had in his election leaflet details of the grace periods that would have been put in place as a consequence of the manifesto commitment. If those details were not in his leaflet, does he agree that the question of grace periods is not about the manifesto commitment, but about how that commitment might be made more palatable, as far as the transition is concerned? That is what we are debating today.
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is the sort of thing that I probably would have had etched into a stone for people to laugh at. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. Of course, I did not have anything about grace periods in my local campaign leaflet that I sent to my constituents, because I thought that people would understand exactly what we meant when we said that there was no subsidy for onshore wind. I did not think that it was necessary to dance on the head of a pin for the sake of a simple party political point.
I end where I began. My constituents are desperate for the measure, and they are desperate for the measures to help the oil and gas industry. They are surprised that Liberal Democrats down the other end of the corridor are willing to play politics with the elected Chamber on a point in a manifesto on which they were heartily defeated. My constituents are annoyed by the fact that the matter has not become law already.
James Cartlidge
It was a great pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee. I hope that the House will not mind if I return briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), because it is important to set the record straight. Before I give my reasons for supporting the Government, let me say that my recollection—I am happy for this to be clarified—is that in the Bill Committee, SNP Members tabled amendments to give them the power to keep the projects open but, when asked, they did not confirm that they would put up the money to support those projects. The justification that they gave related to the nuclear industry. As I recall, they said that it was quite fair for them not to have to pay for the projects because they have to pay for the nuclear industry, which they do not agree with. Thereafter, I asked them whether they would want to be cut off from the electricity supply that comes from the nuclear sector in this country, and the answer was no. As always, they want to have their cake and eat it—rather like the Mayor of London, although they do not make their arguments with as much grace as he does. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South has tried his best today, and I see that he has got some extra support to back him up.
My two reasons for supporting the Government are clear and along the lines of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). The first relates to the simple principle of democracy and the position of my constituents, whom I have been sent here to represent. Overwhelmingly, my constituents support our policy on onshore wind, and they want it to be enacted in good time. Since I attended the Bill Committee, I have been out and about in the constituency, and the matter continues to come up. I recently addressed a meeting of the Stour and Orwell Society, a fine and upstanding group of ladies and gentlemen who are committed to preserving and protecting the natural beauty and heritage of the countryside in South Suffolk, particularly in the peninsula where the River Stour meets the Orwell. For anybody who wishes to come and visit, it is a fine place and it is not particularly blighted by large constructions that will be affected by these changes. Overwhelmingly, the position of the constituency is that it supports the changes.
My second point relates to the Oil and Gas Authority, and it has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend and others. I simply want to say that we should not delay a Bill—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) wish to intervene?
Dr Whitehead
I simply want to make the point that we could finish proceedings today if the Government agreed to the amendment, and the Oil and Gas Authority could go forward with all speed, as everybody wants it to.
James Cartlidge
Absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman is willing personally to provide £10 million so that the taxpayer and electricity customers do not have to be so encumbered, I am sure that we can find a way.
We have a clear position. The Bill has not changed in respect of the fundamental decision to establish the Oil and Gas Authority. At one point on the day of Second Reading, the price of a barrel of oil was $27.70. It is now around the $40 to $44 mark, so there has been some stabilisation, but that word has to be used carefully in view of what is happening around the world. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had an excellent piece this week on continuing stability in Kuwait, and we see today in the FT that Saudi Arabia is starting to borrow from the markets. The price may go up, or it may go down again. The key point is that the outlook is uncertain. Enacting the Bill, with this new and respected regulator, will add stability and credibility to the sector at an important time. It is not a magic wand, and it will not immediately heal the problems that undoubtedly exist in this industry, which is vital for the United Kingdom, but it is a key part of our energy policy and proposition. That is why the Bill should become law as soon as possible.
This is basically about our national interest, which has, for many decades, been tied to North sea oil and to the energy sector. That is true not only of Scotland; in the East Anglian economy, a significant amount of output and a significant number of jobs come from the oil sector. I encourage all hon. Members to support the Government on this matter. Our reasons are clear. This is about supporting the energy sector and respecting the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I think we all hoped that the Energy Bill would by now have completed its progress through Parliament. It is a shame that it has not, especially because the closure of the renewables obligation for onshore wind was a clear manifesto commitment by the Government before the last election. That was a popular pledge, especially in my constituency, where opposition to wind farms in the Mendips and at Pilrow is widespread. It is difficult to explain to my constituents that that manifesto commitment, which the Government have a clear mandate to deliver, has not been enacted because of the intervention of the unelected Members of the other place.
That is especially true, as has been noted by a number of my hon. Friends, because the Opposition has been abetted in the House of Lords by a party that was roundly rejected in Somerset, in the south-west and across the country. Not one of its elected Members has come to this Chamber today to justify the actions of their unelected colleagues in the other place. The illiberal undemocrats have a great deal to answer for. I want to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on their forbearance in seeing the Bill through Parliament. I understand that the other day, the Secretary of State spent some time at the Bar of the other House eyeballing those who were delaying the legislation. Sadly, they had their way, and we are here yet again to debate it.
It is important that we do not allow the closure of the renewables obligation for onshore wind to be cast as anti-green. The deployment of onshore wind has been widespread, despite strong opposition in this place—with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) in the vanguard—and in communities across the country. As a result of £800 million of subsidy, there are 490 operational wind farms and just under 5,000 operational turbines, so the measure is not anti-wind or anti-green.
The Government need to deliver their manifesto commitment to ensure that bill payers are not expected to foot the bill for the excessive deployment of this type of generation. Let us be clear. The Government are well on track to achieve 30% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020, and we should congratulate them on that. They are serious about decarbonisation and serious about security of supply, but they are also serious about keeping bills down. A line must be drawn somewhere, and the Government’s decision on the matter is, in my view, entirely reasonable.
Let us reject Lords amendment 7T and stop the onshore wind industry impeding the progress of a Bill that, principally, establishes the OGA, with all its important functions in reinvigorating the UK’s oil and gas industry, safeguarding hundreds of thousands of jobs, contributing billions to our economy and protecting an essential component of not only our energy security but, I argue, our national security. It is high time that we moved on with the Bill, and that the Lords accepted the will of this elected Chamber. It is time that we focused our energies not on onshore wind, but in using the Government’s subsidy structure as a lever to encourage the technologies, such as offshore wind and new nuclear, that we envisage will be part of our energy mix for the next 20 or 30 years.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and well-informed speech. Does he agree that although we are ending the subsidy for onshore wind, there will still be a role for it? We must continue to make sure that, while it is not subsidised, onshore wind does not lose out in comparison with the strike prices granted to other technologies.
James Heappey
I accept my hon. Friend’s point to a degree. This is not the end of onshore wind in that onshore wind is not being banned, but is simply being told that it is time to find its own feet and to go it alone, where it can be sited in a permissive planning environment. I regularly drive up the M5 past the onshore wind turbines at Avonmouth, and one might argue that they are entirely reasonable in that industrial setting. Provided turbines can be sited in a permissive place and they do not require any further Government subsidy, they may of course continue. However, it is important that the subsidy ends and that it does so with the passage of the Bill.
It is also important to note that the Energy and Climate Change Committee has recently begun pre-legislative scrutiny of the next energy Bill. There is a great deal in it that is quite exciting, in my view, so let us get this one done and get on with that one.
Graham Stuart
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, in which there have been interesting speeches by Members on both sides of the House. On ending the subsidy for onshore wind, the whole aim of subsidy regimes for renewable technologies is to encourage costs to fall and to drive them down over time to the point at which they no longer need a subsidy. The Government put that in their manifesto.
I think a lot of this is down to Labour Members, because they would not listen to communities, such as my own, which felt that wind farms were being imposed on them that blighted their view of the landscape. The sense of a loss of control, even more than the imposition of the turbines themselves, created a great deal of resentment. We have ended up in a position in which the party that won a majority at the general election stood on a manifesto promise to end this subsidy.
The Government have made provision to ensure that onshore wind, where it goes ahead, has the support of the local community. I have said previously in the House, so I will not go on about it at too much length, that that issue should have been sorted out. If it had been sorted out sooner, we might not have had the backlash that has found its form—not least through the agency of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—in saying, “We feel that this subsidy regime is imposing these turbines on us.” The permissions, not the subsidy per se, was the central issue, but we are where we are.
Further to my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), I want to make this point. Given that we now have an energy market in which the price producers charge for energy is far less than that at which anyone can afford to commission new production, we have a rather artificial market. I hope and expect we will make sure—I know Ministers are looking at this—that future regimes, for contracts for difference or whatever else, do not artificially block onshore wind from getting access to the market because of how pricing within that market operates. It is perfectly possible to ensure that there is no subsidy for onshore wind while ensuring that onshore wind alone is not deprived of access to the mechanisms that drive new commissioning for every other technology. I hope that Members on both sides of the House can agree to that. As long as communities have the final say on whether new wind farm capacity is brought into their area, and as long as onshore wind is treated no differently from other technologies, including fossil fuels such as gas, that is the situation we need to bring about.
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite difficult to attribute cost to stand-by power for wind? Wind uniquely needs such a power in a way that other forms of energy do not.
Graham Stuart
I agree that there are such issues. In his speech, my right hon. Friend did not reflect on the success of the Government. I know he is sceptical about both climate change and the Government’s approach to this over the years, but what is undeniable is the way in which the cost curve has accelerated downwards. We were previously in a situation in which clean energy was ridiculously more expensive than fossil fuels, which poison the air and also have climate risks attached to them. We have therefore seen a real driving down of that cost. Onshore wind is now in a position where it should be able to compete on a level playing field with new gas-fired power stations; we will not of course see any more coal-fired ones.
Andrea Leadsom
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. The Energy Bill will enact our manifesto commitments in two key ways. It will create the Oil and Gas Authority, which provides part of our continued support for North sea oil and gas. It will also implement the recommendations of the review by Sir Ian Wood, and we are doing everything we can to ensure the long-term survival and thriving state of this critical UK industry.
The North sea oil and gas industry has been the UK’s largest industrial investor for many decades and has paid billions of pounds in corporation tax on production. However, as the basin matures, oil and gas become more difficult to access. We cannot and must not accept any delay in completing the Bill, because we need to give the Oil and Gas Authority the powers it needs to maximise the economic recovery of the UK’s remaining oil and gas reserves. Industry and Government share the same ambitions and are working very closely together to manage the remaining resources effectively and efficiently.
I find it very disappointing that Opposition Members, who should know better, have suggested that by adding a mere £10 million extra per year to consumer bills, we can somehow achieve our aim of setting up the Oil and Gas Authority early. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be supporting the Bill’s speedy conclusion to Royal Assent for the sake of the oil and gas industry they all profess to support so enormously.
On the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitments on onshore wind, we promised to end new subsidies for onshore wind and to ensure that local people have the final say on where onshore wind is built. Opposition Members suggest that just because there is local agreement, it is fine to add to the bills of all consumers across Great Britain, but that is simply not the case. It is our duty as consumer champions—at least on the Government Benches—to keep down the cost to consumers, and that is what we will do.
Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is projected to meet our planned range of 11 to 13 GW by 2020, but we do not want to continue to provide subsidies where they are no longer necessary and where they are simply adding to the costs for energy consumers. We must seek the right balance between each of our three competing priorities: to keep the lights on; to keep bills down; and to decarbonise at the lowest possible price. Above all else, we want Members right across the Chamber to support these amendments so that we can get the OGA—
Backbench Business
Daesh: Genocide of Minorities
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
We now come to the Back-Bench debate on the recognition of genocide by Daesh against Yazidis, Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities. Before I ask Fiona Bruce to move the motion, I point out that we will be very strict about opening speeches being no longer than 15 minutes, including interventions, and that there will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. I remind hon. Members that when interventions are taken and a minute or two is added to their speech limit, those minutes are taken out of speeches of Members lower down the speakers list. If people can be aware of that, I will be very grateful.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria are suffering genocide at the hands of Daesh; and calls on the Government to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate.
Genocide is a word of such gravity that it should never be used readily. It is rightly known as the “crime above all crimes”. For that reason, it is incumbent on us to prevent the term from being devalued or overused. However, such caution must not stop us naming a genocide when one is taking place. The supporters of the motion are here to insist that there is overwhelming evidence that the atrocities of Daesh in Syria and Iraq should be recognised for the genocide they are and considered as such by the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court. It will support similar resolutions of other leading international and legislative bodies.
There are only two possibilities for Members here. If the House is not satisfied that genocidal atrocities are being perpetrated, we must not pass the motion, on which I am minded to test the will of the House, but if colleagues believe that the depravities of Daesh are being undertaken with genocidal intent, we have already waited far too long to recognise it.
Yesterday evening, here in the UK Parliament, we heard the truly harrowing personal testimony of a brave 16-year-old Yazidi girl called Ekhlas. She was seized by Daesh from her home, along with others from her community in Sinjar in northern Iraq. At the age of 15, she saw her father and brother killed in front of her. She told of how every girl in her community over eight, including herself, was imprisoned and raped. She spoke of witnessing her friends being raped and hearing their screams, and of seeing a girl aged nine being raped by so many men that she died. Many young girls had their fragile bodies rendered incapable of pregnancy, and others who were far too young to be so were made pregnant. Horrifically, she spoke of seeing a two-year-old boy being killed and of his body parts being ground down and fed to his own mother. She told of children being brainwashed and forced to kill their own parents. Fortunately, she managed to escape the prison during a bombardment of the area around it. Others are not so fortunate.
We heard from another women, Yvette, who had come directly from Syria for last night’s meeting. She spoke of Christians being killed and tortured, and of children being beheaded in front of their parents. She showed us recent film footage of herself talking with mothers—more than one—who had seen their own children crucified. Another woman had seen 250 children put through a dough kneader and burnt in an oven. The oldest was four years old. She told us of a mother with a two-month-old baby. When Daesh knocked at the front door of her house and ordered the entire family out, she pleaded with them to let her collect her child from another room. They told her, “No. Go. It is ours now.”
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this very important debate. She is making a powerful speech. Every year, Members of this House sign the holocaust book of commitment, making the pledge that that terrible genocide will never be forgotten. I have personally signed a pledge that I will never walk on by. Does she agree that today we have the opportunity to make sure that none of us walks on by as we see this terrible genocide unfold?
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely do. After the horrors of the holocaust, the words, “Never again” resounded through civilisation. We must not let them resound again.
Speaking to MPs at yesterday’s meeting, the young girl Ekhlas implored us:
“Listen to me, help the girls, help those in captivity; I am pleading with you, let us come together and call this what it is: a genocide. This is about human dignity. You have a responsibility. ISIS are committing a genocide, because they are trying to wipe us out.”
Genocide is an internationally recognised term, defined in the 1948 convention on genocide, to which we are a signatory as a country, as
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…Killing…Causing serious bodily or mental harm… Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions…calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…Imposing measures intended to prevent births…Forcibly transferring children”.
I put it to the House that not just one but every single one of those criteria was satisfied by the two testimonies yesterday.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Fiona Bruce
I will, but after that I will not take any further interventions because of the limitation placed on my speaking time.
Rehman Chishti
I applaud my hon. Friend for bringing this motion to the Floor of the House. She talks about using the term genocide; our international partners, such as the United States, its Secretary of State and House of Representatives, and the European Parliament have already said that the acts committed by Daesh amount to genocide. We should interpret international law in line with our key partners, who we are working with to defeat Daesh.
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely agree. We do not want to be behind but in the lead. Our country has a proud history of leading on human rights and ensuring that aggressors are brought to justice. We must do so in this case, too.
Yazidis and Christians have been targeted explicitly because of their religion and ethnicity. It is not just them, but Alawites, Shi’as, Shabaks and Mandaeans. The suffering of the two women I mentioned has been replicated countless times by other families, as we know from the statistics that we have all heard in this House. I have seen many reports documenting evidence of genocidal atrocities, as I am sure other Members have, from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN assistance mission for Iraq and others—thousands of pages recording executions, mass graves, assassinations of church leaders, crucifixions, systematic rapes, torture of men, women and children, beheadings, and many other acts of violence so unspeakable that their evil seems almost fictional. But it is not.
Daesh is targeting specific groups precisely because of those groups’ characteristics, and it has declared that, and that its acts have genocidal intent. For example, issue 4 of its online magazine “Dabiq” tells its followers that they will be held accountable if the Yazidi people continue to exist. As Lord Alton of Liverpool—I pay tribute to him for his work on this issue—has said, if we do not recognise this as genocide
“we might as well rip up the genocide convention as a worthless piece of paper.”
As a consequence of the evidence meticulously collected by non-governmental organisations, activists and the UN, resolutions condemning the actions of Daesh’s genocide have been passed around the world—as has been mentioned—by the Council of Europe in January 2016, the European Parliament in February and the US House of Representatives in March. Following that, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, made an announcement confirming the position of the US Government, stating that,
“Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology and by actions”.
If that is the position of the US Government, why is it not the position of our own?
In answer to that question, which has been raised many times, UK Government Ministers have repeatedly said that,
“it is a long-standing Government policy that any judgements on whether genocide has occurred should be a matter for the international judicial system rather than legislatures, governments or other non-judicial bodies.”
In other words, whether this is genocide is a matter for the courts to decide; in this case, more specifically, it is a matter for the International Criminal Court. But—this is the crucial point of the motion—under the procedures relating to the ICC, it cannot make that judgment until it is requested to do so, and the only way that can now happen is if such a referral is made by the UN Security Council, of which the UK Government are a permanent member. That is why supporting the motion is so important. There is a circular argument here—a stalemate—which this Parliament needs to break. The motion before the House calls on us, as Members of the UK Parliament, to make a declaration of genocide, and then asks that the UK Government refer that to the UN Security Council so that the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court can take action.
That prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has already said, as long as a year ago, that she stands ready to take action, given a referral, saying:
“I remain profoundly concerned by this situation and I want to emphasise our collective duty as a global community to respond to the plight of victims whose rights and dignity have been violated. ISIS continues to spread terror on a massive scale in the territories it occupies. The international community pledged that appalling crimes that deeply shock the conscience of humanity must not go unpunished. As Prosecutor of the ICC, I stand ready to play my part, in an independent and impartial manner.”
When so much suffering continues daily, can we wait any longer before doing all that we can to act against it?
I am aware that the UK Government are already involved in assertively tackling the aggression of Daesh and its poisonous ideology in many ways, not least through air strikes, cutting off finance and providing counter-terrorism expertise, as well as through humanitarian aid and information gathering. I commend the Government for that, but there can surely be no good reason for delaying the additional step of referring this to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction on the ICC to start its own unique procedures to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Some may ask what difference that would really make. It will make a real difference. Recognition of genocide brings with it obligations on the part of the international community to prevent, punish and protect. It initiates the process leading to the prosecution of perpetrators and makes it more likely that guilty individuals will be punished. It is often followed by a stronger international response both against the atrocities and in the provision of greater help for survivors with their urgent needs—something that is much needed in this case. It can facilitate reparations for survivors.
Recognising the actions of Daesh as genocide should therefore help inject further momentum into the international efforts to stop the killings. It would, I hope, lead to more active safeguarding of those members of religious minorities on the ground whose lives and very communities currently hang in the balance. It may also make potential new recruits—including those from the UK—think twice about joining Daesh, given the ramifications of being caught.
Recognition of genocide is not the only or the final action of the international community, but it is a crucial step, and one that we should make today. I recognise that conferring jurisdiction on the ICC requires the support of other members of the Security Council, but that should not stop our country from initiating the process. I add that there is precedent for the Security Council to establish a fact-finding committee of experts, so that all current evidence can be assessed and new evidence can be collected. If the motion is passed, I appeal to the Government to consider that recommendation at the Security Council.
I repeat: some may ask, “What difference will this really make?” I leave the final word to the young girl Ekhlas. To her, it would make all the difference in the world. When I asked her yesterday what her hopes were for the future, she replied,
“to see justice done for my people.”
I ask Members to support the motion. In the final analysis, it is about doing justice and seeing it done.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Between 2005 and 2010, I had the privilege of working for the fantastic Aegis Trust, which works both to commemorate and to prevent genocide.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is a distinguished Member of the House and a member of the International Development Committee, as well as a campaigner on human rights, particularly those of religious and other minorities. I agreed with everything that she said, which I believe has strong cross-party support. Like her, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to happen. I hope that the hon. Lady will press the motion to a Division because we have an opportunity to send a really strong message from all parties that we believe that what is happening is a genocide and that the international system has a duty and responsibility to act.
In both Iraq and Syria, ethnic and other minorities have been in severe danger since the emergence of Daesh, and we have seen this once diverse region witnessing mass killings, rapes, forced conversions, and the destruction of shrines, temples and churches in the region. The hon. Member for Congleton spoke about the meeting she convened and chaired last night. I, too, listened to the powerful speech from Ekhlas, a young woman who has been through hell—something that no young person should ever have to go through. Sadly, this was not the first time that many of us have heard such testimony. Earlier this year, a meeting was convened by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who chairs the all-party group on the prevention of genocide, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) at which we heard from another teenage Yazidi woman, Nadia Murad, who had also been captured and imprisoned by Daesh. Nadia told us that she had been beaten, tortured and raped before, thankfully, she managed to escape. Her story shocked us in the same way that Ekhlas’s story shocked us last night. Since her escape, Nadia has spoken here in Parliament, at the UN and with various Governments, including our own, simply to raise awareness of the plight of the Yazidis in general, and Yazidi women in particular.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I join others in highlighting the importance of this debate. Surely to goodness, though, making these poor people go through it all again when they have to provide their testimony to organisations seems harsh when those organisations should not need such persuasion. They should be capable of realising what is happening without needing to put people through the pain of having to repeat themselves over and over again.
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the evidence is there. I suppose that human testimony provides an important additional dimension, but he is right that the evidence is extremely well documented. It is estimated that more than 3,000 Yazidi women are being held against their will by Daesh.
A glance at the history of this region should surely lead us to learn some lessons today. A century ago, the Armenians and Assyrians suffered a genocide. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Congleton that the policy of Daesh towards the Yazidi, Christians and other minorities amounts to genocide.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I fully intend to support and vote for this important motion. When I was in Syria two weeks ago, I interviewed about 23 or 24 people from various groups who had suffered, including Christians and Alawites. My key point in the debate is that not just Daesh was responsible, but Daesh and its allies. We should remember that when we come to bring these cases before the international court.
Stephen Twigg
The right hon. Gentleman’s makes an extremely important point, which I hope will be elaborated during today’s debate.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I shall also proudly support the motion, and I hope that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who made a powerful speech, will press it to a Division. We should follow the US Secretary of State and call this behaviour what it really is. The suffering of the Yazidis at the hands of Daesh is compounded by their suffering at the hands of the Assad regime. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we focus only on Daesh, we do a great disservice to those who are fleeing the horror of the Assad regime, whose suffering should count just as much and should demand as much attention from this Government?
Stephen Twigg
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the Assad regime has unleashed appalling terror on its people. It is absolutely right to focus on it, as a number of us have made clear in previous debates. Before the debate on military intervention in Syria, I visited refugees in Jordan and heard at first hand the horror that they had experienced, usually at the hands of the Syrian regime, but sometimes at the hands of Daesh and their allies. Today’s motion is a focused one that we can all unite in supporting, but it does not detract in any way from the importance of continuing to highlight the abuses of the Assad regime.
On the question of whether this is a genocide, let us be clear that Daesh gives the Yazidis a choice—of forced conversion, death or exile. I think that that amounts to the destruction of the foundations of the life of a group of people. United Nations international criminal tribunals have recognised sexual violence and sexual slavery, both of which we know are prevalent in Daesh’s actions towards the Yazidis, as part of a genocidal process.
I want to raise a specific point about the importance of documentation. An estimated 25 mass graves containing the mortal remains of Yazidis murdered by Daesh in August 2014 have now been discovered in Sinjar in northern Iraq. These graves are not adequately protected and are being disturbed by a variety of people, including—perfectly understandably—the relatives of the victims, as well as local people and sometimes journalists. However, there is a risk that the evidence, and therefore our ability to identify the victims of Daesh, will be compromised. Yazidi campaign groups have called for the protection of the graves and an analysis of the mortal remains that they contain. An international response on this matter is needed, but has not yet materialised.
The US Holocaust Museum has recommended a genocide designation partly to raise public awareness because, as its says,
“historical memory is a tool of prevention”.
The International Commission on Missing Persons is the leading organisation dedicated to addressing the issue of persons missing in the aftermath of armed conflict. In the aftermath of the war in Iraq, its Government set up a human rights ministry with a remit to consider the policy towards mass graves. Unfortunately, that ministry has been dissolved. It is clear to me that it is the ICMP that should respond to the challenge in Sinjar of identifying the victims and examining the mass graves forensically in order to preserve evidence, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that issue. The UK has a good track record of working with the ICMP, for example in Bosnia. Will the Government undertake to work with the ICMP and the Iraqi Government to help to protect these mass graves? It is crucial that these crimes are properly documented, especially if the motion succeeds and a referral for genocide is made to the United Nations. It is important to the families of the victims that those victims are identified as accurately as possible.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
For years, I collected evidence of Iraqi war crimes for an organisation called Indict. I was therefore involved with some of the mass graves in Iraq, many thousands of which still remain unexcavated because of security threats. I fully support my hon. Friend’s points. It is important to protect the mass graves because of the evidence contained therein.
Stephen Twigg
I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to her decades of work on this crucial issue.
As part of our duty to recognise the genocide, we should prioritise protecting the evidence that will help us to bring those who are guilty of genocide to justice and to dignify the victims of these awful crimes. I support the motion and believe that the hon. Member for Congleton made a powerful case for why the House should urge the Government to refer the matter to the UN. I understand the Government’s position—I raised the matter with the Prime Minister a few weeks ago—but the way in which we recognise genocide is different from that of the Americans. The hon. Lady has come up with an intelligent and, if I may say so, ingenious way of ensuring that we get a positive response from the Government. Today’s debate also provides an opportunity for the House to send out a very powerful message on a cross-party basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) reminded us that every year in January we commemorate the Nazi holocaust. We have Holocaust Memorial Day because the message after the holocaust, at the end of the second world war, was “never again”. Tragically, since the end of the second world war and since the holocaust, we have had Cambodia, we have had Rwanda, and now we have what is happening as a result of Daesh’s actions against the Yazidis and others. We have an opportunity to heed that warning from the holocaust—“never again”—and to send the message to our own Government, and also to Daesh and the wider international community, that we recognise this as genocide and want action to be taken against the perpetrators of that genocide.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I support the motion and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing this welcome debate.
It is profoundly disturbing that people in Iraq and Syria are being attacked for belonging to different religious and ethnic groups. Daesh has assassinated church leaders, committed torture, kidnapping, mass murders, sexual abuse and systematic rape, and brought about the sexual enslavement of women and girls. Daesh’s official propaganda videos and newspapers document its specific intent to destroy Christian and Yazidi groups in Syria and Iraq. Yesterday evening I attended a meeting at which I heard about the many cases that have been mentioned today by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), as well as about the use of former public buildings to imprison girls as young as nine, as well as women, for the purpose of systematic rape and to satisfy sexual lust.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the women and girls who are abducted and then escape face stigma and discrimination when they return? Does he agree that those women and girls are victims, and that they should be given all the help and support that they need and deserve so that they can move on in life? We should also bring the perpetrators to justice.
Derek Thomas
I was left with that very thought after yesterday evening’s meeting—how can these girls and young women rebuild their lives and somehow find a place in society in which they can lead full and enriched lives? Considerable work is needed to support them.
The United Kingdom has a rich tradition of helping and advocating on behalf of the world’s most vulnerable people. Whenever a crisis or disaster occurs, the UK Government and the British people are quick to respond and lead the charge, providing humanitarian aid and financial assistance. Why is it, then, that despite being one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and having the responsibility of our unique role in the international community, we have been slow, and appear reluctant, to trigger the legal mechanisms in the international judicial system? The legal designation of genocide on the part of Daesh relies first on action by the UN Security Council and therefore requires the UK Government to show some leadership.
Since being elected, I have heard on several occasions that the Government consider the UK to be a world leader on human rights. That status risks being undermined by the apparent lack of willingness to recognise what is going on in Iraq and Syria as genocide, and to create an environment in which these acts can be prevented and the perpetrators punished. The United States Secretary of State John Kerry, the United States House of Representatives, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have already described ISIS atrocities as “genocide”. It is time that the UK joined those countries in politically recognising the atrocities as such.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making good points. Does he agree that the principle of universal jurisdiction should apply to crimes against humanity that are so heinous that all states should take some responsibility?
Derek Thomas
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Last November, I supported military action in Syria because our armed forces are able to reduce the capability and advance of Daesh, and the evil that it espouses. The debate on the day was about not just military action in Syria, but achieving a political solution in that area of the middle east. Surely recognising the behaviour of Daesh against minority groups—it is well documented and not disputed—as genocide is an important part of such a political solution.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
People talk about reconstruction, but should not part of that reconstruction involve the rehabilitation of these women, and some form of compensation for them and their families? As we heard earlier, in some communities, the stigma is there for a lifetime and cannot be got rid of. That applies particularly to Christians, who have been persecuted not only by Daesh, but in North Korea and other parts of the world.
Derek Thomas
The great challenge facing the international community is the question of how, once we have achieved peace in Syria and Iraq, we can secure it so that people can rebuild their own countries. I suspect that many people will never be able to move back to their countries simply because of their memories of the horrors that they have experienced. We as an international community must do all that we can to support those people, wherever they may end up rebuilding their lives.
The British people are horrified by what they hear and see regarding the treatment of these minority groups in Syria and Iraq, and they rightly expect the House of Commons to use whatever tools are available to work to bring that to an end and to achieve peace in this troubled part of the world. A tool that is available to us is a recognition of these evil acts as genocide, and our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to enable the situation to be investigated by the International Criminal Court. People are being brutalised, raped and murdered, and we have a moral responsibility to seek justice for them.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate, on her indefatigable work in this area, and on the way in which she opened the debate. I apologise for having missed the first few minutes of her speech. I am grateful to her for organising yesterday’s evidence session, to which every speaker so far has referred, and which included harrowing personal testimony about the horrors that Daesh is inflicting on people in Iraq and Syria whose religious outlook and faith are different from Daesh’s.
It is difficult to deny that what is going on meets the tests for genocide. Of course the bar is set high, and rightly so, but large numbers of Yazidis, Christians and Shi’a Muslims have been killed. It is clear—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—that that meets the test set out in the convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide, as it is action committed
“with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.
It is clear that that is what Daesh is seeking to do.
I think that Pope Francis was right when, last year, he described the killing of Christians in the middle east as genocide. As we have heard, the United States Secretary of State and the US Congress have recognised what is happening as genocide—last month, I think—and we should do so as well. We understand that the Government are likely to argue that it is for the judiciary, not Parliament, to make such a determination, but it is not clear to me—perhaps the Minister will be able to explain—what trigger for judicial action could lead to the view, which I think we all share, that genocide is under way. I hope very much that the House will agree to the motion, so that the Government can make the reference for which the hon. Member for Congleton has argued.
Mr Jim Cunningham
My right hon. Friend has asked a very interesting question. We should bear in mind that it was the allies who set up the Nuremberg courts. Governments can, in fact, get together and do something.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not clear to me how this can happen in the United Kingdom if the Government do not act. Last night we heard from a young woman, who has been referred to already, who had seen her father and brothers killed simply for being Yazidis. She herself had been raped and enslaved. She made it very clear in her evidence that what was going on was genocide, of Yazidis and also of Christians—she made it clear that Christians were included in the genocide—and as US Secretary of State John Kerry pointed out, it is certainly the case that Shi’a Muslims have been victims of genocide as well.
Rehman Chishti
The right hon. Gentleman says that Shi’a Muslims have also been killed by Daesh. Does he agree that Daesh itself has no religion, in that it kills Muslims who stand in the way of its warped ideology? Whatever a person’s faith, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, if they stand against Daesh, they will be killed.
Stephen Timms
I think the hon. Gentleman is right, but it is clear that Shi’a Muslims have been singled out. For example, in a prison just north of Mosul, nearly 600 were picked out from the rest of the inmates because they were Turkmen Shi’a Muslims, and were machine-gunned one by one. I hope that we can make a clear statement today that this is genocide, both to express solidarity with Yazidis, Christians and Shi’a Muslims who are the victims of this horrifying brutality, and to make clear our determination to ensure that those responsible face prosecution and a just punishment for what they have done.
I want to make some observations on how we can deal with the commitment to religious freedom that we all espouse. I recognise and pay tribute to the work of past and present Ministers on this, but we should be doing more. Others are doing more, and we should as well. I commend to the Minister an idea that was in the last Labour party election manifesto: the Government should appoint a global envoy for religious freedom, who would report directly to the Prime Minister, and establish within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a multi-faith advisory council on religious freedom. That would be an important way for us to acknowledge and publicly commit to the importance of British influence being wielded on this front, through the work of Ministers and the Foreign Office around the world.
The Canadian Government deserve credit for establishing an Office of Religious Freedom. It has had a positive impact, but I am sorry to hear that it is now being wound down. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom was established a long time ago, in 1998, and it is an attractive model, with commissioners appointed by the President and by the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Last December, the commission called for the US Government to designate the Christian, Yazidi, Turkmen and Shabak communities in Iraq and Syria as victims of genocide by ISIL.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good case. I entirely support the motion, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. It is clear that ISIS is using rape as a strategic weapon of war. It is being used not only as a form of ethnic cleansing but as an unthinkable form of forced conversion. One victim recounted being shown an officially headed ISIS letter stating that any captured woman would become a Muslim if 10 ISIS fighters raped her. Will the right hon. Gentleman support my call to the Government today to assemble a specific preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative team to support local health and criminal justice teams in gathering evidence, so that these appalling crimes do not go unpunished?
Stephen Timms
I gladly support the hon. Lady’s call.
The legislation in the US that created the Commission on International Religious Freedom also mandated the State Department to prepare an annual report on international religious freedom. The last one was published just a year ago, and I imagine that we are about to see the next one in two or three weeks’ time. This means that the US Congress and Government have a serious and consistent deployment of effort to wield influence in favour of religious freedom around the world. We do that in a much more ad-hoc way; we should do it in the much more consistent way that the US example demonstrates.
I hope that the House will be united this afternoon in supporting the call by the hon. Member for Congleton for the Government to recognise what is happening to Yazidis, Christians and Shi’a Muslims in Iraq and Syria as genocide. I hope that we will be able to build on this, and that the Government will make a consistent commitment to religious freedom around the world.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her great courage and compassion, and for taking such a strong lead in this debate. I rise to support the motion calling on the Government to recognise the appalling acts by Daesh against the Yazidis, Christians and others as genocide. It bears repeating that genocide is defined as
“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.
Have we seen evidence of such intent? Yes, indisputably, in the kidnapping of women and girls; in torture, rape and sexual enslavement; in beheadings, crucifixions and mass graves; in the assassination of Church leaders and the desecration and destruction of churches, cemeteries and artefacts; and in the enforced conversions and the driving of people from their lands. We should remember the plight of the 40,000 Yazidis trapped on a mountainside in 2014, and the airdrops made to save them from certain death.
Yesterday, I heard first-hand testimony in this place from a very brave, scarred young woman who had escaped her captors. However, testimony comes not just from victims but through the self-proclamation of the perpetrators in thought, word and deed. How do they plead to the charge of the murder and subjugation of Yazidis and Christians? They claim credit.
This Government are committed to upholding human rights, supporting projects the world over and dedicating millions in funding to that end. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. I understand that what stands in the way of us formally calling Daesh’s atrocities genocide is the question of legal standing. The term “genocide” is a legal definition and can seemingly be determined only by the International Criminal Court. So what can we do? We can call for evidence to be formally collected. We can call this in by referring the matter to the United Nations, so that it can give jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court. Daesh is indiscriminate in who it hurts, but it reserves particular cruelties for Yazidis, Christians and other minority ethnic groups. How best can we support those groups of persecuted people at this moment? We can call their suffering what it is: genocide.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I was particularly struck by the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). If we do appoint a global envoy, may I suggest that my right hon. Friend’s name be put forward? He held a similar position under Tony Blair, and I can think of no one better qualified. Much praise has already been given to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and we should place on record the fact that in the short time she has been in the House, she has won for herself a reputation for great courage and determination as a defender of the weak, the poor and the defenceless. She has earned a great reputation, and she has done an enormous amount of good on these matters. She is ably followed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in that regard. It is an honour to be speaking in a debate instigated by the hon. Lady. I am also glad to see two of the more humane Government Ministers on the Treasury Bench today. I am confident that they will respond in a way that reflects the emotion that is being felt right across the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Congleton listed the litany of horrors that we have heard, both last night and on so many other occasions. It seems almost otiose to repeat them, but I shall recount one chilling and almost unbelievably brutal incident. A group of captured young men were lined up and made to strip to the waist and hold their arms up. Those who had no hair under their arms were considered young enough to be taken away, indoctrinated and turned into bombers or jihadists; those who showed signs of puberty or maturity were shot. The fact that anyone can act with such callous, utter brutality in this day and age is almost beyond belief. The fact that they do it in the name of a religion, the name of which means peace, is absolutely unforgivable, impossible to contemplate and utterly inexcusable.
To anyone out there who thinks that this ghastly, nihilist death cult can in any way triumph, may I say what a pleasure it is to see the Palmyra arch being erected in Trafalgar Square as a physical demonstration of our commitment? Daesh can crush, destroy, kill, rape or maim, but it will never, ever win. It will not be allowed to win, because if it does, darkness will descend on the earth and we will be in a terrifying place.
The motion is extremely well crafted and beautifully phrased—I do not want to heap overmuch praise on the hon. Member for Congleton, because she is already embarrassed—and using the definition within it is incredibly important. We are quite rightly concentrating on the horrific circumstances of the Yazidis, but let us not forget that Daesh has probably killed more Muslims than people from any other religious or ethnic group. It does not in any way defend or protect its co-religionists; it slaughters indiscriminately.
Robert Flello
I gently take my hon. Friend to task for saying “indiscriminately”. Daesh does kill indiscriminately when it comes to some groups, but it absolutely discriminates when it comes to Christians and Yazidis, because it wants to exterminate them and completely eradicate them from the world.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend quite correctly takes me to task. I meant that Daesh’s slaughter was universal, but it does of course target some groups specifically.
At least one hon. Member present has been with me to northern Iraq, actually broken bread with members of the Assyrian Christian community, and seen the lives that they lived. Their lives were always difficult, but they were able to live and practise their faith in something approaching peace, even under the dark days of Saddam Hussein. To see those people now being hunted down, specifically discriminated against and slaughtered on the grounds of their faith is utterly chilling and terrifying. Is it not extraordinary how many of them refuse to recant or recuse, and how many say, “This is our faith”? In some cases, they die for that faith. That is extraordinary and testament to the courage that still exists. As for a specific genocide, the Jewish people are also being destroyed. The magnificent, huge Jewish community in Iraq that did so much for the country is being specifically hunted down and destroyed. We must never forget that whole groups of people are suffering.
This comes down to the word “genocide”. I have had so many debates on the Floor of the House about the Armenian genocide of 1915. I call it genocide, but I appreciate that the House chooses not to call the massacre of nearly 2 million Armenians a genocide because the word was not promulgated until 1948. In reality, however, we know it was genocide. To deny that recognition through the use of the word to a group of people who suffered that way is a double discrimination. It is a double death, in many ways. Let us call this what it is: this is genocide, and Daesh must not be allowed to triumph and win.
What can we do in this House? We must of course make the reference to the United Nations, but I want to speak beyond this House for a moment. We are not in a hermetically sealed bubble here; we are the sounding board of the nation. People are watching us and listening to us, and it is possible that somewhere in the dark places of our cities and towns there are people who are tempted by this death cult. There may be people who, as an excuse for their own inadequacies or some compensation for their failures, like the idea that they can go and die gloriously for this twisted philosophy. I want to speak to those outside this Chamber for a second. If anyone watching thinks that the great religion of Islam is calling them to go and slaughter children or unborn babies, to rape, to loot or to murder, read the holy Koran, the hadiths and the surahs. They will not find those words in the holy book. If anyone out there huddled away in darkness actually feels tempted for a moment to leave this country, their city, or our community to go and kill before they die, please think. They have the gift of life at the present time. Hold that gift of life. It is too precious to throw away, as are the lives of others; their lives matter just as much.
Why are Christians, Muslims, Assyrian Christians, the Shabak, and Jews being persecuted in this way? What have they done to bring this Armageddon down on their heads? They have not in any way threatened forced conversions on people who subscribe to the ISIS-Daesh philosophy. This is a war of aggression that must be described by the one word—the only word—that describes it today: genocide. This House must speak to not just fellow legislators or the United Nations, but all those out there who are thinking about the issue, and who may be even remotely tempted to move into an area so dark, deep and desperate that only the worst and most serious word, one which describes the ultimate crime, accurately describes the full horror of what is happening to communities in Syria and Iraq. We all know what that word is. Let us be united in this House, and hopefully outside, and say that what is happening is genocide, and has to be recognised as such.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I appreciate the contributions made by hon. Members so far, especially that of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who made a powerful case. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for allowing us to recognise in this debate that what we are seeing in parts of Syria and Iraq is the genocide of Yazidis, Christians and other religious minorities.
As we debate the nature of what is going on in Iraq and Syria, we must understand the nature of the organisation perpetrating the crimes. Daesh and its followers have a particular interpretation of Islam, which they use to attack those who do not subscribe to the same religion or interpretation of their religion, meaning that, in addition to the targeted persecution of Christians and Yazidis, Shi’ite Muslims are also killed and persecuted, as are many Sunni Muslims.
When the Sinjar disaster happened, 200,000 Yazidis were driven from their homes, with 40,000 trapped on Mount Sinjar, where they faced either slaughter by Daesh if they came down or dehydration and death if they remained. The number of Christians in Syria has dropped from 2 million to 1 million, and their number in Iraq has dropped from 1.4 million to fewer than 260,000.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Like other Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing the debate. The figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) cites are very much an example of the fact that Christianity is dying in its cradle, which is why so many of our constituents who are fellow Christians have contacted us about this genocide. Does he agree?
Chris Green
Absolutely. This is why many people in Britain are leading the debate, because they recognise this to be a genocide, and I appreciate that many, if not all, Members in this Chamber agree with so many of the British people.
Daesh is creating what it would deem to be the caliphate, targeting those who do not fit into that vision. We have seen the systematic persecution, torture, enslavement, rape, kidnap and murder of a number of groups solely because of their religious identity. Daesh’s desire to establish a caliphate in the territory it holds is only a starting point; it is intending to draw many more Muslims from across the region, Europe and beyond. Clearly, Daesh is an expansionist organisation that has far greater territorial ambitions than to hold on to the land it currently has, and so, given the opportunity, it will take more land and subject more people to the systematic persecution and killing with which we have become familiar.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that this issue has many of the hallmarks of what we faced 75 years ago, in that Daesh is like National Socialism: it is not just a movement trying to take over one country; it is a movement trying to make a race and a belief dominant, and in doing so eliminate its opponents?
Chris Green
My hon. Friend is entirely right to speak of Daesh in this ideological way. People are getting caught up in this and are divorced from their humanity—the humanity they would have been raised with and that they see around them. More must be done to ensure that we tackle that extremism, be it online or from other sources.
The continued existence of Daesh means it will continue to be a draw and an inspiration if this caliphate does take hold and persist. To see that, we need only look at Libya, where Daesh-inspired terrorists kidnapped and beheaded 21 Coptic Christians—the anniversary of that was recently marked by a service in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.
Genocide is fundamentally about committing acts with the intent to destroy, in part or in whole, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Although the classification of “genocide” is a matter of legal rather than political interpretation, for the international courts and the United Nations Security Council, this is not simply a debate about semantics. Furthermore, it is important for the British people, through their Government and the media, to understand what is going on in the middle east. Does the term “human rights violation” really fit what we see happening to Christians in the region? Can the systematic and targeted attacks on the Yazidis really be understood by referring to them as one of a number of middle eastern “humanitarian crises”?
The UK is playing a leading role in a global coalition of 66 countries and international organisations responding to Daesh’s inhumanity, but I join the voices of many in this House by asking the Government to make a referral to the UN Security Council. A referral from the Security Council is the only means by which the International Criminal Court can investigate and prosecute these acts of genocide. Genocide is understood by most to be the gravest crime against humanity, and this is what is being perpetrated by Daesh. We have a responsibility as a democratic nation to apply pressure to the international judicial bodies.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
In an impressive speech, the hon. Gentleman has, like other Members, used the word “genocide” to describe the treatment of Christians and Yazidis. Does he think it would be helpful and possibly powerful if there were a vote on this motion, so that this House confirmed its definition of the treatment of the Christians and Yazidis as genocide?
Chris Green
I shall end by saying how much I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this House needs to have a vote so that we can make that point loud and clear.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on a motion that is of supreme importance to me personally. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate and echo her thanks for the work done in the House of Lords in the past few years to bring this issue to the attention of the UK population and us in this place. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place.
I wanted to write a speech that would provide evidence that this was a genocide, but that has been covered by other Members, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for Congleton. Therefore, I will focus my remarks on my experience and why this subject is so important to me, and why it is so important to us as a humanitarian country—a country that believes in human rights.
As a Member of Parliament, I have, over the past eight or nine months, travelled to Rojava, in Syria, to the Kurdistan Regional Government region of Iraq and to Turkey. I have been to the refugee camps of the Yazidi people: I have been to the Nowruz camp in Rojava and to refugee camps outside Batman and Diyarbakir in Turkey. I have spoken to many men, women and children—Yazidis and Alevis—who have been affected by the actions of Daesh. Their lives have been inexorably and demonstrably changed by what has happened to them in their communities and in their countries. It is that experience that brings me here to the Chamber today to speak and to show how what is happening is genocide.
I was in Rojava for eight days. I met members of the organisation Yekitiya Star, to which other Members have referred, in which Kurdish women—Muslims, not Yazidi women—work with Yazidi women to try to bring back those women who have been abducted, raped and brutalised. They have experienced barbarism. Those women who have had these terrible experiences—the worst experiences—are ashamed to return to their communities because of what has happened to them. Children of nine and 10 have been raped and impregnated. They are victims of a brutal system that demeans religions and demeans people. The system is about bringing them to account. Those women spoke powerfully to all of us who were there in Rojava. They told us that people from the Kurdish movement in Rojava were buying back women at auctions, using the resources of Rojava to bring women back from slavery. Sometimes they were found out. Sometimes Daesh worked out that they were trying to stop the enslavement by buying back the women. In such cases, those women disappeared. These are powerful stories of what is happening to women and men in that area.
I had a perfectly crafted speech to read out, but I have decided to speak freely. Yesterday, I listened to the testimony of Ekhlas, a 15-year-old who was abducted from her house. I will not paraphrase what she said, as I took down her words directly. I will read out her testimony, as her voice and the voice of the Yazidi and Alevi women deserve to be heard in this place. If anyone wants to intervene on me, could they do so now, as I will read out Ekhlas’s words.
“There was a knock at our door. We were targeted because our religion and belief is different from theirs, and our humanity is different from theirs, because we believe in the Angel Taus. In our religion, we do not believe in rape. We do not believe that innocents should be killed, or that a child should be cut up and his mother forced to eat him. My father and my two brothers were killed in front of me. They took me away from my mother. He grabbed my arm and my leg and then he raped me. He was 32 years old; I was 15. After they raped me, they took my friend and they raped her. I could hear her shouting, ‘Where is the mercy? Where is the mercy? There must be some mercy in their hearts.’ They killed the men and they took the girls. Any girls over the age of nine were raped—like me. What does a nine year understand about sex or rape? What did she do to deserve this? I saw this nine-year-old girl raped with my own eyes, by not one man but several. I saw her die”
because her body could not handle the brutality.
“We saw a two-year-old boy killed, then ground in to meat and fed to his mother who did not know what she was eating.”
Some younger girls were taken. She said:
“Some young girls were impregnated, and were only children. What are they going to do as pregnant children? There is so much brainwashing. Daesh tell you your religion and brainwash children”.
They arm them, and they
“put them in front of their own parents and demand that they kill them. Listen to me, I am begging you. Listen to me, listen to what I am telling. Help us. I beg of you. Listen to me. Help the girls who are still in captivity. Let us all stand hand-in-hand and take a stand. This is a genocide against Christians and Yazidis”—
and others—
“This is about dignity, this is about humanity in dignity. If you are a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a human, do not close your ears. I plead with you, please listen.”
This is a genocide.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
That was a very moving speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry).
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate.
“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”
That is Daesh. For the members of this death cult, the destruction of a way of life, an ideology and a set of beliefs that is not theirs is both their ultimate and sole aim. Daesh is self-defining as a committer of genocide. To achieve that, its members rape, enslave, and decapitate. Their victims are Muslims, Kurds, Yazidis and Christians.
The Syrian Centre for Policy Research estimates that in Syria, approximately 470,000 people have been killed either directly or indirectly as a result of the five years of civil war. What is most shocking is that the United Nations has given up estimating the number, because the numbers are so vast that it cannot provide verifiable statistics. Whatever the number of those killed, millions more have been displaced and lost. Each cowardly act of death and destruction is just that—a cowardly act—but put together, these acts make up a reign of terror, targeted at a specific group of people. This is the systematic murder—genocide—of the people who form these communities, the cultural heritage that has tied them together for generations and the values and beliefs that define them.
I heard first hand what Daesh do. I was lucky—or unlucky—enough to meet a young, brave Yazidi woman called Nadia Murad, in a meeting co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for which I give him credit. She had been taken by Daesh as a sex slave. Her race was justification enough for the horrific way in which she, her family and her community were mistreated and destroyed.
We failed to prevent genocide in Bosnia. In Germany, the Nazis were appeased while they targeted Jews. The death cult of misfits that we face now cannot be allowed to get away with this any longer. In Iraq and Syria, Daesh’s statements have taken credit for the mass murder and persecution of Christians and have shown its clear intent to purge Christian communities from the area it claims as its own. As a country, we show a weakness by failing to acknowledge the extent of the persecution against Yazidis, Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities. We are failing the victims of deliberate and targeted persecution, where race, faith and gender are all the excuse that Daesh needs to find new and innocent targets for mass murder. If we do not recognise these acts as genocide, we effectively declare that we are not willing to take all action necessary to bring it to an end and to bring the perpetrators to justice, as they deserve.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
A week after the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) brought Nadia Murad to the House of Commons, I was fortunate enough to bring her to the Public Gallery here. In fact, she went up there with my wife who, incidentally, is the daughter of holocaust survivors. Afterwards, as I am sure the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber will agree, Nadia was so grateful. I could not understand why she was so grateful to us, but I think it was because she had faith in this House. She genuinely believed that we would act to help her and her people. She was not one of our jaded constituents. She thought that this House meant something, and that we would do something to help her and her people.
Nusrat Ghani
My hon. Friend is right. As the oldest democracy in the world, we have a responsibility to Nadia Murad also.
We would be complicit in overlooking the scale of criminality that is ongoing and largely unpunished. That is not a position that a country steadfast in its commitment to fairness, freedom and justice should be relaxed about. The UN Security Council’s declaring these acts to be genocide is key to preventing the spread of terrorism and radicalisation, and it allows an international criminal tribunal to be set up to try the terrorists who are committing these heinous acts and to bring them to true justice. That is why I support the motion.
On 12 April, when the Minister was challenged on the issue, he said:
“I too believe that acts of genocide have taken place”.—[Official Report, 12 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 165.]
I hope we can move on from that statement today.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I was present when the Minister gave that response. Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that this afternoon the whole House will be given the opportunity to send a powerful message by voting and being united in that vote, and inviting Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries—those on the payroll—to vote as well, to send a strong message that what is happening is genocide?
Nusrat Ghani
My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement. I, too, hope that is the case. Sending cross-party support today will also be a very strong message.
Previous generations have already struggled to explain Bosnia, Rwanda and the Nazi persecutions. Now it is our turn to decide whether we will have to explain to future generations what we did or did not do against the death cult Daesh. Historical memory can be a tool of prevention, but it is rare that society uses it in that way. Let us be the generation that does use it as a tool of prevention. The Nazis wrote history, the Bosnian Serbs wrote history, and Daesh is currently destroying and rewriting history all at once. Not satisfied with destroying the past and present of races, faiths and genders, it is destroying the future of those communities too. It is our collective job, as a member of the UN family of nations, to make sure that those communities are not just a blot of ink in the story of Daesh.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). I agree with every word she said. We have had a fantastic debate today and, like her, I hope the Government will support the motion so that we can move forward and ensure that action is taken as a consequence of the debate.
Many hon. Members have already congratulated the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on tabling the motion. She is to be congratulated. We should be proud that we are debating a matter of such importance in the House today.
We have a moral responsibility to speak out against the crimes of genocide that have taken place against Christians, Yazidis and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria. We should be exercising that responsibility today by passing the motion, which calls upon the UK Government to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council to grant the International Criminal Court the mandate to bring the perpetrators to justice.
As the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) recently reminded the House, the allied Governments made a joint statement on 17 December 1942 condemning genocide and committing themselves to bringing the Nazis to justice for their crimes. Just as we stood against genocide then and made sure that those responsible would face justice, we must show the required leadership today when faced with genocide in Syria and Iraq. The Government need to show leadership in pressing for recognition of the fact that genocide has taken place, and we must all reflect on why, on a moral, ethical and humanitarian basis, action must be taken.
Genocide is understood as the deliberate, systematic extermination of national, racial, political or cultural groups, and that is exactly what has been taking place. The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Syria have seen the deliberate targeting of Yazidis, Christians and other minority groups. The Yazidi town of Sinjar was captured by Daesh in August 2014, and the seizure of the town and the surrounding districts unleashed the ethnic cleansing of the Yazidi people. A UN report tells us that 200,000 Yazidis were driven from their homes after the fall of Sinjar. At least 40,000 were trapped on Mount Sinjar; cut off by Daesh, these people were without food, water or shelter. As has been said, the choice for many was slaughter by Daesh if they fled or dehydration if they stayed.
The UN has estimated that 5,000 men were massacred and 7,000 women were enslaved in that action. The women captured by Daesh were sold into sexual slavery, and many were displaced throughout Daesh-controlled territory. As we have heard, the testimony of survivors—Yazidis and Christians—tells of the horrific and daily violence carried out against them, and that has been a deliberate policy on the part of Daesh.
Last night, as we have heard, a young Yazidi woman, Ekhlas, came to Parliament to tell her story. It was a most harrowing account of what had happened to her and her family—a graphic description of what has happened not only to her, but to thousands of other people in Syria and Iraq. Before Ekhlas spoke, she was introduced by a human rights lawyer, Jacqueline Isaac. Jacqueline spoke of the fear of the knock on the door by fighters from Daesh, which would lead to people being categorised into different groups, with murder, rape and hostage-taking commonplace. That is exactly what took place with the Nazis in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. That resulted in the UK Government signalling their intent in 1942 to bring the perpetrators to justice. If that was right in 1942, it is right in this House today, in 2016.
When we close this debate, I hope that the House and the Government will unite in supporting the motion, and that we can do the right thing for the Yazidis, Christians and other minorities who have suffered the wholesale removal of their communities from the region.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that although these minorities are being persecuted because of their religion, the debate should not be about advocating one religion or another? This is about the basic human right for all of us to pursue any faith we choose or none. Does he recognise that there are many people of different faiths in the House, but that there are also people of no faith, who will defend to the bitter end the right of others to exercise their faith and to do so without persecution?
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which has not been made so far. As a practising Christian, I am happy to accept everyone’s right to express their religion, whatever it is, or none at all. It is important that in this Chamber today we stand up for everybody.
When Ekhlas closed her submission last night, she implored us to help—she said, “I’m asking for help.” Our responsibility to Ekhlas and everybody else means that we must heed that plea. What will we do for Ekhlas? We must stand up and support the call for the UN Security Council to confer jurisdiction on the International Criminal Court so that we can take action.
The peshmerga attacked the place where Ekhlas was being held, and she managed to escape, before being rescued by Yazidis. This brave young woman, who has faced so much and witnessed such utter horrors, wants to become a lawyer and to fight for women’s rights. Maybe, just maybe, if she fulfils that ambition, she can play her part in the legal team that brings her persecutors to justice. We must help her and those like her who have suffered from the genocide.
The situation in Syria and Iraq is catastrophic and has led to one of the worst humanitarian crises we have ever witnessed. ADF International says that the number of Christians in Syria has fallen from 2 million in 2011 to 1 million in 2015. The number of Christians in Iraq has fallen from 1.4 million to 260,000.
Daesh has documented in its official propaganda its specific intention to destroy Christian groups in Syria and Iraq. In February 2015, Daesh seized 35 Assyrian Christian villages and kidnapped more than 300 Christians, with more than 1,200 fleeing to safety. Thirty-five villages were cleared and deserted in that one act alone.
The atrocities satisfy the criteria established in the convention on genocide. Recognising that genocide has taken place and signalling that those responsible will face justice is an important tool in the fight to defeat Daesh. We need to send a clear message to all the minorities that are being attacked that we are not going to abandon them. We and other nations must stand shoulder to shoulder at the United Nations and show our resolve.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I agree with my hon. Friend that the perpetrators of this genocide should be brought to justice in the International Criminal Court. Does he agree that there also needs to be an international effort to find the Yazidi women captured by Daesh?
Ian Blackford
I fully agree. The young woman we met last night is a perfect example of that: the actions of the peshmerga managed to free her and she got into the safe hands of the Yazidis. We need to support the peshmerga and other like-minded people to make sure that we can get to safety the women and men captured by Daesh.
I hope that when the Minister sums up the debate, he makes it clear that the Government support the motion. Others have already taken a similar step. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recognised genocide in a resolution passed on 27 January. That was followed by a European Parliament resolution on 4 February, which recognised the crimes as genocide and sought a referral to the International Criminal Court. On 14 March, the US House of Representatives recognised the crimes against humanity and of genocide. Three days later, the US Secretary Of State announced that the US had determined that the Daesh actions against the Yazidis, Christians and other minorities constituted genocide.
Why have the UK Government been silent and why has no action been taken? The Foreign Secretary has said that the Government support the efforts of the International Criminal Court to end impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern by holding perpetrators to account, but the Court has to be enabled to do that, and the UN Security Council has to provide that enablement. We keep hearing about the importance of the UK’s membership of the Security Council, so today is the United Kingdom’s chance to show leadership and to take action—to stand up for Ekhlas and to respond to her plea for help for all those who have suffered. Are we going to do the right thing in 2016, just as we did in 1942, or are we just going to stand back, wring our hands and watch as Daesh reaps its bitter harvest?
The UK is a signatory to the convention on genocide. We have an obligation to recognise what has taken place. I hope and pray that this afternoon the House, collectively and united, does the right thing.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her tremendous efforts in securing the debate.
Words matter, and saying that Daesh is committing acts of genocide against Christians and Yazidis is not just a statement of fact, because it also forces us to realise that genocide is, unfortunately, an inherent part of Daesh’s depraved operations. The acts that have been mentioned today, including the assassination of church leaders, systematic torture and mass murder, mock crucifixions, sexual enslavement and systematic rape, which the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) spoke about in shocking, appalling and powerful detail, are genocidal not just by consequence, but by design. That distinction is clear in Daesh’s propaganda sheet “Dabiq”, the latest edition of which attacks any form of pluralism or tolerance as being in direct contradiction to its twisted view of Islam, stating:
“the death of a single Muslim, no matter his role in society, is more grave…than the massacre of every kafir on earth.”
The same article explicitly clarifies:
“Any disbeliever standing in the way of the Islamic State will be killed, without pity or remorse, until…governance is entirely for Allah.”
Such sentiments are incompatible with the presence of minority groups in Daesh territory, and we are seeing a concentrated effort by Daesh not only to obliterate any minority presence, but to deny the cultural history of the territory that it seeks to occupy.
The number of Christians in Syria has halved, and in Iraq it has dropped from 1.4 million to just 240,000. Perhaps even more striking is that the historical settlement of 60,000 Christians in Mosul has entirely disappeared. Along with that, there has been a targeted destruction of sites, including St Elijah’s monastery, historic libraries and any representational art. Edicts have instructed Daesh troops to engage in the wholesale destruction of any non-Islamic sites of worship.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and Daesh’s ignorance and denial of the historical and cultural nature of the area is crucial. I studied the early caliphate, and in that period many leaders of the Muslim world described the classical world that they took over as a garden protected by their spears. Is it not tragic that Daesh’s perversion of Islam is so different from the vision set out by those early caliphs?
David Warburton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not only tragic but bizarre and unimaginable that Daesh has taken its own religion and turned it into something so distinctly different from what was intended.
Robert Jenrick
Last year I and several other Members persuaded the Government to create a £30 million cultural protection fund, and they are in the process of deciding the criteria for how that will be spent. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the money should go to the heritage and sites of persecuted religious minorities, such as Christian and Yazidi groups in Syria and Iraq, to protect historic sites, churches and manuscripts for future generations?
David Warburton
I could not agree more. The cultural demolition is explicitly linked to the genocidal aims that we are discussing.
To say that Christians and Yazidis are victims of genocide is not to minimise the terrible suffering of others in the region. In a debate held on a similar motion in another place, Lord Bates was entirely right to point out that it is often Muslims who suffer the greatest brutality at the hands of Daesh. Over the past six months, the United States Congress, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the US Secretary of State have all declared that Daesh is committing genocide.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the bodies that have declared that genocide is being committed. Having heard from Daesh itself, and having been witness to so many young Yazidi women who come here to tell us their story, what more could it take for this House to form the view that this is genocide, and to have the courage to stand up and say so?
David Warburton
I agree with the hon. Lady, and the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow East gave us an immensely powerful first-person perspective.
I completely understand the Government’s approach, which is that a decision on whether the word “genocide” is applicable is for international judicial bodies, rather than Governments or other non-judicial bodies. However, as the open letter from a group of peers to the Prime Minister on 18 February stated,
“there is nothing to prevent Her Majesty’s Government from forming and acting upon its own view”.
A vote for the motion would begin the process of a possible referral to the International Criminal Court from the UN Security Council. It would send a signal to the perpetrators that they will be brought to justice and it would, perhaps most crucially of all, act as a spur to the other 127 signatories to the 1948 convention to add their support. An émigré writer of a previous generation who fled persecution said:
“Words without experience are meaningless.”
The reverse is also true. When hundreds of thousands of people are suffering in such a way, we must apply the only word that is adequate for the job, and support this important motion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Pakistan religious minorities, and of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief—for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no beliefs, who the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) mentioned in his intervention.
The organisation that we are talking about has many names—IS, Islamic State, ISIL, ISIS and Daesh—and many guises but, above all, it is made up of systematic, psychopathic serial killers. The subject of the debate is clear: it is about ethnic and religious minorities such as the Yazidis and the Christians. I am pleased to see the Minister in the Chamber and look forward to hearing his response. We have talked about the matter this year on a personal basis. I hope that today Members will express ourselves clearly about what we wish to do regarding the word “genocide”. We have heard many powerful, passionate and focused speeches, and I particularly want to highlight the speech made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who set the scene very well. I am pleased to have her not only as a colleague, but as a friend.
The Daesh atrocities rival any atrocity in modern history. Too many people turn a blind eye or offer only weak words, and some even attempt to rationalise Daesh’s actions. Strong words have been spoken in the House today, and what this self-declared state is doing is absolutely disgraceful. Will it care if its actions are called genocide or not? No, it will not, but we in this House and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should set the bar for the rest of the international community by saying that this cannot go on without it being condemned to the utmost and labelled appropriately as what it is—genocide. I correspond with some 90 churches in my constituency, and they feel very strongly about this brutality, violence, depravity and evil. We must be ever mindful of the fact that those who survive physically are traumatised forever.
Islamic State militants are selling abducted Iraqi children at markets as sex slaves and killing other youth by means including crucifixion or burial alive. They are given a “convert or die” ultimatum—that is genocide. Twenty-one Egyptian Christians were kidnapped in the Libyan coastal city of Sirte in two separate incidents in December 2014 and January 2015. In February 2015, they were beheaded on a Libyan beach in a chilling propaganda video produced by the self-declared Islamic State—that is genocide. After capturing the key strategic town of al-Baghdadi, which is just five miles from the al-Asad air base, Daesh rounded up 45 civilians from the town, some of whom were thought to be Iraqi security forces and their families, and burned them all alive—that is genocide.
On 10 June 2014, Daesh took some 600 male prisoners into the desert near Mosul in Iraq and initiated a mass execution. Approximately 30 men survived by rolling into the mass grave with the dead bodies. The pictures are absolutely chilling and call to mind terrifying memories of the worst genocide of the 20th century. A survivor recounts a Daesh leader saying:
“The Sunnis must stand on one side. The Shi’a, Kurds and Yazidis must stand on the other. If I find out that a Shi’a is among the Sunnis, I am going to cut off his head with a sheet of metal.”
Such words are spoken by those in Daesh who have a hatred for everyone who is not of their kind.
The men were interrogated about their beliefs, names, home towns and other details. Witnesses said that about 100 Shi’a prisoners were successful at pretending to be Sunni to escape further violence. The remaining Shi’a, Kurdish, Christian and Yazidi prisoners were then searched. Everything was taken from them: their money, their watches, their rings, their jewellery and their identity cards. One survivor said:
“The moment they made us give up all of our possessions, I knew they were going to kill us.”
The prisoners had been given no food or water for 24 hours, but Daesh militants promised them supplies as they drove deeper into the desert. When they arrived, the militants told them,
“you’ll have water in paradise.”
The militants then made the men kneel in a single line along the rim of a curved ravine six to 12 feet deep. They were asked to number themselves off, with each person forced to
“raise his hand and say his number.”
Survivors said that many of the gunmen were young. Some appeared nervous, while others were excited, including some who joked at the end of the count, when they shot the prisoners, that they had “a nice-size head”, and some who said that they were going to “eat well tonight”. That is genocide.
Further documented incidents include the 1,700 captives executed in Tikrit in Iraq, the 650 people executed in Mosul in Iraq, the 1,000 Turks who were massacred, including some 100 children, and the more than 2,000 women and children who have been kidnapped. In the UN’s words, this is
“systematic hunting of members of ethnic and religious groups”—
that is genocide. Women have been raped and sold, and young boys have been executed. Girls have been enslaved for sexual abuse, and children have been recruited as suicide bombers. There are more than 1 million refugees, half of them children.
I am conscious of the time, but it might help the Minister—I hope it does—if I mention what has happened in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly asked the Attorney General for Northern Ireland for direction on
“whether the violence currently being perpetrated against Christians and other minority religious groups (notably Yazidis and members of certain Islamic communities) by Daesh…in territory controlled by them in Syria and Iraq constitutes genocide within the meaning of the December 9 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ‘the Genocide Convention’.”
He replied:
“If behaviour can be properly classified as genocide then a range of international law consequences ensue. The first of these consequences is the activation of the twofold undertaking by contracting parties contained in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention to prevent and to punish genocide. Article 1 reads as follows:
‘The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.’”
The day of reckoning for Daesh is here. The Attorney General for Northern Ireland has said:
“it seems to me that actual or potential victims of genocide have a right to truthful acknowledgement of their circumstances and that governments are under a corresponding duty to make such acknowledgements...I have no hesitation in saying that the violence perpetrated against these protected groups does constitute genocide.”
I hope that the Minister will keep in mind the words of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and what he has decreed in Northern Ireland because, legally, it might help the Minister to make a decision on this matter.
Amnesty International’s publication “Ethnic Cleansing on a Historic Scale: Islamic State’s Systematic Targeting of Minorities in Northern Iraq” details, with eyewitness testimony, several more Daesh atrocities in Iraq. At least 100 men and boys have been herded together and shot to death in Kocho. Scores of men and boys have been summarily executed in Qiniyeh. More than 50 men have been rounded up and shot dead near Jdali. The dead boys, the raped girls and the captive villagers gunned down for refusing to renounce their faith are the people who die every day at the hands of ISIS or Daesh.
This is not a horror movie—I wish it was. This is taking place just a plane flight away. It is time we called this what it is: it is systematic, it is calculated, and it is genocide.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to take part in this extremely important debate. The Government must be in no doubt that if the motion passes on a vote, it cannot be ignored. Other Back-Bench motions come before the House, but this one is of the very highest seriousness and importance, and we will not let it be ignored. We will return to it again and again in this House until the Government properly make a justified referral to the Security Council.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)—she has already received enormous tributes, and she should receive more. She is very much the voice of the voiceless and a champion of human dignity. It must be said that the same is true of the noble Lord Alton, who is watching in the Gallery. He has done sterling work in trying to encourage, cajole and entice the Government to do what is right in every sense. This is about being a voice. Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) made a passionate speech, not least by bringing to bear the voice of those with the harrowing experience of being the victim of the appalling actions of ISIS.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) mentioned the replica of the Palmyra arch, which hon. Members can see when they go up to Trafalgar Square. I had the privilege of seeing it unveiled. The head of antiquities from Syria made it clear that he was proud that we were able to stand in solidarity with the Syrians who have been the victims of appalling crimes. The replica of the Palmyra arch provides a declaration of that solidarity. Today, we are standing in solidarity by declaring that this is a genocide. However, he and the victims would want us to do more, and the motion will do more, because it has teeth and aims to ensure that there are legal obligations.
The hon. Gentleman said that the message of the Palmyra arch is that ISIS cannot win. The motion is about saying that it cannot win, that it needs to be held to account and that there must be justice. The head of UNESCO said that the destruction not only of the arch, but of churches, monasteries and shrines, which has affected many religious groups, is cultural genocide. These are war crimes and ISIS needs to be held to account. The Government have recognised that there needs to be an accountability mechanism for cultural destruction, which is why I look forward to the Queen’s Speech including the belated ratification of The Hague convention and its second protocol, the purpose of which is to show that there will be accountability for cultural destruction.
It would be extraordinary if we ratified The Hague convention and provided for accountability for cultural destruction, but did not ensure that there was accountability for acts of genocide. We need to ensure that the declaration that ISIS cannot win, which is being made in Trafalgar Square, is made again today by our passing the motion unanimously. We must also take action.
I will not repeat the examples that have been mentioned, but they make the clear case that there is a deliberate and ruthless targeting not only of culture, but of history and people, whether they be Yazidis, Christians or other religious groups. There is kidnapping and enslavement. A recent UN report stated that at least 3,500 people have been enslaved. Many people have been executed—this is on jihadist websites—with that chilling demand, “Convert or die.”
We are not simply acting in solidarity or making a position statement. It is important that we hold the Government to account, as is our duty as parliamentarians. What have the Government done over the many months in which this demand has been made? There was a concern that the Government’s response would have to be categorised as “walk on by”. I say that with sadness, but if one goes back to 16 December, the noble Baroness Anelay of St Johns gave a parliamentary answer in which she said:
“We are not submitting any evidence of possible genocide against Yezidis and Christians to international courts, nor have we been asked to.”
It would be extraordinary if our Government simply sat on their hands and did not make any referrals. There are obligations on the Government under the genocide convention to take a view and act upon it.
I welcome the fact that the Government have moved on since then. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who will respond to the debate, said this month:
“we are helping to gather evidence that could be used to hold Daesh to account appropriately.”
I ask him to confirm that the Government are doing that, and that they are referring evidence that comes forward to the Security Council.
How else could we categorise the Government’s response? In some ways, they are going around in circles. As we have heard, the Minister has stated:
“We as the Government are not the prosecutor, the judge or the jury. Such matters are determined first in the international courts and in the United Nations Security Council”.—[Official Report, 12 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 165.]
However, such matters are not determined by the courts first and then in the Security Council; the Security Council has a key role to play. The Minister gave himself a way through this. The Security Council can make a referral, and that is what the motion is about. The Government cannot simply defer to the international courts and go around in circles.
Many noble Lords and eminent Queen’s counsel wrote a letter to the Prime Minister making that very point, saying:
“there is nothing to prevent Her Majesty’s Government forming and acting upon its own view.”
The Government have decided not to take a view for policy reasons—I do not understand exactly why—unlike other Governments and authorities. They could ensure that there was a referral through the Security Council mechanism, as a permanent member. I therefore repeat the question of those eminent Lords and QCs: why will the Government not
“reconsider its position and…clarify why it operates a policy of refusing to recognize acts of genocide, when so many other nations do not?”
That is the first question, but we cannot leave it at that. The Government have to ask themselves—the Minister has to explain—why they are not making proper plans and using their means to go to the Security Council to ensure that there is a referral to the International Criminal Court. Is the concern not necessarily about the evidence of genocide, but the legal consequences? Is it the concern, which was mentioned earlier, that this will, quite properly, have implications for victims, who at long last would have the assurance that there will be justice and that, if it can be achieved, they will see the perpetrators held to account before a court? Those people would also, importantly, have the opportunity to be recognised as victims so that there could be reparation and restoration—not in a digital form, as with the Palmyra arch, but in a real form for their lives that have been seriously damaged. There are also implications of settlement and safety for refugees, particularly from religious minorities, who are struggling to find proper routes of safe passage. Is that the Government’s concern? Please assuage my fears and say that it is not.
Today we are making a declaration of solidarity. We are all saying to the Government that they must hold ISIS to account for the gravest of grave crimes, namely genocide. Be assured that we will not let the Government ignore the motion. They must take action for the good of all the groups we have mentioned, and the good of the whole civilised world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I would rather not restrain this important and sombre debate, but I now have to reduce the time limit for speeches to five minutes.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Like others, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for giving the House the opportunity to respond to the pleas that we have heard from a number of Yazidi young women who have come here to tell us not just of their experience, but of the plight of those like them who remain in captivity.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) gave a passionate speech, in which she quoted Ekhlas’s words yesterday. I too had written down those words. As other Members have said, we have heard from Nadia Murad, who, in a meeting hosted by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) and sponsored by the all-party parliamentary group on human rights, told us of her experiences. We also heard from Salwa Khalaf Rasho, in March. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have hosted women witnesses who have come to give us their testimony: the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has such experience in the region.
This is what we heard from Nadia:
“Islamic State had one intention, to destroy the Yazidi identity by force, rape, recruitment of children and the destruction of holy sites they captured, especially against Yazidi women where they used rape as a means of destruction for Yazidi women and girls, ensuring these women will never return to a normal life. But it was not only me who suffered, it was a collective suffering. The Islamic State gave us two choices, convert or die. For those who accepted to convert, fearing for their lives, their men were killed, women were enslaved and children were recruited.”
She went on to speak of the desperate journeys that many people tried to make. She not only appealed to us to recognise the genocide happening to her people—and other minorities, including Christians in Iraq and Syria—for what it is, but asked:
“Open your borders for my community, we are victims of a genocide and we have the right to seek a safe place where our dignity will be preserved. We request that to give Yazidis and other threatened minorities the choice to resettle, especially the victims of human trafficking, as Germany did.”
Nadia wrote to us only this week, again not just asking us to recognise what the Yazidis are suffering as genocide, but asking the UK to undertake a programme similar to that in Germany, where 1,000 Yazidi women and girls were admitted for treatment and counselling on special two-year visas.
As I said, we also heard from Salwa Khalaf Rasho, who told us how she and other people contemplated suicide as they were being separated into different groups at 3 o’clock in the morning in a sports hall in Mosul, after a day of humiliating and molested travel by bus. They knew what was happening. She told us how, some days later after even more treatment like this, a 17-year-old girl, Gilan from Tal Afar, committed suicide. After she learned that Daesh had killed her family, she cut her wrists. In revenge, the Daesh terrorists took her dead body and threw it to the dogs.
We know from all that we have heard that this is indeed genocide. We should not be cavilling, quibbling or hesitating about this. We know that the depraved crimes of Daesh are unspeakable, but that should not mean that we should fail to call this the genocide that it truly is. According to the UN, genocide is killing members of a specific group, causing grievous harm, deliberately inflicting conditions designed to bring about the group’s destruction, preventing births within the community, or forcibly transferring its children.
We know that those who are perpetrating these crimes are doing so to exterminate and extinguish a people. We know that they mean what they are doing to be genocide, with all its bloody and awful consequences. We know that those who are suffering from these terrible crimes know that it is genocide and know that it is meant as genocide. Why should we as a Chamber hesitate to say, “We know what the word genocide means, and we know it is being committed against the Yazidi people”?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with all of that, and I want to follow on directly from the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). This is a vital motion and an important moment for the Minister. We want no more weasel words; we want him to accept this motion; we want him to accept what this motion calls for in clear and explicit terms, which is for the Government
“to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court”.
The Government’s attitude up to now has, I agree, been based on precedent, but I do not believe that precedent is enough in this case, given the horrors that are going on in the world. I would be delighted if the Minister—he can intervene now if he wants—accepted the motion on behalf of the Government. If he does, we have already won this debate, but there is absolutely no point in the Minister using his time to condemn Daesh, and mention all its appalling acts, only to say at the end of his speech, “I am very sorry, but because of legal precedent”—my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, referred to the circularity of the argument—“the Government think it is for the court to take the initiative and that it is inappropriate for the British Government to take action.”
Mr Burrowes
There is one person who is waiting, and who says that he is there, ready to play his full part according to the proper statute: the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. He is waiting for a referral from the Security Council so that he can investigate properly and independently and hold these people to account.
Sir Edward Leigh
Absolutely. I see in his place the Minister, who is listening to what we are all saying. I know that he is about to deliver a strong and powerful speech. I know that he will not just condemn Daesh, but say “Yes, we have listened to the debate in the House of Commons, and we will act by making a referral to the Security Council.”
Let us look at the facts and the pure legal argument, which has nothing to do with the motion. The criteria set forth in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide are absolutely clear. The crime is defined as acts
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
The convention then lists five qualifying conditions:
“(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
It is clear—it is blatantly obvious—that conditions (a), (b) and (c) are in effect, and that those things are going on in the areas under Daesh’s control. It is vital to recall that even if just one of those conditions is met, the declaring of acts as genocidal is allowed. On the basis of the clear legal criteria, there is absolutely no doubt that genocide is being committed. It is therefore the duty of Her Majesty’s Government, in terms of humanity and not just in terms of legal arguments, to do their duty now, to stop prevaricating, to accept the motion, and to refer this to the Security Council.
It would be intolerable for the Government to whip against the motion and force members of the payroll to vote against their own consciences, or abstain. It would also be intolerable if the Government, by some sleight of hand, allowed the motion to be agreed to, and then said that it was not binding on them. If the motion is agreed to—I sincerely hope that the Minister will not speak against it, and that it will not be whipped against—the House of Commons will have spoken, and the Government should act.
So many powerful speeches have been made, but the most powerful of all was by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry). Why was it so moving? Why was it so powerful? Because it consisted of the explicit personal experience of someone who talked about girls of nine being raped and killed by this murderous cult.
I myself have visited the area. Of all the Christian villages that I visited, 19 have been taken over by Daesh, and only one remains. We visited the tomb of the Prophet Nahum, and we saw what he had written:
“Your people are scattered on the mountains with none to gather them”,
and
“The gates of your land are wide open to your foes.”
Enough is enough. I call on the Government to act.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I had not intended to speak in the debate, because, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the speeches have been so powerful, so poignant and so compelling that I felt that I could not add very much. For many years, however, I gathered evidence of Iraqi war crimes, and in the Chamber, week after week, I argued for the prosecution of those who had committed human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, and genocide. I am happy to support the motion today, because the case has been made over and over again.
In September 2014, I raised the case of Yazidis in the Chamber, and in the same month, I tabled an early-day motion calling for action, which stated
“That this House is extremely concerned about the genocidal campaign being waged against minorities in Iraq”
by ISIS,
“and notes with alarm the evidence recently collected by Amnesty International about”
its
“brutal campaign to obliterate all trace of non-Arabs and non-Sunni Muslims that has turned the area into blood-soaked killing fields; is shocked by the barbaric treatment of Yazidi”—
and so on.
I met many Yazidis in northern Iraq after some of the peshmerga and campaigners for human rights there had rescued some of those women by buying them on the open market. They then called for additional assistance from us. We have given humanitarian assistance, but I think that we could have done much more. Many tears have been shed about the Yazidis, but I should have liked to have seen much more practical help given to the peshmerga to assist in the liberation of those thousands of women. Thousands of Yazidi women are still being held captive; we should be aware of that, and we should be ready to give whatever assistance we can.
I want to stress again the importance of collecting evidence. The Minister has said that questions of genocide
“are determined first in the international courts and in the United Nations Security Council, but we are helping to gather evidence that could be used to hold Daesh to account.”—[Official Report, 12 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 165WH.]
I hope that he will tell us exactly how we are collecting that evidence. When I was chair of Indict, that organisation collected evidence over a seven-year period, and we were not assisted by the Government of the time. We had money from the Americans and from the Kuwaitis, but we had to do the work ourselves. When Saddam Hussein and Ali Hassan al-Majid were eventually brought to justice, that was done using some of the evidence that we had collected.
I would be grateful if the Minister would be very precise about the way in which we are assisting in collecting evidence today, because that will be extremely important. It was important in the case of the Iraqis that culminated in Saddam Hussein and Ali Hassan al-Majid being convicted of the crime of genocide. I hope that the House will support the motion today, and I hope that it will be put to a vote, because it is essential that we make it clear that this is the view of the House of Commons, and that there is no more delay.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am proud to be a signatory to the motion, which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), to whom tributes have rightly been paid. I would also like to pay tribute to those Members of the other place who have made an enormous contribution to this battle. They include the noble Lord Alton, my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, Baroness Cox, Baroness Nicholson and many others. This is a big campaign across both Houses of Parliament on behalf of the British people, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said.
The question that we have to decide today is whether Daesh could, as it were, be convicted by us of committing genocide. The United States thinks that it could be so convicted; that is the verdict of Congress and of Secretary of State Kerry. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), also takes that view, although his view has been tempered by his reference to the need for us to present evidence to the United Nations in order for prosecutions to take place. My view is that this debate, following the one that took place in the other place on 3 February, shows that the case that Daesh has been engaged in genocide has been made.
We have heard some powerful testimonies today. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) captivated the House with her speech. The hon. Member for Ealing North also provided the house with evidence. I nearly called him my hon. Friend; we are in fact very good friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) set out the legal conditions that apply under the 1948 convention, and it cannot be the case that none of those five conditions has been met. It seems to me that they have been met in full.
Stephen Pound
I have one very quick question. If this is not genocide, what is?
Sir Gerald Howarth
That is a very good question. I have not had the privilege of meeting the people that so many hon. Members across the Floor of the House have met, but I have been extremely moved by the testimonies that have been recounted today. I do not see how any normal person listening to our debate could possibly come to any conclusion other than that this was genocide and is genocide to this day, and that Christians, Yazidis and others are being wiped out. As many hon. Members have said, those actions are intentional. They are not a by-product of some other policy. The intention is to wipe them out.
I want to be brief, so I will conclude by saying that there are three powerful reasons for taking action and why the Government should listen. First, we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, so let us refer this matter to ourselves. That should not be too difficult. We have an important role in the UN that we should fulfil. Secondly, to the great tragedy of this nation, our fellow citizens are unfortunately involved and are steeped in blood. They are complicit in this genocide. We therefore have a locus. Thirdly, we are a Christian country. Fellow Christians are being persecuted. We cannot, as my noble Friend Lord Forsyth said in the other place,
“pass by on the other side.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 2157.]
We owe it to them to take action. As we will be reminding ourselves tomorrow, our sovereign is also the supreme governor of the Church of England. This is a part of our country.
I want to finish by referring to the words of my constituent Major General Tim Cross, who said when giving evidence in the other place recently:
“There can be no doubt that genocide is being carried out on Yazidi and Christian communities—and the West/international community’s failure to recognise what is happening will be to our collective shame in years to come”.
I hope that the Government will listen to the collective words of this House and the other place and act on the behalf of the British people against the appalling genocide of our fellow Christians and so many others.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In 1994, I was living a few hundred miles away from where nearly a million people were killed over the course of three months in a genocide in Rwanda. Both before the genocide and during it, the international community was too slow to act and too slow to recognise that crime against humanity. As a result, more people died than was necessary. This is another such occasion on which we have heard the evidence and need to say quite categorically that it is genocide. We should recognise that now. If not now, when?
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. Judging by the contributions that we have heard this afternoon, no one can be in any doubt whatsoever that this House believes that what has happened to the Christian and Yazidi communities of northern Iraq and Syria is genocide. What Daesh has been involved in is genocide, and we should not shy away from describing it as exactly that.
There have been some excellent contributions. I do not have time to highlight every one of them, but I want to point out one or two. It was welcome that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), Chair of the International Development Committee, brought his considerable intellectual weight to the debate. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) gave a compelling case for the situation to be called a genocide. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) told the Government that under no circumstances will the matter be allowed to be brushed under the carpet, forgotten or ignored. I was also extremely moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry), who presented a personal and moving testimony. I heard that testimony for the first time last night, but it was equally moving to hear it again this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) drew a parallel between what happened in Germany and Europe in the 1940s and what we are currently witnessing in Syria and Iraq.
Much of the debate has been harrowing and, at times, difficult to listen to, but it is important that the voices are heard. If we do nothing else, we owe it to the victims of Daesh’s barbarism and to those who have been subject to a level of depravity that sometimes defies comprehension that we hear what they have to say and listen when they call for help.
What are these people asking of us? It is simply that the Government of the United Kingdom recognise that what has happened to them is genocide and refer their case to the UN Security Council, so that the International Criminal Court can bring those who perpetrated these awful crimes to justice. That is not too much to ask. All the evidence is there to show that what is happening in the areas of Iraq and Syria that are under Daesh control is indeed genocide. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity often tend to be put into one basket, and sometimes there is a reluctance on the part of government to recognise that genocide is taking place, but I argue that we have not only a legal obligation, but a moral obligation to say that this is genocide. When we recognise in this way that these atrocities are being committed, we will be in esteemed company; the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the United States Congress, US Secretary of State John Kerry and His Holiness Pope Francis have all recognised that this is genocide, and it is time we added our voice to that list—it is the very least we can do.
Genocide is a crime directed against a specific group of people because of what they are as an entity. The murders that inevitably follow are directed against people not because of who they are as individuals but simply because they are members of a group or a community. Genocide is not spontaneous—it is calculated, organised and planned. Genocide requires an intent to bring about the destruction of a group of people because of who they are or what they believe. That intent to destroy distinguishes genocide from other crimes. There can be no doubt that Daesh’s treatment of Christian and Yazidi minorities, and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq, meets that criteria, as Daesh set out with the intent to destroy any culture or religion that differed from theirs.
In the summer of 2014, Daesh seized the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Almost the entire Christian community fled for their lives, meaning that for the first time in 1,800 years no Sunday mass was said in the city. As they fled, the Patriarch of Baghdad told the world:
“Christians have fled their villages. They are walking on foot in Iraq’s searing summer heat. They are facing catastrophe and a real genocide”.
As we heard, the overall fall in the number of Christians living in Iraq is alarming. In 2003, there were a reported 1.5 million there but today there are barely 250,000, and the situation is similar in Syria. All of this is part of a deliberate, strategic campaign of fear designed to completely annihilate minority religious groups from the middle east.
Like my friend the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, I had the fortune and privilege earlier this year of meeting a remarkable young Yazidi woman, Nadia Murad. We met because a constituent of mine, Fiona Bennett from Oban, had been up late one night with her child who would not sleep. She turned her radio on and was moved by the story she heard. It was a story of a teenage girl from northern Iraq who had been kidnapped by Daesh. Fiona was so moved by what she heard that she decided to do something about it. She raised awareness of the plight of the Yazidis, raised funds locally and contacted me, as her Member of Parliament. Together with others in this House, we organised for Nadia to come to the United Kingdom in February. I know that Members of both Houses attended that meeting and were all incredibly moved by her first-hand testimony. It was a harrowing listen and, if I may, I would like to share a few sentences from what she told us.
Nadia said:
“We, the women and children, were taken by bus from the school…They humiliated us along the way and touched us in a shameful way. They took me to Mosul with more than 150 other Yazidi families. There were thousands of families in a building there, including children who were given away as gifts. One of the men came up to me. He wanted to take me. I looked down at the floor. I was absolutely terrified. When I looked up, I saw a huge man. He was like a monster. I cried out that I was too young…He kicked and beat me. A few minutes later, another man came up to me. I was still looking at the floor. I saw that he was a little smaller. I begged for him to take me. I was terribly afraid of the first man. The man who took me asked me to change my religion. I refused. One day, he came and asked me for my hand in what they called ‘marriage’. A few days later, this man forced me to get dressed and put on my makeup. Then, on that terrible night, he did it. He forced me to serve in his military company. He humiliated me daily. He forced me to wear clothes that barely covered my body…That night he beat me. He asked me to take my clothes off. He put me in a room with guards, who proceeded to commit their crime until I fainted.”
Tragically, as we have heard in this place, Nadia’s story is far from unique. I, too, was there when Ekhlas gave her awful testimony last night.
Genocide is a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political or cultural group. By any measure, what Daesh has been doing to the Christian and Yazidi minorities in Iraq and Syria is genocide. I urge the Minister to listen to the voice of the people, to listen to the voice of this House, to remember the barbarity suffered by the Christians and the Yazidis, and to declare that this is a genocide. Then we can start the process of bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing today’s debate, and on all they have done to raise this issue inside and outside the House.
I also personally thank the hon. Member for Congleton for arranging last night’s evidence session. Listening to the very harrowing testimony of Ekhlas touched all Members who were present. I also pay tribute to those Members in the other place who have been raising this issue for some time, including my noble Friend the Baroness Kennedy, who has led on the matter. There have been many excellent contributions in today’s debate from both sides of the House. It appears that the House is united in its view about what the Government should do next.
I want to start by saying something about the nature of the crimes against the Yazidis and others. As we have heard from many Members across the House, Daesh has perpetrated the most heinous of crimes against the Yazidis as well as against other ethnic and religious minorities, including Syrian Christians and various non-Sunni people in the area of northern Iraq that they currently control.
The crimes include mass murder, torture, enslavement and unimaginable sexual violence including systematic rape, often of children. Just returning to what Ekhlas said in her testimony yesterday, the thing that will stay with me is hearing about that nine-year-old girl who was repeatedly gang-raped. When her body could not take the brutality of the assaults any more, she was murdered in the most horrific of circumstances. These are crimes that most of us will struggle to comprehend. As we have heard today, these are not crimes that are being randomly perpetrated; they are organised crimes, deliberately targeted at particular ethnic and religious groups. Amnesty International has described these acts as ethnic cleansing on an historic scale.
Many Members have referred to the first-hand testimonies that they have heard from survivors and from those who have worked directly with survivors. I pay tribute to the unbelievable bravery of all the survivors who have spoken out to alert the world to the plight of the Yazidi population. Meeting survivors has really brought it home to me that this is not some historic event; it is an ongoing atrocity affecting thousands of people. The plight of those affected is highlighted by this quote from Mirze Ezdin, who had 45 relatives—all women and children—abducted by Daesh fighters. He described to Amnesty International the daily hell that this situation has wrought. He said:
“Can you imagine these little ones in the hands of those criminals? Alina is barely three; she was abducted with her mother and her nine-month-old sister; and Rosalinda, five, was abducted with her mother and her three brothers aged eight to 12. We get news from some of them, but others are missing and we don’t know if they are alive or dead or what has happened to them.”
Mirze’s case is far from unique, which is why today’s debate is so important.
I now want to comment on the specific definition of genocide. Although there is no doubt that the crimes that Daesh has committed are horrendous, the motion asks us to consider whether they reach the threshold of genocide. Genocide is not a term we use often; it is one that we reserve for the most heinous crimes and it has a specific meaning. For a set of crimes to constitute a genocide, they must include the killing or serious harm, including sexual harm, of a group of people who have a specific ethnic, religious or racial characteristic. Labour has consistently argued that the crimes committed by Daesh appear to reach that threshold, so it is right for the UK to refer the matter to the UN Security Council for final determination by the ICC.
I am therefore pleased to say that we will be supporting the motion this evening. If this House passes the motion, as I hope we will, it will be an historic moment. I have not been able to find another instance of the House of Commons formally recognising an ongoing conflict as genocide. As we have heard, similar motions have been already passed in the US House of Representatives and the European Parliament. In March, a UN panel concluded that Daesh might have reached the threshold, and the US Government announced that they considered the actions of Daesh to constitute a genocide—this is only the second time that they have recognised an ongoing conflict as a genocide.
Now I want to turn to the question of protection for the Yazidis. The designation of genocide is important, not just because we do it rarely but because it shows intent to end the atrocities and ensure that the perpetrators face justice. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on both of these points when he responds.
First, the Opposition seek an assurance that the Government will recognise the wishes of the House if this motion is passed this afternoon and will refer the matter to the Security Council for referral to the International Criminal Court. The Minister told the House last week that the UK was assisting in the collection of evidence, and of course we welcome that, but I should be grateful if he would lay out in more detail the nature of that technical support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised this point. I would also be grateful for information on the issue of forensic investigative support and how that will be provided, which was also mentioned by the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg).
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister about the action the UK is taking to protect the Yazidis and other ethnic minority communities in Iraq. It is clear that all states have a duty to prevent genocide. Primarily, this responsibility sits with the state where the genocide is committed. Tragically, Iraq has failed to protect the Yazidis and other ethnic minority citizens, so it is right that the UK and other states should offer support to Iraq in the fight against Daesh. Will the Minister explain what specific action the UK is taking to assist in the protection of the Yazidis and to offer them security?
I also want to press the Minister on the humanitarian assistance given by the UK to the survivors of the Daesh attacks. Many Yazidis are now in refugee camps run by the Kurdistan Government in northern Iraq. These people are not classed as refugees by the UN as they are internally displaced, but we must recognise that they have been displaced from their homes and feel incredibly vulnerable. Will the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to support these people? It is important to note that none of the people we are discussing today is eligible for relocation to the UK under the Government’s scheme, and I am extremely disappointed that the Government have consistently refused to offer sanctuary to any of these groups. There are compelling arguments for recognising the special needs of these survivors and their need for a safe space and specialist psychiatric support. This is particularly true for the women and children affected.
Already Germany has done so. A few weeks ago I met a Yazidi woman who had been enslaved, had escaped and was offered two years’ protection in Germany and—this is key—specialist psychiatric support. At Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions last week the Minister wrongly said that the German scheme required women to travel to Europe before they could access the scheme. That is not true. The German scheme takes women from the region. I hope the Minister will go away, reflect on what Germany is doing and offer the same protection to victims of what we all agree is genocide.
In conclusion, the people of this country do not walk on by when they see evil being perpetrated against fellow human beings. What is happening to the Yazidis and others is evil. We want our country to stand up and declare solidarity with those people, and refer what is happening to the Security Council. We believe genocide is being committed, and I hope the whole House can come together this evening in support of the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
This has been an excellent debate. Time prevents me from answering all the questions, so I shall do as I have done on previous occasions and write to hon. Members in detail. Some excellent ideas and thoughts have emerged, such as the protection of mass graves and the appointment of a global envoy for religious freedom. I will be in touch on those matters.
I begin, as others have done, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this important debate. I have listened, No. 10 has listened and the nation has listened to the will of the Chamber today. That is important. I commend the efforts of Members in all parts of the House who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of those who have been murdered, persecuted or silenced by Daesh are heard.
The harrowing accounts that we have heard today of the brutal persecution of Christians, Yazidis and other religious and ethnic minorities are heartbreaking. Some of those communities lived peacefully side by side for generations before that barbaric organisation forced them to flee their homes. Daesh’s crimes go beyond the horrors of rape and murder; it has destroyed a generations-old culture. The Government have repeatedly made clear our utter condemnation of the unspeakable crimes that Daesh commits against Christians, Yazidis and other communities, including Muslims, who still account for the majority of victims. We are working tirelessly to defeat Daesh and put an end to that violence.
This is not the first time that I have commented on this matter; it is the third time. I repeat what I said in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions last week. I believe that genocide has taken place, but as the Prime Minister has said, genocide is a matter of legal rather than political opinion. We as the Government are not the prosecutor, the judge or the jury. Such matters are for the UN Security Council. However, we have a place—
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way.
We have a place on the UN Security Council. That is important. Any referral to the International Criminal Court by the UN Security Council will be possible only with a united Council and ideally with the co-operation of countries in which alleged crimes have been committed. However, I remind the House that when efforts were made to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC in 2014, that was vetoed by Russia and China. We expect that any Security Council resolution seeking to refer the situation in Iraq or Syria to the ICC against those countries could very well be blocked again, but further discussions are taking place. We are now in a different place from where we were in 2014.
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way.
Although a UN Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court is one option, there are other potential options for bringing Daesh to justice. In the meantime, we are supporting the gathering and preservation of evidence that could in future be used in a court to hold Daesh to account. I believe there is a very strong case to be answered, but we must clarify what we mean by genocide. As other hon. Members have mentioned, this refers to acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, religious or racial group. However, we must also consider crimes against humanity, which refer to acts committed as part of a widespread, systematic attack directed against any civilian population. That includes murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence. Furthermore, war crimes refer to grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. It may transpire that all three cases apply in this instance.
That is why we will do everything we can to help gather evidence that could be used by the judicial bodies, who are the appropriate people to judge these matters, to make a judgment. It is vital that that is done now, before evidence is lost or destroyed. Ultimately, this is a question for the courts to decide; it is not for Governments to be the prosecutor, judge or jury. The Prime Minister also said:
“Not only are the courts best placed to judge criminal matters but their impartiality also ensures the protection of the UK Government from the politicisation and controversies that often attach themselves to the question of genocide.”
It is essential that these decisions are based on credible judicial process, but that does not mean that we wash our hands of this issue. Right now, our priority is to prevent atrocities from taking place, and that is why we are playing a leading role in the global coalition against Daesh. I make it clear that, in the long term, we must hold Daesh to account for the atrocities it commits. The evidence that we are helping to gather now will ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes always know that the threat of prosecution is hanging over them.
We should make no mistake: British and international justice have a long reach and a long memory. We will track down those who commit these acts and hold them to account, no matter how long it takes. It took over a decade to track down Radovan Karadzic, but last month he was finally convicted and held to account for his crimes.
The UK is taking a lead on the international response to this issue. In September 2014, we co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council resolution mandating investigation of Daesh abuses in Iraq. Working with international partners, we are seeking ways to support the gathering of crucial evidence that can be used by the courts to hold Daesh to account.
We must ensure that Daesh is held to account for its barbaric crimes against the majorities and minorities involved—Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Kurds and other groups. Ultimately, the only way to put an end to these crimes and to liberate the people of Iraq and Syria is to defeat Daesh. We must continue to expose it for what it is: a failing organisation that is losing territory, struggling to pay its fighters and betraying Islam in all it stands for.
On that note, as I said last week, if we look at the profile of any suicide bomber, from Bali to Sousse, we see that they are sold martyrdom by extremists as a fast track to paradise. People who have scant knowledge of the Koran are promised a ticket to heaven with little, if any, understanding of or service to God. If we are to defeat extremism and stem the churn of vulnerable recruits, we must all emphasise the importance of the duty to God in this life as well as the next. Indeed, the Koran forbids suicide.
As has been said or implied in the House today, the UK has the aspiration and means to play a significant role in world affairs. Our historical links, now forged into bilateral and regional interests, mean that we are expected not just to take an interest, but to show leadership on the world stage. We are seen as fair, knowledgeable and trustworthy. We are playing a leading role in defeating Daesh on the battlefield and in defeating its ideology. We will hold Daesh to account in the courts for its terrible crimes, no matter how long it takes.
Fiona Bruce
At least 18 Back-Bench Members have spoken in this debate, and all of them, without exception, have not only supported the motion but made deeply moving and powerful speeches. We have today heard irrefutable evidence of genocide by Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The case has been made.
We have heard no good grounds for this issue not to be referred to the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court. The fact that other members of the UN Security Council may veto a referral is no reason for our country not to show a lead. The fact that Russia and China vetoed a 2014 referral—which related to general action in Syria, not to the specific point of genocide by Daesh—should not prevent this country from making a referral.
Several Members have called for a vote. We should have one. We have heard many reasons why this matter should be referred to the UN Security Council. We owe it to the victims to seek justice for those who suffer, to show an international lead, to be a voice for the voiceless and to hold the perpetrators to account.
This motion is simple: it asks the Members of this Parliament to recognise the genocide that is taking place for what it is. Can anyone who has listened to this debate deny that? If there ever was a vote on a matter of conscience, surely this is one. It is a matter of life and death. If there ever was a vote that should be a wholly free vote for Members of this place, surely this is one. Payroll Members should not be asked to abstain. In spite of the fact that the number of Members voting will not be as it should be, I trust that the Government will accept the will of this House and take the action stipulated by the motion, which I hope will receive overwhelming support from Members across this House.
Question put.
Record Copies of Acts
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 117 / Noes: 38 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the conclusion of the House of Commons Administration Committee’s First Report of Session 2015-16; welcomes the view expressed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General that government funds would be available to pay for the continued use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament; is unwilling to amend or resile from the terms of the Resolutions agreed by both Houses on 12 February 1849; and accordingly instructs the Clerk of the House to convey to the Clerk of the Parliaments that the House of Commons has withheld its consent to the use of archival paper rather than vellum for the printing of record copies of public Acts of Parliament.
The motion is in my name and those of 43 colleagues from both sides of the House. If it is passed, it will send a strong message to the other place—the House of Lords—that its unilateral decision to end the ancient practice of using vellum to record Acts of Parliament is not accepted by this House. If that occurs, I very much hope that the other House will listen carefully to the views of this place. We have moved from a matter of grave significance to the world and to humanity—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is most discourteous of Members to gather at the end of the Chamber when someone is trying to make an important speech.
Mr Gray
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not certain whether my speech can be described as important, but I am nevertheless grateful to you for your flattering remark.
This debate is of less importance than the previous one, and I make no complaint about losing some time to that debate, which was about something of very grave concern to the world. None the less, this matter is important in terms of symbolism and for a number of other reasons, which I will return to in a moment. I feel no shame in bringing forward this matter.
I intend to be reasonably brief, not least because the main arguments in favour of saving vellum for the future have been laid out this week in an outstandingly good article in that outstandingly good magazine, The House. Unfortunately, because that magazine is printed on paper, those arguments will disappear within a matter of a year or two. If it were printed on vellum, they would still be in existence some 5,000 years from now. It is therefore important that I advance the arguments in a way that future generations will be able to remember.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has fought this battle for a very long time, and her Labour colleagues who, in 1999—the last time this matter was raised—were resolute in defeating the House of Lords. I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). As a member of the Government, he is probably unable to speak in the debate, but I know his support for William Cowley and sons in his constituency, the last remaining vellum manufacturer, is second to none. I believe that his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), is hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak on the company’s behalf.
I would be the first to accept there are a great many more important matters that we should discuss in this place. I would not have wished to discuss the use of vellum were it not for the fact that the House of Lords unilaterally, without consulting us, decided to discontinue it. All I am seeking to do in the debate is to assert our right as the House of Commons to have at least a say in the matter. If we have a Division later and the motion is defeated—if the House of Commons decides to agree with their lordships to abolish the use of vellum—so be it. However, it is right that Members should have a say about how our laws are recorded for future generations, as we did in 1999, 1849 and throughout the generations.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
My hon. Friend might not be aware of this, but I, as a fellow member of the Administration Committee, have changed my view on this matter, and I now very much agree with him because I believe that this change would be a false economy. We must hang on to this tradition and cherish it.
Mr Gray
It takes a big politician to say that they have changed their mind, and my hon. Friend is indeed a big politician. I pay tribute to him for being ready to change his mind.
Three broad arguments are advanced by those who would abolish the use of vellum, each of which can be easily dealt with. The first and main argument is the cost of using vellum to record our Acts of Parliament. It is alleged that the cost of printing Acts on vellum comes to £103,000 per year, whereas doing so on paper would cost £30,000 per year. The House of Lords therefore says that the saving would be in the order of £70,000 per year. However, I have been thorough in my research, and I have been in touch with the Archives and Records Association of the UK and Ireland. Its chief executive, Mr John Chambers, who is the authority on these matters, tells me that the cost of printing on vellum is identical to that of printing on paper. The cost of printing the laws of this land is approximately £56,000 per annum and the cost of vellum is a relatively small amount on top of that. In other words, the saving by changing to paper would be, at best, perhaps £10,000 or £20,000 a year.
William Cowley and sons, the last vellum manufacturers and printers, tell me that the most they have ever been paid in a year was £47,000, and that was a year when we made far too many laws in this place, including too many long ones, so it cost more to print them. If we keep ourselves under control, pass fewer laws and keep them short, the amount that we pay to William Cowley and sons will be even less than that £47,000.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the laws of the land that are printed on vellum? Such things as the Torah scrolls that are used by members of the Jewish community are printed on vellum. If the sole provider of vellum in this country were forced to close because of the House of Lords stopping our use of vellum, that might inconvenience other people and force them to source their items from outside this country—assuming that they are not already doing so, which they might well be.
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good and important point to which I will return in a moment.
We think that the figures produced by the House of Lords are pretty bogus and that the difference in cost, if there is one, will be marginal. In any event, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has announced that if there are any extra costs to be borne, Her Majesty’s Government, not this place, will bear them, which I welcome. I was also delighted that the shadow Chancellor indicated his support for the motion in discussions with me. He has authorised me to say that a Labour Government would also seek to fund the cost of vellum.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
In addition to the cost of vellum, there is the matter of the printing machinery, which is due to be replaced. Does the hon. Gentleman have an idea of the cost of the contract that would be required and the length of time the contract would need to be in existence to recoup that expenditure?
Mr Gray
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an extremely important point. She is quite right that if some complicated piece of machinery were required at great cost, meaning that it would take us years and years to pay that off, it would be important to take that into consideration. However, the fact of the matter is that any corner shop—any printer in the land—can print on vellum. I have been informed by printers—there are two in my constituency who would be delighted to do it—that the £56,000 that is currently spent is a great deal too much, and that they would do it for significantly less.
Mr Gray
The hon. Lady will have a chance to make her points later. I am interested that she is apparently opposed to the motion.
The difference in cost will be pretty marginal, so let us move on to the substance of the matter. If we were to change to paper, I would be very surprised if the cost was as low as the House of Lords has indicated. The county of Hereford has announced this week that it has just opened a new archive centre at a cost of £11.5 million. Paper, of course, requires all sorts of special care over the years, whereas vellum, as can be demonstrated by a glance at the records in the Victoria Tower, survives for generations—hundreds of years—without any care whatsoever. It can be put in a cupboard and it will be as good as when it went in.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
When I last had a proper job, I worked in local history publishing. We published John Morris’s translation of the Domesday Book and relied heavily on other archives, such as materials in the parish chest, that were written on vellum. I will not ask my hon. Friend to comment on whether I would be much the poorer had those things been written not on vellum but on paper, and it had disintegrated, but does he agree that we would be much poorer as a nation in our understanding of our history had such things been written on paper?
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Were I a nimble enough speaker, I would leap from the place where I am in my speech to the point to which she refers. However, I will talk in a moment about the things we have today because they were made of vellum but which we would not have if they had been made of paper.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the debate in 1999, when Mr Brian White raised the issue, as a Milton Keynes Member, because the factory would have had to close. I made the point in that debate that down the other end of the building, there was an Act of Parliament dated 1497 that was on view to the public. It was not a facsimile or a replica; it was an Act of Parliament—it bore the sovereign’s signature and it was legible. We know that vellum lasts 500 years, but we do not know that any other material will last 500 years.
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend makes an extremely strong point.
The third argument that is sometimes advanced by those who are opposed to vellum is that this is some sort of animal rights or animal welfare matter because of the use of calfskins in making vellum. The answer to that point is that the calfskins are picked up from the abattoir. The calves are killed for the purpose of being eaten, so there is absolutely no animal welfare consideration of any kind at all. Indeed, we could argue that reusing the calfskins is a much more environmentally friendly approach.
In contrast to those three—rather weak, in my view—arguments in favour of abolishing vellum, there are three vastly stronger reasons for keeping it. First, vellum has for centuries been used for documents of significance and importance. University graduation certificates have always been on vellum, as have certificates of long service and military commissions. Every law in every Commonwealth Parliament throughout the world is on vellum. In America, West Point graduates get vellums. Knighthoods are on vellum, as are peerages. Any decent, important document that we have uses vellum. When we give a certificate to our Lord Mayor for his long service, it is always on vellum. Why should we be uniquely downgrading the laws of the land and saying that they are not important enough to be on vellum, despite the fact that our university graduation certificates are?
Secondly, vellum is hugely more durable than paper—there is no question about that at all. It cannot be crushed and it cannot be torn up. Of course, we are not allowed to use visual aids in this Chamber, Mr Speaker—I would not dream of doing such a thing—but I can show that it is true that vellum cannot be crushed or squashed, because it comes out just as it was before its crushing. It cannot be torn or burned, and it is not affected by water. It is durable in a very real sense.
As some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, we have good examples of how vellum has survived without any maintenance at all. It lasts for up to 5,000 years; by comparison, the maximum that can be achieved for the highest quality archival paper is 200 or 300 years.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Perhaps my hon. Friend will be interested to hear the opinion of a former colleague of mine, Mrs Meg Ford, who is the head of books and manuscripts at Christie’s and one of the world’s foremost experts in this field. She advises the great collectors who spend millions of pounds purchasing books and manuscripts. She emailed me to say:
“Vellum surely is the strongest, most durable writing material. Maybe there is some newly invented material lined with graphene, but if the choice is between even the best paper and vellum, vellum will win.”
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend speaks with passion from a position of great expertise, and he is absolutely right. When I was going through my personal archives recently, I was interested to come across my grandfather’s certificate as a graduate of Edinburgh University. I have it here—this is not an aide-mémoire, Mr Speaker. He graduated in engineering in 1903, and his certificate is absolutely as it was when it was first printed. It has simply been sat in a cupboard in my family’s house for 120 years, and it is as good as new.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great campaign he has run on this issue. Is it not slightly ironic that the year after we celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta—a document that is essential to our constitution and was written on vellum—their lordships are considering doing away with vellum? Is he aware that while the laws in the Republic of Ireland are written on vellum, I am not aware of any plans to scrap that tradition there?
Mr Gray
They have plenty of cows in Ireland, as we do in this country, and my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Had Magna Carta been written on paper, it would have been lost by around 1465, before the birth of Henry VIII—it would not have survived to his times. Let us think of other great documents such as the Dead Sea scrolls, the Lindisfarne gospels and the Domesday Book—all were written on vellum. The Codex Sinaiticus in the British Library was commissioned by the Emperor Constantine in 350 AD. We can look at it today and turn its pages; it is exactly as it was when it was written, and it is as clear as anything. Can one imagine a piece of paper from 350 AD surviving? The oldest complete bound book in Europe, the St John’s Gospel, was put into the coffin of St Cuthbert in the year 687 in Durham cathedral, and it can still be read today as clearly as when it was written because it is on vellum. The use of vellum guarantees that no matter what happens in the future—war, floods, riots or anything else—Acts of Parliament will be preserved for all time.
The third reason why I think it vital to maintain vellum is that William Cowley and sons in Milton Keynes, the last remaining manufacturers of vellum, supply services to the British Library, the Bodleian and records offices up and down the land. If the parliamentary contract is withdrawn, there is at least a chance that the firm’s six employees would no longer be there, meaning that everyone who requires vellum services would have to go to America, because there are no other vellum manufacturers in Europe.
Why on earth, for the sake of some £20,000 a year, if that, should we be considering doing away with a craft of this kind? Why would we want to close down an ancient business? Why should we be considering changing a 1,000-year tradition of this place? Why should we downgrade Acts in the way that is suggested? To me, it is beyond understanding. If Members care for the traditions of this place, if they care for crafts and if they care for Acts of Parliament, they will join me in the Aye Lobby today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Many Members wish to participate in the debate, so there will have to be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which will be open to review, depending on progress. We must start with five minutes with the intention of not exceeding that limit.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on securing this afternoon’s debate, and on spearheading the opportunity for this House to voice its concerns about the decision taken by the House of Lords and the House of Commons Administration Committee to end the centuries-old practice of printing Acts of Parliament on vellum.
My involvement came about after the issue was brought to my attention by Patricia Lovett—calligrapher, illuminator, vellum-user, and vice-chair of the Heritage Crafts Association. She was concerned about the impact on an important heritage craft in this country. It was our shared hope to see this decision reversed when the matter was first considered back in October, when the Administration Committee recommended that the Commons agree to the renewed request by the Chairman of Committees in the Lords that we print record copies of public Acts not on vellum, but on archival paper. This House, however, was never consulted on this, and neither was the sector on which the change would have the greatest impact—nor indeed were the wider public, who might have an interest in the future of this heritage craft.
It was with great dismay that, two months ago, we were informed that the printers had been given a 30-day notice to cease printing on vellum, with no public announcement or dissemination of this decision to parliamentarians; I found out from Patricia Lovett, as I said. That led to my point of order on 9 February, in which I raised my concerns about this shady back-room deal between the Commons authorities and those in the Lords.
After the points of order raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and me, the Minister for the Cabinet Office intervened with the welcome news that the money necessary to continue printing on vellum would be found from Government coffers. Although I genuinely thank the Minister for his support for our campaign, I really think that printing, preserving and protecting our own archival history through our own budgets is a matter for Parliament.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
Let me make it clear at this stage of the debate that this is very much a matter for the House. Although we on the Treasury Bench offer our support, it remains a matter for the House.
Mrs Hodgson
That saving grace is very welcome.
Many of us from different parties might be described as strange bedfellows in this debate, but we have come together on this issue because we agree that the continued use of vellum is part of recognising our heritage and traditions. The Palace of Westminster is to undergo a potential £7 billion refurbishment to conserve this place for future generations to use, visit and admire; how can anyone argue for a saving that is so small by comparison, without considering what we would lose?
Our most important documents have been printed or written on vellum, from the Magna Carta to the Domesday Book and a piece of important north-east English history, the Lindisfarne gospels. All these historical manuscripts have been preserved for posterity because they were printed on vellum. They have lasted through the ages due to vellum’s durable qualities, which have ensured that future generations can appreciate and respect our shared history. Surely the legislation that we make here is worthy of this small additional cost. These are the laws of our land, and they should have the status and respect that is implied when they are printed on vellum. As Paul Wright from William Cowley said on the Jeremy Vine show last year, “If it is precious, put it on vellum.”
The crux of my concern about the change is the debate about the costs of printing on vellum. Both the Administration Committee and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords have claimed that ending the use of vellum would save Parliament, and the taxpayer, an average of £80,000 per year, but that figure has been disputed. William Cowley has said that, according to its books, the sale of vellum to Parliament is worth £47,000 per year. My question is: where does the proposed saving of £33,000 come from?
There is also concern about the use of archival paper. As we have heard, vellum manuscripts have lasted for centuries, and archival paper has not been proved to have that kind of longevity. There is talk of 250 years and of 500 years, but it must be borne in mind that those are estimates, not facts. It is a fact, however, that vellum lasts longer, and I therefore cannot support a switch to the inferior medium of archival paper.
Parliament is an important beacon of our history and heritage, and the fact that Members of either House can so easily dismiss a centuries-old practice is deeply worrying. We should remember that William Cowley is our last remaining vellum maker here in the UK. If it were to lose its contract with Parliament, that could be detrimental to the future of this heritage craft, and those who wished to buy vellum would have to look to other countries. It would not be just our medals that we would be buying from France. That is why I hope that today we can finally save vellum for good.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on initiating the debate. It has forced me to do an awful lot of homework and get hold of some real facts and figures, so that I can pass them on to the House as they have been presented to me.
Vellum has been used to record Acts of Parliament for only about 170 years. The oldest surviving parliamentary records are on parchment, which is a very similar material. The oldest surviving archival paper records date back to 1510, which is just 13 years short of the date of the oldest parchment record. Those paper records are the manuscript journals of the House of Lords. It appears to me, on the basis of viewing and research, that records kept on vellum and those kept on archival paper in the same environment last equally well.
Mr James Gray
My hon. Friend is trying to make a distinction between vellum and parchment, but they are, of course, the same thing. The “Oxford English Dictionary” defines vellum as fine parchment.
Sir Paul Beresford
I am obviously talking too quickly, because, in effect, that is what I said: they are much the same.
Sir Paul Beresford
Before 1849, all Acts were written out by hand on rolls of parchment, in exquisite handwriting; it is really worth seeing. The motion refers to a resolution of both Houses dated 12 February 1849. At the core of that resolution was a proposed move from beautiful handwritten copies to the then cutting-edge innovation of printing. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes that we could return to handwritten copies on vellum, as they do look beautiful. In 1999, the House of Lords announced that it wished to cease printing public Acts on vellum, having ceased to print private Acts on it in 1956. Two copies of each Act of Parliament are printed on vellum. One is kept in the Parliamentary Archives, and the other is sent to the National Archives.
The amount of money that would be saved by a move from vellum to archival paper has been disputed, but in the grand picture of public expenditure, it is not enormously significant. It is worth observing that we expect the saving to be more than the salary of a single Member of Parliament, which many of us probably consider not to be that great anyway. The National Archives has helpfully informed Parliament that it does not require vellum, and as it is part of the Minister’s departmental portfolio, I must take notice of that.
Vellum is an extremely expensive material, requiring an expensive and specialised form of printing. The cost of printing the Acts of 2014-15 on vellum—I asked about this specifically, in order to try to get it right—was approximately £107,000. The cost of using even the most expensive parchment-style paper would have been £8,000, a reduction of 92%. Unfortunately, however, the challenges associated with printing on vellum do not stop there.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), there are precisely two surviving printing machines that print double-sided on vellum to the standard that is required—note: to the standard that is required. One is in a museum, and the other is owned or utilised by the contract printer, but to put it colloquially, it is on its last legs and is probably being held together by Sellotape. Therefore, if the decision were made to continue to print public Acts on vellum, my opposite number in the House of Lords would have to provide a business case for a contract with the firm that was prepared to construct a new printer. The cost of that would leave Parliament contracted to a single supplier, which would negate the normal practice of competitive tendering.
Michael Ellis
If we put that one supplier out of business, it is not just parliamentary Acts that will be affected. I understand from the Office of the Chief Rabbi that the Torahs used in this country are not in fact made here, but if that one supplier were to close down because Parliament stopped using it, Torahs and many other non-parliamentary items would not be able to be made here, and the work would have to be exported elsewhere.
Sir Paul Beresford
I have not had words with the Chief Rabbi, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we have made inquiries and we are just one of the contracts for this particular contractor. If we stopped using him, his profits would go down but he would not close.
During these complex discussions, the Minister for the Cabinet Office came along with his chequebook. I was surprised, as someone who has enthusiastically endorsed his admirable policies on cutting out waste, reducing red tape and improving Government efficiency. His Department believes that we should be “digital by default”, but that is a little different from what he is now talking about. A similar approach has been taken by the House; we also have everything digitised.
However, it is a legal requirement that quality prints of the original Acts be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords—the legal authority. Moreover, most modern Acts of Parliament are brought into force by statutory instruments at some point after receiving Royal Assent, and no statutory instruments are printed on vellum. The relevant information is available digitally.
I have huge respect for the Minister’s campaign, as he is aware. I must point out that we digitally store the Acts, and that he has ensured that if anything were to happen to the paper or vellum archive, the Acts could be reprinted.
Mr James Gray
My hon. Friend talks about the cloud. How confident is he that the cloud will be here in 5,000 years, when vellum most certainly will be?
Sir Paul Beresford
I will not be here in 5,000 years; my teeth will have gone long before that. However, my hon. Friend’s question ignores the fact that there will be progress. I doubt that we will be storing anything in the form that we do now, be it on vellum, on paper or digitally. There will be another way.
I was encouraged by the Minister’s offer to cover the cost of printing on vellum. For a moment, I thought he was offering a blank cheque to pay for all the printing in the House of Commons, because it would be logical to extend the offer in that way. I am not particularly well educated on the constitution, however, and it was pointed out to me forcefully that it would be inappropriate for the Government to play that kind of role in the business of Parliament. Of course, the Minister and the Cabinet Office could choose to fund the purchase of the material, the equipment and the managing of the contract, as well as the long-term storage, if they wished to produce their own copies on vellum from the digital records. Unfortunately, the record of Acts produced by Parliament, on whatever medium is chosen, are the legal authority. The Minister has been gracious in his benevolent offer, but it is not appropriate.
The printing of Acts over many years has changed as time and technology have progressed. We have moved from parchment to vellum to paper, and from handwriting to printing, all of which now have a digital back-up. The only recent backward step that I can think of has been the Ed stone, but that was just an unfortunate incident. I conclude simply by noting that, of the two Houses, it is the one that we would expect to make a stand purely on tradition that is suggesting to the House of Commons that we should progress.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on securing this debate and on ensuring that it has been held after the previous debate was postponed. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for doing so much to raise the issue’s profile.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
On the subject of paying tribute, we should formally acknowledge the extremely important role played by Brian White, MP for North East Milton Keynes from 1997 to 2005, who took us through this whole business in immense detail and won the argument and the vote that kept vellum.
Dr Blackman-Woods
It is important that we acknowledge Brian White. Indeed, I will go on to say something about the industry in his constituency that he protected.
It is perhaps because I have a truly magnificent cathedral in my constituency that is over 1,000 years old that I feel strongly that tradition is important and that we should continue to record Acts of Parliament on vellum. The existence of so many beautiful old buildings in Durham has reinforced my belief that we should treasure our heritage and look after it for future generations, something which this country has unfortunately not always been good at. For example, beautiful Victorian terraces have been ripped down, apparently in the name of progress, for new blocks of flats that are demolished just years later because of poor construction and, most critically of all, their not being fit for purpose. We run the risk of doing something similar with vellum.
Our lack of respect for heritage is equally apparent in other areas. For example, we have lost many of our folk songs, dances, music, poetry and other aspects of our culture, because we have not kept them alive by using them. Were it not for champions of their causes, we would have lost many others altogether. We can be a champion for vellum today.
Rebecca Harris
Both Houses of Parliament will soon enjoy the ceremony and tradition of the Queen’s Speech. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would not be a favourable idea to save money by getting the Queen to make a webcast from her sitting room?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Lady makes her point extremely well.
When it is proposed that vellum must be discontinued because there is a cheaper alternative, I start from a perspective of great scepticism. Why should we change the practice when it has served us so well for centuries? The issue is close to my heart because of the Lindisfarne Gospels. Everyone here will know their relevance to the north-east and to my Durham constituency. Produced in around 700, the gospels were written and painted on vellum, without which the gospels simply would not be with us today. Not just old relics, they are important living texts for our understanding of the culture and heritage of the north-east and elsewhere. When last on display in Durham a few years ago, over 100,000 people viewed them in just three months, most of them paying to do so.
Vellum is needed in the restoration of our ancient texts and for the recording of a range of important documents not only in the UK, but abroad. I hope that this House and the other place will take steps to protect the industry that supports that restoration, not put its future viability at risk by discontinuing the use of vellum. I pay tribute to the former Member of Parliament for North East Milton Keynes and the current Members of Parliament for Milton Keynes for trying to support and keep the industry alive.
I rarely agree with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but I did when he told The Daily Telegraph:
“Recording our laws on vellum is a millennium long tradition, and surprisingly cost effective. While the world around us constantly changes, we should safeguard some of our great traditions and not let the use of vellum die out.”
I strongly agree with him on that and I hope that in this House today we can send a strong message to their lordships that they should think again about this decision.
I am not against modernisation—indeed, I think the House of Lords could do with some of it—but we need to get the balance right. Things do have to change, but we also need to preserve what is important about our past. Acts of Parliament fall into that category, and we should continue to use vellum. I hope that we all vote in support of that today.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I should declare an interest, not only as a part-time historian who spent a large part of his youth burrowed away in the National Archives researching Tudor history, but as the chair of the all-party group on archives and history. The group has more than 100 members in both Houses, and has been fortunate to have as its secretariat the Archives and Records Association of the UK and Ireland, the leading professional body for archivists, record managers and conservators in these islands. The ARA has about 2,500 paid-up members, who have naturally raised concerns over the possible change in the recording of Acts of Parliament from vellum to archival paper, which I wish to reflect in my speech.
There has been a lot of debate on this issue and strong feelings have, naturally, been expressed. That is entirely understandable, as vellum, and parchment, its sheepskin cousin, is at the core of our national heritage. Vellum has been used to record some of the most important events in the history of these islands, not just Acts of Parliament. It is still actively used by our conservation community to repair and extend the life of our existing ancient manuscripts. Vellum is also a highly practical material. It is durable, accessible and much more resistant to fire and water than any kind of paper. It is also an alkaline material. Paper is more fragile, and it is acidic and deteriorates much more quickly over time.
Michael Ellis
Does my hon. Friend agree that the even the highest quality archival paper is going to last only about 300 years, and even then it would cost a lot to maintain in the right humid conditions, whereas vellum can be kept just about anywhere on a shelf and will last 5,000 years?
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: with vellum, we know it will last. It has already stood the test of time, as any historian or archivist will verify, through its continued existence over centuries. With paper, we can only guess how long a printed version will last; it depends on precisely what paper is used, what ink is used and how the resulting document is stored.
Sir Paul Beresford
I had better repeat what I said earlier. In this House we have been recording on parchment equivalent since 1497 and on paper from 13 years later. Having looked at the paper, the parchment and the vellum, I can say that they look the same.
Sir Paul Beresford
My hon. Friend is shaking his head, but I suggest he goes and looks.
Chris Skidmore
I want to talk from my own professional experience as a historian. Someone who goes to the National Archives and tries to order up SP1—the state papers of Henry VIII—will find that they are not allowed to do so. They will only be able to look at those on microfilm, because the paper is so fragile that it will crumble if touched. I have opened boxes and been amazed at how many documents have still not been looked at, but I know that paper from the 15th and 16th centuries is so fragile that it would crumble to the touch, and often those documents have to be returned unopened. That is not the case with vellum. People can order up stuff that is still in its original leather bag. It will be filthy but it remains there and people can study it, using ultraviolet light. That is the contrast I have seen as a historian. What if in 500 or 1,000 years’ time future generations of historians have this problem? It is simply not true to equate paper and vellum.
Europe’s leading expert on the subject, Dr Henk Porck of the Netherlands national library, has gone on record as saying that current ageing tests for paper
“cannot be reliably predicted by means of the present artificial ageing tests.”
When it comes to printing our country’s laws, arguably our most important documents, we need to ensure that we have a clear assurance that the materials they are printed on will last the test of centuries, as vellum has. Paper-printed Acts of Parliament may last a long time—I do agree that they last a significant amount of time—but it is not long enough, and we need all the details of what is being proposed.
There has also been significant debate about the cost of using vellum and the prospective savings from printing future Acts of Parliament on paper. On 19 January, in a letter to the Archives and Records Association, Lord Laming, the Chairman of Committees, explained that the cost of printing Acts of Parliament is about £103,000 a year, yet we know, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has said, that the only remaining UK firm involved in this, William Cowley Ltd in Milton Keynes, receives a maximum of £47,000 a year from selling vellum to Parliament. That means that associated costs are around £56,000 a year. Lord Laming stated in his letter to the ARA that the expected cost of printing future Acts on paper, including the paper itself, is around £20,000 a year, so there is still a discrepancy between £20,000 and £30,000. It would be good to know precisely what the saving is meant to be.
We know from specialists in the sector, including the ARA, that the cost of printing on vellum and paper should be roughly the same. It has been confirmed to the ARA by specialist printers, including the Gregynog Press and the Westerham Press, that current costs of printing on vellum could be achieved for much less. People who work with vellum say that printing techniques have come a long way in recent years. They add that letterpress, litho and screen-printing are all used successfully for vellum and parchment, and they should know. Yet the Chairman of Committees has said:
“Vellum requires a specialist and time-consuming printing process, and uses equipment which is not used for any other purpose. It is firmly expected to be significantly cheaper to print on quality archival paper.”
We have a difference of opinion here. First, will the Chairman of Committees set out the proactive efforts that he and previous incumbents have made to consult members of the heritage community on printing as it relates to vellum? Secondly, will he explain how often the contract for printing Acts of Parliament on vellum has been put out to tender, and—if known—what bids came in? Thirdly, will he publish the full cost-benefit assessment that he and his colleagues have carried out on this matter? We need this in order to give the issue proper scrutiny in this place, and for wider public transparency.
We all want to see value for money, but we should also be aware of false economies. Parliament should not subsidise vellum manufacture, but we should be mindful of the future cost of archival facilities, given the fragility of paper and the potential risk of damage to such important documents. We should also consider the impact on our conservation sector if the current Cowley contract is stopped.
Vellum, like sheepskin parchment, has played a key part at key points in the history of these islands in recording our most important events. Its continuous use over centuries should cause all Members to pause in sober reflection on the fact that we, as legislators, are the inheritors not just of a tradition of preserving our laws on vellum, but of a seamless legal tradition that goes back centuries. George Macaulay Trevelyan once wrote:
“The poetry of history lies in the quasi-miraculous fact that once, on this earth, once, on this familiar spot of ground, walked other men and women, as actual as we are to-day, thinking their own thoughts, swayed by their own passions, but now all gone, one generation vanishing after another, gone as utterly as we shall shortly be gone as ghost at cock crow.”
We, too, will be gone. We will be replaced by new generations of Members, and become footnotes to the past. If we are to govern in prose, we should at least allow ourselves, in our responsibilities to generations to come, to be reminded that the poetry of history matters.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
People watching this debate from outside will be convinced that this House is completely out of touch. We are talking about a vanity project. We could save £100,000 if we retain Acts of Parliament digitally. We do not need this project. The Paymaster General is very generous with taxpayers’ money and he has offered to pay that money. He was equally generous last year when he gave £3 million to Kids Company three days before it went bankrupt. That was another vanity project that was run by Mrs Batmanghelidjh, who was the poster girl of the big society. So, there is money for vellum. There was also money to save an organisation that did great harm to the people with whom it dealt and that was run by a confidence trickster, but it had the imprimatur of the big society—the Government stunt at the time.
Those outside can look at the decisions that we took on 2 March and at the way we have treated people in dire financial distress. Most of the Members who have spoken today on this matter voted in favour of taking £30 a week from the meagre budgets of disabled people.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman remember that we are talking about vellum and record copies of Acts?
Paul Flynn
We are talking about the priorities of this Chamber. Those outside will ask what on earth we are talking about, when we could not pay that money to the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign pensioners—the 2.7 million of them who have paid into their pensions and are being cheated. There is no money for that, but we save the vellum. What are we doing about the 500,000 overseas pensioners whose pensions are frozen? They paid all their dues. There is no money to give them justice, but there is money for the vellum. I think that people outside will certainly see that, and that we have one law that applies to ourselves—to our own vanities, our own history. It is history; there is no modern justification for using vellum now. This is part of the traditions of this place that should have been dumped along with top hats and quill pens.
Robin Cook tried to do it—it was an obvious saving. Remember the pressure we put on outside bodies to save money and make efficiencies. When we have a very sensible proposal from the House of Lords for an efficiency that will save £100,000, we turn it down because of sentimental, confused thinking, as though we were still living in past ages. It has no relevance for the future whatsoever.
Michael Ellis
I think that I have heard the hon. Gentleman refer in the past to the Chartist movement and to other historical aspects of this country. Vellum does not only record positive things. Vellum in society—history—records positive and negative things. If he hates most of the history of this country—perhaps he does not—does he not want to record that history, whatever it says?
Paul Flynn
I cherish the history of this country; I cherish the Book of Aneirin, Y Gododdin, presumably written on vellum:
“Gwyr a aeth i Gatreath
Godidog oedd eu gwedd”.
That goes back to the early centuries, before English existed as a language. Of course we treasure the past, and our heritage, but it has nothing to do with this century. We have other ways of maintaining a record. How precious are what we think of as these glorious words we produce, the prose of the laws that we pass. In 13 years of Labour Government, 75 laws were passed by Parliament and went through the whole process but were never implemented fully—never. They are rubbish; they are litter. Another such Bill at the moment, on psychoactive drugs, will do positive harm. I am afraid that we commit this sin. It is said that when there are crises, dogs bark, children cry and politicians legislate. Much of our legislation—the Bill on psychoactive drugs is an example of this—has no right to be preserved in any way. That will be regarded in the future, when the harm the legislation will do is obvious, as a vanity and an extravagance.
There are many outside who feel the austerity implemented mercilessly by that Government over there, who have taken large sums from people’s meagre incomes, with no attempt to make a case for that and no debate on it that makes sense. We have cut and cut again, and those people who are in financial distress will look at this House and laugh, and say, “There they go again: out of touch, looking after themselves and wasting huge sums of money—£100,000 for the parchment, £47 million for Kids Company—and for what?” Those on the Government Benches can say, “Oh yes, we have done that,” but we have 3.7 million children in poverty. We are not talking about them tonight, but we have saved the vellum. Contemptible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), I should emphasise that I am looking to call the shadow deputy Leader of the House at approximately 6.35 pm. I simply make the point that interventions are perfectly orderly and proper, but if there is a profusion of them colleagues on the list wanting to be called to speak will not be called. I am afraid colleagues will have only themselves to blame, to put it as bluntly but politely as I can. Let us help each other.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr Speaker, in this important debate.
I start by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on putting the case so powerfully. I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her work, and also to Brian White, the former Member for North East Milton Keynes, for his championing of the cause. Brian has just announced his retirement from Milton Keynes Council and has given many years of dedicated public service. I am happy to pay tribute here to all the work that he has done for this cause and many others.
My reason for speaking has been mentioned—Milton Keynes is home to the last British producer of vellum, William Cowley, founded in 1870 and family-owned throughout, which currently employs six people. It is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who, if he were not bound by ministerial responsibilities, would be hoping to speak in the debate. My comments can be amplified by him.
It is rather ironic that the home to one of the oldest traditions and industries in this country is located in the borough that is perhaps the most modern, the newest of new towns, the innovator of matters digital, autonomous pods, smart cities and the rest, but we are very proud to have it in Milton Keynes. Although I am a great believer in innovating digital technology, records and so on, I believe that we should preserve for all time the laws of this place on an indestructible material, and not run the risk that everything gets wiped out one day by some cyber-attack. I take comfort from the fact that we will have a permanent record here.
We should not take a risk with one of the oldest industries. Most nations of the world use vellum from William Cowley to record their national history for future generations or to create documents and works of art. Britain is the world’s foremost authority on vellum. We should not underestimate the disbelief in other countries that we are even considering ending its use. Should we decide today to turn our backs on vellum, we are likely to consign another traditional craft to the history books. It will lead us to import more from overseas. It risks supplies to other bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) eloquently pointed out.
I cannot see good reasons to abandon the practice. Vellum is cost-effective. There is an opportunity cost if we move to other sources. Vellum does not require intricate monitoring of storage. There is no need for expensive systems of microbiological or insect control. It is non-combustible, so there is no need for expensive non-water-based fire prevention systems. It is 16 times more durable than the highest quality paper available. I represent Milton Keynes, but I come from Scotland. Thrift is important and I abide by the old adage, “Buy cheap and you buy often.” Vellum is eco-friendly. It is, as we have heard, a by-product of the meat and dairy industry. The skins not used for vellum would otherwise have to be incinerated or go to landfill. It avoids tree felling and the use of chemicals to treat the paper.
We should protect our heritage and tradition of skilled craftspeople. I cannot see a problem that needs to be fixed by abandoning the use of vellum. I therefore hope the House will enthusiastically back the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I have been fortunate enough to represent Inverclyde in this House for almost a year. In that time I have welcomed a number of constituents to the parliamentary estate not only to give them a tour of these historic buildings, but to show them how this Parliament operates. While guiding my constituents through the Royal Gallery and Central Lobby, I have often thought that the Palace of Westminster would make a magnificent museum.
I am not against tradition and today I am proudly wearing my Innerkip Society tie. The Innerkip was established as a charitable organisation in 1798, and for over 218 years has survived to do its good work in the Inverclyde community by adapting and moving with the times.
Politically, Westminster means different things to different people, but this Parliament has had an undeniable influence on the history and culture of the UK’s nations over the centuries. Those centuries have led to the development of many important traditions, and I hope we can all agree that the history of any elected Chamber is worthy of respectful consideration.
However, I would caution that we should not let grand architecture and fine paintings distract us from the primary purpose of this building—as a functional centre of governance. It will be apparent to some Members that the UK Parliament does not always convincingly carry out that purpose. We need only look at the outdated estimates process, the antiquated upper House’s unelected bishops and hereditary peers or this Chamber’s box of complimentary snuff to see that every tradition is not worth continuing. Indeed, as Woody Allen said,
“Tradition is the illusion of permanence.”
It is in that context that we are here today to consider whether it is appropriate to continue recording public Acts of Parliament on vellum. Perhaps it is unsurprising that the modernisers in this debate are those advocating the use of paper—a writing material that has been available in Europe since the middle ages. Westminster politics has never been known for its ability to quickly adapt to changing circumstances.
Those arguing in favour of the continued use of vellum have cited its durability as one of the most important aspects of its use. I understand the point that original copies of records should survive so that future generations can enjoy them. I suggest, however, that the UK Government flatter themselves if they think that, 500 years hence, schoolchildren will clamour to visit this Parliament, eager to see an original copy of the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Act 2016. Whether or not legislation is written down on paper that is replaced over subsequent generations is inconsequential; it is the idea, principles and continued effectiveness of our laws, not the means of recording them, that are most worthy of our attention.
As Members are aware, the National Archives are one of two locations in which vellum copies of new public Acts are stored, and the National Archives, too, take the practical view that archival-quality paper is sufficient to maintain the public record.
Ultimately, there are risks associated with any form of recording, whether vellum, archival paper or full digitisation. We should be wary of anyone claiming that there is any one foolproof method of storage. Lack of foresight and unpredictable events have led to the destruction of records before and may do so again. It is worth remembering that the vellum records in the House of Commons archive were destroyed by fire in 1834, with the House of Lords records surviving only because they were housed in a separate building. Many nationally significant paper records have also been destroyed—particularly during the blitz.
Digitisation has also had its difficulties, as evidenced by the BBC Domesday project, which ran from 1984 to 1986, but which faced technological difficulties just 15 years later. My personal preference is for a combination of archival paper and digitisation. After all, the increased accessibility as a result of digitisation has undoubtedly improved the transparency of our public records.
I am sympathetic to those who argue that discontinuing the use of vellum would negatively affect the UK’s sole remaining producer. I would never argue lightly in favour of a measure that negatively impacted on the employment of any Member’s constituents.
None the less, Westminster is not a museum. It does not exist to propagate tradition for the sake of tradition. We are here to govern, to pass laws and to do so in a way that reflects the UK’s nations as they are today—not as they were in the past. For too long, this Parliament has doggedly refused to enter the 21st century. I therefore urge colleagues to vote against the motion.
Finally, if anyone from digital services is listening, could they please pop into my office and fix my printer? I have a sheet of vellum stuck in it—apparently vellum is not compatible with the 21st century.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry that I must now, with immediate effect, reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes, but I do so with the purpose of trying to accommodate everybody.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), who has been fighting the good fight to maintain the 1,000-year tradition of using vellum for the printing and preservation of Acts of Parliament. I confess that I have a vested interest: I successfully took a private Member’s Bill through this place and it became an Act of Parliament. However, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that there will be no jokes about Peter Pan and Wendy this evening.
When I first came to this place, I was—I often still am—bemused by its many traditions, but they are an integral part of everything that makes this place the mother of all Parliaments. The use of vellum is one such tradition. In a world of fast-moving technology, which we have heard about this afternoon, and of improvements in printing and processing techniques, and document storage, I agree that it is only right to review the practices for printing record copies of public Acts. Some might call me a dinosaur, but I do not think that there is anything wrong with holding on to a tradition of history.
Printing on vellum is a long-standing tradition. Record copies of public Acts have been printed on vellum since 1849. Vellum is far more durable than paper, even archival paper. Without vellum, as we have heard, we would not have Magna Carta, the Domesday Book, the Lindisfarne documents or many other important historical documents.
Time is pressing, so I will conclude my comments there, except to add that the anticipated savings do not justify a departure from this long-standing tradition. Although the world is, indeed, changing, it is important that we do not lose some of our great traditions, so we should not let the use of vellum simply die out.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Traditions are an important part of our country, our way of life and, indeed, our Parliament. Without them, this House would be a duller, drearier place. As we know from history, once traditions are torn down, it is all but impossible to revive them.
On the question of vellum, I am tempted to defer to Edmund Burke’s view of society as a contract between the living, the dead and those who are not yet born. I have no wish to deprive future generations of the ability to touch and smell the records of their past. In fact, we have a duty to our descendants to leave behind an abiding physical record of our laws and customs, just as our forebears, in their turn, did for us.
Without doubt, vellum is the natural document to last the ages. Without vellum, we would not have the Domesday Book, nor would we have been able to mark more than 800 years of Magna Carta, with all the historical significance that the four surviving 1215 copies added to our celebrations in Odiham in my constituency and elsewhere. It is entirely due to vellum that awe-inspiring texts such as the St Cuthbert Gospel from the 7th century have survived for so long. Even by the most generous estimates, the archive paper that the other place has proposed as a substitute to vellum has nothing like its lifespan.
As our methods of documentation move into an increasingly digitised world, we will gradually lose the ability to experience historical artefacts and to immerse ourselves fully in the study of the past. Every time a dusty volume is replaced by a PDF, and every time a print newspaper transfers to the internet, we gain something—our lives become more efficient and the pursuit of knowledge becomes easier—but we also lose something: the tactile elegance, the timeless simplicity and the physical permanence of record-keeping.
When it comes to preserving this valuable tradition, I believe that Paul Wright, who works for the vellum manufacturer, put it best when he said, “If it’s precious, put it on vellum.” If we in this House have the confidence to make and enact laws, we must also deem them worthy of preserving through the ages.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I wonder whether we are belittling ourselves slightly. Yes, vellum is almost immortally permanent and—from the Domesday Book to the equally wondrous Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2016—has faithfully freighted and defended its contents. If we ditch it for a ream of A4 80 gsm paper, or whatever it might be, our descendants will watch as the laws governing them gradually putrefy, wither and dissolve. Yes, that might be an advantage for many things, but is not this about more than a practical issue?
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that every day we sit in this place and hear soaring flights of Ciceronian oratory from both sides of the House. This place bears witness to an indefatigable tide of facts, figures and predictions, all of which are dispensed with rhetorical clusters of clauses and sub-clauses nesting like Russian dolls, and held up with towering eloquence. Is it not fitting for the laws, Bills and Acts in which those words are made manifest to be conveyed and preserved in a manner worthy of their breadth and nobility?
I am sure hon. Members will remember “Gulliver’s Travels”, in which one Lilliputian inspired awe in the others because he was taller than his peers by the breadth of one fingernail. We must not be guilty of the same—of thinking small and measuring ourselves against one another instead of taking the wider view and the historical perspective, and reflecting the enormous historical significance and distinction of this place.
We have faced this hurdle before when, with great irony, the distinguished and noble Members of another place sought to end a millennium-long tradition. While balancing precariously on a quivering tower of ritual custom and convention, they thrust their ancient swords in the direction of another small part of our heritage, and their efforts were thwarted. I, for one, hope we will resist them again.
In this place, the thought ought to be not, “Can we make do?” but, “Can we do no better?” I am delighted that so many Members support this motion. As negligible as a politician is, and however much today’s Lilliputian thoughts might seem perishable, it is incumbent on us today to uphold their imperishability.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow that Ciceronian example of oratory from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on their work.
I wish to address a point that I feel has been somewhat overlooked: these proposals represent the thin end of the wedge, and a general direction of travel away from physical storage and towards a digital-only future that I would want to avoid. I was concerned to read in a written answer from 9 November last year that in addition to reassurances that archive paper is a sufficient replacement for vellum—a claim I dispute—further reassurance was offered that Parliament maintains a comprehensive database of legislation, both “as originally enacted” and “as amended” on the website www. legislation.gov.uk. I took that as a sign that some think that web-based archives can be the equivalent of hard copies, but they are not, for the simple reason that technology evolves far too quickly to serve as a permanent record for any sensible length of time. New and “better” devices and file formats come on the market every month, and it takes only a few years for technology to become redundant. If I handed you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a copy of your maiden speech from 1997 on a floppy disk, would you be able to access it readily? I doubt that you would, and let us not even begin thinking about transferring documents between PC and Apple formats.
Many computer devices that are sold now do not even feature CD-drives, such is the fashion for online storage—the “cloud”. While online storage might be the current flavour of the decade and it works fine for now, such is the pace of change that I ask whether we can really expect information to be stored sufficiently in that format in 10 or 20 years, let alone in 500 or 1,000 years. If we are not cautious, we could soon be facing a new digital dark age in which accessing digital files from a few years earlier will prove trickier and trickier.
Sir Paul Beresford
One difficulty is that although the law is printed on vellum, its implementation is done through statutory instruments, which are printed on paper and kept digitally. The other interesting thing that I have found—being old enough—is that digital records are changed and moved as we go on with digital invention.
William Wragg
My hon. Friend raises a number of interesting points, although whether we should print the deliberations of statutory instrument Committees on vellum is a moot point.
I simply warn about this digital dark age that will soon be sweeping over us. We should resist the change and hold on to an established, prestigious, and time-tested physical form of record storage—the premier form of record storage which, of course, is vellum.
I am fortunate enough to have the honour that my private Member’s Bill has been passed by the House. It is currently making its way through the other place but, if these proposals go ahead, I could add to that honour the somewhat more dubious one that should my Bill receive Royal Assent, it could become one of the last few Acts of Parliament to be recorded on vellum.
Sir Paul Beresford
May I inform my hon. Friend that since 1956 that has been what happens? I am sorry, but if he gets his Bill through, it will not be on vellum.
William Wragg
I am hugely disappointed. I wonder whether I would be able to ask the fine procurer of vellum in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), to print the Act. I would be happier to forgo the honour of having my Act of Parliament printed on vellum if I knew that future Acts would be printed on vellum.
Mrs Hodgson
As a point of clarification, I also promoted a private Member’s Bill that became law, and it is printed on vellum. I have seen and held it, and it is definitely vellum. It is private Acts, not private Members’ Acts, that are printed on paper.
William Wragg
I am grateful for that helpful intervention from the hon. Lady, who is extremely learned in these matters. In conclusion, I say to the House that our predecessors in this Chamber resisted the change proposed by the other place in 1999, and I urge Members to do so again today.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Anybody who is watching BBC Parliament today will be completely confused about why the House is spending the best part of two hours debating whether to continue spending £100,000 a year printing laws on goatskins. I am surprised that this is how we are choosing to spend precious time in the Chamber. When there is a refugee crisis in Europe, the country is facing a huge decision on whether to remain in the EU, and child poverty and homelessness are increasing, surely we could be putting this sitting to better use. It is embarrassing that time limits had to be imposed on speeches in the previous debate on genocide by Daesh against ethnic and religious minorities so that we could debate this motion. I am also quite surprised that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is normally so eager to tell us of his prudence with taxpayers’ money, has said that the Government will find—
Mr James Gray
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady indicates from the Dispatch Box that the time for the previous debate, which was a grave and important debate about Daesh, was curtailed to accommodate this debate. That is not correct. I went to great lengths to say that the previous debate could continue for as long as was desired, because this debate was much less important.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That was not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. The problem is that I am struggling to hear because of the shouting.
Melanie Onn
If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) had listened, he would have heard that I said that there were reductions in the time that people had to speak, which is a perfectly valid point—
Melanie Onn
I will finish my sentence before I give way.
I am surprised that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is normally so eager to tell us of his prudence with taxpayers’ money, has said that the Government will find the extra money for this with no problem. I thought that the Government had a long-term economic plan, but it can hardly be called that if money can be found down the back of the sofa whenever it suits the Government politically.
Robert Jenrick
When I heard that the hon. Lady was opposed to the proposal, I took the liberty—I hope she does not mind—of looking up whether there are any important documents from the town of Grimsby that are printed on vellum and would not have existed had they been printed on paper. It turns out that in Grimsby town hall there are 14 boxes of them including, from 1227, the charter creating the town of Grimsby; from 1256, the charter granting the town of Grimsby its right—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Sit down, Mr Jenrick. [Interruption.] I suggest you sit down—[Interruption.] Order. Mr Flynn, I certainly do not need any help from you. I say to you, Mr Jenrick, that the Minister is desperate to come in. By all means make the point, but you cannot read a list as though it is the phone directory to tell me what is there or not. We have got the message; let us get on.
Melanie Onn
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) takes such a close interest in Great Grimsby’s fantastic history. However, we are talking about today, not the 1200s.
The Minister has said that the process is surprisingly cost-effective, and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has said that keeping vellum costs little or nothing. However, the cost to Parliament of producing vellum in 2014-15 was £107,000. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) mentioned, using the most expensive parchment paper would cost just £8,000. You know what they say, Mr Deputy Speaker: “£100,000 here, £100,000 there—it soon starts to add up to real money.”
The Lords Committee cited a more conservative estimate of a saving of £80,000 a year from scrapping vellum. However, that does not take into account the renewal of the printing contract, under which the cost is likely to be greater than under the current arrangements, and nor does that take account of the cost of producing and printing the mammoth HS2 hybrid Bill, should that ever pass into law. At 49,000 pages long, I hate to think how many goats it will take to produce two copies.
Melanie Onn
This expense is simply to continue a tradition because that is the way it has always been—that seems to be the only genuine argument that has been presented for continuing to print Acts of Parliament on vellum. A much more important tradition is the 800-year-old one that all Members of this House are equal, which the Government ended when they introduced English votes for English laws in such a shoddy way. Conservative Members were willing to let go of that tradition, and I see no reason why the tradition we are debating today is more worthy of retention.
The Minister and other hon. Members have said that vellum should be kept as it is the only way to maintain physical copies of Acts of Parliament for the long term, but the Parliamentary Archives contains paper records that date back just as long as vellum ones. The manuscript journals of the House of Lords, which date back to 1510, have been printed on paper, but the oldest vellum record is an Act of Parliament from 1497, which is a difference of only 13 years.
I know that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire likes to remind everyone that if Magna Carta had been printed on paper, it would have been lost in about 1465, sometime before the birth of Henry VIII, but we are not talking about Magna Carta. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) pointed out, we are talking about the Coinage (Measurement) Act 2011, the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and every other Bill that is passed in this place. I might also point out that there was a greater need to print on vellum at the time when Magna Carta was drafted, given the surprise emergence of computers and the internet since the 13th century.
Several hon. Members raised concerns about the future of William Cowley, which is a serious point because that company currently provides the vellum for Acts of Parliament.
Melanie Onn
We support this industry and agree that it is worth maintaining—[Interruption.] In response to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), I am not giving way because I have only two minutes left before the speech from the Minister, who wants to take 13 minutes to make his point clear.
We support this industry and agree that it is worth maintaining, but the company produces thousands of pages of vellum every year and its contract with Parliament is only a small part of its business. The company’s general manager has said that the loss of the contract with Parliament would be “nothing”, and I think that we should accept his expert opinion.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office said to The Daily Telegraph yesterday:
“Printing vellum copies of laws…provides a durability we cannot guarantee in the digital world, as we simply cannot know how easy it will be to read today’s data in a decade, let alone in a millennium.”
What absolute rubbish! One minute the Cabinet Office brags about
“building new digital services so good people prefer using them to the old paper versions they replace”,
and the next it says that it is all going to be unreadable in 10 years’ time. If we follow his logic, everything should be printed on vellum, not just Acts of Parliament.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) have claimed that to ditch vellum would be to downgrade the importance of the law of the land. As very few people are actually aware of laws being printed on goatskin in the first place, I can only think that they must be talking about the effect on themselves and their Conservative colleagues. If they believe the law would no longer be important after the change to manuscript paper, people might want to keep an eye on them.
I find it particularly surprising that the hon. Member for North East Somerset, who has written an article in The Daily Telegraph today, agrees with the argument that it is important for Acts to last 5,000 years. His lack of concern about rising global temperatures had led me to believe that he was not all that bothered about anything still being here in the year 7016.
Finally, there is the question of why on earth the Minister for the Cabinet Office is getting involved. This is a matter for the Lords, not the Commons or the Government. If the Government do wish to involve themselves, why is the Leader of the House not leading on this matter, rather than the Minister for the Cabinet Office? I am sure that there are much more useful things a Government Minister could be doing with his time, and there are certainly much more worthy causes on which £100,000 of taxpayers’ money could be spent each year. He should let the Lords end this archaic process and get on with something more important. The world has moved on since 1497 and it is time that this place did too.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
It falls to this House to debate issues both large and small. Today’s debate has shown that this issue is both large and small: large because the question of how, as a Parliament and as a country, we record the sovereign laws of our land, and whether we should protect the traditions by which we have done this for many centuries, is of great importance; and small because the financial sums involved and the savings offered by the change that we are debating are but a minuscule fraction of the overall cost of government.
I want to be clear that this is, first and foremost, a House matter. Should the House carry the motion today, I hope that we can work with the other place to find a path forward that both Houses find satisfactory. In that spirit of pragmatism, the Government have offered financial support from other savings, without further burdening taxpayers, to ensure that this tradition, which is of great symbolic and practical value, is not irrecoverably broken by a lack of funding on this small scale.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on his tireless campaigning. I have been buoyed by the support that we have received from across the House and, indeed, the other place. The case was set out powerfully by him, by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and by many Members across the House.
Sir Paul Beresford
It is absolutely inappropriate for the Government to dictate to the Houses of Parliament by a payment. The way in which it should work is that the Houses decide and pass on the bill, as traditionally happens every year. The Minister should know that. To tell us that he will pay for one specific thing is inappropriate.
Matthew Hancock
This is indeed a matter for the House, and this House is just about to make sure that its view is well known.
The speech by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), the intervention by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) were incredibly powerful and persuasive. There are Members who sit on the Treasury Bench, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and for Devizes (Claire Perry), who would have spoken had convention not prevented them from doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made the case for abolition, but his speech ended up as a haggle about the costs. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) railed against the rule of law, ultimately, arguing that it was not worth preserving laws. Well, I think that the rule of law in this country is important and should be preserved.
Paul Flynn
The Minister is distorting the point I made. This is a vanity issue. Does he not realise that the people outside this House who have been badly hurt by the austerity cuts of this Government will look at that £100,000, and the £47 million that his Department gave to Kids Company, and imagine what they could do with it? The Government have been so mean on the employment and support allowance and on the bedroom tax, but are saving the vellum.
Matthew Hancock
It is only because of the careful management of public finances that we can preserve and safeguard our best traditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) brought his great and deep expertise to the debate, and told us why Dr Porck thinks we should print on goatskin. For that insight, I thank him. I also pay tribute to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), which was powerful and rhetorical, and made the point succinctly. All I think I can safely say about the speech by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) is that she managed in her remarks to oppose the very material on which her own town’s charter is printed. I never expected to say this in the House, but her speech made me think, “Bring back Austin Mitchell.”
Why does this matter? First, because in a world racked by instability, volatility and change, we must safeguard our great traditions. I am an optimist about the power of human ingenuity, innovation and technology, and their ability to transform our lives. I passionately believe that modern invention can radically improve the way we do almost everything in Government. I am responsible for digital transformation and for cyber-security. But this is not a debate that pits tradition against modernity, because a truly modern outlook does not put them up against each other. Novelty is no guarantee of improvement. Traditions matter precisely because they connect us with the collective wisdom of our predecessors. There are times when a tradition should and must be done away with, but traditions should not be broken lightly, especially those of the longest standing, for once discarded, they cannot be replaced easily, and sometimes cannot be replaced at all. Let us combine the best of the old with the best of the new.
Mrs Hodgson
I am grateful to the Minister for letting me intervene, especially as I wanted to make a similar point to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who would not give way. I am pleased that the Minister is bringing the debate back to tradition. I come back again to my point about heritage craft. We are going to spend billions on saving this building, when it would be a lot cheaper to build a 21st-century building somewhere else. Heritage matters. The tiles that are being replaced out in Central Lobby are individually handmade; that money could have been spent on the poor. Why is no one making that argument? The same argument is not made about the fund for international development. Does he agree with me?
Matthew Hancock
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of our traditions. The Heritage Crafts Association, which she so ably spoke for, has for many years supported the skills needed to keep these crafts going. I knew its work when I was Minister of State for Skills and Enterprise, and am delighted to support the skills of those who make and print on vellum now.
Committing our laws to this robust material underlines the point that the law of the land is immutable and that the rule of law is steadfast. We should never take that for granted. To those who say that this is symbolism, I say yes, it is vital symbolism. What else are laws but symbols on a page? What are these symbols? They are symbols of great importance that make up and underpin the fabric of our society. The vellum record copies of Acts—signed in Norman French, no less, by the Clerk of the Parliaments—are part of the rich character of this House and of our evolving constitution, just like Black Rod’s staff or the colour of the Benches of this Chamber. The symbolic power of vellum is undeniable. After the public outcry that followed the proposal to scrap it, it is time to reconsider. As Burke said, the British constitution is like an ancient house that
“stands well enough, though part Gothic, part Grecian, and part Chinese, until an attempt is made to square it into uniformity. Then it may come down upon our heads altogether in much uniformity of ruin”.
Let us not make the mistake of trying to square this great tradition into uniformity.
That is the symbolic case, but let me turn to the practical case for vellum. By any measure, vellum is far more durable and far stronger than archive paper, lasting thousands of years. It is hard to destroy, and without vellum, would we today have copies of the Domesday Book, the Magna Carta, the Lindisfarne gospels, Henry VIII’s certificate of marriage or Charles I’s warrant of death? I doubt that we would. Portugal is this nation’s most long-standing ally, and since 1373, the Anglo-Portuguese treaty has held the force of law, and it can be read. Why? Because it was written on vellum. We used vellum even for the town charter of Grimsby.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I would like to take the opportunity to add to that list the charter for the Salford Hundred, a document showing that Salford was of greater cultural and commercial importance than its neighbour, Manchester. Even in times of austerity, documents like that, written on vellum, are so important to the people of Salford.
Matthew Hancock
And to places around the country: Grimsby, Salford, Chester—you name it. [Interruption.] Ebbsfleet—any more bids?
Let me deal with the costs. As has been noted, I bow to no one in my desire to save taxpayers’ money. For the first half of this decade, the drive for savings has been the backdrop to debate in this House, and I expect that to continue for some years yet. The Administration Committee estimates that the cost to Parliament of using vellum has been a little over £100,000 a year. Of course, any alternative would have its own costs, so all this amount could not be saved in any case.
Last year, the total costs of the House of Lords were around £100 million. If both Houses decide to sit for one extra day, the cost runs into tens of thousands. By comparison with the resources put into researching, debating and passing each Bill, the printing of an Act on vellum is negligible. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley called the costs “not significant”. The savings proposed are just a tenth of 1% of the budget of the House of Lords, and one hundred thousandth of 1% of the total budget of the Government.
Vellum’s durability means that it is excellent value for money. At today’s prices, printing the Magna Carta on vellum would cost about £6 per century. I do not know of any other data storage system that can beat that, so I can give the House the commitment that, should there be any extra costs, taxpayers will be protected, and we will work with both Houses to find a solution that can work. I have heard the argument that there is only one printer and that it is being dismantled, but that is just not true. There are a multitude of printers; indeed, I printed the first page of my speech on vellum on a laser printer.
We have looked into the matter of suppliers, and one consequence of this debate and the scrutiny it has provided is that we can bring the costs of printing on vellum down. I have heard that we are running out of space for storage. That is not true. At the current rate, we could pass Acts for 500 years and there would be space enough in the Victoria tower for them. On the basis of symbolism, cost and practicality, therefore, we should continue this great and long tradition.
Mr James Gray
What a fine debate this has been. It has been well informed and impassioned on all sides. I believe that 13 of the 15 speakers supported the motion, while the two or three who did not were very helpful to my case, so I was grateful to them. The fact of the matter is that children up and down the land are told that the laws of the land are important, and one symbol of that importance is that they are printed on vellum. The durability and traditional quality of vellum, the traditions of this House and the way in which vellum symbolises the importance of the laws of the land all make it crucial that, for a marginal cost, if any, we continue with this long tradition.
In 1999, we told the House of Lords that we in the House of Commons were the people who must decide these matters. I therefore call on Members once again to assert our House’s right to say how we wish the laws of the land to be recorded.
Question put.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to clarify one point. The Minister for the Cabinet Office stated that the first page of his speech was printed on vellum. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Never mind the hon. Gentleman having his hand in his pocket, I want to hear the point of order.
Ronnie Cowan
The first page of the Minister’s speech was of course not printed on vellum. It may have been printed on a product called vellum paper, which is a completely different synthetic product. It is not vellum.
Mr Deputy Speaker
All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that that is not a point for the Chair, and I am certainly not going to reopen the debate after what we have just been through.
Business without Debate
European Union Documents
Sports Pitches at Shugborough Hall, Staffordshire
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition about sports pitches at Shugborough Hall in my constituency of Stafford. I pay tribute to Jeanette Daly who, accompanied by many others from the area of Great Haywood, Little Haywood and Colwich, has done a tremendous amount work on the matter. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the National Trust.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the sports pitches to the south of Shugborough Hall are well used and a valuable asset to local and area teams; further that the pitches have been part of a recreation site for decades; further that the proposals put forward by the National Trust to close the pitches in order to create parkland would have a negative impact on sports provision in Staffordshire and make it harder for local people to pursue a healthy and active lifestyle; further notes that these proposals have not been consulted upon; and further that a local petition on a similar matter has been signed by 1,000 individuals.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call on the National Trust to work with the local community to arrive at a compromise where the sports pitches at Shugborough Hall can continue to be used by local sports teams.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001685]
Butterfields Estate
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Tonight, we are holding a debate about the future of the Butterfields estate in Walthamstow, but I want to tell the Minister about the properties and the residents who live in them. The story is not unique to Walthamstow; it is a story of what is happening in our housing market around the country due to a lack of properties, and speculative developers and letting and estate agents, who seek to maximise gains without any thought to the consequences of exploiting people in this uncompetitive market. I hope to persuade the Minister to help not only to change the future for the residents of the Butterfields estate, many of whom are in the Gallery this evening, but to tackle the underlying problems that enabled the situation to arise in the first place. I expect that he has not heard the story of Butterfields, so I intend to set that out and then ask a series of questions.
Last November, Butterfields E17 Ltd, a company formed just a few months before by Jasbir Singh Jhumat and Pardeep Singh Jhumat, bought the 63 flats on Shernhall Street and Butterfields in Walthamstow from a landlord who had owned the flats for almost 80 years. Hon. Members may have seen this part of my constituency on TV or in the newspapers—I am sure that for the Housing Minister “Location, Location, Location” is required zeitgeist viewing and that he pores over Time Out and the property hotspots in the Evening Standard—because it is at the edge of Walthamstow village.
The tenants were not told at the time that their homes had been sold by their previous long-term owner, the Glasspool Charity Trust, a charity whose charitable purpose is to prevent destitution—I will return to that irony later. No one told them their landlord had changed. They learned of this when some tenants started getting notices to quit in January 2016 from their new landlords, telling them they had just two more months to live in Walthamstow. Sixteen tenants have so far been served with notices to quit, and they are mainly people on fairly low incomes. Almost half of them have young children, and two have retired. Most of them have lived on the estate for a long time—up to 16 years, with an average stay of seven years.
This is a real community. It is not just those 16 households who are at risk; the owners have made it clear that they wish to sell on all the homes eventually. Like one in five households in this country, the only crime these people have committed is not being able to afford to get on the property ladder and so they are having to rent, meaning that they can be moved on at any time. Their good record on paying rent and taking care of these properties matters little to the new owners—businessmen with a slew of companies recorded at Companies House set up one after another and dissolved just as quickly, some with health and safety breaches recorded against them, too. The only concern of these companies has been to try to get the residents out as quickly as possible so that they can sell on these properties to make a profit in London’s overheated housing market: to capitalise on the gentrification buzz that puts Walthamstow at the top of so many housing lists.
To that end, these people have even sent the residents letters claiming they were no longer tenants because they had been served with an eviction notice, and suggesting they could face fines of thousands of pounds in the courts, as well as having their career prospects damaged if they fight the evictions. Despite the legislation on revenge evictions, these good tenants, mostly with assured shorthold tenancies, now have to fight for their very rights, including the right for their deposits to be protected—this company also failed to tell them about that when it bought the properties. No current legislation is stopping the juggernaut of these developers riding roughshod over these residents’ rights as they chase a quick profit. In March, the new landlord put six of the flats up for auction with Savills, without telling the occupying tenants or telling the people seeking to buy those properties that they had tenants in them. Three were sold, for £300,000 each, which we think is about £50,000 more than the price paid for them. I also want to come back to that point when talking about the charity that sold the estate.
This is not necessarily a bad news story for the Minister, because today I can reveal that Dolphin Living, part of the Dolphin Square Charitable Foundation, has formally stated that it is prepared to make an offer for the entire estate, helping to keep these hard-working residents in their homes and working for this city. Yet still the owners refuse to negotiate, hoping that by their tactics residents will go quietly and they can continue to flog off the flats to push up their profits. They have pound signs in their eyes, but good business sense has gone out the window. They are bullying, misleading and riding roughshod over the rights of these people. The question is: just how did they end up being able to buy all these properties? That is where NatWest comes into this story.
It was NatWest that financed the purchase of this estate. This is the same NatWest bank that we, as taxpayers, own 73% of. Yet it is financing the break-up of a community. Ironically, it is doing so during a Treasury consultation about the Bank of England’s role in regulating buy-to-let lending. This is at a time when UK productive corporate investment is low by historical and international comparison. NatWest bank owns a separate charge on each of the 63 flats, linked to its loan. No other funder has a charge on the flats. It is simply inconceivable that it did not know of the plans to evict the tenants, as how else would this loan be repaid? One would have hoped compliance would have flagged up the chequered history of the people who took out the loans.
NatWest policies explicitly state:
“Our firm commitment is to lend responsibly. It is not in our interest to enter into unsustainable commercial agreements, or to lend to organisations, or individuals, which could damage the bank’s reputation.”
I hope we can all agree on one thing across the House tonight: if making 63 families homeless is not bad for your reputation, what is? Yet NatWest tells me that its executive response team has not found any evidence that the bank did not act in accordance with its policy and procedures.
I am here not to discuss the pros and cons of the bail-out, but to say very plainly that we will pay the price twice for NatWest’s conduct. We will pay the cost of the bail-out and the cost of helping these families if they are made homeless. I hope that the Minister will agree to act and to raise this matter with NatWest directly. The Government have taken an active interest in the future of NatWest. They sought to sort out its leadership; now it is time for us to use our muscle with this institution to make it live its values in its lending policies.
That multi-million pound loan given to Butterfields E17 Ltd diverts resources away from meeting the serious costs of funding the needs of small businesses. That bank is also fuelling the speculation in higher housing costs, which is so detrimental to my local community, without funding any building work despite the challenge of building houses in this country. It is not too late for NatWest to act. NatWest is entitled under the terms of the charge to withhold consent from any sale and to prevent any other charge being put on the property. It can ask its clients why they did not seem to understand tenancy rights, which puts them at risk of lengthy court proceedings. It could ask why, when a serious organisation such as Dolphin Living wants to work with them, they do not negotiate or even pick up the phone. I know all this because I have spent the past month trying to do that deal for them.
If we cannot save this estate with the help of Dolphin, the fate of these residents is unlikely to be happy. Local rents have rocketed to close to double the amount that these tenants were originally paying and far above what most of them can afford. Claiming housing benefit even if they were willing to reduce their net income is no longer feasible in a London where the limits on housing benefit are below local market rents. Indeed, many of my residents in Walthamstow pay nearly 60% of their monthly income on rent—little wonder that personal debt continues to rise in Walthamstow. Most would have to move away, losing out financially with higher travel costs or having to give up work. Their children would no longer be able to stay in our local schools. A well-established community would be broken up to the detriment not just of those residents but of Walthamstow itself.
Some have suggested that the council could buy the estate—as though, under this Government, it has a spare £16 million going—or put the residents at the top of its already stretched housing waiting list. Although Waltham Forest Council has been trying to help the residents with housing advice, the honest truth is that we already have 2,500 residents in our community in temporary accommodation. The lack of properties in the private rented sector as gentrification rips through both prices and local provision makes it even harder to keep people in our community.
I ask the Minister to raise this issue with his colleagues in the Cabinet Office, because I do not believe that the charity that sold this estate in the first place should be absent from its obligations to these residents. As I said at the start of my remarks, this charity’s explicit remit is to prevent destitution and homelessness, yet that is precisely what its actions are likely to cause.
Charity rules require that a charity should consider the impact of the disposal of assets such as this. Given that the tenants of Butterfields would have been, and could still be, direct beneficiaries of this charity, the consequences of this deal should have been consulted on, yet that did not happen. It did not happen because the charity listened to Clarke Hillyer letting agents, which acted for both itself and Butterfields E17 Ltd, no doubt making a healthy profit for both without any sense that there was a conflict of interest. It encouraged the charity to sell the estate without any consultation with the residents.
We can accept that the charity wanted to raise funds for its charitable purpose, but to have sold these properties as a block in 2015 and seen them resold on at a higher price not six months later raises serious questions about the value of this deal to the charity. Indeed, we estimate that it is possible that it has lost around £3 million in pursuit of a quick windfall, which made it so blind to the interests of either the tenants or its supposed beneficiaries.
I have been told today that the Charity Commission is now investigating the matter, but that the charity did not need to seek permission for the sale to go ahead. Yet it is clear that when such a hypocritical deal takes place, where the charity looks for a £16 million windfall thereby putting its charitable purpose in a secondary position, it can only damage the confidence that all of us have in the concept of charitable status.
I have a series of questions for the Minister and a request that he makes a commitment to raise these matters explicitly with his colleagues and also with NatWest. Can he tell us what the conditions are of the bail-out to which banks must adhere, especially as they are lending in property markets, given that 60% of their books is mostly property? The Chancellor claimed that under his watch the banking system had been “reset”, that banks should “work for customers” and that the changes would mean that when mistakes were made it would be the banks, not the taxpayers, who would pick up the bill. If the Chancellor was serious about that, in this instance—with 63 families who will be made homeless and will therefore require help and support from the state—I presume that the Minister will recognise that this is a mistake and that there is a cost to not acting. What does he believe the consequences should be as a direct result of this decision?
Indeed, how will Ministers ensure in future that lenders such as NatWest, which is still owned by the taxpayer, will instead increase credit for the real economy and for productive purposes, not for the kind of speculation we have seen, which is skewing our housing market in London? The developers can do this because there is no protection for tenants from such shady landlords. Will the Minister not only change his mind on landlord licensing, which is having such an impact in Waltham Forest in helping to address the quality of our housing and in dealing with landlords such as these, who seem to think that health and safety is optional for a rental property, but reconsider powers in the Housing and Planning Bill to protect tenants such as those from the Butterfields estate who are facing no-fault evictions caused by the threat of fees?
It is clear that the landlord is seeking to use the threat of fees in the same way as it could have used the threat of eviction to try to pressurise the residents to void their rights. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is time to protect those tenants who, through no fault of their own and in the London housing market, face possible eviction. Finally, will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Cabinet Office about the regulation of this charity, Glasspool, and how we can ensure that charities do not act to undermine their purpose and that the Charity Commission is robust in its approach to such situations?
Gentrification has undoubtedly bought benefits to my community—new shops, new investment, even new people—but it also clearly has costs and consequences. Without action, those costs will be borne by those who can least afford it and we will all pay the price. Developers, charities and banks that are so blinded by pound signs that they cannot see the damage they are doing require strong Governments to speak for the public interest. I hope the Minister will not just watch the TV shows or read the property pages but act today and in future to help to ensure that communities such Walthamstow can be a top location for all concerned.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing this debate about the future of the Butterfields estate. I also take the opportunity to extend my sympathies to the residents affected, as I recognise the difficult position in which they have been placed, which they must feel is quite precarious. I shall deal with some of the key issues the hon. Lady has outlined, as well as some of the wider general issues.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments about Walthamstow and know the area fairly well—as she might know, I went to school just down the road. It is a fabulous part of the country and a great part of London. She made some political comments, and I appreciate that we sit on opposite sides of the House. She talks about the opportunity to ensure that there are homes for people and that we have housing supply coming through, but I would make the point that we have a good track record, having doubled the number of first-time buyers since 2010 and having seen house building increase by 25% just last year. I gently remind her that next time she raises housing supply she might want to bear in mind that the previous Labour Government—in fact, the current shadow Housing Minister—left the country with the lowest level of house building since 1923. We have had quite a lot of work to do to get from that paltry 88,000 a year back to 181,000 over the past year. I am proud of that work.
To move on to this specific case, the decision by Glasspool to sell the estate is, as she will appreciate, a private matter relating to the charity’s management of its assets. However, as she outlined, Dolphin Living, which I know and which is an excellent organisation, wants to negotiate with the new landlords to keep the residents of the Butterfields estate in their new homes at the correct rent. I am happy to do what I can to support driving forward that negotiation to get the parties to the table. I cannot imagine that the residents could be in better hands than if they had Dolphin Living as an organisation to work with. The fact that Dolphin Living wants to be involved is good news and I encourage all parties to get involved. If I can play a part in helping with that, I will happily do so.
The Government recognise that people want the security of a home that is stable and sustainable. The residents in this case will feel that poignantly. Most people strive to have their own home and we are determined to do all we can to deliver for them, both in terms of supply and, as the hon. Lady outlined, by making sure that people are protected. I will come on to that in a moment.
It is right that the local authority should do all it can to support and encourage the parties to work together. Despite the hon. Lady’s comments, she may want to go back and talk to her council about whether it will consider spending some of the £90 million that it has in reserves to be supportive and helpful. I am sure the council will want to help the residents in that situation.
We have embarked on the largest Government house building programme for 40 years. Over the past few years we delivered almost a million new homes, and we will deliver a million more by the end of this spending review, helping hundreds of thousands of people take the first step on the ladder to home ownership. We are also committed to building a bigger, better private rented sector, providing security and stability for both tenants and landlords. Increasing supply is the best way of improving quality, choice and, more importantly, affordability for tenants, but that will not be achieved without a significant boost to the investment coming into that sector. That is why we have put Government support behind it through our £1 billion Build to Rent fund, making sure that we are using our economic record to offer up to £10 billion of innovative housing guarantees. The affordable housing guarantee scheme has already provided more than £2 billion of investment.
On the existing legislation and how it is moving forward, the hon. Lady touched on the Housing and Planning Bill. Before shorthold tenancies were introduced by the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in decline. Regulated rents and lifetime tenancies meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. Since the changes in 1988, that sector has grown steadily, responded to the flexibility and created changes in the wider housing market. Private sector landlords play an important role in meeting the housing needs of many households. Of those who choose to live or have to live in the private rented sector, the vast majority will have an assured shorthold tenancy, which gives them certain rights under that Act. These include the right to live in the property as their home, and tenants can enforce their rights, for example, to get repairs done.
The legislation enables a landlord to regain possession of their property at any time after a fixed term comes to an end or at any time during a contractual or statutory periodic tenancy, provided it is at least six months since the start of the original tenancy. The landlord must give the tenant at least two months’ notice that they require possession. Without the certainty that landlords can do that when required, landlords and lenders would be reluctant to allow those properties to be let. We believe that more restrictive and excessive legislation, such as forcing longer tenancies or notice periods, would mean that fewer homes were available in the market to rent. That would not help landlords or tenants.
I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about charities in the sector being very aware of their charitable purpose and their duty to their clients and beneficiaries.
Stella Creasy
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he will help with the negotiation with Dolphin. That will take time. May I press him on no-fault evictions? One of the things that residents present here tonight are afraid of are letters telling them that they could generate thousands of pounds in court fees. I am sure that many of them would love to be able to save for their new home, but sadly they will not be able to get on the housing ladder, given the prices in Walthamstow. The thought that they might incur several hundred or even several thousand pounds of fees is a stick that the landlord is using to beat them with. Just as we dealt with revenge evictions, I encourage the Minister to think about no-fault evictions. These tenants are paying their rent and they are not at fault, but their rights are being undermined. Is there a way of dealing with that?
Brandon Lewis
I will come to some of the provisions of the Housing and Planning Bill. I hope the hon. Lady will consider, possibly for the first time, supporting the Government’s work to provide more homes at an affordable rate for people in Walthamstow by delivering starter homes—homes for first-time buyers at a discount on the market price, which make house buying affordable again. Our increase in shared ownership also aims to do that. I hope she will get behind the Bill when it returns to the House in the next few weeks, before it gets Royal Assent, as we hope it will.
I will come to the wider issue of legislation in a second, but increasing the supply of private rented homes is only part of the picture, as the hon. Lady rightly says. The private rented sector is currently dominated by small landlords, with larger landlords owning 10 or more properties accounting for only 1% of the market. Many landlords provide a very good service, and by far the majority of tenants are happy with it, but I share the hon. Lady’s view that we want standards to rise across the board so that we drive out every last bad and rogue landlord, regardless of their position.
The Government therefore published the “How to rent” guide so that tenants know what they should expect from their landlords. The guide improves transparency, making more information available, and helping tenants to make informed decisions and to know their rights. That in itself can prevent more poor and substandard accommodation from being rented. Empowering tenants is key to our approach.
We have introduced legislation requiring all letting and management agents in England to belong to one of the three Government-approved redress schemes. We have also required them to publicise prominently in their offices and on their websites whether they are a member, for example, of a client money protection scheme and which redress scheme they are a member of, giving landlords and tenants a clear route to pursue complaints against agents and helping to drive up standards.
Just today, we have introduced an enabling power into the Housing and Planning Bill to make regulations to require letting agents and property management agents to belong to a client money protection scheme. That will protect the money of landlords and tenants if an agent goes into administration or from theft while the money is in the agent’s control.
We are determined to do all we can to protect people who rent privately against a tiny minority of rogue and criminal landlords who exploit their tenants by renting out unsafe or substandard accommodation, or who act unfairly. We have also made millions of pounds available to local authorities to identify and successfully prosecute rogue landlords.
We have introduced legislation to protect tenants against retaliatory eviction where they have legitimate complaints about the standard of their accommodation. We have placed restrictions on repossessions where a landlord has failed to comply with legal responsibilities on, for example, gas safety and the provision of information to tenants.
We are going further by introducing measures in the Housing and Planning Bill to tackle rogue landlords and property agents. That includes establishing a database of landlords and property agents who have been convicted of serious offences; introducing banning orders for the most prolific and serious offenders; issuing civil penalty notices of up to £30,000 for some breaches of housing legislation, and ring-fencing those resources for housing-compliance activity; extending rent repayment orders to cover situations where a tenant has been illegally evicted, or where the landlord has failed to rectify a serious health and safety hazard in the property or breached a banning order; and applying a more stringent “fit and proper person” test for landlords letting out licensed properties, such as houses in multiple occupation, to help ensure that those landlords have the appropriate skills to manage such properties and that they do not pose a risk to the health and safety of their tenants.
As with the penalties introduced through the Immigration Bill, those measures are meant to make sure that we target criminal landlords who ignore their existing legal obligations. The penalties will not have an impact on the vast majority of good landlords who comply with the law and who rent out good-quality and well-managed accommodation.
However, we need to do all we can, and the Government are going further than any Government before us to crack down on rogue and bad landlords. I am happy to continue to make the case to the hon. Lady that landlords who behave in a manner that is not fair or appropriate, and who do not provide the right services and accommodation to their tenants, should be driven out of the market.
Stella Creasy
I do appreciate what the Minister says about wanting to tackle rogue landlords. May I press him, then, to use his good offices to engage with NatWest because of the concerns about this landlord, its previous business history and its behaviour towards residents of the Butterfields estate? In particular, its use of the idea that residents will somehow incur thousands of pounds in fines is evidence that those involved are not fit and proper people. If they will not engage with Dolphin, at least their bank might. May I therefore press the Minister to say whether he will engage with NatWest—yes or no?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady has great experience of dealing in this House with issues relating to the financial markets. She will appreciate that there is a difference in legal terms between the landlord and property owner on the one hand and the bank that has a financial agreement with the landlord and property owner on the other. The hon. Lady has outlined the situation, but the reality is that NatWest will not have any legal ability, as it is not the property owner.
I am very happy, through my office, to contact NatWest to see whether we can get it to involve itself in making a point of looking at the situation with the landlord. We have to be very clear, however, that there is a difference between a bank’s financial agreement with the landlord, which is purely a financial agreement about lending money, and the landlord or property owner’s duty to their tenants. I hope that, ultimately, the charity will talk to Dolphin Living, to get the right result for the tenants.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Education (Repeal of Arrangements for Vocational Qualifications Awarded or Authenticated in Northern Ireland) Order 2016
(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Education (Repeal of Arrangements for Vocational Qualifications Awarded or Authenticated in Northern Ireland) Order 2016.
It is pleasure to appear under your chairmanship again, Mr Streeter. The draft order, which was laid before both Houses on 11 March of this year, repeals the provision that makes Ofqual, the English examinations regulator, the regulator of vocational qualifications for Northern Ireland. Instead, the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, which already regulates GCSEs, A-levels and other non-vocational qualifications, operating as CCEA Regulation will become responsible for regulating all types of qualifications awarded in Northern Ireland. The draft order brings qualifications regulation in Northern Ireland into line with that in Scotland and Wales, where specific regulatory bodies oversee all qualifications awarded in their respective countries.
When Ofqual was established in 2009 and assumed the regulatory functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which regulated vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Department for Employment and Learning proposed that Ofqual take on QCA’s responsibilities in Northern Ireland, and that was included in the legislation that established Ofqual. In recognition of the fact that the Northern Ireland Administration committed to keep the arrangements for regulating qualifications under review, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 made provision for Ofqual’s responsibilities in Northern Ireland to be removed by order. The Northern Ireland Administration now wish to make use of that provision.
The Northern Ireland Department for Employment and Learning reviewed the regulatory arrangements last year and concluded that it would be more appropriate for a single body to be responsible for the regulation of all qualifications in Northern Ireland, including vocational qualifications. The Minister for Education in Northern Ireland, John O'Dowd, endorsed the proposal in December 2015. In January 2016, the Northern Ireland Minister for Employment and Learning, Dr Stephen Farry, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education requesting the assistance of the Department for Education in amending the 2009 Act to remove the responsibility for regulating vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland from Ofqual to allow CCEA Regulation to perform that duty under article 75 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.
The UK Government and Parliament should not take a view on policy decisions made by the Northern Ireland Administration, so in responding to that request we have sought only to ensure that the decision made in Belfast is implemented properly, fairly and efficiently and does not adversely affect people taking these qualifications in England or Ofqual's ability to regulate the qualifications for which it is responsible. These proposals and the practical arrangements that sit alongside them achieve that. The Department for Education here in London has worked with our Northern Ireland counterparts, Ofqual and CCEA Regulation to implement the changes, and I am grateful to all those organisations for their co-operation. The Northern Ireland Office has been informed of the proposed changes.
Since the beginning of the year, CCEA Regulation and Ofqual have communicated with all the awarding organisations affected by the change. The two regulators will continue to work together and with their counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom to minimise burdens on the awarding organisations that they regulate jointly. Ofqual intends to sign a memorandum of understanding with CCEA Regulation as it takes on its new responsibilities and has recently done the same with the new qualifications regulator in Wales, as many similar qualifications are used in all three jurisdictions.
As a result of this legislative change, Ofqual's small office in Belfast will close. The Northern Ireland Department for Employment and Learning will provide funding for any associated costs and the change will be cost-neutral for Ofqual.
The draft order and the changes are just one example of devolution in action. Each part of the United Kingdom should be able to make arrangements for regulating qualifications that support its objectives and priorities, and to change those arrangements where appropriate. That is what the Northern Ireland Administration are doing, and that is what this order enables for vocational qualifications. I commend it to the Committee.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.
The Minister has outlined very clearly the reasons for taking these steps, which we support. The CCEA Regulation already regulates the majority of qualifications in Northern Ireland, so it makes great sense to introduce this measure. The Northern Ireland Executive have requested the changes and it is right and proper that the UK Government accede to that request. The Minister clearly spelt out the policy background, which is plainly stated in paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum and gives us context for today’s debate.
I have only a couple of questions for the Minister. He spoke very helpfully about the communication and practical steps already in place, but will he say what steps are being taken to ensure the smoothest possible transfer from Ofqual to the CCEA? Also, will he reassure us about the support being given to the staff affected by the closure of the small Ofqual office in Belfast?
Mr Gibb
There has been consultation with CCEA Regulation and officials have been working behind the scenes to ensure a smooth transition. There are also memorandums of understanding in place to ensure that the awarding bodies—the exam boards—are not burdened by having two sets of regulators regulating the same type of qualification.
Ofqual is managing the consequences of the change for its three members of staff in Belfast. I asked it particularly to do everything to ensure the best preparation for those staff and to help them in any way possible. Any financial consequences of the closure of the office will be borne by the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland. I hope the draft order has the support of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Aircraft Noise
(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
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of aircraft noise on local communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The revolution in air travel has been one of the great liberations of the British people. Since the birth of Her Majesty 90 years ago tomorrow, the Wright brothers’ miracle has become the norm. Everyone, from families heading for a week in the sun to businesspeople trading across our globe, flies across our skies. That freedom to travel is one that I and many people whom I have the privilege to represent have used many times. It is a blessing to many but, as so often in the Kentish sky, behind the silver lining there is a cloud, because although airlines carry passengers away to other places, they condemn the citizens beneath these aerial motorways to lives of misery and the oppression of noise.
The balance between the needs of settled communities and travelling folk is as old as the Bible. The novelty here is that the two communities are often one and the same. The very people who are disturbed often use aircraft themselves, so the question for this debate is not whether we should ground all aircraft or close all airports, which would be absurd, but how we manage our airspace as a precious resource for the benefit of everyone.
Today, I will not address the questions of second or third runways at Gatwick or Heathrow because, although I can see the merits of increasing our connections with our region and the world, restating Britain’s position at the heart of a series of networks and at the heart of a global community, I am waiting for the decision to come out in the best interests of our economy, so I will not argue for the merits of one or the other. I will also not be praising any particular carrier, airport or agency because, again, this is not the time to engage in what some would call the “politics of condemnation.”
This debate is about getting change, getting understanding and, most importantly, getting to a stage where our nation can invest for the long term in our air infrastructure on the same basis as we would our ground connections, which means openly, after due consideration and taking into account the needs of our whole community. That is why I am particularly pleased to see many of my parliamentary neighbours here this morning. My right hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), are all here, and we have been fighting together on many of these campaigns.
I will begin by setting out what I hope to achieve. I thank the Minister, who has been incredibly helpful on the question of aviation noise, but today I would like him to do a few things. First, I would like him to clarify the position of Her Majesty’s Government on the term “significantly affected.” That vague term has caused difficulty for airports and agencies in designing flightpaths that cause the least disturbance. Secondly, I would like the outdated Environmental Protection Act 1990 to be refreshed so that aircraft noise is regulated in the same way as other disturbances, taking into account ambient noise so that the relative difference, as well as the absolute decibel level, is taken into consideration.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I offer my support on the issue of ambient noise, because in rural communities where noise levels are low the concentration of flights that often happens as a result of the new digital navigation technology means that the disruption now being caused from Gatwick can be great. Does that not need to be taken into account when considering flightpaths over areas that already have a high level of ambient noise and would therefore be disrupted less by such concentration?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, to which I will return. Technology is now evolving that allows us to calculate the difference between background or ambient noise and the relative change.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to demand that the Civil Aviation Authority takes noise disturbance into account and includes communities not just 10 nautical miles but 18 nautical miles from airports so that due consideration is given to local communities that are affected, not just those that neighbour the airport, when planning airspace.
Fourthly and, the Minister will be pleased to hear, lastly, I would like the angle of approach to be reviewed. Modern aircraft are able to approach runways more steeply than the current 3°. London City airport, which I have used many times, has an approach angle of 5.5° to protect the buildings of our great capital. Could the same not apply to protect heritage sites and communities in the glorious county of Kent? This is not about aircraft or runways but about using airspace in everyone’s best interest. In my community, near Gatwick airport, the air corridor was changed in 2013. Since then, complaints have increased ninefold, and it is the failure to manage the airspace properly, not the raw numbers, that has caused the problem, but it is worth considering some of the numbers that do affect us.
More than 1 million people in the United Kingdom are exposed to aircraft noise above healthy levels. In the short term, that leads to loss of sleep and annoyance, and it makes it harder for children to learn, but the long-term effects can be worse still. High blood pressure, heart disease, heart attacks, strokes and dementia have all been associated with exposure to excessive noise. Indeed, the World Health Organisation recommends that such noise levels at school playgrounds should not exceed 55 dB. In my area, and in the area around Gatwick, 15 schools are already exposed to such levels, and nine are overflown more than 20 times a day. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, the ability to assess noise is one that we must take seriously if we are to move on from the 1990 Act. The National Physical Laboratory suggests that monitors costing only £100 could be fitted to tell regulators the exact pressure being put on residents, which is a game-changing moment for all. For the first time, we can have accurate monitoring not just of the peak noise but of the relative change, because by monitoring the ambient noise we can see that not all are equally affected.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and I share his views. When I first became a Member of Parliament representing Crawley 33 years ago, British Caledonian flew the BAC 111, which was one of the noisiest aeroplanes—it was just appalling. One of aviation’s arguments is that the quality of noise is now very different, but the point that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) make about ambient noise is terribly important because, although the technologies are infinitely improved, the noise is still immensely disruptive. It is no good saying that that is just the way it is.
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The improvement in the quality of aircraft is noticeable, but that is not enough on its own. The change from a rural idyll to an aerial motorway in a few moments can be particularly stark, and never more so than at night. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why night flights are banned from some airports but not from others, such as Gatwick.
This debate is not just about enjoying lazy summer afternoons in the garden of England, although that is a treasured blessing, and I intend to do as much of it as I can, parliamentary duties permitting; it is about the health of our nation. That does not tell the whole story. Noise, as measured today, does not take into account the full impact. The Civil Aviation Authority’s aircraft noise contour model—a model with which you are no doubt incredibly familiar, Mr Howarth—measures only average noise for the 10 noisiest seconds. This is perhaps not always recognised, but it is a secret that I am willing to share with the House: aircraft move. That means that the average is significantly below the peak level, which is counted only 2.5 km from the rolling point of the aircraft. Many people in Kent, particularly in my communities and in the communities of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, are badly affected and are simply not counted. That is not sensible. When a road is planned or a railway is considered, all those affected have a voice. It seems that communities are only ignored when it comes to overhead infrastructure.
The lack of guidance has allowed the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services to narrow the flightpaths, as they have done in the past few years over Gatwick, and increase the intensity of aircraft movements for those beneath. Some would say that they were using modern technology to demonstrate that they could increase capacity and perhaps even expand their operations; far be it from me to predict such things.
This is an area where we could and indeed should change things. That is why I ask for clarity from the Government on what reducing the numbers who are “significantly affected” means. Does it mean sharing the burden so that many are affected but not significantly, or does it mean placing the burden on the narrowest shoulders so that the fewest people are affected, but those who are affected will be severely impacted and their lives transformed? That guidance should be given to our planners. It would be given if they were planners on the ground, and it should be given to planners in the air.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important matter. All of us who have close interest in inland airports know the huge difficulties that exist; we are only in the mitigation game and it is very important that these matters are illuminated. However, is not the tragedy relating to the point he just made about planning that we forwent the opportunity in the mid-1970s to proceed with an estuarial airport, which would have brought great relief? It is where airports are put that creates the problems with which he is grappling.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his intervention. As a Member of this House, I have become used to taking responsibility for many things that are not directly my fault, but I hope he will forgive me for not taking responsibility for decisions taken in this House before I was born. I recognise that the need for long-term planning is one of the issues that, sadly, we have often got wrong in this country, and it is one reason why we now find ourselves causing damage to certain communities and asking certain small communities to bear the burden of economic expansion and its benefits for the whole nation. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for making that point.
Given that we are asking regulators to look around our communities, it would be good if the Civil Aviation Authority not only took account of areas that are 10 nautical miles away from airports but, as I have said, those that are 18 nautical miles away. Mr Chairman, you may ask, “Why double, or almost double, that distance?” It is because that is the point at which most airports begin to take control of aircraft, at the limit of the radar manoeuvring area, as it is known. That would mean the CAA and NATS would be regulated not only to make
“the most efficient use of airspace”
by maximising flights and fuel efficiency but to control noise and to recognise the impact on communities on the ground.
No agency is responsible for long-term reduction in noise, and I hope the Government now recognise the need to task the CAA and NATS to take on that role, because although aircraft have become quieter and airports are beginning to behave themselves a little, it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the Government to step in and take the lead.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I would very much like to second that point; in fact, I have made it myself in previous debates in the main Chamber. However, does my hon. Friend agree that at the heart of this problem, particularly in Bracknell, is the fact that there has been a breakdown in trust in the organisations responsible for the management of air traffic, including over my constituency? In my part of the world, the situation has totally changed in recent years and there was no prior warning of it; indeed, it has taken a great deal of time and persistence to get NATS to admit that it has changed things.
My hon. Friend began his speech by talking about the need for change, and we all accept that there will be an increase in flight traffic over the south-east of England. However, is it not important that all the people involved—the Government and indeed the agencies that are responsible—begin telling the truth in advance, so that we can take the public with us?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and indeed the reason I got involved in this fight was because of the sudden change that I saw in the skies over Kent because of what Gatwick had done.
I admit that this is a slight diversion, but the first thing that people did in relation to Gatwick was to deny that they had done anything; they denied that aircraft were changing their flight approaches in any way or that the airspace was being shaped any differently. I would argue that it was that deception that did the most damage. If they had been able to admit early on that there had indeed been a change, that NATS had indeed changed the approach and that Gatwick was indeed trying different things, we could at least have had a conversation. However, when they did it overnight in 2013 and then denied that they had done so, the breakdown in trust was such that even though Gatwick is now leading with the Redeborn and Lake review, which I will come on to, and, I would argue, leading best practice on how an airport should communicate with its neighbours, it will be a good number of years before many of us will have confidence that Gatwick can be a good neighbour. I am saddened to hear that there are other airports in this country that have behaved similarly.
That is why, as many people know, I have welcomed many times the review that was carried out by Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, because they have introduced a change in policy; indeed, their 23 proposals have been put forward in a policy vacuum. It would be wrong to say that those proposals have all been implemented; they certainly have not been, although we hope that 20 of them will be implemented by the end of the year and that we will begin to see the change that we absolutely need in the skies above south-east England. However, it is only through that dialogue, which Redeborn and Lake both strongly recommend, that we will see that change not only embedded but recognised and appreciated. Sadly, if we keep getting the dishonesty—or at least the dissembling—that we have seen, we will not have the level of trust required to build a better community.
I again urge NATS to take forward the Gatwick review and take the opportunity to use it as an example for the rest of the country, because what Gatwick has done is truly ground-breaking. We are waiting for NATS to implement the review; at the moment, NATS is slightly struggling with it, but I urge it to stop that struggle and get on with it.
Airports are not alone and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex has mentioned, aircraft have changed. The infamous whine generated by the Airbus A320 demonstrates that airlines also have a responsibility. EasyJet has finally decided that the minor modifications that are required will all be in place very shortly, and Gatwick has decided that no aircraft without those modifications will be able to land after 2017. While it is welcome that both the airline and the airport are making those changes, I am somewhat disappointed that the Government have not applied that to the whole of the United Kingdom. It seems wrong that only we should benefit, and those changes could be made today.
There are further changes that could be made and I have touched on one of them, which is the angle of approach. It is worth noting that Frankfurt airport has now increased the approach angle from 3° to 3.2°. That may sound like a minor change, but anything that keeps aircraft higher for longer makes a huge difference to communities beneath. If we can get to the 5.5° of London City airport, we will start to get somewhere.
None of this, I should emphasise, is anything like the hairy approaches that one used to take to get into Baghdad or Kabul, corkscrewing down through the skies to avoid incoming missiles; the approaches that I am proposing are rather more gentle. Modern aircraft can handle them and the communities beneath would benefit greatly.
I thank Members who have come to the Chamber to support the motion, because communities affected, including those significantly affected in my own area—in Cowden, Hever, Edenbridge, Chiddingstone, Penshurst, Leigh and Tonbridge—deserve clarity. Those communities, and a few others, have been left to shoulder this burden alone.
As I have said, this debate is not about whether another runway should go to Heathrow or Gatwick, or whether we need extra capacity. I make a simple request that Her Majesty’s Government should recognise that when motorways are built, they are debated, and when railways are built, they are considered and assessed, so when motorways in the sky are placed over people’s homes, the planning requirements should be no different.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I thank the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for setting out the case. I want to bring a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate. We have three airports in Northern Ireland: Belfast City, Belfast International, or Aldergrove, and Londonderry City. I want to focus specifically on Belfast City airport and some of the things we have done in Northern Ireland. This matter is devolved to Northern Ireland, but Belfast City is an ongoing issue. Just yet, we have not concluded what the best way forward is.
Through the Assembly and elected representatives, we in Northern Ireland are very conscious of the issue of airport noise. It was useful that the hon. Gentleman set the scene for us, because we need to hear from other Members and compare the approach taken by central Government with the one taken in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, the most notable case of aircraft noise having an impact on local communities is that of George Best Belfast City airport. That is the one I use to go to Heathrow and then to London and the House of Commons every week. The airport has transformed from a secondary and relatively small regional airport into a hub of Greater Belfast offering flights once unthought of. With its renovation, it is competing with Belfast International for certain routes. As my party’s transport spokesperson, I have always said that we are keen to see connectivity being achieved from Belfast City to Heathrow and then to wherever else that can lead to in the world. That is so important for us, and I know the Minister is industrious and considers how important Belfast City is for us.
Although the expansion and success of the airport have brought clear benefits, not least to the local economy and regeneration of the area, there has been conflict. Despite tight restrictions on the times flights are permitted in and out of the airport, local residents are undoubtedly affected. With further expansion planned—it has been discussed; as I have said, nothing is agreed yet—and amendments to the current noise procedures, concerns have surfaced once again.
Hypertension and insomnia are the most established conditions associated with night-time flying. Although there are time restrictions, night-time flying has the potential to affect those who work shifts or have young children. These stats are ones that the airport agrees with. It says that up to 46,000 people and 21 schools could be affected by the changes proposed for the expansion of Belfast City, and that obviously needs to be taken into account. It is always a difficult one—we do not want to stand in the way of progress, but at the same time we do not want the lives of people who have lived in a certain area their whole lives turned upside down. Those are clear issues, and I am duty-bound to come here today and make those clear comments on behalf of those people.
In 2014, the number of people affected by Belfast City airport’s operations at the level considered by the UK Government to cause serious community annoyance was 4,107. To give Members some idea of what that means, that was greater than Gatwick airport at 3,550 and Stansted airport at 1,400. If the proposals for Belfast City airport go ahead and noise levels rise to their permitted maximum, it will become the fourth noisiest airport in the UK in terms of population impact. Only Heathrow, Manchester and Birmingham would affect more people at or above the Government’s “significant annoyance” threshold. We in Northern Ireland, where the matter is devolved, have the responsibility to look after that threshold. When we are moving forward, we have to remember that things do not have to have a health impact to have adverse effects on the community. People who live in a certain area and have put down roots and invested their income in their home may, through no choice of their own, be directly affected.
Having said that, I read with interest the Airports Commission’s July 2013 aviation noise discussion paper, which found that 4.2 million people are exposed to road traffic noise of 65 dB or more. Let us get some perspective into the debate. The paper found that the corresponding figures for railways and aviation are 0.2 million people and 0.07 million people respectively. So in relative terms, aircraft noise itself has very little impact, but it is still important that those impacted and their viewpoints are respected. It is not just the health issues I have mentioned that are important.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
With all the figures and statistics that my hon. Friend has outlined in relation to health problems, difficulties, the built-up area and the number of people, is the bottom line that Belfast will not be able to expand because of its location?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The serious question for us all—I am trying to get a balance in my contribution—is whether we have the airport expansion. Should it happen? Can it happen in such a way that is not detrimental to the 46,000 people and 21 schools around the airport that are potentially directly impacted? He is right. The issue he raises is the kernel of this debate.
George Best Belfast City airport could become one of the UK’s five noisiest airports if the controversial expansion plans get the go-ahead. That is a key point. Residents want an independent aircraft noise regulator for Northern Ireland to be appointed and robust noise fines for airlines. If that is what residents want, who could argue with that? Such a proposal seems well-intended, but we have to be careful about unintended consequences. We do not want hard-won business to be put off from continuing to do business in our airports by feeling overregulated. It is about striking a balance. The Minister needs the wisdom of Solomon in relation to this one. If he had the wisdom of Solomon he would be a very wise man and he would have more than just a ministerial role in the Department he is looking after at the moment.
The Planning Appeals Commission report on the Belfast City expansion recommended that the removal of the seats for sale restriction should be accompanied by additional noise controls. That is one of the things that the commission is looking at. The process is ongoing, but it has shown that comprehensive consultation that includes all stakeholders can help to facilitate the right balance being struck between supporting enterprise and business and supporting local residents and ensuring that they are taken care of. In Northern Ireland, we are looking at an airports strategy for the Province to provide the right balance between the commercial interests of airports—that is important for jobs, money and the economy—and the health and quality of life of local residents, but we are still in the midst of consultation and the saga at Belfast City airport goes on.
In conclusion, I look forward to hearing from other Members who will bring their own contributions to this debate and their experiences in their regions.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Just before my hon. Friend finishes, does he agree that, on the issue of noise reduction, the Government generally could do much to assist the development of the C Series by Bombardier, which is an exceptionally quiet aircraft? If that were rolled out and developed more systematically, that would go some way to alleviating the noise concerns for residents, particularly those under the flight path.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and his wise words. His contributions are always worth listening to. Can the Minister say what discussions have taken place with aircraft companies on noise reduction? I know that Bombardier is working on that with the C Series, but other companies are probably doing so, too. We need to see the contributions of the aircraft companies and manufacturers.
I once more thank the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling for giving us a chance to participate in this debate and to offer a Belfast and Northern Ireland perspective. I hope the wise words of other Members will add to the debate, too.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
I intend to start calling the three Front Benchers at 10.30. The normal convention is to leave some time for the mover of the motion to say a few words at the end. I have five Back Benchers who have indicated that they want to speak. I am hoping not to need to impose a formal time limit, but informally, if people do the maths, it works out at about six minutes for each speaker, which should be ample.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate. It is unfortunate that we are here again discussing an issue that is important to our constituents.
Aircraft noise is incredibly damaging, disturbing and stressful for various communities in the northern part of my constituency. Constituents regularly email me, and this week I had an email that is like many others:
“We have been woken on many nights in the early hours at 1.30 or 2.30 am, as well as suffering the usual stream of planes from before 6 am”.
It continues throughout.
“As a result, despite sleeping with ear plugs, neither of us is now a good sleeper and this has definitely affected our health.”
Constituents in Groombridge wrote in to describe how they
“absolutely dread being at home. We cannot sleep. We live constantly stressed and strained lives. It is so bad, we are seriously considering giving up jobs, schools and closeness to family to move away.”
This can no longer be dismissed as a minor issue. It is a very serious issue that needs to be taken seriously by airports and air traffic authorities.
Over the past few months, I have been grateful for the opportunity to contribute to Gatwick’s review of westerly arrivals. Last year, I held a packed community meeting where constituents were able to vent their frustration about noise pollution to the authors of the review. Earlier this month, I was pleased to join colleagues in welcoming Gatwick’s plan to act on the review’s recommendations and 23 proposals. Those must be implemented quickly, and I and neighbouring MPs will do all that we can to make sure that the process is sped up as fast as possible. I hope the Minister will offer support and assistance so that we can turn the recommendations into reality.
One thing to note is that the whole review and the changes that we expect to result from it will have been a massive waste of time if Gatwick is allowed to expand with a second runway. We will go from 270,000 flights a year to 560,000, with an increase from 325 to around 850 flights a day over Wealden, which means more noise. The areas of outstanding natural beauty that we are all proud of will be even more compromised. The value of our houses will plummet, and, more importantly, the quality of our lives will be further disrupted by noise pollution.
Despite such effects, Gatwick has not committed to any mitigation measures or compensation for Wealden residents in the event of expansion. The compensation package on offer extends only to areas immediately surrounding the airport. Wealden residents, as well as the 20 Wealden schools that would be overflown, will suffer far greater disruption without receiving a single penny in return. Will the Minister outline what operational mitigation measures have been proposed by Gatwick airport to reduce the effect of aviation noise in the event of expansion, and how does that compare with the measures proposed by Heathrow?
The proposed changes to arrival routes at Gatwick are very welcome and we will do all we can to make them a reality as quickly as possible. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture and the appalling consequences that expansion at Gatwick would have for our constituents because of aircraft noise.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing the debate. I agree with him that we should not turn this into a debate about where the additional runway in the south-east should go, and I agree that aircraft noise is a problem for every individual and every family affected by it. Those of us whose constituents are affected will understand that.
I will mention a statistic that bears repetition whenever we debate airport expansion, and particularly the issue of noise. It is a problem for every individual who suffers from it, but one has to also look at the quantum of the damage that is done. Some 725,000 people are affected by aircraft noise around Heathrow—it accounts for 28.5% of all those affected by aircraft noise in Europe. That one statistic should have settled the debate about airport expansion in the south-east many years ago. By comparison, 0.5% of people around Gatwick are affected by aircraft noise. I do not diminish that, and I understand that, although there are queries over the figures, the number of people affected around Gatwick would go up from roughly 12,000 to roughly 35,000 or 36,000 if there were expansion there. I have seen various figures for Heathrow, but Transport for London says that the number of people affected would go up to about 1 million if there were expansion there. Others say the number will go up by about 320,000. In other words, the increase would be 10 to 20 times that suffered by people around Gatwick. The reason for that is fairly obvious: Heathrow is in the wrong place and is directly adjacent to some of the most densely populated urban areas in this country.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the impact of ambient noise has a profound impact on one’s experience of aircraft noise.
Andy Slaughter
It does, but I took slight umbrage at the point that was made in an earlier contribution about those living in rural areas suffering more because they have a quieter environment. Urban areas that are not affected by aircraft noise at the moment, but will be affected for the first time, will also suffer greatly, particularly outside peak hours in the early morning and later at night. Some urban areas, including parts of my constituency, are extremely quiet and will be affected by noise for the first time.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an ambient noise of, say, 30 dB will lead to an endocrine autonomic effect, which will only be compounded by a level of 55 dB or even 83dB, as is the case with some flights? He probably has the same flights over Hammersmith that I have over Twickenham. Does he also agree that, medically, it is the children who suffer most?
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Her technical knowledge exceeds mine, but she is absolutely right. Friends of the Earth, for example, contends that it is misleading to talk about the noise energy emitted by planes being reduced, which is what Heathrow says will happen. According to Heathrow, fewer people will be affected by noise when the third runway is built, when 250,000 additional flights are going over west London and there will be an increase in activity of just under 50%. I do not know anybody who actually believes that apart from the people who spin for Heathrow, but, as Friends of the Earth says, even if there is a decrease in noise energy emitted by planes, that is only loosely linked to human perception of noise, and a 50% reduction in noise energy is only just detectable by the human ear.
Even if there are quieter aircraft and noise is reduced generally, it will still disproportionately affect those who live around Heathrow, because of the massive number of people affected. Any benefit will be gained by people around other airports.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is making interesting points, but does he recognise that the problem affects the whole United Kingdom? We have heard comments from Belfast and will no doubt hear comments from Scotland. We should work together to create a level playing field of understanding, so that the planning for another runway in Perthshire or in Penzance is the same as it would be for Gatwick or Heathrow. At least we would then have some common understanding of the impact on the community beneath, and decisions could be taken in a fair and equitable manner and not just on the basis of who shouts loudest and longest.
Andy Slaughter
I agree with that. One still has to bear in mind that if a third runway is built—I declare an interest, because the Airports Commission’s preferred option will run directly over central Hammersmith—whole new communities, and populous communities, will be affected for the first time. As a report published earlier this year shows, 460 schools around Heathrow are exposed to aircraft noise levels that may impair learning and memory. The health consequences include higher risk of strokes, heart disease and cardiovascular problems. Hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by those serious problems.
I particularly want to hear from the Minister about the review of night flights. The existing regulations end in 2017, so when are we going to have a consultation? Will the Minister condemn Heathrow for not even saying, as the Airports Commission recommended, that there should be a ban on night flights and that a fourth runway should be ruled out? Those are the concerns going forward.
Those of us who have battled Heathrow expansion for 30 years—the current expansion is always the last one—will never believe any promises the airport makes. We want to see the decision made in such a way that the Government are accountable to Members from all parties. Above all, whatever the effects of airport expansion, we want to see them mitigated, not only by improved technology but by reducing the number of people affected.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this incredibly important debate. I agree with him that there is an absolute need for change, but where I disagree is that I do think that a lot of condemnation is due. That is where I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). As he said, 725,000 people are affected by Heathrow, which means that, of all the people in Europe who are affected by noise pollution, 28% live under a Heathrow flight path.
I hope the Minister will take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) said, because there is no trust in the information that communities are being given and in the action the airports are taking to alleviate such a serious medical issue. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). I, too, have to wear earplugs, which I did not have to do a few years ago. Things have changed and we are being woken up at 4 in the morning. There is noise late at night and at all kinds of hours. There is no mitigation for night flights—none is possible.
I mentioned condemnation because Heathrow affects more people than the airports of Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Madrid combined. That is why it is such an urgent problem, both environmentally and medically. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, we do have medical evidence. We know that there is a direct correlation between noise pollution and cardiovascular events. We also know from the World Health Organisation that seven categories of medical problems are associated with noise pollution, so it is a very serious problem. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hammersmith, ambient noise does not make people less sensitive to noise. Ambient noise is a problem in itself; it provides no mitigation.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling for mentioning the National Physical Laboratory, which is a world leader in noise measurement. I hope that the Minister will look into citizen scientists, because we need the community to be able to measure noise pollution. I believe that the NPL is close to giving us ways of measuring that are accessible for the community. The LAeq measurement is an average; it does not take night flights into account. The other decibel measurement, Lden, is an average over 24 hours. The medical problem relates to when the noise happens, its peak and its irregularity, so the existing measurements are not meaningful for the communities that are disrupted by aircraft noise. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and I have said, 725,000 people are currently affected by Heathrow; goodness knows, that number will be more than 1 million if there is expansion at the airport.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell and for Tonbridge and Malling that there is no trust and that there is dissemblance in the information provided. I notice that my local community group, Teddington Action Group, has reported that there is now a serious problem with planes flying at lower angles over longer distances, earlier in the morning and later at night. It is a serious trend. I am grateful to the action group for working out, with the publicly available data, that Heathrow is only just meeting its legal requirements, which are not adequate anyway. I agree with the action group that, rather than aircraft having 6.5 km to reach 1,000 feet, they should be at 2,500 feet at that point. The minimum climb rate of 4% to an altitude of 4,000 feet should be increased to a rate of 4% up to 6,000 feet.
I humbly request that the Minister meets me to discuss the review that is needed of the noise notice around Heathrow airport. I would be very grateful if he did so, given the incredible work that my community has done and what our Twickenham expertise can do with the NPL. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling that noise should be considered a statutory nuisance. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be changed to reflect that.
I absolutely condemn what is going on right now, and I also condemn the dissembling. Change is needed, because no mitigation is possible for the levels of noise pollution that are affecting my idyll of Twickenham.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for securing this debate.
My constituency lies under the final approach path for Heathrow for the 70% of the time that the airport is on westerly operations. The area is fully built up beneath those flight paths, as passengers sitting by the aircraft windows will be well aware. My constituency is the second most overflown constituency in London. Most of the 94,000 residents of Brentford and Isleworth are affected by aircraft noise, with a plane taking off or landing every 60 to 90 seconds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, according to figures from the European Commission, 725,000 people across London and the south-east are significantly affected by noise from aircraft using Heathrow.
I have some quotes from some of my constituents. Carol Petersen said:
“Although I live in Chiswick and therefore not in the immediate vicinity of the airport, I should like to record the effect of night noise in this area. This morning several came past at 5 am and we could not get back to sleep. The impact is significant. We can tolerate this during the day, but when sleep patterns are ruined it is very difficult.”
Basia Filzec lives a lot closer to the airport and said:
“Heathrow has always been a very poor neighbour. Apart from the noise and the smell, first flights are around 4.30 am and there are some night flights. When I was working it was very distressing to have to go to work not having had enough sleep. It made the job even more stressful.”
My constituent Diane wrote:
“We have endured weeks of flights past 11 pm and before 6 am (sometimes at 3.40 am). To be a reasonable neighbour Heathrow needs to ensure that we get 9 hours per night free of this noise so we stand a chance of getting 8 hours sleep. On two nights last week we only had 5 hours’ break—impossible to live or work effectively when sleep deprived. I am sure that those areas closer to the landing site suffer even more.”
More than 90% of children educated in the London Borough of Hounslow’s schools, nurseries and colleges are directly affected by aircraft noise. A school in Hounslow will be overflown at least every 90 seconds. Noise level is significantly related to children’s mathematical performance. As noise increases by contour band, performance drops by 0.73 of a mark. Schools exposed to high levels of aircraft noise near Heathrow have more than the average number of children with English as a second language. In addition, there is increasing evidence of the impact of noise on health—including on cardiovascular health, strokes and mental health—which will lead to a massive cost to the public purse and the economy.
I agree with the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling about the need for a public debate about flight routes and approach methods, but in my constituency the planes are on their final approach, so their routes cannot be varied. Steeper glide paths might actually increase the noise levels for those closest to the airport as the planes throttle back.
We have some mitigations, but they are frequently not met. There are not supposed to be night flights before 4 am, and the approach paths to Heathrow on the westerly approach should be alternated for half of the day, but those measures are often breached. The airport contributes to the cost of insulation and ventilation in some existing school buildings, but only those in the very noisiest areas. It covers nothing like all those affected, and no new school buildings have been insulated or improved by the Heathrow scheme.
My constituents look forward to the promised quieter planes, to full alternation, to decent insulation and to a ban on night flights so they can have some semblance of normal life and can sleep through the night more often and wake up fresher the next day. They do not want the 46% increase in flights that a third runway would mean.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate. He, like me, has many constituents who live in rural communities, where the lower ambient noise makes the experience of aircraft hugely oppressive.
Gatwick is surrounded on three sides by areas of outstanding natural beauty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, the impact of Gatwick on the otherwise tranquil environment of large swathes of both of our constituencies is immense. In such conditions, noise can be experienced over a wide field—some 3.5 to 5 miles either side of the aircraft. The concentration of noise in quiet environments is not properly recognised by the existing standard industry metrics, which measure noise over 24 hours. In some parts of my constituency, the rate of take-offs has resulted in a relentless wall of noise, which is a pressing problem for my constituents.
I wish to focus on the issues that are being experienced right now, but, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, no debate on aircraft noise would be complete without a reference to runway expansion. If the Government were to go against the clear recommendation of the Davies commission and make what to my mind is the wrong decision on runway expansion, the number of flights over my constituency would double to up to 560,000 per year. Aircraft movements would become more concentrated on existing flightpaths, and two new flightpaths would be created over Copthorne and Crawley Down. The villages of Rusper and Copthorne would be taken within the standard noise contours for Gatwick. Rusper would be overflown by more than 300 easterly arrivals a day to the southern runway and more than 300 westerly departures using two routes from the same runway. Warnham and Slinfold would experience 150-plus concentrated departures per day, and Billingshurst would be affected by the massive increase in aircraft approaching both runways. The list goes on. I will not mention every single village in my constituency that would be adversely affected, because they all would be.
As the Davies commission pointed out,
“Knowing that aviation noise will be limited to certain times of the day is very important to many people.”
That is something on which I have common cause with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias). With that in mind, I am horrified that Gatwick’s post-expansion proposal is to operate both runways for take-offs and landings throughout the day, offering no period for respite—not even during the night. Night flights are incentivised by Gatwick’s charging structure. That is a nightmarish vision of the future.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) so eloquently set out, the present has its own severe problems. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, I welcome the independent arrivals review that was established by Gatwick. That shows its awareness of the very real concerns of many residents. I hope that the proposed noise management board will maintain that focus and be given real teeth so that it not only brings together stakeholders but makes a genuine impact.
As Gatwick considers its response, I ask that it addresses certain key issues. I have sought and received assurances from the airport that the impact of departures on communities will be taken into account when it determines its position on arrivals. Although the review focused on the latter, rather than the former, it would be wholly unfair and incongruous if attempts to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise were made without a proper appreciation of both arrivals and departures on residents.
The proposed wider swathe for arrivals from the west should result in a fairer distribution of aircraft impact. However, that will not be the case if air traffic control simply allows pilots to come in consistently by the shortest possible route. That will result in a heavy concentration of flights over a small area of my constituency, which is already severely adversely affected by departures. I understand that negotiations on that point are ongoing between Gatwick and NATS. It is an issue on which my constituents want cast-iron guarantees.
I am disappointed that night flights, which hon. Members have already spoken about, were excluded from the Gatwick review. Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I look to the Minister for reassurance that the consultation on night flights will be forthcoming this year. On technical innovations, I again look to the Minister to support the principle that noise modifications should be made on time and be effective. As mentioned earlier, Gatwick has a sunset date of the end of 2017 for A320s to be fitted with noise modification. The success of that depends on defaulters being subjected to severe penalties for non-compliance.
Finally—I again look to the Minister on this point—I am saddened that a more innovative approach has not been taken to stacking. As the Minister also has responsibility for shipping, he is more aware than most that we are an island. Could not a way be found to stack aircraft out to sea, rather than, as at present, over residential areas, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty?
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
I call Caroline Spelman. I ask you to bear in mind that I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to you for allowing me to scrape in under the wire, Mr Howarth, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for securing this debate.
Birmingham airport is in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, it has one of the highest numbers of people affected by aircraft noise, as it is close to the conurbation. Its recent expansion and the lengthening of its runway brought aircraft lower and closer to the populations underneath it. Unfortunately, that coincided with the proposed national flightpath changes. The trials caused a significant increase in noise pollution for the community underneath. The fact that the aircraft could not fly the new routes accurately also caused confusion and dismay. The airport apologised for that, but the community suffered a breach of trust, and good will has been damaged.
The Civil Aviation Authority has now approved the airport’s preferred option, but three further mitigations are to be trialled: the angle of descent and ascent will be increased, and different types of aircraft will fly slightly different routes. I suspect that we have some more challenges ahead. The concentration of sound has increased the impact on certain households. The removal of manoeuvres to deflect sound away from communities was disappointing.
Looking ahead, I hope the Minister will recognise the blight that is caused by uncertainty about the proposals to expand airports. Birmingham once proposed a second runway, but has now extended its single runway. It now has the same capacity as Gatwick, but only one third of its passengers. I hope that will put paid to the threat of another runway being proposed in that densely populated location, and I hope the Minister will strongly oppose any suggestion of reopening a second runway proposal at Birmingham.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I commend and congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this important and timely debate on a very important issue for his constituency. He has voiced concern about aircraft noise around Gatwick for some time. Although he was pleased that the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow, he vowed to continue to campaign on the matter. I understand that it is close to his heart.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of airspace, which has been a problem in the UK for many decades. We have had a glaring lack of an airspace strategy, so it is about time to deal with the issue in the round, along with noise and air quality. As a side issue, he reflected on the dodging of incoming elements when landing at Helmand and Basra, and of course we have the current issue of drones near aircraft, which needs to be addressed in an air strategy. I hope that the Minister will do something about that before there is a critical problem.
Returning to the main point, I am the MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, and the House will understand that we do not have the same issues as Heathrow or Gatwick. Indeed, we are keen to get more routes, because we have been left behind for many years, and we are delighted that British Airways is introducing a new route between Inverness and Heathrow. However, that does not mean that we have no understanding of the Gatwick and Heathrow situation. Personally, I lived under the Heathrow flight path for many years, enduring night flights and Concorde, which was exceptionally noisy when it flew over my house. We understand the issue, but it is also important to understand that 90% of international visitors to Scotland—a big driver for the tourism economy—travel by air, with more than a third coming through Heathrow, which is therefore clearly of interest to us.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the need for the end of uncertainty about airport expansion. We heard the same from the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and a number of hon. Members, all of whom said that they did not particularly want to talk about airport expansion, although they all mentioned it. I will come back to that subject in a moment.
The hon. Member for Strangford also talked about the need to look at the strategy of other Governments and Administrations. The Scottish Government are committed to understanding and managing the environmental impacts of air travel. They have acknowledged that noise can be distressing, affects quality of life and can have an impact on our health and environment. The existing legislation and controls are for vehicle noise and provide limited solutions to the problems of transportation noise. The Scottish Government are therefore making use of the European Union environmental noise directive, commonly known as END, to manage noise pollution, particularly from transportation sources.
The directive was transposed into Scots law in 2006. As per END, noise maps and noise action plans have been published for all major airport areas in Scotland. Delivery of the END objectives in Scotland has been achieved through extensive partnership working. The Scottish Government assumed responsibility for the co-ordination of noise mapping and action planning exercises, but they were heavily supported by individual working groups dealing with each of the major airports and other transportation systems.
Two rounds of noise mapping have been carried out by consultants AECOM. The consultants also host an interactive website on behalf of the Scottish Government, which displays all the Scottish noise mapping, action plans and statistics, allowing anyone to provide feedback or to raise an issue. The Scottish Government have received many positive comments and much feedback on their approach from others in the UK and throughout Europe. All that work has been informed by research at EU, UK and Scottish levels.
I want to discuss airport expansion, which is the issue that Members have been dancing around. The Scottish Government remain impartial on the Airports Commission’s report. The Prime Minister, however, has put political convenience before UK connectivity by delaying his decision. The concern of local communities is understandable, given the stress and problems that can be caused by noise pollution, not to mention the potential disruption to everyday life, so the longer the Government delay their decision, the further the lives of people living around airports in the south-east will be plunged into uncertainty. That is all the more important given that the Airports Commission stated that aircraft were responsible for some negative effects on health, concentration and wellbeing, as we have heard from hon. Members today. That makes the conclusion of a decision even more important for those negatively affected.
The Prime Minister seems to have wriggled out of his commitment because he wants to help his party to win the mayoral election in London. He is not making a decision, at any scale, based on commercial activity or the direct impact on the economies of the nations of the UK, nor is he considering the uncertainty for local communities. Yet the UK Government constantly promote a new runway as a national infrastructure project with huge ramifications for air connectivity to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.
Any decision on the runway will have a massive impact on travel, exports, growth and jobs throughout the nations of our islands—not only London and the south-east of England but the rest of us. A further delay in taking a firm decision will mean that the UK continues to be an international laughing stock, as other nations yet again steal a march on investment and business and as people are stuck in the Government’s departure lounge to nowhere. As I said, I believe the delay in the decision is because the Prime Minister wants to allow his party to win the mayoral election in London. The decision, however, should be made not for party political reasons but based on the right outcomes. Freezing a decision is wrong—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is about aircraft noise. Although he is not out of order, he is straying into a slightly wider argument.
Drew Hendry
Thank you for your advice, Mr Howarth. I had hoped to have made it clear why I was discussing those things—the effect on noise and air pollution, as well as the economics. They have been mentioned by all Members who have spoken today. However, I will conclude my remarks now.
Freezing the decision is wrong. The delay is not about noise or air quality. That is just a cold myth; this is about a Goldsmith.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing the debate and, indeed, on how he introduced it. The matter is clearly of concern to many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. If I got my calculations right, 15 right hon. and hon. Members from the Back Benches have spoken today in interventions or speeches, which underlines that point.
Noise from aircraft operations is a real source of tension between airports, authorities, airlines and local communities. It is not only the annoyance or disruption, important though such things are, but the genuine public health concerns about ongoing exposure to aircraft noise. A report published in January this year by the Aviation Environment Federation drew on evidence accumulated over the past 20 years to highlight noise exposure and the way in which it can impact on someone’s quality of life. Some studies go further and draw links to the possibility of many serious long-term health problems, to which many hon. Members referred: my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) and for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). All that shows that we need more research to understand in more detail the many variables at play.
Addressing the question of noise is part of a much wider aviation puzzle, the pieces of which we need to join together. Challenges are coming to a head: noise challenges; modernising outdated airspace regulation; improving service access; promoting cleaner and greener aviation; and meeting various environmental challenges. The elephant in the room, relevant to all those things, is the question of airport capacity—the point made by the spokesperson of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry).
Last year, the Prime Minister promised a response on the airport capacity question before Christmas. The hon. Gentleman speaking for the SNP made the point that the reasons for the delay might have been political—heaven forfend that any of us have that thought! The point is that when the delay was announced the Government at the time said they wanted time to consider the recommendations and the report of the Environmental Audit Committee. They are valid questions, and I wonder why the Government were not already asking them, between the publication of the commission report last summer and the announcement, or non-announcement, just before Christmas. I want to ask the Minister what work has been done since the Government delayed their decision to ensure that we get a decision this summer? Will he confirm that the Government will make a decision this summer, or could things take even longer?
We have been clear about the four criteria against which we will assess a decision, whenever the Government announce it: how it addresses airport capacity; how that works in relation to carbon obligations; local noise and other environmental impacts; and how the rest of the UK, not simply the south-east, will be affected. The third test relates directly to what we are talking about today—noise. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling was right to say that the debate today is not about the decision between Gatwick and Heathrow, but whichever is chosen the noise and air quality impact on communities must be addressed. My worry about noise is that all written questions that other Members and I have tabled on the issue seem to receive a stock response from the Government—that they are conducting an ongoing review of their airspace and noise policies. That is fine, but we need to know what it involves. Are the Government in touch with the World Health Organisation to take account of health guidance, and what is their current thinking about the Davies commission’s recommendation on a ban on night flights? The messages coming from Heathrow and some airlines have been that they do not feel night flights can be ruled out, for all sorts of reasons, including connectivity.
Andy Slaughter
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. He may have seen that the question was raised in the other place earlier in the week about when the independent aviation noise authority recommended by the Airports Commission would be set up. The reply from the Government was, “We are not going to do anything until the decision has been made.” That is a lacklustre approach.
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend is right, and I will say a couple of words about the noise ombudsman, as it is sometimes referred to, in a little while.
The Government have commissioned Ipsos MORI research on public attitudes to aviation noise. If that is to inform the public debate, it needs to be published. My question to the Minister, again, is when it will be published.
I also want to ask the Minister about airspace redesign, a theme that has come up several times in the debate. Future approaches to the best use of airspace, bearing in mind changes and advances in technology, should inform issues of where to put new runways, and how they should be used. However, even without any airport expansion, the UK needs to modernise its outdated airspace management, in line with the EU single European sky programme. The benefits of doing that are obviously big, but the question is how we are to find a balance between dispersing routes between a number of corridors or concentrating on a number of routes. Either option has pros and cons for communities, and those that are negatively affected must be fairly compensated. However, whatever is done, a decision must be made. We have seen that trust can drain away when trials come out and people do not know what is going on. NATS, the Civil Aviation Authority, airports and communities need clear signals as to what will happen about airspace operations.
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Gentleman is a fellow Birmingham-based MP. Does he acknowledge that there was no compensation for people following the airspace changes—nor, indeed, following the runway extension?
Richard Burden
The right hon. Lady makes a valid point. The point I am making is that going forward we need a more comprehensive approach to such things. In appearances before the Transport Committee in February the Secretary of State and Department for Transport officials promised to publish a consultation on future airspace “soon”. What they would not say was whether the delay—and possibly further delays—in looking at expansion would lead to further delay in looking at airspace management. How soon is soon? What timetable is the Minister working on?
Whatever the Minister’s answers to the other questions that I have put to him both today and in writing, I must put it to him and the Government that delays, and the fact that there are difficult questions ahead, should not mean there is nothing we can do now. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith made the point correctly that an independent aviation noise authority could be established now, to act as an impartial mediator between airports and communities and help to restore trust and deliver the future of airspace operation. Nothing more is needed before that can be done. Sir Howard Davies and the Environmental Audit Committee endorsed the idea, and if the Minister endorsed it today it would certainly have the Opposition’s full backing, so let us get on with it. Will he do that?
Making use of existing capacity would also alleviate pressure on airspace. A key to utilising capacity is improving road and rail access to different international gateways in the UK. It is the Airport Operators Association’s top priority for 2016 and would bring about environmental and noise improvements around airports. Will the Minister back our calls for the National Infrastructure Commission to look at surface access to the UK’s international gateways?
Finally, I want to put it to the Minister that it is important to work with industry on the issue of noise. The Sustainable Aviation group has produced an aviation noise road map showing how aviation can manage noise from aircraft operations between now and 2050. It emphasises the importance of improving airspace structures and operational procedures, but also points out, importantly, that a key is future aircraft and engine technology. The noise road map shows that, unless that new technology comes on stream and is used, noise output could double, even without expansion, in the coming years. What are the Government doing to encourage innovation, as well as the take-up of lighter, smaller aircraft such as the Boeing 787 and A350? Retrofitting noise-reducing devices to older fleets is also critical, and I think that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling mentioned that. How are the Government promoting that? Does the Minister know what proportion of aircraft at each UK airport have not yet had such devices installed? If he does not know, when will he find out, and what will he do to put such measures in place?
I look forward to the Minister addressing those points. Vital questions have been raised today. At some point down the line the decision on expansion will come. It would be very useful to know when, but, irrespective of that, when will decisions be made on the various questions that I and other hon. Members have raised today?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested that we might need the wisdom of Solomon. I cannot claim to have that, but I am wise enough not to stray into the area that the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), encouraged us to stray into. I shall focus on the issue of noise, if I may.
I want to assure the House that the Government are acutely aware that noise is a major environmental concern around airports. We know that communities feel strongly about the issue. I remind the House that, as set out in the aviation policy framework published in 2013, our overall policy is
“to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise”.
How we define the word “significantly” is important, and I well understand the points that have been made about background ambient noise in more rural areas. In accordance with the aviation policy framework, we will continue to treat 57 dB as the average level of daytime aircraft noise that marks the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. That does not, however, mean that all people within that contour will experience significant adverse affects. Nor does it mean that no one outside the contour will consider themselves annoyed by aircraft noise. We are looking at the matter, and our consultation later in the year will consider policy in that area and particularly what it means for airspace change. Our overarching policy on the issue of noise remains as I have set out, and I think that the House will agree that it is the right approach to take.
We have a strong aviation sector here in the United Kingdom, and we should be proud of it, but we want to ensure that it does all it can to reduce the effect of noise on communities. I know that airports and other stakeholders, such as airlines, the CAA and NATS, all realise the importance of tackling noise if the industry is to continue to grow. The Government, too, have a role to play, which is why we set noise controls at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted to balance the benefits of aviation with the burdens they place on communities.
Aircraft noise is a difficult issue, as we have heard, and when changes take place, they can lead to less noise for some but a worsening for others. It can be particularly difficult for people who experience a noticeable change in noise, and it presents formidable challenges for those responsible for decisions. I am aware that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, and in others, people will have experienced changes in noise in recent years because of changes to where aircraft fly.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, a recent change to the joining point for aircraft approaching Gatwick from the east has created concerns for some residents. That change affected the point at which aircraft join the instrument landing system that leads down to the runway. Although that will have meant that some people have experienced fewer aircraft, for others it will have led to an increase in noise as a result of a narrower and more concentrated swathe on the final approach. As he will be aware, the Government believe that it is usually better to concentrate aircraft over as few routes as possible in order to minimise the number of people affected. That has been Government policy for many years and works well for many airports across the country.
Our current policy makes it clear, however, that there may be instances in which multiple routes, such as those that can offer respite for communities, can be better. The Government believe that those decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, with local communities informing the process where possible. I understand that in this instance, as the change was not to published airspace routes, communities were neither informed nor consulted before it occurred. For aircraft arriving in the UK, there are no set routes leading to the final approach. That is because arriving aircraft approach UK airspace in a random pattern and then have to be sequenced for safe operation by air traffic controllers. The change that took place in 2013 was to the procedures that air traffic controllers followed. It was therefore not subject to the Civil Aviation Authority’s airspace change process, which needs to be followed when changes to airspace routes are proposed and requires consultation. Although there is no suggestion that NATS, Gatwick or the CAA acted improperly when making the change, as I have said, I believe that communities should be engaged when such changes are made.
I turn to one or two points that were made in the debate. My hon. Friend talked about changing the angle of approach. At the end of March, Heathrow airport trialled a 3.2° descent, but of course that requires significant pilot training and safety tests. As some airports trial that, more can follow. We need to look at pilot training and plane technology, and the report following that trial is expected over the summer. Having flown the 747 simulator into Heathrow at various descent angles, I can well understand some of the issues involved—in particular, the kinetic energy in a plane when it arrives on a steeper descent. That requires training, and there are noise issues when planes get nearer to the airport as greater braking power is needed. However, the descents are certainly not the same as I experienced when being taken into Kandahar airport some time ago.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) both referred to the lack of a night flight ban at Gatwick. The Government recognise the impact of noise disturbance at night and, for that reason, set night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. The current restrictions end in October 2017, and we will consult on future arrangements later this year to ensure that the cost and benefits of night flights continue to be balanced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham asked why stacking could not be done out at sea. The Gatwick arrivals review has recommended that holding areas should be enabled over the sea. Gatwick has accepted that, but it will take some years, as it will require widespread airspace and procedural change. Gatwick will be conferring with the CAA and NATS on that particular issue.
A number of Members raised the issue of the health effects on people on the ground. I have visited schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and experienced the noise at first hand. I had a briefing earlier this week from the Aviation Environment Federation, which presented some very important research—not least from Imperial College, a well respected institution—on the effects on cardiovascular disease and other diseases.
The basic structure of UK airspace was developed more than 40 years ago and since then there has been a dramatic increase in the demand for flights. The future airspace strategy, which is being led by the CAA, is crucial to ensuring that the industry is efficient and can minimise its overall environmental impacts. The plan is to modernise UK airspace and deliver our contribution to the European Commission’s single European sky by 2030—the date by which we feel we should be able to do that. It is an ambitious plan designed around the use of modern technology, including more precise navigation.
Performance-based navigation can vastly improve the accuracy with which aircraft can fly a designated route, and airspace systemisation will mean that they follow a more predictable route, reducing the need for interference from air traffic controllers. That will not only make air travel safer but reduce emissions and journey times. It will also offer the chance to reduce noise for communities around airports by allowing routes that can accurately avoid built-up areas and maximising the rate at which aircraft can climb or descend. For those benefits to be realised, however, we need to ensure that when those essential changes take place, they work for communities as much as possible.
My officials are constantly reviewing Government policies on airspace and aviation noise. One thing I have asked them to consider is whether we can ensure that communities are informed and, when appropriate, consulted when such changes are to be made. They have also been working to deliver the right policies by engaging with all stakeholders, including representatives of local communities. I know that they have found that engagement valuable in ensuring that communities’ interests are represented, and we will continue that dialogue when refining our policies.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister for his promise to consult communities. Should the Government be inclined to go ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, will they consult the 300,000 residents of west London and beyond who would be affected? Those people are not currently affected by aircraft noise to the same extent as they would be in that situation.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
May I ask the Minister to bear in mind that he needs to leave some time for the mover of the motion to sum up?
Mr Goodwill
Thank you, Mr Howarth.
Of course we will consult in that case.
The Government want to maximise the benefits from a strong aviation sector; it is good for the economy, bringing investment and employment to the UK and wider benefits to society and individuals. However, the Government recognise that that needs to be balanced against the costs to the local environment that more flights bring, with noise being a prime example. I thank the Members who have taken part in this debate; it has been useful to inform the Government of people’s views, and I look forward to hearing the summing-up by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the Minister for his words. I am grateful for the support that I have received from throughout the House today, and particularly for the many comments from Scottish National party and Labour Members. They have shown that this issue covers every party in every part of our great kingdom.
If I am honest, I am little disappointed that we have not yet had a better answer on what the words “significantly affected” mean, and that we have not had what I hoped we would have—a promise that the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS will take into account the communities on the ground when they are looking at the future airspace strategy. I think that is absolutely essential for all communities across our country.
In the closing few moments, I would like to pay a small tribute to Gatwick Obviously Not, a campaign group in my constituency that has worked tirelessly and fought very hard not only for communities in our area, but—as I hope this debate has recognised—for communities across our country that are suffering. Aviation noise recognises no boundaries of constituency, or indeed of town, borough or county.
Sadly, this issue will come back again and again, because although some have felt the need to argue against one project or another—it will come as no surprise that I would always argue against Gatwick’s expansion—this is not about Gatwick or Heathrow. It is about the rights of citizens in our great country to be treated fairly and with justice when some of the planning decisions that are most important to them are taken. Were a motorway to be bulldozed through their back garden or a railway to be bulldozed under their land, they would have a right to be consulted. When the same is done in the air—when a motorway is put over their homes, their lives are disrupted, their sleep is interrupted and their children fail to get to school on time because they are tired—they get no say. That is surely wrong. I welcome the Minister beginning to answer that, and I know that this is a fight we will take forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of aircraft noise on local communities.
Cardiff Coal Exchange
(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
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the Cardiff Coal Exchange.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I welcome the new Wales Office Minister to his post. We have both served on the Welsh Affairs Committee and I was pleased to hear that he would respond to this debate.
The subject of the recent ownership and the future of the Cardiff Coal Exchange is extremely complex. It cuts across devolved and reserved matters and the responsibilities of several UK Departments, including the Wales Office, and the Welsh Government. Let me make it clear at the outset that I do not expect the Minister to have all the answers today, but I hope he will listen carefully to my concerns. I am interested in his views on them and ask him to make representations to the Departments involved and the incoming Welsh Government, and to take a personal interest in the future of what is arguably one of the most important buildings of the Welsh national heritage and indeed our industrial heritage from the 19th and 20th centuries.
I do not want to detain the House too long on the remarkable history, architectural merits and the importance of the coal exchange to Cardiff and the Butetown community, as I want to focus on current matters, but I would be remiss not to remind the Chamber of some crucial issues.
Cardiff became the largest coal port in the world at the end of the 19th century and the coal exchange was constructed in the 1880s by Edwin Seward as a base from which to conduct trade negotiations regarding the coal mines of the south Wales valleys, with Cardiff being the key coal port in the world at the time. Following its opening, ship owners, their agents and many others interested in the coal trade met daily on the floor of the remarkable trading hall, where agreements were made by word of mouth and telephone. It has been estimated that 10,000 people would pass in and out of the building each day. At one time, the price of the world’s coal was determined in the Cardiff Coal Exchange in Butetown. It is famously claimed that the first £1 million business deal took place and the first £1 million cheque was signed at the coal exchange during a transaction in 1901.
With the decline of the coal industry and of the export of coal from Cardiff and the Bute docks during the 20th century, the coal exchange eventually closed in 1958 and coal exports from Cardiff dock came to an end in the 1960s.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his extensive work on the issue. He mentioned the proud history of the building, which is iconic for Wales. Does he agree that the Labour council that currently runs Cardiff should consider all those matters?
Stephen Doughty
I have some concerns about Cardiff Council’s involvement, which are focused on the officers of the council, and I will make that clear.
The building became grade II* listed in 1975 and there were discussions about the use of the building, which is so important that it was considered as the future home of the proposed Welsh Assembly during the devolution referendum in the 1970s. It was also considered as the headquarters for S4C, the Welsh language television channel. Eventually, it was refurbished and reopened as a major venue hosting acts such as the Manic Street Preachers, Ocean Colour Scene and the Stereophonics. There has been support from across the music and entertainment spectrum and people who have enjoyed gigs and events there. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) here and I know he has been there for many gigs, as has my hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), as have I. There was even support recently from Sir Tom Jones, no less.
However, the coal exchange closed indefinitely in August 2013 as a result of claimed building safety issues and the imposition of prohibition orders by Cardiff Council, which were themselves a matter of controversy. There has been an issue about the council’s regulatory functions potentially being used unsympathetically to frustrate access to the building over a number of years. We then saw the liquidation of Macob, the company that owned the exchange, and in 2014, ownership of the coal exchange was disclaimed by the liquidators and passed to the Crown Estate. That was an unusual legal situation and led to a great deal of uncertainty.
At that point, I became aware of a lot of local concern about the future of the building. My office is nearby in Mount Stuart Square in one of the other historic buildings of Cardiff Bay. The coal exchange is a building I have long felt a great attachment and passion for. Many people in the community came forward and, with the opportunity presented by its being disclaimed to the Crown Estate, I decided to make a public call for all the parties interested in its future to come together for the benefit of the community and to save the building.
I was contacted by many hundreds of people: existing tenants, experts, former workers in the building and people from the diverse Butetown community and those associated with the building in the past, as well as an extensive number of interested developers. We held a first major public meeting in Butetown in October 2014, which was followed by a smaller working group coming together to form what was to become the Save The Coal Exchange campaign at the end of the same month. It was clear there was a significant appetite for a collaborative effort involving all those who cared about the building to find a solution.
A number of formal claims persisted against the building from Cardiff Council, Julian Hodge bank, Barclays bank and Coal Exchange Ltd, the company that had previously hosted events at the venue and had effectively been forced out of it by the council-imposed prohibitions, but there was great optimism that a solution involving the local community, the council, the Welsh Government, Cadw, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Victorian Society and others who had expressed an interest, as well as a private developer or investment of private funds, might result in a solution that would not only save this remarkable piece of heritage, but find a use or uses that could meet multiple needs, retain community access to it and generate revenue to secure its future. In the months following, there was much progress.
Over the past 18 months, the Save The Coal Exchange campaign has secured parts of the habitable building, ensuring bills were paid for utilities, attracting a significant number of new tenants, ranging from lawyers to creatives and community organisations and, crucially, challenging the false perception that has repeatedly arisen that the entire building is derelict and at immediate risk of falling down. Parts of it are in a difficult state, but other parts are entirely functional and the public debate has at times been extremely misleading.
Surveys were undertaken and approaches made to prospective partners. The Save The Coal Exchange campaign secured a grant of £10,000 from the Heritage Lottery Fund Wales with a view to a larger application. I commend the campaign for doing a remarkable job in keeping the building going and keeping open the options for its future. At the same time, the Welsh Government commissioned their own survey and studies, and a series of developers expressed interest in being involved.
On no fewer than seven occasions, I met Cardiff Council officials—
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman alluded to the Welsh Government study, which was done by Capita, and the Cardiff Council study, which was done by RVW. The costs were estimated to be in the region of £35 million to £45 million. Does he accept that that is an enormous amount of money, that the issue is not new, that the Welsh Government have sat on their hands when it comes to helping Cardiff Council out with this problem, and that a large amount of money could fall on taxpayers?
Stephen Doughty
I have concerns about the liability for taxpayers, but the Welsh Government have engaged proactively and positively. I hope that the new Government will look carefully at these issues.
As I said, on no fewer than seven occasions, I met council officials and was provided with repeated assurances of partnership. I spoke to Julian Hodge bank and Barclays bank, which assured me they would act in the interests of all those with a stake and the local community, and not sign off any deal that they did not think met those concerns. I also spoke to the Crown Estate, the Heritage Lottery Fund and many others. However, sadly, our hopes and optimism for a collaborative and transparent process seem to have been misplaced and I am sorry to say that over the last six months we have seen some deeply untransparent manoeuvres by a small group of council officers to cut a backroom deal, first with a Liverpool company, Harcourt Developments, and then with another Liverpool company, Signature Living, and its owner Lawrence Kenwright.
Despite my misgivings, I have tried at all times to maintain an open mind to various developers and proposals that have come forward. Indeed, I was happy to put them in touch with relevant parties and the Save The Coal Exchange campaign. That includes Signature Living. I met its representatives on a number of occasions, including Lawrence Kenwright on three occasions, to listen to their plans and to ask detailed questions, not least because one of the positive aspects of its proposal was, on the face of it, to maintain the core heritage fabric. However, as time went on and more matters came to my attention, I became increasingly concerned about its suitability as a developer and the nature of its assurances, which seemed to vary at every meeting. I raised those directly with Cardiff Council and many of the other parties but I was assured that they would be fully examined again and again.
So we come to the present day. The Minister will be aware that in the last two weeks there has been a sudden announcement that a deal has been facilitated by Cardiff Council to transfer ownership of the coal exchange to Signature Living, followed by a barrage of heavy corporate PR from Mr Kenwright and subsequent controversy in the media and local community, with nearly 800 local individuals now having signed a petition criticising the deal.
Let me be clear. I am not opposed to a private developer being involved in a solution to save the coal exchange. Indeed, since day one, I have been clear about the level of finance needed. I am also perfectly happy to put my personal concerns about Mr Kenwright to one side in the interests of any deal about the building and the local community. It is easy to provide a fait accompli in these situations—to present oneself as the only alternative, threaten dire consequences, respond to any criticism or reasonable questions as a “slur” and warn of the jobs that might be lost. But we owe it to the building and the local community in Butetown, Cardiff and, indeed, the rest of Wales to secure the right solution for the coal exchange.
I want to detail a few specific concerns that I hope the Minister will listen to carefully. First, on the process, previous dealings with Macob and other potential developers reveal a concerning record. Freedom of information requests have revealed a complex web of negotiations over a number of years, including that the council was contemplating a development that would have seen a significant proportion of the building demolished and the building of a multi-storey block of flats. That is hardly reassuring.
There has been no tender or public process in this instance. The council was fully aware of the concerns during the process, and I do not understand why it did not go forward in a fully transparent and open way to secure the right bid. In fact, one developer came to see me to tell me of his concerns—that bid was supported by officials at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, at UK level—and told me that in effect he had been scared away by the council: it was not interested and he should go away.
In recent days the council appears to have exercised its right of sale to seize and transfer the building to Signature Living. How it did that is unclear and has been questioned by independent legal practitioners. That largely centres on a claim that the council has made, but never fully substantiated, of “costs” that it incurred and then attempted to formalise by pinning a notice to the building some months ago. It appears to have done a deal with other claimants to relinquish their charges.
Lawrence Kenwright has claimed in the press this week that he beat dozens of competitors. On 8 April I had an email from the council’s director of economic development, Neil Hanratty, that made the point that the
“condition of the building has been widely publicised”.
He went on to confirm that rather than dozens, only
“four parties were interviewed by a panel of officers including the Listed Building…Officer and a representative of Julian Hodge Bank.”
I find it very odd, given the UK and international interest in the building, let alone that in Wales, that the council appears to have engaged in negotiations in the past 18 months with only two companies, both of which happen to be from Liverpool. It is a shame that the council did not get together with other key stakeholders to put together a public bid process, working with all those other people who could have played a part in finding the best solution.
I also have concerns that this matter has not received the proper democratic scrutiny. It does not appear to have gone to the cabinet or the leader of the council, or, to my knowledge, to the council’s economic development committee.
I want to turn now to Mr Kenwright’s financial background. I am afraid that Mr Kenwright has been less than transparent about his financial history, and I think it is in the public interest to raise these matters so that others can draw their own conclusions. Mr Kenwright did not proactively disclose these to Cardiff Council or to anybody else who met him. Indeed, the council claimed that it was unaware of them when I raised them with it. He has blamed his past difficulties on the credit crunch and said that they have made him “a better businessman”. He has attempted to downplay them in the Welsh press this week. He told WalesOnline:
“I had an apartment block in Liverpool which went over budget. I was one of the first ones to go bust. The only difference between liquidation and bankruptcy is giving the personal guarantee.”
However, Mr Kenwright confirmed to me personally in a meeting in the House on 9 March that he was made bankrupt as recently as 2010, in Liverpool Crown court on 22 June in that year. The credit crunch of course started in 2008. And, crucially, he was a director, as reported in the north Wales Daily Post on 28 April 2004, of a clothing company called Yes & Co. Distribution Ltd, which in 2002 went into liquidation, with an estimated £1.9 million owing to creditors. The newspaper reported at the time that a Patricia Kenwright—believed to be his former wife—was disqualified from being a director for four years and that her husband Lawrence Kenwright accepted a similar undertaking for eight years, and a Frederick Greenwood for five years. That of course suggests that Mr Kenwright could have been disqualified until as recently as 2012, although admittedly that is not clear.
It is not clear why the directors were disqualified, but the newspaper reported that Mrs Kenwright
“allowed the company to fail to deal properly with its taxation affairs.”
For the record, the Insolvency Service lists a range of reasons for being disqualified. Of course, there could have been another Lawrence Kenwright, so I wanted to ask him directly, and he confirmed that he was a former director of Yes & Co. and that he had indeed been disqualified. It is interesting to note that until recently he was not even listed as a director of the company that he set up to facilitate the purchase of the coal exchange. As of yesterday, Signature Living Coal Exchange Ltd listed only one director, his current wife Katie Kenwright, although Mr Kenwright is listed as a director of Signature Living Coal Exchange Ops Ltd.
I want to turn briefly to the financial model—
Stephen Doughty
If I may, I will not. We have limited time and I have already taken one intervention, but I might take another later if we have enough time.
The financial model that Mr Kenwright proposes to use for the building is the BPRA—business premises renovation allowance—scheme. That was introduced in the Finance Act 2005 and was intended to bring derelict or unused properties back into use. The scheme gives an initial allowance of 100% for expenditure on converting or renovating unused business premises in a disadvantaged area. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced the end of the scheme from the end of this financial year, after a raft of concerns, and investigations by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
The council has claimed to me that Signature Living has told it that it has secured an “approved £12 million” and up to a further £30 million. However, Lawrence Kenwright told me that only one of his previous schemes had received full approval from HMRC. I am deeply concerned. Given the investigations into these schemes in the past and the risk of their not being approved, where does the liability lie? We also ought to ask, given the current climate and concerns about tax avoidance and transparency: is this the right scheme to be funding this sort of building? Should we be assisting wealthy individuals and shadowy funds to avoid tax in this way? The Treasury has decided that it will end the scheme, which I think shows what it thinks of it.
The Financial Times reported on 14 July 2015:
“HM Revenue & Customs indicated it saw problems with arrangements involving BPRA, drawing parallels with abusive avoidance schemes, and a year later added them to its public ‘Spotlights’ list of arrangements it said taxpayers should avoid.”
A range of concerns were raised. The FT continues:
“Where tax relief was not granted to taxpayers before 2013, the Revenue has in most cases withheld it, said Mr Avient”—
he comes from UHY Hacker Young—
“‘The Revenue clearly saw a situation where certain structures were stretching the rules too far’...it has issued a raft of accelerated payment demands to repay disputed tax to BPRA scheme investors. These tax bills cannot be appealed.”
Interestingly, on 21 April 2014 the Liverpool Echo revealed the problems with the Stanley Dock regeneration scheme, funded in the same way. Builders were left unpaid; the council was left having to provide a significant amount of grant—multi-million pounds—and there was a complete lack of transparency. That involved another Liverpool company called Harcourt, which incidentally, as I said, was the previous preferred partner of Cardiff Council. The Liverpool Echo reported that it was
“surprisingly difficult to pin down the developers and owners”,
which I think exposes the difficulties and concerns about the transparency of these schemes and their solidity.
I also have concerns about what the building will be—what is the proposal on the table? We have heard about it being proposed as a hotel. It is clear that Signature Living is a hotel developer. I am not opposed to a hotel development and I am sure that many other people in the community are not, but it is still, as of this date, unclear what parts of the building will be used for what. At various times, in various meetings, we have been told of residential, part-hotel and normal hotel usage. In fact, Mr Kenwright suggested to me that it might be a third, a third, a third—or, as he put it, “as much as the council let me get away with”.
We need to be very clear—we need to know—before accepting or agreeing that this scheme is a good thing what the building will be used for. Tenants and businesses in the area and residents in the square—it is already a significant residential area—need to understand what will be there. Will there be lots of big parties coming there? Mr Kenwright has a hen and stag business in his hotels in Liverpool. Will lots of people be living there and will there be parking issues and all the other things associated with that? None of those schemes is necessarily wrong, but the public have a right to know what the building will be.
I come now to community benefits and issues. First, the Save The Coal Exchange campaign has listed a whole series of issues that it would want to be included in a section 106 agreement. It would want to see those outlined and agreed to. We have had promises of jobs and apprenticeships, although Lawrence Kenwright told me that the company would “bring their own people in”. Where are the clear assurances on jobs and apprenticeships?
Secondly, there are existing tenants—nearly 40 tenants —in the building. What assurances have they been given? They are deeply fearful that the council may step in, given its history, issue prohibition notices and see them evicted once building work starts. Where are the assurances for them?
We also have concerns about engagement with the local community in the square. There has not been serious consultation with local residents or businesses. Signature Living has been advertising major changes to Baltic House, home of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. Is it aware of those; has it been consulted?
I have had an exchange of letters with the council about this matter and have had some assurances, but the letter from Neil Hanratty on 8 April confirms only that
“commitment to the above will be secured formally through the planning process”
and merely that Signature Living has “agreed in principle”. We should be having cast-iron guarantees for a building of this nature, with this kind of expenditure and the potential impact. These are really serious issues and we want to ensure that there is that community benefit, quite apart from all the other issues about access to the building.
Finally, heritage was one of the most positive aspects of the Signature Living proposal but, even so, there are concerns. In March 2016, the Victorian Society wrote to City of Cardiff Council officer Pat Thompson, copying in Neil Hanratty, saying that it had heard nothing from the council for 20 months and that
“the lack of communication from Cardiff Council is both disappointing and concerning… we are concerned that without close scrutiny, and clear direction from the local authority, aided and informed by a proper assessment…an acceptably sympathetic scheme, might…prove difficult to achieve. In 2013 and 2014 the Society was involved in consultations with Signature Living over its proposed hotel conversion, of Albion House, Liverpool, a Grade 2* Listed Building by Richard Norman Shaw.”
That building will, of course, be of interest to those of us in this Parliament. The letter continued:
“From our point of view the process was far from ideal. Plans were drawn up hurriedly and without any evidence of the sort of high quality, detailed heritage assessment a Grade 2* Listed Building demands. Perhaps unsurprisingly therefore, the conversion involved some alterations and additions that we as well as Historic England advised were unsympathetic and harmful. These were undertaken regardless, some seemingly prior to receiving the necessary consents… None of this is to suggest that Signature Living is incapable or indisposed to deliver a high quality sensitive scheme, rather it is to demonstrate that without proper guidance...in the form of a Conservation Management Plan and a structural survey, a less sympathetic and unnecessarily damaging conversion scheme is the likely outcome.”
I conclude by identifying a few key areas. First, the questions about the financial background are deeply concerning. What does the Minister think? I want Cardiff Council to be clear about its due diligence process in that regard, particularly on the sureties around the BPRA scheme, given the concerns that have been raised. What happens if that goes wrong? Who will bail this out? Who will deal with the financial consequences?
Secondly, on heritage and planning, there is a clear need for strict oversight from Cadw, the Victorian Society and others, for conservation management plans and for surveys, whatever developer comes in. Thirdly, we need guarantees in writing, not assurances that mean nothing, on the community issues and on access to the building. We need guarantees for the tenants of the building as it is, and we need an inquiry into the overall process over a number of years. The process has been deeply unsatisfactory and has involved the use of health and safety powers and the spending of public money in a deeply non-transparent way. We should put a halt to the proposal, re-engage with the community and other stakeholders and act in the national interest to save the coal exchange.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
I put it on the record that I had no foreknowledge of what the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth was going to raise. I raised some issues about one of the developments he mentioned on behalf of some constituents many years ago, and I would not want it to be thought that I had any prior knowledge that he would mention it, otherwise it might not have been appropriate for me to take the Chair today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on his speech and on securing this debate. It is important that Westminster is still relevant to the communities that we represent in Wales, and highlighting such issues in Westminster Hall debates is appropriate and correct. He said that he does not expect me to have all the answers, and indeed it would be inappropriate for me to respond to some of the points that have been raised because many of them are issues for the Welsh Government and for City of Cardiff Council, which as part of local government in Wales is answerable to the Welsh Government. I will have to restrain myself from commenting on devolved areas. It is important to place this debate in context and to respond to the undevolved issues, and I will particularly respond to the questions on the tax allowance system. Additionally, it is important to touch on the Crown Estate’s position in the sales process to try to allay some of the fears he raised.
On the background to the debate, I fully subscribe to the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the coal exchange, which is an iconic Welsh building. We should be proud that Wales was able to dictate the price of coal throughout the world, and we should trumpet that the first £1 million business transaction—the sale of coal to France—happened at the coal exchange. We should talk about that when we discuss the history of Cardiff but, in the context of Cardiff bay, this debate is also an opportunity to highlight the way in which Wales has developed. We should proudly boast of the revitalisation of Cardiff bay and highlight the economic impact of the changes in Cardiff that have been secured through the work of successive Governments here in Westminster, in co-operation with Governments in Cardiff bay—it is an example of the two Governments working together and of the local authority being proactive in redeveloping an area that was ripe for redevelopment. This is a success story, and there is no doubt that the coal exchange is an iconic building at the centre of the proposed redevelopment of Cardiff bay.
When we talk about redevelopment and business opportunities in Cardiff, it is no bad thing to trumpet, for example, the Cardiff city deal. I represent a north Wales constituency, and I often hear the accusation that all the investment in Wales goes to Cardiff, but it is important to point out that the scale of the Cardiff city deal is not confined to the city of Cardiff; it will have a huge impact on all the areas surrounding Cardiff. Indeed, a significant proportion of the Welsh population will be affected by the Cardiff city deal, which has secured a £1.2 billion investment on a cross-governmental level. I am sure that every hon. Member in this Chamber would welcome that.
Cardiff is a city that is going places and performing extremely well in attracting inward investment. There is no doubt that the Cardiff bay area has been crucial to the refocusing of Cardiff in the mind of inward investors as a city with a “can do” attitude, which has made a difference to job creation throughout the area and south Wales.
Craig Williams
There is a direct comparison between the scale of regeneration in Cardiff under the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, which was formed under the previous Conservative Government, and the city deal in partnership with the Wales Government. It is a national disgrace that we are debating the future of the coal exchange and that it has been left to fall down through the inaction of the Labour Welsh Government. The impression has been given that the officers run City of Cardiff Council, which has a Labour cabinet.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. That is very lengthy for an intervention.
Guto Bebb
Concerns have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) and by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on the inactivity, or otherwise, of the Welsh Government. It is not for me to comment on that, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth will be making his views known in due course.
Two specific issues have been raised to which I can respond. First, I cannot respond to the sales process adopted by City of Cardiff Council, but it is only right and proper that I address the involvement of the Crown Estate, about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern. It is clear that the whole process was subject to the escheat process, which means that the building was never owned by the Crown Estate. As such, the Crown Estate was neither consulted nor involved in the process by which the property’s ownership is being transferred. That is not unique; it is a pattern that can be seen in many circumstances involving the Crown Estate. The actual decision-making process will be for City of Cardiff Council and the Welsh Government. Although the Crown Estate is technically involved, it is not odd that it was not consulted and did not provide any input in the process.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the tax allowance scheme, and it is fair to say that the business premises renovation allowance is central to the redevelopment plan. He is right to highlight the fact that the scheme will be coming to an end at the end of this financial year at the end of March 2017. He is also correct that concerns have been raised about the way in which the scheme has been utilised in the past. Those concerns, which were raised, I think, back in 2011-12, have been addressed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and it was stated in summer Budget 2015 that the scheme would be coming to an end. That is still the case. It is important to highlight the fact that the BPRA is a capital allowance scheme, and my understanding is that under such schemes any claim for the allowance would have to be made retrospectively, after the expenditure is made. It is also important to highlight the fact that any claim for a capital allowance under such a scheme would have to refer to expenditure incurred during the 2016-17 financial year. Any expenditure incurred after that point would obviously be outside the scope of the allowance scheme, which is a fairly important point.
Guto Bebb
I apologise, but I am afraid that I have only one minute.
The hon. Gentleman’s concerns have been heard, if nothing else. By raising this issue in Westminster, he has ensured that the concerns of tenants, the local community and elected representatives have been heard. The concerns raised in relation to the tenants of the coal exchange are valid and should be addressed, and everyone would agree that the redevelopment of such an iconic business should be open and transparent and should have the support of the local community. However, on the issues relating to the involvement of the Westminster Government, I restate that the Crown Estate process has been par for the course. In the same way, the concerns raised about the tax allowance scheme are valid if this redevelopment does not happen before the end of March 2017 but, as it currently stands, the scheme is still in existence.
Question put and agreed to.
UK Dairy 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
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK dairy sector.
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and to address the state of the UK dairy sector. This is an important debate, and I am glad that there are so many people here, not only from Wales and the devolved nations but from across the United Kingdom. I suspect there may be some interventions but, given the number of Members who wish to contribute, perhaps we will keep them to a minimum.
Everyone here will recognise and agree on the importance of the agricultural sector, especially the dairy sector, which is a vital part of our economy, our landscape and, in many parts of the country, our communities. In the rural areas that we represent—I represent Ceredigion—local family farms are the lifeblood that run through our community. Without them, many parts of my constituency could not survive and, in many cases, would not exist at all. Many farmers who work the land and tend the flocks and herds have done so from generation to generation for hundreds of years, and they want to continue, yet the future looks bleak for many of them. I get that ongoing and constant message from farmers and their representatives in the farming unions. This is a time of grave uncertainty for many farmers in my constituency, in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. It is a time of difficulty and, day by day, many farmers are struggling to get by, which has led to the harrowing fact that almost half of all dairy farmers in Britain have stated their intention to quit the sector.
There has been an incredibly difficult market for dairy produce in the past several years. That difficulty has not been caused by one specific issue that can be easily addressed. A number of factors are involved: local ones, national ones and, of course, global ones. Farmers understand that—they have told me about it—and it has been endorsed by reports from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am glad that the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is here to share with us his wisdom and expertise on the back of an excellent report that has many positive recommendations, which I will pursue later.
Whether the factors are local, national or global, the impact is the same. In the summer of 2014 alone we saw farm-gate milk price returns to UK farmers fall between 25% and 50%, which meant a fall from about 34p a litre to 23.3p a litre as of late last year. That is the lowest price farmers have seen since 2009, yet many receive even less than that low figure. Yesterday, at the excellent Anglesey day pioneered by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), farming unions told me that some farmers in north Wales may soon receive payment of just 16p a litre. Although 23p is difficult for many dairy farmers, and perhaps 26p or 27p would be sustainable, there is simply no farmer in this country who could survive for long by selling milk as cheaply as 16p a litre. Many farmers are already struggling and living on the edge financially. Yes, Government action on averaging out tax payments over three years for farmers is incredibly helpful, but it does not address many of the challenges they face.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
One issue that farmers in my constituency of Eddisbury raise with me is the fact that the processors are not subject to the Groceries Code Adjudicator and that there is a huge gap between those on aligned contracts and those on non-aligned contracts, and it is those on non-aligned contracts who are really suffering at the moment.
Mr Williams
I completely concur with the hon. Lady, who has experience of the farming industry both in England and in Wales. I will address the Groceries Code Adjudicator later, but I agree with her sentiments.
In Wales, the dairy sector continues to suffer from months of continuing low prices and poor profitability, and many of the farming unions are not convinced that there is likely to be a recovery any time soon. According to AHDB Dairy, for the 12 months to December 2015 total full costs of production ranged from 25.7p to 34.4p a litre. In short, there is huge disparity between the costs of production and the price that producers receive, which is a huge concern. The figures over the past decade show the loss of 5,500 dairy producers in England and Wales, and that downward trajectory will continue if nothing is done to help support dairy farmers. That means a change in the ethos of some of our farmers, but it also means positive action from the different Governments, whether it is the Government here in Westminster or the devolved Administrations. If we do not do that, it will have a terrible impact on the rural communities that many of us represent.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Daniel Kawczynski
One thing that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned is the fact that this debate is almost as repetitive as the changing seasons. I must have been to more than 12 such debates over the past decade, and we always get platitudes from Ministers, who say that everything is being done. I hope he agrees that, when the Minister stands up on this occasion, we will hearing about concrete steps that the Government are taking to support our dairy farmers.
Mr Williams
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I refer him and the Minister to the report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The hon. Gentleman has a fine pedigree in championing such issues. He set up the all-party dairy group in the last Parliament, and he initiated many of the 12 debates that I mentioned. I thank him for his contribution.
I mentioned rural communities. I reflect on the words of the farmer whom I spoke to on the streets of Aberystwyth last weekend, who told me that price fluctuations over the past five years have cost his business something like £100,000. That is a huge loss to the local economy, local businesses and the wider agricultural economy.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I must register a slight interest, as my husband runs an agricultural auctioneering business; he runs the Sedgemoor market, which many Welsh farmers come to. He has reported to me that there is a knock-on effect. It is not only the farmers selling milk who are affected; it is the whole industry. The cost of a cow now is less than £1,000. People who rear cows to sell them to dairy farmers can hardly cover the costs of their business. The whole chain is affected, not just the end of it, and we absolutely must do something to address this situation.
Mr Williams
The hon. Lady is quite right, and she represents a rural area, as I do. For people who do not live in a rural area, it can sometimes be very hard to understand the extent to which the agricultural community and the agricultural economy are engrained in rural areas and every aspect of life in those areas. We have had a big debate in our area about the closure of village schools. If families working on dairy farms move away, that has a direct impact on the capacity of small schools to function. If young families leave a community, public services dwindle as a consequence, as well as the auctioneers and others involved in the supply chain for the agricultural industry, as she said.
The nature of my remarks so far has been negative, but I do not want this to be a wholly negative debate, because we have some immensely innovative farmers who want to stay in the industry and want the industry to thrive and prosper. However, my farmers tell me that they want us to speak out about the reality on the ground as they experience it.
Of course, not all the problems are home-made. There are serious global challenges for British agriculture that are not under our control. The farmers I have spoken to recognise the significant impact of global supply and demand on their businesses, and the difficulties for Government in changing that. There has been a fall in the global commodity price which, along with other factors such as the Russian ban and the reduced demand for milk from China and the middle east, has played a part in the current difficulties we face in Wales and in the UK as a whole.
For those farmers who have stayed in business and continued producing dairy, production has increased, but so has production around the world and it seems unlikely to slow down in the near future. There have been warnings. I will not dwell on them too much, but the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, warned about the impact of the end of quota and the impact of the increase in Irish production, which the Farmers Union of Wales has been talking about since 2009; but we are where we are.
While there are positive signs that the global market for milk will continue to grow, the growth in production is higher than the growth in demand, which has a huge impact on the commodity price of milk. We live in a globalised world and at times that unfortunately means that small changes somewhere else in the world have a huge impact at home. There is action that can and must be taken to improve British dairy producers’ opportunities on the global market, such as having a strong and long-term dairy exports strategy; I emphasise that it should be strong and long-term. However, these global factors cannot always be predicted.
The domestic market remains important. Over half the milk produced in the UK is sold directly as fresh liquid milk through retailers and consumed here in the UK. This milk is mostly sold as skimmed or semi-skimmed milk, with much of the remaining milk being processed into products such as cheese, yoghurt, milk powders and butter. There are some very good companies using that milk. I think of Rachel’s in Aberystwyth in my constituency; its products can be bought in Portcullis House. They are excellent products that are made using local milk.
While many dairy products are in a very competitive global market, there has been huge criticism about the relationship between supermarkets and their suppliers, especially when it comes to the price that supermarkets pay for the milk that goes on their shelves. Milk, as a staple in many people’s shopping baskets, has for too long been at the forefront of the UK retail price war. However, rather than affecting the profits of the supermarkets, it seems that much of this cost-cutting has instead affected the price paid to dairy suppliers. Much of the milk that is produced was bought at a price lower than it cost to produce. That situation is simply not sustainable for my constituents who are farmers— or for any constituents in the farming communities represented in Westminster Hall today. The FUW said in 2015:
“It is not, and never has been, the job of the producer to fund supermarket price cuts or to enhance a retailer’s market share. Sacrificing producers to a retailer price war can only function to further break an already fractured supply chain”.
That is why I return to the point about the Groceries Code Adjudicator made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), and it is why many of us in this House supported the creation of the adjudicator.
Mr Williams
I know that the hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work on this issue, so I give way to him.
Julian Sturdy
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and on making a powerful argument. Regarding the Groceries Code Adjudicator, he will be aware that there is an upcoming review of the adjudicator, two years after the office was created. Is that not the perfect opportunity to strengthen the adjudicator and its remit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) touched on? This is an area where Government can act.
Mr Williams
Again, I completely concur with that comment. I think the hon. Gentleman secured a debate on the Groceries Code Adjudicator in this Chamber a few weeks or months ago, and he made that point very strongly then. He is quite right; we need the opportunity that this review presents.
I supported the creation of the adjudicator, as did my party, and I commend the cross-party efforts to create the adjudicator. Andrew George, the former Member for St Ives, and others, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn—in fact, all parties in the House pioneered and put forward the case for the adjudicator, the creation of which was long in coming.
Like the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), farmers tell me that, yes, the adjudicator has the power to name and shame, and, yes, the adjudicator has the power to levy fines, but those powers are insufficient. The adjudicator needs to have the power to examine the whole of the supply chain from gate to plate, even if that requires legislative change. That would instil great confidence in many farmers who do not have a direct relationship with supermarkets through one of the admirable dedicated supply contracts.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, for securing this debate and for the passionate remarks he has made. Based on what he has just said, and based on the previous intervention, unless the Government act during that review and give the adjudicator some teeth, there will be a huge Government failure on the dairy industry.
Mr Williams
I totally concur with that. I think there is an emerging consensus. It took some time to give the adjudicator the capacity to levy fines. I think this is the next step, but it cannot come quickly enough for many of the farmers in Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and elsewhere.
We are told that more dairy farmers are supplying supermarkets on a dedicated contract, which is true, and that many of those farmers receive more favourable milk prices, which is good, but only 4% of Welsh dairy farmers have a direct link with the supermarkets. I celebrate that 4%—I congratulate those farmers and those supermarkets on having better arrangements—but it is only 4% of Welsh farmers who can potentially be assisted by the Groceries Code Adjudicator if there are contractual breaches. The rest of them are on their own and there is a huge sense of vulnerability.
I will proceed as quickly as I can now; if the House will excuse me, I will not take any more interventions. I will talk about efficiency in the dairy sector. Of course, efficiency can help to reduce the cost of milk production, but to do so farmers need to have the money to invest, and that needs to be recognised in the price paid to farmers for their milk. The FUW says,
“Whilst... some retailers have made small in-roads in this area, it remains imperative that the prices paid to producers not only cover the cost of production, but also provide room for investment in order to allow the sector to innovate and remain competitive.”
I am yet to find a farmer who does not have an eye on the future and who is not prepared to plan or innovate. The issue for almost all those producers, and many of the larger ones, is that the financial constraints on them—some of those constraints are sometimes imposed by the banks, which are not always helpful; many of them are, but many of them are not—make it impossible for them to invest in the way that we want them to. If we expect farmers to invest, say, £100,000 to extend a milking parlour at a time of gravely low prices, that is a huge challenge and for many farmers it is not feasible.
Despite that, the industry has achieved many of the efficiencies expected of it. It is predicted that between 2015 and 2016 the industry will reduce the cost of production by 4.56 pence per litre. However, to go back to the international dimension to this situation, at the same time prices fell by 20%.
We need to look at processing capacity. In Wales, the fact is that we have had no substantive investment in processing facilities for 10 years, although the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) may tell us a little good news if she catches your eye, Ms Ryan. There has been a loss of milk and cheese processing at a time of increasing supply. That needs to be addressed.
Briefly, I will endorse what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said in the recommendations of its excellent report, “Farmgate prices”. One of the recommendations stated:
“Claims from national retailers that there are ‘sustainable economic reasons’”—
sustainable for whom, we ask—
“justifying price differentials have not been fully accepted by many farmers, and retailers must”—
I emphasise, “must”—
“do more to explain their reasoning and to ensure their prices adequately reflect the costs of production.”
The report talks about producer power in the marketplace. What is being done at the UK level—I would ask the same question to Ministers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—to encourage producer organisations? In Wales, there has been concern that the Assembly Government have not been forthcoming with the resources promised to the farming community to develop producer organisations.
The report highlighted that opportunities exist for imports to be displaced and for new products to appeal to UK and global consumers. The whole supply chain needs to invest in continued improvement and productivity. If that is an aspiration, it is a laudable one, and I know many farmers are attempting to respond to it.
The report also questioned the
“assurance from the retail sector that there is no link between the price at which supermarkets sell to their customers and the price supermarkets pay to farmers.”
The report said that “Progress is uneven”. I would say that the Committee is being rather generous in saying that it is “uneven”.
DEFRA and Agriculture Ministers in the devolved Governments need to encourage the use of more long-term contracts. That will help to provide predictable levels of income and ensure secure financial planning and investment decisions, regardless of the price in the supermarket. There needs to be clearer guidance from DEFRA so that customers know that they are buying British goods or—I would say this, wouldn’t I?—Welsh produce.
Through the European school milk scheme, children over the age of five receive a subsidised portion of milk. Revisions to the scheme—I believe the UK Government abstained—were passed this month, which means that the UK will receive just under €10 million in aid per school year, which is the fourth highest allocation of any country in the EU. DEFRA is responsible for implementing that allocation. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government will continue to participate in the revised European school milk scheme? What plans do they have for consultation? Critically for this debate, what discussions has the Minister had with the dairy industry about how it can benefit from the scheme?
My final substantive point is on the voluntary dairy code of practice, which often gets ignored. There is concern over its brevity and the number of people it covers. My farmers tell me that the code has had little impact on the farm-gate price received by producers and is largely ineffectual in the midst of a market surplus. When the former Minister, Sir James Paice—Jim Paice—came to the Royal Welsh show in Builth Wells and announced the code, there was great excitement among the farming community. We were told at the time that, if there were concerns that the dairy code was not working effectively, the Government would leave open the potential for a statutory code of practice. How is the voluntary code being monitored? What consideration is being given to putting it on a statutory basis? For a long time, the FUW has called for the inclusion of market-related pricing formulas within dairy contracts, and I fully support that.
I could go on; it is a hugely wide subject. The remit of the debate was deliberately made as wide as possible to encourage contributions from Members from all parts of the UK and with different experiences, but there will be a commonality to many of the messages that we present to the Minister. There are two great industries left in Wales—steel and agriculture—and a growing small business sector, which we nurture. The steel industry is concentrated. We hope that the proposals for a management buy-out in Port Talbot yield results, because the impact of many thousands of people losing their jobs overnight would be catastrophic for Wales and the United Kingdom. However, a more sublime, devious decline of an industry is happening in Wales, and that is agriculture. The Committee report gives us some of the answers that need to be pursued. It is very important that the thousands of jobs in rural communities are sustained and protected. I do not dwell on the negatives, because I am reminded by the young farmers who come to my surgeries—I go to their meetings, and they want to stay in the industry—that they are the people we need to support and on whom our rural communities depend.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
I say to right hon. and hon. Members that we have 10 people seeking to contribute, so I am placing a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. If everyone is helpful, everyone should get in on that basis. I will be seeking to start calling the three Front Benchers at 3.30. With the Minister’s co-operation, I ask that we allow the mover of the motion two minutes at the end, bearing in mind that we have a few minutes past the hour as we started late.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak early in this debate. To some extent, I had been hoping to hear all the other speeches and use them to contribute to mine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) not only on raising such an important debate, but on doing so in an excellent way. There was hardly a single comment that I disagreed with. He has raised most of the issues that I would have raised, so I will concentrate on two points only; I realise that many Members want to speak.
My first point relates to the public announcements in the past couple of weeks about an increase in the price that Arla pays farmers. It seems to have been accepted as an increase by DEFRA in publicity saying, “Well done, Arla”, but it was not an increase. Arla’s press release worked a treat, but the increase did not reach the farmers. We need to be pretty clear about that simply as a point of information.
The second issue I want to raise is hugely important. Cross-border single farm payments are a massive problem, particularly in Wales. The agriculture industry is structured such that the single farm payment from Brussels is crucial to the economy of farms. The cross-border farms in Wales have been deeply let down. They are not getting any money at all, but I am raising this issue with the Minister because the problem in Wales—this is what the Welsh Minister is saying to all those farmers—is that the information is not available to the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government therefore cannot calculate the payments for the cross-border farms, and they are getting nothing.
The farmers are in a desperate position. We read today about a supplier who has gone bankrupt. Some 300 cross-border farms in Wales are suffering. We have to have a proper working relationship between the Rural Payments Agency and Rural Payments Wales. We are told that they are not talking to each other, and people are losing out because of a bureaucratic failure. I do not know where the failure lies, but it needs to be gripped by DEFRA so that the problem can be sorted out for the sake of those cross-border farmers who are heading towards bankruptcy, purely because of inefficiency and bureaucratic failings.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this incredibly important and hugely topical debate on our dairy sector. The dairy sector has a long and proud history in Britain and in Ireland, both north and south. In Northern Ireland, the dairy industry stretches back many generations. Members will agree that dairy products are so much a part of our everyday diet that it is easy to forget the huge skill and effort it takes for farmers to produce such world-class produce. In fact, the all-party group on dairy—I am one of its vice-chairs—recently produced a helpful document on the need for Government, schools and the wider industry to promote dairy as an essential part of our diet.
We have already heard about the challenges faced by the dairy sector in Britain. Unfortunately, the issues are even greater in Northern Ireland, where they are amplified by our reliance on the export market. Northern Ireland’s small population and proportionally larger dairy sector mean that our farmers must seek export markets for their produce, either in the south of Ireland, in Britain or further afield. That means that our farmers are the first to feel the impact of falls in the global dairy price or currency shocks. The situation is made worse by the lower prices Northern Irish farmers tend to get for their produce.
Despite producing dairy products that are as good as or better than products produced here in Britain—forgive me for being slightly parochial—Northern Irish farmers consistently suffer from lower average prices paid by national processors and retailers. In 2014, the average price for milk in Northern Ireland was 4.42p per litre less than the average price in Britain. In 2015, the price difference was even greater, reaching 5.34p per litre. Farmers are having to sell their milk for less than what it costs to produce. Anyone can see that that is unsustainable.
This is not just a matter for us Northern Ireland MPs or the Northern Ireland Executive in Belfast; regional dairy price inequality should concern every MP and Minister in Northern Ireland and Britain. Although we would say that Northern Ireland is the worst affected, there are many areas of England, Scotland and Wales where farmers are paid less than the cost of production. There is no doubt that that has dire implications for the long-term future of the industry. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee produced a very good report on farm-gate prices and made recommendations that I hope the Government will be able to implement.
Rebecca Pow
Perhaps a leaf might be taken out of the Northern Irish book, because I believe that the dairy companies of Northern Ireland successfully bid for an EU grant to help to promote the export of dairy products. Northern Ireland is obviously very successful at that, which is perhaps a good reason for remaining in Europe.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Lady for making that helpful point. She is on the same page as me in terms of retaining membership of the European Union.
Ms Ritchie
Perhaps it would help if I moved on.
We must look at solutions. The Government must seek to bring to Britain and Northern Ireland a scheme that the European Investment Bank has already trialled in the south of Ireland. Under the scheme, the bank would allow DEFRA and the devolved Administrations to act as guarantors for loans made to dairy farmers. That added level of security would allow banks to make loans on much more favourable terms. For instance, in Northern Ireland, a bank loan made to a dairy farm typically has a pay-back period of 15 years, which is well below the average in Britain because of the difficulties to which I have referred. The Ulster Farmers Union believes that with the Government acting as a creditor, banks could offer loans with pay-back periods of 30 years, doubling the time farmers typically now have. Will the Minister and his colleagues in the Department give some consideration to that scheme? Will he give us his opinion, or at least go away and have a think about it before coming back to us MPs with a particular interest in the matter?
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady should draw her remarks to a close.
Ms Ritchie
Like the all-party group on dairy, I believe that dairy should be put back on the daily menu. That means encouraging parents, schools and others. I urge the Minister to take heed of this debate.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I must correct the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie): the best dairy products are from Shropshire. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this debate.
When I was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 2005—11 years ago—we set up the all-party group on dairy farmers because at that time Shropshire farmers were on their knees. We heard a lot of anecdotal evidence about the terrible financial difficulties they were suffering. Eleven years on and we are in almost the same place as then—indeed, we are probably even worse off. It is rather frustrating to have repeated debates in Westminster Hall while the situation continues to worsen, so I am really looking forward to the Minister giving us some heart-warming news of specific Government action on this issue.
I am delighted that tomorrow I will be attending the Shropshire business awards 2016 at RAF Cosford to support my friend, Daniel Morris, a cattle farmer, in the farming section. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will wish my constituent every success.
When we set up the all-party group on dairy farmers, more than 200 MPs joined—it was one of the largest all-party groups in the House of Commons. We produced a report, and during the process interviewed a lot of people, even going to Brussels to take evidence. We came up with two recommendations: first, a grocery adjudicator, and secondly, a limited cull of badgers. We took those recommendations to the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Miliband, who basically laughed us out of his office saying that both were completely impossible and would never happen. I am extremely pleased that the Government have introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator but, as has been said already, we want to hear what teeth the adjudicator is going to be given and about the roll-out of limited badger culls.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I represent an area that has had a cull, and the data I have seen are certainly encouraging. Nevertheless, we should not simply lay the blame with the Labour Secretary of State at that time, because later the then Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), put the brakes on the rolling out of the cull in Dorset. A Conservative Secretary of State took those brakes off.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I want the Minister to remember what I am about to say and to have these figures indelibly imprinted on his mind, in perpetuity. In Shropshire in 1997, we slaughtered 47 cows because of bovine tuberculosis; last year, the figure was more than 2,000. It has gone from 47 a year to 2,000 a year. We have a bovine tuberculosis crisis in Shropshire. I have said this in previous debates and I do not mind saying it again. I have sat round a kitchen table with one of my dairy farmers, Chris Bulmer from Snailbeach, after his entire herd had been taken away. We sat together crying, such is the emotional drain on farmers and their families.
The biggest organisation in my constituency is the Shropshire Wildlife Trust. What is its symbol? A badger. I know that many people from the trust would like to hang me from the nearest lamp post because I advocate a cull. They would have difficulty because I am so tall.
Daniel Kawczynski
They would need an extra-high lamp post. There has been fury and blood on the carpet at the meetings I have had with the Shropshire Wildlife Trust. It has to understand that nobody wants the needless slaughter of animals, but when our fellow human beings—our fellow citizens—are going through such appalling financial misery, the time has come for the Government to act boldly and roll out the cull to other parts of the country.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently announced in his Budget an extremely controversial measure on fizzy drinks. It is not universally popular, but he took a really bold move that is shaking the industry. Something of a similar nature must now take place to protect our dairy farmers. We cannot allow this vital industry to be decimated.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for securing this debate, which is important. I want to say a few words about the situation in Cumbria, where local farmers tell me it is the worst they have ever known it to be. We have heard about the price paid for milk not covering the cost of production, but in Cumbria we have the added costs of transportation to the processors. One farmer told me that in the past financial year he made £26,000 from selling his milk. This year he estimates £12,000. That reduction in income is simply unsustainable. I have a friend who has decided to sell his herd because he cannot even make enough money to pay for the renting of the milking machines.
I have been told that at Carlisle market 11,000 dairy cows have been sold since January this year. That has a knock-on effect on the wider rural economy. Feed merchants, fertiliser merchants, machinery sellers and vets all feel the impact of the pressures on our dairy industry. A major issue for the farmers who have contacted me—I am sure nobody here will be surprised—is the fact that they have not yet received their basic payment scheme money, which should have been paid in December. In my area, where many of the farms have been flooded, the situation is desperate. The Rural Payments Agency said it would prioritise farms that had suffered from flooding, but that has simply not happened. One farmer, Susan Tyson, has contacted me. She farms at Underskiddaw near Keswick and she has had nothing, although her application went in last May. She said that every time she asks about it, she is told that
“there is nothing wrong with your claim but we don’t know when you will be paid”.
How on earth are farmers supposed to manage? They have taken out loans and have paid their tax bills. The situation is simply not acceptable.
Farmers need to know what is happening with their money. How else can they budget, invest and plan for the future of their farms? This is made particularly difficult in an industry where the cost of what is being sold is dictated by the consumer. We have talked about the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and I am really pleased that we have that. I agree with hon. Members who have said that now that that is up for review, we need to make sure that it is strengthened and extended and that the adjudicator has real teeth to be able to help particularly the small farmers who fall out of the system.
Farmers are asking me what else they are supposed to do. Farmers whose families have farmed the land for generations now face the prospect not just of selling their herds, but of selling their land, which is absolutely heart-breaking. I also want to draw Members’ attention to the fact that members of the farming industry are three times more likely to take their own lives than people in any other industry. A farmer in my constituency recently collapsed and died at a sale. How much of that was down to stress? He was only in his 40s. The stress that people are under is unacceptable.
I am sure the Minister, who represents Penrith and The Border, is aware of the situations I am talking about in Cumbria, so I urge him to get the Government to work with farmers, processors and supermarkets to find a solution, but we also need advice and support to help farmers cope in these difficult times. Finally, just get the RPA to make the payments.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Ryan. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for securing this debate and keeping a spotlight on dairy prices. May I offer him a little solace? I think a previous Minister, David Heath, from his party, was a very good agriculture Minister. I want to put that on the record. We may not have agreed on politics, especially in our younger days on Somerset County Council, but I will not go into that.
Food and farming is a £100 billion industry. One in eight jobs are in food and farming, so it really needs to be taken seriously. Dairy farming is the backbone of most livestock agriculture. It has a knock-on effect on the beef industry because most of the beef industry comes from dairy. When a lot of cull cows come on to the market because of the poor price of milk, the price of beef is depressed as well, so the whole thing has a knock-on effect.
The situation is not simple. We have had a large over-supply of milk throughout the world, but New Zealand has now dropped production by 5%, which must be good news. We can see a knock-on effect across the world of an approximately 2% increase in dairy trade year on year, so if we can start to reduce production and increase the volume, we will get better prices internationally. In the meantime, we must concentrate on two fronts in particular. One is making sure that this country can get the best market possible for milk. We need to work with the retailers and say to them, “Not only offer a good price on liquid milk, but a good price on processed milk.”
Tesco and others are stepping up to the plate. As I have said before, I used to want to be able indiscriminately to shoot a retailer a day and feel much better, but I cannot actually do that because there are some good retailers out there. When supermarkets put in milk as a loss leader for perhaps 89p, we must make sure that they fund that themselves and are not funded by the processor and the farmer. I do not like milk as a loss leader because it downgrades the value of milk. All of us in this room would stand up and say that our produce from our county is the very best in the country—there is no doubt Devon’s is the best—but I say to the Minister that we have to get country of origin labelling. We have to make sure that it is not only country of origin but regional labelling so that we can compete with one another on cheese, on yoghurt and on dairy products in total. That is absolutely key to the argument, so let us make sure that Government procures everything that is British as well, and let us make sure that the health service and the schools that provide school milk serve up things that are British. I know the Government have done a lot of work on that, but we need to do even more.
On the single farm payment, let us ensure we do not have the debacle that we have had this past year where we still have 10% of farmers waiting to receive their payments. I welcome the fact that the Rural Payments Agency has, perhaps slightly belatedly, said that the last 10% will get at least 50% of their payment by the end of the month. This is very important. This is money the Government can actually produce and they can make sure that it gets through.
We have to make sure that we get export markets right. China wants more milk powder. China has decided to allow the country to produce more children and that is why there is a big market for baby milk powder. That is key. We have to make sure we have the processors and everything in place to take that up so that we have either Chinese money or European investment money. Let us get this industry moving so that we are able to get the best price for our farmers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
To accommodate all those who wish to speak, I am now going to reduce the time limit to three minutes per speaker.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for securing this debate. Both he and I know that whether it is llaeth or llefrith, Welsh milk is best.
The efficient method of food production—namely, the conversion of grass into dairy produce—is particularly well suited to the Welsh climate. It would be irresponsible to stand back and do nothing when the industry is in crisis. As has been mentioned already, there are many reasons for the latest drop in milk prices, and we have mentioned Russia. As an aside, it is worth noting that Russia is subsidising its home dairy producers to the tune of $400 million as we speak.
We have heard about the role of supermarkets. Today is an opportunity to say that supermarkets should be encouraged—I use the word with emphasis—to ensure that discount retail price strategies are funded from their own profits, rather than dumped on farmers. The fact that the profit motive of retailers is allowed to trump the sustainability of UK farming is in the long-term interests of neither the UK consumer nor the UK economy. The primary ask from farmers is that the Government acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong in the supply chain, which cannot be remedied without intervention. We cannot go on ignoring that fact and relying on the market to correct itself.
There are codes of practice in the food chain, both statutory and voluntary, that must be either proved effective or reviewed, strengthened and enforced. The statutory grocery supply code of practice applies, at present, only to the biggest retailers. It is overseen, as we know, by the adjudicator. The Government made a commitment in their election manifesto last year to increasing the powers of the adjudicator. I suggest that that might be done by reducing the minimum turnover requirement, making the arrangement applicable to a wider range of retailers. Perhaps that could happen in the two-year review that was mentioned.
Agriculture suffers from the public perception of being hand-out dependent. None the less, many farming families have shown great enterprise in the face of volatile markets by venturing into value-added or branded products. I must in the brief time available to me mention Dylan and Annwen Jones of Bryn Rhydd, Edern—my next-door neighbours, effectively—who, with their Puerto Madryn herd of Holstein-Friesians, have been producing the excellent Glasu ice cream. I am also proud to represent the constituency that is home to South Caernarfonshire Creameries at Rhydygwystl, which has been owned since 1938 by its dairy farmer members. I am proud to say that they are about to launch a new cheese factory unit, although this is a most difficult time to be operating.
I call on the Government to make full use of the potential of public sector and third party procurement opportunities, and to work with devolved Governments to enable and to invest in added-value processing opportunities. Finally, will the Minister make a commitment to press the EU Agriculture Commissioner to move ahead with proposals presently under consideration to allow emergency state aid of up to €15,000 per farmer annually?
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Big thanks are due to my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), for striking the right balance between optimism, pessimism and realism about the industry.
I have only a few points to make. We have heard a lot about the negative effect on the industry and the supply chain, but not much about the negative effect that that causes for the environment, which is equally significant. There was some reference to the state of the steel industry in Wales, and the impact of potential closure on the community around Port Talbot, and further afield. When I look at the great efforts being made by No. 10, and the huge efforts of the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Wales Office, to rescue the steel industry, just as much for social and cultural reasons as for economic ones, part of me wants to ask the Minister whether his Department is looking into assessing the potential downside of the dairy industry’s problems in the same way as those other Departments are looking at the potential downsides of the closure of the steel industry. Numerically, spread across the UK, the numbers of people in each case may not be as dissimilar as we might think. The impact is no less important just because dairy farmers are dotted around individual communities and farms. I hope that that assessment is being undertaken and, if not, I hope it will be, because there are some significant numbers that we need to address.
There has been some reference to the role of Government in procurement, labelling and education. Just on the matter of education I want to say that it is quite frustrating for dairy farmers when advice comes out of the Department of Health about reducing dairy intake by 50%, without, really, any supporting evidence or context to it. Some cross-departmental co-operation on the messages coming out of Government, with regard to the positive side of eating home-produced dairy products, would be useful and would send a positive message to farmers, who are looking to Government, desperately at times, for a positive lead and an indication that the Government are on their side. Such things, small as they may seem, are significant for the message they send. Also, let us, via the Department for Education, talk about the value that home-grown food provides in the many ways that have been discussed, rather than simply talking about the cost of food. Of course cost is a driving factor, but are the Government doing enough with respect to the value of that high-quality product?
As to labelling, the issue is not about labelling milk. Sometimes it is about labelling other agricultural products that farmers produce. The supermarkets will say that they label things very clearly, and up to a point they do, but the frozen lines are not well labelled at all. On any supermarket website it is almost impossible to discover where frozen lines come from, whether that is in this country or not. A little more work by retailers on frozen lines would be helpful.
Finally, on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) made, the DEFRA interpretation of farm-gate average prices and the Arla press release give the impression that the Department does not really understand the severity of the situation. Perhaps now is a good time, with a sort of stand-in Minister—if he does not mind my saying so—to put the record straight and remind farmers that DEFRA completely understands the problems they face.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Ryan. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for bringing this extremely important debate to the Chamber.
The dairy sector is vital to the farming and food sectors and the wider rural economy across the UK, including Scotland. It is also an integral part of local communities. My constituency is made up of many rural areas, and farming and dairy industries have been key contributors to our local economy and job markets for many decades. One of the key issues for my constituency at present is the recent announcement by Müller Dairies that it is proposing to close its site in East Kilbride. That is part of a larger plan to consolidate elsewhere. The plans may also affect two of its dairies in the Aberdeen area.
The East Kilbride dairy has been owned by Müller only since 2012, but it has been a local institution for many years. It was previously owned by Robert Wiseman Dairies, which was founded in 1947, and it traces its roots back to Robert Wiseman senior, who started out in East Kilbride with a milk round, delivered from a horse and cart. Wiseman Dairies grew to be one of the major suppliers of milk and dairy products across the UK, until it was bought by Müller a few years ago. The dairy currently employs 131 staff, and the loss of those jobs would be a huge blow to the staff and the wider community. It is considered to be a vital local industry, and is ingrained in the identity of East Kilbride.
At present, a statutory consultation process about the proposals is going on. I am due to meet with representatives of Müller to discuss the proposals, and I will be following developments closely with the parent company, the Scottish Government, and the local East Kilbride taskforce. Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International will also be meeting with Müller to explore potential options for supporting all the company’s sites in Scotland, and their employees. At a personal level, however, this is an extremely unsettling time for those affected—people in my constituency have been left experiencing a period of uncertainty as they wait to find out the future of their jobs. We must do all we can to offer support and protection for jobs in that vital local industry.
The Scottish Government believe it is important to encourage local production, sourcing and consumption, as that helps to support local businesses and ensure that quality products are available. I reiterate what has been said about the importance of the dairy sector, particularly for my constituency and at this vital time. I ask the Government to do all they can to protect the industry, our economy and our local dairy farmers.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for obtaining the debate.
I recently spoke with an 80-year-old dairy farmer, in my North Yorkshire constituency, who told me that in a lifetime of dairy farming he had never seen times as bad. I believe that there are five key steps that need to be taken by Government, industry and consumer to bring some relief to him and others and safeguard the future of dairy farming in the UK. First, we need buyers to give farmers a fair deal. I commend retailer initiatives from Tesco, Sainsbury’s and others, which ensure that farmers receive a fair cost-of-production price for their milk, but if the dairy sector is to be sustainable, retailers need to expand that good work on liquid milk to other dairy products, and, indeed, more milk buyers need to follow the lead of the large retailers. That process should, of course, be overseen by a robust Groceries Code Adjudicator with additional powers to investigate downstream supply chains and indirect suppliers.
Secondly, we must make and buy more British. It might seem that there are few things more British than an honest slice of Cheddar, yet almost half the cheddar consumed in the UK today is imported from overseas. We must invest more in processing technology to ensure we add value to British milk by turning more of it into British butter, yoghurt and cheese, rather than importing. Alongside that, we must have better food labelling so that large retailers and caterers clearly show consumers how much of their dairy products is British.
Thirdly, the industry needs to create more dairy producer organisations. Groups of farmers banding together to negotiate a better sale price for their milk and a lower purchase price for their feed, and to share machinery, are commonplace across Europe. In the UK we currently have only one such producer organisation. In Germany, there are 143. If farmers are to balance out the power of big processers and retailers, that must change.
Fourthly, we need to develop a working futures market. As New Zealand and America show, futures can be a vital tool for providing price stability in a volatile world. It is crucial, therefore, that the Government continue their efforts to ensure that the relevant benchmarking data are available, which will help British dairy futures to become a reality.
Finally, Government at all levels must buy British. I know that the national Government are working hard to purchase British dairy products, but at a regional level we can do more. We must push local government, the military, hospitals and schools to do their part as well.
In conclusion, without its dairy farmers, the lush fields of the Yorkshire dales in my constituency would soon turn to scrub and its dry stone walls would go unrepaired. Only if the Government, farmers and consumers work together will we preserve our dairy industry and, with it, our rural communities and beautiful countryside for generations to come.
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
With the co-operation of the Front Benchers, I have time for a couple more speakers. If everyone is to get in, they will have to speak for no more than two minutes. I leave it to their co-operation.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The agri-food sector employs about 100,000 people across the whole of the industry, and the dairy sector makes up a lot of that figure. When I speak to farmers, they tell me that there are a number of things that they have no control over. They had no say on the Russian ban, and they had no control over the quotas being done away with or the fluctuations of the euro.
Everyone knew that when the quota system went there would be a free-for-all and production would go up. The production of milk in Northern Ireland has increased by 4% this year, even though prices are falling. On Monday, I spoke to farmers who have been told that they will be paid 16p a litre for milk in May and that it will go down to 15p in June. That is crazy.
We have heard today of the pressure on farmers. Hon. Members have talked about meetings they have had with farmers who have shed tears. I have experienced the same thing. Farmers do not know how they are going to pay their next bill or how they are going to fend for their families. We have also heard about the issues of mental health and stress, about which I have written to DEFRA. Something for the farming community needs to be put into the UK mental health strategy.
The dairy sector is a vital industry, and it needs help. We can talk about retailers and new cheese factories, but that takes time. Something needs to be done now to alleviate the difficulties and problems that the dairy sector faces. In Northern Ireland, there is talk of a voluntary reduction of milk production. Whether that happens is a matter for the farmers and the processors. France and a number of other countries are in favour of a reduction, but the problem is that the tap cannot just be turned on and off in milk production. More help is needed, and we look to the Government to ease the difficulties and problems.
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
I call Mel Stride—[Interruption.] Sorry, I call Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Thank you very much, Ms Ryan—I think. I want to make two brief points in the time available to me. Like my colleague the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), I am a vice-chair of the all-party group on dairy.
I want to pick up on the point that other hon. Members have made, about the Rural Payments Agency. Last week alone, I spoke to five farmers who had collectively spent six and a half hours waiting on the RPA hotline. I was slightly surprised when I tried to talk to somebody—as did my caseworker—only to find that we were left on hold for an average of 37 minutes. There is no direct email or telephone hotline for Members of Parliament to contact the RPA on behalf of their constituents. Most other Government Departments have such facilities. I urge the Minister to use his good offices to press for that.
In March, the all-party dairy group, after a lot of research, launched its report “Putting Dairy Back on the Daily Menu”. It was based on best practice and used a lot of scientific research. It sought to emulate the French example of having three a day for dairy, just as we have five a day for fruit and veg. Many dairy farmers saw it as a lifeline. One can imagine the shock—my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) spoke of this—when Public Health England reduced the intake of dairy from 15% to 8%. That was a kick in the bullocks as far as the dairy industry was concerned.
I invite DEFRA Ministers to stand with the all-party group on dairy and talk to the Prime Minister, the Department of Health and the Department for Education to work out what methodology the recommendations of that rather dodgy Public Health England report were based on. They need to understand the huge damage it will do to the dairy sector and the huge damage and uncertainty it will cause for those in the public sector who buy food, whether in schools, hospitals or elsewhere. We look to DEFRA to stand with us to try to get that crazy recommendation overturned.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
My constituency is predominantly rural. Dairy farming is at the heart of Ayrshire, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Ayrshire is home to the famous Ayrshire cattle and has been described as the dairy of Scotland. That claim is now in jeopardy, as the current milk prices are threatening the livelihoods of many farmers across the region.
Earlier this year, I was contacted by a group of local dairy farmers in dire straits, many of whom would never have previously come to an MP with a problem. That group was just a small proportion of the 70% of dairy farmers in Scotland who are non-aligned—in other words, they do not have direct contracts with supermarkets via milk processors, so they have to accept the price that is given to them on the open market.
Milk prices have gone into freefall in the past 12 months. My local farmers report that they now receive a pitiful 14p per litre, while their aligned neighbours typically get about 22p to 25p. A broker collects the milk from both the aligned and non-aligned farmers, which means that the 22p milk sloshes around in the back of the tanker with the milk that has been bought at 14p. That situation sets neighbours against each other, as the milk ends up in the same cartons regardless of the price paid to the farmer.
I welcome the Scottish Parliament’s inquiry into the milk pricing crisis and the work the Scottish Government have undertaken to support the dairy sector. One of the key issues that we in Westminster can address is the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which has been mentioned a number of times. Unless the adjudicator is given a remit to look beyond the relationship between retailers and processors, there is little point in having one.
One of my dairy farmers recently said to me that people need farmers at least three times a day, yet the industry is being decimated. We cannot sit back and allow that to happen.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Thank you for the chance to speak, albeit briefly, Ms Ryan. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for securing the debate. The dairy industry is extremely important in my constituency, which contains many dairy farmers and associated businesses, such as Graham’s the Family Dairy and Asher’s Ice Cream. In the limited time I have, I will concentrate on just a couple of the things that I was going to say.
As hon. Members have said, dairy is a healthy product. We should encourage further consumption of it to help to address some of the underlying problems in the industry. I share the concerns about some of the messages coming from the Government, and I hope the Minister will comment on those concerns and put them at rest.
After the election last year, I visited Graham’s the Family Dairy in Bridge of Allan in my constituency and had a tour of the factory with the managing director, Robert Graham. Graham’s has operated for more than 70 years in my constituency, and it produces a wide range of excellent products. It employs 500 staff and is supplied by 90 dairy farmers across Scotland, many of which are in Stirling. Its products are excellent sellers. Last month, Graham’s signed a partnership deal with the food supplier Brakes, which represents a significant boost to the industry locally. That is good news, but there is a lot still to do, because the industry is in a perilous state.
Last year, the Scottish Government launched a dairy action plan to offer immediate support because of the problems facing the sector. One of the recommendations was to develop a strong Scottish dairy brand at home and abroad, and to get more Scottish dairy products on retail shelves, in food service and in export markets. Additional funding was given to the Dairy Growth Board to develop a Scottish dairy brand, which was released at the royal highland show last year. Ongoing efforts involve engaging with retailers to encourage the stocking of local Scottish dairy produce, in order to develop a viable Scottish supply base for the future, which will create a more resilient and sustainable dairy industry. Other initiatives have seen the Scottish Government promote the use of Scottish dairy produce in the public sector, for example through work with local authorities to get Scottish cheese, butter, yogurt and other dairy products into schools.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing it.
We may have had many debates on this subject, but this one has highlighted the fact that we need time in which to discuss it. What came across to me right from the offset was the desire to resolve the situation. Our farmers get a bit of a bad name sometimes—they have a tough job, with many factors ranged against them, which means that they are sometimes seen as being somewhat negative and complaining. Actually, as one farmer said to me, “To still be in farming, you’re an optimist, because you’re still keeping at it.”
The hon. Gentleman made an excellent starting contribution, which set out the challenges and, critically, put forward proactive and constructive suggestions. As he said, the issue is a complex local and global one, with many factors in play. Fundamentally, the drop in the price received has outweighed the savings from efficiencies in production. He made an excellent point about that.
We are lucky to have my neighbouring MP from across the border, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), responding to the debate, because I am sure that he will talk about concrete steps and not platitudes. He is known for getting his wellies on and getting engaged, and I am sure that he will demonstrate that again today. We need to consider many issues—the Groceries Code Adjudicator was mentioned regularly in the debate, as was the voluntary code of practice, which I will return to—but let us keep it positive and proactive. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) nearly started off a different kind of milk war with her boastful contribution, but such is the nature of politics—it was understandable.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made some excellent points. I congratulate his all-party group on its work, in particular on the GCA, and it presented a strong case on the badger cull. For reasons of time I cannot go through everyone’s contributions, so I apologise to the many other Members who added to the debate. It has been of great benefit to have present the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). He summarised the key points about the market for milk, the important distinctions between fresh and processed milk, how critical labelling is and the role that Government procurement has to play.
It is fair to say that the dairy industry throughout the UK is in crisis, and that is particularly true in Scotland, as we have heard. The downturn in milk prices has led to a fall in returns of some 50% for many Scottish dairy businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) wanted to be present today, but is in the main Chamber. His concerns for his constituency, and the figures involved, are worth reviewing. Only three years ago, the farmers whom he represents were receiving 32.5p per litre; now, they obtain a farm-gate price of just 15.8p per litre, even though the milk is costing them 26p per litre to produce.
We cannot leave the milk pricing issue simply to market forces. There is a pressing need for action and more imaginative solutions. Collaboration involving Government and the entire supply chain is needed, with urgent action across a range of areas. In the short term, it is critical that banks are involved in the planning process and are prepared to extend credit to dairy farmers. That makes business sense, because global experts believe that the long-term outlook for the sector is promising. We need to maintain a viable UK industry through the lean times, and to do that we need collaboration and innovation now.
Above all, we need to deal urgently with the fact that we have a broken supply chain, with fundamental imbalances exacerbated by short-term opportunism. The chain needs to be fair, workable and responsible. Unless we have that, milk producers and others will continue to get a raw deal and will not have the confidence to invest.
For a start, we need the dairy voluntary code of practice to be refreshed. NFU Scotland says that that is potentially the key to the viability of the sector, and I agree. The code is designed to set out minimum good practice, and as long as it is respected and there is a commitment to it, it could be effective. So far, however, it has not developed enough momentum. The NFUS has warned that to date, and despite Government support, vested interests have undermined the uptake of the code of practice, and that the code is not being allowed to deliver the benefits that it could provide. I know that the Farming Minister is committed to strengthening the code in relation to the milk sector, and I welcome that, but it must include the whole supply chain. If for any reason we cannot make progress with a voluntary code, we need to look again at the option of compulsory contracts.
Another way to assist the dairy industry—this ties in closely with the voluntary code—would be to strengthen the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Some Members have already made specific recommendations, but I will summarise the three main possibilities: allowing her to initiate her investigations rather than waiting until a complaint has been received; taking in smaller retailers and indirect suppliers; and reporting on the balance of pricing across the whole supply chain. Another useful step forward, as we have heard, would be to encourage retailers to use labelling to identify the origin of the product, giving consumers the power to buy local and from the home nations.
We cannot allow the retail giants and others to keep on milking our dairy sector. Firm action is needed and firm action must come—we owe that to our farmers, our consumers and our national self-sufficiency. Without wasting another moment, let us give our dairy sector the help and support that it deserves.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for introducing the debate and the many colleagues who have intervened and made contributions this afternoon. Time is short, so I cannot mention everyone, but the hon. Gentleman certainly gave a great cri de coeur for dairy farmers throughout the country, as well as for the steel industry in Wales—I thank him for that.
With the global market in flux and farm-gate prices on the floor, the UK dairy industry is in danger. Some farmers are being paid less than the cost of producing the milk, which is unsustainable. Only last month, thousands of proud farmers felt that they had no other choice but to march on Whitehall and ask for change and for support. The Government must listen to that call. Bodies such as Dairy UK are saying there are no quick fixes, although the Government recognise that a package of support is needed to help save the industry from collapse. However, despite promising much in the face of pressure from the industry, there is still no sign of respite.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report listed many recommendations that I hope the Government will make good on. It talked about a futures market for dairy. Will the Minister make it clear when such a market will be established properly?
The British public have consistently proven that they back a “buy British” principle, but dairy in the UK still lacks country of origin labelling. The Farming Minister has been unable to get the EU to bring that forward, despite the EU approving similar branding on a vast swathe of other products. Meanwhile, he has written to supermarkets to encourage them to display the British flag on British dairy products. That code, however, is voluntary.
On exports, sector leaders such as Dairy UK have called for the development of new markets where we can showcase the quality of British products. It looks as if there may be good news on red meat and the USA this week, but will the Minister detail the results of talks with other countries about their importing our dairy products? All such suggestions are long-term goals, and that is understood, but where is the progress on those key issues?
The NFU and farmers have joined Labour in calling for the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s powers to be toughened up. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has published a report calling on the Government to consider extending the GCA’s remit. The Committee wants it to incorporate both direct and indirect suppliers. Will the Minister confirm that those concerns will be taken into account when the GCA is reviewed later this year?
Jonathan Edwards
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in Wales many of the powers relating to Government intervention are devolved and, to date, the Welsh Government have decided to pursue a voluntary code of practice in this sector. Does he agree that it is about time that the Welsh Government began to look at statutory intervention, and not just leave it on a voluntary basis?
Nick Smith
That may be helpful and I certainly think it is worth looking at.
The problem of delayed payments has come up too, with the high-profile failure of the Rural Payments Agency system this year. That money is a vital lifeline, given the struggles in the dairy marketplace, yet a Public Accounts Committee report revealed a payments fiasco. The Government must accept their part in a failing IT project that may have landed us with a £180 million annual fine from the EU. Money that could have gone to British agriculture will now be thrown away. The NFU says that that the RPA should be making 90% of payments by the end of December each year. Will the Minister give assurances that that target will be met in future years?
Finally, I welcome the deep analysis done by the NFU on the implications of a UK exit from the EU. The analysis showed that every Brexit scenario resulted in a large drop in income for farmers. Will the Minister join me in recognising that for dairy farmers, staying in the EU is vital for the trade and support that it provides to the industry?
Simon Hoare
The situation is worse than the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. Right hon. colleagues on my side of the House—although not on my side of the European debate—told us last week that all the money we spend on the EU would be spent on the national health service. My reading of that was that that equals no subsidy and no support to agriculture anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Nick Smith
I need to move on to allow the Minister to come back on the problems and issues that colleagues around the Chamber have raised.
The UK Government have recently failed to support an important EU funding stream for our dairy industries, so I would like the Minister’s response on that issue.
In conclusion, the Government must make good their promises on a futures market for dairy and country-of-origin labelling, give a proper boost for British dairy exports and put the RPA on track. They must speak with one voice about the value of the single market and the value of EU funding for British dairy farmers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
Unfortunately, I have been asked for answers to 31 separate requests—I have written them down—and I have been allowed only seven minutes to respond, but I will do my very best.
Fundamentally, dairy matters deeply to the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), to whom I pay tribute for securing this debate, made a very powerful case for the importance of the dairy industry to communities. The hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) made a powerful case for the nutritional importance of dairy. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) made a deep and complex argument about the importance of dairy for our history and heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) pointed to the economic importance of dairy and, of course, the chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made a strong argument for the importance of dairy for the farming industry in general.
The situation is genuinely terrible. Over the last decade, we have gone from having 13,500 dairy farms to having 9,500. We have seen that very directly in Cumbria, as the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) expressed so eloquently. In my constituency, from very large herds—thousand-cow herds in places such as Longtown, producing 10,000 litres per cow per year—right the way down to the herds of 50 or 60 cows in the Bailey valley, we now see them being sold in the marts and we see real pressure and psychological strain. As the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) pointed out, the regional factors are really important in places such as Cumbria and Northern Ireland, where access to the liquid milk markets in places such as London is much more difficult. Our prices are considerably lower.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) made a powerful argument about the global context in which the dairy industry operates, and the Labour shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), also made a very good statement about the context. Of course, global demand has dropped—Chinese demand alone has dropped by 23%. China matters: 30% of the global export market is China and Russia. At the same time, our production is going up. There is a real problem. Production was up last year globally by 6% and UK production was up by 2.7%. This is not just a UK problem. In New Zealand, the prices per litre for their milk are now down to 12p per litre. New Zealand production is falling, as we heard from the chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton.
We believe that things can be done. Despite the serious issues raised by both the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) about capital structures and the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) about price, we think there is a great future. In China, the average person consumes about 30 kg of milk products a year. In Britain, the average per person is about 250 kg a year. There is huge upward potential in terms of such markets, which Britain can exploit, provided the United Kingdom can get from the short-term problems to the long term. That will be a real challenge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made points about the health of our herds. It is why we are taking the steps that we are, not just in bovine TB but in Johne’s disease, and there is all the investment we are putting into animal health. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made points about supermarkets. Indeed, I join him in paying tribute to the steps that supermarkets such as Tesco have taken, particularly in moving towards British yoghurt.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) pointed to the serious problems on processing. We are looking at that seriously with European Union partners to see whether strategic investments could be made in processing in order to ensure that liquid milk, particularly from more remote parts of the United Kingdom, can be processed in the right place. The hon. Member for South Down raised some of the problems with the banking system. We are addressing that issue directly through conversations with the banks.
There are other steps—about 14 of them—that the Department is taking that were not addressed so much in this debate. It is important to bear in mind that underlying the dairy industry is considerable Government investment. On average, about £20,000 per farm comes from the Government. We have provided emergency support of £26.3 million for the current dairy crisis.
Cutting red tape is something that has not been discussed today. We estimate that by the end of this Parliament, we will have saved farmers in general £450 million by moving to single-farm inspections. We have invested £160 million in agri-science. That is absolutely essential for everybody talking about innovation. We are looking at inward investment and had the Chinese company, Yili, here.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent raised the issue of exports. The Secretary of State is currently in the United States, driving British food exports, and we are also driving them into Chinese markets. We are focusing a great deal on specialist producers. I would like to pay tribute, for example, to the movement in Swaledale towards yoghurt production.
That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) on the advances that we ought to be able to make in markets, hedging and futures markets. We have a specialist working on that in DEFRA with very considerable experience in the financial industry. It is a very complex industry, but we believe that it is something we ought to be able to make progress on.
On producer organisations, which were raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), we have created the seed funding to launch producer organisations. We have created the legislative framework for those producer organisations.
On procurement, which the hon. the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised, £60,000 of British Government money is being put into our schools to provide milk for our children. That is Department of Health money, proving that that Department recognises that milk is nutritionally beneficial to our children. The Justice Secretary has committed to milk coming into our prisons.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the hon. Member for Workington rightly raised issues about the Rural Payments Agency. I am therefore delighted to be able to announce that we will make part-payments to every farmer by the end of April: that means at least 50% of their payments by the end of this month to address this issue.
Finally, my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) raised the question of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Again, I am delighted to announce on behalf of the Department that we are doing a full review of the powers and behaviour of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That is being done by civil servants at the moment, and we will report back on progress and looking specifically at issues such as whether the adjudicator can address the processing industry.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion for securing this debate and for the extraordinary quality of the argument, interest and commitment in this Chamber. The issue is unbelievably difficult and heart-breaking for farmers. Dairy farmers are at the core of our culture, history, identity, nutrition and heritage. The 17 measures that I have set out are contributions towards that, but ultimately we must get from a short-term crisis to a long-term future in which global demand for milk is rising and Britain is ideally placed to meet it.
Mr Mark Williams
I am grateful for the opportunity to thank all hon. Members, including those on the Front Benches, for their contributions. I am not sorry we asked the Minister 31 questions. I know that if he was unable to answer any as fully as he wanted, he will write to us. I thank him for his contribution and those of the Front-Bench spokesmen. Many points of note were made, some following from my speech, and many new ones.
The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about Northern Ireland and the proactive way in which moneys are being released to support investment. That is important. Mention was made of TB eradication. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) may find that history regards various aspects of coalition life and policy rather differently from him. We will see what happens in the fullness of time. Certainly in Wales, there has been consistency in three of the four parties about what we need to do to eradicate TB. I am particularly pleased that Ceredigion, with Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, recently voted for a selective badger cull. That was the first issue raised at a meeting I had on a farm last week. It needs to be addressed.
Finally, I did not raise this, but I am pleased that my constituency has been labelled the most Europhile part of the United Kingdom. I am proud of that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members knocked me off my perch. A strong reason is the importance of the farming industry, which is a major employer in my constituency. Farmers are fully aware of the necessity of continued EU membership. On that controversial note, I thank all hon. Members for taking part in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK dairy sector.
Small Weapons Trade
(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
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on the trade in small weapons.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I want to say at the outset that I have an interest in this topic. I am a Quaker attender, a member of Amnesty International and I have observed and documented peaceful protestors at the London arms fair at the ExCel centre.
I have called for this debate because some constituents who came to my surgery were concerned about the UK’s role in the small weapons trade. The weapons may be small, but I am sure the Minister will agree that the problem is not small. According to a Government briefing, there is one small weapon for every 10 human beings on the planet. We know from other work by non-governmental and Government organisations that between 60% and 90% of conflict deaths are caused by so-called small weapons. That means about 300,000 fatalities and about 900,000 injuries every year. As we know, in conflict situations, most deaths and injuries in this century have involved civilians. The problem is not small.
I have come across injuries from small weapons in my work as a doctor abroad. I have come across near-fatal injuries from rubber bullets and I have come across fatalities from live ammunition and dum-dum bullets. But I was most concerned about trade in small weapons when I was working in a peaceful setting in an African village with no electricity outside the hospital and no running water. There was an emergency one night—a young man had a gunshot wound—but we had no idea where the gun or ammunition came from.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that our country is at the forefront in the control of trade in all weapons and was one of the first to sign the UN arms trade treaty in 2013?
Dr Mathias
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I believe we are leading when it comes to trade in larger weapons, but we are doing very poorly when it comes to small weapons. I will give examples.
The young man in Africa nearly died from his gunshot wound. We need to be responsible because, when there are small weapons in the community, it is very rare for them to be dismantled or to disappear. You may live in a mud hut with no furniture or belongings of note but, if anyone has a small weapon, it remains in that community for generations. We must be more responsible about this and, as a major trader in small weapons, we must take the lead.
Strong defence means transparency and regulation. Historically, we have not done well. I am sure the Minister is aware of some UK traders in small weapons. One transferred about 40,000 AK47s, 30,000 other assault rifles and 32 million rounds of ammunition to Nigeria— what one commentator said was enough for a small army. That UK trader was under investigation for three years before that licence was removed.
Another UK trader had a conviction in the 1990s for trading in pump-action weapons. They were found guilty in 2009 of selling arms to Iraq. Another UK trader, who we believe supplied the man who was responsible for the Hungerford massacre in the 1980s, was found guilty of trading with North Korea in 2012.
Jack Lopresti
On a point of clarification, are the people my hon. Friend cited as UK or British traders British nationals or do they just trade from the UK? There is a huge difference.
Dr Mathias
I regret to say that they are UK citizens. One was extradited to the US. I believe the others are from the UK. The first one I mentioned was selling arms to our police and our Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend may know that, when Sir John Stanley was Chair of the Committees on Arms Exports Controls, he went to Ukraine and was given a list of UK traders. Many of those were known to our Export Control Organisation, but it did not know that several of them were transferring arms from Ukraine to Libya, Rwanda and Sri Lanka. Therefore, historically—these are recent enough cases—our policy on the trade in small weapons has not been good enough. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that things have changed dramatically, but I am not aware of evidence of that.
I am asking for a pre-licence register whereby there are criminal record checks so that we do not have a case like that of the person who had a record in the 1990s and was found guilty in the next century of illegal trade, and whereby we check for financial illegalities. My suspicion—again, I would like the Minister to reassure me—is that there is more vetting of a man who would like to volunteer as a scout leader than there is of a man who is going to trade in weapons that end up in the hands of a child soldier in Nigeria.
I am asking that the UK lead on the marking of small weapons—by that, I mean conform to the 2005 UN instrument. I had it from a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Minister that we were or are aiming to go along with those measures, but the instrument is more than 10 years old now. I want these weapons to have the marking of the dealer, the importer, the exporter and the carrier.
I would like there to be better sharing of information. I would like the Minister to assure me that there is intra-governmental sharing of information so that we do not have a repeat of those cases in which people were under investigation but still dealing with other Departments. I would also like reassurance that there is a transfer of information between Governments.
I commend the UK for doing well when it comes to large weapons. I believe that if, for instance, there is trade in a combat aircraft such as a Typhoon, a Minister will be a co-signatory on the contract. That shows a high level of responsibility. I am asking for that level of responsibility for small weapons, which as we know are contributing to most of the injuries and fatalities in conflict situations.
The Government did issue a call for evidence last July on a pre-licensing register of arms brokers. What is disappointing is that only 78 people were consulted and most of those were arms traders; I do not believe any of the consultees were victims. One of the problems cited in the consultation was cost, but I would say that, if most UK traders are dealing with tens of thousands of AK-47s or millions of rounds of ammunition, cost should not be a bar to a good register, vetting and good marking of these weapons. We should be responsible and we should be leading on this.
In summary, I would like the Minister to tell me about a register, a vetting for the register, a regular vetting and transparent marking that leads the way internationally. We need to know how many and what type of weapons are being traded, not just give someone a licence and carte blanche to trade. With this strong defence, we can lead. We can take a lead from the scouts on leadership and responsibility. I believe that the Minister can do what is done for the larger weapons and transfer that level of responsibility to small weapons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) on securing the debate and particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for making insightful interventions, given his history and expertise in this matter.
With your permission, Mr Rosindell, I will interpret the subject of the debate widely and will refer to small arms and light weaponry—rather than small weapons—a term that is more established in the trade and in Government policy, as a way of encompassing the totality of what is happening. I will also try to draw a distinction between traders and brokers, because I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. A broker is someone who arranges a deal, perhaps through a third country, and the goods more traditionally come through the individual trader.
The effective control of small arms and light weaponry is a goal that clearly unites us all, because, as we have heard, the potential consequences of their misuse are so grave. I see that across my portfolio and particularly on the African continent. When states fail to control the supply and sale of these weapons, they not only jeopardise the safety and security of innocent people worldwide—including a disproportionate number of women and children—but fuel instability more generally and threaten international peace and security.
The debate has focused on national arms trade and controls, so I would like to deal with that up front. The UK Government operate one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control systems in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke indicated that. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham talked of Sir John Stanley, whom I served with in two Parliaments. For the last five years, he was the Chair of the Committees on Arms Exports Controls, on which I briefly served as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, which contributes to that work. Sir John Stanley has previously acknowledged that the UK operates
“one of the most transparent export licensing systems in the world”.
So we really are at the cutting edge of what is being done. That is not to say that we should not do more, but I do not want the House to be left in any doubt as to whether we are a laggard on these issues; we are right at the forefront. However, I will deal with the points that my hon. Friend raises. Just because we are right at the forefront and doing the right thing globally does not mean that we cannot and should not do, and aspire to do, more.
It is right that the Government facilitate responsible exports by British companies, and support them in winning such contracts. In many cases, the export of arms is of benefit. It brings security and stability. It is in the interest of the importing country and it is in the British national interest.
Jack Lopresti
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is vital that we protect our sovereign defence capability, not only for jobs and exports but for our very protection, our expertise and our ability as a sovereign country to conduct our own operations with our own kit?
James Duddridge
Absolutely, and I defer to my hon. Friend, with his military expertise. It is important to maintain that capability overall, in terms of critical mass. Also—I travel from country to country with conflict areas—there are issues of interoperability between weapons, particularly large weapons as opposed to small arms. Having a production facility with similar arms and munitions is very helpful in theatre, as well as in building critical mass to maintain the British Army.
All export and trade licence applications are fully assessed, very carefully, on a case-by-case basis, in line with international legislation but also domestic—national—arms licensing criteria. That takes into account all the factors at the time of application, including the prevailing circumstances in the recipient countries, the nature of the goods that are being sent, the nature of the end-user and, in addition, the stated end-use. The Government follow a clear procedure for each application. That is informed by expert advice from a number of Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham asked about the degree of co-ordination. I think that some of her interactions have been with BIS. The Foreign Office takes the lead on a lot of these matters, but the Home Office and a number of other Departments are also involved. A licence will not be issued in any way, shape or form if it would be inconsistent with the provisions of our export regime in its totality.
If there is a clear risk that the goods may be used for internal repression or external aggression, a licence is always denied. The UK has one of the world’s most effective enforcement regimes for arms exports. Enforcement of the UK’s arms export controls is led by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which works jointly with Border Force to detect and prevent unlicensed arms exports. HMRC and Border Force work closely with other Government Departments and with other intelligence agencies across the world to ensure that arms are not exported through the UK in breach of the UK’s licensing controls.
Additionally, HMRC works with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to engage with legitimate arms exporters and to help them to comply with the law, but we are vigorous in actively pursuing those who either deliberately or carelessly circumvent legislation. We remain committed to transparent exchange control systems, as demonstrated by the publication of export licensing decisions and details of export controls policy in the UK annual report on strategic export controls, as well as in the European Union annual report on arms exports.
The Government recognise and respect the public interest in export licensing decisions, and therefore we took the decision to publish quarterly statistics on all export and trade licences issued, refused or revoked. I understand that my hon. Friend would like us to publish more information. That has a cost. If we were to do that in looking at the overall picture of reducing the number of atrocities, we would focus too much on already law-abiding providers supplying more detail. There is a much bigger picture in respect of the supply of small arms and light weaponry. If someone is looking to source weaponry for nefarious purposes, there are many places across the world where they would look before looking to the United Kingdom, both in terms of laxer export controls and in terms of price and quality—such countries offer lower quality but, all importantly, lower price.
In parallel to our work on our own system, it is important that we ask others to step up and meet the same exacting standards to which Sir John Stanley referred when he said that we operate
“one of the most transparent export licensing systems in the world”.
If I were able to do one thing on this issue, it would be to get others to do as well as we are, not to improve an already excellent, but not perfect, system in the UK.
Among other things, in terms of data, we are committed to a reporting timescale and the provision of data analysis. The Government are a world leader on transparency, and we are fully compliant with European Union and other international requirements.
The brokering of arms sales continues to be controlled on a rigorous case-by-case basis through the licensing assessment process. The idea of creating a pre-licensing register of arms brokers was explored by BIS, and my hon. Friend’s predecessor as the MP for Twickenham, in a call to evidence in 2014. I have reviewed BIS’s correspondence. I am sure that my hon. Friend has tales of campaigning against Liberal Democrats in Twickenham. In my 10 years in the House, and during the coalition, there were occasions when—I say this gently—the Liberal Democrats over-promised and under-delivered. If that had been a priority, and if it had been the right thing to do, it could have been pushed forward at the time, but in letters to constituents her predecessor promised a lot but did not deliver. The consultation showed that, actually, delivering that was the wrong thing to do. In a sense, it would have layered in extra bureaucracy without addressing the fundamental problem.
In the last 10 years, the UK has successfully prosecuted eight UK nationals for arms trafficking and brokering outside the UK. Customs investigators work jointly with law enforcement officials across the world to gather the necessary evidence to enable such prosecutions. Additionally, we continue to work with international partners to prevent and disrupt arms transfers before they occur, including through the sharing of intelligence. The global control of arms requires an overall global commitment to marking, record keeping and tracing weapons. Without the proper management of stockpiles, weapons may end up in the wrong hands, fuelling crime, terrorism and conflict, so we need everyone to up their game.
The UK has signed and supports various politically binding agreements, including the international tracing instruments, which promote effective national controls over the full life-cycle of small arms and light weapons. We encourage and support states to improve their stockpile security, including by funding projects through, for example, the counter-proliferation programme fund, which is FCO-led but delivered across Departments, in priority countries such as Libya. We look at how we can prevent arms from disappearing out of that country, as has happened previously.
In conclusion, the Government support the responsible trade in defence equipment but always apply rigorous and accountable national export control systems. The Government have one of the most rigorous and transparent export control systems in the world. I welcome the continued high level of scrutiny—including debates such as this one—which remains central to our goal of achieving global security through responsible exports.
Dr Mathias
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his response and concur with him that the situation is not perfect. I am glad that work is being done with other Departments. I am not satisfied that the cost and bureaucracy are problems for a register or for vetting. I maintain that the charity sector bears the cost of bureaucracy and more checks and controls. I am not convinced that Sir John Stanley’s concerns have yet been addressed, but I am glad that the Minister considers things on a case-by-case basis. I hope that if I bring individual cases to him he will be open to reviewing the ongoing situation, because I know that he shares my concerns.
Question put and agreed to.
Western Sahara: Self-determination
(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
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Western Sahara and self-determination.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. The principle of self-determination is close to my heart, but this debate is about an international situation that has been the subject of interest for all parties of the House. That is reflected by the creation of an all-party group of which I am a member. The debate could equally have been titled “Western Sahara: Self-determination and human rights abuse”, as the two issues are intertwined. The debate is timely given that even today, al-Jazeera quoted from a report by Ban Ki-moon warning of potential
“significant implications for the stability of the region as well as the credibility of the Security Council and United Nations peacekeeping worldwide.”
I will return to those themes as my speech develops.
The region of Western Sahara was ruled by Spain for approximately 100 years. Following its own independence in 1957, Morocco disputed the legitimacy of that colonial rule. Towards the end of Franco’s reign it took advantage of the accepted need for decolonisation by European states in Africa. Consequently, an occupation by some 350,000 Moroccans in 1975 led to Spain transferring administrative control to Morocco and Mauritania. Mauritania dropped its claim of sovereignty in 1979, but to this day Morocco continues to forcibly exert its perceived sovereignty across the nation of Western Sahara.
Morocco has ignored the fact that an indigenous Sahrawi independence movement was formed in 1973. That organisation, the Polisario Front, then fought a guerrilla war from 1975 to 1991, when there was a United Nations-brokered ceasefire. A Polisario Government-in-exile in Algeria was set up in 1976. It is important to note that part of the ceasefire deal included the holding of a referendum on self-determination within six months. Here we are a quarter of a century later, and there has still been no referendum, even though a UN voter list was created in 1999. That obviously led nowhere. The situation has led to Western Sahara being dubbed Africa’s last colony, given that it is the only territory recognised by the UN as never having been decolonised. It is an unenviable title with serious ramifications.
There are still 165,000 refugees from the period of conflict living in the Algerian desert and dependent on international aid. Given that those refugees never make the headlines, it should be no surprise that the aid can be classed as inadequate. There is conflict around the world just now, and we know the scale of the Syrian refugee crisis, so it is easy to become immune to a figure of 165,000, but that is still a huge number of people who are suffering. Given that Western Sahara has a reported population of about 550,000, including Moroccan settlers, we can see the scale of the indigenous population who are classed as refugees.
As often happens before debates, I received briefing notes relevant to the subject of this debate. I have also received official communication from the ambassador at the Moroccan embassy in London. I was pleased to receive it, as counter-arguments are always welcome. I have a mantra when dealing with cases and issues that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of the two parties’ viewpoints. However, I do not think that is the case with the self-determination of Western Sahara.
Morocco claims to have been colonised in different eras by Spain and France. I therefore find it incomprehensible that Morocco cannot learn from its history that the people’s will should not be subverted. It seems that Morocco cannot see the irony of imposing a ruling force to maintain order, as it sees it, and using settlers to complete a colonisation process. Using an army to maintain control and objecting to Ban Ki-moon using the term “occupation” smacks of an inability to look inward.
Morocco also ignores the fact that, before it took control in November 1975, the International Court of Justice ruled that there were no ties of territorial sovereignty between Morocco and Western Sahara and, further, that the Sahrawi people have a legal right to a process of self-determination. The fact that a referendum has still not been held since the ceasefire deal in 1991 suggests both an unwillingness to move forward and Moroccan concern about the likely outcome of such a poll.
Morocco seems to believe that the African Union’s recognition of Western Sahara belies another agenda, which does not seem credible to me. Since 1991 there has been a UN peacekeeping force in place under the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, or MINURSO. Unlike any other modern UN peacekeeping force, it does not have a human rights mandate. That is completely unacceptable. Given that there is another vote on 28 April on renewing the peacekeeping force, will the Minister advise us of what representations the Government are making at the UN to incorporate a human rights mandate for the force?
Furthermore, as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—a status deemed so critical to the UK’s role in the world that it featured in the Scottish referendum campaign—what is the UK doing to bring about a fair referendum some 25 years down the road? What discussions have the Government had with Morocco on this issue, and what is the UK view on the sovereignty of Western Sahara?
From a security perspective, the situation is becoming critical. On 26 March, Oxfam stated that there is now a “threat to regional stability”. Does the Minister share concerns about possible threats in the Maghreb region from extremist, terrorist and criminal factions? The Western Sahara Action Forum reports the presence of Daesh sleeper cells and attacks. Does that accord with UK intelligence on the region?
We all know the spiral of descent caused by the unrest manipulated by terrorists, which leads to further human rights abuses and so, of course, to further unrest. It is imperative that the UN gets to grips with that. As recently as March, 84 civilian and three military MINURSO personnel were expelled. Their presence in Western Sahara is critical, and given the suggested mandate for human rights, it seems to me that Morocco is giving the proverbial two fingers to the UN and directly challenging the Security Council’s authority. What is the UK view on that?
I keep referring to human rights. On top of the denial of the fundamental right of self-determination, the situation in Western Sahara goes much deeper. In 2012, the UN special rapporteur found that
“torture and ill-treatment were used to extract confessions and that protesters were subjected to excessive use of force”.
We know that the monthly peaceful protests are regularly broken up, and on one occasion in 2014 that was witnessed by a parliamentary delegation from the UK. One year on, in 2015, Human Rights Watch noted Morocco’s
“growing intolerance for independent human rights organizations and other critical voices”.
In June 2015, two Amnesty International workers were banned, which tells a story.
The US State Department states that there have been an estimated 50 to 70 deaths in detention, and no Moroccan investigations into alleged abuses. I suggest to Morocco that if it is serious about a solution, it needs to recognise allegations of abuse, violence and torture and start some investigations. Other testimonies confirm sexual violence and rape, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights are non-existent. Morocco’s autonomy proposal for Western Sahara proposes self-determination “whilst remaining respectful” of Morocco’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity”. I think that we can see that for what it is.
A cynical assessment of the Moroccan offer is justified when we consider the offer within the context of Morocco’s celebrations to mark 40 years of its presence in Western Sahara and King Mohammed VI’s comment:
“Those who are waiting for any other concessions on Morocco’s part are deceiving themselves. Indeed, Morocco has given all there was to give.”
I would like the Minister to confirm the UK view of the Moroccan proposals that have been put forward.
Western Sahara could be a successful independent nation. It has natural resources, including vegetables, fish and minerals. However, Morocco again subverts the will of the indigenous people by using the classic colonial trick of negotiating trade deals itself and ensuring that jobs, particularly in the mines, go to settlers. Again, I remind Morocco to learn from history, because further resentment is the only outcome of such a policy.
It could be that Morocco feels vindicated in adopting such an approach given the attitude of the international community. The EU has negotiated a fishing deal for Spanish fishermen and the UK has made its own trade deals, although the Western Sahara Action Forum reports that those deals are subject to a case at the European Court of Justice. I would like the Minister to give more information on that issue, because, as I say, the international community’s actions give validity to Morocco’s attitude towards Western Sahara.
The way that Morocco is acting is contrary to international law, given that the UN General Assembly recognises the Polisario as “the representative of the people of Western Sahara”. Does the Minister agree with that view and, if so, what are the UK Government doing to engage with the Polisario? Does he agree that no international agreements should be made with Morocco about minerals and oil or gas extraction until these issues are resolved? Does he agree that it is time the Sahrawi were given their referendum, and will he pledge that the UK will do more diplomatically within the UN to allow the self-determination of Western Sahara?
It really is time that we remove the stain of the last colony in Africa, and there should be a recognised, independent Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.
In recent years, the UK has spent a great deal of its time and effort, and one could say a great deal of its blood and treasure, focusing on the MENA—the middle east and north Africa. However, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who secured the debate, that we have failed in relation to Western Sahara. We have failed to recognise the human rights abuses there, and we have failed to lend our voice to those calling for the legitimate rights of the indigenous people of the region to be recognised and endorsed.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Western Sahara is in essence Africa’s last colony. The Kingdom of Morocco has maintained the territory in subjugation since Spanish rule collapsed in 1976. The Sahrawi people are caught between the competing claims of a repressive Moroccan occupying force and the Polisario Front, which is supported by the Algerian Government and emerged in the 1970s in opposition to Moroccan rule. Their right to self-determination has been recognised by the EU, the United Nations, the African Union and the International Court of Justice, but it is still denied to them.
Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara precipitated a fierce civil war, during which, the Red Cross alleges, Moroccan armed forces deployed napalm and cluster bombs against civilians. Throughout the 1980s, the Moroccan Government sought to cement their position and secure their claim to the territory, and to the vast natural resources that it contains. They encircled Western Sahara with a wall, or a berm, extending nearly 3,000 km, and peppered its perimeter with landmines. The wall also violated Mauritanian security and extended into its territory. Under those conditions, thousands of Sahrawi refugees poured into neighbouring Algeria, where they continue to live in sprawling camps near Tindouf. With an absence of independent food sources or opportunities for employment, residents live dependent on aid to feed their families. A survey conducted in 2012 found that 8% of residents in the camps were malnourished. There is huge opposition to the refugees, who are being denied their human rights. We all too often hear of people in Western Sahara, particularly women, facing sexual subjugation and torture.
A ceasefire was agreed in the 1990s, and a settlement plan was brokered by the then Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations. A referendum on Sahrawi independence was an integral component of that plan, and the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara was established to oversee the Sahrawi people’s transition to autonomy, but that referendum has not taken place. The composition of the electorate has been complicated by the influx of Moroccan nationals into Western Sahara. There have been allegations that the Moroccan Government have introduced thousands of their citizens as part of an insidious policy of colonisation and forced integration. Sporadic violence perpetrated by both Moroccan and Polisario forces has continued to interrupt and delay the peace process. That stagnation has undermined the credibility of MINURSO and the settlement plan it was established to uphold. In 2013, the Moroccan Government persuaded the US to abandon its plans to extend MINURSO’s mandate to include human rights abuses in Western Sahara and in the refugee camps.
In October 2010, a camp called Gdeim Izik was established by the Sahrawi people near El Aaiún in protest against human rights abuses, the repression of dissidents and the continued reluctance of the outside world to act. That reluctance is shocking once we start looking at the issue. The city is the administrative capital of the southern provinces—of Western Sahara—and the erection of the camp was interpreted by Moroccan officials as an act of aggression. The forceful dismantlement of the camp sparked riots, in which a number of Moroccan security personnel were killed, as were an unknown number of Sahrawi people.
With the camp destroyed, the Moroccan Government set out to convict what they called the instigators and leaders of the riots, and 25 people were convicted of murder following confessions that were said to have been extracted through torture. According to Amnesty International, such practices are depressingly common in Western Sahara. We cannot overestimate the shockwaves that those acts of repression are causing across the region. Eyes are on countries such as the United Kingdom that have a track record of upholding human rights. People in Algeria, Western Sahara and Mauritania are rightly asking, “What is the UK doing? Where are its values? Why are its values not being endorsed here, where there is clear repression of an indigenous people?”
It is time that we looked at Western Sahara. There is a huge danger of it becoming an incubator for terrorism and organised crime. There is a sense of injustice, and of the failure of western Governments to acknowledge that injustice, among the indigenous people, who have been given no opportunity to go anywhere to seek redress, except through organisations such as al-Qaeda and Daesh. The grievances generated by the Moroccan occupation are powerful recruiting tools, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has flourished in the absence of legitimate political authority. The UK can no longer afford to confine the conflict and the plight of the Sahrawi people to the peripheries of its foreign policy. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I hope that we will at last use our position in the United Nations to move forward on the UN mandate and seek justice and legitimacy for these people.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Rosindell. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for her speech, and particularly to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who initiated the debate. He is a much valued member of the all-party group on Western Sahara, which I chair, and he has done the people of Western Sahara a great service in raising the issue today.
I want to express a few of the concerns that I have had for some time, since I visited the country with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who used to chair the all-party group. It was my privilege to visit Laayoune, the capital of Western Sahara, in February 2014, along with the right hon. Gentleman, the director of War on Want and a constituent of mine who runs the Western Sahara Campaign Cymru. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned that visit, as a result of which we produced a report titled “Life Under Occupation”. I believe the Minister will have seen it and his predecessors in the Foreign Office certainly saw it.
I want to ask the Minister, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun did, for his response to Morocco ordering the expulsion of the 84 civilian and three military MINURSO personnel following the visit of the United Nations Secretary-General to Western Sahara in March. The mission complied with that request, despite the fact that it was a United Nations mission in a country designated a non-self-governing territory. In short, the Moroccan authorities had no authority to make that request. Surely Morocco cannot be allowed to dictate to a UN mission in a territory it does not have sovereignty over. I believe that that represents an unprecedented challenge to the authority of the United Nations Security Council, and I worry that it shows the Security Council is failing to live up to its responsibilities. I hope that it will strongly condemn the action of the Moroccan authorities in expelling the citizens and military personnel after the March visit by Ban Ki-moon.
I visited the mission in 2014, and we sat and talked to the officials there. Without mentioning names, I have to say that some of those UN officials expressed great frustration that they had no human rights monitoring mandate for Western Sahara. They were fully aware of the human rights violations and the street demonstrations in Laayoune, some of which were witnessed by colleagues on our visit. They were also fully aware of the great brutality with which the Moroccan authorities broke up peaceable demonstrations by men, women and children. However, they were unable to take any action because of the lack of any human rights monitoring role. They had no capacity or power to act. That was one of the most distressing things—to witness, with colleagues, those violations taking place in the streets, and to know that there was a UN capacity there with the potential to act, which could do nothing.
There was great brutality. The constituent who came with me attempted bravely to take photographs of the demonstrations. It was perhaps no surprise, given the way things are controlled in Laayoune, that his camera was stolen. It was later returned, with the offending pictures of course removed and wiped completely. While we were spending those three or four days in an unfamiliar city some way from home, it was quite clear that the powers of surveillance, under the pretext of protecting our interests, were following our every move—that is an unnerving experience. However, I had the luxury of being able to hop on a plane to return to this country. The Sahrawi people, of course, continue to be less fortunate.
The hon. member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun talked at length about human rights issues. I can only concur with what he and the hon. Member for Bridgend said. The UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Méndez, visited Morocco and Western Sahara in 2012. He found that torture and ill treatment were used to extract confessions, and that Moroccan law enforcement officials used excessive force. In 2015, Human Rights Watch noted the growing intolerance for independent human rights organisations and other critical voices. All the meetings that we had in Laayoune, whether with organisations campaigning for women’s rights, trade unions or other human rights activists, had to be conducted under the cloak of secrecy. All too often, we had to sit in dark rooms—literally—in the back streets of the city, because any public acknowledgment that the meetings were taking place would seriously implicate the Sahrawis we were meeting.
The huge natural resources in Western Sahara are clear from any visit, and their exploitation by Morocco is used as a justification for its occupation. Phosphate mining, fishing and market gardening provide jobs for Moroccan settlers—very few of those jobs go to the indigenous population, among whom unemployment rates are disproportionately high. We visited the ports and saw for ourselves how all offshore fishing is carried out by Moroccan-owned trawlers. In the phosphate mining industry, only 21% of the workforce are Sahrawis, the majority of whom are employed in the most menial jobs. Moroccan influence and money dominates the market gardening industry, its capital and its rewards.
For the indigenous population, there is very little evidence of a return on investment and improvements in their lives. We are talking about the absence of democracy and basic human rights, but in narrow economic terms, the people of Western Sahara are not being delivered a fair share—chwarae teg, as we say in Wales—of resources.
Our overwhelming impression from our visit was of deep and utter sadness—of an indigenous people being repressed, their identities being supressed and their history and culture not being recognised in school. We saw several private Sahrawi schools, which basically meant that parents educated their children in their own history, traditions and culture in their own homes. Again, that took place in secrecy, because it is illegal and the Moroccan authorities would clamp down on it.
All Members who have spoken today have agreed that such violations occur as a direct consequence of the UN’s failure to fulfil its duty to provide self-determination through a referendum for the people there. I know that, as the years go by, that becomes more of a challenge. Concocting an electoral list when the population is so split is, of course, a huge challenge. It is not helped by the concessionary tax and housing rights that encourage people to migrate from Morocco into Western Sahara, which the hon. Member for Bridgend mentioned. I strongly encourage the Minister to do whatever he can, because there is an expectation that countries such as ours should take more of a lead, to ensure progress towards the referendum and a continuing UN presence with a human rights monitoring role. Nothing less will do.
Finally, I want to talk about the case of a Sahrawi campaigner, Mr Brahim Saika, who fell into a coma and died last Friday after being arbitrarily detained by the police and accused of organising protests for self-determination. He was a co-ordinator of a group of unemployed Sahrawis and was arrested on 1 April. According to reports, he was detained and tortured in Gulemin police station. He was then transferred to a hospital in Agadir in Morocco from Bozakarn prison, where he had been held. His sister stated that he had been hit on the head, which is why he fell into a coma and subsequently died. After he was arrested, he went on hunger strike in protest against his detention and maltreatment. A few days later, his condition deteriorated significantly, which was when he was transferred to hospital. The reports we have heard suggest that no serious attempts were made to save his life. The hospital authorities are now refusing to conduct an autopsy to determine the cause of his death, despite his family’s demand for one. The family have been told that the cause of death was poisoning due to a rat bite.
I would appreciate the Minister raising the case with Morocco, and the all-party group would very much like to hear back about that in due course. The sad reality is that brave people such as Brahim Saika are by no means the only victims of the continued occupation of Western Sahara.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing the debate and the members of the APPG from whom we have heard. The debate is timely, coming as it does shortly after the 40th anniversary of the Moroccan invasion—40 years during which 165,000 refugees from Western Sahara have lived in the Algerian desert. It is one of the global situations, or African situations in particular, that does not receive the attention that it is due.
Mrs Moon
One of the things that we must put on the record is, honestly, our gratitude to the Algerians. They have provided a safe haven for those people and, let’s face it, we have created additional problems for the Algerians with people fleeing from Libya and Tunisia into Algeria. The Algerians are carrying a huge burden, so we have a responsibility to them, too, to resolve the problem.
Patrick Grady
That is a fair point.
Sadly, we can look across Africa and see a number of forgotten nations that maybe do not get the attention that they deserve. For example, the APPG on Eritrea, of which I am a member, was recently founded. There is the situation in Somalia. Western Sahara’s particular situation, however, with its description as “the last colony”, is especially tragic. I was trying to find some statistics, but that is difficult to do, because of its stateless position. I could not find, for example, a ranking in the UN human development index, although I found a GDP figure of about US $2,500 per head, which is not in any way significant. I pay tribute to the work of the various campaign groups that are seeking to make the issue live. They have helped to provide background briefings for Members for today. I note that the comedian and activist Mark Thomas is doing a fundraiser for the cause on 2 May. I wish him all the very best for that.
Three key issues have arisen in the debate: first, the principle of self-determination; secondly, a reflection on recent developments and the human rights situation in the country; and, thirdly, questions for the Government that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, the SNP feels passionately about the principle of self-determination, and we in Scotland were able to exercise it in 2014, in a wonderful exercise in democratic participation. Here in the UK, after elections in Scotland in a few weeks’ time, on 23 June we will have a referendum on our membership of the European Union. That is the kind of thing that we take for granted, but it is sadly denied in so many different parts of the world—only today, in Question Time, the Prime Minister was asked about the Chagos islands. In any event, surely a referendum has to be the endgame and the way in which matters are resolved.
Patrick Grady
No, it is not a great ask at all. A peaceful solution has to involve the right of individuals and nations to self-determination. Also, we cannot and should not prejudge what the decision might be. It might be a form of autonomy, or of independence. We will not know until it is put to the test. The UN groundwork has been done, but it is rapidly dating. Generations continue to grow up, still waiting for an opportunity to have their say.
Meanwhile, the situation continues to deteriorate, perhaps not least because of a lack of a human rights mandate for the UN mission. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred to the Oxfam analysis, which described the recent crisis and the expulsion of UN diplomats as a threat to regional stability. Other examples can be found of human rights abuses; some were referred to by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). A 2015 Amnesty International report lists a whole range of different torture techniques used by Moroccan security forces to extract confessions to crimes or to silence activists and crush dissent.
We expect a report in the next few days from the Secretary-General of the UN. Press reports, from those who have perhaps seen advance copies, say that the language used by the Secretary-General seems to indicate that the UN is backing away from its insistence on the concept of self-determination as necessarily leading to independence. I do not know if that is accurate; it is from an article that I have read and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister, because that is the big-picture question. The situation of the people of Western Sahara is important in its own right, but there is a bigger question about the mandate and role of the UN and the respect attributed to decisions by the UN Security Council, of which the United Kingdom is a member. How will the Government use its role as a permanent member to push for further action? The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) rightly pointed out the risks of inaction. Now is a very appropriate time for action.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, it would be useful to know the Government’s view on Morocco’s claim to the territory and its progress in entering into commercial contracts for the exploitation of natural resources in Western Sahara. What consideration are the Government giving to support refugees from Western Sahara in neighbouring countries, as well as to those trying to enter the UK and the EU? Finally, as was touched on in exchanges at the start of my speech, what role do the Government see for neighbouring and regional countries in the area and the broader African Union? The hon. Member for Bridgend noted that a wide range of international institutions recognise the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination. Surely, after 40 years, it is time to stop talking and start doing.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I always seem to be following him, so let me hope that I can enhance what he said.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing such an important and timely debate. The Western Sahara is not a region regularly raised in the House, but it is an important area and the situation deserves our attention. We also heard an important contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who pointed out that women in Western Sahara often face sexual subjugation and torture, something we really need to press our Government and the Moroccan Government on.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun pointed out something that the hon. Member for Glasgow North reiterated: Morocco has made a direct challenge to the UN Security Council’s resolution by trying to put obstacles in the way of the referendum that the Security Council wishes to take place. Today’s debate is timely because this month the UN Security Council will also be debating the Western Sahara, 25 years after the establishment of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. MINURSO was first given six months to hold a referendum on and in the Western Sahara. That was in 1991. If the mandate is renewed this week, the mission will be in its 26th year. In preparation for today’s debate, I read through the minutes of previous Security Council debates on the Western Sahara, as you do. They make for rather depressing reading. There is generally unanimous agreement that the status quo is unsustainable and there is a desire to see a resolution, yet we never seem to get any nearer to a final agreement.
As we have heard, the failure to find a resolution comes at a serious human cost. Around 100,000 Sahrawis remain in refugee camps in the Algerian desert and there are now multiple generations who have grown up there. I also have serious concerns about the position of Sahrawis in Western Sahara. As has been said, numerous accounts of human rights abuses have been recognised by Her Majesty’s Government, the UN and independent bodies such as Amnesty International. Of course we need to see progress on the ground, but there are real fears that the position of Sahrawis, both economically and politically, is worsening.
Those concerns were set out in the report of the APPG on Western Sahara written by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who made an excellent contribution this afternoon and now chairs the all-party group. He is clearly one of our most knowledgeable MPs. That report followed the APPG’s delegation to the area in 2014, the year that I visited the region and Laayoune with the Minister, before he was the Minister. The report is informative and clearly highlights the issues facing the Sahrawi population, especially when it comes to political protest. I join the hon. Member for Ceredigion in thanking John Gurr for the report and the work that he continues to do through the Western Sahara Campaign, which I found helpful in preparing for the debate.
In the long term, we need an agreement among all parties to enable a referendum to take place in Western Sahara. However, getting to that point will require more political will on all sides. I echo the text of resolution 2218 in calling
“upon the parties and the neighbouring states to cooperate more fully with the United Nations and with each other and to strengthen their involvement to end the current impasse and to achieve progress towards a political solution”.
The international community must never seek to impose a solution on Western Sahara.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
Just before I bring Fabian Hamilton back in to conclude his remarks, given the change in timing necessitated by the Division, we will be looking at completing the debate by 5.41 pm.
Fabian Hamilton
I will continue with my speech, if I may. There is not too much left. I had just quoted from the text of resolution 2218.
The international community must never seek to impose a solution on the dispute over Western Sahara. Whether it remains part of Morocco or becomes a self-governing territory or an independent state, Western Sahara will always have to rely on a very close relationship with Morocco. Whatever the outcome, Western Sahara will need to trade with Morocco, particularly if it is to benefit from the significant investment currently going into it from the Moroccan state and Moroccan companies.
We must also recognise Morocco’s role in providing security in an increasingly unstable area with rising levels of extremism and sectarian conflict. However, the difficulties of achieving a long-term solution should not mean we forget the human rights of the Sahrawi population and their political and economic situation.
I was pleased to see from written answers that the Government have repeatedly raised the Western Sahara issue with the Moroccan Government, including with His Majesty King Mohammed VI. I am particularly pleased that the Government made successful representations to ensure that the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy to Western Sahara was able to gain access to the region. I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House whether his discussions with the Government of Morocco have included the human rights situation in Western Sahara and the human rights issues facing the Sahrawi people in Morocco. I also hope the Minister will tell us what steps the UK is taking unilaterally and through the Friends of Western Sahara group of nations, of which the UK is a member, to improve the economic and civic participation of the Sahrawi population.
I want to press the Minister on the mandate for MINURSO. I understand that, as has been said this afternoon, it is the only mission in the world without a human rights remit. As the mission is about to have its mandate renewed, or at least reviewed, is it not time to include human rights within its remit and to ask it to report back to the UN Security Council on its findings? Is it also not time to set a date for a free and fair referendum in Western Sahara, with an option for independence on the ballot paper, consistent with the established international legal norm of self-determination?
Is the Minister prepared to demand an end to the extraction of natural resources from Western Sahara through deals that disregard the interests and wishes of the indigenous Sahrawi people? In particular, I hope he will set out the UK’s position on the sale of products from Western Sahara within the EU. I understand that the European Court of Justice ruled to exclude waters off the Western Sahara from the EU-Moroccan fisheries agreement, but that is subject to an appeal from the EU.
Mr Mark Williams
Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is a problem with labelling? We have just had a debate on agriculture. Many of the products produced in the occupied territories, which is how some of us refer to the area, are labelled as products of Morocco when clearly they should be labelled as products of Western Sahara.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will finish what I was saying because it may cover the point he has raised. Will the Minister explain the UK’s position on the current appeal? Will he also explain what the judgment will mean for the sale of other Western Sahrawi produce within the EU if the appeal fails? In particular, will he explain whether Western Sahrawi goods, such as phosphorus and tomatoes, will be excluded from EU-Morocco trade agreements or require special labelling? I hope that covers the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
These steps could be important in addressing many of the issues in Western Sahara that we have heard about today and could facilitate further progress. It is precisely because Morocco is such a close ally of the United Kingdom and a significant diplomatic player in its own right that we should work with the Moroccans to welcome a bigger role for the United Nations in finding a long-term and sustainable solution for all the parties involved in Western Sahara.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing this debate, on his strong interest in Western Sahara and more generally the work of the all-party group on Western Sahara. I thank other hon. Members from all three main parties for their contributions. In my briefing, I was not prepared for questions about the Scottish referendum, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on getting that in.
I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members who were expecting the illustrious Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who would have been delighted to respond to the debate, which is within his portfolio. He was, until very recently, engaged in another debate on the Floor of the House. It is therefore my pleasure to respond to the debate, particularly because, as the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) alluded to with great foresight, both of us went to Western Sahara while on the Back Benches in order to be better briefed for this very occasion. We specifically visited the UN headquarters in Laayoune to see its work for ourselves first hand.
The Government’s position on Western Sahara is consistent and long-standing. The Government consider the final status of Western Sahara as undetermined, and we support the UN-led efforts to reach a lasting and mutually acceptable political solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. In line with the debate, I will first speak about the underlying principles of self-determination and our support for those, then move on to the situation in Western Sahara and how it applies to the broader issue of self-determination.
In his statement of principles for world peace nearly a hundred years ago, President Woodrow Wilson said:
“Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of actions which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”
I am not sure he had the hon. Member for Leeds North West and me in mind when he said that, but nevertheless, I think I can speak for both of us in saying that we hear that principle. Wilson was unsuccessful in his attempts to include the principle in the covenant of the League of Nations.
More than two decades later, in the midst of world war two, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt came up with a set of principles that defined the Allies’ goals for the post-war world, which included
“the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live”.
Their Atlantic charter is widely recognised as a precursor to the 1942declaration of United Nations, which was the foundation of the charter of the United Nations. This charter, and many other treaties and agreements to which the United Kingdom is signatory, set out clearly the right to self-determination.
The principle of self-determination is about freedom to make one’s own choices. This country demonstrated its commitment to that principle in 2013, when the Government gave residents of the Falkland Islands the freedom to choose whether they wanted to remain a British overseas territory. Self-determination has allowed, and continues to allow, countries and territories around the world to determine their own fate and chart their own course.
Turning to Western Sahara, the UK supports UN-led efforts to reach a lasting and mutually acceptable political solution to this long-standing dispute that provides, crucially, for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. Morocco and the pro-independence Polisario Front both claim sovereignty over Western Sahara. An International Court of Justice ruling on the issue in 1975 means that the territory is “non-self-governing” under chapter XI of the UN charter, and that its people therefore have the right to self-determination. Following Spanish withdrawal in 1975, most of the territory has been under Moroccan administration.
In 1991, after more than 15 years of hostilities between Morocco and the Polisario Front, a ceasefire was brokered by the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations. It was agreed that both sides would stop fighting and the UN would monitor the ceasefire. The UN would also prepare for a referendum in which the Sahrawi people would exercise their right to self-determination, choosing either to be an autonomous region within Morocco or an independent state. That was the mandate for the UN MINURSO, which we have discussed, and which I visited with the hon. Member for Leeds North West in 2014. That body has succeeded in monitoring a ceasefire. The UN has persisted, through rounds of discussion, negotiations and renegotiations, in trying to find a political solution to the conflict. However, despite engagement and credible efforts over the years from both sides, little real progress has been made on the political track.
On 11 April 2007, Morocco put forward a proposal for advanced autonomy for the region. I think that is what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was referring to when he asked about the Government’s views on the proposal. UN Security Council resolution 1754 of 30 April 2007 took note of the proposal and welcomed the serious and credible Moroccan efforts to move the process forward towards resolution. It also took note of the Polisario Front’s proposal presented on 10 April 2007. However, neither proposal was accepted by the other party and no further proposals have been put on the table. The solution has to be UN-led. The UN has to move things forward.
In March this year, the UN Secretary-General made comments, which a number of Members have referred to, during a visit to the region. That led to disagreement around the UN troops and to withdrawal of the 84 civilian members of the UN deployment. While the Secretary-General has since clarified his statement and expressed regret for the misunderstanding caused, the civilian staff still have not returned. The UK Government are concerned about the lack of a civilian component in the force. Without that vital support, the UN mission is unable to fulfil its existing mandate, let alone an extended one. It is unable to assist the UN and thus the UK’s interest in finding a political solution, but it is still maintaining peace and security in the region.
We have urged the UN secretariat and Morocco to engage in dialogue that will allow the individuals to return as quickly as possible to enable the full functionality of the mission, allowing it to carry forward the full scope of its existing mission. We are hopeful that a way forward can be found. The situation is not totally gridlocked, but more effort is needed.
Turning to some of the additional points made during the debate, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and a number of other Members talked about Daesh. We are concerned about the presence of Daesh throughout the broader region, although the Moroccan authorities have disputed the assertion that cells have been encountered. On the other hand, the Secretary-General’s personal envoy, Christopher Ross, has told the permanent under-secretary for the middle east and north Africa that about 15 individuals have travelled to fight with extremist groups in north Africa. I do not think 15 can be described as endemic, but we are aware of some people travelling from the region.
A lot of points were made about human rights. Although it is primarily a UN process, the UK, through its position on the Security Council, stresses the importance of humanitarian rights on an ongoing basis in Western Sahara and the camps. That was clear in the UN Security Council resolution of April 2015. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights visited Western Sahara in 2015 and the findings of that report will be reflected in the Secretary-General’s report, which we believe will be published later today. As I stand before the Chamber, I have not seen that it has been published. That is only one way that the UN looks at human rights in the area.
There was a specific case that the all-party group would like me to look into. If it writes to me with details, I am more than happy to look into that and circulate a letter that can be sent around to the rest of the group.
There has been progress on human rights. The Moroccan authorities recently took steps to improve human rights, including ratifying the protocol to the convention against torture and ending the practice of trying civilians in military courts. That is good progress, but I still hear calls to do a lot more. We are considering our position on the mandate renewal but, as I have said, actually getting the existing mandate delivered is troublesome without extending it further. I was asked by the hon. Member for Leeds North East about commercial activity. We do not consider commercial activity in Western Sahara to be illegal, as long as it respects the interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara and benefits them. The UK does not prohibit companies from engaging in commercial activity, but they should take legal advice before doing so.
The Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs supports refugees in the camps in Algeria through all the UN agencies, most notably UNICEF, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme. This is a situation that we are very much aware of and very keen to engage in, and I look forward to progress being made through the UN and through working with the all-party parliamentary group.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Western Sahara and self-determination.
Written Statements
Police and Crime Commissioner Elections
(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 of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Local Returning Officers’ and Police Area Returning Officers’ Charges) Order 2016. The order sets the maximum recoverable amounts for the services and expenses of police area returning officers and local returning officers. The order is the final piece of legislation which, taken together, confirm the arrangements for the police and crime commissioner elections on 5 May 2016.
[HCWS683]
Energy Bill: English Votes for English Laws
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I am pleased to announce the publication of updated analysis of the Energy Bill for the purposes of English votes for English laws.
The English votes for English laws process applies to public Bills in the House of Commons. To support the process, the Government have agreed that they will provide information to assist the Speaker in considering whether to certify that Bill or any of its provisions for the purposes of English votes for English laws.
The memorandum provides an assessment of amendments made at Lords consideration of Commons amendments (LCCA) and tabled for Commons consideration of Lords amendments (CCLA), ahead of CCLA. The Department’s assessment is that none of the amendments change the territorial application of the Bill.
The memorandum can be found on the Bill documents page of the Parliament website at: http://services.parliament. uk/bills/2015-16/energy/documents.html and I have deposited a copy in the House of Commons Library.
[HCWS680]
EU Readmission Agreement: Jordan
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The Government have decided not to opt in to a Council decision (12137/15) authorising the opening of negotiations on an agreement between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (hereafter referred to as Jordan) on readmission.
EURAs ensure reciprocal procedures for the identification, documentation and return of persons illegally entering or remaining in EU member states. We decide whether to participate in EURAs on a case-by-case basis, depending on the priority we attach to the country concerned in terms of numbers of immigration returns and the degree to which we enjoy a good bilateral relationship with that country.
Jordan is not an immigration returns priority for the UK (there were only four enforced returns from January to September 2015), and our returns process is excellent; Jordan is a country to which we return on EU letters (this is easier because we do not need to obtain a travel document if we have strong supporting evidence of nationality). We would not enjoy an operational advantage if we were to change our bilateral arrangements for conducting returns to Jordan.
[HCWS681]
Police Advisory Board for England and Wales: Triennial Review
(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)
On 5 February 2015, I announced in Parliament, through a written statement, the commencement of a triennial review of the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. I am pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The Police Advisory Board provides independent advice to the Secretary of State on general questions affecting the police.
The review concludes that the functions performed by the Police Advisory Board are still required and that it should be retained as a stakeholder group. This is an administrative change in its classification that better reflects the way the body is constituted and provides advice. The Police Advisory Board is, therefore, no longer classified as a non-departmental public body. The report makes a further five recommendations that will be implemented shortly.
The full report of the review of the Police Advisory Board can be found on www.gov.uk and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS682]
House of Lords
Council Tax: Social Care Precept
Baroness Barker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much revenue they estimate will be generated in 2016–17 by local authorities using their power to increase council tax to offset the cost of social care.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, on 31 March 2016 the department published national statistics on council tax levels in England for 2016-17. This reported local authorities’ estimates that they would receive a total of £381.8 million in receipts for the adult social care precept in that financial year. One hundred and forty-four of 152 eligible councils chose to set the precept of up to 2%. The precept will raise up to £2 billion by 2019-20.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. This policy already favours those local authorities which have higher-value properties. Eight councils have decided not to raise the precept, so the Chancellor’s projection that this policy will generate an extra £2 billion between now and 2020 is already unravelling. Will the Government increase the better care fund for this financial year so that people in poor communities will not lose services and end up having to turn to the NHS?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the Government recognise that the local government settlement is challenging. Consistent with our approach to give local authorities more control over their own destiny, we are giving important new flexibilities which reflect concerns that councils have shared with us. We recognise that some councils with a low council tax base in the poorer communities will not benefit as much. That is why the better care fund, which the noble Baroness has mentioned, on top of the adult social care precept, will provide £1.5 billion by 2020. With this, importantly, average spending power per dwelling for the 10% most deprived authorities is around 23% higher than in the least deprived authorities.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my local government interests. In Newcastle, which is suffering a cumulative loss from government cuts and cost pressures, not least in relation to social care amounting to £332 million, a 2% social care precept will raise £1.7 million. The welcome increase in the national minimum wage, which is not of course the same as the national living wage, will cost £4.5 million a year, such that over the next three years there will be a shortfall of £9.5 million. Given that the 2% increase benefits councils in better-off areas, with more people in the higher tax bands and less need for supporting social care, when will the Government recognise that it is necessary to ensure that the funding of social care ought to reflect both need and the relative yield of local taxation?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I have already addressed the important question of proportionality, which the noble Baroness raised. The Government have put in place a total package of £3.5 billion which will be available by 2019-20. That package is greater than the local authority associations’ £2.9 billion estimate, set out in their spending review submission.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend described the situation for local authorities as challenging, which indeed it is. What encouragement are the Government giving at local level to social services and health departments to merge their services? My noble friend will know that an extremely successful initiative along these lines has been going for at least a decade in Torquay. I feel, and I think that many Members of this House with great local experience will agree, that encouragement for such a merger would help to make the best of scarce resources.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend is right that councils have worked very hard over the past five years to deliver a better deal for local taxpayers, and that the important thing is to keep council tax down while satisfaction with local public services must be maintained. However, further savings can be made when councils account for one-quarter of all public spending. There is much that can be done that is appropriate in terms of merging services, as my noble friend has said.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister reconsider dealing with this simply with a national perspective? Following Parliamentary Questions that I have tabled, if he looks at the north-east as a whole, he will see that not only is it that not a single local authority would raise through the 2% precept enough to cover the minimum wage for the number of people who are publicly dependent for social care, but the better care fund will not be anything like sufficient to supplement the 2%. We have incredibly unequal and unfair distribution across the country. Will he commit to ensuring that the Government address this issue urgently so that vulnerable people are not put at risk by this global policy that does not address separate need, particularly in the north-east?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I think I have already made it clear that the Government are taking action. For example, local council tax support is also available to help the vulnerable, and £3.7 billion was provided for that support in each of the last three years. I should also say that, looking particularly at certain groups such as the disabled, we have provided £500 million. That will be available by 2019-20 over those years for the disabled facilities grant, which is more than double what is spent at the moment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
There is concern across the House about the crisis in social care. The spending review stated that the Government have,
“a preferred option for savings of at least £800 million”—
from the new homes bonus—
“which can be used for social care”.
Will the Minister provide reassurance that if such savings are not met, that will not impact on the already promised £1.5 billion for social care by 2019-20? Or is it perhaps time that the Government let local authorities make their own decisions about spending in their own areas, and that we got rid of caps and referenda so that local authorities could raise the money for their own needs?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We have consistently made it clear that we believe it is right to devolve responsibility down to the local level, to allow people to make their own decisions and for authorities to decide themselves what their needs are. That is a very important point for devolvement.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
Will my noble friend accept that care delivered to the home relies to a large extent on the private sector, and that more and more companies in the private sector that have been delivering this care are now finding it completely unviable to continue? In that case, as the noble Baroness who asked the Question in the first place has suggested, it will create much more pressure on the already very stretched NHS.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend makes an important point. It is true that we are very aware of the increased need over the coming years, not just the next five but the next 20 or 30, to look after our older people. One of the issues is to aim to allow people to live independently and a lot of resources are going into helping with that, which takes some of the pressure off the NHS.
Scotland Act 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to co-ordinate the implementation of the Scotland Act 2016 with the Scottish Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
The joint ministerial working group on welfare and the Joint Exchequer Committee will oversee the implementation of welfare and tax powers, and a cross-Whitehall programme board has been established to oversee implementation of the Scotland Act. Senior officials from the Scottish and UK Governments meet regularly to identify and resolve issues and, building on the successful implementation of the 2012 Act, I am confident that both Governments will work constructively together to implement these historic new powers.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. However, is he aware that in last week’s debate on HS2 only one Peer—my noble friend Lord Glasgow—spoke of the need to extend that line as far as Scotland, and that the same week the First Minister of Scotland announced a feasibility study to extend the successful Borders Railway further south? What, then, are the chances of the two Governments working together to make sure that Scotland gets a modern railway system?
Lord Dunlop
In all issues the two Governments will seek to work constructively. There was a specific review to see how passengers who travelled to Scotland could get the benefits of HS2—that is an example of how the two Governments have been working together.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Scotland Act 2016 leaves the power to call a second referendum on independence in Scotland here at Westminster and not in Scotland, and that it is utterly irresponsible for any unionist to argue that a vote to leave the European Union would justify a second referendum when the vast majority of people in Scotland regard this matter as now settled?
Lord Dunlop
I very much agree with my noble friend. The people of Scotland voted very clearly and decisively in 2014 to remain part of the United Kingdom, and at the time Nicola Sturgeon, now First Minister of Scotland, said that this was a “once in a generation” issue. It is incumbent on the SNP to respect the decision that the people of Scotland took and to focus on jobs, prosperity and high-quality public services in Scotland.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Scotland Act transfers very considerable income tax powers across all bands to the Scottish Parliament. Is the noble Lord aware that the Scottish National Party has now abandoned its long-held policy to restore the 50p additional rate because it anticipates that 7% of additional ratepayers in Scotland would configure their tax affairs to avoid paying taxation in Scotland? What are the Government doing to ensure that there is no prospect of tax avoidance within the UK?
Lord Dunlop
HMRC is very focused on tax avoidance. The passage of the Scotland Act 2016 has meant that the debate that is going on for the Holyrood elections is about not what new powers should come to Scotland but how those powers are used. Tax is absolutely central to that, and that is a good and healthy development of the debate in Scotland.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the existence of this latest Scotland Act, which devolves significant further powers to Scotland and therefore fundamentally changes much of the governance of Britain, should instigate a serious review of the way in which central government governs the whole country—the four nations of this country? Perhaps in particular the future of the territorial Secretaries of State should be looked at seriously, as surely now, with these further devolved powers, they have become even more obsolete.
Lord Dunlop
The territorial Secretaries of State are a very powerful voice and effective representatives for the home nations of the UK at the heart of the UK Government. They should continue to be so.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the reiteration by the Minister of the administrative organisations and committees that have been set up to monitor how we proceed with the consequences of the Scotland Act. Before the passage of the Scotland Act, a great deal of concern was raised across the House about the implementation of devolution. Quite rightly, the process which dealt with the fiscal framework was confidential. However, would the Minister agree that some more transparency in the future deliberations of how the Scotland Act was processed would be useful?
Lord Dunlop
There are regular reports to Parliament on different aspects of the devolution settlement, and we will always look at how these can be improved. We have undertaken to make annual reports to this House and to Parliament on the general operation of the fiscal framework, and that is very positive.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden (Con)
Following on from the last question, when does my noble friend expect to see the first report, post this Act, from the Scottish Fiscal Commission on the projections for Scotland over the next year or two?
Lord Dunlop
I am not sure I can give a specific date for when the first report from that commission will be forthcoming but I am happy to write to my noble friend with further information on that.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Has the Minister noticed that the Government in Scotland are not keen on laws being made in Westminster, which the Government in Scotland consider too remote, but are very enthusiastic about laws being made in Brussels? Does he agree that, although very many clever people may be running the SNP, they are not very good at geography?
Lord Dunlop
They are not very good at geography and I do not think that consistency is always a strong point with them either.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that with the increased responsibility will go increased accountability? That must not be forgotten.
Lord Dunlop
At the heart of the Scotland Act 2016 is the transfer of responsibility to the Scottish Parliament, along with greater accountability, so the Scottish Parliament, which has always had great powers to spend money, now has responsibility for determining how that money is raised.
Companies: Overseas Territories Registration
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further discussions they have had with Overseas Territories since last year’s Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council about moves towards greater transparency of beneficial ownership for companies registered within their jurisdiction, in the light of the United Kingdom’s chairmanship of the International Anticorruption Summit in May 2016.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have had extensive technical discussions with overseas territory leaders and officials to help them develop a timely, safe and secure process of exchange of company beneficial ownership information for law enforcement purposes. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister informed the other place on 11 April that we had reached agreement to provide UK law enforcement agencies and tax authorities with full access to company beneficial ownership information held in the territories.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
No doubt the Minister will recall that in 2013 the Prime Minister called for public registers of beneficial ownership from our overseas territories. Can she explain to us what British sovereignty means in relation to the overseas territories, which benefit from being under British law and protection, when they have refused to accept the Prime Minister’s proposal and we are told that some actually refused to meet Treasury Ministers last December when they were over here for the overseas territories conference? Does the Minister recognise that this is a question not just of tax but of money laundering? Substantial properties in the UK, including in London, are owned through shell companies by dubious men and dubious countries that have earned their money by dubious means.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, this Government are leading the way in ensuring that there is transparency in tax matters internationally. We often find ourselves leading but not necessarily having the support of all those around the world. The overseas territories are indeed separate jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Governments, under which they are responsible for financial matters. We have worked in partnership with them on this matter and have made great progress on having central registers of beneficial ownership. When my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the G5 in the United States last week, he made it clear that further reforms can be made in the future. So this is a work in progress for everybody, but let us recognise the great strides already made by the overseas territories.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I am going to sit down and I suggest that somebody gives way.
Lord Rooker
I am grateful. The Prime Minister deserves substantial credit for the actions taken so far, but why are only UK law enforcement authorities involved in this? What is the problem with our partners? Some weeks ago I went on the first kleptocracy tour in London to view the properties bought with laundered stolen money through our overseas territories. Our partners in the EU have as much of an interest in finding out who the beneficial owners are as we have, so why is access to this information restricted to UK law enforcement authorities? Gibraltar and Montserrat are opening up their registers to the rest of the EU, so why can we not go a bit further than that? Even if we cannot allow journalists and other interested bodies access to this information, surely the law enforcement authorities of other, friendly partner countries should have access to those registers.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, clearly, there is progress to be made on that very point. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to the G20 members last week with regard to the G5 initiative on the automatic exchange of beneficial ownership information, exactly in line with what the noble Lord proposes. The initiative is still very new, but we are going to start discussion with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies shortly and I hope that our EU partners will take note.
Lord Naseby
Since it is an international conference and we are in the chair, will the UK Government be pressing the US to explain and to rectify the situation where the states of Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming allow no transparency of information on any subject, to the detriment of our overseas territories? Undoubtedly, if that continues, we will see a loss of business from our overseas territories to those three US states.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we will be pressing all those who attend the conference to pursue greater transparency. We have made it clear that the global gold standard ought to be public, central registers of beneficial ownership. We will say that to our great friends and to those who are not perhaps such close friends but will be there and will, I hope, be our close friends by the end.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
I declare an interest as a non-exec of the Open Data Institute. Is the Minister aware of the work of the Open Data Institute and many of the interesting not-for-profit start-ups working in the open data space specifically on this issue? I point to one, as an example: OpenCorporates. I urge the Minister to keep using open data as one of the major levers in this transparency piece.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I agree entirely with the view that the noble Baroness expressed.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, while I acknowledge the good work done by the Government recently on this, does the Minister agree that public transparency is important not only in the fight against corruption but as a very significant moral issue? Does she agree that it is the duty of all Governments, including those of overseas territories, to work towards public transparency?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The right reverend Prelate is right: it is a moral matter. A very wide debate should be held on whether or not there is transparency only in cases where there is a revelation that might assist with prosecutions, either in the civil courts or criminal courts, on matters such as evasion or aggressive tax avoidance. That is a wider issue, but the right reverend Prelate is right to say that it is one that we ought to be pursuing.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
We certainly congratulate the Government on the progress made thus far, but does the Minister accept that unless company ownership is made public and accessible there is no way in which our Government will be able to monitor compliance? It is quite clear that our overseas territories are the primary base for a very great deal of corruption and money laundering, and it is quite clear that we need to act.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I have to take the noble Lord a little to task here. It is the case that where there is a central register of beneficial ownership, the National Crime Agency and the tax authorities—which are of course operations of this Government—are able to gain access to the very information that the noble Lord specified. I gently remind him that in taking a lead on these matters since 2010, in the coalition Government and now, we have done more than the Labour Government even attempted to do in 13 years.
Strathclyde Review
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will support the establishment of a Joint Committee to consider the recommendations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Strathclyde Review (Cm 9177).
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, you get me either way.
We are considering the three reports carefully, one of which was published less than a week ago. We are doing so alongside consideration of the recommendations in my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s review, on which the three reports are based. We will respond to those reports and my noble friend’s review in due course.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, does the Leader of the House now recognise, as do the three reports, that to a considerable extent the Strathclyde review was based on a false premise? We are not in this House challenging,
“the decisive role of the … House of Commons”;
what we are doing is seeking more effective scrutiny of Governments’ secondary legislation by both Houses of Parliament. Surely the right way to examine the range of options for Parliament is for both Houses together, MPs and Peers, to do so in a Joint Select Committee. Is the Leader of the House now listening to these three important committees of your Lordships’ House, or is she simply listening to No. 10?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, one thing that I know that we all agree on, from the many conversations I have had with noble Lords from around this House, is that we must protect this House’s role as an effective revising Chamber that holds the Government to account. I understand some of the points that the noble Lord makes, along with those that have been made by some of the committees of this House, and I will reflect on all the things that have been put forward. I think that it is premature for us to commission another review before the Government have responded to the review that they commissioned from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I need to be clear to the House that the Government are seeking something which is in the interest not just of the Government but of Parliament as a whole; that is, that the elected House has the final say on all legislation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, yet again, the noble Baroness seems to misunderstand how statutory instruments operate. They are not a matter between the House of Commons and the House of Lords but a matter between the Executive and Parliament. This issue strikes fundamentally at the very heart of what this House does. We have a responsibility to scrutinise not just primary but secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has already pointed out that all three of these Select Committees of your Lordships’ House, all chaired by government party Peers, have totally rejected all the Strathclyde options. The noble Baroness says that she will reflect on the reports and come back to the House “in due course”. Can I ask her to take her time in reflecting on the information in those reports—they bear weight and are very interesting—but then, in the next Session of Parliament, provide time for debate? However, if the speculation about legislation to enforce Strathclyde is true, will she give an undertaking today for an early debate prior to the Queen’s Speech?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as I have already said, the Government are considering carefully all the options that are in my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s review. We will take account of what has been included in the reports of the various Select Committees of this House. When we reach a decision, we will publish our response, but we have not yet reached our decision.
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to reflect on these reports, but I hope that she will bear in mind that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were to make sure that secondary legislation was dealt with more democratically in Parliament as a whole. Will she therefore take very good note in her considerations of what the noble Lord said?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Yes, I most definitely will. My noble friend put forward three options and recommended one, but what is important for us all to reflect on, as I have said, is that this House has a vital role in scrutinising legislation. That must be maintained in a way that protects our legitimacy and that gives the House of Commons the final say.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, as the Leader of the House well knows, the three separate committees of this House comprehensively and unanimously rejected the totality of the proposals made in the Strathclyde report. If the House does not recognise that, the committees have wasted their time. I do not believe that they have. They are very thorough reports. The committees took evidence in public, published that evidence and made sure that the whole House knew who they had spoken to—more than 30 Members of your Lordships’ House were involved in that work. That contrasts with one person, a former Cabinet Minister of the present Administration, meeting people in secret, not publishing any evidence, but publishing his report. There is legitimately in democratic terms no comparison between those exercises. The whole House should recognise that. Will the Leader of the House at least guarantee that the House will have the opportunity to debate these three reports and their recommendations and conclusions before any more hasty, erratic decisions are made by the Government about the powers of your Lordships’ House?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the Government have not reached a decision yet, so we have not been operating in haste. I say to the noble Lord and to the House as a whole that we currently lack agreement among us about how we can achieve clarity about how we consider secondary legislation in this House. We need to be in a position where we can do our work with clarity, maintain our vital scrutiny role and have the power to reject secondary legislation. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s recommended option would retain this House’s power to reject secondary legislation.
Border Force Budget 2016-17
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat as a Statement the response to an Urgent Question given in the other place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the Border Force budget for 2016-17. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, the first priority of government is the safety and security of its citizens. The Government have always made the integrity of the UK border a priority and we will never compromise on keeping the people of this country safe from terrorism, criminality and illegal immigration.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish the Treasury main supply estimates in just over an hour’s time, setting out estimated budget allocations for the whole of government, including Border Force, for the 2016-17 financial year. In advance of those figures being laid in the House Library, I can inform the House that these estimates will show the indicative budget for Border Force is £558.1 million in 2016-17, a 0.4% reduction in the overall resource spending compared with the 2015-16 supplementary estimate. At the same time, we will increase capital spending at the border by just over 70%, from £40.1 million in 2015-16 to an estimated £68.3 million in 2016-17.
This means that Border Force spending is to all intents and purposes protected compared with 2015-16, with increased capital investment to improve the technology at the border to improve security and intelligence and strengthen control. Over the next four years, we will invest £130 million in state-of-the-art technology at the border.
Since I became Home Secretary six years ago, we have pursued an ambitious programme of reform at the border to keep this country safe. In the last Parliament, we abolished the dysfunctional UK Border Agency, set up under the last Labour Government, and made Border Force directly accountable to Ministers within the Home Office. Since then, Border Force has transformed its working practices, command and control, and leadership. We have invested in new technology like e-gates at airports and heartbeat monitors at freight ports to improve security, prevent illegal entry to the UK, benefit passengers and deliver efficiencies.
At the same time, I have worked closely with my French counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, to secure the juxtaposed controls in Calais and Coquelles, reduce the number of migrants attempting to reach the UK, and safeguard UK drivers and hauliers travelling through those ports. We have developed a robust, intelligence-led approach to organised crime at the border, working closely with the National Crime Agency we established in 2012. We have supported greater collaboration between counterterrorism police and Border Force, while increasing counterterrorism budgets to prevent foreign fighters returning and dangerous terrorists travelling to the UK.
These reforms are working. Border security has been enhanced. Border Force continues to perform 100% checks on scheduled passengers arriving in the United Kingdom. Where passengers are deemed a threat to public safety, we can and do exclude them from the UK. In total, 99,020 people have been refused entry to the UK since 2010. We are also disrupting more organised crime at the UK border than ever before. In the past year, Border Force has seized nearly eight tonnes of class A drugs, more than two and a half times as much as in 2009-10. Meanwhile, legitimate passengers and hauliers of goods continue to be provided with excellent levels of service.
The Government remain committed to making further investments where necessary to exploit new technology and strengthen controls. In doing so, Border Force will grow more efficient year on year while improving security for the safety of citizens, businesses and the country as a whole”.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in response to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons. The Answer now confirms that the revenue budget for the Border Force for 2016-17 is some 10% less than it was in 2012-13, which no doubt explains in part why the Government are not in control of our borders. If they still maintain that they are in control of our borders, can the noble Lord say whether 100% checks are made on every lorry entering this country? I await to see whether he can give a more direct answer to that question than his right honourable friend the Home Secretary managed in the Commons earlier today.
Finally, in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph today from, to use the words of that newspaper, the country’s most senior security experts—who include two Members of this House—there is a reference to the need better to secure this country’s borders followed by a call for the Government to review security at our borders. Will the Government now agree to undertake the review called for in the letter?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as I have already alluded to, border security has been enhanced and Border Force continues to perform 100% checks on scheduled passengers. As for lorries, we perform rigorous border checks on scheduled arrivals. The noble Lord mentioned specifically a letter that has been written today and the steps that the Government have taken. I am sure that if he reflects on the changes that have been made—apart from the creation of, as I said, a more flexible Border Force, which has allowed us to address the challenges and needs across the country as a whole—we have seen various programmes which have delivered incremental improvements to e-Borders vision, such as the Schengen information system, the warnings index on migration and improved exit checks. We continue to work very closely with our European partners across the board to ensure that we protect not only our borders but borders across the European Union from threats based around security and terrorism.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, while handbags at dawn over the Border Force budget between the chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee and the Home Secretary might be entertaining, the crucial question must be whether Border Force has and will continue to have the resources it needs to safeguard UK borders from threats of foreign terrorism and illegal immigration, bearing in mind that the Home Secretary has now confirmed that the budget for the Border Force is decreasing while it would appear that the threats are increasing.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I agree with the second part of the noble Lord’s statement: as the challenges and threats are increasing we need to respond accordingly. As I alluded to in the Statement—perhaps it is important to repeat it—one of the steps the Government are taking in the Home Office is investing a further £130 million in the technology around our borders to ensure that we meet the enhanced and ever-evolving threat that faces the United Kingdom.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister explain why at some airports passports of people leaving this country are examined and recorded, whereas at others no check whatever is made? Is this because of a shortage of resources?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As my noble friend will know, it was this Government who reintroduced exit checks last year. He is right to point out that we introduced these checks in particular in larger ports. If there are specific airports he is concerned about I will be happy to discuss them with him afterwards and write to him accordingly.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, our coastline outside the major ports is highly vulnerable. Will the Minister confirm that, since we have sent coast guard cutters to the Mediterranean, and because of defects, we have only two coast guard cutters to look after our coastline from the Tyne round to Cornwall and that we have now cancelled the airborne surveillance programme, which indicated targets of interest, such as illegals coming into the country, to those cutters? If that is the case, we are in a very parlous state.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot go into the details of the operations of the Border Force and the cutters being deployed, but I assure him that there is sufficient capability and funding in place. Border Force maintains a presence in UK waters. We work in close partnership in ensuring secure borders with the Royal Navy and the National Crime Agency, among others.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, given that the recent pamphlet of government propaganda, which cost £9.2 million and went to every household in the land, claimed that we have kept control of our borders, will the noble Lord tell us whether we can prevent EU nationals entering the United Kingdom? How many have done so in the last five years, and how many do the Government anticipate will do so in the next five years?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear when he announced the EU referendum that there would be a clear government position. There is, which is the belief that I know is shared by many across your Lordships’ House that the United Kingdom’s place is within the European Union. On the question of entry by EU nationals, while there are border controls in place in the United Kingdom, part of our agreement with the European Union is to ensure that, while EU nationals visit and work in this country, they, like all citizens, including United Kingdom citizens returning from abroad, go through diligent checks at passport control to ensure that we protect our borders from criminals and terrorists who may seek to permeate those borders.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, it is this side I think—the noble Lord is not our side. Will the Minister tell us how many officers there are in the Border Force, how many will it fall to next year, and how that compares with the recommendation by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, in the report commissioned by David Cameron a few years ago that there should be 30,000 officers?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I will not go into specific numbers of officers, but as I have already said and say again to the noble Lord, through the creation of the Border Force we have ensured greater flexibility of all Border Force staff to ensure that, wherever the shortages are—as we found last summer when there were challenges from the situation in Calais—the challenges and needs are met by ensuring that there are sufficient staff in whatever port, be it maritime or airports.
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, the noble Lord has told us what is—or, rather, what is not—being done at sea to protect our borders. What is being done on land to intercept illegal entry via our beaches and unmanned airfields in various places in the country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I remind my noble friend that, as I have already said, the Border Force works very closely with all agencies, including the police and the National Crime Agency. This ensures that we have a robust approach, with joined-up thinking and sharing of intelligence. Of course, we work with our European partners to ensure that, where there are any concerns on access and illegal entry to the United Kingdom, be it by water or air, we meet that challenge robustly. The message must be clear that our borders are robust: we will prevent those who seek to enter illegally, including those who seek to spread terror in this country or elsewhere in Europe. Together, through sharing of intelligence, we are facing that challenge head-on.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has twice refused to answer a direct question this afternoon. He said that he cannot comment on matters of how the department works. He also said that he cannot tell us how many people are employed. Neither of those things can be state secrets. How many officers are in fact employed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the issue that I said I could not reply to specifically was the issue of our coastal waters, their protection and the operational capacity there. I am sure that the noble Lord, when he reflects on that, will see that it is important that we retain the sanctity of ensuring our operational capability. After all, otherwise, we are opening that up to open transparency for anyone who is seeking to influence and get into the UK. We need to ensure that we meet the challenge of illegal immigration. The noble Lord asked for specific numbers. As I have said, the Statement which I have repeated on behalf of the Home Secretary acknowledged that there is a reduction in the resource budget of 0.4%. That will result in our ensuring that wherever shortages are met there is flexibility in the workforce. I do not think that I was avoiding the question; I just said that I am not going to get specifically into the numbers game.
Housing and Planning Bill
17:31 - Division on Amendment 102ZA - Ayes: 251 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 102ZA agreed.
18:35 - Division on Amendment 102C - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 102C agreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now be further considered on Report, and I hope that noble Lords will indulge me in welcoming my noble friend Lady Hanham back to her place.
Amendment 98
“Overcrowding in shared residential buildings
(1) Local authorities may set limits for the number of residents that may lawfully reside in each rented property in a shared residential building.(2) Local authorities may set limits under subsection (1) for each relevant rented property whenever the contract for renting the property changes at any point after the day on which this section is brought into effect.(3) If a complaint is made to a local authority about overcrowding in a rented property for which a limit has been set under subsection (1), the local authority may investigate whether the limit is being exceeded and, if so, order the landlord of the property to take action to end the overcrowding.(4) Where the local authority orders a landlord to take action under subsection (3), the local authority may charge the landlord a fee to cover the reasonable costs of the investigation and action undertaken by the local authority.”
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, while the House is reorganising itself, I, too, would like to welcome my noble friend Lady Hanham back. She has done much in this field over the years and we have appreciated it. I also remind the House that my interest is declared in the register.
My amendments are fairly straightforward and should not require too much elaboration. They attempt to restore some of the properties, conveniences and protections that were exercised by local authorities before the Deregulation Act. That Act deregulated at a time when New York and Paris were regulating. We lost all control of who was living anywhere, as a council or an authority power. I think that it is very important, particularly at this time, in two respects. The first is where rogue landlords are filling substandard properties, with people crammed in—I am told that three-tier bunks are being used and £70 per night is being charged. I would not swear that it is £70 per night; that is hearsay or press report and I have no idea of what is really being charged. But whatever it is, it is too much for a property where there are no facilities and no possibility of people living a normal life.
That is one group of people. The other group is people concerned with holiday lets. I have explained in the past that I know of these personally, in a block where I have a flat. Ten people are flown in under the Airbnb banner for a one-bedroom flat, and those 10 people take over so many of the facilities, including hot water and the general convenience of getting in and out. Security doors are left open. Councils and landlords have no control over them whatever, unless they can prove that these people exist. Unless, therefore, the council has some idea of who is in occupation or has the right to investigate if there is a question raised by other people, there really is no way of dealing with it. Amendments 98 and 99 are designed to deal with these problems. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I support Amendments 98 and 99 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We are all familiar with some of the hair-raising examples of how many people have been found in some raided properties. Recently, in Newham, seven people were found in a windowless basement. Overall, there were 26 people in that three-bedroom house. In another recent raid, 47 people were found in a property intended for nine. This level of overcrowding goes beyond any notion of civilised accommodation. Issues such as affordability, illegal lettings, economic migrants and particularly the acute property issue in London all impact on these kinds of properties. That is why we on these Benches support the amendments.
When I worked for Shelter in 1985, we campaigned hard for the Housing Act, which covered some of this area. But clearly we now need to update the legislation, in particular because, even if the percentage of overcrowded accommodation has stayed reasonably static, the net amount is increasing because the private rented sector is increasing, and as the private rented sector grows, this becomes more of a problem. For those reasons we support the noble Baroness’s amendments.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the return of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, my old sparring partner in local government. Perhaps I should rephrase that and say “my long-standing sparring partner”. It is so good to see her back looking so well. We very much look forward to hearing her contribute, preferably being somewhat more critical of the Government she supports than she was constrained to be in previous years. It is so good to see her back.
In that vein, the Opposition are very sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We hope that the Government will look sympathetically upon them. I cannot see any great difficulty in them so doing. It would be reassuring to hear from the Minister that the Government are as inclined to pursue this issue as they kindly indicated they would do in regard to property guardians—an issue that I raised. The Government have undertaken to look into that problem. I hope that they will go a bit further and either accept the amendment as drafted or come back at Third Reading with different wording that achieves the same objective—because I think that the objective is widely shared across the House.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House that often we are talking about families. Some time ago, I accompanied a health visitor to a property in Waltham Forest. Five families were sharing a kitchen and bathroom facilities. Perhaps the property was not so overcrowded but it was very insalubrious as they were all sharing those facilities. The front door was wide open when we walked in. We visited a mother whose child was three or four weeks old. The mother was very isolated and desperate. So I remind your Lordships that we are also talking about families when we talk about these people.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I again thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for her amendments, which seek to address overcrowding and unlawful subletting in flats in residential blocks. She set out the case and the problems caused by overcrowding, as, indeed, did other noble Lords who contributed to the debate. Overcrowding is far more than just unpleasant; it is dangerous, and, as we have heard, has impacts on those living in unsatisfactory conditions and the neighbours around them. I hope, therefore, that I can reassure noble Lords that this is a matter we take seriously and that both local authorities and managers of residential blocks already have strong powers to tackle overcrowding and associated problems.
Part X of the Housing Act 1985 deals with statutory overcrowding, which it defines by reference to a room standard and a space standard. If either of these is contravened, an occupier or landlord may be guilty of an offence. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned the recent raid in Newham. Last month, a landlord pleaded guilty in Norwich magistrates’ court to four charges relating to overcrowding. The charges, which included failing to license a house in multiple occupation and failing to provide adequate fire precautions to protect the occupiers of the HMO from injury, resulted in fines totalling £5,250, plus costs of £4,951 and a £120 victim surcharge. An investigation by Norwich City Council’s private sector housing team found 12 men crowded into the three-bedroom property, with several people sleeping in a partially adapted loft space with no window. Action is obviously being taken; these examples show that local authorities have powers to act and are using them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. I feel that she has not covered a couple of points. One was that local authorities say that it is impossible for them now to know how long anyone is in the short lettings—the Airbnb-type lettings—which are available for only so many days in a year. As local authorities have pointed out, how can you possibly know how many days in the year they are being occupied in that way if you have no idea who is in them? In the past, they had the right to go and check that.
There is another point that the Minister has not really covered regarding some local authorities. I would point out the difference between Westminster and, for example, Kensington and Chelsea. Westminster used to use six full-time agents to go and check which people were in a place and for how long—it cannot do that any longer. Kensington and Chelsea says that it cannot afford to do that. The point covered in my amendment was that the local authority would be able to charge a fee to the landlord for the purpose of going. I would like to be reassured by the Minister that the Government will look at the regulations as to how that cost can be covered in such a way that local authorities will not be heavily out of pocket if they attempt to do many of the things which, as she acknowledged, are desirable. If I could have an answer on those points, I would be grateful.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
If the landlord is a rogue landlord and the local authority is investigating, it can recover the costs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
That does not really answer the point because I was not talking about a rogue landlord; I was talking about people doing holiday lets and who were therefore time limited on how long those could be. There is no way at present of checking how that time applies. I am sorry to be complicating life for the Front Bench.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, the key issue is that where there is overcrowding, particularly within a flat, it could be considered within that case that there was a rogue landlord and, in those cases, local authorities can recover the costs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
We are going nowhere on this because I am getting answers to the other half of the question and not the half I am asking about. But there is probably genuine good will on the part of the Government and I therefore ask the Minister to say that they will look at the regulations on this and see what can or should be done in the future.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Tenants’ associations: power to request information about tenants
After section 29 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 insert—“29A Tenants’ associations: power to request information about tenants(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose duties on a landlord to provide the secretary of a relevant tenants’ association with information about relevant qualifying tenants.(2) The regulations may—(a) make provision about the tenants about whom information must be provided and what information must be provided;(b) require a landlord to seek the consent of a tenant to the provision of information about that tenant;(c) require a landlord to identify how many tenants have not consented.(3) The regulations may—(a) authorise a landlord to charge costs specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations;(b) impose time limits on a landlord for the taking of any steps under the regulations;(c) make provision about the form or content of any notices under the regulations (including provision permitting or requiring a person to design the form of a notice);(d) make other provision as to the procedure in connection with anything authorised or required by the regulations.(4) The regulations may confer power on a court or tribunal to make an order remedying a failure by a landlord to comply with the regulations.(5) The regulations may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.(6) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(8) In this section—“relevant tenants’ association”, in relation to a landlord, means an association of tenants of the landlord at least one of whom is a qualifying tenant of a dwelling in England;“relevant qualifying tenant” means—a person who is a qualifying tenant of a dwelling in England and a member of the relevant tenants’ association, ora person who is a qualifying tenant of a dwelling in England by virtue of being required to contribute to the same costs as a qualifying tenant who is a member of the relevant tenants’ association; “qualifying tenant” means a tenant who, under the terms of the lease, is required to contribute to the same costs as another tenant by the payment of a service charge.””
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 99ZA reflects an amendment that I moved in Committee. It received general approbation but I was advised by my noble friend the Minister to withdraw it so that it might have cosmetic surgery to make it slightly more attractive. I have now retabled it. In a nutshell, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which I think I put on the statute book, allows a tenants’ association made up of “qualifying tenants” to seek statutory recognition. Such recognition provides the tenants’ association with additional rights over and above those enjoyed by individual leaseholders, including the right to be consulted about the appointment of managing agents and to be notified of works proposed by the landlord and to receive copies of estimates.
It has become apparent that tenants’ associations are finding it increasingly difficult to attain the number of members they need before they can apply for statutory recognition. This is because of difficulties in contacting absent leaseholders: that is, leaseholders who are not resident in a block—for example, buy-to-let investors. The amendment addresses that problem by requiring a landlord to supply to the secretary of a tenants’ association information which would allow contact to be made with absent leaseholders for the purpose of increasing the association’s membership and thereby its chances of obtaining recognition. That needs to be subject to the leaseholders’ consent to comply with data protection.
Amendment 99A seeks to address an irregularity concerning consideration of the recovery of a landlord’s costs from leaseholders as administrative charges. As noble Lords heard in Committee, at present, where a lease allows a landlord to recover the costs of legal proceedings through the service charge, a court or tribunal can decide to restrict the amount that can be recovered in that way. Courts or tribunals do not have similar powers where recovery of the costs of proceedings as an administrative charge is permitted by the lease. This can lead to unfairness, as the leaseholder will have no choice but to pay the cost of proceedings as an administration charge, regardless of the proceedings. Arguably, this discourages leaseholders from exercising their right to challenge the amount of a service charge, particularly as landlords’ costs in those proceedings could well exceed the amount in dispute.
The amendment would enable the tribunal or court to consider, on application, whether it is reasonable for a landlord to recover all or part of the costs. That is not to say that a landlord should not be able to recover the costs, but, rather, that the tribunal or court should be able to consider whether it is reasonable for them to do so. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that such an irregularity should be corrected. Amendment 138B simply brings these two amendments into force. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we on the Opposition Benches entirely endorse the proposals made by the noble Lord, congratulate him on securing agreement from the Government and look forward to this debate ending very quickly.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I can honour that approach. However, before I begin, I will take this opportunity personally to welcome back to her place my noble friend Lady Hanham. She is a much-valued colleague and has been much missed.
I thank my noble friend Lord Young for tabling these amendments, which have clearly generated support across the House in this very short debate. I appreciate that we discussed them in Committee, but it is helpful to be able to consider them once again today. They follow helpful interventions in both Houses, and I take this opportunity to thank both my noble friend and Sir Peter Bottomley in the other place for raising awareness of such issues.
As my noble friend eloquently set out, giving leaseholders the right to obtain contact information for other leaseholders in a shared block from their landlord, subject to their consent, will help those leaseholders fulfil their statutory right to have their tenants’ association recognised. Addressing the irregularity concerning the inability of courts and tribunals to restrict recovery of a landlord’s legal costs from leaseholders as administrative charges where they consider it appropriate will help to address a perceived unfairness in the current system, which I think we can all agree is the right thing to do. In conclusion, I am very happy to accept my noble friend’s amendments and I hope that they will be accepted by the House.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Limitation of administration charges: costs of proceedings
In Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (administration charges), after paragraph 5 insert—“Limitation of administration charges: costs of proceedings5A_(1) A tenant of a dwelling in England may apply to the relevant court or tribunal for an order reducing or extinguishing the tenant’s liability to pay a particular administration charge in respect of litigation costs._(2) The relevant court or tribunal may make whatever order on the application it considers to be just and equitable._(3) In this paragraph—(a) “litigation costs” means costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings of a kind mentioned in the table, and(b) “the relevant court or tribunal” means the court or tribunal mentioned in the table in relation to those proceedings.
Proceedings to which costs relate | “The relevant court or tribunal” |
|---|---|
Court proceedings | The court before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, the county court |
First-tier Tribunal proceedings | The First-tier Tribunal |
Upper Tribunal proceedings | The Upper Tribunal |
Arbitration proceedings | The arbitral tribunal or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, the county court.” |
“Power to require property agents to join client money protection schemes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a property agent to be a member of—(a) a client money protection scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of the regulations, or(b) a government administered client money protection scheme that is designated by the Secretary of State for the purpose of the regulations.(2) The regulations may impose requirements about the nature of the membership that a property agent must obtain (for example, by requiring a property agent to obtain membership that results in a particular level of compensation being available).(3) The regulations shall—(a) require a property agent to obtain a certificate confirming the property agent’s membership of the scheme;(b) require the property agent to display or publish the certificate in accordance with the regulations;(c) require the property agent to produce a copy of the certificate, on request, in accordance with the regulations.(4) In this section—“client money protection scheme” means a scheme which enables a person on whose behalf a property agent holds money to be compensated if all or part of that money is not repaid in circumstances in which the scheme applies;“government administered client money protection scheme” means a client money protection scheme that is administered by or on behalf of the Secretary of State;“property agent” means—a person who engages in English letting agency work within the meaning of section 52, ora person who engages in English property management work within the meaning of section 53,other than a person who engages in that work in the course of the person’s employment under a contract of employment.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this manuscript amendment is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. The noble Lords, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy had, together with me, tabled Amendment 100 about client money protection to require every letting agent to have money they hold belonging either to the tenant by way of advance rent or to a landlord as rent received to be protected, so that even if the letting agent disappeared or went bankrupt, such money would be safe and available to the landlord.
Such money is not the agent’s money and, as with clients’ money handled by solicitors and others, should be held separately in a protected client account. We sought to introduce this requirement into the Consumer Rights Bill, at which point the Government heard—and, I think, had some sympathy with—the case, but the requirement was only for every letting agent to display whether or not they had such client money protection. Our view is that this hardly works for landlords, who usually take the biggest hit when such money disappears. As my sister, herself a typical landlord with three units, said, it never occurred to her to ask her agent whether he had client money protection. It cannot help tenants who have to pay their rent to whichever agent the landlord nominates, even if it is clear that their money is not protected.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bichard) (CB)
My Lords, given the length of today’s manuscript amendments, I propose that the House dispense with the usual requirement to read it out in its entirety, unless any noble Lord objects.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Deputy Speaker for not reading out the amendment; I have read it so many times that I really feel that I know it by heart. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for working with me on this, as it has been very helpful. I particularly thank the Ministers here and in the Commons for constructive dialogue, and accepting the problems that we were trying to highlight, which have been brought to our attention by the lettings industry—tenants, landlords and, indeed, letting agents. The noble Baroness thanked a lot of people. I add just one other person to that: the parliamentary draftsman who ended up with the amendments in front of us. When I saw the amendment, I thought that it was what it should have said when we did it in the beginning. It says it very well. I think that the noble Baroness and I would have liked it to be slightly firmer in saying that it will happen, but we took the Ministers’ intention—which I hope this Minister will repeat in the debate—that this is something that they want to do and intend to happen.
I shall not make a long speech about this, because we have had much debate in earlier sittings, but I shall raise one or two points again. Some 80% of the lettings agency sector—these are the figures used by the Minister—have client money protection. The new amendment and the original amendment are for the 20% who put tenants and landlords at risk. If a letting agent goes bust or goes walkabout in a liquidation, tenants’ money held and the rights of landlords and tenants are at the bottom of the creditors’ queue in a liquidation or bankruptcy. Client money protection will be mandatory in Wales from November. I am sure many noble Lords will say that Wales leads, and under its new Rent Smart initiative, it certainly does. All letting agents will be required to apply for a licence and part of the application process is showing that they have professional indemnity insurance and client money protection insurance and are a member of a redress scheme. If the Welsh can do it, I am glad to see that the English are following.
Perhaps the best way of illustrating the need for this amendment is by telling horror stories, of which there are many. This month, it was reported that a company called Whitefield Properties took rental money due to landlords and tenants’ deposits over a four-year period. The money was paid into the firm’s bank account and was, perhaps carelessly, not protected. It was reported that £123,000 of customers’ money went missing. The Staffordshire firm, with branches in Milton, Leek and Crewe, went into administration in 2014. If we were still arguing for this amendment, I would give many more examples to try to make my case.
A lot of the 20% not-covered agents target vulnerable groups. As they are vulnerable, they do not satisfy credit checks, so they cannot give the guarantees that banks would often offer. Agents, generally in the 20% section, often ask for something like a full year’s rent in advance because the person is not trusted. The person probably borrows the money to get that year’s rent in advance. History shows that a lot of these large sums of rent in advance go into the agent’s bank account, and even if it is in an account that may internally be called a client account, if it is not recognised as such by the bank, those moneys can, and often are, used by the agent for one or purpose or another, very often because the agent is overtrading, spending more money than it should and using that money.
A law making client money protection insurance mandatory for all letting agents is long overdue. I thank the Minister and her colleague in the Commons, and I hope that when she replies she will promise that “may” will be made firmer so that it will be “shall”, as I want. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I conceded that the intent was there, but I hope the intent is reported when the Minister stands.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in her place. I have fond memories of working with her in DCLG. Although my name is on Amendment 100, in the light of recent developments I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Palmer. I particularly wanted to speak to congratulate both of them on the sterling work they have done in this area and to thank the members of the ministerial team for being willing to listen to the arguments that have been put.
I previously made the case for why mandatory client money protection is needed, and all those who have spoken have done that very eloquently. We are now aware that the Minister has received letters from a large number of industry bodies and letting agencies asking for mandatory CMP. It is worth reflecting that some of those supporting documents make the case even more powerfully, with one letting agency saying that all it is asking for is provisions similar to those that already apply to estate agents, another pointing out that tenants and landlords can get a false sense of security because it is widely assumed that such protection already exists across the industry by default and yet another using the phrase:
“The sector is crying out for proper regulation”.
It is worth reflecting that in another place the Minister, Brandon Lewis, rejected calls for mandatory CMP, saying that it,
“would be a step too far and would overburden a market that is perfectly capable of self-regulation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Housing and Planning Bill Committee, 10/12/2015; col. 719.]
In Committee in your Lordships’ House, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, clearly had not been given a new script because he said exactly the same words. However, now that the industry has said with one voice that it wants mandatory CMP and does not think the costs would be too high, I hope that when she responds the Minister will have been given a new script.
Lord Beecham
I join this parliamentary lovefest briefly to join others in congratulating the Minister on accepting the amendments and to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hayter; I do not think a doughtier champion of consumer rights could be found anywhere. This is a very satisfactory conclusion and it enables us to get on to slightly more contentious matters a little further down the Marshalled List.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am not entirely sticking to a script. In saying that, though, I hope I can reflect the views of the Government accurately. I add my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and of course to the parliamentary draftsmen, who have turned this around so quickly. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are experts in this area and have taught me much about it over the past few weeks. We have met them both in recent days and I have listened carefully to the points they have made.
I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment following our discussion. If approved by this House, it will provide an enabling power for the Secretary of State to make regulations by affirmative procedure to require letting agents and property management agents to belong to a client money protection scheme. It will also provide a clear enforcement mechanism, which is important for ensuring that this regulation has teeth.
The Government have already shown our commitment to taking steps on this issue, committing to a review of the transparency legislation, which includes a requirement for letting agents to be transparent about whether they offer client money protection, and to work with the sector to explore the detailed options for regulation. However, it is important that we ensure that the regulation is balanced and does not overburden the sector, and that we get the detail of the legislation right and do not rush into it. So the review will be important in informing the details of the regulation, and I am very happy to give my assurance that the Government will act on its findings at the earliest opportunity.
There has been some discussion about “must”, “shall” and “may”. I have almost lost track of where we got to on the amendment, but I think we were satisfied on the balance of “must”, “may” and “shall”. Still, in no way does that lessen our commitment to the issue at hand.
I inform the House that the Housing Minister and I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to play a key role in the review of client money protection and transparency, reflecting their knowledge of and commitment to these issues, and I am very grateful that they have agreed. I hope that, with those points in mind, noble Lords will agree to support the amendment. I think that is the first time I have said that in this housing Bill.
“Client money protection schemes: approval or designation
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the approval or designation of client money protection schemes for the purposes of regulations under section (Power to require property agents to join client money protection schemes).(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about—(a) the making of applications for approval;(b) conditions which must be satisfied before approval may be given or a scheme may be designated;(c) conditions which must be complied with by administrators of approved or designated client money protection schemes (including conditions requiring the issue of certificates for the purposes of regulations under section (Power to require property agents to join client money protection schemes)(3) and about the form of those certificates);(d) the withdrawal of approval or revocation of a designation.”
“Enforcement of client money protection scheme regulations
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the enforcement of a duty imposed by regulations under section (Power to require property agents to join client money protection schemes).(2) The regulations may—(a) confer functions on a local authority in England;(b) require a property agent who fails to comply with a duty imposed by regulations under (Power to require property agents to join client money protection schemes) to pay a financial penalty (or more than one penalty in the event of a continuing failure).(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(a) includes provision requiring a local authority in England, when carrying out functions under the regulations, to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State.(4) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(b) includes provision—(a) about the procedure to be followed in imposing penalties;(b) about the amount of penalties;(c) conferring rights of appeal against penalties;(d) for the enforcement of penalties;(e) authorising a local authority in England to use sums paid by way of penalties for the purposes of any of its functions.(5) In this section “local authority in England” means—(a) a district council,(b) a county council for an area for which there is no district council,(c) a London borough council,(d) the Common Council of the City of London, or(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.”
“Changes to leases: qualifying threshold for right to manage
(1) Where leaseholders in a shared building have the right to manage and a beneficial change or modification is proposed to the terms of the leases in relation to communal services or general safeguards held in that shared building, the change shall be agreed and made if a simple majority of the eligible leaseholders vote in favour of the proposal.(2) In respect of a vote under subsection (1), a leaseholder shall —(a) have the right to appoint a proxy to vote on his or her behalf; and(b) be given adequate notice of when the vote will take place.(3) A change to the terms of the leases under subsection (1) may include leasehold enfranchisement.(4) If a leaseholder or his or her proxy fails to participate in the vote held under subsection (1) and reasonable arrangements have been made to enable him or her to do so, he or she shall be deemed to have voted in favour of the proposal.”
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, this is an issue about which I feel quite strongly. I cannot understand why in order to get the right to manage, which is set out in statute, you require 50% of the leaseholders to agree, but having got the right to manage, you cannot do anything very significant to deal with any problems in a building unless you have 100%. I have tabled Questions about this and at least four different Ministers have conceded that 100% is totally impossible to obtain. I welcomed my noble friend Lady Hanham earlier; she was one of the Ministers who said that to me. It is good to see her here and means that I do not have to prove my point about the statements, although the Library came up with these quotes for me, and I can certainly prove the point.
I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. When I raised the issue about people who fail to respond in any way and said that they should be deemed to have supported a proposal, he said—I am not using his words; I cannot quote Hansard exactly—that that might not be a bad way of dealing with what is certainly a growing problem, particularly in central London. In a number of blocks, perhaps not a majority but certainly a significant minority of the flats are in foreign ownership or owned by people who simply do not want to know whether the building is falling down around them. In rare cases, a rather ill-intentioned landlord may be hoping to make the place unliveable so that he can get all the tenants out and sell the skeleton building on for a lot of money. I have encountered that.
It is therefore very important that we find a way of dealing with this, and one way would be to reduce the percentage required for it. I suggested a simple majority; I appreciate that that may be too simple but there must be somewhere between the simple majority and the impossible total. The Government must agree to look at that. I will not be satisfied unless they agree to look at it, because this issue is getting worse.
Amendment 102 is grouped with this, but it is on quite a different subject. Would the Front Bench like me to speak to both now? The Whip nods his head. Amendment 102 is on the totally different issue about sinking funds for repairs, and it probably also applies to the type of block I was speaking about before. It has come to my attention through people who bought their council flats in the days of Margaret Thatcher; they have therefore owned them for a long time, and they find that their income has got less as they have got older. I can quote the case of a woman who wrote to me, whose total income is £10,000 a year. She has just had a bill for the roof repair, and her contribution as a leaseholder is £12,500. I followed this case up with the Hastoe Housing Association, which now has the property—it was originally local authority-controlled—and it said, “We’d like to be able to help, but this case is one of 26 cases where people are in exactly the same position”.
Where people buy their leasehold in a block where most people are tenants, whatever the tenants have to pay should be built into their rent and therefore at a level which is possible for them to manage. Instead, people can suddenly find themselves with only the old age pension and they get a whacking great bill for something to be done to the property. I have known other cases where the payment required was much higher than £12,000; sometimes the contribution to the roof or to replacing all the windows is £30,000.
People need to have a sinking fund from the time they buy the leasehold or, if not from that time, at least from the present time so that they will be gradually building up at least a little something towards the costs. I hope that the housing association or the local authority would then be able to exercise a degree of judgment and try to retain those people who have already lived in those flats for so many years. It is therefore very important that the Government are willing to look at these two quite different issues in Amendments 101 and 102. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, I have spoken only about twice on this Bill but I must declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. She has been a doughty campaigner on leasehold. Over the years several of us in the Chamber, including the noble Baroness who has returned to us today and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, have tried to grapple with the issue of leasehold. The legality of it is incredibly complex and the Labour Government tried to do something about it. I remember spending hours on the last leasehold reform Bill, and some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has talked about today came forward in that Bill. At the time, we said that we were not happy about some aspects of it but we really needed to look at what was happening and review it over time.
I appreciate that a review of leasehold legislation is probably something that the Government do not want to go near. It is incredibly complex but, given that a lot of building has gone on in London and a lot of the new flats are leasehold, this is an area that we need to look at. Because it is so complex, some leasehold landlords can use the legislation to disadvantage leaseholders—sometimes financially and sometimes making them powerless to do anything about what goes on in their building. This is an important area and, as I said, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, because she has been a doughty campaigner on it over the years. I recognise that these amendments relate to matters that the Government probably do not want to look at, but I share her view that they really need to look at least at the issues that she has raised today. They need to be reviewed and revisited.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, how lovely it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, back in her place. It is really great to see her.
I was indeed one of the Ministers who, on a previous occasion, had to deal with the subject matter of Amendment 102. It is a difficult issue and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on her resilience in raising it. It is extremely important, not least as regards those blocks of flats where the owners have either bought their flats outright or have bought them under the right-to-buy scheme and then suddenly, to their total surprise, find themselves landed with enormous bills. It was not unusual for there to be a charge of £30,000—for example, for putting in a lift. It was an extremely difficult issue and the noble Baroness is absolutely right that we wrestled with it and discussed it with all manner of agencies, leasehold organisations and so on. It was very difficult to find an equitable and affordable solution. The fact that it is still hanging around is a tragedy and I hope that the Minister and her team can show us some ingenuity. The proposition in Amendment 102 is very sensible. If people anticipated these sorts of bills, they might well be able to afford them.
With Amendment 101, again, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. This is an absurd situation and the problem is growing. Most people living in leasehold blocks do not know that this is the situation and are therefore completely baffled as to why it is impossible to get anything done. So, if we are to have regard to the reality of the housing situation in London, this is something that has to be addressed. It may not be possible to do so in this Bill but maybe there are other Bills in the pipeline, and maybe it will be possible for the department to come back with something creative on both these issues. I hope so.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments and, in so doing, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and, more particularly, as a landlord from time to time, with members of my family, of both shorthold and long leasehold tenants.
Dealing with the first point in Amendment 101, I say from my experience as a practising chartered surveyor that this is a potent area for problems, and I will give perhaps a couple of examples. The first is that for many of these blocks of flats, both large and small, there are a significant number of absentee long leaseholders, so that the occupants of the building are under assured shorthold tenancies or similar short-term occupations. The occupants, because of the nature of their short-term interest, do not really care too much about what happens to the fabric of the building—that is outside the scope of what is of interest to them. The superior landlord, the long leaseholder, is very often absent and equally disengaged from the process. Therefore, there tends to be, as I have come across before, a small proportion of those who are long leaseholders and residents who find themselves unable to do the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has alluded to.
It gets worse, because of course the right to manage is just that, and it is circumscribed in that way. But what if the process of management means making alterations to a heating system that require you to knock a hole through the outside wall, which is part of the freehold, and which therefore go beyond the strict terms of “management”? As the noble Baroness said, if you have a truculent freeholder, that is a potent source of problems in terms of getting essential works done and making sure that the premises as a whole remain fit for purpose.
I have witnessed over many years the number of measures to try to strengthen the position of long leaseholders in terms of their collective rights of enfranchisement, their individual rights to extend a lease and their right to the collective management of their block. That is all mired in this split between the ownership—ownership of the fabric of the building—and the rights of the leaseholder, meaning the rights of use and perhaps extending to internal, non-structural partitions such as the floorboards, the ceiling boards, the internal plaster finishes of the walls and perhaps the odd window and door. When you are dealing with the management of a property, you have to take a holistic view if you are going to get it right, because all these things are part and parcel of that. As we have tried to dissect “leasehold” from “freehold”, we have run into a whole series of problems of our own making. It would be nice to say that we would come up with a different type of tenure altogether but I know that that has been tried and it seems to have run on to the rocks. At any rate, I encourage the Government to take a close look at Amendment 101 because this issue is causing grinding irritation to the reasonable aspirations to manage a building.
On Amendment 102—the sinking fund for repairs—I fully understand what the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner and Lady Maddock, said. A roof may need to be renewed every 50 or 60 years, or, if it is a flat roof, every 25 years; a heating system may need to be renewed every 25 years; and there are other things that may have longer discounted life expectancies of one sort or another. If you have buildings with differential tenure, it is axiomatic that the freeholder, or the person responsible for the management and collecting of money to carry out certain work, may have a series of different objectives. If they are assured shorthold tenancies where the tenants are not responsible for contributing to a sinking fund of some sort, that is one thing, but there may be other types of occupier on less than long leasehold who would be so responsible. As the noble Baroness pointed out, when the buyer of a long leasehold is in this situation, it is essential to know that robust processes are in place for procuring that management and that it does not turn up, as I have seen so many times, all in one go. This could be toxic in terms of the transaction of properties because, if there is a rolled-up liability for large capital sums on repairs, a savvy purchaser of a long leasehold interest will certainly be well advised, as I have often been asked, to look into what lurks in the future expenditure, if that information can be found. Very often, one cannot easily find that information because it is with some other body such as the freeholder’s managing agent.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution to Report today, I refer noble Lords to my declaration of interests and confirm that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, back to your Lordships’ House. She has been much missed and is very welcome here today.
The issues raised in these two amendments were discussed in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is knowledgeable on these matters and it is always worth listening to and taking note of what she says on a variety of matters, particularly concerning leaseholders.
We on these Benches largely welcome the spirit of what is proposed here, but I am not convinced that it strikes the right balance. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Beecham raised issues in respect of the wording, specifically use of the term “buyer” in proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 102, and asked what majority would be required. Equally, on Amendment 101, concerns were raised about the practicalities by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. How do you deal with a situation where 51%, a simple majority, want to make a change, but 49% strongly oppose it? I understand fully the noble Baroness’s point about 100%, because of course that would be impossible to achieve. However, at this stage, I think that we need to come up with another mechanism or formula to address the concerns raised in the amendment. I hope that the Government will be much more amenable to finding a way forward and not give the response that the noble Baroness had from the previous four Ministers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for her amendments on leasehold, which have led to a short and informative debate. I want to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for her tireless efforts and dedicated service in raising issues on behalf of those in the leasehold sector.
As we have heard, Amendment 101 would modify a lease where leaseholders have exercised the right to manage. As a leaseholder herself, my noble friend will appreciate the benefits and the associated responsibilities of acquiring and exercising the right to manage. However, this amendment, although introduced with the best intentions, would not achieve what its intended purpose appears to be.
As noble Lords will know, the right to manage allows leaseholders of flats to take over, by means of a right-to-manage company, the freeholder’s or landlord’s management responsibilities. Where the right to manage has been exercised, the amendment would allow leases to be modified in relation to communal services or general safeguards if a majority of eligible leaseholders voted in favour of the modifications. A lease can be varied only by mutual agreement of all the parties to the lease, or by reference to a tribunal or court. If one or more leaseholders believe that their lease in a block needs to be varied, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 already allows them to seek a variation from a tribunal, in particular circumstances, or a court.
The amendment tabled states that if a leaseholder or their proxy fails to vote, they will be deemed to have voted in favour of a proposal to vary a lease. I hope my noble friend agrees there may be many reasons why a leaseholder or their proxy could not partake in a vote. The amendment appears to be somewhat undemocratic in extrapolating a leaseholder’s non-vote to be a vote in favour for a proposal that would affect an individual’s property rights. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised this concern when the matter was discussed in Committee. However, I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Gardner has strong views and genuine frustrations on this. I would welcome the opportunity to meet her outside this Chamber to look at the voting procedure in right to manage and to consider, if necessary with the wider leasehold sector, whether any legislative or other changes are needed to address her concerns.
My noble friend mentioned that she did not really know whether majority should be defined as just over 50% or upwards. That leads me to believe that further discussion is needed. She also mentioned the question of 100% agreement. Again, I believe it was mentioned in Committee that the question of not being able to do anything without 100% agreement is not the case, because the right to manage companies need a majority of directors at a meeting of directors and 100% is needed only for the variation to the lease.
I am sure my noble friend will agree that it is important that we seek a greater understanding of the issue raised. I hope she will join us in looking at this in the wider context of the legislative framework on leasehold and the right to manage, and that we do not rush to make a change to the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, hit the nail on the head when she said that this was a challenging and complex issue. Although she did not say this, I believe this is something that should not be rushed and we should look into it in a lot more detail.
Amendment 102 was also debated in Committee and raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner. As I said, I agree with my noble friend on the importance of there being sufficient funds available for the repair and maintenance of leasehold blocks. Sinking funds can indeed play an important role in mitigating large, one-off service charge demands. However, as I set out in Committee, I believe that these concerns are unfounded. This amendment, while well intentioned, would conflict with existing requirements and responsibilities under the terms of the lease and the existing legal contract between the freeholder and leaseholder.
A lease provides for the collection of service charges for the maintenance of the block. In many cases, provision is also made for money to be collected to support a sinking fund. Where it does not—this is important—legislation makes it possible to seek a variation of the lease to provide for a sinking fund. It is sensible, clear and workable for the person responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the building also to be responsible for any sinking fund. Separating this responsibility would create conflict and confusion with the existing lease, as would trying to dovetail separate responsibilities with the existing arrangements. Importantly, legislation enables the freeholder to be held to account on service charges, including any sinking fund. Leaseholders have the right to challenge the reasonableness of service charge amounts being sought, whether for day-to- day use or towards a sinking fund.
My noble friend raised the matter of a sinking fund and those with very small incomes, which is a fair point. Additional payments into sinking funds could be extremely difficult for those on small fixed incomes and it would not be right to force them to have a sinking fund if it was not already implicit in the lease when the funds may not be needed immediately or for many years.
I should like to address a matter that was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He said that you cannot get an agreement from absentee freeholders or leaseholders. But if there is no sinking fund or any lease variation and leaseholders cannot get agreement, they can go to the First-tier Tribunal. I hope that reassures him.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, a particular problem arises which I do not think has been dealt with in the legislation. It is where leaseholders go into arrears and the cost of carrying those leaseholders who are in arrears is borne by the other leaseholders in the block. I wonder whether Ministers might ask civil servants to consider this area because it is an escalating problem, particularly in London where a large number of apartments in blocks of flats are owned by leaseholders who live overseas and often do not fulfil their responsibilities here in the United Kingdom. Even though this problem is not covered in the legislation, maybe officials in the Minister’s department could look at it and come back to us at some future stage.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was extremely helpful in debates on this matter in Committee and he raises an important point. That leads me to say that, as a result of this debate and the debate in Committee, we now want to work closely with my noble friend Lady Gardner and all those interested in the sector to consider the complexities of these detailed issues. We need to balance the rights of all parties and consider how well the existing routes to push necessary repairs or vary leases work through the First-tier Tribunal and look at how all the aspects are working. I would like, with the Minister, to meet my noble friend Lady Gardner to discuss this issue, and I am sure that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate would be most welcome to attend. I hope that, with my assurance to take these issues forward and look at the complexities, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
If the House will indulge me, that offer is welcome, but it is fair to say that no one could accuse either this Government or previous Governments going back many years of any haste in dealing with these matters. I hope that we shall finally see some progress.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, the comments that have been made are very interesting and I am grateful to all those who have given their support. However, we tend to overlook the fact that there are now something like 6 million leaseholders, so we are not talking about a little subject. It is a pretty big one that is important to a great many people. It cannot just be brushed aside as something that it would be nice to do.
I would love to see a completely new consolidation Act for all property issues; I raised this at a meeting where I was asked to give a speech. I said that people should write to their MPs and press for one. A man who said he was a member of the Law Commission made it clear that the commission does nothing for nothing now, so the only way you could get it to prepare a consolidation Act, which it often used to do in the past, is by pre-paying for it. Some Government must decide that it is time to put all property legislation, which keeps a lot of solicitors happily and expensively employed referring to Act after Act with each one changing the previous one, into one Act. It is all piecemeal and there is no cohesion. Those 6 million leaseholders and the multiplicity of legislation are big problems for us.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that this might well be a growing problem, and I think he is right. Foreign ownership and the fact that so many people are having to move out of London because service charges are too high are the reasons for these issues. What the Minister had to say was very good, but he has not really given an indication that he will say anything before Third Reading, which is coming up pretty soon. What I would like to hear from him is that he will look at another approach, either through regulations or in some other way, to deal with this. That, at least, would put his good intentions on the record. As I say, it is important that these issues are not just pushed aside, which has been the case too many times when I have raised them. This basically applies to the situation as set out in Amendment 101.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I hope I have reassured my noble friend that we want to look not just at the content of these two amendments to address these and related issues—the Minister, my noble friend Lady Williams, has been nodding her head. It is also clear from this short debate that we are not in total agreement on how these matters should be tackled. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Kennedy, had some views and I respect the views of my noble friend Lady Gardner, but it tells us that we are not ready to rush into legislation on these important matters. I hope my noble friend will agree that it is right to take these matters outside the Chamber and have a thorough discussion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Is my noble friend saying that it might be possible to deal with these issues through variations in regulations? If so, is he prepared to look at that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I did not say that and I would not want to give any guarantees before Third Reading, but I have guaranteed to meet my noble friend the Minister outside the Chamber to look into these issues.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
It sounds as if there is a bit more interest than there often is on this subject. People have been excellent in clarifying and supporting this. We heard the technical side from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which is very valuable—think of what you would pay for his professional opinion on that; we have had the benefit of it for nothing. The Minister is well intentioned, as was my noble friend in responding. On that basis, this is too big an issue to try to put into the Bill, which is already enormous, but it must not be overlooked. We must come back to it. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
“Neighbourhood right of appeal
(1) After section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) insert—“78ZA Neighbourhood right of appeal(1) Where—(a) a planning authority grants an application for planning permission,(b) the application does not accord with policies in an emerging or made neighbourhood plan in which the land to which the application relates is situated, and(c) the neighbourhood plan under paragraph (b) contains proposals for the provision of housing development, certain persons as specified in subsection (2) may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.(2) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) are any parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F of the 1990 Act (authorisation to act in relation to neighbourhood areas), whose made or emerging neighbourhood plan includes all or part of the area of land to which the application relates, by two-thirds majority voting.(3) In this section an “emerging” neighbourhood plan means a neighbourhood plan that—(a) has been examined,(b) is being examined, or(c) is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage.”(2) Section 79 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows—(a) in subsection (2), omit “either”, and after “planning authority” insert “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;(b) in subsection (6), after “the determination” insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78ZA (as inserted by section (Neighbourhood right of appeal) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016) and where the appellant is as defined in subsection (2) of that section)”.”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in Committee there was widespread support for the measures of both this Government and the coalition Government to devolve powers to local communities, particularly through neighbourhood planning. We know that neighbourhood planning delivers more homes—the Government’s own figures confirm it—so how can it be right for local people to have no redress when a planning application is approved which drives a coach and horses through everything they have worked tirelessly to achieve in their neighbourhood plan?
The Minister confirmed in Committee that 1,800 neighbourhood plans had come into the early stages of development and that about 120 had been brought into force, but the total number that we could be looking at is 9,000. Why, bluntly, should local people go to the effort of producing a neighbourhood plan if such plans can be ignored when councils make decisions on planning applications and the opportunity to challenge is through costly judicial reviews?
The Minister said in Committee that this amendment was not necessary because the Secretary of State can recover planning appeals, but at that stage I highlighted three things. First, that power applies only when the permission has been refused by the local authority and subsequently taken to appeal. Secondly, it applies only to major applications while, particularly in rural areas, it can be the smaller sites of up to nine homes which need very careful planning to ensure that we get those types of development which have the support of local communities. Finally, the recovery available to the Secretary of State provides no protection for communities when the permission has been granted by local authorities contrary to a neighbourhood plan.
This amendment, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, creates a limited right of appeal. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord True, is not in his place today, but we debated this point in Committee. This is a limited right only for parish councils and neighbourhood forums, not for individuals, and it would enable them to appeal against the granting of permission only for new housing that conflicts with their made or well-advanced neighbourhood plan. It is a limited right supported by the House of Lords Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment, on which I was privileged to serve earlier this year, and by the CPRE, Civic Voice and NALC, three organisations that do so much to ensure that more people are involved in planning, helping to ensure that we get consensus around planning and thus help us to deliver the additional homes that we know we need. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I spoke at greater length in Committee. I shall summarise my earlier points. This proposal for a parish council or neighbourhood to be able to appeal against a planning approval that cuts across an emerging neighbourhood plan was raised in the other place by Nick Herbert MP, with support from Sir Oliver Heald MP and Andrew Bingham MP, all Conservative Members, whose views were shared by Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP for the Opposition. Mr Nick Herbert said,
“speculative developers try to get in applications ahead of the completion of neighbourhood plans or even after they have been completed … either they are upheld by the local authority, which is fearful of losing an appeal, or the developer makes an appeal that is upheld by the planning inspector. The development is then allowed to go ahead”.
This totally undermines all the hard work of the volunteers who have spent endless hours gaining support for the neighbourhood plan before, to quote Sir Oliver Heald, it is,
“trashed by an application by a speculative developer ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/16; col. 222.]
This is a deficiency in the otherwise sensible arrangements for neighbourhood forums and plans which were devised and introduced by Greg Clark, now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
I have declared my interest in the excellent neighbourhood plan for the Cerne Valley in Dorset, where I own some land within the area covered by the plan. I followed the progress of the local volunteers who brought together this neighbourhood plan from the summer of 2011 until its approval in a public referendum on the plan in January 2015. The nerve-racking hazard facing all the local people involved was that their hard work was at risk from a developer putting in an application which in no way accorded with the emerging neighbourhood plan. Had this happened, neither the parish council or the neighbourhood forum would have had any way of appealing and the council itself would not have been able to use the neighbourhood plan to determine the planning application until the referendum on it was done and dusted. For all the 1,800 neighbourhood forums currently preparing neighbourhood plans, and all those to come— the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, tells us that 9,000 could come down this route, and I hope there will be many more—this amendment would overcome the problem.
If the Minister wanted to modify this amendment so that the neighbourhood right of appeal applied only once the emerging neighbourhood plan had reached a later point in its progress—as was suggested earlier by some noble Lords—I feel sure that this would be acceptable to the proposers. I hope that the Minister will indicate a move in this direction. I support this amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment. Noble Lords may recall that we had two different amendments in Committee. Although they were different, they had a very similar intent. We now have one amendment supported by the National Association of Local Councils and Civic Voice. I hope that the Minister will understand the importance of this, because if we are to encourage groups, parish councils and neighbourhood forums to create neighbourhood plans, they have to feel that the effort being put in is worth while.
As we have heard, neighbourhood planning is growing in strength. However, missing from the statutory powers of those bodies with neighbourhood plans is that right of appeal for a neighbourhood planning body against the granting of a planning permission by a local authority which conflicts with that neighbourhood plan, whether it is in place or well on the way to being approved. Of course, as Amendment 102ZA makes clear, the right of appeal would apply only in relation to housing.
We have heard that this amendment has broad cross-party support. I hope that the Government will understand the need to support it as the power to overrule a neighbourhood plan would be a serious disincentive to all those bodies—up to 9,000, apparently —that are considering introducing neighbourhood plans, given that only a little over 100 have actually been put in place.
The amendment is limited to the powers of a parish council or a neighbourhood forum. As such, I agree entirely with what previous noble Lords have said—namely, that this is a reasonable proposal. If we want to give a boost to neighbourhood planning, it should be supported by the Government.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. In doing so, I declare two interests, one of which I have already declared—namely, that I am a practising chartered surveyor. As a matter of course in my work, I advise owners of land with potential development sites, some of them on the edges of rural villages. I also declare my now past status as a former president of the National Association of Local Councils, which strongly supports this amendment.
It seems an entirely incontestable proposition that a neighbourhood plan duly made—and therefore a robust representation of locally expressed views in accordance with the local plan—and which is a true reflection of national policy and the government agenda through that local plan process, should be defendable in the event of the circumstances arising set out in this amendment: namely, the very limited circumstances in which the principal authority does not itself wish to pursue this, in which case the neighbourhood can deal with the matter itself. If the contrary view is to prevail, what is the point of having a process of neighbourhood plan and devolving responsibilities if the neighbourhood cannot take advantage of such a facility—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley?
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support this important amendment. It is important because we are talking about the grass-roots of democracy. I believe that the Conservative Party supports the grass-roots of democracy but it must demonstrate that it is prepared to encourage, listen to and respect them. There is no point in saying that they do not matter and that an outside developer has a pre-emption to overrule local opinion. Almost by definition, local opinion is well-informed. It may be controversial but it sorts itself out at the grass-roots and it is most important that we support this amendment, or something very like it. The Government may have different views but it is a very limited and modest amendment.
The role of parish councils in the planning system, supported by neighbourhood plans, is extremely important. First, that is because they are local and have people who know what it is all about; secondly, they are an important factor in the integrity of a planning system. I should declare that I am chairman of the Marlesford parish council. An important aspect of the planning system is that elected councillors on planning authorities have time to consider only very few planning applications, most of which are passed on the nod. Many years ago, when I was on Suffolk County Council, we had two lists: list A and list B. The meetings were never long enough to consider those on list A, which is the one we were invited to consider, and in practice we had to pass those on list B on the nod. I remember saying to myself, “If I really wanted to get something through, whatever local councillors might think, if I could get it on to list B I would be home and dry”. Parish councils are therefore an important safety check, not just in terms of expressing local views on proposals but in ensuring the integrity of the planning system. The sort of provision proposed by the noble Baroness is therefore an important step and I hope the Government will look sympathetically at doing something along these lines.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak to these amendments and I do not really want to, but I need to refute the claims that councils pass planning applications on the nod. The vast majority of planning applications are quite clearly policy-compliant, which is why almost nine out of 10 are granted. They are not passed on the nod but passed by delegated powers because they are planning-compliant. The ones that are controversial either locally or, more importantly, because they are not policy-compliant will be the ones dealt with in planning committees, which do not need to see all the planning applications. They need to have faith in the professionally trained planning officers to be able to work to policy-compliant applications. I just do not want any of your Lordships to be under any misapprehension that councils pass planning applications on the nod.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, if I might share just one thought with the Minister, does this amendment not chime nicely with the Government’s oft-stated desire to empower local communities at grass-roots level, as we have heard, and to give them a voice in these contentious planning decisions? The Government seem to have talked quite a lot about this in recent months and in building up to the election.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this issue was debated during consideration in Committee. I support the devolution of power to local communities and we should seek to achieve it wherever possible. I have advised the House before that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a member of the planning committee—I am going there tomorrow night. The ward which I represent is Crofton Park, where we are in the process of developing a neighbourhood plan. As noble Lords have said, that is not an easy process. It takes quite a long time and we are hopeful of getting to a point where we can put it to the vote in a ballot of local residents. But it is a complicated matter and a lot of work needs to be done. It is right that communities have a direct say in developments in their area, and the amendment provides a mechanism for a limited right of appeal in certain circumstances. The right of appeal would apply only to parish councils and neighbourhood forums whose plans progress to formal submission to the local authority.
We need to strike the right balance here, and that is often difficult to achieve. It could be suggested that objections could be raised just to stop developments, which is a fair point, but the amendment allows for appeals only in a fairly limited range of circumstances, at the risk of costs being awarded by a planning inspector if anyone made a vexatious appeal. The amendment is an attempt to strike the right balance. I am happy to support it, but I also accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, Amendment 102ZA has enabled us to revisit our discussion on a proposed community right to appeal where there is an emerging or made neighbourhood plan, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today. Although I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, I cannot accept it and will explain why.
We have a long-established and much-valued right of appeal. It recognises that the planning system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. This existing right of appeal serves an important purpose—to compensate for the removal of the individual’s right to develop—and there is no need to change this fundamental principle. That is because communities are integral to and involved in the whole planning process. They are consulted on the preparation of the local plan for their area from the earliest stages, through to making representations to be considered at the independent examination. The right of every community to produce a neighbourhood plan takes this further, allowing communities to set their own planning policies for the area. Those are the basis for decisions on planning applications and guide how the neighbourhood develops.
Importantly, communities can make representations on individual planning applications and appeals, and the Bill and new regulations will provide neighbourhood forums with the right to request notification of applications in their area, alongside being statutory consultees on their area’s local plan. The views of the community are considered at every stage in the decision-making process. Given all the opportunities that already exist, the Government do not believe that a community right of appeal is necessary.
It cannot be right for development that secures planning permission to be delayed and uncertainty created at the last minute by a community right of appeal. The amendment would serve only to discourage people from getting involved in the planning process earlier, or lead to repeated consideration of issues raised and addressed during the planning application process.
To reinforce what I said in Committee, decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A made neighbourhood plan is part of the development plan and therefore already a powerful tool that must be the starting point for the authority’s decisions on applications. National policy is very clear: proposals that conflict with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force should not normally be approved.
We have also made it clear that an emerging neighbourhood plan can be a material consideration in planning decisions, including where there is a lack of five-year housing land supply in the local authority area. Decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage that the emerging plan has reached, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and the degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework. The extent of local support should also be taken into account. I also remind the House that in January, we announced that for a further six months, the Secretary of State’s criteria to recover and decide planning appeals would continue to include housing proposals in those areas where there is a made or submitted neighbourhood plan.
We have a planning system that balances competing demands for growth and protection. We have asked local planning authorities to balance these competing considerations to deliver sustainable development. We must now allow them get on with the job. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the Minister for that reply and for the support we have had from right round the House, which was very telling. The response from the Front Bench opposite was disappointing, although not surprising. What the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said about striking the right balance was right; in planning, that is what it is all about. We need to ensure that local people are fully engaged in planning opportunities so that we build consensus and actually get the development we need. That is why we all support neighbourhood planning, but why there is a real need now for this limited right of appeal just for parish councils and neighbourhood forums.
“(3A) If a local planning authority have not prepared a local development scheme, the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London may—(a) prepare a local development scheme for the authority, and(b) direct the authority to bring that scheme into effect.”( ) In subsections (4) and (8AA) of that section”
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, throughout this Bill we have discussed the importance of local plans in setting out the vision for a local area and providing certainty to communities and businesses as to where new homes and other development will go. Local planning authorities are required to prepare and maintain a local development scheme. This sets out the development plan documents—the documents that make up a local plan—that an authority intends to produce and the timetable for producing them. Existing powers enable the Secretary of State, or the Mayor of London where the local planning authority is a London borough, to direct a local planning authority to make amendments to their local development scheme. Clause 129 amends that power to ensure that the Secretary of State can direct amendments that relate to both the subject matter and geographical coverage of the documents specified in the scheme.
I propose minor amendments to Clause 129 to enable the Secretary of State to prepare a local development scheme for a local planning authority and to direct an authority to bring that scheme into effect. The amendments ensure that where an authority has failed to set out publicly its intention to produce a local plan and indeed a timetable for doing so, we can take action and provide certainty for all communities that a plan for their area will be prepared and that they will have an opportunity to get involved in the plan-making process. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister some questions about the application of this innocuous amendment, as he has described it. It is not that innocuous because it is a power to take over the local plan process and to state that a local authority must adopt the plan that has been prepared for it.
To give the House a little background, in 2010 the information I was given as a Minister was that around 26% of local authorities had a local plan and 74% did not. That was a large proportion, bearing in mind that all authorities—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am trying to follow this amendment and the debate on it. I understood a local development scheme to be a description on the part of the local authority of how it is going to go about the process of creating its local development plan, not the local development plan itself. To that extent, the amendment, while not technical, in effect takes over, where a local authority has failed to say that it will undertake the process of local development plan preparation, to put a scheme in place for that to happen, but as a consequence of that it does not take over the plan-making process itself.
Lord Stunell
My Lords, it will be interesting to see whether the Minister takes that as being the basis of this proposal. It does not appear to be when one looks at the explanation of the Bill, nor at that of the impact assessment in relation to Clause 129 and its intention, nor does the amendment appear to adopt that methodology. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is correct, then some of my points are perhaps of lesser force. Nevertheless, I think there are still some important points to make clear to the House.
Faced with the reality that 74% of local planning authorities had not adopted plans in 2010, the Government put in place the National Planning Policy Framework with the very clear intention that, in the absence or in the default of a local plan, the NPPF would be the document that could and should be used by planners and developers when approaching applications in their area. There was considerable upset among local planning authorities when they saw this provision, and the final version of the NPPF allowed a period of grace. There was of course a risk to local authorities in not having plans, which was that they would be forced to accept applications that they believed were not in the best interests of their area and which had not been consulted on with local communities.
I am happy to report, and I think this is in the material provided by the Government in the impact assessment, that we are now in the position that rather than 74% of local authorities not having plans, only 18% do not, so there has been a huge upsurge in the number of local plans that have been brought forward and come to fruition. That has undoubtedly been driven by the introduction of the NPPF and local authorities’ fear that if they dragged their feet further, they would lose control of the process.
It is worth remembering that within the 18% that have not yet produced plans, there will be many areas where one or other of the 1,800 neighbourhood plans, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to in the previous debate, will be brought forward, so there will be neighbourhood plans being prepared and maybe even approved in some of the areas where at present there is no approved plan.
Regarding Clause 129, the impact assessment says that one of the problems with the existing powers, which this provision replaces, is that although the Secretary of State already has a power to take over the process, if he does so, he has to take it over lock, stock and barrel, without exception, from A to Z. The impact assessment implies that the existing power is too big a stick and too disproportionate, so it has not been used. It argues—although these are not the words used—that rather than a great big stick, a smaller stick is needed, as that would be more useful to the Secretary of State in getting the required result. In fact, the proposed power is very wide ranging and far from being a smaller stick.
I draw to noble Lords’ attention the fact that the process set out here is an anti-localism process which will lead to local authorities losing control of the planning process which is at the heart of the localism agenda. It is also unnecessary because of the progress that has been made since the introduction of the NPPF and the threat that is hanging over local authorities that developers’ applications will be judged on the NPPF criteria if there is not a local plan. Local authorities have a very strong incentive to act at the moment. It clearly is working as a number of authorities have reacted and the shortfall has reduced from 74% to 18%. In any case, there is also the existing power which the impact assessment sets out, as well as a reserve power, so that a local planning authority that fails to fulfil its statutory requirement to start the local plan process can be challenged in court. This is therefore a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Will the Minister also address the issue of what will trigger this power? As it appears in the Marshalled List, the amendment is in the present tense:
“If a local planning authority have not prepared a local development scheme, the Secretary of State … may”.
What is the trigger? When is the “now” of the provision? Will it be when the Bill receives Royal Assent or at some other date? There is some uncertainty about the starting point for the provision.
The provision might be ineffective in any event. How long will it take the Secretary of State to draw up local plans? Where is the capacity to do it? What is the timescale? How will local consultation work? One wonders about the operation of a public inquiry process where the local planning authority is the lead objector to the plan because it opposes what the plan projects. I cannot see how that would achieve certainty or the development of more homes more quickly than would the current process and mechanisms.
There is more to be done to get more housing. Later, there will be a debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, which would make sure that land held by government departments within local authority areas is held more transparently and brought back into use more quickly. That is direct action that the Minister could take without interfering with the existing planning process. The amendment proposed does not seem proportionate, wise or deliverable, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the serious objections to it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, can the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, say a little more about these amendments? As has been said, on the face of it they could be interpreted as giving considerable power to the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London. Can the Minister also confirm that in the case of London they will be exercised only by the Mayor of London and will not be exercised by the Secretary of State as well? Can he also explain further, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, outlined, what he sees are the circumstances when the use of such powers would need to be considered, and can he tell us, for the benefit of the House, how they complement localism? It seems that localism is spoken of less and less from the Government Benches as we discuss these Bills and these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, outlined very carefully a number of very detailed questions and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those as well.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interventions in this very short debate. I hope that I will be able to address the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in particular, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
First, as regards statistics—my noble friend Lord Lansley raised this issue—the majority of authorities already have a plan in place or are working on their plan. Some 70% of local authorities—the figure I have—have adopted a local plan and 84% have published a plan. The point is that where an authority is not making sufficient progress on its plan, we have been clear that we will step in—but in consultation with local people. The whole aim is to accelerate getting a plan in place. Parliament has already given the Secretary of State the power to intervene in local plan-making, so to this extent we are not doing anything new.
The Bill allows targeted intervention in plans and keeps decision-making local wherever possible while still ensuring that plans are in place. This amendment ensures that where an authority has failed to set out publicly its intention and timetable for producing a local plan, we can take action to make this information available to communities. I should also try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that we are talking about quite a long time that local authorities have had to put a plan in place. They have had more than a decade to get their plans in place, so I regard this as being very much a last-resort issue. It is meant to be light-touch rather than bringing in a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and I hope that may help.
To go a little further, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, raised the issue of the timing as to where and when the Secretary of State might intervene. We have consulted—
Lord Lansley
For the purposes of clarification, can my noble friend be very clear about this? The amendment we are debating is about a power for the Secretary of State or the mayor, where appropriate, to take over and direct that their local authority should have a local development scheme. It is not taking over the plan-making process itself, and that is a very important distinction. I am afraid that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, was predicated on it being the taking over of the plan-making process.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is absolutely correct. If it had not be clarified before, it must be clarified. It is simply a means of taking over the plan-making process, not taking over the whole plan for good—that is a very important point.
We set out our proposals for prioritised intervention, where the least progress in plan-making has been made. Where policies and plans have not been kept up to date and there is higher housing pressure, for example, intervention will have the greatest impact in accelerating local plan production. To finish on that note, the fact is that where nothing is being done, it is right that as a last resort there should be government intervention. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Can the noble Lord give us more information about where these areas are? Clearly he must have a list of what is going on, as the Government have clearly done some work on this.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can certainly write to the noble Lord with that specific detail, but, clearly, we are very wise to the fact that some local authorities have not produced a plan, and therefore we want to be sure to encourage them to do so. We are bringing in the encouragement and the nudge factor here, not the sledgehammer.
“( ) In subsections (4A)(a), (5), (6), (6A) and (6B)(a) of that section, after “under subsection” insert “(3A) or”.”
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the declared aim of the Government’s promotion of the concept of permission in principle was to facilitate the building of homes, especially on brownfield sites. This objective is all the more compelling in the light of today’s news that the number of housing starts in the first quarter of this year was the lowest in three years—while of course we still have several hundred thousand sites with planning permission that has not been activated.
For ideological reasons, the Government rely almost entirely on the private sector and building for sale, whereas I recall that 50 years ago Newcastle City Council alone was building 3,000 new council homes in a year. Perhaps the Government should reconsider their hostility to the provision of social housing and do something to redress the balance.
However, leaving history aside, it was reassuring to hear the Minister affirm in Committee on 22 March:
“We are currently consulting on an approach that would enable permission in principle to be granted for housing-led development to allow for the possibility of mixed uses that are compatible with a residential environment. This means that as long as a site allocation is housing-led, local authorities will be able to grant permission in principle in line with local and national policy for other uses”.
In reply to my question at the time as to whether there would be a definition in guidance about what “housing led” actually means in terms of the proportion of sites, she confirmed that there would, and she gave the example that it might include retail, community and office space, saying:
“This approach is absolutely crucial to continuing to promote sustainable development and the delivery of balanced, mixed communities, spaces and places”.—[Official Report, 22/3/16; col. 2281.]
This reflected the statement in paragraph 402 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the uses “must be housing led”.
The Opposition and, I suspect, most other Members of the House entirely support that approach, which is reiterated in the department’s policy factsheet, which states explicitly:
“The Bill will allow permission in principle to be granted when local authorities or neighbourhood groups choose to allocate housing-led development in future local and neighbourhood plans or identify it on brownfield registers”.
However, a different picture emerged in the Government’s response last week to the 26th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Paragraph 35 of the reply confirms:
“The Committee is right to emphasise that this measure will facilitate the building of vital new housing, by allowing permission in principle to be granted for housing-led development. That is, development that contains an element of housing but which can also include other compatible uses in the interests of encouraging mixed use and sustainable development”.
That sentence alone prompts a degree of suspicion. Housing-led development now appears to be defined as development containing only “an element”—unquantified—of housing.
That some mysterious alchemy continues to be at work is confirmed by the contents of paragraph 36, in which the Minister proclaims that,
“I consider it to be reasonable … for other uses, such as retail or commercial space, where there is no housing element. There is no restriction on the types of development for which full or outline planning permission may be granted”.
Paragraph 37 goes on to say that amendments will, however, be tabled—as they have been—to exclude “fracking or mineral development”. Welcome though that latter position is, we now have a permission-in-principle cocktail in which the ingredient of housing development can be reduced to homeopathic proportions or even be excluded altogether.
I am sure that the Minister did not deliberately mislead the House. We all know how hard she has struggled to explain and defend this dreadful Bill and the way in which it comes to us, laden with promises of future consultations and government responses in the form of reams of secondary legislation, none of which Parliament will have seen before the Bill becomes law. It is not her fault that the timetable results in Delegated Powers Committee’s reports, intensely critical as they are of the process, reaching us a day before matters are debated on Report.
But the position now in respect of permission in principle and the necessary involvement of housing is completely unacceptable. The amendments in this group are designed simply to enshrine in legislation what the Government told us were the Bill’s intentions—namely, to facilitate the provision of desperately needed new homes in, to use their own words, “housing-led development”. All the amendments seek to do is to hold the Government to their originally declared policy, which they appear to have changed, possibly without the Minister even noticing.
I therefore commend the amendments in my name and, in particular, Amendments 102C and 102D, which make it clear that permission in principle is to be for housing-led development—by which it is clear that I do not mean exclusively housing development. In Amendment 102D the permission in principle is for the development of brownfield land for that purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I support this group of amendments for the simple reason that the point made so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, should be in the Bill.
When I saw these further amendments, I returned to the Hansard report of Committee. I refer to col. 2330, where my noble friend Lord Greaves had initiated a debate on whether Clause 136 should stand part of the Bill and raised the question of what permission in principle should be for. He said:
“We are told that permission in principle is just for housing ... There may be other things associated with housing development, such as shops or local offices, but so long as it is housing led that is okay”.
I will quote entirely what the Minister said in reply. She said:
“I confirm to the noble Lord that it would have to be categorised as housing-led development. For permission in principle to be granted, it would have to be categorised by size, location and type of development. I hope that reassures the noble Lord”.—[Official Report, 22/3/16; col. 2330.]
But of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made clear, it is not quite as simple as that. The problem we have is the one we have had throughout the Bill, which is that it is a skeleton Bill. It does not have detail, much of which is to be presented in the form of regulations through either the negative or the affirmative procedure. These three amendments would make the matter absolutely clear. Line 6 on page 67 of the Bill says:
“Permission in principle may be granted for development of land in England as provided in section 59A”.
Reading on, I do not see the word “housing” appear anywhere. The amendments would alter the wording to, “Permission in principle may be granted for housing led development of brownfield land for housing in England as provided in section 59A”. That seems so much clearer. I think that that is the Government’s intention but I do not think that a matter of such fundamental importance should be left off the face of the Bill. I therefore strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, my noble friend has done the House a service in identifying what is at the very least something of a confusion and by quoting various paragraphs from reports and policy statements. There may even be a contradiction in the policy. As my noble friend and the noble Lord have said, the whole justification for the policy was that we faced a housing crisis of such proportions that a new fast-track approach to commandeering brownfield sites needed to be introduced through permission in principle. In my view, that breaks most of the rules for decent planning and healthy communities, but it was justified because of the scale of the housing developments that are so urgently needed.
Our contention has been that this is reflected in later amendments on sustainability, for example, and that yesterday’s mistakes in terms of the awful housing estates that were built without any thought being given to what communities needed to thrive should not be repeated. Therefore, proper attention, full information and provision should be made to ensure that housing developments, as planned, are served properly by infrastructure and green space. That has been much of our concern at previous stages of the Bill. There was no indication that these could be anything other than housing-led, so the possibility that has been raised by paragraph 36 of the Select Committee report, which has been quoted, is extremely significant. What was in the Minister’s mind, or that of the department, when this was put forward? Was it zones of massive DIY retail stores? What is meant by that paragraph?
This goes against the grain of good planning in many respects, as I have said. It is zoning, and it is zoning in its worst form. It is not the zoning that was recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he referred to it. The model he had in mind, I think, was as in parts of Europe, where zonal plans are extremely detailed, they are contested, they are democratic and they are effective. But these plans will not be like that because PIP does not provide for that. These plans do not allow for the high-level speculative, off-plan development that is currently seen in England; for example, through appeals. I believe that permission in principle will work properly only if we consider the full range of planning considerations before the key in-principle decision is made. That seems merely logical, and we have argued that consistently on this side of the House. To introduce confusion such as this at this stage of the debate is very serious. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify her intention.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I did not intend to contribute to this debate but, having seen the amendments and heard how the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, introduced them, I will say a word or two. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register, as I have done on previous occasions when speaking to the Bill: I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum.
We shall go on to discuss permission in principle, of which I am very much in favour. However, Amendment 102D would insert the word “brownfield”, and so restrict permission in principle to brownfield land. That is not what the Government intended and, as the Government have made quite clear in their amendment that says what the qualifying documents are, it clearly extends beyond brownfield land. Nor did I think from previous debates in Committee that it was the intention of the party opposite simply to restrict it to brownfield land. However, as the Members opposite are proposing to amend Clause 136, perhaps they do not support permission in principle at all.
Amendment 102E, which would change the wording to “land for housing”, seems to contradict the idea of housing-led development. If you can grant permission in principle only for housing-led development for “land for housing”, you have created a contradiction in the first subsection of the clause, such that it is only for housing, even though it may be “housing-led”. Amendment 102E seems defective.
I am against Amendment 102C, not because the Government do not want it to be housing-led development, but because if in the primary legislation we put “housing-led development”, we would have to define it there. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made it clear that it could be defined in all sorts of ways: the definition could apply to a very small number of houses in a large mixed-use development or to a large number of houses with very modest additional development. How it is defined matters. If one puts into primary legislation at the top of the clause, “housing-led”, but does not define it anywhere, it will be defined only in the Government’s subsequent guidance. However, because it is in the primary legislation, the interpretation in that guidance would be subject to judicial review as to whether it satisfies the argument that it is housing-led. That is a recipe for delay: each application would be subject to judicial review as to whether it satisfies the primary legislation.
The point is that the Government, quite rightly, since it will be a matter of detail, make clear in new Section 59A(8) to be inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act that guidance will be issued. Clearly, given the nature of the fine distinctions that need to be made about what housing-led development looks like, it will be for the Government in that guidance to set that out. These amendments should therefore be resisted.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord has just pointed out some very germane issues that go to the heart of the concerns that led to this amendment. It seems to me that there is a lack of clarity about why we are trying to introduce a permission in principle proposition. Therefore, I very much support the concerns that my noble friend has raised in moving this amendment.
It would be slightly amusing, if it were not so serious, to watch the stately dance we have all gone through in getting to the point that we have. I have become an aficionado of the Delegated Powers Committee’s reports, which I would never have said before. In fact, I am waiting with bated breath for the next one. I do not know whether noble Lords have noted that a touch of irony has inserted itself into the titling of the committee’s reports: the first was simply called Housing and Planning Bill: Government Amendments, and the next was called Housing and Planning Bill: Further Government Amendments. I am assuming that the next one will be called “Housing and Planning Bill: Even Further Amendments”. This stuff is getting more gripping than “The Archers” as the days go by, and that is entirely as a result of this being a half-formed principle with very little meat on its bones. We are all rather grappling with confusion about what the whole thing is aimed at.
I have real concerns that we are putting in the Bill an ability to grant permission in principle for any type of development in future if its sites are named in a qualifying document such as a local plan, a neighbourhood plan or a register. We already know that the Government have in mind not just a brownfield register but a small-sites register. Indeed, in her response to the Delegated Powers Committee, the Minister talked about wanting—“for example”, she said—the ability to extend the permission in principle proposal to retail or commercial sites. I kind of understand the argument that there is a need to pull something out of the hat to try to get housing sites through more quickly. However, so far, nobody has told me what the arguments are in respect of retail or commercial sites. Therefore, it seems rather rash if we pass legislation without being clear about the fundamental reasoning for changing something that is fundamental to the way that the planning process works. Indeed, were we to allow a proposal that permission in principle could be for any type of development if it were on a site in a qualifying document, we would be radically reforming the planning system.
The Minister says that that is in the interests of the plan-led system. However, staying with the Delegated Powers Committee, which is unconvinced by the Government’s arguments, I am unconvinced that it needs to be such a wide power. Indeed, it is such a wide power that the three statutory instruments that will follow to give additional flesh to the proposal are, in the case of the permission in principle provision, going to be by negative procedure. Therefore we will have no opportunity in this House to do very much other than confirm or reject. These powers are too wide and sweeping for a proposition that we ought to test on something for which there is an acknowledged need—for example, housing-led development. If my noble friend’s amendments are not quite right in their wording, I urge the Minister to recognise that there is genuine concern in this House about this proposal and to come back at Third Reading with amendments that would satisfy both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and Peers around this House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open further discussion on the permission in principle measure today. I appreciate the time and effort that noble Lords have invested, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in considering its detailed implications. I am grateful that they have shared their experience and expertise, which have proved extremely helpful in ensuring that permission in principle operates as effectively as possible.
In a moment, I will explain our government amendments to Clause 136 and why I believe they demonstrate that the Government have listened to the views expressed in Committee and have taken action accordingly to improve the functioning of this measure. However, given that we have some further amendments on it, I shall briefly remind noble Lords what the Government are seeking to achieve and why we believe it is a worthwhile measure that should remain part of the Bill.
We know that there is concern in the industry about the lack of up-front certainty in the current planning system. In Committee, I highlighted issues around the cost of submitting outline and full applications without confirmation of the acceptability of the principles between plan-making and planning application stage. All these have been raised with my department by the Planning Officers Society, the Home Builders Federation and the Federation of Master Builders, and I highlighted that even last summer’s Lyons review recommended an approach where the principle of development is established earlier. Permission in principle seeks to respond to these concerns by making the planning process more certain and more efficient. It will help provide a way for small builders to enter the market and for locally supported plan development to get under way faster.
I explained at length in Committee that local authorities and neighbourhood forums would be in the driving seat when it came to choosing to grant permission in principle. I gave strong confirmation that the approach taken to granting permission in principle would be in line with local policy and the National Planning Policy Framework.
I hope that these brief comments have given noble Lords an update on the value of the measure. Alongside some of the amendments that we are laying to provide greater certainty on the use of permission in principle, I hope that this is enough to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to reconsider their opposition to the clause.
Lord Beecham
The noble Baroness seems to be speaking to amendments in the next group.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am just giving a brief overview and shall now move on to the amendments. They were introductory remarks—scene-setting, if you like—and I shall now speak to Amendments 102C, 102D and 102E. I may have been a little premature in some of my remarks, but they were intended to be helpful; I am sorry if it is felt that I have been a little ahead of myself.
I am keen to touch on the merits of permission in principle and to set out the amendments that the Government are making today. However, I shall turn first to the amendments tabled and comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, that would restrict the granting of permission in principle.
Although I understand why the noble Lords have returned with the amendments, I must set out why we cannot accept them. First, and most importantly, Amendment 102D would limit the granting of permission in principle to brownfield land, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said. During the passage of this Bill, the Government have been consistently clear that permission in principle is a measure that aims to strengthen the local plan-led system and ensure that development takes place on sites that people want to see built. The amendment therefore represents an unnecessary restriction on the Government’s desire to bring forward development where it is considered to be appropriate locally.
In Committee, I gave strong assurances that the choice about where to grant permission in principle would be a local one, guided by local policy and the NPPF. To put it very clearly, restricting the granting of permission in principle to brownfield sites would remove the ability for local authorities to grant permission in principle to other sites that they considered perfectly suitable for housing-led development, in line with local and national policy. The amendment would remove local discretion and severely limit the usefulness of the measure.
Secondly, Amendments 102C and 102E would limit the type of development suitable for a grant of permission in principle to “housing led” development. We have been consistently clear that we intend permission in principle to be limited to housing-led development and will specify this in secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referring to the DPRRC report, brought up a pertinent point and asked whether PIP could be granted for other uses. I have never sought to mislead the House, and I do not think that the noble Lord was suggesting that I was, but that we have been consistently clear that PIP is for housing-led development and that will continue to be the case under this Government. Clearly, we cannot hold future Governments to account, but we have made it clear that this is the Government’s intention. One of the DPRRC’s concerns was “What about future Governments?”, but this Government are absolutely clear that this will continue to be their intention.
Lord Shipley
Given what the Minister has just said about the measure being for housing-led development, does that mean that the Government are accepting Amendment 102C, which would simply insert the words “housing led”?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am afraid it does not, because the amendments limit the type of development suitable for granting of permission in principle to housing-led. We intend it to be housing-led and will specify that in secondary legislation.
Lord Shipley
Can I be clear that the secondary legislation will be via the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can absolutely confirm that to the noble Lord.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
The supplementary information that we received from the Minister’s department indicated that it would be a negative-procedure statutory instrument, unless I am misreading what she sent to me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
Can the Minister not help the House by coming back with an amendment at Third Reading which simply puts this in the Bill? It is very simple.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I apologise to the House because I have just made a statement that was not true. The Government do intend for it to be by negative procedure.
Putting something in the Bill does not allow the same flexibility as something being in secondary legislation. Moreover, we are currently consulting on the definition of “housing led”. It is important for us to set out the definition of what constitutes “housing-led development” in secondary legislation.
Baroness Andrews
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee advised the Government not to make policy while consultation was ongoing, which the Minister is now doing. The definition of “housing led” is clearly so liable to raise confusion that it should surely be on the face of the Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, that is why we are reluctant to place something in the Bill while consultation is ongoing. I do not know whether we agree on that point for different reasons, but I shall let noble Lords further intervene.
Lord Beecham
I am sorry to return to the remarks that the Minister made in paragraph 36 of the response to the committee, but they are crucial. Will she clarify her stance now? She said then:
“I consider it to be reasonable for … other uses, such as retail or commercial space, where there is no housing element. There is no restriction on the types of development for which full or outline planning permission may be granted”.
That is not consistent with what she is now saying is the policy—that development should be housing led. The response to the Delegated Powers Committee makes it clear—or made it clear at that point—that it was not confined to housing-led development. That is why my Amendment 102C seeks to include that concept in the Bill. I am perfectly happy to abandon the latter two of my amendments because the first deals with the point which, as far as I can understand it today, seems to be the Government’s policy. But it was apparently not the policy when the reply was made to the Delegated Powers Committee.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I have paragraph 36 before me, and it refers to future uses. But I have always been clear that the intention under this Government was for this to be housing led.
Lord Beecham
I accept the Minister’s word for that, but that is all the more reason to build it into the Bill. All she has to say is, “We accept that”, and that is it. It confirms what is apparently the Government’s policy today, yet it was not the policy reported to the Delegated Powers Committee.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I can confirm today that it is the Government’s intention to have housing-led development. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, because the question of what “housing-led” might be is under consultation, I urge caution in placing such a definition in the Bill at this stage. We can put a suitable definition into secondary legislation.
I am well aware that there has been some misinformation about granting development involving fracking and other types of development for permission in principle. I hope that the government amendment tabled today that will prohibit granting permission in principle for development related to the,
“winning and working of materials”,
reassures noble Lords in that regard. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley
Will the Minister just clarify something? The forthcoming group of Government amendments do not mention the word “housing” at all. Have I read them correctly? We have been asked to wait to consider the next set of government amendments, but I do not think that they are relevant to this situation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will feel that they are relevant. With that, as I say, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister is in such a tangle. I suspect that it is because she has not been properly advised either before today or indeed today. We seem to be clear that housing-led development is to be the principal purpose of this amended planning regime of permission in principle. I accept for the moment, although it is regrettable, that we do not have details of what housing-led development might amount to, but at the very least it must mean that housing will be part of the development. However, that was not confirmed in the response to the Delegated Powers Committee.
As in so many cases during the course of this Bill, it would have been much better if we had had a clearer indication of how the thing is expected to work in practice, but the principle at least should be enshrined in the Bill. Although that is not the full story, it would leave the Government to come back through secondary legislation—preferably affirmative—to specify what is meant by housing led. What it cannot mean is a development with no housing on it, by definition. Beyond that, there is scope for discussion and argument. I understand that the Minister is not in a position to give clear indications of proportions and the like at this stage, but the principle ought to be on the face of the Bill. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) But permission in principle may not be granted for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is my pleasure to turn to the government amendments we are making to the permission in principle measure. Again, I must emphasise that these demonstrate that the Government have listened closely to the concerns expressed and have taken clear action to improve the functioning of the measure.
In Committee I set out the Government’s clear view that development involving fracking would not be suitable for permission in principle. To press home this assurance even further, Amendment 103 will set out in the Bill the type of,
“development consisting of the winning and working of minerals”,
which cannot be granted permission in principle. This definition encompasses development that may involve fracking, so I hope noble Lords will agree that this amendment is positive and a helpful clarification which should form part of the Bill.
I turn now to government Amendments 104 to 106. The Government have been consistently clear that only documents that have been through robust processes such as consultation and site assessment will be capable of granting permission in principle and that these would therefore be limited to local plans, neighbourhood plans and new brownfield registers. During the debate on this measure in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, tabled an amendment that sought to specify these documents in the legislation, which he felt would be an improvement to the Bill. In the light of his comments, I agreed that I would reflect further on the need for an appropriate amendment that lists and limits the qualifying documents capable of granting permission in principle. I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to see that the amendments achieve this by setting out the specific documents capable of granting permission in principle. These are:
“a register maintained … under section 14A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004”,
introduced by Clause 137 of this Bill;
“a development plan document within the meaning of Part 2 of the 2004 Act … a neighbourhood development plan”.
I hope the amendment demonstrates that the Government have listened to the call for greater clarity on how PIP will be used and that it will be welcomed by noble Lords.
I turn to government Amendment 106A, which contains two further changes to the permission in principle measure. First, the amendment will enable local authorities to vary the start date and end date of permission in principle granted on allocation. It will give greater local flexibility and allow the timings for permission in principle to better align with planning delivery of sites. The amendment will also allow local authorities to vary the end date of permission in principle granted on application. It aims to mirror Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which currently allows local authorities to vary the timing of planning permission. We will set out the prescribed period for the duration of permission in principle in secondary legislation, which will apply if local authorities choose not to set the length of permission in principle themselves.
Secondly, the amendment will extend our statutory guidance power to enable the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how local authorities should handle the technical details of the consent process. It is important that we make it as clear as possible for local authorities, developers, statutory bodies and the general public how the new permission in principle system and the resulting technical details consent stage should work. The guidance will also help to make permission in principle fully accessible to all users, thereby placing strong expectations on how, where and in what circumstances permission in principle and technical details consent can be granted.
I hope noble Lords agree that issuing guidance will inevitably prove helpful by maximising the clarity and overall success of these measures, and that the amendments will therefore become part of the Bill. I hope also that these amendments resolve some of the concerns expressed during consideration in Committee. In the light of my introductory comments, I hope noble Lords will see the value of these measures and support them. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, the Minister has kindly explained the changes which are to be made following the amendment that I moved in Committee. At that point I had the advice of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and I remain grateful for that. I am also grateful to the Minister for the changes that have been made, which seem to be entirely appropriate. I just want to express my thanks to the Minister for her willingness to clarify the matter.
No doubt there will be other contributions on the other amendments, but the vote we just had is very important because it defines clearly that permission in principle relates to housing-led development. When I look at the amendments I have difficulty finding the reference to “housing-led”; I cannot find it. Therefore, the doubt we expressed in debating the previous group remains. I hope, with that position having been made clearer by that vote, that we might enter some discussions about this. Clearly, it will go to the other place, but I hope that the Government might see that there really is a need to ensure that permission in principle is housing-led and that that is in the Bill.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 107ZZB in this group, which is a sort of clause stand part amendment. The Minister has tried, very graciously and well, to address some of the problems we have with permission in principle in practice. I appreciate that and I appreciate the time she spent talking to us and exchanging information. Unfortunately, I do not think that anything addresses the fundamental flaw of permission in principle. I do not want to labour the point I made both at Second Reading and in Committee, but I will put a few things on the record at this stage as to why, both in principle and in practice, it will not do what she says she wants it to do and what we all would want the planning system to do, which is to introduce greater certainty in the whole process for developers, local authorities and housebuilders.
I think all noble Lords around the Chamber agree that it is a basic principle of rational planning that principle and detail are directly related because they inform and guide each other, and they determine the final planning judgment. That is the system we have now, when the right knowledge comes forward at the right point in the decision, so that everybody knows what is predictable and certain about the site and development proposed. That allows local people to understand and respond to the impact that the development will have on their living space. The system is not perfect, but neither is it the cause of the delays in housebuilding that have caused the present crisis. Those delays are much more to do with finance and access to land than they are with systemic problems with the planning system.
I agree that the NPPF has made a real difference to the way planning is done and it achieves an excellent balance between protecting development and enabling it. My concern is that permission in principle drives a wedge through the whole process by dividing the three fundamental principles of permission in principle and the rest, which is rather ludicrously described as “technical details” when we are talking about fundamental things that make a site, a development or a community work. It is everything—from infrastructure to the use of materials, to spatial relationships, to public space—that makes a place worth living in. If things are wrong, undiscovered or unanticipated at that stage, or simply do not work, permission in principle cannot be overturned. It seems illogical and deeply flawed because permission in principle puts all the balances at risk. It raises risks, rather than reduces them. That is not likely to speed up housebuilding. I am not being perverse; I am genuinely concerned that it will not have the positive effect that we all want.
If in the present system there is an overload of information at the early stages of decision-making, as the Government have said at so many stages, I feel fairly certain that this could have been addressed in different ways. Other ways could have been found to manage information, rather than relegating it to a subordinate stage of decision-making. As I have said, when we do have that information we will be unable to overturn the permission in principle. That is the fundamental problem referred to by all the professional planning bodies. It is turning up now in the 850 responses that the Minister has received to the consultation. There is genuine consistency across the planning profession.
I am arguing for a chance to think again, because PIP creates unnecessary risks. It creates the risk that high-level plans cannot be overturned, even if subsequent details clearly indicate the unsuitability of a site or the poor performance of the proposal. It is imperative that a proposal is permissible only if it is in line with the NPPF. I am pleased that the Minister has given me several assurances on that. I hope that they will prove robust, because the alternative will be JRs and court investigations. We do not want to see that.
As I have said, if the bottlenecks in the current finance and land-banking arrangements were to be addressed, as the Select Committee on the future of the built environment suggested, and if local authorities were encouraged to plan properly for age-related demography and needs and could build up their capacity to deal with the planning choices more fluently and expertly—we will come on to that in a later amendment—we would be able to deal more successfully with the housing crisis we face. My fear is that PIP will not achieve its objectives and could do some considerable harm.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I had not planned to comment on these issues, because my experience is limited. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests as a landowner. I recall speaking some years ago with a young project manager on a development about extensive work she had done in consulting local people in taking forward this development. It seemed to her that she had done everything that the local planners had asked of her but she found that her work was not acceptable. She said that this was often her experience—one jumps through all the hoops and suddenly one finds that the hoops have changed. This is only one person that I remember speaking to about this issue, but it certainly left me concerned that there is not enough certainty in the system and that developers can put a lot of work into a project and find that suddenly the hoops have changed and different requirements are being asked of them. I just wanted to put that into this debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 107ZZB in this group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Andrews, would delete Clause 136 from the Bill. The clause is concerned with permission in principle and was debated at some length in Committee in your Lordships’ House. Permission in principle is a major change in how we approve developments. It has, of course, been suggested that the supply of new homes is being held back due to the planning process and the failure to get planning applications approved. That is complete nonsense which has been cited by one or two noble Lords in debate on this issue in recent times.
I tabled a Question to the Government on this issue and received a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, on 4 April. In her reply the noble Baroness confirmed that there were planning permissions for 658,000 homes in England where work was either not started or not completed. That is a large number of approvals. As a local councillor I have approved some of those applications over the last two years. In the area where I live I regularly note sites for which I have been party to approving an application for housing but nothing has happened. All that has happened on one site is that, a few days after the committee gave permission for housing, a “for sale” board went up saying, “for sale with full permission for housing and two shops”. That is all that has happened since we gave permission well over a year ago.
That is not the local planning authority dragging its feet or attempting to stifle development; no, there are other factors at play here which this clause does nothing about. It is about the value of land and the price it is rising at. It can also be about the ability to raise finance to undertake a development. It is not about a planning authority dragging its feet. We very much support building new homes, although we may seek to do it in a different way. We want to see brownfield sites brought back into use for housing and other ancillary and alternatives uses, but we have concerns about what will be built, in terms of design, space, energy efficiency and affordability. We want to see a range of tenures and the building of viable, long-term communities.
Government Amendment 106A confers additional powers on the Secretary of State. I draw the attention of the House to the 28th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—in particular, the section concerning Amendment 106A which starts at the bottom of page 1 and carries on to page 2. The report concludes:
“Inadequate and incomplete provisions of proposed primary legislation cannot be excused on the basis that consultation has not taken place or that the Government wish to retain ‘flexibility to set out differing timeframes as they apply in different contexts’. The policy should have been finalised following appropriate consultation before, not after, the Bill was introduced.
We therefore consider that the delegation of power in the proposed new Section 59A(8) inserted by amendment 106A is inappropriate, and that the duration of permission in principle should instead be specified on the face of the Bill. An alternative approach, although we think that this is a less satisfactory option, would be to specify the maximum duration on the face of the Bill, coupled with an affirmative procedure power to provide for a shorter period”.
That is damning criticism by the committee and the Government should take heed of it.
To help matters along, I make the following offer to the Government. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will withdraw the amendment today with a view to reflecting on the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and bringing an amendment back at Third Reading that takes those concerns on board, then in the same spirit we will not test the opinion of the House on our Amendment 107 in the next group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. Instead, we will wait to see whether we can get an amendment that addresses the concerns raised in the report. It is for the Minister to decide what to do and I hope the noble Baroness will take up this offer made in the spirit of wanting to get this right.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Let me clarify that the Government do want to get this right. We do not want PIP to be a disincentive to building homes or create risk in the system. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, says about the comments of the DPRRC. I am very willing not to move Amendment 106A for the time being, and to use the next few days to perhaps bring something back at Third Reading.
“( ) falls within subsection (2A),”
“(2A) The following documents fall within this subsection—(a) a register maintained in pursuance of regulations under section 14A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”);(b) a development plan document within the meaning of Part 2 of the 2004 Act (see section 37 of that Act);(c) a neighbourhood development plan within the meaning given by section 38A of the 2004 Act.”
Baroness Andrews
“(2ZZD) An application for technical details consent in relation to permission in principle will be subject to section 61W (consultation before applying for planning permission) and section 65 (notice etc of applications for planning permission) of this Act.”
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group which deal with slightly different issues. The first is an amendment on the consultation on technical details. I have retabled this amendment, which I laid in Committee, because I felt that the explanation the Minister offered was rather elliptical and because there is now emerging evidence that expert and civic groups which have already responded to the consultation are seriously concerned about this. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to put her thoughts on the record.
The amendment would, in effect, make it compulsory for local authorities to hold a consultation at the second and technical stage of PIP before planning permission was awarded. My argument was then, and it remains, that it is often only at this stage, when the details of the site development are released, that local people really play their part in determining what is best for them and what would really work. That can be anything from the nature of local materials to the location of health centres or shops.
The Minister has written very helpfully to me and I am very grateful. I would like her to expand, on the record, on what she said:
“The idea is that local authorities will have consulted both statutory agencies and the community at the permission in principle stage”.
I find the phrase “The idea is…” rather worrying. Surely we should have something more at this stage than what sounds like wishful thinking. It is important to understand that argument, because her assertion underpins the reasons spelled out in her letter as to why there will be no required consultation at the technical details stage. She goes on to say:
“When a subsequent application for technical details consent is received we consider that the local authority will therefore be in a good position to determine what further engagement is appropriate at this stage. This could make for a more efficient approach and avoid unnecessary duplication”.
The fact is that the consultation papers I have seen suggest that this has gone down very badly with those who count. The Minister quotes Civic Voice, for example, which carries the experience of civic societies throughout the country. What Civic Voice says in its response is:
“While we agree that PIP for allocated sites should be consulted upon through the local and neighbourhood plan processes, we strongly disagree with the proposal that local authorities will not be required to consult with the community and others on applications for technical details consent. It is likely that there will be important matters still to be considered at this stage that affect communities and they should, therefore, be entitled to submit representations. The reality is that it is not just the principle of development that can cause concern to communities and others but the layout, design and relationship with development. This will be the first opportunity for communities to see what the proposed development will look like”.
That is extremely relevant and very true. That is also the reaction, significantly, of the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies, the TCPA and Historic England. I read only four consultation responses instead of 850, but I have a reasonable idea that that view would be echoed by many more. Civic Voice advocates quite simply that an application for technical details consent should be subject to the normal consultation procedures for a standard planning permission. The fact is that the local voice in local decision-making is getting rather faint. That worries me, and, I think, many noble Lords. I ask the Minister for reassurances that the expert group on local plans will not reduce even further the right of local people to participate in local decisions.
The Minister told me in her letter that she would consider my concerns about this approach, together with the responses to the consultation, before finalising the necessary regulations and guidance. That is extremely important and very helpful news. However, I press her to go a little further. On a related point, I doubt that any of her consultees agree that cutting down the time for consultation from eight to five weeks—which is also proposed—is sensible. Frankly, this gives the average parish council hardly time to meet before it has to produce its consultation response, bearing in mind that most of them meet once a month. Therefore, I seek assurances from the Minister on that. For a start, will she place in the Library a breakdown of the responses to the consultation on the specific point about consultation itself, because that is really important? She will know that the role and the plausibility of consultation is something to which the scrutiny committees of this House return time and again for criticism. It is important to validate that this is a credible consultation process and that people have been listened to. Therefore, can I have an assurance on the record that if the weight of responses from those expert and community organisations reject the idea that local authorities should not be obliged to hold a consultation at the technical details stage, this proposal will indeed be dropped and normal planning rules will apply? I will not press this to a vote this evening but I would be very grateful for some assurances along those lines.
I am very sad that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is not in his place because I feel quite isolated. I am sure that he would have a great deal to say on the involvement of local people. We miss him very much indeed. He is not here, sadly, but I know that this case resonates around the House. There are many instances in which the local voice and localism are at risk of being diminished in the context of planning. In the longer term, I am sure that it is much wiser to listen to local people.
I turn now to my Amendments 107ZA to 107ZD. In Committee, I tabled two amendments which were intended to identify—in short—some of the hazards that would flow from the creation of PIP and the splitting of the process into two, and to reflect on some of the damage that might be done and some of the unintended consequences. I spoke about archaeology because that is a very acute example. Archaeology is not an exception, as the Government seem to argue, but is the predictable and likely victim of collateral damage in a situation where decisions are taken without full knowledge of what is under a site. New and unanticipated archaeological discoveries are made every day—witness the magnificent Roman villa discovered in Wiltshire last week, which people had no idea about and which may turn out to have international significance in terms of the extent of the Roman Empire and the villa’s great wealth and so on. It is very important.
In the existing planning system, the norm has been for many years to carry out pre-determined archaeological investigations. It is a familiar process and it works well. That is swept aside by permission in principle and is not even required at the second technical details stage. In the consultation, the Council for British Archaeology simply said the following to the Government, which I want to put on the record:
“If Government wishes to avoid re-visiting ‘in principle decisions … at multiple points in the process’ … it must fully recognise and address the corollary, namely that in order to avoid re-assessment at a later stage all necessary information which may affect the principle of development or its viability must be assessed before permission in principle is granted (and, with regard to archaeological issues, this should be specifically recognised in legislation and stated in policy)”.
One of the things I suggest the Minister might consider doing is meeting the Council for British Archaeology and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists face to face to discuss their concerns. She might also explicitly endorse the policy set out in paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework and ensure that, where it is felt to be necessary, an archaeological site investigation could be made as part of the conditions attached to technical consent. It would be helpful to have that endorsement. Perhaps she could give me an answer this evening or write to me before Third Reading.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I contribute briefly in respect of Amendment 107ZZA simply to say that I did not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on her criticism of permission in principle. I think it will enable certainty to be given and the process to be speeded up. Certainty about how the system works is needed not only for the developer but for the community. I am sure many noble Lords will be familiar—as I have been—with the process, whereby communities often find it intensely difficult to understand that, at the same moment that they have to debate the principle of development, and maximise their subsequent effectiveness, they also have to think about what the subsequent conditions might be and the mitigation of effects. In their minds, they often want the two things to be separate. They feel, understandably, that—through the extent to which they offer recommendations to local planning authorities about modifications to an application, compromises that can be reached, mitigation that can be entered into and conditions to be imposed—they are opening the door to the principle.
I think that here we could have something that, to local communities, is much more rational. In the local plan process, they should devote themselves to the question of whether development in principle should happen in a particular site, knowing that subsequently, through the technical details consent, in so far as there is necessary mitigation—for example, something like the environmental assessment should establish whether development in principle is right on a site—a detailed impact assessment should be able to identify what is required by way of mitigation. For a local community, these are two completely rational, separate processes. They have to be sure—this comes to the point of the noble Baroness’s amendment—that they will get adequate notification and an opportunity to express their view about what that mitigation should look like in the technical details consent. I know my noble friend is very much aware of this and I hope she will be able to give the reassurance that the noble Baroness is looking for.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I voice my thanks, again, for the time taken by noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in trying to get right this aspect of the legislation and ensuring that permission in principle is as effective as possible. In Committee, I outlined the rigorous process of consideration and engagement that would be followed before granting permission in principle. In that context, I highlighted that I thought a situation where no scheme could be delivered in line with the permission in principle agreed on site, owing to unforeseen circumstances discovered at the technical details consent stage, would be highly unlikely. The noble Baroness presses me to give examples and I cannot get this example from my mind: it is another king in a car park, but where the whole car park is made unsuitable for development and not just a part of it, which can be allowed for in certain circumstances.
I informed noble Lords in Committee that the Bill already makes provision for permission in principle granted on application to be revoked or modified by a local authority if it considers it expedient to do so in extremely rare circumstances. I also recognised that, in the case of PIP granted through a locally prepared plan or register, the Bill does not currently provide for revocation or modification in such instances and that I would reflect on the need to make such a provision. I therefore wholly welcome the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has tabled and strongly support their inclusion in the Bill. I also thank her for the way in which she has worked with me and officials in coming towards this stage. Amendments 107ZA, 107ZB, 107ZC and 107ZD will indeed enable local planning authorities to revoke or to modify the permission in principle granted by local plans or registers, where they consider it expedient to do so. Amendment 107ZD will also enable us to set out sensible compensation arrangements in these circumstances in secondary legislation. The amendments will extend the existing provisions that local authorities have to revoke or modify planning permissions to the permission in principle system. They will ensure overall consistency and provide an important final safeguard to address the rare and exceptional circumstances discussed in Committee, where this may be needed.
Amendment 107ZZA tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, will oblige every applicant to engage with the community on their proposals before they submit an application for technical details consent. I certainly applaud the intention to involve the community in the development of a detailed planning application. Indeed, the NPPF and our planning guidance stress the importance of applicant-led, pre-application engagement. However, the power in Section 61W of the Town and Country Planning Act, inserted by the Localism Act 2011, is currently being used only to ensure compulsory pre-application consultation for onshore wind development above an appropriate threshold. This is a targeted requirement to help ameliorate local community concerns about and perceptions of such projects. I understand that the noble Baroness has laid this amendment because she is keen to ensure effective consultation; I do not believe, however, that applying this requirement to all technical details consent applications is the right approach.
We have just finished consulting on an approach that would give local authorities the discretion to consult further at technical details stage, where they consider it appropriate. We consider this a more locally led and efficient approach to consultation that will minimise unnecessary duplication between the permission in principle and technical details consent stages. The noble Baroness asked me about the expert responses to the consultation. I understand that we have received 150 responses. The noble Baroness asked if we would place them in the Library; I am very willing to do that.
Baroness Andrews
May I just correct the noble Baroness? I thought there were 850 responses. That is not my main point—I wanted to ask whether she could lay an analysis of the consultation responses to the specific point about consultation on technical consents stage. My reading of a handful of responses—but important ones—showed that they are all very seriously worried that there will not be a requirement for local authorities to consult at that stage.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise to the noble Baroness; maybe my writing is playing up. I accept that that if there were 850 responses, there were 850 responses and my writing is possibly wrong. The Government will of course analyse the responses carefully and engage further, as appropriate.
Baroness Andrews
Is the noble Baroness saying, on that basis, that she can assure me that if the weight of opinion—by which I mean community and expert opinion—is that this is not a good idea, they will simply revert to the normal planning requirements for proper consultation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I totally admire the noble Baroness for the way she is pressing me on this. At this stage, given that I have not seen the outcomes, I do not that I can make a commitment. But we will certainly analyse the results carefully and engage further, as appropriate. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness feels free to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Andrews
I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I appreciate that it is not easy, not having seen the consultation, but my instinct tells me that we will get the results that I am anticipating and I hope it will make an impression on the department—you do not want to ride roughshod over local opinion. The Government have committed to localism and to supporting local authorities. I am very grateful for the support and wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in this respect as well. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Andrews
“( ) In subsection (1), for the words from “modify” to “the authority” substitute “modify—(a) any permission (including permission in principle) to develop land granted on an application made under this Part, or(b) any permission in principle granted by a development order,the authority”.”
(a) after “planning permission” insert “or permission in principle”;(b) for “section 97” substitute “section 97(1)(a)”.( ) In subsections (2) and (3), for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”.( ) In subsection (4)—(a) for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”;(b) for”
“( ) After that subsection insert—“(4A) A development order may make provision for the payment of compensation, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the order, where permission in principle is revoked or modified by an order under section 97(1)(b).””
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 pm precisely?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, if I may add a rider to that, anyone who is interested in my Amendment 107A had better look at Amendment 107B, which is a manuscript amendment that has recently appeared, outside.
Motion agreed.
Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.30 pm.
Horserace Betting Right
Viscount Astor
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made towards the introduction of the Horserace Betting Right.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, since I put down this Question for Short Debate, events have moved on and the Government have proposed an extension of the levy rather than their original proposed racing right. Much has to be done to succeed finally in bringing a long-term funding solution for racing but it is worth reminding your Lordships that a year ago, the Government proposed the racing right. It was, if one can call it this in Civil Service terms, a bold move which almost immediately ran into opposition from the entire betting industry.
The scene had been set earlier when my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble accepted my amendment to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014—an amendment originally blocked in the Commons when it was moved there—to extend the right to claim levy payments from bookmakers who had moved their operations overseas. Racing was set to lose about £33 million a year in levy payments but the Government have not yet used this power. As I said, their proposal ran into almost total opposition mainly because the bookmakers feared that if the principle was accepted, other sports would want the same treatment. The Government had to think again and in March announced a new levy scheme.
One cannot blame the bookmakers for inventing the most tax-efficient and profitable system for themselves but to protect the punters and problem gamblers betting on UK racing, it has to be regulated in this country. While the levy is only a small share of the overall turnover of racing—less than 7%—it is a vital part of racing’s income. The levy was running at about £70 million a year, down from the highs of about £100 million, but was forecast to fall to under £50 million. It is fair to ask, as the bookmakers have asked, why this could not be made up by increasing media rights payments. The answer is actually quite simple: most online operators, in what is after all the fastest-growing sector of the market, do not provide television coverage for their customers.
Racing has often been divided in the past but it has come together and the majority of the major courses have agreed an authorised betting partner status, whereby bookmakers who do not contribute to the levy from their overseas operations are not allowed to sponsor races. Racing UK, the television subscription channel, followed suit and announced that it would not renew contracts for on-screen advertising and sponsorship for those firms which had not signed up to the betting partner scheme. Critics prophesied that Cheltenham would be without a major sponsor but that did not happen. New sponsors were found and the festival was a great success. The bookmaking industry complained only because too many favourites won. Of course, when this new plan is implemented this will not be necessary, as under it, all will contribute. Racing has always had the power to influence events. I suppose that an even simpler solution would be for owners and trainers not to enter their horses in races sponsored by bookmakers who do not contribute, but that is probably too much to expect.
There are, if one can use a racing analogy, a number of hurdles to jump and questions that need to be answered. I am sure that the Minister will provide some detail this evening. All British bookmakers betting on British racing, based onshore or offshore, will be part of the scheme and it will no longer be worthwhile to export bookmaking jobs abroad. More importantly, a fair return will need to be put in place from all gambling operators who take bets on British racing. Will that include bets taken by remote operators on British racing but put on from somewhere totally different in the world? There will have to be a separate system, as there is now, for on-course operators. The big questions that bookmakers and those in racing want to know the answers to are: how will the payable rate be set, and how will it be enforced on overseas operators? Will it be subject to an annual negotiation or set for a number of years? How will a fair return be assessed? Will it be on turnover rather than a share of the bookmakers’ gross profits? How will the proposed VAT be set and what will it include? Will it, for example, include advertising?
The money under this new scheme will go to the Horserace Betting Levy Board and then be passed to a new racing authority, which will be responsible for decisions on how the money will be spent. Can my noble friend the Minister say how this body will be set up? Will it be statutory or an entirely independent body? I understand that to bring in the new scheme, the changes required will need secondary legislation to the Gambling Act 2014. Perhaps my noble friend can give your Lordships some details of what will be required. What role, if any, will the bookmakers’ committee have in the future, particularly on multiplatform betting?
The next hurdle will be the European Commission. The new scheme, although based on an existing scheme, will require state aid approval as was done for the French levy. The levy has not been subject to an assessment so far under state aid, as it originated prior to this country joining the EU. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain why it is necessary when what is proposed is really only a variation on the present levy scheme. Why is legislation and approval from the EU necessary? If approval is required and there are no issues, responses could be given in two months but I am sure there will be objections from some remote gambling operators. That would then extend the process, while the European Commission’s final decision is subject to review by the European courts. Some bookmakers have produced legal advice, which I know we will hear of this evening, saying that this cannot succeed. Others differ but, as those of us involved in debating the issues around racing know, if they are paid enough lawyers can produce almost any review that the bookmakers or anybody else wish to have. They will satisfy any criteria if they try hard enough.
One should congratulate the Government. This proposal will benefit racing, protect punters, stop the flow of jobs and tax revenue going abroad and, in the long term, be good for the whole industry. Racing is a major industry, providing work for more than 86,000 people, contributing £3.5 billion to the economy and generating £10 billion in betting income. So what is missing from the Government’s proposal? Perhaps they will consider this: racing needs to ensure that standard betting data are available for all. We also need to know what the dispute mechanism will be. As we have seen in the press, internet bookmakers are quite prone to cancelling winning bets.
The racing industry and the bookmaking industry are a partnership—not always a happy partnership, but a necessary one—and I am glad that the Association of British Bookmakers has welcomed the Government’s announcement. It is a major step forward for the industry and racing to work together going ahead. However, betting is not just about racing, as it allows bookmakers to cross-sell other products. Each cannot survive without the other, and these reforms can benefit both. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on securing this important and very urgent debate, and on attracting so many runners, although it means that we will all have to sprint from start to finish. I declare my interests as a former member of the British Horseracing Board and a current trustee of both Racing Welfare, which is the charity for those who work in racing, and their union, the National Association of Stable Staff. I am also president of the Horse Trust which, like the current levy board, makes considerable grants for equine scientific research.
First, I am grateful that the Government have embraced the proposal for a new racing funding mechanism. As I understand it—and I hope this will be confirmed—they are committed to having it in place in 12 months’ time, in April next year. We need to know how this is to be done, and the timetable for it, because the last time an attempt was made to replace the levy it ended in tears in the European Court. We want to avoid that happening again at all costs.
Then, the levy had to be hastily revived, and has continued up to now to do an excellent job against a background of a continuing drop in revenue and expansion of offshore operations, some of which avoid making a fair or any contribution to the industry from which they derive substantial profit. A new, fair, robust system to finance the horseracing industry is long overdue and is needed as soon as possible, before the industry is damaged.
Despite this falling levy revenue, horseracing in this country, to my mind and, I think, most others, remains the best in the world. The breadth, quality and integrity of racing here attract owners from all over the world and enable ordinary racegoers such as me to see most of the best horses in the world run on our doorstep. With, I hope, more prize money generated from the new proposal, I hope we may see even more of those horses. If we cannot produce the money, we shall lose them. For stable staff too—there are 6,500 of them working in yards—an increase in prize money would be welcome, because it means a direct benefit in the form of the percentage they receive from stable winnings.
The Government have said that racing will decide how the new money is to be spent. Some of the objects of the present levy scheme are not for the benefit just of racing but of the wider horse population and included, for example, support for rare breeds. I hope there will be an undertaking from the Government tonight, and from racing in due course, that spending will continue not to be narrow and partisan and confined solely to racing. Racing is inextricably linked with the British horse population as a whole—not just in matters such as a shared need for disease control, but training those who will ride and care for horses later. A healthy equine industry, both people and animals, is an essential part of a strong, vibrant and successful racing industry.
Finally, I also hope that the new fund will be at least as generous in making grants for veterinary science and training as the levy has been—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, will speak about that later—£32 million since 2000. I also hope that those who select the research projects will coordinate closely with the limited number of other equine research providers, so that the wider horse population—
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon for interrupting, but can we have the next speaker now? There are three minutes each, and the noble Baroness is on her fourth minute.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have an interest to declare that is not as extensive as those of the previous speakers. I live in the village of Lambourn. To anyone who knows anything about racing, that means that you are constantly surrounded by horses. It is one of the few places where, if you are driving a car in the early morning, you will be stopped by a string of racehorses—indeed, more than one, if you time it properly. I fear that my only other connection with racing is a secondary one, because I am the only member of my family who does not ride a horse although, according to my daughter, many a racehorse is glad that I am not trying to get on it.
We are talking about money that goes into racing, and those communities in racing will benefit from the trickle-down. It may not be the most direct way to make sure that those communities remain vibrant, but an entire society and small economy is dependent on that income. We have an industry here—an entertainment industry, but an industry none the less—which sells to its market. People want to get in on it, but those who are buying it, or at least profiting from it, are not contributing to it. Something is wrong.
The Government seem to be taking the right steps. Will they ensure that the move to offshore gambling does not stop that income coming in? As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, the entire equine world in this country benefits from what happens in racing. Everything comes in from it: vets, support, stables and everything else benefit from it. We cannot remove those sections from each other. Indeed, equine activity at the Olympics benefits from expertise generated within racing.
I hope the Government can assure us that they will pursue this with all vim and vigour to make sure they get the money. It is not just racing—although racing is big enough—but the entire equine leisure industry that they will be supporting.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I rise to make a contribution to the debate which will be—using racing terms, which everyone else has employed—more of a six-furlong gallop than a one-mile chase, with a couple of questions that I suppose could be described as hurdles, as my noble friend Lord Astor did, but, I suspect, ones that are not too high for the Minister to clear. My apologies in advance if I echo some of the points already made, or make some points that other noble Lords were hoping to make.
Like many other members of your Lordships’ House, I support the UK racehorse industry. We all know the figures, but they are worth repeating as they are really impressive. It has almost 6 million spectators per year—the most popular spectator sport after football. Horseracing contributes £3.45 billion to UK plc each year and, of that, the total fiscal contribution from betting to racing stands at about £270 million per year. The combined direct, indirect and associated employment of the industry runs north of 85,000 people.
As horseracing is such a popular British sport, it is only right that we do all we can to ensure that, as far as possible, it continues to be profitable, successful and beneficial for everyone concerned—both centre stage and behind the scenes—who puts on such great sporting entertainment, enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people every week of the year.
It is for this reason that I support the work the Government have done over the past few years on rethinking the racing levy, a rethink that is long overdue, bearing in mind that the current arrangements are based primarily on the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, as amended. I should point out that I, too, might need to have a long overdue rethink, having had a disastrous Grand National this year, ignoring my grandfather’s advice, which I mentioned in another debate, that the best way to double your money is to fold it once and keep it in your pocket.
Noble Lords who take an interest in this subject are aware that the levy is a complex structure, involving many stakeholders with many different needs, but I consider the Government’s new funding arrangement to be both sensible and fair. I particularly praise Ministers in the other place and my noble friend on the move to include offshore betting operators in the contributions which are collected. These operators benefit from our UK racing, so it is right that they should also contribute to the industry, just as betting operators in the UK have to. For far too long, operators in the UK have been trading at a disadvantage, and I am therefore happy to see the playing field being levelled—something that is essential in any form of fair gaming.
I hope that the principle of collecting contributions from offshore betting operators who benefit from UK players and sports can be extended to other forms of gambling, but I appreciate that that is a debate for another time.
I am aware that there are changes to the role of the Horseracing Betting Levy Board whereby, under the new plan, the board will be responsible only for setting the levy—or, as it will be known, the racing right—and enforcing it. A racing authority will be established to be in charge of distributing funds.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as half-owner of Fearless Fantasy, which takes a chance in the bumper at eight o’clock at Exeter tomorrow, which happens to be my birthday.
The House is indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for giving the Government a chance to give a straight answer as to what has happened to the racing right. Noble Lords will remember that the racing right made a cameo appearance in the 2015 Budget speech to give the Chancellor’s friend Mr Hancock something cheery to tell his Newmarket constituents at the general election. That purpose has been served, so, in the immortal words of Monty Python, the racing right “is not pining, it has passed on, it is no more, it has ceased to be, it has expired and gone to meet its maker”. As it was unworkable, unfair, and probably illegal, thank God for that.
What takes its place? In March 2016, the Government published perhaps the thinnest paper in the history of Whitehall, Implementing the Replacement for the Horserace Betting Levy. I have studied it, but I have no clue what it proposes. I commend to the House the briefing by Olswang’s Dan Tench, a leading gambling lawyer, which asks six crucial, fundamental questions that the document utterly fails to address. These include:
“The need and/or justification of any levy or funding for Racing in light of the revenue it now receives in terms of the sale of media rights”.
Even if the Government find an answer to Mr Tench’s six questions, which they show no inclination to yet, they will face the fundamental problem of getting European state aid approval—odds against, if not long odds against.
So here is a puzzle. What is the answer to Mr Tench’s question? Why are this free-market Government proposing a massive new intervention in the market in one case and one case only—horseracing? They are not doing it for greyhound racing, you will notice, but they are doing it for horseracing. I am afraid that the answer is all too simple and predictable. There is one principle which Ministers in this Government hold even more dear than free-market economics: that money should be taken from the poor—that is to say, poor punters in betting shops—and given to the rich owners, such as me.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I recently became a government-appointed director of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which has acted as a bridge between betting and racing interests. At times these relationships have been positive and at other times very much less so. It is also my privilege and pleasure to have represented Newmarket in another place, so my interest in all this is very long-standing. However, inevitably, there have been problems for both sides and for the Government in the growth of online betting, a substantial amount of which has been taking place offshore. The traditional betting shop has become less and less profitable—and, of course, there is much greater diversity in betting opportunities. For the Government, at times having to make a levy determination is inappropriate and most unwelcome. For racing, the issue of prize money, relative to the costs of racehorse ownership, remains a source of concern. As a former part-owner, I am acutely aware of this.
The levy board collects levy contributions only on bookmakers located in Great Britain and only on profits generated here. Offshore betting has inevitably reduced the ability of the levy board to pass on resources, and it is very important that in future education and training, veterinary research and other aspects of equine life are to have continuing support. Thus reform affords an opportunity to deal with two key issues—first, to create a structure that will, one hopes, minimise any further disagreement between the two sides and remove direct government involvement. We shall know shortly what data and analysis have been deployed for this new architecture, provided by Frontier Economics. Could the Minister update the House on when that work is likely to be forthcoming?
Additionally, and importantly, I applaud the assurances from all sides that they will work with the Government to develop the details of the new proposed funding system, to broker a deal in practice to their mutual benefit. I look forward to further comments and details about this from my noble friend the Minister. Horseracing gives pleasure to millions; we have the finest racing industry in the world, and the creation of a new structure to maximise its attractiveness and sustainability is to be clearly welcomed. I wish the Minister well in bringing the process now under way to a satisfactory conclusion.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the proposals to modernise the current levy system to ensure that the British racing industry receives due revenues from all sources of betting. It will help to maintain the health of the British racing industry, which currently contributes some £3.5 billion per year to the British economy. But I want to focus on the health of something else—the horses, on which the whole industry depends—and to highlight the importance of the support provided by the Horserace Betting Levy Board to racehorse health. Since its inception in the 1960s, the HBLB has contributed some £50 million to equine veterinary research and education. It is vital that such support is maintained by the new arrangements, not only because the industry depends on the health and welfare of its racehorses but because there are no alternative funding sources of such support, with the exception of one or two charities, such as the Horse Trust.
The major funders of biomedical research in the UK, the Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, do not generally support equine health research, nor specialist veterinary education, as provided by the HBLB Veterinary Advisory Committee. Over the last 15 years, racecourse horse fatalities have decreased by about one-third, to a substantial extent as a result of HBLB-funded research. Major advances have included the recognition of micro-fractures and their early diagnosis by advanced imaging, which has enabled horses to be retired before the possibility of catastrophic major bone fractures during racing. The epidemiological study of race injuries has led to improvements in course design and preparation, such as the investment by racecourses in watering systems to soften the going. There have also been major advances in infectious disease control. There has not been a race meeting cancelled because of an outbreak of infectious disease among horses for 20 years—a tribute to disease surveillance and the development of efficacious vaccines, such as the equine flu vaccine. In addition to these and many other research benefits, the HBLB has funded the education and training of equine veterinary specialists.
The continuation of this support is essential and should be given through a body that is transparent and independent, analogous to the HBLB Veterinary Advisory Committee. Can the Minister assure this House, first, that the level of current funding for equine veterinary research will be maintained or even increased by the proposed new arrangements and, secondly, that such funding will be administered by a body that is independent? Let us not forget that the health of racing depends on the health of the horses on which it relies.
Lord Suri (Con)
I thank my noble colleagues for securing the time for this debate. This is an issue of great pertinence for me. Before I came to this wonderful country, I had an interest in horseracing. During my stay in Kenya, I used to import weekly racing journals and horseracing papers for reselling through my bookshop. British horseracing has the longest pedigree in the world, and, like our own English Premier League, is widely regarded as the best in the world. Having noted this, I was glad to hear of a change in the law in the 2015 Budget to reform the 1963 horserace betting levy with a new horserace betting right. Some 200,000 people are employed in jobs linked directly to horseracing, as well as all the downstream jobs and multiplier effects; 86,000 are employed in breeding alone. If we want to protect those jobs, which often tend to be concentrated in small rural communities with few other sources of gainful employment, we must secure a viable and long-term funding mechanism.
Many people watched and had a flutter on the Grand National two weeks ago. Whether they were successful or not, many would have placed their bets on non-domicile remote gambling operators, and would have paid nothing towards supporting the industry. This loophole, according to the industry’s own figures, costs around £26 million a year, money that is desperately needed for long-term investment to provide a secure future for British racing. I hope that the Ministers responsible will be bringing forward legislation sooner rather than later, as the industry loses money with every passing event under the current system. I also hope that this new levy will not be taxed by VAT under EU rules, as this will reduce the money paid to racing, or increase the cost to bookies, who will pass it on to the consumer. Also, it would mean that non-EU betting firms would be exempt from VAT, making them cheaper to bet with than our own bookies. This consultation ought to be wrapped up soon, and I look forward to having the opportunity to vote on legislation that will secure a good future for British racing, and remove the Government from the picture permanently by cementing the relationship between racing and betting.
Lord Donoughue (Lab)
My Lords, at a canter, I wish to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on raising this important issue and to declare my interest, as in the register, as chairman of the Starting Price Regulatory Commission and of the report on the future funding of racing which concluded that we should replace the levy, but that it would provoke problems and legal challenges.
Fortunately, much progress has since been made and I welcome the new funding arrangement. I trust that it will maintain the historic balance between the genuine financial needs of the racing industry and the capacity of bookmakers to pay, noting that they are under more pressure than at any time in my lifetime, and that we will resolve any legal challenges and the familiar problem of European Union state aid.
Of course, we might avoid many of these problems if we take the free market approach so lucidly expressed by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. His experience is greater than that of most Members in this House. I have worked with him as a colleague and friend for 40 years, and I usually take his advice and recommend his racing tips, as at Exeter tomorrow. On this issue, I will not tangle with his arguments but will simply say that I am reluctant to ignore the guaranteed financial aid for the sport of racing, which I love. I am confident that that money will eventually go to very capable hands in the modern racing industry with its modern leaders—I have in mind people such as Nick Rust and Simon Bazalgette—among a new breed of professionals running the racing industry so well today. I have confidence in them.
In proposing this extension and simplification of the levy, it is now most important that the DCMS meets the April 2017 deadline to deliver its levy solution. That tired departmental horse needs a heavy whip over the final furlong to the winning post. It is much more practical to resolve the offshore tax problem than to pursue the complex journey of the original racing right, which I, too, never understood. We may face difficult but familiar legal challenges, including European state aid and negotiating a tax rate that bookmakers can afford, but I trust that they can be overcome, together with all the very pertinent questions raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, so that racing can benefit and the often maligned bookmakers can continue to flourish so that each can benefit when both prosper.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is often said that racing is the sport of kings, and I can think of no better time to debate this than on the eve of Her Majesty’s birthday. Racing makes a massive contribution to the rural economy of north Yorkshire and many other parts of the country in terms of employment, tourism and enjoyment of the countryside. It is obviously a source of concern that the yield from the horserace betting levy has fallen from an average of more than £106 million a decade ago to a forecast of approximately £55 million in 2015-16. This puts real pressure on the future of funding for racing. Yorkshire has nine of Britain’s 59 racecourses. Thirsk, Malton and Middleham represent some of Britain’s largest racehorse-training centres. They have been synonymous with racehorse training for 300 years and are home to some 45 licensed trainers and approximately 1,500 racehorses as well as to many stable lads and lasses.
I hope we can have an assurance from the Minister this evening that the Government will stick to and respect the very tight timetable and that a statutory instrument will be presented to both Houses to be voted on using the affirmative procedure before the end of this year after clearance by the Commission, following the precedent of the ruling on the French parafiscal levy on online horserace betting. When my colleague Matthew Hancock was elevated to the government Benches, I was delighted to steer an embryo Bill, which unfortunately did not pass all its stages, in the House of Commons. I am delighted that the Government have run with this. I hope that it will end the move to offshore betting and will secure the future for racing for many years to come.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that tonight, unlike in recent days, the Minister and I will be able to agree. I, too, thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for initiating this debate. When the House debated the Gambling Bill two years ago, I was pleased to add my name to the noble Viscount’s amendment on the horserace betting levy. The debate reflected genuine cross-party support for the levy and the principles that underpin it. There might have been cross-party support, but there was some dissent within the party, and we have heard that tonight.
Our achievement was followed by consultation processes on extension, reform and the new right. The Chancellor announced in his March 2015 Budget that the Government would,
“support the British racing industry by introducing a new horse race betting right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/15; col. 776.]
While we have not received what we hoped for, the Opposition welcomed the Government’s announcement last month and the further detail published on 16 March to ensure that all betting operators contribute to racing. Labour has been calling for action for a number of years and I am pleased to see that the Government are finally acting. Despite the potential opposition from the betting industry, we believe that the Government should use this opportunity to consider a wider sport betting right to support the grass roots of sport to ensure that all sports are compensated by gambling for the use of their intellectual property.
What is often overlooked is the work on training, education and employment initiatives that the levy supports. Also overlooked is the broader picture of how the racing industry has a direct link into building sustainable rural economies, as we have heard in tonight’s debate. There are a number of brief points that I would like the Minister to address, particularly on the EU Commission clearance that is required. It is important that the racing industry is properly consulted during the notification process.
I also understand that the Government have commissioned Frontier Economics to undertake an independent analysis of the common interest costs between racing and betting. Does the Minister expect that report to be concluded by the end of this month? While I appreciate that the Government recognise the urgency with which a new funding model for the sport is required, there remains a significant amount of work in order to meet the April 2017 deadline. Like other noble Lords, I would welcome further information on the specifics within the timetable and on what contingencies will be in place should the timetable begin to slip.
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 thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this informative debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for the amendment they moved to the Gambling Act 2014 which underpins our proposed changes. In a sense, they were the midwives to the proposals in the paper that we have recently issued.
The racing and betting industries in this country have a unique interdependency going back more than 200 years. For most racegoers, their day out would be incomplete without a bet on the horses; it is a major part of British cultural life and heritage. While preparing for this debate, I was watching the Grand National, which is the toughest betting race. How happy the bookies must have been as Rule the World overtook the favourite; I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Smith had a bad day.
There are almost 60 racecourses spread across Britain. This is my first debate on racing but I have been to quite a few racecourses. I have been to York—I did not know that there were eight others to go to in Yorkshire. I have also been to Ascot, Newmarket, Salisbury, Wincanton—and Chepstow, for those of us who love the Welsh. Each course plays a part in supporting local communities in driving inward investment, which is very important, and creating jobs. From recent stars such as the wonderful Golden Horn—see my Twitter account—to classic names such as Frankel, the British racing industry continues to produce exceptional talent. To ensure that this great British success story continues to prosper, it is vital that the entire betting industry makes a fair contribution to a sport from which it profits.
The mutually beneficial principle of transferring funding to racing from the proceeds of betting under statutory arrangements dates back to 1928. But the current levy system is, I think we all feel, broken because it does not apply to bookmakers who are based offshore. Following the introduction and rapid growth of online gambling, this has meant that more and more potential funding is falling outside the scope of the levy.
We have an unsatisfactory, two-tier system where British-based bookmaker A must pay the levy, whereas bookmaker B, based offshore but otherwise in identical circumstances, does not. Statutory contributions have declined steadily, as has been said, and amounted to just £60 million last year. However, a number of bookmakers make voluntary contributions, which I welcome.
Last month we set out our plans for new funding arrangements for British racing. This will ensure a level playing field and a fair return to racing from all gambling operators, regardless of where they are based. The funds will be passed to racing to make spending decisions and will benefit all those who play a part in enabling horseracing on which betting takes place. This includes racecourses, breeding groups, veterinary groups, trainers and, of course, stable staff.
Investment in the equine veterinary profession, disease control, watering of courses and the role of the HBLB—I may have got that wrong—is very important; it was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and some of my noble friends. It will be for the racing industry to make decisions on the spending of funds. It is in the interests of racing as a whole that the funds raised benefit the entire industry. The current levy has supported the advancement of veterinary science, and I very much hope, as do other noble Lords, that that will continue.
As my noble friend Lord Astor rightly said, racing is a huge industry contributing £3.5 billion to the economy. There are 85,000 direct and indirect jobs associated with it, including the 6,500 stable lads and lasses whom we heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Attendance rose to 6 million last year, so we are talking about a very popular sport. My noble friend Lord Suri added his own experience to that picture.
My noble friend Lord Astor also mentioned the oncourse industry. Oncourse bookmakers have a distinct and unique position in the betting and racing sphere; they have a vital role in providing better services for customers at the racecourse. We are considering how best to factor oncourse bookmakers into the new arrangements, and we will hold further discussions with that sector on this issue.
As to how the rate will be set, the rate payable by bookmakers will be informed by independent economic analysis and further consultation with betting and racing. I will say a little more about that later. That will take account of all sources of revenue, including media rights, to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I did not agree with every point that he made on this occasion; I do not think that he meant it seriously, but a purely voluntary environment would mean that not all betting operators would continue to contribute.
With regard to whether the rate will be assessed against a bookmaker’s turnover or gross profits, this is a point that we will be discussing with the industry. The current method, based on gross profits, has been in place for more than a decade. It is consistent with the approach taken to general betting duty. With regard to VAT, respondents to the consultations on the future of the levy raised serious concerns around the application of VAT to the racing right model. I am pleased to say that, as with the current system, whereby levy payments do not attract VAT, the new model will retain this key benefit. The racing authority will be set up by the racing industry and will be responsible for making spending decisions in line with the overall purposes of the scheme, and with an appropriate reporting mechanism. This body will be referred to in legislation but it will not be a statutory body.
The necessary changes will be made by secondary legislation, as has been said, using powers in Section 2 of the Gambling Act 2014. The regulations will, of course, be subject to the affirmative procedure and will therefore require debate and approval here and in the other place. I am not sure whether I can promise to hit the 2016 timetable referred to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, but I can take the House through the timetable as I see it.
This is spring 2016—it is wonderful outside—and following analysis from Frontier Economics, we will begin discussions with betting and racing industries to inform the level of contributions from betting. To reply to my noble friend Lord Risby, Frontier Economics is due to report to Ministers later this month, and I think that it is reasonably on track.
Secondly, we have set aside summer and autumn this year for the state aid notification process with the European Commission. A good point was made about how it can be valuable to consult during that process. This particular area is not one that I am dealing with ministerially but I will feed that back because, having dealt with other areas, I know very well how valuable stakeholder engagement can be in getting the right arguments and moving things forward efficiently.
We are planning to publish the statutory instrument and a full impact assessment by the end of 2016—which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who I see is in his place, will be glad to hear. That will enable us to bring the new funding model into force in April 2017, which is what we are hoping to do. There will be no formal role for the Bookmakers’ Committee in the new system, but racing and betting have shown that they can work together and I hope that such co-operation will continue.
My noble friend Lord Astor also asked what dispute mechanism would be in place. With the rate set by the Government, there will be less room for disputes in the new arrangements. However, we will retain the existing dispute and enforcement mechanisms, which I think are well respected.
I come back to the important subject of state aid. The levy has not been subject to an assessment under state aid rules because, as I think has been said, it originated before our accession to the European Union. The new arrangements will also cover the offshore market, and we want to ensure that the new system is sustainable and can last for a number of years. It is therefore prudent to seek clearance, which will provide certainty for all parties.
On the subject of timing, we have already begun informal conversations with the European Commission. That is why we believe that April 2017 is both a realistic and an achievable target. I think I have already said that we will ensure that the industry is kept in touch as that process takes place. I was given some comfort when talking this morning to the officials who are involved in the early stages of that state aid process.
I thank my noble friend Lord Risby for his valuable contribution. I have already explained the timing and said that Frontier Economics is making good progress. Following consideration of the report, the Government will meet the betting and racing industries to discuss the level of contributions from betting to racing.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asked about other sectors, particularly greyhound racing, which I know he is very passionate about. I have not been to greyhound racing for a very long time, and this reminds me that that is something I should try to do in my ministerial role. He may be disappointed to know that we have no plans to widen the scope to apply to other sports. However, we have expressed a desire, which I very much endorse, for both industries to agree a mutually beneficial voluntary arrangement that demonstrates a fair and just return to that sport. I should perhaps confirm that the Government have no plans to introduce a sport betting right.
With the extraordinary growth of online betting, the current levy system is fair to neither betting nor racing. The new funding model that we have discussed today will create a level playing field between all gambling operators. It will provide a fair return to racing and will ensure that our proud and vibrant racing industry can continue to produce world-class racing for generations to come. I thank my noble friend for securing this debate and look forward to discussing these issues further with him and other noble Lords in the weeks and months ahead.
Housing and Planning Bill
21:28 - Division on Amendment 108 - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 129 - Amendment 108 disagreed.
22:30 - Division on Amendment 116BA - Ayes: 19 / Noes: 116 - Amendment 116BA disagreed.
22:57 - Division on Amendment 116C - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 101 - Amendment 116C disagreed.
Baroness Andrews
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, we are a dwindling band but the issues are no less important. This amendment repeats the amendment which I laid as Amendment 98 in Committee to stress the need for brownfield sites to achieve both sustainable development and good design.
We brought the amendment back not only because we continued to see the need to reinforce and make clear on the record that the NPPF applies to brownfield sites on the register and that any developing local authority must therefore ensure that those sites exemplify all the positive and best aspects of place-making. We also brought it back to reiterate common concerns, inside and outside this House, that these new developments may fall prey to being a short cut to throwing up the sorts of housing estates that we hoped we had seen the last of that are identikit and, frankly, alienating. We want to ensure that developers who are under the cosh get the clear message that it is possible to build quickly but beautifully. There is nothing utopian about that—it can be done.
Sustainability means, of course, to build to sustainable environmental, social and economic conditions, and with regard to social sustainability it also means building in that which reflects, incorporates and makes a working feature of the heritage of the site, to give new inhabitants of an old and much-worked site a sense that they too belong there in a new age. We often underestimate the importance of reflecting that sense of identity and belonging, yet it makes an enormous difference to how people feel about where they live.
That means that the second reason I have for bringing back the amendment is even more important. When we discussed it in Committee we had some exchanges about new town development corporations which led me to reflect that the NPPF might not apply to these new planning authorities and that, if they were to develop to their very best—in terms of the rare opportunity these developments offer to master plan to the highest standards—they most certainly should be under the same planning law. I am very grateful for the help of the TCPA in establishing this point. Again, I thank the Minister for the help she has given and thank her very helpful officials in this respect. They have confirmed that I was right to raise this as an issue. The duty to work towards sustainable development as set out in Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 does not apply to new town development corporations. However, I am assured that in practice, as the Minister said in a letter to me,
“the Government does have the means to ensure that they have regard to the NPPF in drawing up its plan for a new settlement”.
She has suggested that this could be done, for example, through provisions set out in Section 7 of the New Towns Act 1981.
I will quote the rest of the Minister’s letter, because it is very important for the record. She says that she is,
“aware that there is a strong case to ensure that there are explicit statutory obligations on”,
new town development corporations,
“to work towards achieving sustainable development, in the same way as they are currently on a local planning authority. I am pleased to say that we will be bringing forward such proposals shortly”.
There will be amendments later on, possibly on Monday, on the same point, but it is apposite now to raise this issue on the amendment and to say again that I would be very grateful if the Government were able to say a little more about how this other loophole in the law might also be closed. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Andrews has showed the House her expertise in these matters and I fully support her amendment. I do not have any more to say than that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, again I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, not only for eloquently outlining her amendment but for how she has contributed to this part of the Bill thus far. She outlined why she considers that this is an important opportunity to place a high-level obligation in the Bill to ensure that the brownfield register contributes to sustainable places. I fully agree that local authority decisions should consider sustainable development and good design but I hope I can outline why the amendment is not needed.
This clause will already require local planning authorities to have regard to the NPPF when, for example, making decisions about sites to include in local registers. As we discussed in Committee, the framework makes clear that sustainable development should be at the heart of both plan-making and decision-taking. I emphasise that placing a site on a register is not a permission to build—but I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that. The consideration of detailed issues, such as design, will not be feasible at the point that sites are entered on to the brownfield registers. That will come later. Applicants will be responsible for providing detailed information when they submit their applications for technical details consent. This will ensure that design is also considered before consent is granted in the same way as it would be for a planning application.
The noble Baroness raised the applicability of sustainable development objectives and the NPPF to new town development corporations. As she will be aware, we announced in the Budget our intention to legislate to better support the delivery of new locally led garden towns and villages. We want to ensure that they exemplify high design and sustainability standards. It is absolutely our intention that when we legislate we will ensure that sustainable development objectives and the outcomes set out in the NPPF apply with no less force to new town development corporations than they do to local planning authorities in general.
I also point out that it is the applicant and not local authorities who should bear the cost of providing detailed information in support of their application. Placing a stronger emphasis in the Bill could result in unnecessary burdens being transferred to local authorities. I emphasise that our proposals for the brownfield register or permission in principle do not change the protections in the NPPF in respect of sustainability or design.
I hope that I have been able to articulate our position and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Andrews
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Having read the contents of her letter, with its commitment to provisions set out in Section 7 of the New Towns Act 1981 and how they can be brought forward, I take that as a commitment—even if she cannot say so at this moment—that something will reflect that in forthcoming legislation. She is nodding and I put that on the record. With that assurance, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Planning freedoms: right for local areas to request alterations to planning system
(1) If the following conditions are met, the Secretary of State may by regulations make a planning freedoms scheme, having effect for a specified period, in relation to a specified planning area. A “planning freedoms scheme” is a scheme that disapplies or modifies specified planning provisions in order to facilitate an increase in the amount of housing in the planning area concerned(2) The first condition is that the relevant planning authority or authorities have requested the Secretary of State to make a planning freedoms scheme for their area.(3) The second condition is that the Secretary of State is satisfied—(a) that there is a need for a significant increase in the amount of housing in the planning area concerned,(b) that the planning freedoms scheme will contribute to such an increase, and(c) that adequate consultation has been carried out.(4) The third condition is that—(a) the relevant planning authority or authorities have prepared a summary of the views expressed in the consultation referred to at subsection (3)(c), and(b) the Secretary of State has considered that summary.(5) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c) consultation is “adequate” only if—(a) the relevant authority or authorities publish an explanation of what the proposed planning freedoms scheme is expected to involve, and(b) persons in the planning area concerned, and other persons likely to be affected, have a reasonable opportunity to communicate their views about the proposed scheme.(6) The Secretary of State may decide to restrict the number of planning freedoms schemes in force at any one time (and accordingly is not required to make a scheme merely because the conditions in this section are met).(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations bring a planning freedoms scheme to an end, and must do so if the relevant planning authority or, as the case may be, any of the relevant planning authorities so request.(8) In this section—“planning area” means the area of a local planning authority, or an area comprising two or more adjoining areas of local planning authorities;“planning provision” means a provision to do with planning that is contained in or made under any Act;“relevant planning authority” means the local planning authority for an area that is or forms part of a planning area;“specified” means specified in regulations under subsection (1).”
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I wish to claim a record. I have just seen the first clothes-moth of the spring so, now that the weather is warming and clearly the Minister is warming to the amendments being presented, I very much hope that I shall be on a run here following the success of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
I apologise for the introduction of a manuscript amendment at a late stage but this is due to constructive conversations with the Minister’s colleagues as to how we can put something in the Bill that enables local initiative to be given more scope than it is at the moment. My inspiration for this was the Wolfson Economics Prize in 2014. The winner was Oxford—a well-known Labour council—and the runner-up was Shelter, which is also not listed as a government supporter. So this is not a partisan amendment but is based on a thoroughgoing belief that local decisions, local plans, local ideas and local wishes as to how an area can best develop and contribute substantially to providing more housing are things that we should encourage. I think that the amendment provides a good way of doing that.
There is a supplementary amendment to come on Monday which will make this subject to the affirmative resolution, and another one to make sure that hybridity is dealt with. At this late time of night, I shall leave it at that, other than to very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who stepped in to move my amendment in Committee when I was laid low with a bad back, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for his consistent support. I beg to move.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. Indeed, I added my name to the previous version of this amendment but was not quick enough on the draw to add it to this latest version. Among the very many amendments that we have seen, this is a genuinely original and, I think, positive proposal. It is in every sense localist.
Before I move on, I should declare my interests as chair of Peabody, president of the Local Government Association and chair of the London Housing Commission.
I have felt for some time that we make progress on these issues through local initiative and through learning from different models in different parts of the country. Indeed, I think that that is exactly how we developed the model for city deals through the Localism Act. Proposals came forward for permissive powers to enable local authorities to make proposals for the Secretary of State’s approval. That set of amendments, sponsored by the Core Cities Group, paved the way for what I think has been an entirely positive process of city deals and devolution of powers according to local need.
This proposal opens up the opportunity to try new models at local level and to give local places, whether it is an individual local authority or a set of combined authorities, the chance to take the initiative. There are safeguards which have been strengthened: first, it would be through affirmative regulations, as we have already heard; secondly, there would need to be consultation; and thirdly, of course, the Secretary of State would need to give approval to any proposal. The test here is whether in a situation where there is high need for housing, and where the proposal envisages more housing being possible through the alternative, we should give the freedom to try it out. In my view, very clearly we should.
There is an added reason why I am very strongly in support of this amendment, and that is to do with the issues in London. Noble Lords will be aware that I chaired a commission on the housing crisis—I think it is a crisis—in London, which looked at issues of how supply in London might be doubled over five years and then held there. Nothing less than that will address the issues in London. The overwhelming conclusion of our panel was that it was simply not possible to deliver this scale of change without a new, significant package of devolution to the London mayor and the London boroughs. One part of that devolved model is greater powers on planning. This amendment would open up the opportunity for a new devolution package in London and the opportunity, I think, to tackle a growing and desperate crisis. I hope that this proposal is sympathetically considered by the Government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I note that this amendment has been supplied to us only today in the form of Amendment 107B, having previously been Amendment 107A. The basic thrust behind the amendment is broadly the same but the wording has altered. I had some doubts about Amendment 107A, and I still have those doubts. Perhaps, in replying, the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, could explain the position. I do not want to see one of the cornerstones of British democracy, which is the town and country planning system, upended by this amendment. Certainly the previous version, particularly subsections (1) and (3), was very worrying. Those subsections have been altered in Amendment 107B, but a number of questions still arise.
The first question is around how neighbourhood planning fits with this structure. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the importance of neighbourhood planning. However, I am looking at subsection (3)(c), subsection (4)(a) and subsection (5), and although they refer to consultation that is deemed to be adequate, there is no indication of what “adequate” consultation is. Nor is it clear what would happen if the local reaction of a neighbourhood is very negative to a proposal. It is also not clear how the summary views expressed—let us suppose that 90% are against—will be considered by the Minister. That is one aspect of this that causes me concern. I do not really understand how we can have a system of neighbourhood planning and then alterations to a planning system, as proposed in this amendment.
Secondly, there is the issue of sustainability. I do not understand to what extent planning freedoms would mean that a local area could disregard issues of sustainability. I am thinking of issues around drainage and water supply, but there are other examples. I feel uncertain about exactly what is being proposed here and why it is deemed to be so important, with an assumption that the current planning system cannot deliver the answer that is required: to build more houses. We already heard earlier, in the debate about the neighbourhood right of appeal to a planning approval on neighbourhood planning, that 10% more homes are being built in areas with neighbourhood plans than would otherwise have been the case.
I am struggling to understand what problem the mover of this amendment is attempting to solve. It would help enormously to have some concrete examples to work with. When I hear about combined authorities, which are huge structures that do not have much connectivity with electors, I wonder how this will build public confidence in the current planning system.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I also come to this without a full appreciation of the implications. In particular, I wonder whether schemes would be able to depart from what might become requirements elsewhere; for example, in relation to energy efficiency or other aspects that one would expect to be part of planning consent for new schemes.
I do not quite understand what the decision-making mechanism would be. Once the scheme had been floated, would it still involve applications having to be approved within the new framework by something equivalent to a development control committee or sub-committee of the kind that most councils now have, or is it to be a sort of executive process without member involvement at the level of individual local authorities or perhaps a combination of authorities when one is looking at a wider area? It is not quite clear how the practical side would be handled.
I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—if not doubts, then questions—about the nature of public involvement and how that would be fed into the process. Can the noble Lord identify any experience in another jurisdiction—one which is somewhat analogous to ours—of this kind of approach? Is there experience of this way of dealing with applications that we might learn from in terms of how it might develop here? I would certainly be interested in seeing the matter progressed, but I do not think that we have enough information positively to affirm that it should go forward as part of the Bill—it is a bit early for that without knowing a good deal more about how it might work. It may be that some further indications can be given and the Minister wants to take the matter back, although not necessarily with a view to dealing with it in a week’s time at Third Reading—we are pretty late in the process to bring something as potentially radical as this into the Bill. Even if it does not go very far on this occasion, it is certainly a concept that is worth exploring, but if I were the Minister, I do not think that I would be jumping at incorporation into the Bill quite at this stage. However, she may have a different view.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who moved it in his absence just before the Easter Recess. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had a bad back at that stage and half the noble Lords who are interested in this Bill were somewhat indisposed, but I am glad that everybody is now feeling much better. We may well, of course, be ill before Prorogation. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, who spoke as well.
My noble friend made some interesting arguments about the benefits of this model. He made a compelling case for the leadership role of local authorities and their ability to innovate in a way that reflects the needs and voices of their local communities. There is also a pressing need to build new homes, and I am strongly convinced of the importance of the role that local authorities play in that. I am therefore open to new approaches such as this which might achieve our dual obligations of housing growth and localism. I want also to reflect further on how a model such as this might be used in practice—both the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised some questions which are worthy of consideration.
My noble friend has made it clear that his amendment is simply enabling. If a clear case could be made for the circumstances where these measures might apply, such circumstances would need to be set out in regulations which would have to be debated in both Houses. On that basis, and with those checks and balances in place, I am willing to accept the amendment at this stage, but subject to considering further whether any technical adjustments are needed for the remaining stage of the Bill.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her response. I thoroughly appreciate what noble Lords opposite have said. The winners of the Wolfson Economics Prize in 2014 were big schemes, but they were very much supported locally. They clearly did not go through the processes that are envisaged in my amendment, but the Oxfordshire scheme was 150,000 houses. It was supported by Oxford City Council in its generation, and the Shelter scheme in the Medway was of a similar size. These are transformative schemes and it is quite difficult, I am told by those who supported them, to see how one fits them within existing planning law.
At the same time, we do not want, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, says, to completely reconstruct planning law bit by bit. I do not lay claim personally to deep expertise in this area, but my intention is that we should not be doing that. We should allow local areas to operate as standard bearers to look at something that really makes sense to them and has strong support locally, to take that forward and see how it goes. If they get it right then we will all learn from it and have a process that helps us advance planning law. If they do not get it quite right then it is what they wanted and they did their best but the planning arrangements for the rest of us remain as they were. I am for innovation and encouraging, above all, localism and letting local communities really have a say in what is happening to them and an ability to tackle things on a large scale where that is needed. That is something we should encourage.
I am depressed that it looks like my children will live in smaller houses than I did, and I live in a smaller house than my parents did. I think that that is pretty standard across the country. We ought, as we get richer, to have better and nicer places to live in. We need more innovation and more understanding to work out how all the conflicting demands of the environment and us as a society and individual people can best be met. I am a great fan in that context of local innovation. I am comforted by what my noble friend said. I do not pretend that this does not require further thought and consideration and I am certainly open to all suggestions on this.
“(1) Local planning authorities may make provision for the payment of fees or charges to them in respect of the performance of their functions and anything done by them which is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the performance of their functions, and may vary such fees or charges according to the value of the project concerned or any other material concerns.(2) Fees or charges under subsection (1) may exceed the costs incurred by the local planning authority in performing functions relating to the relevant project.(3) Local planning authorities shall retain any fees or charges paid in accordance with subsection (1), and use them as they see fit.”
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
In moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendment 116. Although they are on different subjects, they are very similar in that they are setting right something that is very wrong at the moment. The amendments would give local authorities more control over how they deal with the costs involved in handling planning applications. There is no doubt that handling a very large and expensive operation that may involve hundreds of millions of pounds is rather different in terms of cost to the council than handling a little room or basement extension that someone wants to add on to their house. At the moment, local authorities do not have that choice. It is wrong for people to pay the same amount. The council should be entitled to charge fees according to the work involved and the cost of the development envisaged.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am very happy indeed to have my name associated with Amendment 108. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has eloquently set out the case. The current fee levels are determined centrally by government and they do not enable council planning departments to achieve full cost recovery. London Councils claims a shortfall of around £40 million a year, while we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Porter, that the LGA estimates that the shortfall across the country is some £150 million a year. The fees were last reviewed in 2012 and the future is very uncertain. The Government consultation finished only at the end of last week, and we have no idea what the outcome will be.
I am sure many noble Lords were as pleased as I was to receive what has now become the almost ritual letter from the Minister just a few hours before each of our sessions debating the Bill. But I note that in today’s letter we are told that, because of the high response rate to the consultation, she is unable to share with us any information about what respondents have said or, indeed, how the Government will react. But the Minister has already admitted in answer to my questions in Committee—and it is repeated in the letter we received today—that it is likely that councils will get an inflation-based rise, with those deemed to be poorly performing getting even less. So the shortfall will continue, and many hard-pressed planning departments will be unable to give the quality of service they would like and that developers need and deserve.
The Minister offers in today’s letter one small glimmer of hope, where she refers to,
“greater fee flexibility for the truly radical”.
I hope she will be able to offer some insights into what she has in mind. I genuinely believe that councils are capable of radical approaches to service delivery—indeed, there are many examples that demonstrate this—but the ability to set fees at a reasonable level must surely form part of any package. I simply cannot see any of the external agencies that the Government want to involve in planning process work being willing to undertake it if their fees are to be equally constrained. Yet, where planning departments have been allowed to charge realistic fees, such as for pre-planning applications, many have developed an efficient, speedy and high-quality service. Were councils able to charge realistic fees that at least recover their full costs for their main planning functions, I am confident that the quality and speed of work would improve, to the enormous benefit of developers. It should be noted that such fee increases would in the vast majority of cases be very small in comparison with the other very much larger costs incurred in any development of any size, and that the negative impact would be more than outweighed by the benefits of the improved service offered.
I know that some noble Lords will have concerns about subsection (2) of Amendment 108, which would enable councils to set fees or charges that,
“may exceed the costs incurred … in performing the functions relating to the relevant project”,
but there will be cases where planning fee costs, if at full cost recovery for a small development, may well deter that development. If the overall costs of the planning department can be spread so that larger developments take a little extra of the share and thus enable the fees for smaller developments to go ahead, we can have the best of both worlds. I say to the Minister that this would in no way be contrary to the requirements imposed on local councils in the Local Government Act 2003, which makes it clear that councils are under a duty to ensure that, taking one year with another, charges do not exceed the cost of provision. Therefore, taking a little less from some developers and putting a little more on others is perfectly legitimate in existing legislation.
The Government continue to claim that they support localism. They can demonstrate that by supporting the amendment. Should they fail to do so, I hope there will be an opportunity to test the opinion of the House, but I hope that will not be necessary.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I speak very briefly in support of the spirit behind the amendment and what is sought to be achieved. I will not repeat the arguments that have already been made, but I will refer to the experience I had during the London Housing Commission, where I consulted extensively with developers across every type and scale. The consistent and unanimous view of all those developers was that they were willing to pay more to get a better service.
What they described to me was a service that was truly struggling to do the job, where major and important applications were held up through the absence of good-quality staff and where they often experienced dealing with temporary staff who were learning on the job and did not have the authority to make decisions. This is, in any description you care to think of, a false economy. The improvement by way of inflation will be helpful but it does not go to the heart of the core problem, which is that, in the situation of severe funding challenges in local government, authorities are unable to resource, in the way that is required, the level of planning services that we need to deliver the increase in housing supply.
I am absolutely of the view that there should be a link to performance here, but I also believe very passionately that we should give local authorities the local initiative and flexibility to set their own fees. Over time the consequence of this will be that they will be able to plan for increased resources and, crucially, recruit new, skilled staff and rebuild a profession which, in the public sector, has been severely reduced in its capacity.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, strangely, I am going to speak against the amendment, because of the second part. I am not sure why this amendment is not linked to the one about the private sector being able to compete against local government to do planning. In my mind they should go together. There is no way that the private sector will pick up any planning applications if it is only allowed to charge the current fee structure that we as councils are allowed to charge. That is because in the last three years the taxpayer subsidy to planning has been £450 million. The private sector will not engage on that.
Without the second part being in there, it would allow local government to be put in the right place to prevent the private sector being able to take the work at a subsidised rate for itself. The risk seems to be that, when we get to that part of the Bill, private sector firms will be allowed to charge excessive fees and make money, safe in the knowledge that there will be an expectation that they will be more sympathetic to the applicant. I think a true level playing field would be one in which we charge full cost recovery and for those applications that are minor, where that would not be possible, there needs be a different mechanism. That is why I cannot support the amendment as written.
On the next amendment, on the retrospective planning application, again, we need some way to penalise serial offenders who wilfully abuse the planning system by not seeking planning permission in the right way when they first set out on their projects. Again, I am not sure how that should be worded in a way that will deliver it to best effect for everybody, because there will be genuine cases where some people simply were not aware that they needed to make a planning application. So any amendment must recognise that for me to be able to support it. As I have said before about any amendment that has “local government must” in it, there is no way I can support the third part of that amendment, where it says that we “must consult”. I do not think that local government ever “must” do anything. I think we should always “may” do something.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I regret that we were not able to get Amendment 116BA into the same group, as it covers the same issues. It makes clear that local authorities may recover their full costs in respect of the work they are doing on planning applications, which is the intention behind this amendment as well.
I think it is important that councils are able to set fees that enable them to recover their costs, or at least a larger part of their costs, in undertaking the work they need to do to ensure that applications are processed efficiently. This would, of course, mean that for larger developments developers would pay more, or more realistic costs, than someone who wants to build an extension to their home.
I agreed with the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Porter of Spalding, when they said in Committee that it is probably going too far to allow councils to make money out of the planning application process, but it is right that they should be able to recover up to all their costs, which is the intention of my Amendment 116BA, which we will come to later. I am disposed to test the opinion of the House on that if the Minister does not make a reasonable offer in that regard before Third Reading.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made a compelling point on Amendment 116, to which the noble Lord, Lord Porter, referred. At my last planning committee meeting, I recall that a public house in Blackheath was seeking retrospective approval for the substantial changes it had made to the fabric of its building without planning permission. It obtained the approval. We made it very clear to the applicants how unhappy we were that they were there in front of us, but that was all we could do. They got their permission and paid the nominal fees. It would be good if such applicants could be made to pay a little more, given the work that we had to do.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for speaking to this amendment, which would allow local authorities to go beyond cost recovery. We currently work with the Town and Country Planning Act and the Local Government Act 2003, which places a duty on authorities, requiring them to ensure that, taking one year with another, any income derived from planning fees or fees from discretionary services does not exceed the cost of providing the service. However, what cost recovery means in practice in terms of fee levels and increases could vary widely. I am deeply concerned that this amendment, and another we will debate later, have no protections or safeguards to prevent local authorities setting excessive and unreasonable fees, leaving the potential for substantial increases in fees for applicants. My noble friend Lord Porter outlined some of the snags in this approach. Although noble Lords might argue about recovering costs, where is the protection for applicants so that they are not simply funding a highly inefficient service, as he said? Without safeguards for applicants, this amendment, and the one we will debate later, are flawed. There are real technical challenges with the amendments we are debating. That said, it has been interesting to hear noble Lords’ comments, so I shall go into further detail about some of the issues raised.
I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, particularly from my noble friend Lady Gardner. It is easy to be seduced into thinking that resource and performance challenges in planning departments can be resolved by localising fee setting. The arguments for and against local fee setting are more complex and nuanced than has been suggested. However, to give carte blanche to local authorities to recoup whatever their costs, whether or not they are efficient, cannot be right. This is why we want to test and learn from different approaches to fee setting to better understand how we can secure well-resourced and top-performing planning departments.
I shall set out why I am not convinced that allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fee levels at this time is the answer to resourcing challenges. Local authorities have told us, supported by some evidence from the NAO, that there have been disproportionate cuts to planning services since 2010. Such local decisions suggest that additional income from local fee setting may not necessarily make its way into planning services, particularly against the backdrop of local government arguing for, and gaining, reductions in ring-fenced budgets and income. Local planning authorities are monopoly providers of planning services in their area, which does not provide much incentive to innovate, reduce costs and provide the most efficient and effective service. Local fee setting could compound this because it enables planning authorities to pass on their costs to applicants, despite any inefficiencies in their planning service. Fees could rise in a way that dissuades small or medium-sized developers from undertaking developments. Local authorities tell us that resource pressures are most acute in small development schemes, and fees for this type of development could rise proportionately the most significantly. While local authorities have transformed many of their services, they have been slower to transform their planning services. Those that have introduced new ways of delivering planning services have shown that performance can be improved and costs reduced.
We have set out three proposals for tackling resource pressures in planning departments. First, we have consulted on increasing national fees in line with inflation since the last fee increase in 2012 for those authorities that are performing well, with annual increases thereafter also linked to inflation and performance. We have also proposed testing the provision of greater flexibility in fee setting, on top of our proposals for national increases in fees linked to inflation, where local areas come forward with ambitious plans for reforms and improved performance. This could mean some limited, localised fee setting in a few areas or small additional increases in fees above inflation. This approach will allow us to test and better understand whether fee flexibility directly linked to service reform and performance can secure better planning services for communities and developers alike. We want to introduce pilots to test competition in the processing of planning applications. We think that the market might work best where service providers are free to set their own fees so we are minded, subject to consultation, to enable authorities in pilot areas to set their own fee levels.
Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows the Secretary of State to provide, in regulations, that local planning authorities can set their own level of fees up to cost recovery. We already have the powers to enable local fee setting, but handing local planning authorities a blank cheque in this way does not guarantee a better-resourced planning department or incentivise authorities to drive down their costs. This is why we want to test the approaches that we are developing to tackle resourcing pressures in local planning authorities.
I have already set out that there are legislative provisions that prevent authorities from going beyond cost recovery. Additionally, the Government’s guidance on handling public funds, entitled Managing Public Money, states that charges and fees, such as those for planning applications, should be set at cost recovery so that the Government do not profit at the expense of applicants. The proposed amendment also does not have any safeguards—for example, to prevent local planning authorities from profiting from fees set at excessive levels that could dissuade applicants, particularly smaller ones, from bringing forward development—or any requirement on authorities to consult on fee proposals. I feel very strongly that it is up to local authorities to determine how fees are used and that the income generated from planning fees remains with the council.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I just want to say that we will be returning to this issue next Monday, as the issue of pilots and testing is in a later set of amendments. There is one under my name to be debated then. Does the Minister accept that local planning authorities are not recovering their costs now and does she believe, in principle, that they should be entitled to do so?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, although there has been the ability for fees to go up in line with inflation, there is a general acceptance of the anecdotal evidence from local planning authorities that their costs are not being met, but we have to marry that up with performance and efficiency.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I know that we are going to come back to this next week but, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that, when we have all these reviews, she does not envisage a situation where we end up with the local authority being able to charge one set of fees for a planning application, while a lot more could be paid to another provider who could also do it but at a more expensive cost? I think that it would be totally wrong to allow there to be two levels of fees—you could have the council charging a fee but allow some other provider to do the same job for a larger fee.
Lord Shipley
Before the noble Lord sits down—that is actually the subject of the amendment that I shall be moving next Monday.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, what we are discussing at the moment are fees that go beyond cost recovery. I am talking about efficient and effective local planning—
Lord Foster of Bath
I apologise but can the Minister explain why she keeps referring to us discussing fees that go beyond full cost recovery? She has acknowledged that a local authority will clearly want development to take place, so there will be constraints on that authority not to set unrealistic fees that prevent the development going forward. But she has repeated what I said in repeating what she said during Committee: that the Local Government Act clearly states that a council cannot make a profit year on year from its services. There is a clear constraint in the existing legislation and I think that we all acknowledge that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am slightly confused now because Amendment 108 says that all local authorities may increase fees beyond cost recovery.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, this debate has been very interesting and it has certainly ranged widely. I still think it very important that fees should be related to the cost of the project. I cannot reconcile the small, individual application for something in your own home as compared to that for a multimillion pound development. There must be variation in that; there is certainly a big variation in the amount of work involved on the part of the council in considering the other type of application.
I was interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that people had said to him that in general they would like a better service. They were not so worried about the cost of it—that is, the person who has the big development. The small development person is very worried about their one little bit and would rather wait longer and pay less. But I can understand that if you are doing big business and hoping for a huge profit at the end of your project, speed is of the essence in getting it on and sold. The papers today tell us how this year will be a terribly bad one for London at the top of the property market yet last year—or it might have been the year before—was fabulous. Whenever it was, the people developing for a big profit are out to catch the market at the right time, so time is very important to them. If you are doing your own small building, you would rather be sure that you can afford to do it than suddenly pay an extra fee to get permission quicker.
The Minister referred to pilots. I would like to think that she really does have pilots under way and that we are going to learn something from them. I understand from what has been said that that will be discussed next week. I am therefore encouraged by her saying that these pilots are being worked on. I will reserve my views and not press this amendment tonight because it is late. A lot of interesting points have been raised and I would like the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister. I would also like to see the result of the debate on pilots next week but, as there are not enough Members left in the House to give us a true vote tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“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 hope to be brief, despite the length of the amendments down on the Order Paper. The more I look at this issue—and it is called “subterranean development”, which most people would call “basements”—the more I realise that planning law is incredibly complicated. I spent some time as a councillor in Westminster and, in fact, I was a Minister for Northern Ireland, and I had direct responsibility for planning decisions. Nevertheless, despite all that experience, my knowledge was still pretty thin; I have learned quite a lot, but not as much as I ought to.
Basements are a real problem. Anybody who lives in an area where basements are spreading will accept that they are a problem. If you talk to people who live next door to where a basement is being dug out, they will tell you, “For heaven’s sake, we have no peace, we cannot sleep”. If they are shift workers, they cannot do their work in the daytime. They will say, “For heaven’s sake, stop it”. Addressing this issue has all-party support in both Houses, so it is not a partisan matter at all. Local council leaders are keen on a change in the law. I spoke to the leader of one London council, who said, “We can’t stop these basements unless you change the law to enable us to do so”. That is the purpose of these amendments.
Even if your Lordships live in an area where there are no basements, they are coming your way—even in Northern Ireland, they will happen sooner or later. But certainly they will happen all over London and in other cities. So it is no good saying, “This does not affect my area”, because it certainly does, or certainly will. One only has to look at the coverage in the Evening Standard. Week after week, there are stories of horrific basements being built. There are different types of basements; nevertheless, the stories are there, and they are pretty awful. My noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton wanted to be here, but I said I would do a little piece for him. He said that one has to be careful when digging basements. The construction industry is a dangerous industry, and there can be accidents in digging basements and there are important health and safety considerations that ought not to be forgotten. Not long ago, a basement was being excavated under a house in Barnes which simply collapsed, so it is not straightforward. There are quite horrific examples.
I have met with the Minister a couple of times. We have had good discussions, and I found her extremely helpful. I am hoping she will be even more helpful on this occasion and give me some encouragement. If she is, we can move on quickly. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for the manner in which he has engaged with me and Members of your Lordships’ House in addressing not just the basement development issue, but the associated problems and the misery of people’s lives being disrupted by such developments. He has certainly enlightened me as to some of the problems in London, in particular. The Government are very aware of them now, if they were not previously.
I take this opportunity to tell the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that in the light of the concerns he has raised on this and many previous occasions, we will commit to carrying out a review of the planning law and regulations relating to basement developments. The noble Lord promised me that I would be splashed all over the Evening Standard for this, so I await his side of the deal—that is a metaphor.
We will publish a call for evidence for the review by the summer this year, and we hope we will receive responses from a range of authorities and stakeholders and, of course, from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, so we can take on his views and expertise.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has been doggedly pursuing this issue for some time now. He produced a Private Member’s Bill and pursued this matter here, and we have a very good conclusion.
Lord Dubs
This is a very happy occasion when we are all in such agreement. I am most grateful to the Minister for what she said and for the commitment she entered into, which I think is pretty good. Everybody I have spoken to says it is pretty good and that we can move forward with it. I cannot guarantee that the Minister will be a headline in the Evening Standard, but she jolly well ought to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Compensation to businesses expelled from premises to enable conversion from office to residential use
Any property owner, developer, or agent, who gives notice to a solvent and active business in order to enable the conversion of office premises to residential use, shall be required to—(a) meet the full costs of the planning authority in advising on and determining such an application;(b) make a contribution to the local planning authority of not less than 20% of the net profit gained from the difference between the office and residential value of the property concerned; and(c) share not less than 50% of the net profit gained from the difference between the office and residential value of the property concerned with any business or businesses expelled from the premises to enable the change of use.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, at this hour I will seek to be as brief as possible. It was very good to hear another concession from the Front Bench; the gracious way in which our Government have listened to Opposition representations has been striking in the course of the Bill’s proceedings, and I welcome it.
I made a speech in Committee, and there is a good rule in this House that we do not repeat at length arguments made there. I considered that speech to be clear and, without being arrogant, I thought that it was quite compelling. It was Conservative; it was, in my submission, common sense; and it spoke for itself. I am not certain that it has been read as widely in government as I would have liked, but I still have hopes that it might be. It was also, if I may say so, a compassionate speech in terms of conservatism.
The issue I wish to highlight, which does not affect the whole country, is what is happening to small businesses as a result of the order as it is operating. In my borough, we have recently seen a local estate agent ousted by landlords operating under a nominee company which wished to develop the property; the estate agent could not find a suitable high street replacement and is now renting in less suitable premises at more than double the cost. Asset and flood risk management consultants employing 10 in a town centre have been ousted, forced to move to a less favourable site, again with a far higher rent. The winner of our local Best Business award, employing six, has been ousted from premises that were found after three years of searching—it was an ideal site—by a £180 million West End property company which is pushing out a number of businesses in the mews concerned.
There is a problem and I cannot understand why a Government who believe in small business, endeavour and hard work cannot see that there needs to be a tweak at the edges of the current regime to make sure that we can safeguard these hard-working people. That is all I am hoping to achieve in the context of this debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I understand that there are difficulties with my amendment as it stands. There are understandable fears on the part of the Government that if the amendment were accepted it might apply halfway across the country where it was not justified as it is, I submit, in my area. I am very willing to find a compromise; if that takes time over the next few days, I would be willing to do that and withdraw the amendment. That would be the preferred course. With a will, it should be possible to find a way to preserve the policy which the Government rightly think has been a success in using disused and unwanted offices, and allow it to continue in areas where it is appropriate, while finding a way to stop active businesses being forced out on to the streets.
I have every hope that we can find a way forward. I will not prolong my remarks because, as I say, I spoke on this issue at some length in Committee. Circumstances have not improved since then; they have got worse. I beg to move.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, as indeed I did in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord True, is quite right: he made an excellent speech then, at some length and with some passion. I know this is an issue about which he rightly feels very strongly.
I am no longer a south London councillor, but I was until two years ago and I know the effect that this policy, which came in under the coalition Government in 2013, has had in my borough, which I think is similar to that in much of London. Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I am not going to repeat everything that I said in Committee. One thing startled me, though: in my borough, the London Borough of Sutton, 62% of the conversions permitted in the two-year period under the permitted development right have happened to offices that were occupied, and the occupiers have been removed. That is serious and damaging for the local economy. I ask why the Government are so keen to pursue this, and I am told that it is because of the drive to provide more homes. That is an ambition that we all support strongly.
I therefore asked my borough—I repeat that I am not a councillor now—for the housing figures. They showed me the figures for housing in the borough for each of the last 10 years, long before the policy came in as well as since. Sadly I do not have the figures with me, but in all of those 10 years, and overall, for permissions granted the borough is, from memory, 132% above the target in the London Plan—in other words, the target set for the council. Possibly more importantly, on housing completions it is still very nearly 130% above target. So this is an authority that is more than meeting its housing targets—whether or not that is enough is a different debate—and cannot be said to be, nor has it been said to be, failing in that regard. Yet the borough, particularly its employment prospects and the whole nature of its town centre and other district centres, is hit hard by this policy.
The other aspect is the housing being permitted under the permitted development rights. We all want to see more homes being provided, but not just anything. None of the properties provided could be designated as an affordable property. Demands are different in different areas, and the demand in an area like mine is very much for two-bedroom and three-bedroom properties, but virtually all those provided are one-bedroom and not affordable, so not what is actually needed in the area but, frankly, what developers can turn a quick profit on. They are permitted to do that; they are not breaking the law. So I question whether the policy is actually meeting housing demand either.
We all want to see more homes built but not any old homes anywhere; we want the right quality and design of homes, and the homes that people actually need. I suggest that this policy is failing on that front as well. It is not failing everywhere; I know that in some authorities—the Minister said that her former authority was one of them—it is very welcome. That is fine and I have no problem with that. Our issue is that having had this policy in practice for a couple of years now, we can see in reality the effect it is having in large parts of London—and, I expect, in other parts of the country too, although I know less about that.
It really is time for the Government to review and relax this provision. In my view, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord True, meets that requirement. It is fully in keeping with a localist policy. I am not competent to discuss whatever technical flaws there may or may not be in it, but the amendment’s intent is very clear and it is absolutely right. I am pleased to support it.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I have added my name to the other amendment in this group for the simple reason that the intended effect of the policy has not been how it has worked out in practice. If we cast our minds back to when this policy was developed, the economy was still struggling to recover from the impact of the financial crisis and the intention, therefore, was to unlock animal spirits and let the market take its course. There is no doubt that permitted rights has unlocked a series of new developments of housing. However, the intention was for it to address industrial sites or office sites where the prospect of new economic development was unlikely ever to happen but, for whatever reason, the local authority was not recognising that reality and moving on. In that sense, it had its effect. Where it has not done what we anticipated was that there was a policy of exemptions which would prevent particular areas being unduly affected. The City and Westminster formed part of those exemptions, but the area was not drawn widely enough.
Let us move forward to the present. The values that can be achieved through the development of residential housing, particularly in London—and I believe that this is predominantly a London issue—far exceed the values that can be achieved through economic use such as offices, retail space and so on. Instead of taking sites that will never be used for economic development, we are taking perfectly viable business sites and then forcing them into residential use, often at high values, which is not helping with the immediate housing need, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just described. There are plenty of different ways that this issue can be addressed, but I urge the Minister to look constructively at how this issue can be tackled. It is likely to carry on growing in areas where these values are so different. Its consequence will be to damage the character of those areas and permanently lose economic activity.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support Amendment 116B, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord True, my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Tope. They made a powerful case for dealing with what is potentially a damaging development in many town and city centres and some of the suburban areas as well. I am not so keen on Amendment 116A but I think that the Minister should go back to Amendment 116B. I would urge her to give serious consideration to the suggestion it contains. To adapt an old phrase, I would advise her, “to her own True, be helpful”. It would be wise not to ignore the experience of significant change—and change not for the better—particularly as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, as a result of allowing this kind of development to take place and, indeed, under the legislation, actually facilitating it. So I hope there will be some second thoughts on this.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I support in principle the Government’s view on this change of use from offices to housing and do so because over the last three years, more than 7,500 much-needed houses have been delivered for this country. However, I have sympathy for my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, not for the same reason as he and many other speakers gave, and certainly not from a London-centric view, because I come from a rural part of the country, but because there needs to be further guidance about this.
The change of use of large office blocks in business parks, which is an issue that is hitting many other local authorities, is unacceptable. To put housing in the middle of a business park does two things. First, it is not suitable for the people who live in those houses; and secondly, it does not help the businesses that are there at the time or help to market any further units for businesses in the future. It just does not work. Quite honestly, local communities, local authorities and anyone else who has anything to do with this think it is crazy that we would even think of people living in a business park or an economic development park.
So, although we have Article 4, it would be useful if the Government made stronger recommendations or produced guidance saying that these are areas where we would not accept a change of use. That would then stop all the bureaucracy and the cost of fighting these things, and it would make it clear to developers that there are places that we will talk to them about and consider a change of use, but there are certain places that are just not suitable and therefore they should not try to speculate on them. Therefore, I would welcome it if the Minister would look at this matter again and give local authorities stronger guidance so that they could say no and stop speculation.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, unfortunately I want to express my concern about these amendments and, in doing so, for the second day in a row on Report will no doubt fail to ingratiate myself with a local authority leader who is a noble friend.
I declare an interest in that I was one of the architects of this policy when I was director of policy for David Cameron in my time at No. 10, so noble Lords will understand that I might be a bit defensive about it.
We had presaged the permitted development policy in the 2010 manifesto, explaining that we would amend the use class orders as part of our plan to deliver more housing. That policy, like so many ideas in the manifesto, was based on the principle of devolution, but a richer view of devolution than is assumed by some, who think that this means only pushing power down to local authorities. To quote directly from the manifesto:
“So we want to pass power down to people—to individuals where we can”.
The permitted development rights brought in initially by the coalition Government are, to me, a classic example of that principle in practice: devolving power to individuals and organisations—in this case, building owners—to use their private property as they see fit and in response to changing market conditions. This kind of transfer of power, which the former Labour Cabinet Minister, David Miliband, once called “double devolution”, is what these amendments would curtail.
Therefore, the underlying principle at stake here is devolution, but it was put to work to solve a very pressing problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has recognised and which everyone in this House recognises—a chronic shortfall in new-build homes. In 2010, as the coalition Government came to power, there were just over 100,000 housing completions, compared with an annual household formation rate of around 250,000. The housing vacancy rate was around 3%, and much of that was tied up in moves, probate and so on. At the same time, the high-street vacancy rate was 16.5% in 2010, and in the south-east—obviously one of the strongest regional economies—the office vacancy rate was 17%. I repeat: 17% against 3%. In 2010, over 260,000 offices of all shapes and sizes were vacant.
So there was, and indeed had been for many years, a clear imbalance between demand for residential versus office and retail uses. There were many causes for this: population growth and demographic change; changing working habits, such as increased home working; changing demands for office space, including different designs required for computer cabling and air conditioning; and changing shopping patterns, such as the rise of internet shopping. Whatever the reasons, it was clear that the old approach was not working and that change was required, and that was brought in by this policy.
The next question is: has this policy worked? Again, the unequivocal answer is yes. JLL Residential Research estimates that 8,000 prior approvals were secured in the first two years of the policy and that, if implemented, they would have created 60,000 homes. New homes created by change of use rose from 12,500 in 2013-14 to 20,650 in 2014-15. Critically, this has not impacted office development. Much of the talk in this debate has been about London, but in London construction levels for commercial reached a seven-year high in 2015. Therefore, it is not having the negative effect that some people have said.
Moreover, important protections are in place. They are being used and provide local flexibility. There are 33 exempt areas. Local authorities can use Article 4 directions—indeed more than 500 are in place—and any other enlargements or changes would clearly be subject to planning permission.
So it seems to me that the current policy, which would be made permanent in the Bill, provides the right balance between higher levels of development, more homes and more office space, and exemptions where necessary. Unfortunately, what these amendments would do is take us back to the status quo ante, when that imbalance was allowed to emerge. That would be a step backwards that would hinder a necessary and effective new part of the planning system. It would hinder the rights of landowners to respond to market conditions to provide the housing that we need. On that basis, I cannot support these amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on both sides of the argument. My noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about safeguarding some of the economic well-being of their areas. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy demonstrated that this has been deeply beneficial to areas such as mine in Trafford, revitalising our local high streets and bringing office buildings back into use where once they stood empty. My noble friend Lady Scott talked about inappropriate use of permitted development rights for things such as building houses in industrial estates. As my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, we have Article 4 to implement in places where it is simply not appropriate to move from office to residential use.
As I outlined in Committee, the office to residential PDR is making a very important contribution to delivering the 1 million homes that we want by 2021, while making the best use of brownfield sites and reducing the pressure to build on greenfield land. Take-up of the temporary permitted development right has been very high, with more than 6,500 applications since April 2014, demonstrating the demand for such conversions. This has led to over 5,300 permissions for office to residential conversions.
Our data show that in 2014-15 we saw a 65% increase in the number of new homes created through change of use, and the office to residential permitted development right will have helped to deliver around 8,000 new homes. Data from the sector also indicate that the temporary right has delivered much-needed new homes to buy or rent, including in London and the south-east, where we continue to face a housing shortage. The British Council for Offices has estimated that, nationally, 7,600 dwellings have been delivered since May 2013. Evidence to date shows that the light-touch planning process has resulted in new homes being brought forward. The British Council for Offices notes that some of the developments would be unlikely to have come forward via a planning application and are therefore additional to the number of homes that would otherwise have been delivered.
I will now address the new clause proposed in my noble friend Lord True’s Amendment 116A, and speak first to subsection (c). I understand that the aim behind it is to compensate business tenants where property owners exercise their permitted development rights to change use from office to residential. However, this is not a planning issue.
The amendment is unnecessary as there are already adequate protections for business tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Under the general law, business tenants have security of tenure until their lease expires. On expiration, the tenant has important rights under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to have a new lease at the market rent, unless he has explicitly opted out of these rights at the beginning of the tenancy. Section 30 of the Act specifies certain circumstances in which the tenant is not entitled to a new tenancy. These include where the landlord is able to demonstrate an intention to undertake substantial works at the premises, which could be where approval is secured under the permitted development right. Under these circumstances, the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the landlord under Section 37 of the Act. The compensation is set at the rate of one times the rateable value of the premises, or twice the rateable value if the same business has been in occupation for more than 14 years.
I now turn to subsections (a) and (b). We consider that the introduction of the PDR for change of use from office to residential has resulted in new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning permission. We consider that imposing such additional requirements on developers is likely to undermine the contribution the right makes to the delivery of new homes which are so badly needed.
In relation to subsection (a) of the proposed new clause, local authorities are already able to charge a fee for prior approval applications for change of use. The fee is set at a level which reflects the light-touch approach for processing these applications, as only certain specific issues require approval. I hope that this provides reassurance that appropriate safeguards are already in place and I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
On Amendment 116B, as I agreed in Committee, I have since met my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to discuss their concerns about the impact of the office-to-residential right. I have also listened carefully to the debates both in Committee and on Report on this issue and recognise the concerns expressed by my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Kerslake, about the loss of office space in some areas and the impact that it can have on local businesses.
I appreciate the strength of feeling in certain areas on this matter, but I cannot accept the amendment that would introduce this new clause into the Bill. The issues raised relate to specific areas, as I have already outlined. The amendment would apply nationally and would create uncertainty within the market. It would undermine the important role that the right plays in the supply of new homes. It would also have a negative effect on the growth of the development industry. The amendment is also unnecessary, as appropriate protections are already in place to meet local conditions.
The office market continues to evolve to meet the business community’s needs and respond to the right. Where it is necessary to protect the economic well-being of a specific area, local authorities can bring forward an Article 4 direction to remove the right and allow for consideration of a planning application. That is a fair and proportionate approach. But I recognise that my noble friend Lord True also has concerns about Article 4 directions. However, the process is straightforward and provides robust safeguards by allowing for local consultation on the scope of the direction before it comes into force.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords that while we understand their concerns about the impact of the right in specific parts of the country, there are appropriate existing safeguards. But while the Government’s position on this issue will not change and while I urge my noble friend not to press his amendment, I will undertake if he wishes to have further discussions on this matter. As always, I am very happy to meet him.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
On Amendment 116A, we see these developments all around here in Westminster, with offices now being converted into very expensive homes. Why would it not be right for a planning authority to get somewhere near its full costs on this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am sorry. Could the noble Lord repeat that?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
On Amendment 116A(a), we can see all around here many developments where offices have been converted into very expensive properties. Why would it not be reasonable for a local authority—in this case, Westminster—to cover a larger proportion of its costs in fees, considering what these properties are now selling for very close to this Palace?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think that it is because it is not a planning consideration, so the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the landlord rather than the local authority.
Lord True
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including my noble friend. It is important to understand—perhaps I should say this twice, because it needs to be understood—that I am not seeking to defeat the whole order; that is a separate matter. My amendment refers to a small part of the order relating to office to residential. I am not seeking an untrammelled power; I am seeking an audience in Parliament for people who are suffering adversely from the way in which the policy operates. My amendment states that the local authority can seek to opt out only if it demonstrates,
“that active businesses within its area are being expelled from office space”—
businesses thrown out under this Administration—
“to enable conversion to residential use”;
that is to say, “When the lease terminates, go: we are turning this into a home”; or the local authority must show that there is economic damage.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Local authorities and development control services
(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to their development control services to allow for the cost of providing the development control service to be recouped.(2) Any such charging regime must be subject to consultation prior to implementation.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this amendment covers the issues previously discussed under Amendment 108. It enables local authorities to recover up to the full costs and no more in determining planning applications. Noble Lords who were not persuaded by Amendment 108 could give this amendment some further consideration, as it proposes not to go beyond full cost recovery.
My amendment would allow a more realistic fee level to be recovered from large-scale developments and differentiates between that and someone who wants to build an extension to their home, for example. I grew up in Southwark and in the north of the borough we have seen a boom in large-scale developments in recent years. A more realistic fee level would have made no difference to those developments. I now live in Lewisham and, again, we are seeing a large number of residential developments in Lewisham, Deptford, Catford and elsewhere in the borough. Again, I do not believe that a more realistic fee level would have made any difference whatever to the viability of those developments.
In responding to this short debate, I ask the Minister to address the point made during the debate on Amendment 108. I know we will come to this issue when we discuss further amendments on Monday, but I am worried that we could get a two-tier system whereby other providers are able to provide planning advice. I do not want a private provider to be able to charge a much larger fee, and a local authority to be limited as to what it can charge to do the same work. That would be totally wrong, and it would be very helpful if the noble Baroness assured us that that is not the case. It would be a very unfair situation for local authorities and completely wrong. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, we had a very good and thorough discussion on the recovery of full-cost fees on a previous amendment. I want to draw attention to a few statistics to reinforce the case that my noble friend made and to point out that the flaw in the present system is that you cannot get speedy, authoritative and consistent decision-making at local planning level if the expert workforce is being run down and starved of resources. I have just a few statistics that pick that up.
The audit committee reported in 2014 that planning departments were taking the brunt of funding cuts—a reduction, in real terms, of 46% across the planning and development budget between 2010 and 2014. These are horrendous figures in the context of cuts of 37% in local authorities as a whole. How much deeper have these cuts been since 2014? In expert areas such as archaeology and conservation officers, there has been a drop of a third in local authority staff. In Lancashire the entire archaeological team has disappeared. How the Government expect local authorities to deliver a speedy, efficient and good planning service with this level of cuts is absolutely beyond me. Therefore, the only answer to building the capacity of local authorities to do what the Government so desperately want them to do, and to deliver a speedier, more efficient planning system, is to build the capacity of local authorities themselves, because development control is the fundamental business of planning authorities. There is an urgent need to reinvest in local authority planning services. Full-cost fee recovery can contribute to that.
I have one question for the Minister. In the previous exchange, I was not quite sure whether she believed the figure published by the Local Government Association—that there is a shortfall of £450 million to local authorities because of the difference between the cost they have to pay and the fees they receive. She talked at great length about the vitality needed to enable local authorities to do their job, but she did not address the question of the reality of what is happening on the ground. There is an absolute, logical and fair case for recovering full-cost fees, and I hope she will respond positively to it.
Lord Porter of Spalding
My Lords, I speak in favour of the spirit of what the amendment is trying to achieve, but against it because of the way it is worded. No one from a local government background would believe that it is right that we are unable to collect enough fees to cover the cost of the service, and it is not right that local taxpayers are subsidising the development industry to the tune of about £150 million a year—£450 million over the last three years. But the amendment as worded could have a quite negative impact on some areas. If a fully staffed planning team received only 10 planning applications in a year, the brunt of those costs would fall on those 10 applicants. That cannot be right. There needs to be a way for central government to get away from setting fees at an inflationary uplift. As welcome as that will be, it will be insufficient to get anywhere near cost recovery.
Given that the Government propose to put private sector competition into the space of a public sector monopoly, there must be a way to increase fees that works for local government, the local taxpayer and the private sector. I still do not understand why we are dealing with these amendments separately from the amendment that opens the door for the private sector to compete. At that point the Government will be sure that the fees local government charge are proportionate for the service being delivered in their area, because if local government charges too much, clearly, the private sector will take all the work. We need to find a way of getting that done but, from my end of the telescope, this amendment still does not deliver what needs to be done. I would love to able to support somebody who is clever at writing an amendment in a way that I am not.
Again, the word “must” has been used for local government. People should not put “must” in anything. Local government likes “may”, not “must”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the noble Lord sits down, I did put “may” in for the main part and then “must” for the consultation. I thought I was getting somewhere with the noble Lord. I think we should talk outside the Chamber—he may well be the right person to write this.
Lord Porter of Spalding
You should never have me write anything, because you will not be able to read it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for their comments and contributions. To respond to the noble Lord, I can confirm absolutely, for the avoidance of doubt, that planning authorities will not be able to charge one fee and private providers another. We do not intend to create two tiers within the planning system—it would be most undemocratic and unfair, generally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about the £450 million disparity that the LGA found between costs and fees. I need to make the point that there will be differences between the efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities in delivering planning services. Some show that performance can be improved and costs reduced, and more should follow their lead. Authorities have done a phenomenal job in sharing services for many of their functions but have not moved quickly enough in doing so for planning services. I said that to the noble Baroness either earlier today or on Monday—the days have merged into one.
Amendment 116BA, as I said on a previous amendment, allows local authorities to go beyond cost recovery. We are absolutely clear that these services and other discretionary services should not exceed the cost of providing the service. I have been through the argument previously that what cost recovery means in practice, in terms of fee levels, varies from local authority to local authority. We want a highly efficient service, and there are real challenges up-front in doing this for some local authorities, but we want better-performing planning departments for better performance in terms of planning outcomes. I talked earlier about our proposals for tackling resource pressures in planning departments. I hope that noble Lords will not mind that I do not go through these again, and that with those words the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for speaking in this short debate. My noble friend Lady Andrews highlighted the cuts that have fallen on local authority planning departments in recent years. I was pleased that the Minister was able to give us some reassurance on the issues. I am sure we will be discussing again on Monday the fees that can be charged by a local planning authority and those that can be charged by a private provider. That will be very welcome news for local government.
I thought I had written my amendment in such a way that it would not allow people to charge more than the costs involved, so clearly I am no better than the noble Lord, Lord Porter, at writing these amendments. Maybe we need to get together and we will get one right at some point. I certainly do not see my amendment as doing what the Minister says it does, so I am a bit disappointed in her response. I know it is late but I am going to test the opinion of the House.
Lord True
My Lords, the hour is late and I should make it clear that I have never had any intention of pushing this amendment to a Division. The reason that I bring it before your Lordships is that this clause is effectively a proposal to set up a new quango. I welcomed the meeting that I had with officials earlier, and I was grateful to Ministers for facilitating it. I was told that it will probably not be formally a quango but a new, independent body to be served by people as yet unspecified. It will have a series of functions as set out in part over several pages of Schedule 13, which might have been drafted—it is a bit late, so I am perhaps a bit free with my words—as in that famous scene with Groucho Marx and the contract and “the party of the first part”. There is a whole mass of regulatory powers, with prescribed persons not defined and circumstances which the Secretary of State will determine later.
This clause was introduced to Parliament in the other place on Report, after midnight and with a 185-word introduction by the Minister. There was no debate on the subject and the technical consultation that went out really answered no questions at all. Theoretically, I believe in arbitration, but to set up a statutory process of compulsory arbitration without defining particularly what you are about is risky. I would much prefer to have seen this properly scoped and perhaps included in subsequent legislation, if there were some. What is this new body? Who will staff it? Where will it be based and what will its budget be? Quangos and their functions are never cheap.
Statutory arbitrators will be sent in at the request of unspecified third persons—in some circumstances, not even the two parties to the dispute. We do not really know who those third persons are yet, although the Government are asking who they might be. Will they be interested local people? The new body can charge fees. Well, any government body likes to charge fees and we can be sure that the fees will not be cheap—and it will probably expand.
I do not want to labour the issue but I did raise it in Committee. While I do not criticise my noble friend on the Front Bench—she has done an absolutely fantastic job on the Bill in my submission—it was in a large group so there was no real response on what it was all about. As I said, 185 words were spoken in the Commons, and there was no response.
What is the calculated impact on affordable home provision? What local knowledge will these statutory arbitrators require? What will be their qualifications? How will they relate to the existing inspectorate, which is supposed to resolve difficulties between local authorities and developers? Will their decisions be judicially reviewable? Any statutory body lets the lawyers loose.
If she can, I should like my noble friend to say at what stage those questions will be answered for Parliament, because I am concerned that, well-intentioned though this might be, we risk creating a statutory body that will run out of control, cost more and lead to more delay in the system rather than less. Will the public be able to make representations to these arbitrators? Will they meet in open session? If so, what role is there for the planning committee? Where do we go with appeal afterwards? We could have a three-stage process.
I beseech my noble friend and her colleagues to think about what this new statutory body might be. They might even know what it might be called.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, who asked a set of important questions. I shall not repeat them, and I am pleased that a large number of Members of the House are here to hear him ask them. This is an example of the creation of a bureaucracy that may not solve a significant set of problems. In other words, because there may have been some difficulties in a limited number of cases in some places, we may set up a large bureaucratic structure to solve them.
I have read the impact assessment and the Bill very carefully, but I am still at a loss to understand what problem the Government are trying to solve. It may in some cases speed up some Section 106 negotiations but, in the main, I am not sure that it will. It may create a set of unintended consequences. When I read line 1 of the impact assessment—
“The Government wishes to provide for someone to be appointed to help resolve, within a set timescale, outstanding issues about planning obligations relating to individual planning applications”—
I immediately wonder who the “someone” will be. How will you ensure that they do not have some kind of interest? How will you know that there is a firewall between that person and their conclusions? For example, the impact assessment does not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord True: what might the impact be on starter homes? That is a very important question, because the funding of starter homes comes from reductions in the amount of Section 106 money received by local authorities.
On page 167, at lines 10 to 12, the Bill states:
“The local planning authority must not refuse the application on a ground that relates to the appropriateness of the terms of the section 106 instrument”.
I understand that statement in one sense, but at the heart of our debate about starter homes is the fact that Section 106 provision will be reduced to help to provide the developer subsidy for those starter homes. There are major implications in this, and I see more potential problems over Section 106 negotiations. I am not convinced that setting up the kind of bureaucratic structure that the noble Lord, Lord True, described, will actually help us to solve that problem. It will be solved if local planning authorities are properly resourced, have the proper powers and there is a proper context within which they are to work to build the homes that the country needs.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse the critiques of the proposal by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Shipley. Several real problems have already been identified, but it is worth reminding ourselves that this is yet another incursion on the rights and roles of local authorities, imposing an external component on to the resolution of what ought to be determined locally between the local authority and the applicant. Moreover, the whole thing is another bureaucratic nightmare. There are five pages of the schedule. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that there are also to be regulations—surprise, surprise, once again made by the Secretary of State. They say:
“The Secretary of State can also make regulations setting out … who, other than the local planning authority and applicant, could make a request for the appointment of a person”.
So it need not even be the planning authority or the applicant who makes that application. Who else might make it is presumably at large—anybody could. The regulations can also deal with,
“the timing and form of requests”,
and,
“that a person can be appointed if outstanding issues have not been resolved within set timeframes”,
as well as,
“further detail about appointments … what qualifications or experience the appointed person must have”,
and “fees payable”. Those will all be determined by regulations.
The Explanatory Notes say:
“The appointed person must take into account any template or model terms published by the Secretary of State. Regulations can also set out other details … Regulations can also set out restrictions on the local planning authority’s ability to ask for additional obligations”,
as well as,
“periods for determining planning applications after a report is issued;
circumstances or cases where the consequences in this Schedule don’t apply; and
any further steps required to be taken by the appointed person”.
Once again, we are going to have myriad regulations, the sight of which is withheld from us, presumably because they have not yet been drafted. They will be produced at a later date, again without any prior consideration by Parliament at the time when the Bill has gone through. There is also the possible perverse effect that, given that applicants may have, as they perceive it, difficulties with the local authority, why should they not seek the involvement of the appointed person—not so much by way of an appeal but in the initial part of the process? They could delay things even more. If they thought that they were not going to get entirely what they wanted from their application, why not go through this process? That unintended effect seems to me a ridiculous proposition, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House—and, if he does not, I will.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to the debate and raising some very valid questions about how the process will work. Dispute resolution is part of the wider measures that the Government are introducing to make the planning system simpler and encourage housebuilding. We anticipate that it would be used only for a small number of applications, as a last resort, and that its existence will encourage all parties to work constructively together and agree planning obligations earlier in the planning process. Only 7% of major and 1% of minor planning applications both include a Section 106 agreement and are decided outside the statutory time frameworks or agreed extension. The objective of dispute resolution is to avoid protracted Section 106 negotiation, not to add unnecessary steps.
I have listened to the debate in Committee and this evening, and recognise that several noble Lords have valid concerns about how it will all work while, I think, supporting the general principle of arbitration. A key concern of my noble friend Lord True is not only the bureaucracy but the complexity of negotiations. However, the schedule has been drafted this way to encourage the parties to agree matters between themselves wherever possible. For example, taking out the cooling-off period would detract from the objective of speeding up negotiations. This process would be used only in cases where the local planning authority would be likely to grant planning permission were it not for unresolved issues relating to Section 106 obligations.
The legislation is also intended to be flexible enough to respond to feedback from the Government’s technical consultation, which has recently closed.
In this consultation we sought views from the sector on, among other things, the cost of the process, the matters that should be taken into account in dispute resolution and the necessary qualifications of the person to resolve the disputes. These matters will be set out in regulations, as the noble Lord said, and I acknowledge the expertise of my noble friend Lord True as leader of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. I would therefore welcome ongoing dialogue as we develop the regulations.
I reiterate that dispute resolution is intended to be activated by parties to the Section 106 agreement. It therefore should be seen as a tool to aid negotiations where necessary rather than as placing an additional burden. The Government are committed to doing whatever they can to unlock stalled sites and to increase the delivery of housing. We have just concluded a wide-ranging consultation which will inform the detail of how it will be applied through regulations. I hope—although I doubt—that I have been able to provide additional reassurance, and that noble Lords will not divide the House on this.
Lord True
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer. I repeat what I said at the outset: that I have no intention of dividing the House, although I cannot speak for others or for the reasons that they might wish to do so.
There is a danger of legislation drafted by bureaucrats about bureaucracy for bureaucratic solutions. Sometimes Ministers have a very useful word in their vocabulary, which is “no”. I hope that, as the deliberations on this very cumbersome-looking new body go forward, Ministers will whip out that word quite often. I am grateful for what my noble friend said. It is the first time that a Minister at the Dispatch Box in the course of the Bill has really set out some of the details—although my honourable friend Mr Lewis said 185 words on them—and I thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will not press the House to divide at this hour.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Stedman-Scott)
Is it your Lordships’ pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?