House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
1. What assessment he has made of the outcomes of his Department’s trial of placing work coaches in food banks.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stephen Crabb)
Work coaches in Manchester have been working with a food bank since October last year, and feedback shows that this service helps to signpost support for people to move into work and navigate the welfare system. I am particularly keen for all jobcentres to explore how they work with local initiatives in their communities.
Justin Madders
My local food bank, the West Cheshire Foodbank, has seen a 6% increase in usage in the past 12 months, including a disgraceful 13% more children coming to use the food bank over that period. Why has there been such an increase? Is that due to welfare benefit cuts, or does the Minister believe there is another explanation?
Stephen Crabb
I am happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the situation in his constituency, but the Trussell Trust recently found that there has been no overall increase in the use of food banks over the past 12 months. Indeed, the average price of food has fallen by 2.5% over the past 12 months, and average wages have gone up. We continue to spend more than £80 billion on working-age benefits to support those in need.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
When I visited my food bank in Rugby I saw advisers who were meeting people’s individual needs and making a big effort to understand the circumstances of the people there, and to provide help, support and some direction. Is it not entirely right that that should happen?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend is right. I have been a trustee of a food bank, and I know a bit about how they work on the ground. Effective food banks are those that partner other organisations, such as Citizens Advice and Christians Against Poverty, to provide debt advice and other support to help tackle the underlying causes of why somebody might be at a point of crisis and dependency and need to use a food bank.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Latest Trussell Trust data show a 2% rise in food bank use over the past year. Is the Minister proud of that?
Stephen Crabb
The Government take this issue very seriously, and one thing I am proud of is that we are spending more than £80 billion on working-age benefits, which is the mark of a decent, compassionate society. At the same time, we are working hard to improve the benefit system, precisely to help those who are most disadvantaged and at the greatest distance from the labour market, to give them a much better chance of leading fulfilling lives.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to Department for Work and Pensions questions for, I believe, the first time. I am sure he will make a huge impact. He certainly did when I worked with him—[Interruption.] I do not know what Labour Members are shouting about. Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Labour Government were in power, the existence of food banks was more or less covered up? Since the coalition Government, and now this Administration, came into office, we have advertised and helped food banks to exist and to help those most in need.
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am not interested in playing politics. I am encouraging more than 700 jobcentres around the UK to explore fully how they work in partnership with local community initiatives, so that the third sector, working with work coaches, can provide the best possible support and advice to those who need it.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
When the Trussell Trust published the figures last month showing record food bank demand over the past year, it stated:
“In some areas foodbanks report increased referrals due to delays and arrears in Universal Credit payments.”
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the introduction of universal credit does not drive food bank demand even higher?
Stephen Crabb
That is one reason why we are using such a careful and controlled timetable for rolling out universal credit. I am much more interested in it being rolled out safely and in a secure way, so as to avoid the kinds of problems that we had under the previous Labour Government, when tax credits were blasted out and huge numbers of people received overpayments and were required to pay back thousands of pounds.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What is the average length of time that a benefit recipient makes use of a food bank? Are we asking individuals who have successfully moved away from food banks what advice they would like to have received when they attended them?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend makes a very good suggestion, and peer support and advice is one of the most effective things that can be provided for those who are making that transition from worklessness into work. Using some of the experiences and insights of people who have had to rely on food banks is important.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
2. What assessment he has made of the effect on disabled people of changes to benefits since 2012.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
The Government set out on 20 July 2015 our assessment of the impact of the welfare policies in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, with similar assessments for previous changes. Spending to support people with disabilities and health conditions will be higher in real terms in every year to 2020 than in 2012.
Steven Paterson
Once universal credit has been fully implemented, severely disabled people with no adult to assist them will be entitled to about £58 less per week than under the current system. Is the Minister concerned that young carers are likely to face considerable additional burdens as a result of the loss of the severe disability premium from about 25,000 disabled single parents?
Justin Tomlinson
I did not quite pick up all the hon. Gentleman’s points, but a number of exemptions are in place. We continue to review the best way to protect vulnerable people. Universal credit will be a far better, far simpler and far more supportive benefit. It will help people.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Will the Minister provide an update on the progress of the joint work and health unit, which is a very sensible way to join up parts of the public sector?
Justin Tomlinson
This is a significant part of our ongoing work to bring the two main Departments together to help create additional opportunities and support for colleagues. We will bring forward further details soon.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The fact is that analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that £1.2 billion of support to disabled people is set to be cut in this Parliament. Is this what the Secretary of State means about having a new conversation with disabled people?
Justin Tomlinson
Let me challenge the hon. Gentleman back on that. In my area, spending on personal independence payment and disability living allowance will be £16.6 billion, as compared with £12.7 billion under the previous Government. Overall, we spend nearly £50 billion a year on benefits to support people with disabilities and health conditions. That is rising every year to 2020. Record amounts of money are being spent.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I recently met Nick Gregory and his team at Grimsby Jobcentre, which serves my constituency. They are doing excellent work in getting disabled people and those with learning difficulties back into work. Will the Minister enlighten us on what further initiatives are planned?
Justin Tomlinson
It is great to hear about the fantastic work in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I would like to meet him to discuss it further. We continue to upskill staff across the jobcentre network, increasing the number of disability advisers and making improvements to our Work programme and Work Choice programme.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The Children’s Society and Citizens Advice report that the families of about 100,000 disabled children, who currently receive support through DLA, are set to see that support halved under universal credit. That will have a real impact on their quality of life and longer-term life chances. With a new Secretary of State at the helm, Ministers have a chance to step back from the universal credit debacle. Will they look again at the impact on disabled children and look for fairer alternatives?
Justin Tomlinson
Again, I challenge the hon. Lady back on that. Any analysis of universal credit has to take into account the introduction of the national living wage, the extension of childcare, support for working parents and increases to the personal tax allowance. It is a simpler system. More generous childcare provision supports those who work for just a few hours and there will be a named contact. As we have previously set out, the PIP benefit system is far more generous than the old DLA system.
Dr Whiteford
The research of reputable organisations simply does not bear that out. The reality is that disabled children are not the only ones who will lose out under universal credit. A devastating report by the Resolution Foundation published just last week found that, even with tax allowances and the increase in the minimum wage, under universal credit half a million working families will be significantly worse off. Disabled people, disabled children and low-income working families—are these really the people the Tories want to target to pay for austerity cuts and tax cuts for the rich?
Justin Tomlinson
We are doing more to support working households. The proportion of people in relative poverty who live in a family with someone who is disabled has fallen since 2010. There are a number of exemptions to all our benefit cap and freeze announcements, including for those on PIP, DLA, industrial injuries benefit, attendance allowance and employment and support allowance. Following further talks, we will include carer’s allowance and guardian’s allowance.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that Disability Confident events can be crucial in this regard? I am holding my own event in Mid Dorset and North Poole, to which the Minister would be more than welcome to attend. Will he join me in encouraging all Members from both sides of the House to get involved?
Justin Tomlinson
So far, 22 MPs have held Disability Confident events, including a joint event between a Conservative MP and a Labour MP—there’s a future coalition for you. Some 515 employers have registered an interest in Disability Confident, up 169 since 23 March. We are getting over 100 registrations a month. This is all about creating additional opportunities for disabled people who are looking for work.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
What assessment has the Minister carried out into the £35 per week cut to ESA and its impact on levels of deprivation among disabled people?
Justin Tomlinson
When that was announced, a cumulative distributional analysis was also published that included the impacts of welfare spending, health spending, employment support and infrastructure investment, but let us not forget that only 1% of those on ESA were coming off that benefit—that was the case under our Government, the coalition Government and the former Labour Government. We have all tried to make changes but fundamental reform is needed, and that is what the Government will deliver.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
3. What steps he has taken to increase the number of younger workers subscribing to pension schemes.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
16. What steps he has taken to increase the number of younger workers subscribing to pension schemes.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
18. What steps he has taken to increase the number of younger workers subscribing to pension schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government continue to roll out the programme of automatic enrolment of all eligible workers into workplace pensions. Of those eligible workers, approximately half are under 40, and the largest increase in pension membership in 2015 was among those aged 22 to 29.
Nigel Mills
I welcome the progress the Minister has outlined. Now that we have announced the lifetime ISA, will he consider allowing people, especially young people, to be auto-enrolled into a lifetime ISA, rather than a pension, to give them a chance to save for a house and have improved financial resilience while they are young?
Andrew Bingham
Will my hon. Friend agree that the new state pension provides clarity for younger workers, who will now know what to expect from their state pension when they reach pensionable age? Will that not have a positive impact on how much they choose to save in a private pension, because, with this clarity, will come understanding and an ability to plan?
Mr Vara
I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The previous state pension system was extremely complex—it was difficult for people to know how much state pension they would get before they reached the state pension age—whereas the new state pension provides clarity from an early age as to what they can expect. In future, they will know that they can expect over £8,000 a year from the state—a solid foundation upon which to plan their own retirement savings.
James Berry
Having spent time with charities and high street banks in Kingston, I have been surprised by the low level of financial literacy they report, even among people with secondary and tertiary education. What steps will the Government take to ensure that young people receive the high-quality information and guidance they need, particularly on pension planning, which often feels a long way off to younger people?
Mr Vara
I thank my hon. Friend for that very good question. He will be aware that last October the Department and the Pensions Regulator jointly launched a refreshed communications campaign entitled “Don’t Ignore the Workplace Pension”, to help build on and maintain the success of the previous campaign in raising awareness of automatic enrolment. The campaign includes digital and social media advertising, as well as television and radio, and has helped to raise awareness and guide people towards further information.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It was pleasing to hear the Minister say that predictability and clarity were important in pensions. Will he apply those principles to the 2.6 million WASPI women?
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The younger generation are more likely to be self-employed, and 15% of the workforce are now self-employed, yet only one third are saving into a pension pot. Will the Minister look at the recommendations from the Federation of Small Businesses, which is calling for incentives and support for self-employed pension provision?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about a particularly important sector of our economy, and we will certainly look at anything put forward. I emphasise that the Government are keen to ensure that people, including the self-employed, think about and prepare for a better future in terms of their pension.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Pension saving has been undermined by the new lifetime ISA, a new gimmick from the Chancellor, which will promote ISA saving from taxed income over pension saving from pre-tax income—in other words, it is a convenient tool to increase tax receipts today. No employee will be better off saving into an ISA than through workplace pension saving. The Association of British Insurers has forecast that someone saving 4% of an income of £25,000 in an ISA would be £53,000 worse off by age 60. Will the Minister tell the Chancellor to stop his gimmicks, stop this nonsense and get back to pension savings? We need no more con tricks from this Government.
Mr Speaker
Order. The eloquence might be worthy of Demosthenes, but I think the length would not. Questions must be shorter.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
4. What recent progress he has made on reducing long-term youth unemployment.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
Since 2010, long-term youth unemployment has halved, falling in the last year alone by 90,000. This Government are determined to support young people to improve their life chances and make sure that they do not slip into a life on benefits; rather, we will support them so that they are either earning or learning when they leave school.
Chris Skidmore
Since March 2010, with the help of organisations such as N-Gaged, a training provider that recently helped me find my first apprentice, long-term youth unemployment has fallen in Kingswood by 60%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that companies such as N-Gaged deserve congratulations on getting young people back into work? What more can be done to help training providers?
Priti Patel
That is a very good question, for which I thank my hon. Friend. He highlights the important role of training providers. They are the ones providing opportunities for young people to get their foot on the employment ladder and, importantly, to gain the skills and experience that employers are looking for. My message to him and to other employers is that I hope they will work in partnership with us so that we can encourage more of this activity.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
A young autistic constituent of mine was asked by his DWP work adviser what he enjoyed doing. He replied that he enjoyed being a DJ as a hobby. His reward was to have a demand for repayment of £7,000 in benefits, having been accused of working when he did the DJing as a hobby. Is that the type of understanding approach for autistic people that this Minister likes to see from people working for the DWP?
Priti Patel
First, I would be happy to look at the particular constituency case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I would also say that our work coaches do a tremendous amount of work, supporting people in our jobcentres when it comes to employment and providing advice. I understand that he highlights a particular case, and as I have said, I would happy to look at the details of it, and perhaps give some guidance and advice to his constituent to support him in securing an employment outcome.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On the subject of long-term youth unemployment, I was curious to know what our work coaches are doing to help young people get the softer skills they need to get into the workplace—CV preparation and so forth?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Our work coaches have a range of tools at their disposal, but they work with the individual and the young person to look at the skills they may not have but which they need to secure employment outcomes. Of course, we have extra adviser time to improve job-search skills, for example, as well as sector-based work academies and support to get people on to apprenticeship schemes. As I highlighted in an earlier answer, that means working with providers.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Prime Minister and Chancellor regularly tell us that the EU is good for jobs and prosperity. Will the Minister tell us about youth unemployment rates in the rest of the EU and whether or not the Government can learn anything from those other EU countries?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will be aware, as will all Members, of the ongoing economic turmoil in the eurozone and the double-digit unemployment, which is really where the European Union is right now. The employment challenges that they face serve as a warning to us. I am delighted to say that the UK is a bright spot when it comes to employment, which is thanks to the long-term economic plan of this Government.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way in which Members can help young people to find work is by hosting jobs and apprenticeships fairs? Does she look forward to the first-ever jobs and apprenticeships fairs in my Louth and Horncastle constituency on 2 September?
Priti Patel
I commend my hon. Friend for hosting that jobs and apprenticeships fair. She is absolutely right: such fairs provide a gateway for young people who are looking for work. I know that many Members on both sides of the House have been doing exactly the same, but I encourage all Members to bring employers together in their constituencies, and to give young people the opportunities that they are seeking.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
5. What recent progress his Department has made on reducing the number of workless households.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stephen Crabb)
The number of workless households has reached its lowest level since records began, and the latest figures show that it has fallen by more than three quarters of a million since 2010. That demonstrates that not only is our approach to the economy working, but, crucially, more families are benefiting from the security and dignity that work brings.
Andrew Griffiths
Does the Secretary of State agree that too many people are suffering as a result of drug and alcohol abuse, which is preventing them from returning to work? Does he agree that helping those people to become drug and alcohol-free is essential, and will he visit the Burton Addiction Centre to see how we can transform lives, help people to become free of addiction, and get them back into work?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend has asked an excellent question. As he probably knows, I visited the BAC O’Connor Centre in Newcastle-under-Lyme two weeks ago, and saw for myself a group of addicts in recovery who were making that difficult journey back into work. Many of those people are motivated by voluntary work placements and the goal of achieving a paid job when they finish. Their dream is getting into paid work, and the work of rehabilitation and recovery centres like BAC O’Connor Centre is crucial in that regard.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that even in areas where unemployment levels are lower than they have been recently, high levels persist in some wards? Will he agree to work with Labour’s newly elected Welsh Assembly, and to note the position in the Flint Castle ward in my constituency? The level of unemployment there is still high, but Welsh Assembly policies have helped to reduce it over many years, and Labour was rewarded with a good victory last Thursday.
Stephen Crabb
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I have a pretty good track record of working with the Welsh Government, whoever is in power. As for his important point about entrenched and persistent poverty, it is absolutely right for us to take account of that. We will shortly be launching a life chances strategy in which, for the very first time, the complex underlying factors that lead to persistent pockets of entrenched poverty in wards such as those to which he has referred will be genuinely addressed.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to increase the number of older people in employment.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
There are now 9.6 million workers aged 50 and over in the United Kingdom, an increase of 1.3 million over the last five years. The Government are, of course, doing much to support older workers. We have, for instance, removed the default retirement age, allowing people to choose when to retire.
Sir David Amess
Bearing in mind that the Leader of the Opposition and I both have a vested interest in the future of older workers, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the number of unemployed people in Southend has fallen by 37%, and will she ensure that we maintain policies to secure that downward trend?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that unemployment rates are plummeting in his constituency, among others. The Government are focusing on, and committed to, delivering first-class support to all age groups, particularly employment support.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Statistics published last month show that more than 600,000 people in their 50s and 60s are helped into work through the tax credit system, which provides vital in-work support. How many of those 600,000 will be eligible to receive in-work support under universal credit?
Priti Patel
As the hon. Gentleman will know—because we have discussed the issue, and because it has already been raised in questions today—universal credit is a simpler benefit, which provides much more targeted support to help people into work while also securing long-term job outcomes. As I have said, when it comes to older workers, we are committed to delivering first-class support for people of all ages, including older workers, and working closely with them to secure employment in the long run.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the basis of that answer, it would seem that the Minister has as good a grasp of numbers as the Minister for Schools has of words. Let me try to give the right hon. Lady some assistance. Perhaps it would help if she read the Resolution Foundation report. The answer is that one third of working families on tax credits—that is 200,000—will not be eligible for any support under universal credit, and another 200,000 will lose £2,000 a year. Will the Minister tell us why this Government are so intent on attacking older people in work?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is now speaking about older workers as well as working families. We need to look at universal credit in the context of the support that it provides. He also mentioned the Resolution Foundation report, which failed to take on board various factors such as childcare support for working families and the ongoing support that universal credit and our work coaches provide to working families.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
7. What recent progress he has made on the Work and Health programme.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
Development of the Work and Health programme design is well under way, including engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. The Department has commenced the commercial process for the programme by releasing the prior information notice for potential providers on 28 April.
Melanie Onn
A constituent of mine was volunteering last year at Green Futures, a social enterprise. That was directly related to his degree subject. While he was applying for work, the jobcentre put him on the community work placement scheme, saying that a voluntary placement would be better for him if arranged through the jobcentre. A private company paid by the jobcentre then arranged a six-month unpaid placement at the very organisation he was already volunteering with. Does the Minister agree that this is an utter waste of taxpayers’ money? How can she guarantee that this sort of incompetence will not be repeated under the new scheme?
Priti Patel
I would be very happy to look into that particular example. The hon. Lady has highlighted a practice that clearly needs to change. The Work and Health programme will be designed to support claimants with health conditions and disabilities who have been unemployed for at least two years, but, as I have said, I shall be very happy to look at the case that she has raised.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that one of the key challenges in supporting autistic people into work is ensuring that we identify what works. There are very few data on work outcomes for autistic adults. Can she assure me that the new Work and Health programme will record whether someone on the programme is on the autism spectrum, so that we can track whether the programme has been successful for this very important group?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. I would like to assure her that, in designing the new provision, we are working at local level on harnessing expertise as well as engaging with a wide range of stakeholders. By doing that, we shall be taking on board important lessons from the overall Work programme and Work Choice as well as looking at how we can achieve sustained long-term employment outcomes.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
8. What assessment he has made of the effect of state pension reform on gender inequality.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
20. What assessment he has made of the effect of state pension reform on gender inequality.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stephen Crabb)
Last month, we introduced a new simpler state pension as part of our wider package of pension reform. The combination of the new state pension, automatic enrolment, the triple lock, the protection of benefits and giving people power over their pension pots will ensure that pensioners, male and female, will have greater protection, security and choice in retirement.
Hannah Bardell
Protection is all very well, but introducing the new state pension in 2016 means that 350,000 women who were born between 1951 and 1953 will retire on the old system just before the new provisions come into force, whereas a man born on exactly the same day will retire slightly later but receive a pension under the new arrangements. Will the Minister please heed the Scottish National party’s calls to establish a pensions commission in order to end these inequalities?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Lady was not here in the last Parliament when we debated and voted on these changes. We debated them at enormous length and a clear decision was made by Parliament. As part of that, a concession of more than £1.1 billion was introduced to limit the impact of the rising state pension age on those women who would be most affected. Let us be clear: there is no party in this Chamber that has a clear and coherent proposal for unwinding the changes that have been made since 1995 to equalise the state pension ages. I therefore have no plans to bring forward further concessions or changes.
Patricia Gibson
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has just said. State pension equalisation has left 500,000 women born between 1953 and 1955 much worse off, with some facing a financial loss of up to £30,000. When will this Government take responsibility for the severe financial impact on those women and, in the interests of justice, do the decent thing, relent and put in place transitional arrangements?
Stephen Crabb
In the last Parliament, we were clear about the reasons why the changes were happening, which included addressing the long-term, serious fiscal impacts of life expectancy increasing. Developed nations all around the world are having to take exactly the same kind of decisions. Let us be clear: unwinding any of the decisions that were taken would involve people of working age—younger people—having to bear an even greater share of the burden of getting this country back to living within its means. We need to take a broader perspective than that taken by the hon. Lady and her SNP colleagues.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, the Labour Front-Bench team held constructive talks with the co-founders of the Women Against State Pension Inequality, or WASPI, campaign. We will work together to find a fair solution to the injustice that they and hundreds of thousands of women face as a result of the Government’s state pension reforms, and my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has suggested six of them. The Secretary of State said that he would meet the WASPI women, but he also said that there were no plans to change the policy. Why is the Secretary of State going into that meeting with a closed mind? By doing so, will he not just repeat the mistakes of his predecessor?
Stephen Crabb
I have to say to the hon. Lady and to Members across the Opposition Benches that there is a question here of responsible opposition. If they do not have a plan that is clear and fully costed—the Labour party’s policies were not—they are simply playing those women along, pretending that they are in a position to unwind the changes while sitting there knowing full well that they have no serious proposal for doing so.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
9. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that staff carrying out personal independence payment assessments act in a professional manner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
The Department has set clear requirements regarding the professions, skills, experience and training of the health professionals that providers can use to carry out PIP assessments. We expect the highest standards from the contractors who carry out assessments on our behalf, and measure their performance against several targets, including quality and customer experience.
Christina Rees
My constituents have reported huge inaccuracies between the information that they provide against PIP descriptors and the conclusions drawn by Capita’s staff, which causes great stress for people already in difficult circumstances. What is the Department doing to ensure that Capita’s staff are trained to take the appropriate time and care over assessments, so that they are as accurate and as fair as possible?
Justin Tomlinson
All health professionals must be registered practitioners and must have met the requirements for training competence. They must also use their expertise in disability to provide advice on people’s level of functional ability and the impact on their day-to-day lives. A team of experts provides additional support. We also work regularly with a wide range of stakeholders to help to advise on where further improvements can be made.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the recent Public Accounts Committee report on the process of contracting out disability assessments. Does he agree that the recommendation to publish regular contractor performance data is one way of ensuring that assessments are professional and effective?
Justin Tomlinson
I know that that Committee did some valuable work in that area, which was partly why we had the extensive independent review of the performance and management of PIP that was carried out by Dr Paul Gray.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Minister’s response to my letter and that of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State following the shocking revelations of last month’s “Dispatches” on personal independent payment assessments was complacent to say the least. Given the evidence not only from “Dispatches” but from the Public Accounts Committee in March and from the National Audit Office in January, all of which raised concerns about the quality of PIP assessments, when will the Minister investigate the matter and review Capita’s contract?
Justin Tomlinson
I gave a crystal clear, comprehensive response in the Westminster Hall debate, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady was obviously somewhat distracted. It is crystal clear that the individual in that film, who acted disgracefully, has rightly been removed. Progress in training and policies is being reviewed weekly. We have zero tolerance of such behaviour.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
10. What steps he is taking to help people with autism find work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
Working with the Autism Alliance, we are training a network of over 1,000 autism leads in Jobcentre Plus and developing an autism passport to record condition details and reasonable adjustments. In addition, Access to Work now has a hidden impairments specialist team to support people better, including those on the autistic spectrum.
Mr Sheerman
Will the Minister wake up and shake up his Department, because autistic people have a great deal of talent that gets wasted in this country? Only 15% of children on the autism scale end up working in a full-time job, so is it not about time that we took this seriously? I am a member of the newly formed Autism Commission, and we will help the Government, on a cross-party basis. Let us wake up to this tremendous potential, which is unexploited.
Justin Tomlinson
I agree 100% with the hon. Gentleman, who has a formidable track record of work in this area. The Department has put in place the Think Autism strategy and the autism taskforce, and we are working with the leading organisations. Only two weeks ago, I attended a constructive round-table meeting with the National Autistic Society, where there was a real focus on getting more employers to offer opportunities to take advantage of the huge wealth of talent that these individuals offer.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Does the Minister think that the closure of Remploy factories—every one of them—three years ago helped people with autism, and those with other disabilities, to find work?
Justin Tomlinson
The independent review stated that that move needed to be made. Through our specialist employment training programme, we will be offering twice as many job outcomes, which is what we need to do, as part of our commitment to halving the disability employment gap.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Following the success of national autism awareness month, it was good to see the Government announce a taskforce to explore access to apprenticeships for those with learning disabilities, which will be led by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I am aware that there is not a formal consultation period, but the British Association for Supported Employment has been asked to provide evidence to the taskforce by 13 May. Does the Minister agree that as many people and organisations as possible should feed into the taskforce’s work, to ensure that everyone has access to a life-changing apprenticeship?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for the constructive engagement. I am keen to listen to as many experiences from different organisations as possible. This is an incredibly important area of work for me, and I would be very happy to have a meeting with her if she would like to contribute.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
11. If his Department will introduce transitional protection for women adversely affected by changes in the state pension age.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
12. If his Department will introduce transitional protection for women adversely affected by changes in the state pension age.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
19. If his Department will introduce transitional protection for women adversely affected by changes in the state pension age.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
21. If his Department will introduce transitional protection for women adversely affected by changes in the state pension age.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
22. If his Department will introduce transitional protection for women adversely affected by changes in the state pension age.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Women affected by changes made in 2011 face a maximum increase in state pension age of 18 months, rather than two years, as a result of a Government concession, and will retire under the new state pension, which will be more generous for many than the previous system. No further transitional arrangements are planned.
Mr Cunningham
Will the new Secretary of State look again at these transitional arrangements? Will he also see whether or not the cost of this could be offset by some adjustments in his budget?
Julie Elliott
Why has the Minister not used the opportunity of a majority Conservative Government to put right the wrongs of the last Government, which have had an impact on some 4,290 women in my constituency, by introducing proper transitional arrangements—or is this just compassionate Conservatism in action?
Mr Vara
During the debates in 2011, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the then Pensions Minister said on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill that they would go away, consider and reflect, and they did precisely that: on Report, they made a concession worth £1.1 billion and reduced the timeframe from two years to 18 months. Transitional arrangements were put in place, and at a substantial and significant cost, notwithstanding the very tough economic climate at the time.
Kate Hollern
Recently, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise talked about how
“people have been working…for up to 30 years and paying into a pension fund in the expectation that…they will have a certain amount of money on which to live”.
She went on to say that
“there is an increasingly good case to be made for the right thing to be done by people”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1183.]
Given the sudden change in the retirement age for women, how can the Government justify this rank hypocrisy from one Minister to another? Will the Secretary of State bring fairness for those women? In his new role, he has an opportunity to show that he will consider things fairly and support the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise.
Mr Speaker
From the context of her question, I think that the hon. Lady was levelling the charge of inconsistency as between one Minister and another. I know she would not accuse a Minister of behaving hypocritically to another.
Mr Speaker
Well, if the reference were to the Government as a collective, that would be another way—
Mr Speaker
That would render it orderly. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) for proffering advice, especially from a sedentary position.
Mr Vara
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will take the hon. Lady’s reference, “from one Minister to another” slightly broadly and remind her that, following the passing of the Pensions Act in 1995 there were 13 years of Labour government during which a succession of Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and pensions Ministers did absolutely nothing to try to alter the system that she and her colleagues now seek to change.
Barbara Keeley
While Ministers do nothing, my constituents and other people are really suffering. My constituent, a woman born in the 1950s, told me:
“I feel anxious and distressed about how I am going to manage without an income in what has been, for my generation, the expected retirement age.”
It is six months since we had our first debate on this, so will the Minister and the Secretary of State now commit that civil servants will assist with costing the various options for transitional arrangements that have been put forward by Labour?
Paula Sherriff
Does the Minister accept that there were significant failures from his own Department to communicate the changes to the state pension age, and does he think it unacceptable that some women found out about the changes only months before they expected to retire?
Mr Vara
In 2012, a survey compiled by the Department for Work and Pensions found that only 6% of women who were due to retire within 10 years thought that the pension age was still 60. Moreover, in 1995, people were able to ask for an estimate of when they were likely to retire, and in 2011 more than 5 million people were sent a letter to the address that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs then had informing them of the changes.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
14. With an all-party group on the WASPI campaign being set up later this week, will the Secretary of State confirm that he is willing to meet a cross-party group of MPs and some members of the campaign to discuss the matter further and to open up some good communication?
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
13. What steps he is taking to assist disabled young people into work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
Last year, Access to Work supported record numbers of young disabled people to start or retain work. In partnership with Volunteering Matters, the DWP has supported the implementation of job-shadowing work-placement opportunities for young disabled people. The programme encourages employers to see the many benefits of employing disabled talent.
Justin Tomlinson
Following my visit to Foxes in Bridgwater, where a staggering 45.6% of its young adults get into paid sustainable employment, I now recognise that vocational pathways are important for many young disabled people, especially those with learning disabilities. Therefore, I and the Minister for Skills have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) to lead a joint Department for Work and Pensions/Department for Business, Innovation and Skills taskforce to increase access to apprenticeships for young people with learning disabilities. In addition, in recognition of what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, the taskforce will in future look at opportunities in apprenticeships for people with autism and other hidden impairments.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
My constituent has had her higher rate of disability living allowance removed, leaving her effectively housebound, which makes it almost impossible for her to find work. Until she exhausts all her appeal rights, she has had her Motability car taken away. Will the Minister agree to meet her to discuss what transitional support may be available to her and to the many people whom this will affect across the country?
Justin Tomlinson
We have seen 22,000 more people access the Motability scheme since PIP was introduced. There is an opportunity for a mandatory reconsideration and then an independent appeal. Those who are not successful do get to keep the car for a further seven weeks and have up to £2,000 to put towards buying that car or making alternative arrangements.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
15. What estimate his Department has made of the number of families in which one or more people are in employment who will receive less support under universal credit after moving from tax credits.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stephen Crabb)
Universal credit is transforming the welfare system so that work always pays. For the first time, we are providing tailored support to help people to get into, and make progress in, work. Anyone being moved to universal credit from tax credits will receive transitional protection, so that they are not a cash loser.
Neil Coyle
A single parent on universal credit who works full time will be up to £3,000 worse off than someone in the same situation on tax credits, as a result of cuts that are taking effect from April next year. How many single parents working full time—doing the right thing, in the Government’s vernacular—in Bermondsey and Old Southwark does the Secretary of State expect his cuts to affect, and by how much does he intend to make them worse off?
Stephen Crabb
I will repeat the point that people being moved from tax credits to universal credit will have transitional protections. The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake that so many of his colleagues have made of trying to compare the present position, falsely, with the previous situation under tax credits. Let us not forget that when tax credits were set up, there was no national living wage, child care support was not at the same level, and there were not higher rates of personal allowance. We are transforming the landscape of support for people on lower incomes.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
17. What steps his Department is taking to increase the accuracy of decision making during the initial assessment and mandatory reconsideration phases of benefit claims.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
The Department has a range of quality measures to drive improvements in the accuracy of decision making. Of course, we are committed to getting our decisions right. There will always be more opportunities to learn when decisions are overturned on appeal. We feed back on every single case.
Colleen Fletcher
The latest figures show that 75%—75%—of PIP appeals heard by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service were decided in favour of the appellant in Coventry. These figures clearly demonstrate the flawed and draconian nature of the original refusal decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Minister assure me that further improvements will be made to the DWP decision-making process to increase accuracy and prevent more vulnerable people from being forced to go through the appeals process needlessly?
Priti Patel
I would make two points to the hon. Lady. First, the Department has a range of quality measures to drive improvements in the accuracy of decision making. Secondly, I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People that only 2% of decisions on PIP claims are changed, and that is on the basis of new evidence being submitted.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stephen Crabb)
As part of our reforms to give people greater confidence and certainty about what they will receive in retirement, we are improving the help on offer to people with keeping track of their previous workplace pension pots. I can inform the House that our new online Pension Tracing Service goes live today. This new service will make it simpler and quicker to reunite people with information about their lost pension pots; it will take a matter of seconds, rather than days, as under the old system.
Andrew Bingham
I welcome enabling people to find their old pension pots, but what more can the Secretary of State do, and we do, to enable people to understand how much they are likely to receive from those pension pots, when they have found them?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend asks a good question. Many of our reforms of the state pension are designed to make things simpler and less confusing for people. Since the new state pension was introduced in April, everyone has been able to get a personalised state pension statement, based on the new rules, and there is a new online service, “Check your State Pension”, which offers a quick and accessible way for people to access information about their state pension.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his first DWP questions. He has started today by trying very hard to strike a different tone from his predecessor. He said in an interview last week that he wanted his Department and his Ministers to understand the “human impact” of their policies. What does he think the human impact will be of his plans to cut £1.2 billion from disabled people throughout the next Parliament? What does he think the impact is for the 500,000 people who are set to lose £1,500 a year in employment and support allowance?
Stephen Crabb
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind words with which he started his question. He obviously was not listening to the earlier questions on this subject, because at the end of this Parliament we will be spending more than at the beginning of this Parliament on supporting disabled people. We will be spending around £50 billion supporting disabled people—far more than was ever spent under the previous Labour Government.
Owen Smith
The Secretary of State seems to have forgotten already that in his very first speech he said that behind all those statistics are human beings. Disabled people will be disappointed that today he hid behind statistics once more and that he will not reverse the ESA cuts. Others will be disappointed that he refused today to address the concerns of women born in the 1950s, and still others that he has refused to address the cuts to in-work benefits under universal credit. In what way is the Secretary of State different from his predecessor?
Stephen Crabb
We are a Government who have helped deliver the changes that have seen a huge fall in workless households. Nearly half a million more children are growing up in a home seeing a mum or a dad go out to work. There is no reason to change policies that are changing things for the better for those who have least in our society.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
T4. Last week I had the honour of attending the national Young Enterprise tenner challenge final where two students from my local school, Mangotsfield school in my constituency, Archie Kenway and Joel Vadhyanath, received an award for turning £10 into a staggering profit of £3,289. Does my right hon. Friend agree that initiatives for young people such as the tenner challenge could help ensure that young people acquire valuable skills for the future in the workplace?
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who highlights not only the entrepreneurial spirit of those two young people but what we are doing in government through, for example, the new enterprise allowance, which has seen more than 80,000 businesses start up over the past five years.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
T2. Changes to the walking assessment have led to nearly 14,000 disabled people across the country losing access to their Motability vehicles. That has caused some of my constituents to lose their jobs and their independence. Why is the Secretary of State punishing disabled people in this way?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
Since PIP was introduced 22,000 more people have accessed the Motability scheme, so I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s account.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T6. The business case for universal credit identifies savings of £80 million a week in steady state after implementation. These come both from IT simplification and from the removal of barriers to getting back into work quickly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is a focus not just on delivering the technology, but on ensuring that those benefits will be delivered when the time comes?
Stephen Crabb
Since I was made Secretary of State for Work and Pensions I have made a number of changes to the way in which the roll-out of universal credit is overseen in the Department, stressing the importance of a careful and controlled roll-out. The one outcome that matters for everyone is that people get their benefits paid on time and correctly, and our approach is making sure that that happens.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
T3. The Resolution Foundation has calculated that universal credit could leave 2.5 million families on low pay worse off by more than £3,000 a year. Does the Minister agree that universal credit is abjectly failing to provide incentives to work and lift families out of low pay, which we were told was its intention?
Stephen Crabb
As I said to David Willetts from the Resolution Foundation, the author of the report, and as I say to every Member who seeks to criticise universal credit, “Go to your local Jobcentre Plus, go and sit with the teams of work coaches who are rolling out universal credit, and you will see the enthusiasm and the motivation as they see universal credit transforming people’s lives for the better.”
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T7. In anticipation of the White Paper on disability, will my hon. Friend embrace Leonard Cheshire’s Change100 programme, which allows disabled graduates to gain paid employment with major employers?
Justin Tomlinson
That is a fantastic initiative. I work very closely with Leonard Cheshire. It is exactly the sort of programme that should help shape our plans to help disabled people access work.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
T5. I recently asked a written question about the equality analysis that was carried out on the PIP consultation documents, and I was astounded to find out that the Department has only to pay due regard to the equality aspects of decisions, and that it was up to the Department to decide whether to publish that analysis. Does the Secretary of State agree that in the spirit of full transparency equality analyses must be published and made publicly available?
Justin Tomlinson
We also have the independent reviews. The previous one was carried out by Dr Paul Gray and we will be looking to do a further review. Let us not forget that under PIP 22% of claimants access the highest rate of benefit, compared with just 16% under disability living allowance.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
A constituent of mine has multiple sclerosis and, for the past nine years, acting on the advice of her council, she has used her disability living allowance to pay the mortgage on the family’s adapted bungalow. She has now been informed that, with PIP, she will no longer be able to do that, and she and her family risk losing their home. The change could have a devastating impact on many families up and down the country. Will the Minister look into the matter and ensure that this scenario does not happen?
Justin Tomlinson
I would be happy to look into the details, but local authorities do have access to the £870 million for discretionary housing payments. We have also regularly updated the guidance for local authorities to help such individuals.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
T8. The Government intend to replace the current statutory child poverty measures with new measures of life chances. Researchers at the London School of Economics analysed responses to the Government consultation on child poverty measurement and found that 99% of respondents believed income and deprivation should be included. Does the Minister agree or disagree with them?
Stephen Crabb
What we are focused on—more than any previous Government—is tackling the underlying causes of poverty. One of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues talked earlier about entrenched poverty; if we are going to tackle entrenched poverty, we need a coherent, integrated life chances strategy that focuses on the underlying causes and on some of the measures and indicators that track them.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Rugby was in the first group of jobcentres to introduce universal credit for single people, and it is now introducing the benefit for families. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to staff at Rugby jobcentre for their hard work and flexibility in implementing this important change?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: staff at Rugby Jobcentre Plus have done a brilliant job, as have staff in jobcentres all over the country, in rolling out universal credit. They are achieving some really important things.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want to keep our VIPs waiting too long—and they are our VIPs today—but there are a couple more Members whom I wish to accommodate.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The latest analysis shows that the young people referred to in Question 3 stand to lose between £30,000 and £20,000 over their retirement, as a direct result of Government policy. Will the Minister explain how that contributes to intergenerational fairness?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The whole purpose of the auto-enrolment system is to make sure that people can supplement the state pension. At the moment, 10 million people are eligible for auto-enrolment, and we expect 9 million of them to take up that offer. Those 9 million people will end up saving and, in many cases, saving more than they do at present.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that he will be assessed on how far he is willing to stand up to the Chancellor over cuts that hit the most vulnerable? His predecessor was not willing to do that until the last moment. Has the Secretary of State got more courage and guts than his predecessor?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to try to focus on divisions between the Treasury and the DWP. When a Department such as the DWP spends between a quarter and a third of all taxpayers’ money, we need to make sure that it is working closely aligned with the Treasury to achieve the things we want to achieve as a Government.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I have a constituent, Lisa, who has spina bifida; she suffers constant pain and balance problems, and she needs a walking stick. She was forced to struggle 25 metres from the reception area to an assessment room for PIP. Surprise, surprise, she was then classed as mobile enough to walk more than 20 metres. How can the Minister convince us that that was a fair and just assessment? When will he end this ridiculous 20-metre rule?
Justin Tomlinson
First, any claimant who has difficulty attending an assessment centre can request a face-to-face assessment in their own home. Secondly, with regard to how far somebody can travel in an assessment, this is not just a black-and-white issue of 20 metres; it is about whether they can do that safely, repeatedly, to an assessable standard and in a reasonable time. If a claimant is unhappy with a decision, they can ask for a mandatory reconsideration or an independent appeal.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
One of my constituents who works 16 hours a week and is a carer for a disabled relative has discovered that because of the living wage she no longer qualifies for carer’s allowance, leaving her with a substantial shortfall. Why on earth have this Government forced her and thousands of others into this desperate situation?
Justin Tomlinson
We as a Government spend £2.3 billion a year in supporting the invaluable work that carers do in this country. The impact of the national living wage will always be reviewed.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
One hundred and forty thousand pensioners who paid into occupational pension schemes, including those of Allied Steel and Wire in my constituency, have been done a historical injustice by losing out on the full amount they paid in and are entitled to. Will the new Secretary of State meet the Pensions Action Group and representatives of those pensioners to discuss their concerns?
Stephen Crabb
I have met the action group on previous occasions. We continue to look at all these issues. The hon. Gentleman is aware that other very high-profile cases are currently looking for the support of the Pension Protection Fund.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Physical inactivity costs the UK some £8 billion. I had an excellent meeting with the Secretary of State’s predecessor before he decided to leave the job. May representatives from Leeds Beckett University, which does wonderful work in this area, and I have a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss this?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is reportedly set to reduce the benefits cap by up to £6,000 per year. Who does he think will miss out most from this? Does he think that private landlords with out-of-control rents will just accept £500 a month less, or that children, who have no control over any aspect of their lives, will be the ones to suffer yet again?
Stephen Crabb
The changes to the benefit cap have already been legislated on and passed by this Parliament. I urge the hon. Lady to look at the results of the earlier changes to the benefit cap, which have had really positive outcomes in encouraging and supporting more people into work.
Community Pharmacies
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I wish to deliver this petition of the residents of Scunthorpe to the House of Commons. The petition states:
The petition of residents of Scunthorpe,
Declares that local pharmacies are a vital frontline health service, forming part of the fabric of health communities across England; further that they may be forced to close as a result of Government proposals; further that this could deprive people of accessible medicines advice and other valuable support from trusted professionals; and further that it may also put more pressure on GPs and hospital services.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to reassess their proposed plans and protect local pharmacies.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001691]
Wellington Railway Station
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The petition relates to a railway station for Wellington and has 402 signatures. The petition declares that
“a new railway station in Wellington in the constituency of Taunton Deane should be opened”.
Following is the full text of the petition;
[The petition of residents of Taunton Deane,
Declares that a new railway station in Wellington in the constituency of Taunton Deane should be opened; further that this project has a local support from residents and businesses; further that the rapidly expanding town is experiencing high volumes of road congestion and that a rail link could help alleviate this and improve local air quality whilst at the same time improving rural transport networks in the area; and further that Taunton Deane Borough Council have committed £40,000 to a feasibility study and pending commitment from the other involved partners we seek the support of the Department of Transport through the New Station Fund.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to open a new metro style railway station in Wellington and support the feasibility study.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001692]
New Members
Safety in Custody and Violence in Prisons
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate 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 Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on safety in custody and violence in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
Before I move on to the substance of the question, I would like to update the House on events that occurred at Her Majesty’s Prison Wormwood Scrubs over the weekend. On the morning of Friday 6 May, prison officers refused to enter the prison, citing health and safety grounds. Later that day, an agreement was reached between the National Offender Management Service and the Prison Officers Association. All officers have returned to work, and the prison is running a normal regime. The National Offender Management Service and the Prison Officers Association are jointly committed to resolving any outstanding health and safety concerns at HMP Wormwood Scrubs. On Sunday 8 May, two members of staff at Wormwood Scrubs were assaulted and taken to hospital for treatment. We do not tolerate any violence against our hard-working officers. The alleged perpetrator now faces a police investigation that could lead to criminal charges.
Moving on to the wider question, I take safety in prisons very seriously. Reducing the harm that prisoners may cause to themselves or to others is the Government’s top priority in prisons. The most recent statistics on safety in custody show that levels of self-inflicted death, self-harm and violence in prison are too high. The figures demonstrate the very serious challenges facing the prison service. There is no single, simple solution to the increase in deaths and violence in prisons. Those trends have been seen across the prison estate, in both public and private prisons and in prisons both praised and criticised by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons.
We have already taken a number of steps to address the problems. We have recruited 2,830 prison officers since January 2015; that is a net increase of 530. We are trialling the use of body-worn cameras in prisons. We are strengthening the case management of individuals who risk harming others. We have introduced tough new laws under which those who smuggle packages, including packages containing new psychoactive substances, over prison walls will face up to two years in prison. We have reviewed the case management process for prisoners who are assessed as being at risk of harm to themselves, and we are implementing the recommendations.
It is, however, clear that we must do more. We need to reduce violence and prevent drugs from entering prison. We must do better at helping prisoners with mental health problems. We must ensure that prisoners can be rehabilitated so that they are no longer a danger to others. That is why the Government are committed to fundamental reform of our prisons. We have secured £1.3 billion to modernise the prison estate, and we will give greater autonomy to governors so that they are truly in charge. I look forward to setting out our plans in greater detail shortly.
The problems are deep-seated, and there are no easy answers. However, I assure the House that the Government will not waver in their determination to reform our prisons, so that they become places of decency, hope and rehabilitation.
Andy Slaughter
I thank the Minister for that response, but I fear that it was exactly what we have heard time and time again at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will concede that the situation in our prisons on the youth estate is very serious, and that the recent incidents are part of a pattern of unacceptable conditions and unacceptable violent behaviour. It cannot be right that prisoners, staff and, ultimately, the public are at risk from the Government’s failure to get a grip on the crisis in our prisons. That makes it all the more surprising that the Secretary of State is not here today. We are all, whatever our view, engaged in the referendum campaign; that is no reason for him to neglect his responsibility as Secretary of State.
Yesterday, as the Minister said, two prison officers were hospitalised after being assaulted while they were on duty at Wormwood Scrubs prison in my constituency. Our thoughts are with them and their families. That is a reminder of the difficult and dangerous job that officers do every day, often hidden from the public gaze and without the acknowledgement that they deserve. The attack was entirely predictable—so much so that two days earlier, as the Minister acknowledged, 70 members of staff at Wormwood Scrubs had walked out because they did not feel safe. Although Tornado officers were sent into the prison on Saturday, they were withdrawn on Sunday, which was when the attacks happened. What specific steps are being taken to ensure safety in HMP Wormwood Scrubs? I am told that drugs, phones and even knives are being thrown over the walls because of insufficient patrolling of the grounds and cell searches caused by insufficient staffing numbers. Will additional officers be provided to undertake these basic tasks until order is restored and a review of staffing at this and similar prisons is undertaken?
What happened at Wormwood Scrubs is not an isolated incident; it is typical of the dangers and problems across the prison and youth estate. In the past few days, reports on Lewes and Leeds prisons have told a similar story. Last week, it was revealed that the Department is about to take over the management of Medway secure training centre following the “Panorama” exposé of the appalling conduct of G4S and some of its staff in running that institution, including allegations of serious violence against children.
Fourteen prison staff are assaulted every day. There were 4,963 assaults on staff by prisoners in 2015, compared with 3,640 in 2014, which is a 36% increase in attacks. Prisons are now violent and dangerous places. Serious self-harm and suicides are at record levels. We have heard for a year that the Government wish to transform our prisons, but words are no longer enough. Now is the time for action before more prisons become ungovernable and there are more serious injuries or—God forbid—the death of an officer on duty.
Andrew Selous
This Government are not in denial about the situation, we have not been idle in seeking to address it and we do not lack vision or political will on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly raised. I assure him that the Secretary of State takes this issue extremely seriously, and it is our top priority as far as prisons are concerned.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the work that prison officers do—day in, day out—across our country is, by its very nature, hidden from public view. They are outstanding public servants who do amazingly good work, which, unfortunately, is not seen or perhaps not as fully appreciated by most of us as it should be.
The nature of the offenders in custody has changed. Today, about 30% more people are sentenced to prison for violent offences, and prisoners often act more spontaneously and more violently to achieve their objectives than they did in the past.
On recruitment, I repeat what I said: we have been recruiting at full strength for the past two years. We have recruited an extra 2,830 officers since 2015, and we are continuing to recruit at that level to make sure that our prisons are adequately staffed.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Minister knows that we are gradually understanding more and more about the violence that affects our prisons. Violence can sometimes be due to the inappropriate handling of prisoners with mental health problems or, indeed, those on the autism spectrum, and just small changes can make a difference to the behaviour of such individuals. Does the Minister welcome the National Autistic Society’s initiative for some of our prisons to have autism awareness accreditation, particularly Feltham young offenders institution, where it is making a difference, and will he assure me that he will look at fully rolling out this programme across the prison and custody system?
Andrew Selous
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her extensive knowledge of this issue and, indeed, for the legislation that she initiated in this House. It was a great pleasure to visit HMP Feltham with her. I can tell the House that Feltham is now the first autism accredited prison in the whole world, which is something I am extremely proud of. This good work must not stop at Feltham: we need to spread it across the prison estate. She is absolutely right that this is one part of reducing violence across the estate.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Inspectors have warned of “Dickensian squalor” inside Wormwood Scrubs, following a scathing report that revealed that the jail is rat-infested and overcrowded, with inmates spending up to 22 hours a day locked in very squalid cells. Overcrowding and poor conditions exacerbate the risk of violence not only to staff but to other prisoners. It is clear from a recent statement from the Prison Governors Association that understaffing is still an issue. Will the Minister assure us that the ideological drive to cut public services and to shift to private sector provision will not further jeopardise staff and prison safety?
Will the Minister also look to the example of the Scottish Government? Their approach of recommending a presumption against shorter sentences of three months or under has led to the numbers of such sentences plummeting, and the reconviction rate is at a 16-year low. Will he take steps to follow their lead in creating a presumption against short sentences and investing instead in robust community sentences in order to address the underlying causes of crime more effectively?
Andrew Selous
I visited HMP Wormwood Scrubs a week or so ago. We have an excellent new governor in the prison, who has a good record and I believe has the best possible chance of making sure that it improves on those issues. There are 15 officers over and above the benchmark level within Wormwood Scrubs. The drive to greater governor autonomy will help to deal with a number of the issues. The Government are currently consulting on sentencing issues.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the interest he has in prison security, and, indeed, for the action he has taken on it; the Justice Committee shares his interest. Today I met the prisons and probation ombudsman, who told me that on current estimates 61% of inmates take psychoactive substances. What consideration has my hon. Friend given to enlarging smoke-free zones in prisons, and to what extent does he feel that that might help with the problems?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable on these issues as a member of the Select Committee, is absolutely right to point the finger at the terrible damage caused by new psychoactive substances. I agree that rolling out smoke-free prisons across England and Wales will help us to reduce that damage—we know that those psychoactive substances are sometimes smoked openly, with prisoners pretending that they are smoking tobacco. I am with her in wanting to see the roll-out progress, but we will only do that in a measured and safe way.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The independent monitoring board for Leicester prison published a damning report about conditions there this morning. The report pointed to all the matters that the Minister has raised—rising levels of violence, use of drugs and mental health issues. This issue is about increasing staffing. Although the Government have increased the number of prison officers, there are clearly not enough. What further steps can be taken to help the officers at Leicester prison?
Andrew Selous
My commitment to the House is to carry on recruiting at the increased level of activity that there has been for the past few years. It is proving successful. It is a challenge, at some specific sites in London and the south-east more than at others, but we are managing to make progress. There is the budget to carry on employing prison officers and I am determined to carry on with our recruitment objectives.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
My question was already ably asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis).
Mr Speaker
What an extraordinary and novel development—an hon. Member who does not indulge in superfluous repetition. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of winning a medal. It is an extraordinary development, and very welcome, I am sure.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister mentioned the importance of dealing with mental health in prisons. On Friday I met a justice of the peace in my constituency who talked about the good work done by the liaison and diversion services. He encouraged me to encourage the Minister and the Secretary of State to extend those services and ensure that more community orders have as a condition that people get the help they need.
Andrew Selous
My hon. and learned Friend, who is also extremely knowledgeable on these issues, is absolutely right. The Government are committed to making sure that there is universal access to a mental health assessment from the moment that anyone encounters the criminal justice system. I also point her to the co-commissioning that is going to happen between governors and NHS England on mental health and drug abuse services. That will also be very beneficial.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I have no doubt that the Minister wants to sort this problem out, and his account of a passion for reform, decency and hope was compelling, except for the fact that it has not worked. Since 2012, the number of assaults in prisons has doubled, as have the number of assaults on staff. Although he talked about recruiting more staff recently, total numbers of staff have fallen. Those staff are frightened—brave prison officers are scared to go to work. What can the Minister say to stop them feeling frightened?
Andrew Selous
The right hon. Lady is right to say that confidence is an extremely important commodity as far as the day-to-day work of prison officers is concerned. She has been involved with these issues for many years, and she will know that the Prison Service has been affected in a major way by waves of drugs. In the early 1990s, and before that, such things had serious implications for prisons, and led to riots and serious assaults in high numbers. We have a two-year violence reduction project. It would not be helpful now to give the House a shopping list of individual measures, but detailed, serious work is taking place across the estate, including the violence diagnostic tool and many other measures to help back up hard-working prison officers. The body-worn camera initiative is also proving valuable, and we hope to say more about that soon.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the prevalent use of lethal highs, in particular “spice”, in HMP Northumberland in my constituency, is one clear cause of the increase in violence and unpredictable behaviour among our prison population? What are we doing to try to reduce dramatically the numbers of those goods?
Andrew Selous
It was a great pleasure to go round HMP Northumberland with my hon. Friend not long ago, and I commend her for calling these terrible drugs “lethal” highs. From 26 May they will all be completely illegal when the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 is enforced. That is very welcome, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will not waver in our determination to crack down on those substances.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for an amicable meeting last week about HMP Northumberland. The common denominator throughout the whole prison estate across the country is simply a lack of manpower. That is causing the violence—whether it be prisoner on prisoner or prisoner on staff—mental health issues and the problems with alcohol, “spice” or whatever. The Minister has said that this issue is challenging. What extra measures can he take to ensure that plenty of staff are employed in prisons to maintain a safe environment for everybody on the prison estate?
Andrew Selous
My door is always open to the hon. Gentleman, and if he has further concerns about HMP Northumberland, he is welcome to come and see me again. If we analyse what has happened across the prison estate, we see that the increase in violence has taken place in prisons where there has been an increase in the number of officers and in prisons where numbers have stayed the same, and where there have been reductions. He is right to say that we need adequate levels of staff, which is why I give him the commitment that I have already given the House that we will carry on recruiting at our current level, which included a net increase of 530 officers last year.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I have asked the Minister to come and visit young offenders at Portland, and I hope he will do so shortly. There was an unpleasant riot the other day, and prison officers were put in danger. I pay credit to all prison officers who work like a forgotten army behind the scenes. Portland is a fairly old structure, and the number of floors—there are four or five—is a particular concern because there are not enough officers to man them all at the same time. That puts those officers at risk, and allows prisoner free rein where they perhaps should not have it. Will my hon. Friend look at that issue and increase the number of prison officers at the young offenders institution as fast as we can?
Andrew Selous
It would be a pleasure to visit HMP-YOI Portland with my hon. Friend in due course and I note what he says about the design of that particular prison. The £1.3 billion commitment provides the Government with the opportunity to get the best design knowledge from around the world to ensure that the new prisons we build are as safe as possible. That will also enable us to cease to operate some prisons where assaults and bullying take place in part because of poor design.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
In the first five years of this Government, the number of prison officers fell by 41%. In the sixth year of this Government, assaults on prison officers rose by the same percentage—41%. The Minister mentions that prison officer numbers are increasing, but he uses a figure based on the past couple of years. Will he tell me how many prison officers there were in 2010 and how many there are today?
Andrew Selous
I do not have those particular figures to hand for the right hon. Gentleman, although my memory is that he has asked me that question before and that I have written to him with the answer. I will dig out the letter I sent to him; maybe it went astray. Speaking as a current prisons Minister to a former prisons Minister—I know he cares as deeply about these issues as I do—he will know that these issues are not easy. He knows that his own Government faced considerable difficulties on exactly the same issues. What is not in doubt is this Government’s utter determination, through the prison reform programme, to get on top of them.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman was chuntering repeatedly from a sedentary position that he knew the answer to his own question, which is probably very wise and knowledge of which will enable us all to sleep much more soundly in our beds tonight.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for his work as prisons Minister. He takes his role extremely seriously. I think my constituents will be very surprised to hear quite how much stuff is being thrown over prison walls: mobile phones, drugs, lethal highs and knives. Surely in 2016 we have the ability to stop this happening, or at least to minimise it? What plans does the Minister have to tackle this issue?
Andrew Selous
These issues are not easy. Our prisons are not like the Eden Project: they do not have a dome over the top of them. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to get things over a prison wall, as I saw when I went around HMP Rochester last Thursday morning. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. All of us, particularly as Members of Parliament, have a role in getting the message out in our communities that new psychoactive substances are lethal. They do terrible harm to the loved ones of families who inadvertently bring them into prisons. We need local communities to work with us and the police to try to stop the terrible flow of evil drugs over prison walls.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister is absolutely right: prison officers do an exceptionally difficult job. They need and deserve our fullest possible support. That has to be more than a platitude. For that to be the case, staffing levels have to be addressed. The other issue that has to be addressed is prison overcrowding. The prison population is now in excess of 90,000 inmates. In the past 15 years, the length of sentences has gone up by 33%. Can the Minister assure me that, as he tackles this issue, he will look at it in the round; that he will look not just at prisons in isolation but at how they interact with police, prosecution and court authorities?
Andrew Selous
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his praise for the work of our outstanding prison officers. We are consulting on sentencing issues, which have a bearing on overcrowding. We are also determined to bring down reoffending. Our success in reducing reoffending will help to reduce overcrowding.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his comments today and for his support with regard to our concerns about HMP Rochester and the Medway Secure Training Centre. I also thank him for his very speedy meeting with me and the governor of HMP Rochester earlier this year. The Minister will know that Medway Secure Training Centre was at the centre of abuse allegations. Will he confirm when the Medway improvement board report will be published? My constituents want reassurance that action and improvements have taken place, so that young people are safe in Medway.
Andrew Selous
I commend my hon. Friend for her serious interest in and support for the three prisons in her constituency. I was in HMP Rochester on Thursday morning, and I commend, in particular, the outstanding work of its governor and head of security to combat the constant pressure of drugs coming into the prison. On Medway STC, about which we will be saying more shortly, the Secretary of State and I have met Dr Gary Holden and the Medway improvement board, which was appointed by the Secretary of State. We will be making further announcements on its findings in due course.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
A constituent came to see me this weekend to express her fears for her son. He is in prison and every day she expects to get a phone call saying he has been murdered. What reassurance can the Minister give my constituent that prisoners, while serving their time, do not live in fear of their lives?
Andrew Selous
The whole prison reform agenda speaks directly to the issue of violence. Our vision for prisons is one where prisoners engage in meaningful, relevant education and in skills training that is linked to skills needed in the local community and which will help them to get a job. Our vision also includes a commitment to keeping family relationships strong. If we can do those three things, we will reduce frustration, levels of violence and the number of assaults.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Wormwood Scrubs has been described by the Prison Officers Association as
“flooded with drugs, mobiles phones and weapons”
and by the chief inspector as having cells so bad you would not keep a dog in them. Does the Minister still think that this prison is fit for purpose?
Andrew Selous
HMP Wormwood Scrubs is an older, Victorian prison facing various challenges. I went around it recently, and as I said, I have confidence in its very good new governor. The hon. Lady mentioned mobile phones, which we have not talked about much so far. As the Prime Minister announced on 8 February, we are committed to working with the mobile network operators, which also need to rise to their responsibilities to help us fight the scourge of mobile phones in prisons.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
In the last four years, there has been a rise in levels of violence against prison officers owing to understaffing and the fact that there are not enough rehabilitation programmes. Is it not time to re-evaluate how we decide who to send to prison and, when we do send them to prison, to make available proper rehabilitation provision?
Andrew Selous
Decisions about who goes to prison are obviously for our independent judiciary, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need for better rehabilitation. We are determined that time in prison is not wasted but is productive, relevant and beneficial to prisoners and to the wider community in terms of keeping us all safe when they come out.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Parc prison in Bridgend has an excellent reputation for its rehabilitation work, including its drug rehabilitation work, but it needs the support of the local police force, South Wales police, if it is to tackle the smuggling in of drugs and the throwing of drugs over the wall. It gets that help. What is the Minister doing to make sure that police forces across the UK work with their prison forces and officers? The number of attacks on prison officers and by prisoners on prisoners is increasing, and unless prisons work with police forces to arrest those guilty of smuggling drugs into prisons, we will be wasting our time.
Andrew Selous
I thank the hon. Lady for praising the work of HMP Parc in her constituency—in particular, I would praise the outstanding family work done by Corin Morgan-Armstrong—and I am grateful to her for raising the issue of good co-operation with the local police. I am pleased it is working well in her area, but she is right that it varies across the country. It is an issue that I take extremely seriously and about which I have regular conversations with the policing Minister.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is no mystery why assaults on prison officers, assaults between prisoners and suicides have increased in prisons. Only last week, a report came out showing that every factor had gone up. It is no surprise when staff are cut by a third. I was very pleased to listen to the Secretary of State and I applauded him, but I am disappointed that he is not here today. The vision for the future is good, and I support it, but we cannot wait for jam tomorrow. We need more action now. We are still 7,000 down on staff numbers. We need an increase in the number of officers now. It is not safe for them to go into work now, and it is not safe for the prisoners themselves. We need more action today. I ask you what you intend to do now as a matter of urgency?
Mr Speaker
I intend to do precisely nothing, other than to ask the Minister to tell the House what he and the Government will do.
Andrew Selous
The hon. Lady is a member of the Select Committee, is very knowledgeable and takes these issues extremely seriously. One issue not yet mentioned today is that we are significantly improving prison officer training. It has increased from six to 10 weeks, and we are providing officers with the additional skills they will need to be able to cope. Training on its own, of course, is not enough, which is why I reiterate to the hon. Lady the commitment I have made several times today to carry on recruiting at the rate we are recruiting to get up to the benchmark level. In December 2014, the number of vacancies for prisoner officers was 5%; it is now 2%, and I want to see it at 0%.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I have heard these sort of remarks from the Minister so many times—too often to have any confidence that he is going to do anything at all about this problem. It is a problem of this Government’s making, when they let far too many officers go in the first half of the last Parliament. Now the Minister’s problem is not just about numbers; it is about the experience of staff. We now have experienced inmates and inexperienced staff—and this is what happens as a result. What is the Minister going to do not just to get the number of officers in, but to ensure that they are properly trained, supported, mentored, developed and assisted in their early years of learning jail-craft? If he carries on as he is now, these problems will never be resolved on his watch.
Andrew Selous
The hon. Lady is right about the importance of jail-craft. I point her to the recent chief inspector’s report on Glen Parva prison, in which it was noted that the new officers were treated as an asset because of their enthusiasm and the new skills that they brought, rather than being viewed as in their probationary period and thus not able to add very much. If establishments get the right attitude and use the enthusiasm of the new recruits, it will be helpful.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
This is an interesting debate, particularly when we discuss how people on all sides are affected, whether they be people working in prisons, prisoners themselves or their families who are worried about the conditions within the prisons. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), I have had constituents coming to see me to make representations about Strangeways prison in Manchester. They fear that the culture is not in place to ensure that mental health is something to be dealt with positively by the prison rather than simply being controlled because of the Minister’s targets.
Andrew Selous
I recently visited HMP Manchester in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding work of prison officers there, facing some challenging prisoners. We are absolutely committed to improving mental health in prisons. NHS England is taking on an extra 20 case managers this year for adult secure services. We have co-commissioning coming up, and we take mental health issues extremely seriously.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister is well aware of the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into prison safety, which addresses the issue of violence. Members might have noticed that on Friday, the news slipped out that the Medway Secure Training Centre, which was mis-run by G4S, has now come into Ministry of Justice hands. The next day, a report came out on Rainsbrook, showing endemic use of force and restraint. Surely the logical conclusion is that the MOJ should now take over Rainsbrook private youth prison.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have a strong sense that Members will be approaching the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee to seek a debate on these matters. I say that because quite a lot of what we have heard has been nearer to debate contributions than to questions. I hope I can make that point gently.
Andrew Selous
No Governments comment on leaks, wherever they come from. We will have more to say about Medway in due course, and, indeed, about all three secure training centres, because, as the hon. Lady has said, some of the issues that apply to Medway are clearly relevant to all of them.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) mentioned “spice”. Officers at Holme House prison, which is in my constituency, have ended up on sick leave because of the effects of smoke from this substance. Others have been injured while trying to deal with violent prisoners, some of whom are taken to hospital after using the substance, thus putting officers and health staff at risk. When will the Government put the right systems in place to stop such substances getting through security and into prisons?
Andrew Selous
We are investing in new technology, and we are trialling a full body scanner to detect “spice”, “black mamba”, and other types of new psychoactive substance which are concealed within the body. I believe that the smoking ban will help in time, once it has been rolled out to prisons in the hon. Gentleman’s area and throughout the country. Unfortunately, as he will know, “spice” is often smoked openly by prisoners pretending that it is tobacco.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Prison officers at HMP Lancaster Farms, in my constituency, will have observed the events at Wormwood Scrubs over the weekend with trepidation, because the situation there is reflected across the country. The situation at Lancaster Farms was so bad that prison officers went to the local paper to expose the issue of drugs in prisons and the need for more officers. Will the Minister commit to putting more money into prison staffing so that staff can go to work and feel safe?
Andrew Selous
I should point out to the hon. Lady that the Prison Officers Association reached an agreement with the National Offender Management Service. We will definitely keep all the issues at Wormwood Scrubs under review, and, as I have said, we are continuing to spend more money on prison officers in order to recruit up to the benchmark. We are continuing to recruit at the rate at which we have been recruiting for the last few years.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the concern expressed by many other Members about prisoners with mental health issues, the risks that they pose not only to themselves but to others and the effect of staff cuts on that situation.
I have corresponded with the Minister about a constituent of mine who has endured a lengthy bureaucratic process relating to his potential transfer to a secure mental health unit that would be more adequate to his needs. I am sorry to say that his family received a call this month telling them that he had killed himself, only to be told half an hour later that he had not. That is an extraordinary situation. I should like the Minister to investigate it fully, and also to look very closely at the case that is being made for my constituent to be transferred from HMP Birmingham, where he is currently being held.
Andrew Selous
I apologise to the family, through the hon. Gentleman, for the fact that they were given such terrible news, which clearly was not true. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me again about the issue, or even to come and see me about it, I shall be more than happy to discuss it further with him.
“Educational Excellence Everywhere”: Academies
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on all schools becoming academies.
In our White Paper “Educational Excellence Everywhere”, published in March, I set out the Government’s vision of continuing the rise in educational standards in England during the rest of the current Parliament. We are committed to building on the reforms of the past six years, which have led to 1.4 million more children being taught in good and outstanding schools. However, we are not content to stop there: 1.4 million children is a start, but it is not enough. We must ensure that we deliver a great education to every single child, because we owe it to the next generation to give them the tools that will enable them to realise every ounce of their potential.
The White Paper was called “Educational Excellence Everywhere” for a reason. As I have said before, for me the “everywhere” is non-negotiable. In the White Paper, for example, we set out our plans for “Achieving Excellence Areas”, where we will focus specific resources on tackling entrenched educational underperformance. The White Paper also sets out how we want to see the teaching profession take responsibility for teacher accreditation, tackle unfair funding, build leadership capacity and set high expectations for every child, with a world-leading knowledge-based curriculum in a truly school-led self-improving system learning from the best from across the world and preparing the next generation to compete on the global stage.
It is the vision of a fully academised system that has attracted the most attention. Over the course of the last few weeks, I have spoken to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as to school leaders, governors, local government representatives and parents. It is clear from those conversations that the strength and importance of academies is widely accepted. There is a clear recognition of the case for putting greater responsibility for the school system in the hands of school leaders. Let me be clear: we firmly believe that schools becoming more autonomous and more directly accountable for their results raises standards. Academies are the vehicle to allow schools and leaders to innovate with the curriculum, have the flexibility to set the pay and conditions for their staff and bring about great collaboration with other schools.
We still want every school to become an academy by 2022. We always intended this to be a six-year process in which good schools should be able to take their own decisions about their future as academies. However, we understand the concerns that have been raised about a hard deadline and legislating for blanket powers to issue academy orders. That is why I announced on Friday that we have decided it is not necessary to take blanket powers to convert good schools in strong local authorities to academies at this time.
In March, a record high of 227 schools chose to apply for academy status, showing clearly where the momentum lies as school leaders, parents, governors and teachers across the country embrace the benefits that being an academy brings. Since then, we have also issued more than 104 academy orders to underperforming schools, meaning that the young people in those schools will soon benefit from the strong leadership provided by expert academy sponsors. That is why those who took to the airwaves this weekend to crow about a victory in their battle against raising standards will find themselves sorely disappointed. There will be no retreat from our mission to give every child the best start in life and to build an education system led by school leaders and teachers on the frontline, running their own schools as academies.
The Education and Adoption Act 2016 already enables us to rapidly convert failing schools and schools that are coasting, where they can benefit from the support of a strong sponsor. As a result, it is now easier to respond swiftly and effectively when schools underperform. Schools will not be allowed to languish unchallenged for years. As we set out in the White Paper, and as I have subsequently argued, the most pressing need for further powers is to boost standards for those schools languishing in the worst performing local authorities and to provide for schools in local authorities likely to become unviable. So instead of taking a blanket power to convert all schools, we will seek powers in two specific circumstances where it is clear that the case for conversion to academy status is pressing. In our worst performing local authorities, we need to take more decisive action so that a new system led by outstanding schools can take their place. Similarly, because of the pace of academisation in some areas, it will become increasingly difficult for local authorities to offer schools the necessary support, and there will be a need to ensure that those schools are not dependent on an unviable local authority.
We will therefore seek provisions to convert schools in the lowest performing and unviable local authorities to academy status. In some circumstances, that might involve the conversion of good and outstanding schools when they have not chosen to do so themselves. However, the need for action in those limited circumstances is clear, because of the considerable risk to the standard of education that young people in those schools receive, as the local authority is either unable to guarantee their continued success or support further improvement. We will consult on these arrangements, including the thresholds for performance and unviability, and I am making a clear commitment that the definition and thresholds of underperformance and viability will be the subject of an affirmative resolution in this House.
I would also like to reassure hon. Members in regard to concerns about how we protect small schools, particularly those in rural areas. I have already made it clear that no small rural school will close as a result of the move to have more schools becoming academies. There is already a statutory presumption against the closure of rural schools, but we will now go further. Where small rural schools are converting to academy status, we will introduce a dual lock to ensure their protection: both local and national Government will have to agree to a school closing before a decision can be made. There will also be dedicated support to help rural primary schools during the process of conversion, and a £10 million fund to secure expert support and advice for them.
While we want every school to become an academy, we will not compel successful schools to join multi-academy trusts. In order to share expertise and resources, we expect that most schools will form local clusters of multi-academy trusts, but if the leadership of a successful school does not wish to enter a formal relationship with other schools, we trust it to make that decision and will not force it to do so. Small schools will be able to convert to stand-alone academies as long as they are financially sustainable.
I began this statement by saying that our goal has not changed. This Government will continue to prioritise the interests of young people and getting them the best start in life by having an excellent education over the vested interests who seek to oppose the lifting of standards and the rooting out of educational underperformance. Those very same vested interests allowed schools to languish for years unchallenged and unchanged until the launch of the sponsored academies programme by the last Labour Government.
Our work to improve our education system will continue apace. We will continue to empower school leaders and raise standards. We will continue to hold high expectations for every child. We will establish a fair national funding formula for schools, so that young people everywhere get the funding they deserve. We will continue to work towards a system in which all schools are run and led by the people who know them best, in a way that works for their pupils, as academies. The reforms will transform the education system in our country and ensure that we give every child an excellent education, so that they have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. I commend this statement to the House.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. It is good to see that, despite her best efforts, this U-turn is getting the airing it deserves today. What she announced on Friday was a significant and welcome climbdown. However she wants to dress it up, dropping her desire to force all schools to become academies by her arbitrary deadline of 2022 is a key concession. School leaders should take it as a clear signal that the foot is off their throat and that they should not feel they need to jump before being pushed. In achieving this welcome move, I thank the broad alliance who joined us in making the arguments: the head teachers, who made their collective voice clear last weekend, parents, governors, teachers, local government leaders, and hon. Members from across the House, who made thoughtful and important interventions over recent weeks. Given the scale and breadth of the opposition to her plans and the huge sense of panic and upheaval that they caused school leaders, the Secretary of State might have shown a little more humility in her statement today. If I were her, I would at least apologise.
After the Secretary of State’s statement today, we are all left even more confused about what her policy actually is. She says that her aim remains the same, but without the means. Although she has conceded on the politically daft idea of forcing good and outstanding schools to become academies against their wishes, she still holds the ambition that all schools will become academies, but she failed to make a single decent argument as to why that ambition is desirable in the first place. Perhaps this is because, despite her claiming to be in listening mode, the Secretary of State has her fingers in her ears and is out of touch with heads, parents and teachers.
The Secretary of State has failed to address the serious concerns that have been raised. Where is her evidence that academisation is the panacea for school improvement? Where is the choice, autonomy or innovation in a one-size-fits-all approach? Is there sufficient capacity and accountability in the academies system to ensure that best practice, not poor practice, is being spread? Those questions remain as she seeks further powers to speed up the pace of academisation.
On school improvement, the Secretary of State must now take stock of the evidence. The Education Committee recommended that she do just that. Sir Michael Wilshaw found serious concerns in many chains. Research by the Sutton Trust found a mixed picture of performance in academy chains. There is no evidence at all that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement. Indeed, analysis published today by PwC shows that—[Interruption.] Government Members might want to listen to this. The analysis shows that only three of the biggest academy chains got a positive value-added rating and—this is quite startling—just one of the 26 biggest primary sponsors achieved results above the national average. While there is much excellence, the Secretary of State must not continue making dubious arguments about cause and effect without the evidence.
The concerns about a “one-size-fits-all” policy, as expressed by Councillor Paul Carter, chair of the County Councils Network, still apply, as do those about “distant, unaccountable bureaucracies” expressed by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady). As Lord Kenneth Baker said, there are real issues on the capacity within multi-academy trusts to take on a new wave of academies. Today, the Secretary of State also failed to answer the key question of parents and their right to remain on governing bodies of academies.|
Perhaps the biggest concern we all have is about the Secretary of State’s direction and her fixation with structures not standards. While chaos reigns all around her, and while heads are dealing with what they describe as “very challenging times”, she wants to put all the energies of her Department into more structural change, for which there is little evidence, insufficient capacity and inadequate accountability. Would she not be better advised sorting out the utter chaos besetting primary assessment and standard assessments tests, ensuring the massively behind-schedule new GCSEs are delivered well and on time, dealing with the chronic teacher shortages she has caused or getting a proper strategy for local place planning? Alternatively, instead of simply doing the Chancellor’s bidding, perhaps she could fight for some school budgets, which are facing real-terms cuts for the first time in 20 years. We all want to see educational excellence everywhere, but the Secretary of State is presiding over a chaotic mess, dragging schools backwards, and her ambitions for further structural change are at best a distraction—at worst they will damage standards.
Nicky Morgan
The shadow Education Secretary was as constructive and positive as always, but let me deal with some of the issues she raised. She asked about the support for academies. She will know about this, if she has read the evidence I gave to the recent hearing of the Select Committee on Education, where we went through this in great detail. I am sure she has also seen the very long letter I sent to the National Union of Teachers about the international evidence, but let me just give two statistics: primary sponsored academies are making substantial gains, with the percentage of pupils achieving the expected level in reading and writing and maths at the end of key stage 2 having risen by four percentage points last year; and those academies open for just one academic year having seen their results improve by five percentage points. She asked about the views of the chief inspector—[Interruption.] I am sure that if she has—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to Members on both sides of the House that there is far too much noise. Both sides and every Member must be heard. It is very simple.
Nicky Morgan
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is extraordinary how some people do not want to hear any arguments against them, for example, from Sir Michael Wilshaw. The hon. Lady will have seen the letter from Ofsted in which he said:
“As you know, I fully support the government’s ambition to create a more diverse and autonomous school system. As I said in my latest Annual Report, academisation can lead to rapid improvements and I firmly believe that it is right to give more autonomy to the front line.”
The hon. Lady mentions the Education Committee report from 2014, published last year, which said:
“Academy sponsorship has encouraged and facilitated the contribution of individuals not previously involved in education provision and laid down a challenge to maintained schools to improve or face replacement by the insurgent academy model.”
It is extraordinary that it took until the hon. Lady’s final sentence for her to talk about standards. As usual, there was no mention of pupils, of standards or of aspiration. She has had nine months to set out a vision of what a strong, consistent education system looks like. I have set out ours very clearly in this White Paper and she now needs to do the same if she is to have any hope of office.
We know what today’s Labour party is all about—it is about taking sides. That is what Labour told us in the local elections and it is what its leader is all about. Today, Labour has picked its side: the side of vested interests in the status quo; the side of no change; the side of those who want to push back the tide of progress and return to Labour’s bad old days. I say no. We pick the other side: the side of parents, teachers and, above all, pupils; the side of higher standards and aspirations; and the side of progress and reform—the side of educational excellence for all.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The chief inspector of schools has already been cited this afternoon. I draw the attention of the House to his report of 2013 in which he referred to the “long tail of underachievement”. He cited the big problem of having too many primary schools coasting and not delivering adequate teaching in maths and English and in other subjects, and many of those schools are in local authority areas that could improve generally. It is absolutely right therefore to focus on those local authorities and make sure that we do deliver for our young children, most of whom do not go to academies at primary school, because there are not enough primary schools in that category. I welcome this statement to focus on the schools that really matter and, above all, on the local authorities.
Nicky Morgan
I thank the Chair of the Education Committee. It was a pleasure to visit a school in his constituency of Stroud recently. I know that he is absolutely committed to the lifting of educational standards for all young people. Is it not telling that, rather than working with the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) just tries to shout him down?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for today’s statement. Many school communities will also welcome today’s announcement. Although I, like many teachers across these isles, would love to think that the Government do listen to teachers, the reality seems to be that this embarrassing U-turn on a centrepiece Budget announcement has been brought about by a handful of the Government’s own Back Benchers. Those who have the greatest impact on the success of a school are teachers, and a first-rate headteacher can turn a school around regardless of whether it is an academy, but there is no doubt that this grand plan has caused great anxiety, and teachers who are already struggling with severe workload issues have had an additional burden placed on them by the academisation plan. The Secretary of State says that academies allow schools the freedom to innovate with the curriculum—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Austin, you are as noisy now as you were in the debating chamber of the University of Essex student union where you noisily, belligerently and discourteously heckled me 30 years ago. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Lady—and all Members—must be heard with courtesy. May I gently say to her that her chance of getting a courteous hearing will be increased if, rather than making a statement, she asks a question?
Carol Monaghan
The ability of schools to set their own pay scales will raise questions around teachers’ pay and recruitment, and there is concern that the long-term impact of academies will mean higher salaries and better terms and conditions in some better-funded academies. What consideration—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I am glad that I amuse the House. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to teacher recruitment in poorer areas in terms of being able to attract the teachers they need to raise attainment? We in the Scottish National party are firmly committed to national bargaining in the public sector. How will she ensure that, by abandoning nationally agreed pay scales, this will not affect recruitment and retention in more challenging schools?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Lady for her long question. I agree that the most important thing we can do in our classrooms is to ensure that the quality of teaching is at its absolute highest, which is why we have more teachers in our schools than we have ever had before.
On recruitment, let me say that, if the hon. Lady has the chance to read the White Paper, she will find a lot of answers to her questions. There is the introduction of “Achieving Excellence Areas”, the introduction of the National Teaching Service, the setting up of career progression for teachers, and the support for a college for teaching. Let me also say to her that, in Scotland, there are now fewer teachers than there were when the SNP came to power and a bigger gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. With the election of Ruth Davidson as an MSP and the fact that our party came second in the polls, her party will now be held to account.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Members who came into the Chamber after the statement started—there were quite a number of them—should not expect to be called. In pursuit of a question, with a question mark at the end of it, I turn to the éminence grise of the Government Back Benches, Sir Alan Duncan.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Very grise, Mr Speaker. It is a matter of regret that on such an important issue, the shadow Secretary of State rather let herself down this afternoon. Those of us involved with this issue have expressed concerns—about compulsion, of course, but also about planning for school places, transport across changing catchment areas, and what happens when a failing school has no suitable academy to take it over. The House is grateful to the Secretary of State for having listened, and we urge her to look at what might be described as the final pieces in the academisation jigsaw. We very much appreciate the tone and the constructive nature of her statement.
Nicky Morgan
I thank my neighbour and right hon. Friend for his question. He raises important issues that we have addressed in the White Paper, in the sense that we highlighted that there are difficult issues around place planning and transport, and that we need to work with local authorities, the Local Government Association and others to make sure that we get this right. Ultimately, if schools are autonomous, we have to trust the frontline to deal with those difficult issues.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
How much scope is there for local government or community involvement in new multi-academy trusts?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The answer is: a lot. In the White Paper, we set out the plans by local authorities—two, certainly—for multi-academy trusts. Many of them are already exploring spinning out their services, as well as setting up multi-academy trusts. There are limits on the ownership that they are able to take. A lot of local authorities are exploring the option of setting up a trust in which the heads of the schools own part of the trust. That is a strong model, and it builds on the great collaboration that we already see in our education system.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the very constructive approach she has taken throughout this debate. I particularly welcome her recognition that stand-alone academies, or small multi-academy trusts, can have the benefits of autonomy, while keeping schools in touch with the communities they serve.
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for the conversations that we have had. I know that he is absolutely committed to high educational standards. He is extremely fortunate to represent a very high-performing local authority. He and I both want all children in the country to have the same opportunities as children in his constituency.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State might know that in the early days of the idea of academies, I was of some help to the then Government in refining their method, and it was a good method: where schools were failing, we used academies to make sure that we ended that quickly. The method that the Secretary of State is extolling is a perversion of the academy model that we introduced. I say in sorrow rather than anger that the model of education that she is giving this country is doomed to fail.
Nicky Morgan
This model of education is giving 1.4 million more children the opportunity to be in a good or outstanding school. We want to go further.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I am delighted to be picked from among the serried ranks of excellent Back Benchers. Evidence such as the social mobility index sadly shows that my constituency has some of the poorest opportunities for the poorest children. May I urge the Secretary of State to stick to her guns, and to ensure that her focus is on standards for those who need it most?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right to say that this is about higher standards for all, but particularly for those for whom education is the great life transformer that will set them up for life. If we do not get this right, we are losing out as a country, and children are losing out. She and I have discussed the opportunity for her area to take part in the “Achieving Excellence Areas” pilots, and I look forward to discussing that further.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Some colleagues have a quaint idea about time-keeping. One hon. Member who was six minutes late has still not taken my hint. I do not wish to embarrass the poor fella, but he should not be standing. It is pretty straightforward.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Secretary of State is not sticking to her guns, and I welcome her change of heart and the U-turn that she has announced. Will she reconsider another ill-advised proposal in the White Paper—the abolition of the requirement for schools to have parent governors?
Nicky Morgan
The right hon. Gentleman and I discussed this when I gave evidence to the Education Committee. We have been very clear that there is a role for parent governors. We expect trust boards to have parent governors, but we also think that that is not the only way for parents to be involved and that much better, more meaningful engagement can be achieved.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
Following on from that, I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the arguments for not compelling academisation, but because parent governors are so vital to the excellence of schools—I have worked with some brilliant parent governors—how will my right hon. Friend ensure that parental input continues? That is part of excellence.
Nicky Morgan
We are making it an expectation that parents will be heavily involved, not just through being governors, but through, for example, parent councils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) set out recently, and the parent portal. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) is right to say that parent governors make a huge contribution to schools. I happen to know that because I am married to one of them.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I feel rather embarrassed for the Minister as the Government tried to sneak through this U-turn during one of the most racist campaigns that we have ever seen in the capital. Toby Young admitted that he had been arrogant and regretted criticising teachers, state schools and local education authorities. Will the Minister acknowledge that the teachers, the Labour party, the students and the parents were right, and she was wrong?
Nicky Morgan
I think the hon. Lady rather let herself down by that patronising question, if I may say so. I have been very clear all the way along, since the first day of my appointment, that the most important people in our education system are the teachers. The quality of teachers is the single most important thing that attracts and helps young people meet standards. If any Minister puts forward any proposals, we are likely to hear comments, but that does not mean that we should not put proposals forward. That is not the kind of person I am. I said last week that I was not going to leave the job half-done; I am not going to leave the job half-done.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on the support for small rural schools, and her commitment to a funding review. Does she agree that a funding review delivers the opportunity to address the deep unfairness in the funding system that has left schools in places such as Cornwall underfunded for far too long?
Nicky Morgan
We remain committed to a national funding formula review. It cannot be right to have 152 different local formulae operating across the country. As I have talked about having a strong, consistent education system across the country, that must mean that we have a strong, consistent funding system too.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Can the Minister specify why she objects to the line put across in The Times today by PricewaterhouseCoopers—presumably, a vested interest—who argue that academisation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for school improvement, or is evidence utterly irrelevant?
Nicky Morgan
Plenty of evidence can be cited in favour. I point the hon. Gentleman to the PISA and the OECD evidence, which I have already talked about, which sets out clearly the benefits of autonomy in our school system.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for listening to Back Benchers on this issue. She knows that I have been a vocal critic, but I found her willingness to engage with us on the issue most refreshing and I am grateful to her for that. Can she confirm that she will continue to engage with parents and teachers as she pursues our vision to improve education for every child, regardless of background?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It has been a pleasure to talk to him and all colleagues on both sides of the House. I look forward to continuing that conversation.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I am proud to represent a town that has some of the best schools in the country. My concern about the Secretary of State’s announcement is that it does not answer the questions that schools of all kinds—academies and local authority schools—and parents ask me. What parents say is, “How can we guarantee that there is a school place for my child nearby?”, and what schools say to me is, “How can I guarantee that there is a good quality teacher in front of every class?” We have not heard a solution to either of those problems. What does she offer?
Nicky Morgan
I think the right hon. Lady needs to read the White Paper. Let me also point out that we have the highest number of teachers ever in the profession, and we have created 600,000 more school places since 2010. When the Labour party was in power, it took 200,000 places out of the system at the time of a baby boom.
Graham Stuart
I think you have had your question. May I join colleagues in congratulating the Secretary of State on her statement and on the way in which she has engaged with colleagues on both sides of the House? The Education Committee described the healthy tension between local authority schools and academy schools, which has contributed to 1.4 million fewer children being at weak schools. Does the Secretary of State agree that if local authorities that do manage to deliver outstanding schools and excellent overview and intervention, they can continue?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for the conversations we have had. Yes, of course—this is all about lifting standards and making sure no child is in a school that is failing or underperforming. Of course, if a child is in a good school being supported by a strong local authority, I want the authority to get on with doing that.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The chief inspector said he looked forward to a more diverse system, but how will changing all schools to the same system, as in the Secretary of State’s vision, make things more diverse? How will killing off the alternatives—our local education authorities, which are being denied the funds to provide the services that have improved schools in boroughs such as mine—facilitate improvement in the future? Lastly, what will happen to schools that are languishing in poor, failing academy trusts?
Nicky Morgan
I think there were three questions in that one question, but I will give the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Education Committee, the benefit of the doubt. First, let me answer his last question. We take swift action in any academies that are failing. Regional schools commissioners have already brokered over 100 schools and issued 94 warning notices. However, the hon. Gentleman’s question shows a worrying lack of understanding of what we are doing. There has been a one-size-fits-all system—and that was local education authority control. We are now saying that there will be freedom for schools to decide the right future for them; that could be continuing in a strong, supportive local authority, but it could also be converting into a stand-alone academy or joining a small local cluster, a bigger multi-academy trust or a diocesan trust. Schools are free to make the decision that is right for them and their pupils.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
May I also welcome the Secretary of State’s readiness to listen to colleagues? An Ofsted report earlier this year on the standard of provision by the local authority in Portsmouth is damning, with generations of children having been let down. The Conservative-led city council has made some important changes, and a new director of children’s services is beginning to make a difference, but does my right hon. Friend agree that she must have the powers to intervene where local authorities are failing?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we cannot stand back where local authorities are not providing sufficiently strong and effective school improvement. She is right to talk about the generations of young people who have been failed. It would be utterly irresponsible for the Government to let that continue on our watch.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Opposition Members are absolutely committed to high standards in schools, and the Secretary of State does not aid the debate by turning it into an unnecessarily partisan attack on the Opposition. The title of her White Paper is “Educational Excellence Everywhere”. Does she really believe that a one-size-fits-all approach is best for education everywhere? Is it not time to follow the example of other parts of the Government and to look at devolution, so that more decisions are made at city region or county level, and fewer in her Department?
Nicky Morgan
The second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question was a lot more constructive than the first. I go back to what I said to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns): we are not having a one-size-fits-all system—we had one, and it was called local education authorities. We now have a system where schools can decide their future, either on their own, or working in clusters or with the diocese. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is on our side on raising standards, and I hope he can speak to other Opposition Members about that.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for listening to colleagues on academies. After all, the purpose of a White Paper is to listen and to debate. Does she share my disquiet about the approach and language adopted by some of the teaching unions and Labour Members in railing against all academies, despite the clear evidence that, in the main, they work?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend. I well remember visiting an excellent academy in his constituency that was full of innovation, vigour and creativity, and absolutely on the side of the pupils there. Yes, I am concerned that some people so want to talk about structures that they have completely missed everything the rest of the White Paper says about teaching, leadership, standards, curriculums, and funding.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Just two weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister confidently declared that forced academisation would be in the Queen’s Speech, and yet today we have this U-turn. Why has it taken the Government so long to listen to education professionals, teachers, parents, the Labour party, and even their own Back Benchers?
Nicky Morgan
At Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister talked about academies for all and education for all, and that is exactly what we are going to see.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State said that there is no evidence that academisation, in and of itself, improves performance, but does the Secretary of State think that the increased autonomy that is inherent in the structure of academies does improve performance, as set out not only in the PISA report that she mentioned but in the McKinsey report of 2010?
Nicky Morgan
I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. We have been very clear that just calling a school an academy does not automatically raise standards, but academies are the vehicle by which those working in them have the creativity to innovate with the curriculum, to set flexibility for pay and conditions, and to collaborate more freely with other schools. That is exactly what academy schools are doing, and that is why standards are going up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The PISA figures actually show that we are going down the international league tables as standards among our competitors rise much more quickly than here in the UK, so it is an absolute tragedy that the Secretary of State spends so much of her time on partisan bickering and a dogmatic obsession with structures. The best way—the quickest way—to improve standards in our schools is to focus on leadership, and that is what she should be giving all her attention to. Will she take the £1 billion that she was going to spend on forcing every school to become an academy and use it to recruit and train a new generation of brilliant headteachers?
Nicky Morgan
May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read, or re-read if he has already done so, chapter 3 of the White Paper, entitled “Great leaders running our schools and at the heart of our system”? We do not need to divert money because we have already set aside money for training headteachers and supporting their great leadership. If he wants to talk about our rankings in the international league tables, he might like to consider that between 2000 and 2009 England’s 15-year-olds fell from seventh to 25th in reading, eighth to 27th in maths, and fourth to 16th in science. If he thinks that performance when his party was in power was good enough, he should have another think.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for her statement. There is nothing ignoble about a Secretary of State coming to the House to make changes based on legitimate concerns raised by colleagues, including my local LEA, Conservative-controlled Peterborough City Council. In the new dispensation, will she bear in mind two particular issues: first, the statutory role of the LEA in respect of school place planning and special educational needs; and, secondly, the fact that there still remain capacity issues for academy chains in dealing with the very serious problems of failing schools, some of which are in my constituency?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I congratulate him and his local councillors on taking control of Peterborough City Council, which was a fantastic result. He raises two very important issues. Of course we will continue to work with Members and local authorities on place planning, but also on building capacity. In the White Paper, we talk about the money that we have already set aside and the ability to grow strong, multi-academy trust sponsors, including existing good and outstanding schools, which can often be the most effective sponsors.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State is serious about the concept of excellence everywhere, she needs to deal with the real challenge caused by the pressure put on schools to take students who are most likely to help with league tables, at the expense of students who are perceived to be less likely to do so. In doing that, she should listen to the principal of Passmores Academy, Vic Goddard, who has made the point that if something is not done about that pressure, a two-tier education system will be created to the detriment of many thousands of children who will, throughout their lives, never recover from the damage that is done to them.
Nicky Morgan
I have met Vic Goddard, and I have had the pleasure of visiting his school and seeing just how committed and dedicated a headteacher he is. My first point, in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, is that the admissions code makes it extremely clear that schools cannot screen out or not take on certain pupils. If there is evidence of that, it needs to be reported. My second point is that, as I am sure he knows as a former member of the Select Committee on Education, we are moving towards the progress 8 measure, under which we will move away from looking at children on the C-D borderline and look instead at the progress that all students make over the course of their schooling. Schools such as Vic Goddard’s will be particularly good at making sure that that is done well.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
As a former teacher, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to reconsider compulsory academisation. Does she recognise that it is vital to engage with the teaching profession as she seeks to implement the other important measures contained in the White Paper? I encourage her to press ahead with those, despite the low-level disruption that she faces from those in front of her.
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend very much for what he has said. He is, I am sure, an expert at dealing with low-level disruption. On a more serious point, engaging with teachers is something that I take very seriously and enjoy doing. One of the best things that I do is to get out of Westminster to visit schools and take part in the “teacher direct” sessions that I arrange.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has talked about the many conversations that she has had in recent weeks, which have apparently convinced her that blanket powers for forced academisation are no longer necessary. In order to avoid a period of uncertainty and worry for school communities, would it not have been better to have had those conversations before announcing such a flawed policy?
Nicky Morgan
I have lots of conversations all the time, but one thing I was being asked for before the publication of the White Paper was a very clear statement about where we were going and whether we wanted schools to become academies. That is exactly what the White Paper offers.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I, too, thank the Minister for her statement and for listening not only to Back Benchers and Members on both sides of the Chamber, but to teachers. I sense that they have concerns, but that they are willing to work with us. Will she assure me that, throughout the process, she will continue to focus on raising standards and raising aspirations, which are really at the heart of this?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her comments. She is absolutely right to say that high aspirations and raising standards must be at the heart of our education policy. Education is the greatest investment that we can make in the future of our country, and it has to be about making sure that all our young people fulfil their potential and are set up for the world of work. We will absolutely keep that as the focus of all our reforms.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Although it was welcomed, many parents and teachers in my constituency fear that the Secretary of State’s announcement was merely a tactical retreat, and that the Government are still committed to exactly the same ends by other means. With those concerns in mind, will she provide me with some more details about the point at which a local authority will be judged to be unviable, and how the minimum performance threshold will be defined?
Nicky Morgan
If the hon. Gentleman was listening to my statement, he will know that I said that we would be consulting on that, and that those measures would be subject to an affirmative resolution in the House. At all stages since the publication of the White Paper, our goal has been to raise standards for all children. That has not changed.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for engaging so constructively on this issue. The statement that she has made today will be most welcome in Somerset. I have recently visited a number of good and outstanding local authority-controlled schools in my constituency, which see the attraction of academisation but are nervous about the transition. Will the Secretary of State set out how her Department will work with schools and local authorities to facilitate that transition at a time of a school’s choosing?
Nicky Morgan
I absolutely understand the worry about the unknown—about what becoming an academy means and how much time it will take—which is why we have set out that small schools will have a specific fund to support them and that each school wanting to convert will get its own adviser. I strongly urge my hon. Friend to speak to his regional schools commissioner, who has an important position in the local community in working with schools that want to convert and can raise any problems directly with me or the Minister for Schools.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is sending out mixed messages. If I heard her correctly, she has just declared that we will still see “academies for all”. Does she accept that this whole episode has caused tremendous stress and anxiety to headteachers and staff up and down the country? Headteachers are now considering converting to academy status not to raise their standards, but simply to avoid being pushed. Will she give them some reassurance that they should focus not on their structures, but on their standards?
Nicky Morgan
We have been very clear—I do not think that I could have been clearer in my answers or in my original statement—that we want all schools to be focused on raising standards. However, I and we are very clear about the benefits of schools becoming academies, and about trusting those on the frontline to run their schools and to be accountable for the results they achieve. That is why we are very clear that we want all schools to become academies, but to do so at a time and in a way of their choosing, unless they are underperforming schools, the local authority is underperforming or it is no longer viable for the local authority to run them because of the numbers of schools that have converted.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I recently met school leaders and Hampshire County Council leaders who were keen to hear about the Secretary of State’s direction of travel. I welcome the listening exercise for me and my colleagues, which has begun the process of truly understanding the commitment and promise in our manifesto to lift the standards in our schools. Today’s statement shows that the focus is on our children and on helping all of them to achieve. In relation to the White Paper listening exercise, will the Secretary of State fill in the gaps on parents’ voices and links to the community?
Nicky Morgan
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she has done locally in bringing schools together and in talking to parents and others in her constituency. It is incumbent on all of us to continue to do that as constituency Members of Parliament, but also to encourage people to visit schools that have converted, because that is often the best way to understand how the process works and what are the best decisions to take. That applies to parents, governors and teachers, and to headteachers as well.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The situation is very confused at the moment: the Government seem happy to give Greater Manchester councils full health devolution, with £8 billion a year, but do not trust them to be given the same control of their schools. Will the Secretary of State explain that difference?
Nicky Morgan
Becoming an academy is all about the ultimate devolution—devolution to the frontline of the heads, the teachers and the governors.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s flexibility on this matter. Secondary schools in Gloucestershire were among the first warmly to embrace becoming academies, but that seems to have left a communication gap in relation to small rural schools. How can her Department, and indeed all of us, communicate with the parents, governors and teachers of such small secondary schools about the benefits of academies?
Nicky Morgan
In my statement, I set out some of the specific policies, and we will put together a package of information about them that hon. Members can circulate to relevant schools. I encourage my hon. Friend to do what others have done, which is to call together heads or chairs of governors for meetings, and to involve the regional schools commissioners, who will hold events to talk about becoming an academy and the sponsorship opportunities available if that is what such small schools want to pursue.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am sure that the many good and outstanding schools in my constituency that are not academies will welcome this statement, but I am concerned that the Secretary of State’s dogmatic ambitions remain the same and that she still intends to force every school to academise by hook or by crook. A few weeks ago, she said that
“we are going to finish this job.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1119.]
Does she still stand by that statement, or will she finally recognise the right of good and outstanding local schools to determine their own destiny and accept that if they decide not to become an academy, that right will be respected?
Nicky Morgan
That just shows that if hon. Members sit here and listen to a statement, they still do not necessarily listen to what I have actually been saying. I have talked about finishing the job—the job of lifting standards for all young people in this country.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her measured and thoughtful statement, which I believe will address the legitimate concerns of many excellent but small rural schools in my constituency. Does she agree that in education, and indeed across all government, we must never let the outstanding become the enemy of the good?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend and neighbour and I both know that we are very fortunate in Leicestershire to have many great schools, but we also know from our experience that not all young people have the opportunity to attend a good or outstanding school, whether in the midlands or elsewhere. That is why we cannot let up on the pursuit of reforms that lift educational standards.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
In one of the most affluent constituencies in the country I could find only six schools that were ranked as outstanding. That is the result of successive cosy relationships with the LEA under different administrations. What is my right hon. Friend going to do to make sure that that situation is improved?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. A number of people have told me that they are in good local authorities with good schools, but we should compare those with other local authorities—whether similar local authorities or those in the most disadvantaged areas—where sometimes we see schools doing fantastic things for their pupils. That is why we introduced the Education and Adoption Act 2016, which tackles coasting schools—those schools that are okay, but that could be a lot better. That is what we intend to help them to achieve.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s strength in her statement. In my constituency, and in Medway as a whole, most secondary schools and a large proportion of primaries are already academies. Some of those were compelled to become academies. It is true that home-grown academies have played a massive role in driving up standards within our authority, which has historically been an underperforming one. In my time as portfolio holder for education improvement, I saw adults’ positions being put before outcomes for young people in the schools those adults were charged with looking after. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she is committed to tackling underperformance, wherever it is?
Nicky Morgan
By the sheer strength and passion of my hon. Friend’s question, she has shown just how committed she is to this agenda. I well remember discussing it with her on the campaign trail when she was seeking election to this House. I absolutely assure her that we will have no let up and no reverse gear on lifting standards for all young people in this country.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her unswerving determination to drive up standards in our schools and her willingness to listen to suggestions on how the White Paper might be strengthened. Does she agree that Rowanfield Junior School in my constituency, which she visited recently, provides a powerful example of the great benefits for pupils and teachers that can come from multi-academy trusts but that good and outstanding schools in Cheltenham should be trusted to judge for themselves whether that structure suits them?
Nicky Morgan
Like my hon. Friend, I really enjoyed my visit to Rowanfield Junior School, with its two fantastic co-headteachers—frankly, I wish I could clone them and we could have more like them across the country. They were utterly inspirational. He is absolutely right that we want good and outstanding schools to be able to choose the right format for them. But we have to be realistic. If they are in a local authority that is underperforming or is not viable, that is not going to help them to get even better.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and her ministerial team for taking the time to listen to concerns raised, for strengthening this already fantastic White Paper and for providing a source of debate in my constituency as to whether the LEA model is in fact not the right one. To that end, will she consider the obstacles for local clusters forming multi-academy trusts because of the many Church schools in my constituency?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend has raised the really important question of small schools, usually primary schools, deciding whether to join the diocesan academy trust, if one has been set up, or thinking about other options. On 18 April we published on the Department’s website two new memorandums of understanding, with the Church of England and with the Catholic Church, which provide more flexibility. I hope that they will be of use to him in his discussions.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for listening so constructively to Conservative Back Benchers about this issue. As I told her face to face, I have good local authority schools, good academies, and a really good co-operative trust in my home village of Honley. Will she continue to put parents and governing bodies at the forefront of determining the future of our wonderful local schools?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend and I had a good conversation. As a constituency Member he is passionate about championing high educational standards in his constituency, and he is right to say that the voices of parents, governors, teachers, headteachers and, in many cases, pupils must be listened to. That is why it is incumbent on us to ensure that all options are out there, so that good and outstanding schools can make the right decisions.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
As the Secretary of State will be aware, the majority of schools in Torbay have already converted to academy status, and schools such as Barton Hill Academy are making real progress with the flexibilities that such status provides. That does, however, raise the issue of the viability of the Torbay LEA, and I was interested to hear the Secretary of State’s comments. Will she confirm whether the thresholds for Government intervention will be based on the percentage of pupil numbers or the percentage of schools, or will that be subject to later consultation?
Nicky Morgan
That is a good question and something that we want to continue discussing when taking measures through the House, including with local authorities. The important thing is a local authority’s ability to have the resources, experience and personnel to offer really good school improvement, and in my experience, most local authorities will be able to judge when they are struggling with that. We know that at least one local authority has already asked us to issue academy orders for its remaining schools.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and willingness to engage on what was, let us remember, a White Paper for discussion. Last Friday afternoon I was in a meeting with the leader and schools leader of Hampshire County Council, and it is fair to say that the first half of the meeting did not go as well as the second half once they had heard her announcement, and I pass on their thanks. My hope is that this compromise will allow us to get on in successful areas—94% of schools in my constituency are already good or outstanding—and allow her to focus ruthlessly on those areas where children do not enjoy the life chances that they do in my constituency. Do I have that right?
Nicky Morgan
The announcement on Friday was not timed exactly for my hon. Friend’s meeting with Hampshire local authority, but he had made clear to me when he was having that meeting. He is right to say that in the White Paper and subsequent discussions it has become clear that children in some parts of the country are getting a great education, but that is not the case everywhere. I cannot say strongly enough how much I feel that we must ensure that such educational excellence is shared by all children in all parts of this country.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I had my concerns about compulsory academisation, but she has clearly taken the time to listen to all her colleagues and I welcome that approach. I also welcome the £10 million fund for small rural schools that need support in conversion, but when will that be made available? If a number of schools are looking to form a multi-academy trust, will the money go to the lead school or to them all?
Nicky Morgan
We still need to work out the details, but the idea is for the fund to be available sooner rather than later, and some small schools are already thinking about their future. The fund would be for things such as legal costs. I will not set out all the details, but it is important that the fund supports all schools, because they will all need that support, not just the lead school.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I do not share the rose-tinted view of some about local education authorities, and mine in Nottinghamshire has failed consistently to provide good-quality education in Newark. At times, political parties and local education authorities in my town have been extremely complacent and ineffective. To me, the most important thing is the willingness to intervene when schools are demonstrably failing, and that has been neglected for too long. In her advice and guidance for regional schools commissioners, will the Secretary of State redouble the commitment to intervene, so that no child’s education gets written off as has happened to generations in my town of Newark?
Nicky Morgan
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s commitment, as a local Member of Parliament, to driving up educational standards in his constituency. He is absolutely right to say that. We know there are local authorities across the country—he mentions his own—that have never issued a warning notice or appointed an interim executive board to run a school. We could not be clearer with the regional schools commissioners. They are an excellent team who know they need to intervene swiftly when there is educational failure. We have seen that with the re-brokering of sponsorships and with the sending out of financial and educational warning notices. That absolutely will continue.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
As the governor of an excellent academy, Hillview school in Tonbridge, which has done so much to maintain the ethos of arts education, I am very proud of the Government’s work to support academies. I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and ask her whether she timed them for me to be able to write to Ightham Parish Council and thank it for its very useful intervention only last week, or whether it was timed for Four Elms Parish Council, whose intervention was on Friday.
Nicky Morgan
I am delighted to have assisted my hon. Friend and those parish councils, if that is the case. It was important that we made the announcement. I congratulate him on being a governor of the school. On the arts, I visited the fantastic Lings primary school in Northampton—I think I have mentioned it in the House before—which has embedded Shakespeare in the curriculum from reception to year 6. That shows what inspirational headteachers, with the support of an academy trust, can do to transform education in their schools.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening on both academies and fair funding. Will she or one of her ministerial colleagues meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) to discuss the situation in South Staffordshire, where schools are working really hard but suffering tremendously in comparison with neighbouring authorities on the question of funding per head?
Nicky Morgan
Yes, of course. The Schools Minister or I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. We have made a very clear commitment, which was not taken up under 13 years of the previous Labour Government, to transform how fair funding works across the country. It has to be right that the same pupils with the same characteristics attract the same funding. That is what we are determined to see.
Points of Order
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
On 28 April, the Leader of the House, in answer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), attempted to smear the prospective Labour party police and crime commissioner candidate for Humberside, Keith Hunter. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole asked:
“As we are talking about the dodgy behaviour of police and crime commissioner candidates, may I say to the Leader of the House that a number of folk standing for election next week are ex-coppers trading on their record as police officers? Does he agree that the Government ?should bring forward proposals to ensure that ex-police officers standing to be PCCs make their police service record available for public scrutiny?”
The Leader of the House replied:
“My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am aware of allegations about the Labour PCC candidate in Humberside. If the stories alleged about that candidate are true, he is unfit for public office, and it is a matter of public interest that the truth should be known before election day.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1564-5.]
I wrote to the Leader of the House requiring him to either explain the deliberately damaging remarks and the precise basis for them, or to formerly withdraw them and apologise for the disgusting attempted smear. Mr Speaker, would you please advise me on what I can do, given that the Leader of the House is ignoring formal correspondence from elected Members, including formal correspondence from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and deliberately misusing this place for divisive and nasty Tory party political campaigning?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of the thrust of it. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that what is said in this place by any Member is the responsibility of that Member. It is not the responsibility of the Chair. Clearly, we should all think carefully before making accusations against individuals. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and doubtless this exchange will be relayed to the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman can seek to secure a written reply from the Leader of the House if he so wishes, but I cannot involve myself further. I will leave the hon. Gentleman to his own devices.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, there is a tradition of service in the House of Commons either to one’s constituents or to others, such as charities, and indeed, within the House, we serve on Committees. During the war, some Members did fire watching service over Westminster Hall. The reason for my point of order is that we learn today of the danger of war if the UK were to leave the EU. I wondered whether you, your staff or any Officers of the House had made provision for fire service or—I don’t know—missiles of defence, should war imminently break out upon our leaving the EU?
Mr Speaker
I confess that I have made no such preparations. I would not wish to be accused of tardiness or irresponsibility by the hon. Gentleman or any other Member, but I have been preoccupied with other duties in the House today, including in the Chair and listening to the hon. Gentleman’s mellifluous tones. I have embarked thus far on no such preparations, but I have a hunch that he was more interested in what he had to say to me than in anything I might have had to say to him.
Backbench Business
BIS Sheffield/Government Departments outside London
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the Business, Innovation and Skills Department's proposal to close its Sheffield policy office, moving 247 posts to London; further notes that the Sheffield BIS office proposal runs counter to the Government's welcome commitment to create a public sector that reflects the diverse nature of the UK following the publication of the Bridge report and also to the commitment in Budget 2016 to move civil servants out of expensive Whitehall accommodation; and therefore calls on the National Audit Office to conduct a cost benefit assessment of the BIS Sheffield proposal.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for this debate and right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for their support for the application. The breadth of that support reflects the concern over the two issues central to this debate. The first issue is to underline the value of locating civil servants, particularly those involved in policy making, right around the country, in the regions and nations that make up the UK. That is something on which I think we can all agree and which has been reflected in the approach of successive Governments, including this one, in many of the things they have sought to do. The second issue is the seemingly perverse decision by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to centralise policy work in Whitehall and close its Sheffield office. It is a decision that runs counter to the general thrust of Government policy.
On 28 January, the BIS permanent secretary announced plans to close the St Pauls Place office in Sheffield, which is part of the Government’s national policy function, and to relocate those jobs to London, in order to centralise all departmental policy functions in Whitehall. In justifying the decision, he explained that the Department needed
“to modernise the way we work, reduce operating costs and deliver a simpler, smaller department that is more flexible and responsive to stakeholders and businesses.”
Those are fine, legitimate goals, but a decision to move policy functions from Sheffield to London does not tick any of those boxes. As Members, we asked the Department for figures explaining how a move from Sheffield to the most expensive city in the country could possibly reduce operating costs.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making the central point of our argument. I would like to make the point that it is not just jobs in Sheffield that are at stake. Although the numbers are smaller, jobs in Darlington are being moved to London, too, which makes absolutely no sense.
Paul Blomfield
I very much share my hon. Friend’s sentiment that there are many benefits derived from locating jobs outside London. These include cost benefits and the enrichment of decision making by involving people located around the country in administering government and advising the Government. My hon. Friend made a very important point.
When we asked the permanent secretary for a cost-benefit analysis, we got no answer. A cost-benefit analysis of moving a departmental office is not commercially sensitive and, so far as I can see, it is not a matter of national security. Why, then, right from day one, has the Department refused to provide the evidential basis for this proposal? Members have asked for this analysis in a Westminster Hall debate, in oral questions, in an urgent question, in written parliamentary questions, in over three separate evidence sessions of two Select Committees—the BIS Committee and the Public Accounts Committee—and in written correspondence. Yet we are still to see this information.
We can only assume that the reason for that is that the decision does not stand up to scrutiny. Such information as we have managed to wheedle out through written questions and other ways seems to confirm that. The answer to parliamentary question 33917 tells us that each year it costs £3,190 on rent, rates and maintenance to have an employee in the Sheffield office, compared with £9,750 in the London office. The Department rightly offers the London salary weighting of £3,500 a year, so we are already up to more than £10,000 per employee in London in comparison with Sheffield. That is before we even consider recruitment issues in London, where a more competitive jobs market inevitably drives salaries up further, which was acknowledged by the permanent secretary. When questioned on the issue, the permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee last month:
“We have not sought to put a price”
on those additional costs. That is extraordinary, and it is not good enough.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent financial case to show why this change should not happen. The BIS office at Billingham in my constituency is not a headquarters, but it lies three miles from the constituency of the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse. What kind of message does my hon. Friend think is being sent about the Government’s commitment to a northern powerhouse when they close down offices even in the constituency of the Minister who is supposed to be responsible for it, as well as next door?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and he will not be surprised to learn that I shall come back to the point a little later in my contribution.
The Government say, quite understandably, that they want to save money, but we have done the maths from the limited information that we have managed to get. This decision will cost the Department in operational costs an additional £2.5 million a year, every year. I shall press the Minister further on the figures. When we tried to get a proper cost-benefit analysis, the permanent secretary told the BIS Select Committee:
“I do not think I can point to you one specific document that covers specifically the Sheffield issue.”
Furthermore, when the Minister for Universities and Science drew the short straw in having to defend the seemingly indefensible at a Westminster Hall debate back in February, he was clearly briefed by civil servants to respond to the repeated requests we made for a cost-benefit analysis, by saying:
“I am unable to provide a disaggregated breakdown of that figure because we are talking about a system change.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 138WH.]
That is not so. I have it here in an internal BIS management document on a page entitled, “Potential Savings from Sheffield Office Closure”.
I think that there are some serious issues here relating to the hand that Ministers have been dealt by senior civil servants in their Department. Indeed, when answering an urgent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) immediately after the announcement, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise said:
“We are confident that many of the workers will choose to take new jobs down in London.”—[Official Report, 29 March 2016; Vol. 605, c. 562.]
I am afraid that that is not the case, according to the leaked internal document, which states that
“90% of the potential savings are dependent on how many jobs are retained and moved to London.”
In other words, the more people reject the non-offer to up sticks, try to find a house in London’s hugely overheated housing market and move their children to different schools, the more money will be saved—and, to make sure of that, no relocation package was offered to the staff.
That takes me back to the obfuscation that we have encountered throughout the months during which we have debated this issue. In response to my most recent attempts to obtain the figures via written parliamentary questions, I was referred to a letter from the permanent secretary and the Chairs of the Business, Innovation and Skills and Public Accounts Committees. It sets out quite exaggerated costs for the Sheffield office, and some incredulity was expressed in the Public Accounts Committee when the issue was discussed there. Unless none of the functions being carried out in Sheffield—relating to the higher education White Paper and higher education in general, to apprenticeships, and to further education funding—is to be replaced in London, the letter provides only one side of the story, because the costs will be incurred in the replacement of the posts of people who do not move in London.
Is this simply a case of cutting 247 posts because they happen to be in Sheffield—posts which, because they are in Sheffield, are by definition, as I have said, £10,000 cheaper? A decision was made without regard for costs, without regard for the policy areas in which the people involved were working, and without regard for the expertise that would be lost. Indeed, the former—and highly regarded—Conservative special adviser in the Department, Nick Hillman, who is now head of the Higher Education Policy Institute, has lamented the loss of institutional expertise that this move will involve, and has condemned the decision for that reason.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Many of my constituents work for the Insolvency Service. At a time when there is a steel crisis, BHS has collapsed and other businesses are becoming insolvent, one would think that the Government would want to retain staff with expertise in insolvency, yet 153 jobs are at risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not seem to be a sensible policy approach?
Paul Blomfield
I do indeed, and I think that other Departments are recognising that problem. For example, the Department for Education is trying to take some of the Sheffield-based BIS staff into its headcount because it is so worried about the loss of institutional expertise in respect of the programmes and the policy agenda that they share. The loss of that institutional experience and expertise is a really worrying issue, and it prompts concern about the Government’s ability to deliver their agenda.
What this begins to look like is a lazy decision, easily taken by top managers in the Department, and based on a prejudice that policy people should be together in Whitehall. I have to say that it is not a prejudice shared by other Departments. Indeed, the Department for Education celebrates the fact that it has members of staff making policy in offices around the country, bringing the experience of their lives and work in the regions and nations of the United Kingdom to those policy decisions.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As he will know, not only has the Department for Education made it clear that it does not think it is for the good of education policy to move all staff to London, but it shares a building with BIS staff. Alongside is a skills agency, which, when questioned by the Public Accounts Committee, confirmed that it had no problem with having good, bright staff based in Sheffield to do policy work. Is it not worrying that BIS feels that we should move all the policy jobs—many of them good, highly paid and highly qualified jobs—to London? What does that say to young people in south Yorkshire and other areas outside London?
Paul Blomfield
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and for her robust questioning of the permanent secretary at the Public Accounts Committee. She is absolutely right to say that this sends out the wrong message. When we raised this matter with the permanent secretary, he pointed out that there were many other BIS jobs around the country. It is almost as though BIS is happy to have administrative functions carried out around the country but policy people have to be together in London. This raises another point about silo thinking within Government. As my right hon. Friend points out, there is a synergy involved in having civil servants in policy roles in BIS and the Department for Education working together on a similar agenda. Taking them away and moving them to London will diminish their role.
Alex Cunningham
I am really interested in this idea of policy people having to be at the centre. The Department argues that the move will bring BIS policy operations closer to Ministers and contribute to the huge saving of £350 million of running costs. However, the “Government’s Estate Strategy” states:
“With modern IT, officials no longer necessarily need to be physically present, for example to brief ministers. Having offices on the periphery will also encourage local growth and regeneration.”
That is the Government’s own strategy. Does my hon. Friend not detect a conflict there?
Paul Blomfield
I do indeed. I would simply reflect that this is the Department responsible for innovation. It is supposed to lead on creative thinking and thinking outside the box.
I worry, as do colleagues, that proper consideration has not been given to better options. The Department set itself an ambitious cost-saving strategy in “BIS 2020”, but what is its thinking on how it is going to get there? Normally, faced with decisions such as these, big organisations would think about the resources they needed to achieve their objectives, look at the matter in the round, model how those resources should be most cost-effectively located around the country, then make the decisions. Decisions about office closures would naturally come at the end of that process, not at the beginning, as has been the case here. The Department is putting the cart before the horse.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Should not part of the process he has just outlined involve proper consultation with the relevant trade unions?
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We saw a process of consultation, which concluded on 2 May. The trade unions, working with the affected staff, have put in some substantial submissions and alternative proposals, and I shall be seeking reassurances from the Minister that they will be properly considered and their merits given the weight they deserve.
As a number of Members have commented, the “BIS 2020” review might result in some relocation of staff and in the concentration of policy staff in some areas. However, the idea that all policy functions need to be concentrated in London is simply absurd. It is even more ironic, given the wider Government policy that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) has just mentioned.
This year’s Budget committed the Government to moving out of “expensive Whitehall accommodation”. The Cabinet Office recently launched a raft of measures in a bid to diversify the civil service, after one of the Bridge report’s key findings was that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds were “less likely to move” to London. One such measure that the Cabinet Office is recommending is to take graduate recruitment
“outside of London by establishing regional assessment centres”.
The most recent “Government’s Estate Strategy” expresses a commitment to
“turn around the prevailing tendency to locate head office staff in central London”.
That is Government policy.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me, a London MP, that centralisation and the relocating of staff presents a problem for London? It leads to congestion, more overheating, incredibly expensive accommodation, and so on. Most graduates cannot afford to rent in London, let alone buy their own property.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point. No one wants this to be seen as a north versus south issue. The proposal flies in the face of logic for both north and south. It makes no sense to add to the overheating in London, so we share a common agenda on that.
Colleagues commented earlier on the northern powerhouse agenda, which Sheffield and south Yorkshire have been deeply involved in and embrace. It is about encouraging the private sector to invest in the north, to build there, to relocate there, and to revive its economy, but if the very Department responsible for building the northern powerhouse wants out of the north, withdrawing 247 highly skilled jobs from the local economy with it, what message does that send?
Today’s debate came about because our key questions were not answered by the permanent secretary. Now is the Minister’s opportunity, so I want to conclude by asking four questions, to which Members and the hard-working staff of the BIS office in Sheffield have been seeking answers since January. I gave the Department advance sight of the questions last Wednesday to allow for full consideration and comprehensive answers. First, in reaching the decision to close the Sheffield office, what assessment has been made of the additional costs of moving the posts to London? That is the core question that we have been asking all along. Secondly, what assessment of the decision has been made against the Government objectives of moving out of expensive Whitehall accommodation, diversifying the civil service, and not locating head office functions in the capital? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the impression created by the decision to move to London the functions of an office of the Department responsible for the northern powerhouse? Fourthly, aside from the proposals to centralise policy functions in London, what consideration has been given to the other options for achieving the “BIS 2020” objectives?
I understand that the decision, which was at one stage to have been taken by the BIS board tomorrow, has now been postponed and will be announced in the week commencing 23 May. I hope that that reflects a willingness to think seriously about the concerns that have been raised. I hope the Minister recognises that if the proposal goes ahead, the National Audit Office scrutiny we propose in today’s motion will find it flawed. I hope that she will therefore accept that it is the right time and in the interests of good policy making, effective use of public funds and confidence in the case for the north to exert ministerial authority and pull the plug on the closure of the Sheffield office.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). He made a coherent speech, and I congratulate him on leading the charge on this whole issue.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not have a direct constituency interest in the matter. My interest came about because I was involved in the Public Accounts Committee’s questioning of the permanent secretary, and it struck me that the logic and reasons given for the decision were, unlike the speech we just heard, less than coherent and that they raised several potential issues about contradictory Government policy.
I am not against “BIS 2020” at all, but I do not think that we need this Sheffield closure to bring about its benefits. There are, however, potential contradictions between how “BIS 2020” is being rolled out and talked about, and the devolution, northern powerhouse and Government estate strategies. The latter came out most recently, in 2014, as a piece of analysis further to the Lyons strategy and all the rest of it, with the general intention, apparently, of trying to get civil service jobs out of London. Since 2010, we have, unfortunately, found that the civil service has become more concentrated in London than it was previously.
I am addressing my remarks not only to you and the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to the BIS board, who have yet to make this decision, to Mr Donnelly, who has a chance to row back from some aspects of this, and to Mr Manzoni and Mr Heywood, both of whom have responsibility for consistency of the design principles of some of these initiatives across the civil service. As we have heard, some elements of what is happening in “BIS 2020” do not make sense vis-à-vis what is happening in the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice and other Departments. If that is not an issue for Mr Manzoni and Mr Heywood, I am not sure what their jobs are.
On “BIS 2020”, I support the need to rationalise; Ministers have been given a target on saving money and if money can be saved, we should do it, if that does not affect efficiency and effectiveness. I have heard that there are 80 BIS sites across the country and that number is to be rationalised to eight, and I have no difficulty with the principle of that. We will come on to understand whether that figure of eight should be nine or seven, and the logic behind how that decision has been made. There are 45 partnership bodies in BIS, and there is clearly a need to change. As we heard in the previous speech, the permanent secretary often says that BIS is quite a distributed Department, and I accept that. I am sure the Minister will have statistics that allow her to discuss how much of BIS is outside London currently, but that is not a logical reason to bring more of it into London in response.
The permanent secretary used a phrase when he was talking about this, saying that a “hub and spoke” strategy is being implemented in “BIS 2020”. The principle of that strategy is that all policy has to be in one place—the hub—with all the other bits being the spokes. Apparently, we have one hub, in London, where the Ministers are—perhaps that is fair enough—and these seven or eight spokes, which is what the focus is going to be on. When I first heard that, I thought, “Okay, we are going to have all the policy in one place. There could be some logic in that. Does that mean 10 people doing policy and they all have to be in London, working together? That might be reasonable. Even 20 or 50 might be reasonable.” Apparently, the number of people who need to be in one place to do policy is 1,600, and that is not a rational approach, although the question is raised as to what is meant by “policy” and by “strategy”. This is based on the advice that McKinsey has given the Department, apparently based on a relatively small amount of input. I know that you don’t get an awful lot of days out of McKinsey for £200,000, and I accept that this is a BIS strategy and not a McKinsey strategy, and that the accountability for it lies with BIS, although the phrase “hub and spoke” does come from McKinsey. We will come back to that issue and to policy.
We have talked about the northern powerhouse and the need for devolution. There is a need in our country to bring gross value added per head up to the same level—as best as we can—as it is in London. If we were able to do that, it would be great. The difficulty is that no region in the UK has more Government spending per capita than London, apart from Northern Ireland, where historical reasons are involved. We see that in the sort of decision that has been made here, and it is why we end up with a great concentration of civil servants in London and all that goes with that. At other times and in other places, we face the same issue in respect of the concentration of transport spend in London, which is partially due to London-centric thinking, resulting from the fact that so many of the civil service and top policy makers are here.
It is also true to say that cuts have been made right across the civil service since 2010. As I say, I do not oppose that, but 9% of those cuts have occurred in London whereas 20% have occurred in the regions, according to the Institute for Government. The consequence is that 18% of the civil service is now in London whereas the figure was 16% six years ago, according to the IFG, and I do not think that is acceptable. I do not think that is the right answer.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very coherent case. When my constituents hear the phrase “northern powerhouse”, they ask what it means. We tell them that it means transferring powers, responsibilities and decision making out of London and to the regions, but they then say, “But why are you taking all these jobs from Sheffield and transferring them to London?” Is that not completely inconsistent with what the Government claim their objectives are?
David Mowat
It is not for me to answer that intervention, but I would say that the answer is yes. In all fairness, the northern powerhouse is about more than public sector investment and civil service jobs; it is also about private sector investment. When the time comes to say whether the northern powerhouse has worked, the judge and jury will be whether or not the gap in GVA per head has closed—we will see. Let me make a point in defence of Mr Donnelly’s position: he might well accept the analysis that we just heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central about cost, but his point would be that he gets more efficiency from having all these policy makers in one place. If he were here, he would make that point—indeed, that is what he did say to the Public Accounts Committee—but it is not a view shared by other permanent secretaries. The argument runs away when he is talking about 1,600 policy makers being in that one place as opposed to 100 of them—it does not bear thinking about.
We have talked about the estate strategy, which was published quite recently, in 2014. It contained a lot of sexy examples of how the Government are saving money through Departments rationalising and moving things out of the capital. It talks about the Ministry of Justice as a case study and about what is happening at the Ministry of Defence; one startling statistic was that the accommodation costs for somebody in Whitehall were £35,000 per annum whereas if we were talking about Croydon, which is still a relatively busy place, the cost would have been £3,000 per annum—goodness knows what the figure would be for Sheffield. Clearly, what we are talking about today is contradictory to that space strategy, which is another reason why Messrs Heywood, Manzoni and Donnelly need to get their act together on this.
I want to discuss three things in a little more detail. The first is the hub and spoke strategy and the need to have all 1,600 people in one place. Mr Donnelly has said, “Well, that is what Vodafone do.” He said that to the Public Accounts Committee. He has said, “That is what Google do.” I am surprised if that is the case. I accept what he says, but I can give other examples of organisations that do not take that approach—Accenture, Shell and many others. Many of these companies would take the view that having people who are doing strategy in different geographic locations helps formulate that strategy, particularly if it is being applied across those locations. I do not feel that the argument being put forward is coherent. But if that is the policy of the civil service, why does it apply only to BIS? Why does strategy in the Department for Education not all have to be in one place, whereas in BIS it apparently does? Why does strategy in the Ministry of Justice not have to be in one place, whereas it does in BIS? At the very least it would be reasonable if the people charged with running the civil service would address that question and tell us the answer, because I have some difficulty in seeing it.
In addition, a design principle is involved there, because lots and lots of civil service rationalisation is coming up in the next decade. If a considered position of the civil service is that all policy is done in one place, let us make sure that everybody knows that when they are doing this. If that is the position, the Department for Education is doing it wrong and the Ministry of Justice is doing it wrong, and I think Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may be doing it wrong, too.
We have heard a great dealing about the costing of this proposal. Let us remember that “BIS 2020” has not been published and is not in the public domain. I am not going to charge, as McKinsey did, a couple of hundred thousand pounds for what I am about to say, but I am going to say that although the hub and spoke strategy may well be worth thinking about, there is a Mowat variation to it—it is the double hub and spoke strategy. It could be a model, in the same way as all these consultants have models. Given that we have a starting point with all these people in another hub, it does seem rather odd that, in the context of reducing the size of everything anyway, we have to impose this single hub strategy on the whole thing. Therefore, if the BIS board do get a chance to go through Hansard, I would like it to think about the double hub and spoke strategy and reflect on the fact that, almost certainly given the analysis that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, it will save money as well as being equally effective.
Finally, there is a policy point about the civil service and the role of London. We have mentioned the fact that it is the major location of civil servants, especially the more senior ones. It is not an entire coincidence that the consequence of that is that current public spending in London is significantly higher per capita than any other region of the UK. This sort of decision will exacerbate that issue. As I said in the Public Accounts Committee, it just does not smell right.
I say to the BIS board that, before it signs off this proposal, it should ensure that it has asked some of the same questions that have been asked today and that will be asked later on this afternoon. Similarly, I say to Mr Manzoni and Mr Heywood that there are points of coherence in BIS vis–à–vis other Departments here and that they need to satisfy themselves that they are happy that rational decisions are being made across the wider civil service. Mr Donnelly, who is the owner of all of this in terms of the civil service, needs to reflect on whether the hub and spoke system is worth dying in a ditch for, or whether a double hub and spoke strategy, which would save money, would be a much more sensible system. If, in order to achieve design purity, we have to go through a NAO audit of costs and sensibleness, then so be it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that we will not need a formal time limit, but this is a short debate and if Members who wish to speak keep their remarks to under 10 minutes, everyone will have a chance to make their views known.
Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
I, too, am very grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this debate, and I strongly support him—albeit from a different constituency in Sheffield and across party lines—in his and our shared endeavour to have the National Audit Office look at a decision that remains wholly unjustified and entirely opaque in the way it has been reached.
I am grateful to the Minister for being here. To be fair to her, she will not be in a position to undo the origins of this eccentric and unjustified decision. In the time since that decision was originally announced, what happened has become more obvious. In the Whitehall scrum that takes place, in which the Treasury cracks the whip and demands lots of savings and obliging Departments are told to jump ever higher and to cut ever deeper—I discovered that for myself over the five years I was in government—BIS took the political decision, the wrong decision in my view, to offer up far, far greater cuts than was either justified or necessary compared with other Whitehall Departments. That decision affected not only many of my constituents who work in the BIS office in Sheffield, but many other BIS projects that have been cancelled in this cull.
Once that high-level decision was taken that BIS should offer up far greater sacrifices in the Whitehall race to make savings for the Treasury, the Department then lurched, as the hon. Gentleman has said, into a panicky and lazy response to create the impression that a number of savings had been made. That duly had the political effect of creating noise, anguish and controversy, but, as we are discovering, the Department did not produce any material savings whatsoever. It is important that we understand the genesis of all of this as we seek now to ask the NAO to cast an expert light on the decision.
What is the evidence for that analysis of what has gone on? First, it is worth comparing the savings that BIS has offered up to the Treasury in this Parliament with those that it offered up in the last one. In the last Parliament, over that five-year period, the BIS savings amounted to about 18%—I remember well that they were an agonising 18%—of the total departmental budget, which meant that BIS was roughly in the middle of the table of Departments offering up savings to the Treasury. What is striking is that that 18% has gone up to 26% in this Parliament, which means that BIS now leaps from mid-table for savings offered up to the Treasury to enduring the second largest cut of well over £4 billion. That was a choice taken by BIS and accepted by the Treasury. It was an extremely unwise choice given BIS’s important role in trying to foster dynamism and investment in our private sector to support our challenged manufacturing sector, and to reform and support further education and higher education, which are so important to the long-term prosperity of our nation. It was that decision that led to this rather desperate attempt to try to gather together lots of savings in a hurry to meet that headline and somewhat draconian cut of 26%, which in turn led to the announced closure of the Sheffield office.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central quite rightly referred to the opacity of the Government’s pronouncement on exactly how much this closure will save. In response to a parliamentary question on 14 April 2016, the Department estimated that the current annual cost of the Sheffield office is as follows: £500,000 on travel; £890,000 on rent; and £150,000 on hotel stays. It said:
“These savings would be independent of any decision on headcount reductions, on which we are still consulting.”
The only concrete saving figure that I have been able to get is £1.54 million—a risible, almost microscopically invisible, amount when it is set against total Government expenditure. It is about 0.005% of BIS’s annual expenditure and, by my rough calculations, it is 0.0002% of total Government spending. It is a tiny amount given the loss of expertise, the disruption that will be incurred and the other relocation costs that have not been factored into those figures.
When I was walking through Portcullis House, I asked, by way of comparison, how much the fig trees cost. I was told that renting 12 fig trees costs £32,500. By my reckoning, what BIS is saving is the equivalent of renting just over 550 fig trees. That is such a piffling saving compared with the cost to BIS’s expertise in a very, very important area of policy.
The decision also flies very directly in the face of stated Government policy, and very recently stated policy. As the Bridge report of 2 February 2016 has confirmed, the London-based nature of the civil service fast stream, emphasised by much of the fast stream literature featuring London landmarks, is a deterrent for many students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The Budget document of 2016 stated that the Government are working on an
“ambitious strategy to move civil servants out of expensive Whitehall accommodation and into the suburbs of London, delivering substantial savings for the taxpayer”.
This decision therefore has at its origin an excessive zeal on the part of BIS to satisfy Treasury demands in this somewhat self-harming manner at the time of the comprehensive spending round of last year. All the evidence that has been presented to the House so far suggests that the savings, if there are any savings, are of an almost invisible nature and that the decision is damaging not only to my constituents, but to the knowhow and expertise and collective memory of BIS. The decision flies in the face of the Government’s stated affection for the northern powerhouse agenda and other stated policies. When we bear all of that in mind, the least that this House can do—and the least that the Minister who is busy chatting from a sedentary position can do—is seriously reflect on what is an uncontroversial request that the NAO cast an objective and dispassionate eye on this decision.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg); some might say it makes a change for a Conservative to follow him, rather than the other way round.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate on a worthwhile subject. Obviously, my focus will be more on the principle of moving Government Departments out of London, but it is welcome that a matter that affects his constituency has brought this debate to the Floor of the House. Although she has disappeared, it was welcome to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) in the Chamber at the start of the debate; the former Member for that constituency would almost certainly have been here, had he been able to.
We are looking at why it is right to move Government Departments out of London—and the wider south-east; if we are candid, some of the issues and difficulties to do with locating in London that were outlined so well by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) apply to many locations close to London. I look particularly at the success of the Met Office’s relocation to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). It managed not only to relocate itself and its work successfully, but to help provide a boost to businesses all around by taking its very high-skilled, intensive activity to Exeter. It provides in the far south-west the types of jobs and opportunities that we too often say are available only in the large metropolitan areas, or around London.
As we look increasingly at opportunities to take Departments out of London, I hope that places such as Torbay will be considered. The plan for a public service hub in Torquay that the Torbay Development Agency has been promoting for the last couple of years is an opportunity to regenerate a site around the Riviera International Centre; staff at that centre would have the opportunity to live in one of the best places in the country, with some of the best schools. There would also be a huge cost saving to the Government if it located jobs there and not in central London. It is worth remembering that when we free up office space in central London, it does not mean that jobs are lost there; in many cases, within a short period, those buildings in London have more people working in them, at a higher salary, because of the huge pressure for development and office space in London.
I do not intend to get into the details of the issue in Sheffield, given that speakers who are much more knowledgeable on this subject have already spoken on it, but I have always had the concern that too often we review the issue of departmental offices in London or the south-east only when a lease is expiring, a building needs to be sold, or the Treasury is putting the pressure on. It is in some ways welcome that BIS has been slightly more proactive in reviewing its office estate. It is important to remember that a consultation on the proposals is ongoing. I am sure that the Minister will take on board all the comments that have been made. It is important that we do not have reviews only when a lease expires and there is an absolute need to think about what should be moving out; we should do that proactively.
Speaking as an MP from the south-west, I think that locating people outside London gives them more of a feel for the regional policies being delivered, be that in the north-west, the north-east, the midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, or the far south-west. It is right to continue that drive. Some functions will always remain in London, mostly those directly related to supporting the Government. The same can be said of debates about the future of this place, given the need for major refurbishment. I do not think that anyone will seriously suggest that the core functions of Government, and Parliament, which holds Government to account, could be moved away from the capital, but there are more opportunities that could be explored, such as the one that I highlighted in my constituency.
Crucially, we can use skilled jobs to help generate the sort of training courses, and stimulate people’s aspirations and opportunities, without them having to incur the cost of moving to the capital. I grew up in a family who were rich in love, but not in money, and one of the first things that I encountered when starting to think about a career in the legal service was the fact that my only relative who lived within commuting distance of central London had passed away about six years earlier. That meant that the option of staying in the spare room had disappeared, and with it the likelihood of sensibly being able to take up opportunities in London. Owing to the costs, I ended up spending a year commuting from Coventry to London. With a young person’s railcard, it worked out cheaper to commute over 100 miles daily than to live in the vicinity of where I was taking the Bar vocational course.
That challenge applies to many. I am sure that many other right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber will think of special training courses or experiences that are available only in the capital, and that it is difficult for people to take up unless they have a granny, aunt or uncle with whom they can stay. That is a separate challenge that the Government could look at in the context of this debate.
I welcome the fact that this debate has been brought to the Floor of the House. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the specific points brought up about the Sheffield office, but I hope that she will also reflect on the wider opportunities presented by relocating Government Departments out of the capital, and in particular to the far south-west. We have seen the successful move of the Met Office; more bodies could follow it.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
May I, along with the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for getting this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for giving it time? I start with the response that the Minister, who I am pleased is here, gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) when she posed an urgent question on this issue earlier this year:
“We are having to ensure that we spend public money wisely. Unfortunately, that means that we have to reduce the number of people who are working for us.”
The question of whether cutting jobs is necessarily wise is a debate in itself. It might be a few years before we know whether the decision was wise. The Minister went on to say:
“We must make sure that we use the money to best effect, which is why we considered the decision so very carefully, as I hope that she understands we would.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 562.]
Most of us would like to know whether the Government took the right decision. The sad fact is that, on this subject, there are many things that we just do not know. The so-called McKinsey report that the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned, costing some £200,000, has not yet been published, yet we are all this way down the road towards a decision that we think will be taken. Why can we not have that report, so that we can see whether the decision stands up to proper scrutiny?
Indeed, do we actually have a report? When the permanent secretary gave evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, at question 72,
“If there was more than one paper, we could probably look at them all, so if you could share those with us it would be helpful. Can you also share the McKinsey report with us?”
The permanent secretary replied:
“The McKinsey report was about a set of actions to validate internal calculations, both quantitative and in terms of the strategic vision.”
He contradicted himself two questions later; in question 74, my hon. Friend said:
“So you will share those papers with us.”
The permanent secretary said:
“There is not such a thing as a McKinsey report, but there is McKinsey input into a set of different aspects of the work that we were doing. I will see what further information we can usefully share, because the process is one where we have come to a very clear business conclusion in terms of a sustainable model for the Department delivering”.
That is as clear as mud. The proposal, which will affect my constituents and those of many other Members, is beyond the pale.
We have to look at the proposal against the backdrop of a recent Financial Times report that 20% of civil service jobs had been lost in the regions since 2010, as opposed to only 9% in London. That is an extraordinary figure which seems to go against the main thread that we have had—or should have had—in Government thinking, not for the past five or six years, but for decades. I well remember when the Labour Government built the advanced manufacturing park near Sheffield— it is actually in Rotherham, but it is often said to be in Sheffield—and it is a glowing example of what Governments can do if they have the will. It is a centre of excellence now. Minister go there every other week, smiling for the cameras and saying how wonderful it is.
On the Sheffield BIS closure, I was contacted by a person now in their third decade in the civil service, who said:
“I’ve worked in the civil service 10 years in London and the rest in Sheffield. For the majority of that time, I have worked in teams that have been split between Sheffield and London. To my knowledge, there has never been any issues regarding the quality of work or negative impact on policy decisions/policy work due to operating split site teams.
Aside from the obvious impact on me personally with respect to having to find another job, I am concerned about the effect this decision will have on the City of Sheffield and surrounding areas. I am still trying to understand why the Department for Business would take such a step.”
Not only will the closure be devastating for south Yorkshire, but it will lead to a huge loss of expertise for the Department—for example, the person I have just quoted, who has been in their job for decades. It is difficult to imagine that such people could uproot themselves and come down to work in London, even if they could afford to buy a property in London. The absence of any relocation programme speaks volumes about the intention behind the closure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out. The intention is to get rid of those staff and not to relocate them to London. Surely a package would be presented if the Government’s intention were to relocate them.
My hon. Friend spoke about Nick Hillman who, as we know, was a special adviser to David Willetts during his time as Universities and Science Minister. Nick Hillman has described the closure as
“a genuine tragedy for good public policymaking”.
He says that the Sheffield civil servants
“hold BIS’ institutional memory on HE and often know more than the policymakers who are nominally closer to the centre of power”.
The staff in Sheffield work closely with external organisations, such as employers and education providers, visiting them to explain policies on funding, deregulation, further and higher education, and Government strategy on rail, as well as listening to their issues so as better to inform policy. A purely London-based staff will mean additional costs, particularly as a result of pay differentials, and a less prompt service for organisations based in the midlands and the north. Gone will be the knowledge and understanding of localities, sectors and industries that can make a difference to effective policy making and allocation of funding.
Sheffield staff are responsible for applying ministerial policies and strategies on the ground. BIS sites such as the one in Sheffield ought to be in the vanguard, helping the Government to rebalance the economy and supporting rebalancing in the sectors based in the regions. It seems particularly strange that BIS, with its supposed ambition to create more geographically balanced growth, should take this decision, when other Departments, such as the Department for Education, plan to remain in Sheffield. It is nonsense and the concept of a northern powerhouse is weakened by such decisions, which undermine what this Government and previous Governments have said for years—that Government Departments should be relocating out of London.
The people who deserve to see the information that is largely absent from this debate are the 247 people who have a cloud hanging over their heads. As I stated previously, the Government must publish all the facts. I support the motion calling for the National Audit Office to conduct a cost-benefit assessment of the BIS Sheffield proposal, so that we can properly review the decision. I hope that when the Minister replies, she will respond to that call and to the four questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
I am conscious of the time so I will try not to regurgitate too many of the points that have already been made. I welcome the debate and the manner in which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) opened it.
In my constituency I have officers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House and the Department for Work and Pensions, to name but a few, so I am mindful of the “BIS 2020” programme. I wholeheartedly support the Public Accounts Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in their requests to the permanent secretary, and I hope those reports are forthcoming, as I look forward to an evidence-led debate. I look forward also to the Minister’s response today.
From talking to some of the most energetic, determined public servants in Cardiff, I know about the project. Twenty jobs in the Companies House policy and analytical unit will be moved to London. Staff feel insulted by the lack of consultation and they are conscious of the cloud over their heads, which the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) referred to. The lack of engagement with the staff at Companies House is extremely worrying to me. Given that the BIS board is looking more broadly at the position, I hope a conclusion will be reached soon and that it can be seen in the context of the reports that we have asked for.
I would like to emphasise what I have been told by constituents who work at Companies House. The staff affected have never been on poor performance measures and it has never been suggested to them that being based in Cardiff has affected the policy advice that they gave to civil servants and Ministers. The rationale for the decision has never been explained to them. They have been left bemused and seeking answers. I hope that this debate and my contribution will help to elicit some clarity that I can share with my constituents.
I welcome the double hub and spiral strategy that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) came up with on the hoof, provided the second hub is Cardiff. I am sure hon. Members from across the United Kingdom have different ideas. The Government’s estates strategy is welcome in Cardiff because the new Government hub will reinvigorate parts of the city. When HMRC moves in with other Departments—we do not quite know where in Cardiff, but we have that commitment to Cardiff—we will see more civil service jobs coming to our great city.
The Government hub is welcome, but the BIS announcement is a cloud overshadowing the excitement in the public sector in Cardiff. People are seeing the estates strategy delivering for them, pulling more jobs to Cardiff, but the staff affected feel insulted by a decision whose rationale they do not understand, especially given their role in advising on policy.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Newport Public and Commercial Services Union members asked me to be present at the debate today to show their support for those who work in the BIS office, whom the hon. Gentleman mentions. Newport has benefited hugely over the years from the relocation of civil service jobs from the Office for National Statistics and the Intellectual Property Office, which will also come within the scope of “BIS 2020”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although this debate is about Sheffield and he is speaking about Cardiff, it is well worth reiterating to the Minister just how valued those jobs are across our country, including in Newport, and how important it is that we protect that principle?
Craig Williams
I agree entirely, and I hope that that came out of my contribution. Like me, the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General came down to south Wales to announce that the ONS was safe in Newport. South Wales has a great cluster of UK Government Departments, and their offices make an incredible contribution to the Government in terms of policy analysis and other instruments.
That is why I wanted my contribution to strike a note of caution, and I hope we get some clarity on the issues that have been raised. I again commend the hon. Member for Sheffield Central on securing the debate and on leading it in the manner that he did.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Backbench Business Committee, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who have worked hard to secure the debate and the cross-party support it has gained. I hope the Minister is starting to understand that we are not going to go away on this issue.
This decision has been extraordinary: in one fell swoop, BIS Ministers have delivered a thumbs down to the northern powerhouse, a thumbs down to the taxpayer and a thumbs down to their ministerial colleagues who wax lyrical about the benefits of having key staff outside Whitehall.
Crucial board meetings are scheduled for this month, following the end of the consultation. I urge the Minister to go into them with an open mind and to relay the points that have been made here today. First and foremost, I hope she understands that, for people in our city, a decision to close the Sheffield office would be highly symbolic; it would be a signal of the London-centric contempt for the north and for the skill and perspective of northerners—a contempt that has prevailed for far too long. The “BIS 2020” plan appears to reinforce that contempt for a regional perspective, with the London headquarters strengthened while regional posts carrying out vital work are threatened.
We would have expected the Department to support such a significant decision—to move all policy-making expertise from a northern centre into a London HQ—with some reasoning. When I was granted my urgent question, the debate on which has been widely quoted today, the Minister assured me that the decision was part of a cost-saving programme, but officials and Ministers have told us time and time again that a cost-benefit analysis for this decision does not exist.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and others have said, the admitted cost is far, far higher in London than it would be in Sheffield, Bristol, Cardiff, Darlington or Salford. As the Minister well knows, taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for the office space in Sheffield anyway, as the entire building is leased by the DFE. Furthermore, BIS is one of the few Departments in Whitehall without enough space to accommodate staff adequately, so further centralisation will mean that a rent review is almost certain to hike up the rent yet again.
And for what purpose? So far, the only possible reason we have been able to ascertain is the benefit of London water-cooler conversations. Well, those conversations at BIS must be very good indeed. However, there has been no individual analysis of exactly why they outweigh the unique perspective and institutional memory of staff in Sheffield. Instead, we have seen more tired old thinking from senior Whitehall officials, who, when asked what they wanted the Department to look like in 2020, came back with the same old Whitehall answer: all employees should be within eyesight and earshot of the permanent secretary and the Minister. It is astonishing that, in place of evidence, we seem to have a seriously consequential decision that is costing taxpayers money and reversing Government policy but that is based on lazy assumptions and flimsy justifications.
In the months since the decision was announced, there has been no sense from Ministers or departmental officials that they recognise the exceptionalism of the Sheffield BIS office. Research excellence in the Sheffield region is second to none, with two fantastic universities at the cutting edge of innovation. That work is supported fantastically by BIS’s multibillion pound budget, which is directed from Sheffield. Just a few months ago, researchers from Sheffield University helped to confirm Einstein’s theory of relativity, which will unlock the secrets of the universe—not a bad record.
Sheffield is also the only office outside Whitehall carrying out high-level policy functions. A Government report from 2010 tells us why that matters. It said:
“power and career opportunities will only truly move out of London when significant parts of the core policy departments are moved.”
That is exactly what we already have in Sheffield and what we put at risk with this decision.
The Sheffield office could become the eyes and ears of the northern resurgence. Instead, we will have a centralised BIS, alongside a Department for Communities and Local Government with a northern powerhouse Minister whose entire staff is based in London, and a Treasury producing its template devolution deals exclusively from London, with no understanding of the geographical and socioeconomic challenges.
That gets to the heart of the reasons why moving civil servants out of London is a decades-old mantra: cost and perspective. The Smith report, which I just mentioned, wanted to move civil servants out of London to
“bring government closer to the people”
and “stimulate economic vibrancy”. The report was hardly groundbreaking; in fact, it was based on decades of movement away from Whitehall—something the Minister’s colleagues are encouraging as part of the March Budget. The Ministry of Justice has announced a large-scale move away from London, and the DFE is waxing lyrical about its regional base and is looking to expand it further. That is because doing that is cheaper, and having powerful civil servants in other regions can only be a good thing.
In trying to justify this decision, the Minister will no doubt be adamant that the plan will continue the existing arrangement, with more of her civil servants outside London than in it. Even ignoring the importance of policy-making clout, the leaked report that has been referenced today has revealed that even that argument does not hold water: all the jobs under threat are distinctly regional, including those in places such as Lancaster, Cardiff and Bristol, to name just a few.
The Skills Funding Agency, with its vast majority of regional staff, who are working hard to deliver the Government’s apprenticeship target, is set to be slashed. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which has been doing vital work in getting to the bottom of the slow-burning productivity crisis, is set to go entirely. Rotherham, a town where public sector jobs act as ballast, will be left counting the cost. The entire “BIS 2020”plan looks like a perverse counter to the northern and regional powerhouse agenda: slash jobs in the regions, take no account of the importance of local economies and centralise the Department’s work in London.
If hon. Members think I am leaping to conclusions about the way in which BIS HQ in Whitehall instinctively adopts a London-centric approach that is totally at odds with the devolution of power to a northern powerhouse, they can look at the details of a seminar given to BIS employees early last year by McKinsey and Company—the same company that authored the report into this restructuring. An item on the agenda, which I and other hon. Members have seen, read
“how can London ensure it outstrips rival cities”,
This is the same city whose infrastructure spending is more than every other UK city’s combined, at £45 billion.
BIS’s mission statement says the Department will achieve its objectives by having the
“right people, in the right place, at the right time”.
How on earth does this strategy achieve that stated aim? The Minister and senior officials may not appreciate it, but there is a reason why an idea that few of their colleagues sign up to, that damages the northern powerhouse and that costs the taxpayer money is not such a good idea.
I urge the Minister to use the end of the consultation to think again. She should think about what message these proposals send and what damage they do, and she should put a halt to this decision, which will reverse a decades-long progressive trend of moving civil servants out of London.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) not only on leading the charge in the debate, but on his quite excellent forensic analysis of why this is a deeply flawed policy decision.
The dispersal of Government offices has been argued for for many years—from as far back as the early 1960s. Although this is not a new debate, therefore, it may be wise to rehearse some of the reasons why dispersal can be forcefully argued for. I would like to focus in my short speech on just three.
First, on cost, it will be considerably more cost-effective to locate Departments in Sheffield or Kirkcaldy than in overheated London. A number of hon. Members have pointed to the fact that they cannot find, or cannot get released, any detailed cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps that is not surprising if no proper cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken in the first place.
Secondly, this is about not just the cost of dispersal but the benefits to the recipient regions. In particular, if dispersal happens in areas that have relatively weak economies compared with London, the benefit of even a few hundred well-paid and secure jobs can be considerable. Many towns in the north of England would benefit greatly if there was more dispersal out of London.
The third point I want to raise, which is much less talked about generally, although a number of hon. Members have raised it today, is the benefit to Government intelligence and decision making. It is unhealthy for all key decision makers and advisers to be based in one location, particularly if that location is out of character with the rest of the country. Dispersal provides an opportunity for better engagement. When we presented the case for this debate at the Backbench Business Committee, I argued that one of the problems is that this decision seems to reek of group-think by the Government. To put it in a slightly more academic fashion, it reminded me of reading for the first time the work of Kenneth Hammond on his cognitive continuum theory, with which I know everybody is deeply familiar. He argued that decision making can be on a continuum from highly intuitive, at one extreme, to highly analytic, at the other extreme, with a mix in between. It strikes me that the reason why a lot of evidence cannot be provided for this decision is that it reeks more of intuition than of detailed analysis of the true benefit.
In the Backbench Business Committee, I was asked why a Scottish MP would want to speak in this debate. Perhaps, without wishing to be accused of any arrogance, there might be one or two examples that could be brought from Scotland to show the benefit of dispersal.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
Give us some.
Roger Mullin
Well, I will give the right hon. Lady 15. I was going to make it three, but because of her intervention I know she would like many more. The first, of many, is that of the five major buildings that house all the policy civil servants in Scotland, two are based well beyond Edinburgh. To give an example close to the functions of BIS, locating lifelong learning well outside Edinburgh in a place closer to the majority of higher education and further education institutions has given great benefit. When I talked to the principal of a college in Scotland who had originally been a principal in England, he commented that he found it so much easier to get access to senior civil servants in Scotland than south of the border.
Since the Minister kindly invited me to provide more examples, let me talk of Scotland’s 34 executive non-departmental public bodies, the majority of which—some 19—are based outwith the capital, Edinburgh. This includes headquarters in such centres as Inverness, Grantown-on-Spey, Dundee, Stirling, Balloch, Hamilton, Newbridge and Paisley, in addition to Edinburgh—[Interruption]—and Glasgow, of course. Some of these play a very significant role in supporting local economies, in addition to being cost-effective locations.
I can go even further, to satisfy the Minister, on to those whom one might want to influence in terms of policy-making advice—the cabinet, for example. Way back in 2008, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) instituted a then fairly modest initiative to take cabinet meetings, during the summer recess, to one or two different locations away from Edinburgh. This has developed over the years until, now, in mid-2016, 42 cabinet meetings have been held outwith Edinburgh. In the past year alone, cabinet meetings have been held in Dumfries, Aberdeen, Alloa, Inverness, Cupar, Ullapool, Oban, Coatbridge, Greenock, and West Dunbartonshire. Those meetings help with engagement because when they are over, public meetings are held so that the public can come along and question cabinet members. The benefit of that is that thousands of ordinary members of the public have been able to come along and influence decision making.
We should be debating not so much why 247 jobs are being moved from Sheffield to London, but why tens of thousands more jobs are not being located out of London into the regions and nations of the UK.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I, too, begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate and on his introductory comments. Unfortunately, I only heard the second half of those comments because I was chairing a Select Committee at the time. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to him for my lateness in arriving at the debate.
I want to concentrate on devolution. The Communities and Local Government Committee recently produced a report in which, on a cross-party basis, we welcomed the Government’s commitment and general approach to devolution. We might have had certain reservations on detail or on the pace at which devolution is going, but nevertheless recognised that it is a key aspect of Government policy that we welcome. We said that devolution is a matter not just for the Department for Communities and Local Government but for all Government Departments, and we want to see all Departments signed up to the policy and contributing to it. It is welcome that economic development and skills are an integral part of the devolution deals in cities such as Manchester and my own city of Sheffield. Key responsibilities of BIS are part of these devolution deals.
We then move on to the use of the term “northern powerhouse” to cover the totality of devolution proposals for our northern cities. It leads to complete incredulity among my constituents and those of the wider Sheffield city region when the Government talk about the northern powerhouse over and again and then take a decision to move civil service jobs out of Sheffield and back to London which seems completely contradictory to their own policy on devolution. People just do not get it. I mentioned this in an intervention on the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). It was good to hear his excellent and well-thought-out contribution, which shows that there is real cross-party concern across the House about this aspect of Government policy, where it is going, and how it does not really fit in with the overall Government approach on devolution that we would want to see.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the location of civil service jobs is not the only reason for a totality of approach through the northern powerhouse. Indeed, it is probably not even the main reason. The main reason is to try to secure a growth in GDP per head in our northern cities to get them up towards the national average, because currently not one single northern city has a GDP per head that is equivalent to the national average, and that is a matter of concern. It is also about trying to ensure that decision making takes place nearer to those who are affected by it, and that we recognise that different approaches and policies will be formed in different areas as part of the process of trying to improve public services and their delivery and to get the increase in GDP per head that we want to see. This approach is going to change the way in which our country is governed if we carry it through and onwards in the next few years.
What people see on the ground in terms of this policy is the Government talking about a grand design with the northern powerhouse but saying one thing and doing another. People do not understand the general direction of Government travel. They hear Ministers talking about the northern powerhouse and then see the reality of jobs being moved out of their home city and transferred down to London without, as far as they can tell, any good reason. If the Minister is intent on pursuing a policy that seems, at least at face value, to be contradictory to the overall thrust of Government devolution policy, there has to be a very good, explicit and clear reason why that policy is going to be carried through. The Minister has to be able to justify this to the House, as well as to my constituents.
Is the policy being followed through because of clear, demonstrable and provable cost benefits, with figures that can be laid before the House to show what those benefits are, or because Ministers can demonstrate that there is a clear policy benefit—that policy will be unequivocally better and Ministers will be better advised—to having all their civil servants located in one place? Could it not work just as well with two hubs as with one, if Ministers want a concentration of policy making? If Ministers cannot demonstrate that there will be either a clear and explicit cost saving or demonstrable benefits in policy advice to Ministers, why on earth are they pursuing a policy that seems completely contradictory to the overall thrust of Government devolution policy?
The Government have been given a challenge: produce the McKinsey report, the McKinsey papers or the McKinsey input into decision making—whatever it is—or produce some cost-benefit analysis. Ministers must have such analysis at their disposal. They cannot have taken this decision, or be about to take this decision, without having any figures before them. Will they share those figures with the House, or at least commit to making all the information available to the NAO so that it can conduct an audit into the decision? That would enable the NAO at least to advise Members of the House about whether Ministers have taken this decision, or will take this decision—I hope that it has not yet been made—on clear and credible facts and figures about the financial benefits of their proposals.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who has doggedly pursued the matter. He gave us a precise dissection of the numerous issues at the heart of this decision, or proposal, and the many questions that are still to be answered. The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), a colleague of mine on the Public Accounts Committee, provided a searching contribution, challenging the hub and spoke concept that BIS is apparently set on, as demonstrated by this peculiar decision.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) gave us an interesting insight, as a former member of Government, into the inner workings of Departments. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), another colleague from the Public Accounts Committee, who is not in his place at the moment, made a thoughtful contribution in support of decentralisation, using his experience as an example. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) raised the question of the McKinsey report, or papers, and whether it indeed exists. He called for the work that was done to be released to allow for proper scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) made clear his support for the calls from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Public Accounts Committee for clarity and for the proposal to be looked at by the NAO. He also raised the concerns of those who have benefited from the dispersal of jobs from London to his constituency. I am certain that Scottish Members await with interest clarification around the Minister’s comment about initial centres of excellence in Glasgow, for example. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) made a thoughtful contribution highlighting the many benefits that were placed at risk by the decision, and she said that cost and perspective were important elements that needed to be looked at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) made an excellent contribution, with a particular focus on how unhealthy it is to locate key decision makers in a place that is so very different from all other areas of the UK. He gave numerous examples of areas outside our capital city in Scotland that have benefited from Government dispersal policies. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) called for all Departments to sign up to the concept of devolution.
Offices and staff should be moved out of this overheated, overvalued and ridiculously overpriced city to take up residence in less expensive areas, which, frankly, could do with the Government investing in them for a change. As budgets are being slashed by this Chancellor, who seems to be channelling Sweeney Todd, why is the cost of concentrating offices and staff in London not becoming the major issue? As a number of Members have commented, the Chancellor’s most recent Budget—at least, I think it was the most recent one; lately, a new Budget seems to come along every few weeks—showed that the Chancellor thought that moving offices out of London would be a good idea. Unfortunately, some of his colleagues and senior civil servants do not share his vision, and the shrinkage of Government continues. The Government are becoming smaller geographically, with a smaller workforce, but that will not save money.
I was pleased to take part in recent the Westminster Hall debate on this issue. To me and many others, the upshot seemed to be that Ministers wanted their civil servants close to them. Apparently, a bit of distance dilutes a civil servant’s message. My staff are about 400 miles from here. I have already annoyed them twice today, and I am going to call them as soon as I get out of here, just because I can. We use telephones; Ministers might have heard of them. It is quite amazing how I can talk to someone who is not nearby. With a bit of practice, I think Ministers could learn to use the telephone. If that does not suit them, there is another thing that my friends and I use. It is called the internet. That, too, would allow Ministers to communicate with civil servants in distant lands, such as Sheffield. Far better that than the ridiculous situation of moving the offices of the northern powerhouse into the southern hothouse.
Quite how civil servants are expected to do their jobs when they are being held at such a distance from the subjects in which they specialise is anyone’s guess. It smacks of the days when the UK Government thought that they could pontificate from a Whitehall office and tell large chunks of the world how to behave. The British empire attitude saw nothing wrong with a Whitehall Minister telling people on the other side of the world what to do, but surely we have moved on from that. For the sake of us all, and for the sake of good government, let us get offices and staff moved out of London. Let us spread them around the UK. If they have a geographical remit, let us base them in the areas that they are supposed to be helping. Surely, that is nothing more or less than common sense.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I join Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the other Members who secured this important debate. We have had a good debate, and I am pleased to see the Secretary of State and the Minister of State in their places to listen to the advice they have been given, by Members from all parties, about what needs to be done. I sincerely hope that they listen to the comments that have been made, take them on board and go away after the debate and act on them.
On 28 January, the closure of the BIS office in Sheffield was announced, with the loss of 247 jobs. I remind the Secretary of State that he said at the time that the closure was to save money. The Minister of State told the House the following day, in response to an urgent question, that
“we take the view that this is the best way to spend public money more efficiently and more effectively.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 562.]
Yet Members from all parts of the House have challenged what both Ministers said at the time, because of a lack of evidence and a lack of any kind of business case. We have heard today some of the evidence about costs, including the fact that staff in Sheffield are employed at an accommodation cost of £3,190 each, while at Victoria Street in London the figure is more than three times as high, at £9,750. Adding London weighting takes the figure well over £12,000. That is hardly a case of saving money.
What is the reason for closing the Sheffield BIS office? A number of suggestions have been made. Is it so Ministers can have water-cooler conversations with staff in Whitehall? Is it part of a desperate scramble for cash to plug the Chancellor’s black hole, as the BIS proposal for the privatisation of the Land Registry appears to be? Or is it because the Government know that many staff will leave and costs will be reduced as a result? Whatever the reason, the Minister and the Secretary of State really should tell us. They should tell us what the strategy is and how the plan will work, because, so far, what BIS has come up with does not seem to add up in any way, shape or form.
As we have heard, in the Budget, the Bridge report and the estate strategy, there is a cross-government move to recruit high-calibre staff outside London and to move Departments out of London to continue a trend that has been going on since the 1960s. Other Departments recognise the benefits of a diversified civil service, so why is BIS moving in the opposite direction? Staff in BIS have been told that Ministers need their advisers closer to them, but why do other Departments take the opposite view? Why, after the initial announcement, were staff later told that the move was due to computers and phones not working properly? I know that the quality of our broadband service is one of the poorest of any major economy, but even so we might be forgiven for thinking that the IT systems could be fixed even by this Government. To give an example elsewhere in Government, the Department for Education says on the subject of the benefits of a regional approach:
“We benefit from maintaining sites around the country—we get alternative perspectives on our policy issues, we can draw from a wider recruitment pool, and employing people in sites outside London helps to keep costs down.”
That says it all, does it not?
The many experienced staff who do not wish to relocate to London will of course leave a gap at BIS at a time when it faces serious challenges wherever we look, such as in the steel crisis and the need for significant support for manufacturing, and in the delay announced by the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise to the introduction of the pubs code and in setting up the office of small business commissioner. All those important and demanding policy areas will need the expertise of experienced civil servants. In Sheffield, there is a need to support our universities and the ambitious plans for a mass expansion of apprenticeships. Such a need for experienced staff to give top-quality advice to Ministers could not be more important; yet BIS is taking a big gamble with its ability to do its job as many of those experienced staff will leave. That point made has been made in the House of Lords by the BIS Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe.
I want to pay tribute to hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central spoke with great expertise, and from his experience of talking to staff who are his constituents, about the benefits of regional offices. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) made some excellent comments about the importance of the work that goes on in his constituency, including in the Insolvency Service. He supported requests for proper evidence to be provided to support, and to help us to understand, the proposals made by BIS.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), who secured the Westminster Hall debate, made the point that the success of BIS in its current location is crucial for his constituents and those of several other Members of the House. He mentioned the lack of relocation expenses, and he might have added the lack of extended travel cover as another reason why these experienced members of staff simply cannot do anything but accept redundancy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) talked about the apparent thumbs down to the staff in BIS by the Department’s leadership, which is in stark contrast to the excellence of the many people who work there. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) questioned the Government’s commitment to their own devolution agenda given their decision to move the centre for the northern powerhouse to London and away from the north itself.
We have had excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), forEdinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and, indeed, for Warrington South (David Mowat), who pointed out the contradiction between this move and the northern powerhouse and the contradiction between the “BIS 2020” document and the estate strategy.
So much has been made by Ministers of the so-called northern powerhouse. Having a network of Government offices and key staff in the regions is a vital part of understanding the needs of the whole country and avoiding the sense that all policy is solely about the Westminster bubble. It is therefore baffling, at the very least, that BIS of all Departments might even consider withdrawing from the regions, given the importance that Ministers say they ascribe to the northern powerhouse. BIS should be the eyes and ears of Government out and about in building key local relationships with business, universities, colleges, local government and, of course, trade unions. Why are the trade unions saying that they have not been allowed to have discussions with management about the proposals? There is also of course the message received by the private sector and local communities that the Government just are not serious about supporting the north. I am afraid that actions speak louder than words, and the term “the northern powerhouse” is more and more becoming just a set of words, and meaningless ones at that.
It strikes me that the way the Government are going about their reorganisation has not exactly been business-like. For a start, a forward-looking business would use technology to communicate. Video conferencing is available at the touch of a button and is a very cost-effective way of working, because it saves travel costs and time. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has ever used video conferencing. When he was in Australia at the time of the Tata Steel debacle, he could have used it to speak to people in Mumbai at the annual general meeting that he should have tried to attend to look after our steel industry. [Interruption.] If he turns around to talk to someone behind him, he should perhaps expect me to make such comments. [Interruption.] I am sorry; it was a board meeting. I appreciate the Secretary of State correcting me about the meeting in Mumbai.
Video conferencing and other technologies allow staff to work around the country, closer to home and to family, and to be more productive. Simply put, it is common practice for national and international businesses to have a strong regional presence and to use technology where possible. Should the Government not be at the forefront of using technology? Of course they should.
In any restructuring, would not business produce a sound business plan? Such a plan would evaluate the costs and benefits of the current arrangements set against those of the alternatives. Yet we have not been given a business case by the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary. Two Select Committees were not given a business case, and even the recall of the permanent secretary to give evidence only confirmed the initial suspicion that there was no case for the defence, as he admitted he had not sought to put a price on the changes.
Questions therefore remain about why BIS proposes to close the office in Sheffield. One clue can be found in the single departmental plan to disclose that capital receipts are expected to be achieved from the sale of the many sites around the country that BIS plans to close. Such sales suggest that they are savings for short-term gain. In the case of the Sheffield BIS office, that is at the expense of massively higher annual costs in Whitehall and significantly reduced expertise in supporting business and the economy. The businesses that rely on BIS, including the universities and colleges that rely on BIS in Sheffield, do not operate without proper business plans and neither should the Government or Departments. They will be concerned that the Government do not follow best practice in the way they operate. The sad reality is that BIS Ministers and senior management are developing a reputation, but it is not the reputation they should have. It is a reputation not for competence but for being a complete shambles. That cannot be good news for Sheffield or for the country.
We have been told that the decision has been suspended for two weeks. When the Minister responds, will she tell us that in those two weeks she will find the business case for these decisions and make sure that it is in the public domain, so that it can undergo proper scrutiny, including by the two Select Committees and through consultation with the trade unions, and decisions can be taken on a full evidence base? We need to know whether this is a cost saving, an improvement in policy, or a combination. Whatever it is, the evidence will show. The Minister needs to put that evidence in the public domain and show us, either way, so that proper decisions can be taken, and full public scrutiny of those decisions can show whether the Government are right.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. It has been a very good debate. A number of hon. Members from both sides of the House have raised a number of very good points. I know that the clock is against me—that is the rule of Parliament. The last time I said that people seemed to think it was my choice. It certainly was not. I will of course write with an answer to all those hon. Members whose questions I do not answer in my response. That may include the hon. Gentleman, in this respect: his questions were quite long, and I do not have time to answer them all at length. I will deal with the points he made, but in the time allowed to me I will not be able to answer them all in the sort of length that I would like.
It is very important that we have as the focus of this debate the 247 people who currently work in the Sheffield office. I make the point that, yes, we have put forward the proposal, but a final decision has not been made. It has been out for consultation, and I very much hope that a number of hon. Members took part in that consultation. A final decision will not be made until 23 May. Everyone on both sides of this House will know that Governments of whatever colour have at times to make very difficult decisions, but we have to be sure that we make the right decisions for the right reasons.
I also make this point, which is very important. Whatever the decision on Sheffield, 83% of the people who work for BIS will continue to work outside London. To some extent, I take a little exception to the suggestion that we in BIS are not in touch with what is going on in the rest of the country outside London. The Secretary of State and I do not represent London seats; as hon. Members might imagine, we return to our constituencies. Most importantly, we still have an exceptionally fine team of local BIS civil servants working throughout the whole country, who feed in—indeed, I have at least a monthly meeting with them—when they give me a round-up of everything that has happened across the country.
By way of example, the Green Investment Bank is proudly based in Edinburgh. UK Trade & Investment exists throughout the whole country. Today, I have been on a visit in Leicestershire, where I opened the marvellous new extension of an excellent business. Not only did I then meet the Leicester Asian Business Association, but, as I often do, I met the local enterprise partnership. I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) that when I come to Sheffield on 23 May, it will be a pleasure to meet him and have him there at my visit to those steel mills. I will also meet the LEP, because getting that feedback is so essential.
I turn now to the reasons behind the proposal. It is really important to set this in the right context. That context is a mixture, of course, of the financial position that we are in and the decisions that we have rightly made to make sure that we have a budget that we can cope with and that BIS plays its part in reducing overall spend. But it is not just about cutting money. It is about making sure that this Department works as efficiently and effectively as possible. The situation that the Secretary of State and I inherited was the frankly historical problem of an abundance of sites. A decision has been taken, against that financial background—I hope that this answers the questions of the right hon. Members for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg)—
Anna Soubry
It is not as simple as cutting costs. The right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience in and out of government, should know that. It is a question of making sure that we have an efficient and effective way of working in BIS, set against the financial restraints that we have quite properly put upon our Department as part of our overall requirements with regard to the deficit.
Our current HQ office locations are based on the legacy I mentioned, and have resulted in a complicated map of management relationships, with work in policy teams spread across 14 different locations. We are committed to reducing our headcount by 2020. That will involve becoming more flexible and redeploying fewer staff quickly to new priorities. We need simple structures that allow staff to interact through quicker, less cumbersome means and stay close to each other in flexible teams. We rightly put a strong emphasis on staff engagement, excellent management, visible leadership and developing and coaching our staff. Those are harder to achieve if teams are not collected together or are not working under the same roof. We believe that having a single-site BIS policy headquarters is the best way to preserve our effectiveness. Given that our teams serve Ministers in Parliament, those headquarters have to be in London.
I want to make this point absolutely clear. Whatever the decision, we will continue to provide good and full support to the 247 members of staff who have had this proposal hanging over them—we are very conscious of that—since 28 January. If the decision is made to close the Sheffield office, that support will continue, because this Department takes its duty of care to each and every one of our staff extremely seriously, as I hope hon. Members would imagine.
I have said that tough decisions have to be made. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) and his colleagues on the Scottish National party Benches will understand that, for Governments of all colours, there are times, set against a difficult financial background, when tough decisions have to be taken. I make no criticism of the SNP’s decision back in 2013 to close 10 sheriff courts and seven justice of the peace courts, with operations transferred to other locations. Those are the difficult decisions that have to be made. Of course, the SNP closures were justified as cost-saving measures, but, to be fair, as part of a wider reform of the justice system as well. We can all take away from that the fact that the SNP was not just cutting things for the sake of savings, but was doing so as part of a broader strategy.
Anna Soubry
Unfortunately, the clock is against me, and the hon. Gentleman has only just walked into this debate, so I am even less disposed to take his intervention.
Those are the difficult decisions that Governments have to make if they are to fulfil their duty, which is not only to make sure that we live within our means but to ensure that we act efficiently and effectively.
I will deal with the four questions that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central asked me—I am grateful for the email and attachment that he sent to my Department. Some of what he raised has already been dealt with by the permanent secretary in his evidence to the various Committees. I will take just the sharp end of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He asked what assessment had been made of the cost of replacing jobs and moving them to London. A full assessment has not yet been made, but, as he will know from the evidence of the permanent secretary, the total over time for the Sheffield office was thought to be some £14 million. As I have said, however, this is not just about costs. As for the assessment of the cost of replacing Sheffield jobs in London, the final decision has not been taken, and until it has been and we know all its ramifications it will not be possible to give that assessment.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members asked about the northern powerhouse, but I do not need to be told what a great and wonderful city Sheffield is. You do not need to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, about my connections with Sheffield, or the fact that my family comes from there—[Interruption.] Exactly. Because I am from north Nottinghamshire, I spent a great deal of my youth in Sheffield. It was an outstanding city then, just as it is now and will no doubt be in future. In our devolution deal, we have put Sheffield at the heart of south Yorkshire, and we have delivered millions of pounds to Sheffield—[Interruption.] Which part of the Sheffield city deal do Labour Members not understand? The clue is in the name: Sheffield is at the heart of that deal, with all the attendant money and power that comes from it. That is to be welcomed, and I am surprised that Labour Members are not talking up that excellent deal, the outstanding city that is Sheffield, and the northern powerhouse. I hope that they will make the case for HS2 to have a proper station in Sheffield. I have a bias because I want an east midlands hub in Toton, as I am sure there will be, but we must now ensure that Sheffield plays its part in HS2.
Anna Soubry
I do not wish to be rude to my hon. Friend, but the clock is against me and Madam Deputy Speaker is urging me to conclude my remarks.
The final question from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central concerned what other options there are apart from the proposal. Full consultation has taken place with unions and staff, and several alternative proposals have been received. The BIS executive board will take full account of those when reaching its decision on the proposal, and I hope that goes some way to answering his question.
In conclusion, I wish to pay a full and handsome tribute to all staff in BIS. We take their future, work conditions, and the contribution they have made very seriously, but sometimes tough decisions have to be made. This is not just about saving money; it is also about ensuring that the Department works effectively and efficiently, and that is what we seek to achieve.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, and all Members who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate, with a cross-party consensus in support of the central thrust of Government policy to devolve jobs, but with concern expressed about this decision. I acknowledge and am grateful for the Minister’s frank reply in saying that no full assessment of the costs has been made. The motion simply seeks what other Members have called for, namely a proper cost-benefit analysis so that any decision can be made on the basis of demonstrable and provable facts, and the commitment that all that information will be available—perhaps through the National Audit Office, as we suggest—before the BIS board makes its decision. That is an important step, and I thank Members for their participation.
Paul Blomfield
I am not sure that I am allowed to give way, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his support in this debate and the points that he has made, and I very much commend his double-hub strategy. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that no final decision has yet been taken, and for acknowledging that no cost assessment has been made, which is frankly extraordinary. I hope that a decision will now be made, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with concern the Business, Innovation and Skills Department’s proposal to close its Sheffield policy office, moving 247 posts to London; further notes that the Sheffield BIS office proposal runs counter to the Government’s welcome commitment to create a public sector that reflects the diverse nature of the UK following the publication of the Bridge report and also to the commitment in Budget 2016 to move civil servants out of expensive Whitehall accommodation; and therefore calls on the National Audit Office to conduct a cost benefit assessment of the BIS Sheffield proposal.
Energy Bill [Lords]
Monday 9th May 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Energy Act 2016 View all Energy Act 2016 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Messages as at 9 May 2016 - (9 May 2016)
19:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7TB.
Here we are again to discuss this Bill, and in particular the delivery of our manifesto commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind. The other place has seen fit yet again to try to overturn that manifesto commitment, and to seek to impose further costs on consumer bills, but this Chamber, and this Government, are determined not to put up with that. As I made clear on 20 April, the Government are intent on bringing forward the closure of the renewables obligation to new onshore wind in Great Britain. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.
The Government signalled their intent well before last May’s general election, so I will not repeat that evidence again. I remind the House, however, that even with cost control measures in place, our estimates show that we are on track to deliver 35% of the UK’s electricity from renewables in 2020-21, exceeding our stated ambition of 30%. That is up from 9% in 2011—quite an achievement—and we simply do not need more subsidised onshore wind. The costs for this established technology continue to fall, so it is right that we should scale back support and let the industry stand on its own two feet. The Government’s policy—a manifesto commitment—has now been agreed twice in this House, yet we now have an amendment from the other place that is similar to that previously rejected by this House, and relates to projects that did not have planning permission on 18 June last year.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am sure the Minister has seen the evidence because she will come before the Scottish Affairs Committee in the next couple of weeks, and we are currently undertaking a review and inquiry into the impact that this policy is having on the sector in Scotland. The evidence we have secured is dramatic and suggests that confidence has been sucked out of the sector. There is a lack of investment, no movement, and a sector that was growing, prospering, and delivering targets is now in real fear of being decimated by the Government’s policy. What does the Minister say to businesses in my constituency that are dependent on that sector, and whose legs have been pulled from under them?
Andrea Leadsom
How does the hon. Gentleman feel about the bill payers and those in fuel poverty? How does he feel about a clear commitment to achieving a certain level of renewables deployment and no further? There must be a balance, and we believe that the right balance has been struck.
The projects that this amendment would allow to access the grace period did not have planning permission as at 18 June last year. Allowing such projects to access the grace period would lead to an increase in deployment, adding more costs to consumer bills. The 18 June 2015 was set out as a clear bright line, and we have continued to maintain the importance of that as a clear cut-off date. Tampering with such an integral part of the early closure policy at such a late stage in the passage of the Bill is simply not on, and it is extremely disappointing that Opposition peers in the other place persist with an approach that will add to consumer bills. Conservative Members are on the side of the consumer. It is our duty as consumer champions to keep costs down, and that is what we will do.
Let us remember that this money comes directly from people’s bills. While Labour Members oppose measures to control costs for families and businesses and to keep bills down, we are clear that we can only expect bill payers to support low-carbon electricity if costs are controlled. If we do not take action and we let subsidies spiral, families and businesses will suffer.
The Government’s policy takes a balanced approach and we have a proven track record on renewable electricity. Last year for the first time ever, renewable sources provided more power over the year than coal, with nearly one quarter of the UK’s electricity generated by renewables. The Government remain committed to the move towards a low-carbon economy in a way that minimises costs to consumers.
This Bill is a key part of the Government’s commitment to the oil and gas industry on the UK continental shelf. At this very challenging time for the oil and gas sector, it is extremely disappointing that the persistent disagreement from the Lords on an unrelated issue is now risking timely implementation of these powers which enjoy the support of both Houses and are so crucial to the industry at this difficult time.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Let us be clear before we go any further: this discussion does not concern manifesto commitments in any way, shape or form. The Energy Bill provides within its terms of reference a number of grace periods to mitigate the effects of the early closure of the renewables obligation on categories of schemes affected by that closure. That is a consequence of the original plan to close the renewables obligation early.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman says it does not concern a manifesto commitment to get costs down for bill payers. Is he willing to put forward the £7 million the amendment would cost the bill payers to whom we made that manifesto pledge?
Dr Whitehead
I believe we referred to the manifesto commitments the Minister mentioned during the passage of the Bill as something of a flexible friend. The Minister is quoting a manifesto commitment that was not actually in the Conservative party 2015 general election manifesto. The manifesto commitment was for no new subsidies for onshore wind. The Bill puts that in place, but provides for a number of grace periods for the consequence of that process. What we are therefore talking about in this debate is not that commitment but the grace periods that follow it. That, essentially, is what the Lords amendment is about. It therefore does not breach manifesto commitments in any way. To do that, the Minister would have to say that the grace periods themselves breach the manifesto commitment. Plainly, the Minister put those grace periods into the Bill. She must therefore accept that the grace periods are a part of the process and not the process itself.
Under the grace periods, if there is a delay in grid connection or a delay in clearance for Radar, then the schemes come into the fold. That is set out in the grace periods in the Bill. If you have been turned down by a planning committee, have appealed and the appeal comes through after the cut-off date, then you come into the fold. If investment facilities have been frozen because of uncertainty about what was going to happen to the Energy Bill and investment documentation could not be shown in time, that comes into the fold of the grace periods.
As matters stand, however, one cannot come into the fold if one has gone down the route of seeking local approval for the scheme, gaining that approval, getting the consent of the local planning committee and negotiating section 106 or section 75 agreements, as would happen once agreement is reached. If the final certificate, which is obtained after agreement has been reached, happens to fall after 18 June 2015, then one does not come into the fold. That is especially galling for the people going down this route, which they did not have to go down. A central part of the Energy Bill is that onshore generating schemes should proceed in future only if they have the support of the local communities in which they are to be sited, which might be determined by the grant of locally based planning permission. Clause 78 expressly removes the requirement for consent by the Secretary of State. If one has gone down that route and done everything by the rules that the Energy Bill wants to put in place, one is outside the fold if everything is not in place, even after permission has been granted, by 18 June 2015.
Let us imagine the scene when the managers of the Bill sat down to draft what was always clearly supposed to be a sequence of exceptions to the clear bright line as described by the Minister: the cut-off date and circumstances of the cut-off for new onshore windfarms. The instruction to the team drafting the Bill—I commend the Bill team on a superb job in pulling together the multiple facets of the Bill into a coherent whole—would have been to work towards an overall instruction that the renewables obligation would be closed to all new applicants a year before its original closure date, a date to which developers, local authorities and those seeking to invest in wind farms had all been working. The Bill team was required to place that into a satisfactory legislative context. In doing so, there would have to be cut-off dates before the final date of closure of the scheme overall. It was always recognised, however, that there would have to be exceptions, which is why extensive passages of grace periods have been drafted into the Bill, allowing for exceptions where not to do so for various reasons would have looked particularly unjust, would have led to legal complications or even legal challenge from those affected.
I would have thought that projects about to be completely swept away by the imposition of the cut-off date—when they had done exactly what the Bill provides for, having previously thought the original cut-off date was March 2017—would have been first on the list for possible grace periods. Who knows, perhaps something might have been drafted early on to accommodate such a position? What we know, regardless of any speculation, is that someone decided—it looks to me that they may have done so on grounds of dogma, rather than on a fair analysis of what should go into an already agreed grace period—that those schemes would have the door firmly closed in their faces. That is a manifestly perverse outcome for projects whose approach to planning and investment was exactly by the book. On the other hand, others going through an appeal process—having perhaps been turned down by those very local concerns the Bill emphasises—will find they are on the guest list after all and can come in through the door.
The amendment from their lordships’ House does not seek to alter the premise of grace periods. It does not seek to overturn the early closing date for onshore renewables, sad though that is. It does not seek to alter in any way the vast bulk of this well-crafted Bill, with all its important provisions concerning the North Sea oil industry. It simply seeks to put right one of the great anomalies in the grace period sections of the Bill, and, in that way, strengthen the proper application of those periods. As the Minister may have noted, it now does so in a way that it did not do in a previous amended incarnation. It places a specific time limit after the cut-off date of three months, reflecting the view that grace periods should be just that. This is now a very brief grace period window in which to put right the most difficult cases frozen out for doing the right thing.
We all want the Bill to pass now and it can do so today. We want the Bill on the statute book because of what we agree on. Overall, we want it to be on the statute book as a just Bill, even when Opposition Members consider the principle behind it—effectively retrospectively pulling an early plug on the renewables obligation specifically for onshore wind—is profoundly mistaken. It is mistaken because it will potentially replace onshore supply with more expensive offshore wind. As I am sure the Minister is aware, a study by the Royal Academy of Engineers estimated a while ago that if just one onshore turbine was replaced by more expensive offshore turbines, it could eventually cost taxpayers £300,000 per annum.
The amendment saves money, therefore, as well as placing equity back into the grace periods. It is of course down to the Government to get their legislation on to the statute books. We have supported most of the Bill, which can be passed today, throughout its passage. I trust that they will have the sense not to stand dogmatically in the way of its passage and allow us to sign it off and get going with the vast bulk of the provisions on which we all agree.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I will speak briefly given that we have been here before in this ping- pong process.
This was my first Bill Committee and Reasons Committee—I believe I am already coming up for my second, which is interesting—and we are now down to one key point: there is wide acceptance of the broader need for the Bill, but we are told that if it is so important, we need only accept one more wafer-thin amendment and then it can go through. Conservative Members take the view that a Government could not govern if they did that every time. There are, unfortunately, cut-off points in lots of Bills, and many are unpopular, and although I can understand why people who will lose out are aggrieved, we take the view that the wider principles are incredibly important.
Others have spoken about the Oil and Gas Authority. Every time I have spoken, I have referred to the oil price, which I think is now up to about $49. There is still no sign of stability returning to the sector. Who knows where it will be in weeks if not days, given all that is happening in the world? The measures in relation to the OGA are not a magic wand for the oil sector but will bring an extra level of stability and demonstrate Government support at an incredibly sensitive and important time for what remains one of the UK’s largest industries and one of Scotland’s key industries. We should dispense with this process, move forward and pass the Bill, for the simple reason that it is about the fundamental strength of the UK economy.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is with an unfortunate sense of déjà vu that we return to debate an issue we should have put to bed months ago, if not longer. I struggle to recall when the Wood review reported, but it was well in excess of 18 months ago, and as has been said many times, including by me, it was a completely different time in the oil industry’s lifespan. Up to a point, the Government have taken the action expected, but they did so at the time of the Wood review, when things were very different. Further delay should not have happened.
The Bill should have been on the statute books months ago and should not have conflated the OGA with onshore wind. It might have seemed like a neat parliamentary ruse at the time, but it is causing potentially significant damage. The last time we dealt with this—a week or so ago—the Minister told Opposition Members that we should be ashamed of ourselves. The most unedifying aspect of all this is that we are now talking only about projects in Scotland—four Scottish wind farms—and the OGA, which will largely deal with the oil industry in Scotland, and yet this House and that House cannot get their act together to protect two vital Scottish industries. That, for me, is utterly shameful and unacceptable.
Not content with decimating the wind industry in Scotland, the Tory party, supposedly in the name of public opinion, is twisting the knife in the face of public opinion. The four projects affected by the Bill all got planning permission from the local council. That is the definition of public support, which is what this should be about. There is public support for wind farms that would have significant community benefit. We have talked about the £7 million cost. I wonder how much we would have saved had we not delayed in establishing the OGA and provided it with the teeth it should have had months ago. We are squabbling over a relatively small figure, in the grand scheme of things, compared with the colossal amounts of money the Government will waste on the white elephant at Hinkley Point C. That sticks in my craw and that of folks in Scotland.
The Lords have compromised—good on them—because they want to get a deal done. I am no expert in parliamentary procedure, but the Minister talks about wanting to pass the Bill. It could be done very simply by accepting the amendment. We run the risk, before we prorogue for the Queen’s Speech, of the Bill falling. If that happens, it will be a shameful betrayal of the entire cross-party process over the establishment of the OGA, the development of its agenda and the provision of the tools it requires to help our oil industry. That cannot be allowed to happen. The risk is that we sacrifice the OGA on the altar of Tory party dogma on onshore wind. That is utterly unforgiveable.
Pete Wishart
I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is making a powerful case in defence of the Lords amendment, but I am sure he has seen the evidence submitted to the Scottish Affairs Committee and how the energy has been taken out of the sector because of the Government’s arbitrary decision. He is right that they made a manifesto commitment, but it is totally unacceptable to do this in a year and leave these four plants in a state of limbo. There is a simple way the Government could solve the issue this evening and get the Bill through: accept the amendment, get on with it, deliver the Bill and make sure we do our best for both sectors.
Callum McCaig
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree 100% and commend the work of the Committee he leads in shedding light on this issue.
Most countries would be proud of the wind industry that has developed in the last decade or so. It should not be seen as a burden, as it apparently is; it contributes massively to jobs, to reducing our carbon emissions and to tackling the great threat of climate change. But—again—no, because it upsets a few folks!
Callum McCaig
It is. It is an ideological attack, and despite the potential consequences for wider industry sectors, they are happy to see it happen. We have this squabble over an issue in Scotland between the unelected House of Lords and a Government who, with their sole Tory representative, might as well be unelected in Scotland. We are talking about grace periods. Thus far, the Government have acted completely and utterly without grace. It is not too late to change that.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
This is a vital Bill, and there have been plenty of opportunities in this House and the other place to give it proper scrutiny. Having spoken on Second Reading and sat on the Bill Committee, I feel that I am nearly as familiar as the Minister with some of the debates.
I have a particular local interest in the wider issue. A proposed new electricity interconnector facility linking France and the UK comes ashore at Chilling in my constituency. The development, called IFA2, will provide the capability to export or import more than 1,000 MW of power and provide benefits to consumers through increased flexibility of supply and downwards pressure on prices. It is because I want the Bill enacted that I share the Minister’s frustrations at the continued blocking by the Opposition in the other place. It also defies long-held conventions such as the Salisbury convention, which is that a manifesto commitment of a party elected with a majority of support from the people should be enshrined in law—without opposition from the other place. And we should not forget that the other place gains its majority from Members who come from the Liberal Democrats or other parties that are not elected and do not reflect the political make-up of this elected Chamber. This undermines parliamentary democracy and the will of the general public.
This amendment addresses one of the narrowest aspects of the Bill—and the issue of the cut-off date and potential grace period has become the sticking-point. Debate on the merits of the arguments have been exhausted by now, so I shall not dwell on them too long. We can all appreciate the concern of those directly affected, who understandably want changes in the rules to benefit themselves. They have the right to lobby the Government and put their case. In the end, however, a decision has to be made, and a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Every deadline is arbitrary in some sense because it draws such a line. Some will be on one side and some on the other side. The fact of setting a deadline itself, however, cannot be considered unfair—otherwise we would be unable to set them at all.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) put forward a proposal for a grace period, but where will it end? Some people will benefit; others will not. The Government have made a very clear commitment to this policy in their manifesto, and I support it.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7TB.
Housing and Planning Bill
20:57 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 206 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:11 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 203 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 205 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Before I call the Minister, I wish to repeat what Mr Speaker said on 25 April about Lords amendments and financial privilege: designation of such amendments is not a matter of choice, and it has no bearing on the freedom of the House to debate and decide on them.
I must also tell the House that, as Mr Speaker then said, he has asked the Procedure Committee to inquire into the so-called privilege reason, and the Clerk has prepared a memorandum for its consideration.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 47B and 47C. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
I must inform the House that five of the motions relating to the Lords amendments are certified as relating exclusively to England and one both to England and to England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If the House divides on a certified motion, a double majority—or, in the latter case, a triple majority—will be required for the motion to be passed.
Clause 4
Planning permission: provision of starter homes
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10B.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 47B and 47C, and Government motion to disagree.
Government motion to insist on Lords amendment 97A and disagree to Lords amendment 97B.
Lords amendment 108, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 109B.
Lords amendment 110, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a) in lieu.
Brandon Lewis
Let me begin by informing the House that I am placing in the Library today the Department's analysis of the application of Standing Order 83O in respect of the Lords amendments.
We find ourselves here again, and, enjoyable as that may be, and while I thank those in the other place for not insisting on their amendments relating to a number of issues, I am very surprised that they have chosen again to oppose one of our most important manifesto commitments, namely the commitment to ensure that more homes are built: homes that we need, and homes that young people are crying out for. Last week we heard from many Members, in the Chamber, about the people who had asked them when starter homes would be available. We need to get on with helping those people to fulfil their dreams and get on to the home ownership ladder. Some 86% of our population want to be given a chance to do that.
Lords amendment 10B allows local authorities to meet their starter home requirement with other low-cost home ownership products. The amendment would again totally undermine our manifesto commitment to build 200,000 starter homes by 2020.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend, like me, struggling to remember a case in which a policy that was the subject of a clear manifesto commitment, and had received the assent of the elected House by more than 100 votes, was struck down and circumscribed by the unelected, unaccountable panjandrums in the House of Lords?
Brandon Lewis
I have certainly not heard the position put so eloquently before. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am used to seeing the Labour party trying to stop people’s aspiration to own their homes, but it is beyond astonishing that the upper House should try to amend a measure that has received such a clear message of support from this elected Chamber, and in respect of which we have an election mandate to help young people.
If Lords amendment 10B were passed, the requirement for starter homes would become something entirely different: at best, the amendment shows a lack of understanding, and at worst it seeks to wreck important Government policy. That is unacceptable, not only to me but, I trust, to the House of Commons. The Joint Committee on Conventions made its view clear in its 2006 report “Conventions of the UK Parliament”, which states:
“A manifesto Bill is not subject to ‘wrecking amendments’ which change the Government's manifesto intention as proposed in the Bill.”
The noble Lords have done this not once, but twice. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson)—whose party, I note, was successful last Thursday—we sent a clear message, with an overwhelming majority, to the other place last week. We want our young people to have the chance of full home ownership, allowing them to move onwards and upwards over time. That is what the starter homes policy is all about, and we have a clear manifesto mandate to deliver it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a clear and compelling case. Does he not agree that, at a time when the average age for people to buy their first home is 37 and rising, it is imperative that we get on with the job of supplying homes that people can purchase and live in as a family unit?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point that goes to the heart of what we are seeking to do. With starter homes, shared ownership and other areas of Government policy, we are seeking to deliver homes for people who want to be part of the 86% who aspire to home ownership. Labour Members have often voted against and regularly outlined their opposition to that. We want to support those people; that is what the Bill is about.
Let me make it clear that the starter home requirement will not prevent councils from delivering other forms of affordable housing and home ownership products. For example, shared ownership and other home ownership products are part of the diverse and thriving housing market that we enjoy in this country. They help those who aspire to home ownership but who cannot afford even a discounted purchase. We have published a prospectus in the past couple of weeks that invites housing associations and other providers to bid for £4.7 billion of funding to deliver 135,000 shared ownership homes and £200 million to deliver 10,000 rent-to-buy homes as well.
The Bill focuses on starter homes, creating that new product and kick-starting delivery. We strongly believe that this is the most effective way to meet our manifesto commitment. Let me remind the House that we promised in our manifesto to deliver 200,000 new starter homes exclusively for first-time buyers under 40.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am still a little confused about the position that local authorities will be put in if this amendment falls. They will, I think, still be entering into section 106 negotiations with a developer, part of which will involve a requirement to provide starter homes, but will they also have an ability to provide shared ownership properties and, presumably, affordable homes to rent as well? How will the balance and proportion of those homes be determined? Will that be a matter for local discretion?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, there is no change to the position that has always pertained. It will be for local authorities to negotiate with developers over what they do beyond the requirement for starter homes. We will have a requirement for 20% starter homes, but what the local authorities do beyond that will be a matter for them. My experience of talking to developers is that in some areas where they have negotiated lower levels of affordable housing, the local authorities will be able to deliver more under the starter homes requirement.
Mr Betts
So let me be clear: there will be requirement for 20% starter homes but if, as is the case in most of my constituency, the maximum requirement on sites for affordable housing is a total of 10%, does that mean that there would be nothing other than starter homes on those sites—that is, no other affordable housing?
Brandon Lewis
That will be a matter for the local authority to negotiate. I know from talking to developers in my own constituency, where we have had similar levels of affordable housing, that we will be able to have more affordable housing as a result of the starter homes requirement. Local authorities will be able to deliver more affordable housing through this programme. We will not allow anyone to prevent us from meeting our commitment to deliver those new homes for first-time buyers.
I also want to defend another of our manifesto commitments. Our manifesto made this very clear, and I will quote from it again as I did last week. It stated:
“We will fund the replacement of properties sold under the extended Right to Buy by requiring local authorities to manage their housing assets more efficiently, with the most expensive properties sold off and replaced as they fall vacant.”
We are discussing this again today because the Lords have yet again chosen to send our proposals back, in spite of the overwhelming majority in this House which overturned their last attempt to undermine our election mandate. I am shocked and disappointed by their action. I commend the noble Lord Lisvane, who has a wealth of knowledge and experience of procedural matters and who chose not to press his amendments any further, recognising the primacy of this, the elected House. I just wish I could say the same about other noble Lords. Lords amendments 47B and 47C, which have been offered in lieu of amendment 47, with which this House has disagreed, are more or less identical to earlier incarnations.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I accept that the Government have reasons for again rejecting the neighbourhood right of appeal—on which I originally tabled an amendment—but would the Minister accept that there are real concerns about the integrity of neighbourhood planning? It is an important policy, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is particularly keen to promote it. Such neighbourhood plans are undermined by speculative developments, and there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that those neighbourhood plans, once agreed or when close to agreement, are not subverted. It would be in no one’s interest to end up with a developer-led process rather than a plan-led process. Will the Minister agree to introduce more robust measures at some future opportunity?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have shared platforms and spoken about the strengths and benefits of neighbourhood planning. I know that he feels passionate about this, and I share his desire to ensure that communities have the confidence that, when they draw up a neighbourhood plan, it has weight in law and will be respected by the local authority and by the planning inspector. The call-in process is partly aimed at ensuring that that will be the case.
I am happy to make it clear that I want the law to be strongly in favour of neighbourhood plans. I want them to become the norm everywhere in England. We are well on our way to achieving that, with a record 18 referendums being held last week and hundreds more communities due to complete their plans soon. This makes it even more important not to have amendments coming forward that could carelessly introduce change. We need to ensure that we get this right, and I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that we will work with him and other colleagues to ensure that we give these neighbourhood plans the confidence and primacy that the Government always intended for them. We must ensure that neighbourhood plans are respected by the decision makers.
I do not believe we should be routinely reopening debate on locally made decisions, which is effectively what this Lords amendment would enable. Those decisions are locally and democratically accountable and they already take into account neighbourhood plans. I ask this House to send the amendment back, while reaffirming my commitment to work with colleagues to ensure that neighbourhood plans enjoy the primacy that we intend them to have in planning law.
I will now turn to Lords reasons 108B and 110B, our disagreement to Lords amendments 108 and 110, and our proposed amendments in lieu of those Lords amendments. As I have said previously, I am not convinced that amendment 108 will help to house those who are desperate for a new home. New homes built in England must currently meet tough energy efficiency standards. As I have said, those standards were strengthened by 30% in the previous Parliament, saving £200 on energy bills compared with the standards prior to 2010. We should be proud of that. To meet those standards, homes have A-rated condensing boilers, double-glazed windows with low-energy glass, high levels of insulation and airtightness in their construction. They are very energy-efficient homes. The amendment would create additional construction costs, which could push some small builders out of the industry completely—at a time when we are trying to encourage more to come back in—by making developing much-needed homes totally unviable in some areas.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The last time the Minister raised this matter, I asked him a question, so I wonder whether he has had the time to swot up on it for this evening. I asked him how much people would save if the higher standards proposed by the Lords were implemented and how much that would amount to over the lifetime of their homes, which one would expect to be perhaps a minimum of 50 years.
Brandon Lewis
Somebody who buys a home in this country lives in it for an average of seven years and the average cost, depending on the independent expert, could be £3,000 to £4,800. The cost would of course be cheaper on larger sites. On some of the small sites, of which we need more, particularly in rural areas that have a desperate need for housing, it could get up to almost £15,000 on the cost of a home. If somebody lives in a house for an average of seven years, that is a pretty high price to pay.
However, I propose today to place a statutory duty on Government to undertake a review of energy standards for new homes. It will seek evidence on the costs of energy measures and the benefits in fuel bill and carbon savings, which is the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It will identify what is cost-effective to require, and cost-effectiveness must be key not just for developers, but for homeowners. We said in our manifesto that we will meet our climate change commitments and that we will do so by cutting emissions “as cost-effectively as possible”. The electorate voted for that and the review will help to ensure that we can deliver it.
Likewise, I am concerned about the impact of amendment 110 on house building and our ability to bring forward the homes that people need. Flood risk is an incredibly important issue, and I fully understand the strength of feeling on the matter. The Government are committed to ensuring that developments are safe from flooding, and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems is part of our planning policy, which was strengthened just over a year ago. Our policy is still new, as I outlined in more detail last week, and I am willing to consider issues further as it matures. I am happy to review the effectiveness of current policy and legislation on sustainable drainage and to place that commitment on the face of the Bill, so I want to move amendment (a) in lieu of amendment 110.
In conclusion, I want to say something to all Members of both House as we consider a couple of key points. The issues that we are debating and voting on tonight and that the Lords will be considering shortly are about delivering on our general election manifesto and therefore delivering our general election mandate. They are about delivering new homes for the people across our country who are in desperate need of them. It is the democratic right of this House to deliver on the Government’s agenda. We are determined to deliver on our promises to the British people and ask both Houses to respect that mandate.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
We began scrutinising this Bill last autumn, and it was bad at that point. After a string of concessions and 18 defeats, some of its harshest aspects have now been amended, but it still presents a missed opportunity to solve the housing crisis. Since 2010, homelessness and rough sleeping have more than doubled, house prices and private rents have risen dramatically, and the housing benefit bill has ballooned. The Bill does little to tackle the housing crisis head on, and concerns have been raised by housing experts, leading charities, and MPs, councillors and peers from across the political divide, including Conservative council leaders, Conservative peers and Conservative MPs.
Lords amendment 10B would enable starter homes to be built while giving local authorities greater flexibility to deliver other forms of low-cost home ownership products to meet the need in their areas. The amendment seeks to expand the opportunities in the Bill for people to own their own home and gives serious consideration to other forms of affordable ownership. There is now a wide consensus that starter homes, which can cost up to £450,000, will be a big let-down and will be out of reach for young people and families on ordinary incomes—those who need a hand up on to the ladder the most. It is not just in my constituency that starter homes will be unaffordable. Research by Savills and by Shelter both found that starter homes will be unaffordable to families on average incomes in areas across the country.
We agree with the Local Government Association and want the Bill to provide for more affordable homes to rent as well as to buy. We agree that amendment 10B is a big improvement on the Government’s plan to impose starter homes on local communities to the exclusion of other types of affordable homes to buy. The LGA has stated:
“The discretion for local authorities to determine the number of starter homes built locally, alongside affordable homes for rent”
is
“critical for ensuring new housing meets the needs of communities.”
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see that the Government will not be supporting amendment 10B. The Government’s focus on starter homes puts at risk other forms of affordable housing, including other forms of affordable home ownership. The Government argued in their manifesto:
“Everyone who works hard should be able to own a home of their own”.
Therefore, the Government will surely want to expand opportunities for home ownership by allowing other forms, rather than exclusively promoting starter homes, which could be unaffordable for many. If someone is over 40, they are excluded from the product altogether. If the Conservative party really does want everyone who works hard to be able to own their own home, there needs to be something for the over-40s. If we are serious about fixing the housing crisis and if the Government are serious about encouraging people on to the housing ladder, they must consider all forms of tenure and not just exclusively encourage starter homes. I hope that they will reconsider their opposition to the amendment.
Lords Amendments 47B and 47C would attempt to ensure that, where needed, councils homes that are sold are replaced on a like-for-like basis. The Bill provides the statutory basis to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants paid for by the forced sale of council homes to the highest bidders, including buy-to-let landlords and overseas investors. The Government have still failed to commit to genuine, like-for-like replacements for homes that were forcibly sold, and we now see that they have marked the amendments as engaging financial privilege. If the Government do not accept the proposal for one-for-one, like-for-like replacements, they need to explain why. Without that commitment on the face of the Bill, there will be a huge loss of genuinely affordable homes as this Government sounds the death knell for social housing.
The Government have said that they are simply honouring their election manifesto. Well, I checked the manifesto and the relevant passage commits to a replacement, something which this Bill does not effectively do. Any sensible meaning of the word replacement in this context would ensure that if a house is sold, it is replaced by one of the same type and tenure. The Bill and Government policy will make the delivery of new social rented and affordable rented housing near impossible. The new starter homes requirement will push social rented housing out of section 106 agreements. The 1% rent reduction over the next four years will make it harder for housing associations to deliver social rented housing in their schemes. Grant funding for new affordable rented properties by the Homes and Communities Agency will end in 2018. Those steps, without like-for-like replacement, will result in a huge loss of genuinely affordable homes. The Local Government Association has come out in favour of these two amendments, and it believes that
“as a minimum all councils should retain sufficient funds to replace each home sold on a like for like basis.”
It believes that negotiations between central and local government must allow councils to take into account the impact of wider housing reforms on the responsibilities of councils to meet housing needs. The cross-party Public Accounts Committee, too, has released a damning report on the Government’s plans, and no information has been provided on the impact of the forced sale. This policy will affect many people up and down the country, but the Government have failed to provide basic information to demonstrate how it will achieve its aims.
I will also touch briefly on amendments 97B, 108 and 110. Amendment 97B is a revised amendment to the one we debated last week, proposing a restricted, limited right of appeal in certain specific circumstances only in those areas where there is an approved neighbourhood plan. The amendment would empower local communities to have a greater say over their neighbourhoods, which should be welcomed. The Government’s counter-amendment only provides for a report to be written on neighbourhood plans when applications are permitted—we would already expect that of any good local planning authority.
Amendments 108 and 110 would ensure that all new homes built are carbon-compliant and have sustainable drainage provision. Although it would have been a positive step to see these issues covered in the Bill, it is welcome that the Government have committed to reviewing them. I hope the Minister will be able to provide further details, missing from the amendments themselves, about when these reviews are likely to commence; what a statutory review entails; when these reviews will be completed; and whether their findings will be reported to Parliament.
Nick Herbert
Neighbourhood planning has been one of the success stories of this Government and a flagship of the localism policy. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the work he did in putting that legislation through and in pioneering neighbourhood plans. They put communities in control and create a situation where they ask themselves what they want in their local areas rather than what they do not want. Neighbourhood plans have ended up producing more housing than was originally intended. As the plans are voted on by a local referendum, it is very important that they are respected once they are agreed. We tell local communities that their neighbourhood plan will apply for, say, 15 years, and that certain areas that they decide will be developed and that others—green spaces and so on—will be protected. It is therefore of concern to local communities that are about to produce a neighbourhood plan or have made one, and to other areas in the process of producing such plans or considering them, if developers appear to be allowed to come along, game the system, bang in a speculative planning application in the hope that they will get it through, arguing that there is some reason why it should be allowed despite a neighbourhood plan, perhaps because of the five-year land supply, and their planning permission is then upheld by the local authority or a planning refusal is overturned on appeal.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
That is exactly the position I face in my constituency, where a number of speculative planning applications are being put forward, often involving the argument that there is not a five-year supply. One case is now having to go to the House of Lords in order to uphold neighbourhood plans, which clearly is not what was intended by the Localism Act 2011 and neighbourhood planning.
Nick Herbert
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. Indeed, a number of hon. Members are concerned about this issue, as the Minister knows. As I explained in my earlier intervention on him, the intention of the original amendment to introduce a neighbourhood right of appeal was not just to redress a perceived inequity that developers have a right of appeal but communities do not; it was to deal with this particular problem, whereby we cannot allow the whole policy of neighbourhood planning, or the democratic decision, to be undermined in the public eye, given that we accept that a local planning authority does reserve the right to make a strategic allocation. That is understood, but that is a rather different position from suddenly deciding that an area should be developed contrary to a neighbourhood plan.
Mr Jackson
My right hon. Friend is making an impassioned case on behalf of his constituents, but does he not see the other side of gaming? It might be possible for a local planning authority that has not produced a local plan to move a residential development on to the neighbourhood plan scheme and, with a right of appeal that would, over time, stymie the development of much-needed housing.
Nick Herbert
I think my hon. Friend has expressed the Government’s concern about the particular amendment and the proposal for a neighbourhood right of appeal. He has shown why they were not willing to accept it as drafted, and why they rejected it and seek to do so again.
I understand the Government’s concern in this area. I am seeking not to drive a coach and horses through the local planning system or to stymie house building, but to ensure that this very important policy, which is producing more housing than was anticipated and which reflects local needs, is not wrecked because local support for it is undermined. That is certainly in danger of happening in my constituency in West Sussex where neighbourhood planning was going very well, but people are now starting to say, “Well, what are neighbourhood plans worth if they can so easily be overturned?” That is why action in this area is necessary. The Government have taken a step towards it by seeking to insist on an amendment in lieu, which would require local authorities to identify where there was a conflict with the neighbourhood plan. That does not go far enough, because it merely reflects what happens in the planning system at the moment. I welcome the Minister’s willingness to engage with concerned Members on this issue, his understanding of its importance and his commitment to look at it again, perhaps with a view to some future proposals that will ensure that the policy of neighbourhood planning is upheld.
Although I appreciate the reasons why the Government wish to insist on their amendment in lieu for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister set out about the specific right of appeal, I do hope that the Government will not dismiss the intention behind the amendment and will honour the commitment that they have made to Members to look again at this important issue. Where we have given local communities a say, we must stand by that commitment, particularly when they have voted democratically. It will damage the policy of neighbourhood planning if we do not. That is why future action, properly constrained in a way that does not stymie planned development, is so important.
Mr Betts
I shall speak to Lords amendment 10B, 47B and 47C.
The Minister is right to say that the Conservatives had a manifesto commitment to build starter homes. Although I may have some disagreements with elements of that policy, I respect it. It is the will of the electorate, and the Government have every right to put it into practice. However, what the Government did not say at the election was that, in large parts of the country, people who could not afford to buy a home would find it virtually impossible to find an affordable home to rent, or that, as a result of their policy, people’s chances of finding that affordable home to rent would be substantially diminished and, in some cases, removed altogether. That is the impact of the policies that are in the Bill, connected with other Government policies as well.
When I intervened on the Minister, I raised the issue of section 106 agreements and the requirement that starter homes should make up 20% of homes on that site. I do not think that there are any sites in my constituency where there will be a 20% requirement. In fact, I cannot think of many sites throughout the whole of the city of Sheffield. That is not because the local authority does not want affordable homes built as part of 106 agreements, but because market values are so low that the sites would not be viable if a higher level of affordable homes were insisted on. That means that the policy of the local council conforms with paragraphs 47 and 48 on viability and deliverability in the national planning policy framework, which are a key element of Government policy. Therefore, in complying with Government policy, the local authority would be in a position where, in order to conform with the requirement to have at least 20% as starter homes, there will be no other affordable homes built as part of 106 agreements in my constituency; they will be gone completely.
If that is put alongside the Government policy on spending on housing for the remainder of this Parliament, there will be no money for councils or housing associations to bid for to fund affordable rented housing—it will all go on shared ownership and starter homes. There will be no new building as part of the Government’s spending grant availability.
On top of that, as a result of the rules about higher value council homes being sold off, every single vacant property in the slightly better off parts of my constituency is likely to be sold off, so there will be no vacant council properties coming up for rent. The Government have produced no figures whatsoever on how the money that comes in from the sales of those properties will add up to the replacement of the housing association property once the discount has been provided for. Then there is the contribution towards a brownfield remediation pot and a replacement council home. There is no possibility that the home sold off by the council will be replaced by a property that is for affordable rent.
The reality is that in large parts of my constituency no affordable homes for rent will be built through section 106, or through Government grant provision. Affordable homes for rent will be sold off in their totality in some parts of the constituency, with no like-for-like replacement. That adds up to one simple fact: where people are in urgent need of housing for whatever reason, their urgent need will remain, but there will not be an urgent offer of a property, because it will not exist. People in my constituency who have been on the waiting list for 15 years or more will wait not 20 or 25 years, but for ever, because a property will never become available under these policies.
The Bill and other Government measures effectively mean the end of social rented housing in large parts of my constituency, for the simple reason that there will be no social rented housing available to offer people on the waiting list or in urgent need.
Mr Jackson
I shall refer to most of the amendments. I reiterate my concerns about the amendment relating to neighbourhood planning. It would establish a dangerous precedent that would potentially end the neighbourhood right of appeal against conservatories and small-scale extensions. It would very much reduce the speed at which residential development could progress. There would also be an opportunity for sleight of hand by the more unscrupulous planning authorities that do not want any development in their area: they might move residential development on to a neighbourhood planning regime, in lieu of a local structure plan or district plan. With a third-party appeal, that development would be held up for months and years. People who desperately need homes in high-cost, high-value areas would suffer as a result, so the Government are absolutely right to resist the amendment, although clearly I recognise the sincerity with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) represents his constituents’ very legitimate concerns.
Mr Jackson
Not at the moment, if my hon. Friend will allow. I am getting looks of admonition from the Whips, so I had better proceed. The amendment on the carbon compliance standard is precisely the wrong measure at this time. One of the endemic issues resulting from not delivering the appropriate number of homes is the attrition of small and medium-sized builders. Nothing could be designed to knock out even more of them, or to not allow them back into the market alongside very-sizeable-volume builders, than adding extra cost, so the Government are right to resist that amendment.
I now come to starter homes. This is an issue of social equity and fairness as much as anything else. I made the point when we debated this last week that a significant number of people are accessing finance for their new home through the bank of mum and dad—family money. That cannot be right if we want social fairness and equity. We want new owner-occupied properties to be available to young families in particular, and to working people, who do not have recourse to capital that is passed from generation to generation in a way that is inherently very unfair. Through the vehicle of shared equity and Help to Buy in particular, we are achieving that. As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will know, the Labour party made the same arguments about the affordable rent tenure in 2010 that it now makes about starter homes.
There is also the issue of constitutional propriety. I am afraid that I was rather rough on the House of Lords, but the fact of the matter is that we have a manifesto commitment to deliver starter homes. The Opposition would have a stronger point were every local planning authority run in an enormously efficient way, delivering residential development in a timely fashion, but they know—it is a cross-party issue—that very many local planning authorities have not even got round to producing structure plans or local district plans. They had the opportunity over many months or years to prepare varied tenure residential developments in their area and they have failed to do so. The Opposition can hardly then complain that the Government, who all of us agree are facing a significant housing crisis, should use primary legislation passed unequivocally by this elected House in order to ameliorate the effects of that housing crisis by saying that we should have a certain amount of starter homes.
Bob Blackman
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the principal costs of developing new housing is the cost of the land that has to be acquired for that housing? Therefore, if low-cost land is available in an area such as Sheffield, low-cost housing will be provided on that site.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend, who has a great deal of experience in local government housing and planning, makes an important point. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the anomalous nature of some of the comments from the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, on which, I think, my hon. Friend also serves.
Mr Betts
Yes, the houses for sale in my constituency are much lower in price than in many other parts of the country, though higher than in one or two other areas in the north. However, the tens of thousands of people on the waiting list are on the waiting list primarily because they cannot afford to buy the houses, even though they are lower in value than those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
Mr Jackson
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point but local planning authorities like his in Sheffield have not been circumscribed by section 106 in the recent past or at all in developing the tenure that they choose. He will know, because the centre of his city has undergone significant regeneration over many years, that the capacity for section 106 payments to go back into social housing has been an issue in his city and others.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. On section 106 agreements, one of the big concerns of my constituents is the impact on health and education infrastructure. That needs to be examined in future, particularly in the light of recent judgments by the planning inspectorate, which are being challenged through the courts.
Mr Jackson
I like to think I am an hon. Friend.
Some of us remember four or five years ago fighting the battles over the national planning policy framework. Some of us put our heads on the block and said that it was probably a good thing, and we were right to do so. I fear that sometimes discussion of infrastructure is a way of saying, “No residential development in our area.”
There is a housing crisis. Those who hold housing and capital have a duty to release some of it to those who do not have that power and influence. That is a difficult balance. We have to think of quality of life, but that is one of the things that the Bill has addressed. That is why I stand four-square behind the starter homes policy, which has an election mandate, and I urge Members to support the Government policy and to remind the House of Lords politely that only one of our Houses is elected by the people, and that the other can oversee, scrutinise and improve, but not veto.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I wish to speak briefly about Lords amendment 10B and to urge the Government to support it. The amendment would allow local councils to decide the mix of affordable housing that is delivered in their area, based on their assessment of local need and demand.
The Minister speaks about manifesto pledges, and his point is understood, but I would like to quote the press release that accompanied the Tory manifesto launch:
“After funding replacement affordable housing on a one for one basis, the surplus proceeds will be used to fund the extension of right to buy”.
It is entirely untenable for the Government to include starter homes in the definition of affordable housing. A home to buy that requires a deposit of £90,000 and a salary of £77,000 and that costs up to £450,000 is not affordable to most people in London, and my constituents simply shake their heads in disbelief at the suggestion that it is. It is not the case that starter homes are replacement affordable housing, and it is entirely misleading of the Government to claim they are.
Amendment 10B would allow local authorities—the same local authorities that undertake housing needs assessments, that have statutory housing duties, that are democratically accountable to their communities and that know what is needed in their communities—to determine the type of affordable housing that is appropriate in their area.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend raises the concept of subsidiarity—the organising principle that decisions are best made at the smallest, lowest and least centralised level. Does she agree that the Bill goes nowhere near that concept?
Helen Hayes
The Bill does not simply go nowhere near that principle—it contravenes it.
Amendment 10B would give local authorities the ability to decide the balance of starter homes and other, more genuinely affordable homes to be delivered in their area. By failing to support the amendment, the Government are breaking the commitment they made in launching their manifesto. More importantly, they are failing communities in London and across the country that need affordable housing.
It is important to point out what links an affordable, secure home and the aspiration of many people in this country to own a home: the ability to save. Someone who is spending too high a proportion of their income on private rents and on deposits for landlords every year because they have no security of tenure does not have the ability to save. The Bill does nothing about the private rented sector; it reduces the supply of genuinely affordable homes and, in doing so, it denies the aspiration of an entire generation to have an affordable, secure home and, ultimately, to own a home of their own. That is an ideological position, and it will deepen the housing crisis and be the shame of this Government.
Tom Brake
I want to start by associating myself with the comments made by the hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee. I hope the Minister will not seek to portray their views, or indeed mine, as those of people who oppose home ownership. Clearly, that is not the case, and I hope the Government will have learned the lesson that fear tactics—certainly in London—do not work very well for them.
On Lords amendment 10B, the Government propose a review. From my brief period as a Minister, I know that when Governments look at what they can offer as a sop to the Opposition, it is a review that comes forward. I welcome the fact that a review is on the table. However, given the impact that zero-carbon homes would have and the positive contribution they would make, that is what we need to stick by. The Minister and other Conservative Members have referred to the Lords intervening in this. Of course, Conservative Members had their opportunity to reform the House of the Lords in the previous Parliament, and failed to do so.
The Minister may also refer to the Conservatives’ manifesto commitment to being the greenest Government ever. I assume that commitment is still in play for them, and hope they would therefore support the idea of zero-carbon homes and the highest possible environmental standards. Last time we discussed this, I asked the Minister how much people would save if these higher standards were introduced. I am afraid that he did not have a response, but he did refer to the fact that people generally keep their homes for seven years. That is another demonstration of a rather short-sighted approach, because these homes will be there not for seven years but for 50 or 100 years—who knows? The zero-carbon measures would have an impact over the duration of the lifetime of these homes—an impact that would benefit all future occupants, not just those who live there for a minimum of seven years.
In relation to extra costs, last time we discussed this, the figure of £3,000 was deployed, although that was disputed. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead suggested that those costs had gone down to £1,500, and the Minister referred to £15,000; I am not quite sure where he got that from. In any case, long-term savings would clearly be derived from these higher energy standards for homes, and that would benefit everyone who lived in them thereafter.
It is legitimate for the Government to point out that amendment 10B would place additional burdens on smaller builders. It would therefore be appropriate for the Government to come forward with ideas about how to address that through training, advice and additional support from which those builders could benefit so that they could not only develop the sites that we want to be developed but develop homes to the highest possible standards to ensure that the Government meet their climate change commitments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10B.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I must inform the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England. A double majority is therefore required.
Immigration Bill
Monday 9th May 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration Act 2016 View all Immigration Act 2016 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Marshalled List of Motions to be Moved on Consideration of Commons Amendments (PDF, 97KB) - (9 May 2016)
22:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 258 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I inform the House that Lords amendment 87B involves financial privilege.
After Clause 30
Detention etc. by immigration officers in Scotland
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 84.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 84, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Government motion not to insist on amendment 85B in lieu of Lords amendment 85 and to agree to Lords amendment 85C as amended by Government amendments (a) to (f).
Government motion to agree to Lords amendment 87B in lieu of Lords amendment 87 and Government amendments (a) and (b).
Commons amendments 84A and 85B, Government motion not to insist, and amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 84.
James Brokenshire
The Government remain strongly of the view that specifying a maximum time limit for immigration detention would be arbitrary, would not take account of individual circumstances and would encourage individuals to seek to frustrate the removals process until the time limit was reached, so having a negative impact on our ability to enforce immigration controls and maintain public safety. In response to the concerns expressed by a number of Members here and in the other place, we accepted that there should be greater judicial oversight over detention, and we tabled a motion, the effect of which would be that individuals would automatically be referred to the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after their detention began or, if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the person within the first six months, six months after that consideration.
This House approved that motion but, although some peers accepted that the issue of judicial oversight had now been satisfactorily addressed, others remained concerned that six months was too long without that oversight. After careful consideration, we propose again a duty to arrange consideration of bail, but we are now reducing the timing of an automatic bail referral from six to four months. This earlier point of referral reflects the fact that the vast majority of persons are detained for fewer than four months.
Moving on to amendments (a) to (f), the Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed in this House and the other place on the issue of detaining pregnant women. The motion agreed in the other place would maintain the 72-hour time limit agreed in this House, extendable up to a week with ministerial approval. We have listened carefully to the points raised by the peers who have tabled these amendments. In order further to strengthen the safeguards, we have tabled amendments that will make it clear that pregnant women will be detained for the purpose of removal only if they are shortly to be removed from the UK or if there are exceptional circumstances that justify the detention. The guidance will also make it clear that they should be used in very exceptional circumstances, underlining our expectations in regard to the use of this power.
We have also proposed an amendment that would place an additional duty on officers making detention decisions in respect of pregnant women to have due regard for their welfare. These additional measures, alongside the 72-hour time limit, would act as statutory safeguards to complement the Government’s wider package of reform, which includes the new adults at risk policy, a new gatekeeper function and new safeguarding teams. We also intend to ask Stephen Shaw to carry out a short review to assess progress against the key actions in his previous report.
I turn now to Lords amendment 87. The Government have always been clear about our commitment to identifying and protecting vulnerable refugee children, wherever they are. We wholeheartedly share their lordships’ underlying intentions in this regard. We have a moral duty to help. Our efforts to date, both within and outside Europe, have been designed to do just that. Our commitment to help those in need stands comparison with any other country. The UK has been playing its part in supporting European neighbours to provide support to those who have arrived, by already providing nearly £46 million of funding to the Europe-wide response to help the most vulnerable, including infants and children. This assistance will support vulnerable people including children on the move or stranded in Europe and the Balkans. In addition, the £10 million Department for International Development fund announced on 28 January will support the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee to work with host authorities to care for and assist unaccompanied or separated children.
As the Prime Minister made clear last week, we will accept the amendment. However, we have always made it clear that, in implementing it, we must do nothing that would inadvertently create a situation in which more children put their lives at risk by attempting perilous journeys to Europe. That is why only those from Greece, Italy and France who were registered in the EU before 20 March will be eligible for resettlement, when it is in their best interest to come to the UK.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Among the most vulnerable children are the 10,000 who have gone missing. Will the Minister clarify whether those children, who were probably not registered before 20 March, are to be excluded from the provisions he has just outlined?
James Brokenshire
I will come on to the issue of registration, which has been highlighted by a number of people, in a moment. To be clear, we are not seeking to impose an over-burdensome or legalistic requirement on children to prove that they have been formally registered, but we will need to see some evidence that they were present in Europe before 20 March. This will avoid creating a new and perverse incentive for families to entrust their children to people traffickers. Our focus will be on reunifying children with families in the UK, but we will also consider cases of children at risk of exploitation or abuse.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I understand that the Government are in a difficult position, although I supported the Prime Minister’s original stance on the matter. Are these children not already in safe countries? Are the Minister and the amendment’s supporters suggesting that France, Germany and Greece are not safe?
James Brokenshire
We certainly recognise the pressures that Greece and Italy, for example, have been under, and I will come on to talk about that more specifically. Equally, on children who are looking to be reunited with family here, the measure will provide a further mechanism to support the best interests of the child, which is what the Government have said. Reconnecting children with family here in the UK underpins that important message.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and have looked closely at the amendments in lieu that he proposes. Will he be clear to the House about the number? I know that it is not in the amendment in lieu, but is he going to act within the spirit of the 3,000 figure? Will he also give us any indication about what will happen in the short term—perhaps before the new school year starts—and roughly how many children we will support?
James Brokenshire
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and if he will bear with me I will come on to address it. It is important for the House to recognise that the reference to 3,000 children has been removed from the amendment, but we welcome the insertion of consultation with local authorities, which is important.
An arbitrary quota is not the correct approach. It has no regard to the existing pressures faced by local authorities, which last year alone took charge of 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who had made their way here. The burdens of taking on children are not evenly shared between local authorities, which is why we have made provision in the Bill to bring about a national dispersal scheme for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We agree that local authorities should be consulted to ensure that our obligations to those children already in the UK continue to be fulfilled and that any children brought to the UK can be fully supported. The nature of the amendment means that we must consult others before bringing final proposals on implementation.
Furthermore, the best interests of the child must be at the heart of any action. In addition to consulting local authorities, we will also continue to consult relevant non-governmental organisations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF and other member states, specifically France, Greece and Italy, on how best to implement the legislation, including which children will most benefit from such action and how we can implement procedures and processes that protect the best interests of the child.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Brokenshire
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I warmly welcome what the Minister has said today. The Government have moved a considerable way as a result of what has happened in the other place.
It is so important that we do not send a message out to people traffickers that the floodgates will be open for them to profit more from what is being achieved. It is also important that we give local authorities the resources they need. They are already under huge pressure to house refugees, and it is important that we work with them. The Minister has done the right thing and I welcome it.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making the point about the messages that we send out and the potential for exploitation by people traffickers. They have become adept at using social media and other techniques to ensnare refugees and children, who then make such journeys and put their lives in traffickers’ hands, with all the horrific consequences that we have seen. He is right to underline that core message.
The conversations have already begun. I was in Athens on Friday for discussions with the Greek Government to explain the nature of the arrangements that we are contemplating. We will now urgently consult others prior to bringing forward more detailed proposals. A meeting with the Local Government Association is scheduled for later this week. Until further discussions have taken place, it is premature to speculate on the likely numbers that will count towards the new obligation set out in the amendment. I hope that my comments show that we are seeking to make progress and to get to a point at which we can report back to the House.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) mentioned funding. Is the Minister prepared to commit to adequately resourcing any new scheme for the resettlement of unaccompanied child refugees, many of whom will be particularly vulnerable? Local authorities in Scotland have already resettled 700 refugees and are pressed for funds at present.
James Brokenshire
Obviously, existing funding is provided for unaccompanied asylum seeking children; the Home Office funds local authorities in that way. We are carefully considering this in the context of the existing arrangements and will be discussing it with colleagues across government, as well as with local authorities. I would like to reassure the House that we intend to be flexible in our interpretation and approach when implementing this amendment, to ensure that it is practical and supports the most vulnerable children, as intended. We believe the amendment, as currently drafted, enables us to do that. The use of the term “refugee” can be interpreted to include certain asylum seekers and avoid the requirement of a child having to go through a full refugee determination process before being admitted to the UK. Our Syrian resettlement scheme already operates in a not dissimilar way, and we do not believe any clarifications are necessary.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Does the Minister accept, however, that vulnerability does not necessarily end on a child’s 18th birthday? We have already deported about 3,000 children to a number of countries, including Libya and Syria, since 2005. Will he assure us that the children who are allowed in will be allowed to stay here?
James Brokenshire
I do not want to conflate, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to be doing, those who claim asylum in this country and are then determined not to have a valid asylum claim—we would therefore seek to remove them on their 18th birthday—with the arrangements we are contemplating and which I am setting out to the House this evening. Obviously, we are looking carefully at the nature of the leave that will be granted. It is important to understand and recognise that where we are seeking to reunite children with parents here, the Dublin arrangements would normally mean that they would have the same leave as the person who was here. Equally, if we are looking at resettlement, different leaves may be involved. We are looking at this carefully with UNHCR and others.
I hope that colleagues will agree that accepting the amendment is the right thing to do. No country has done more than Britain when it comes to help for Syrian refugees. Accepting this amendment demonstrates the Government’s approach of doing more for refugee children across the globe while upholding the principle that we should not be encouraging vulnerable people to make that perilous journey. We remain of the view that we can have the biggest impact by supporting refugees in affected regions and the countries hosting them. Those we resettle here are the exceptions and the vulnerable whom the UNHCR advise need to be resettled in a country such as the UK. That has always been the cornerstone of our policy and that should remain the case, but we recognise our duties, both in the EU and beyond.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Let me start by discussing unaccompanied refugee children in Europe and reminding the House that two weeks ago the Government voted against Lord Alf Dubs original amendment here in this House. Last week, they voted against this amendment in the other place. Obviously, I welcome the change of position, but it is just that. Whether voting against an amendment last week and accepting it this week is listening, as the Government would have it, or U-turning, as I would have it, is a matter for debate, but clearly there is a changed position.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am disappointed to hear language of that nature, because the Government have not made a U-turn; they have been very carefully weighing up how on earth to mitigate the pull factor, which still remains a huge danger. They have taken their time to deliver proposals that will work and will not endanger children in the future.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. The fact remains that only last week the Government voted against the Lord Alf Dubs amendment, as it was then put in the other place, which was a change from the position the last time we saw it in this House. I welcome this change of position, which is a step in the right direction, but I wish to pay tribute to those who have got us this far. I pay particular tribute to Lord Alf Dubs and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has raised this matter on so many occasions, both in this House and elsewhere. I also thank Save the Children and the other charities and non-governmental organisations that have given their support. I pay tribute to those on the Conservative Benches who have urged the Government to reconsider their position. They have done so over several weeks and months and played an important part in getting us to where we are today.
It is important that actions match words. Citizens UK has identified 157 children in Calais with family connections here. Obviously, there are many children in equally appalling conditions in Greece and Italy. Although the Minister does not want to put numbers and a timetable to the proposed change to the resettlement scheme, the challenge for the Government is surely to take all those in Calais with valid legal claims for reunification notwithstanding the fact that they are in France—
Keir Starmer
Reunification with their family here under the Dublin arrangements. The Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is seeking to improve the reunification rules under the Dublin arrangements. Some 157 children have been identified as falling into that category. This is the time for action, not words. We also challenge the Government to take 300 children most at risk in Greece and Italy before the start of the next school term. There is an urgency to this situation. The debate two weeks ago was dominated by a real and genuine concern about the missing children—those who are at risk of exploitation, trafficking and various other aspects of mischief. That is the challenge. I ask the Minister to say a little more to the House about the numbers and the timetable.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I also pay tribute to the Government for the immense amount they have done to help displaced Syrian refugees. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also take on board the huge pressures that are already on children in care in this country? Some 70,000 children in England are in care, and there is a shortage of 10,000 foster carers. It is really vital that we are able to offer safekeeping to those children who are coming here and to do it sustainably and not to the detriment of the other children to whom we already have a responsibility.
Keir Starmer
I agree that if children are to come to this country under the proposal put forward in this amendment, it must be done properly with the relevant local authorities receiving full support.
I also supported the amendment that sought to enable movement and help to pass from one local authority to another. Kent, in particular, has provided a lot of support. Although there has been voluntary support from other local authorities, the amendment proposed by the Government during the passage of the Bill put in place a provision to allow that to be more meaningful and effective, and I supported that for the very reasons that have been mentioned in this House.
I want to move on to immigration detention, because there are two substantive issues still before—
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Keir Starmer
On immigration detention? I have barely started. I really think that I should press on, as we have limited time.
On immigration detention, the Stephen Shaw report made it clear that there is now near universal acceptance that detention makes people more vulnerable, and disquiet has been growing. Lords amendment 84 tackles that issue head on, by sensibly providing a 28-day period of immigration detention after which the Secretary of State can apply to extend detention in exceptional circumstances. That amendment strikes the right balance and reflects both the cross-party reports by the all-party groups on refugees and on migration and long-standing Labour party policy. It also had cross-party support in the Lords. Amendment 84A in lieu provides for four months of immigration detention, with an ability to apply for bail at the end of that exercise. That is markedly different: it is four months rather than 28 days; it puts the onus on the individual rather than on the Secretary of State; and it is subject to a different test. It does not go far enough, which is why we will vote in favour of the Lords amendment this evening.
Let me move on to the position of pregnant women. I remind the House of an important finding of Stephen Shaw’s report. As he put it, it is “obvious” that detention has harmful effects on both the mother and the unborn child. The Royal College of Midwives, in its evidence to him for his report, pointed to the special vulnerabilities of pregnant women and made it clear that appropriate care cannot be given in detention. Add to that the fact that until now, the vast majority of pregnant women have not been removed, and one can see why he concluded that the current policy was not working. He rightly concluded that the only move should be to absolute prohibition. That has been the Labour party position consistently, and that is why we voted as we did on 25 April.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we should move to not detaining vulnerable people at all? It is expensive and immoral. In this amendment, we see some movement on that, because after all, we consider pregnant women to be vulnerable, but given that two thirds of the women in places such as Yarl’s Wood are victims of sexual violence in conflict, we really should not detain any of them at all.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. On vulnerable individuals as described, I agree. I state again that our position, particularly in relation to pregnant women, is that they should not be in immigration detention at all. However, this is a move in the right direction by the Government, and the limit proposed is better than no limit at all.
Unfortunately, the amendment in lieu undoes a lot of the good work, because it seeks to remove the overriding principle that there should be detention only in the most exceptional circumstances, and seems to remove the provision relating to medical facilities. For those reasons, we will not support the amendment in lieu, but will support the Lords amendment.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I quite understand the difficulty that the Government face. As I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree, the British Government have done more than any other Government apart from that of the United States of America to help those fleeing the torment in Syria and other parts of the middle east. I warmly welcome that part of the Department for International Development budget; that is a good use of its budget, though I may disagree with other parts of it. I accept that the Government face some opposition to their policy from Conservative Members, but the Government’s original policy was absolutely right. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), representing the new champions of the premier league—he is not wearing his scarf today; clearly he has deserted his—[Interruption.] Ah! The scarf is under there! He said that he hoped that the amendment would not exacerbate the pull factor, but I am afraid that all reasonable opinion in this country will conclude that it will do precisely that. If we agree to this amendment, we are sending out the message that Britain is a soft touch. Also, it is a cruel policy, as I have said to the Aldershot News & Mail—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is being facetious about the Aldershot News & Mail; it is a very important organ of communication.
The policy is cruel because it will encourage desperate, tragic parents to send their children across the inhospitable seas of the Mediterranean in search of a better life. Who can blame them for wanting to do that? However, they are parents and their responsibility is to their children. It is not our first responsibility; it is that of the parents, and they will be encouraged by this measure to send their children across that dangerous sea and put them at risk in the hope that they will be able to get not just to other safe countries—France, Greece or Italy—but to the United Kingdom.
If this House is saying, in the middle of a debate on whether Britain should remain a member of the EU, that—[Interruption.] Members on the Opposition Benches should not sneer. If this House is saying that Italy, France and Greece are not safe countries, why on earth are we members of that organisation?
Sir Gerald Howarth
If the Scottish National party would like to intervene, of course I accept that intervention, but if the SNP feels so strongly about this, it should not ask the British Government for money. Put up your own money to cover the costs.
Anne McLaughlin
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in Calais tonight there are children sleeping in containers that sleep 12 people? They are sleeping alongside adults, strangers to them, and there is nobody supervising. Does he think that is safe?
Sir Gerald Howarth
The whole point is that they are in safe countries. The criticism should be levelled not at the British Government, but at other Governments. If the Scottish nationalists wish to take the children in and they have the capacity in Scotland, they should pay for it themselves and not ask the Minister to go to the British Treasury to fund it. Put your money where your mouth is.
I fear that the Lords amendment will send out a very dangerous message. It is also an insulting message to our continental partners, whom we all know, because we see it night after night on our television screens, are wrestling with the consequences of this tragic migration flow into Europe. The Lords amendment sends out a damning message to them that they cannot cope and that their conditions are inadequate to look after vulnerable people.
That is my first point. My second point is this: my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly asked the sanctimonious hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who is parading his compassion—[Interruption.] We have free speech in this country. My hon. Friend made the point that there is a shortage of 10,000 foster carers in our country to look after our own children in need of foster care.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Gerald Howarth
No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman does not spend enough time in this Chamber for me to give way to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right that there is already a demand to look after our own children. As I have told the Prime Minister, in my constituency we do not have the capacity to take any more people and I will not give priority to those from overseas, however tragic, when my own constituents are suffering homelessness and vulnerable children cannot be catered for.
I quite understand the difficult position that my right hon. Friend the Minister has been put in, I suspect by some of my hon. Friends who have felt it necessary to parade their compassion. I do not believe the amendment to be a compassionate move. It sends out a very dangerous signal, encouraging parents to dispose of their children and put them at risk on the high seas, which is deeply dangerous.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Along with many others, we in the SNP have been arguing for months that the UK should take a fair share of refugees and asylum seekers from Europe in the face of the ongoing humanitarian crisis. We are therefore glad that the Government have now apparently accepted that principle, albeit up to a point. They have finally listened to the arguments from the different parties and from a host of campaign groups and charities, and we cautiously welcome that change of heart.
Indeed, last week, in Westminster Hall, the Minister himself made a persuasive case for a fairer distribution of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That was in the context of a debate on children already in the UK and was a call for solidarity with the citizens of Kent, where many unaccompanied children have arrived. We on these Benches support that call for responsibility to be shared across the UK, but we want the same logic applied on a European level.
Like others across the House, we will monitor progress carefully to ensure that the new policy is implemented in the spirit of the amendment from Lord Dubs. For example, it is vital, as others have said, that the cut-off date does not rule out protection for the many children who have been in Europe since before that date but who have never been registered, and I welcome the reassurances the Minister has given this evening. Equally, as others have said, the support offered to local authorities must be sufficient to allow them to feel able to become involved in the new programme, so that the numbers taken on represent a genuine attempt to play our part. We will also look for the Scottish Government to be closely involved in overseeing the necessary processes in Scotland and for the Scottish Guardianship Service to have the support it needs to play its part.
However, as the Opposition spokesperson said—this is probably most important of all—it is essential that action is fast. As all hon. Members who have visited camps across Europe will know, the conditions these children are living in are horrendous. We need the Immigration Minister back in the House to update us within weeks, rather than months.
If implemented properly and generously, the Government’s decision will be looked back on warmly and, indeed, even as a matter of pride—people will only wonder, “Why the delay?” However, there is a long way to go before we reach that point.
On the remaining, unresolved issues, the Government have come up short again. On amendment 84, their lordships are absolutely right to insist on a general rule that immigration detention should not last longer than 28 days. This is a modest amendment; as I said when the Bill was last here, it moves us towards a time limit, rather than creating an absolute limit, because of various exceptions. However, their lordships’ reasoning for insisting on the amendment is absolutely right, because the Government’s alternative is even further from being a proper time limit on immigration detention—it simply adds an automatic bail hearing after four months.
Every now and then, we have hints from the Government that they are waking up to the fact that policy and practice on immigration detention in the UK is draconian, unnecessary and expensive. There are occasional suggestions of a change in approach, but proposed reform is simply far too slow. Far from representing a brave new policy dawn, what the Government are asking us to put into legislation barely even reflects what is supposed to already be their policy—a presumption in favour of temporary admission or release and the use, wherever possible, of alternatives to detention.
In short, the right to liberty continues to be badly undermined—all for the administrative convenience of the Home Office. The Government have failed each time to explain why, in contrast to every single other EU country, the UK cannot operate within the confines of a proper time limit. We will continue to support the Lords amendment as a step in the right direction.
On amendment 85C, we are perhaps getting closer to a result we can live with. My colleagues and I continue to believe that the Government should implement in full Stephen Shaw’s recommendation of an absolute prohibition on the detention of pregnant women. Such a policy would not put immigration control in peril; it would ensure that some pretty barbaric practices in UK detention facilities are brought to an end.
It is frustrating that we are still having this debate without the full facts at our disposal. When will the Minister tell us exactly how many pregnant women are detained, how long they are detained, whether they were released and whether they were removed? What information we do have does not impress. For example, we know that 90 out of 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 were eventually released back into the community.
Lords amendment 85C does incorporate the 72 hours or one-week limit suggested by the Government, but it also contains alternative protections. Its inclusion of a general principle against the detention of pregnant women mirrors provisions on the detention of children in families set out in the Immigration Act 2014. As well as retaining that overriding principle, it sets standards for accommodation, for providing notice and for shorter journey times. If we have to compromise on our belief that there should be an absolute ban, then we are absolutely determined to see the full range of protections retained within the Bill. We cannot support what the Government propose in terms of amending amendment 85C and thereby watering down many of those protections. We will not support dawn raids on pregnant women, long journeys to detention centres, or inadequate facilities at those centres. If there is not to be the absolute ban recommended by Sir Stephen Shaw, then we must have the safeguards that prioritise antenatal care over Home Office convenience. The Government have their priorities absolutely wrong.
Amid all the gloom of this Bill, at least let us properly safeguard the right to liberty, and at least take action to properly protect pregnant women. That really is not very much to ask.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I want to deal with the amendment that has received the most attention, which relates to amendment 87B. I welcome last week’s announcement by the Prime Minister.
I take issue with the suggestion made in last week’s debate that there is any monopoly on compassion on this issue. Members in all parts of the House, with all their different opinions, can properly hold to a compassionate view. This is a practical and complex issue that needs a practical and complex response. The suggestion that by resisting the Lords amendments when they first came to this place we were in any way turning our backs on the lone children in Europe flies in the face of the practical reality of the Government’s continuing commitment to those people. The Government had made an ongoing commitment of financial aid of £45 million, of which £10 million was directed to Save the Children and to the International Committee of the Red Cross, specifically to provide safety for those lone children.
We also have the Dublin III family reunion scheme, which was in effect before the discussion of these Lords amendments and will continue to be so, although concern has rightly been expressed about its adequacy and practical implementation. One practical outworking from the debates on the Lords amendment that will no doubt eventually be agreed to is that the scheme will have a practical reality, with the Home Office official who is now in Calais providing for four family reunion cases to be dealt with per week, so that the process is properly sped up and the care is being provided.
I praise the Government for not just talking but acting, as they have in relation to the vulnerable persons relocation scheme whereby up to 1,500 vulnerable refugees have been relocated. It is not just about the numbers; it is about having a proper, integrated scheme that provides properly funded support in this country. That is what we need for all vulnerable refugees, including the lone children who will now receive extra attention and support.
This debate and this Bill are not about sending a campaigning message—we have to ensure that they are based on practical reality. That is why the Prime Minister’s announcement is very welcome in providing practical support and safety for more lone children, and why I tabled amendments (a) and (b). This is not about sending out messages—I do not think they would reach the traffickers or the smugglers, and certainly not the lone children—but about trying to ensure that following the Bill’s passage we are able to provide the appropriate support. My amendments would ensure that the Prime Minister’s announcement last week is fully aligned with the commitment in the press statement on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I understand from the Minister’s response that there is such an alignment. My amendments give the Government the opportunity to make it clear that last week’s announcement is aligned with Lords amendment 87B. That is welcome, because otherwise we could be artificially seeking a distinction about child refugees reaching a threshold of being determined as refugees, which would no doubt lead to commitments from countries such as France, Italy or Greece.
We are making a particular commitment to those who have been registered. I welcome the Minister saying that this is about those who have been resident in this country and there is some flexibility on registration. The Government’s commitment on asylum-seeking children who come within the current family reunion scheme is aligned to the Lords amendment that will now have the force of law. That will lead to accountability and publication of statistics on how many children have been relocated and where they have been accommodated—settlements that must be dispersed much more fairly across the United Kingdom. We will thus be able to hold the Government to account on their commitment.
Heidi Allen
On that point about the language around registered children—I, too, welcome the Minister’s response to that—I am interested in my hon. Friend’s views on how we can work with NGOs to identify the children who were in Europe before the Turkey deal, because a lot of them will not be in the system.
Mr Burrowes
It has been somewhat lost in the debate, but we should welcome the Government’s commitment to dispatching 45 experts to Greece to provide processing and registration. That does not make the campaign headlines, but it is of vital practical importance now. We are not turning our backs; we want to get the experts out to Greece now to improve the reception that some months ago, as my hon. Friend and her colleagues saw, was woeful. We will now be able to process those people and provide them with safety. Some of them will, no doubt, be able to come to this country in the scheme that the Government have announced, but others will be relocated to providers of children’s services across Europe, because there are existing legal commitments to children.
I welcome the Government’s commitments. I welcome the fact that the commitment made last week will, as I understand it, be aligned with the Lords amendment and will include asylum-seeking children, those who seek family reunification and children who are at risk of exploitation. We should not forget the Government’s world-leading commitment to relocate from the Syrian and north African region children who are risk. Just as we have campaigned for safe and legal routes, we must now encourage other countries to step up and join us in the scheme for children at risk. We are leading other countries in providing the international aid that will bring people to safety. Let us now get on the case of other European countries to make sure that they follow our lead across Europe and in the region.
I want briefly to mention the other matters that are the subject of consideration. In relation to Lords amendment 84, I welcome the Government’s movement on the provision of a four-month automatic bail hearing. It is distinct from Lords amendment 84 in that it provides judicial oversight not of 28 days, but of four months. In addition, the burden of proof falls on the applicant rather than the Government to justify what is excessive detention. Stephen Shaw asked, in his 60-second recommendation, what was the Government’s definition of excessive detention. One would certainly say that if detention extends to four months, it is excessive. I concede that this is part of a Government package, which includes the publication, for the first time, of an “adults at risk” policy and the introduction of removal plans. I would welcome the Government’s commitment to timings for implementing that package.
Finally, I welcome the Government’s movement on the issue of pregnant detainees. It is much more in line with the coalition Government’s proud achievement—this did not happen under a Labour Government—of outlawing the detention of children in immigration centres. That shows our practical commitment to a compassionate view of the human dignity of our most vulnerable people in detention. We need to align with that commitment, and the Government have come close to doing that. However, we still need to ask about the small word “or” in amendment (b) to Lords amendment 85C. Why does it make the distinction between
“the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
the woman will shortly be removed from the United Kingdom, or
there are exceptional circumstances which justify the detention”?
Surely, pregnant women should be detained only if there are exceptional circumstances and they can be removed shortly. Why are we distinguishing between the two? If the aim of detention is to remove people and detention should be a last resort, given the new 72-hour limit on detention, when would detention not be exceptional and removal forthcoming? It is important that the Government clarify that. The intention is to align ourselves with the children and family regime, but I am concerned that the measure leaves the door open for the excessive detention of pregnant women. Having said that, I welcome the Government’s movement in that regard, and I am sure that the end result of our deliberations will be that we show greater respect for human dignity and compassion to the most vulnerable.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Government’s huge change in principle and acceptance of the Dubs amendment. I pay tribute to Lord Dubs, Citizens UK, Save the Children, Help Refugees, the Association of Jewish Refugees, countless faith groups, 70,000 people who signed the petition and Members from all parts of the House who have argued strongly for the measure.
I welcome the spirit of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), and I am glad that the Government have accepted it. I was saddened by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), and I do not believe that his views are representative of those of most Conservative hon. Members. I think the hon. Gentleman’s point was that children in Europe are somehow not at risk and are safe, but we know that that is not the case: 10,000 child refugees have simply disappeared.
When the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and I were in Athens last week, we went to a makeshift camp in a hockey stadium, where 1,200 people are staying in rigged-up tents and under blankets. In among them were children and teenagers with no one to look after them. The aid workers talked about the abuse, the risk of domestic violence and the cases of rape that there have been. Children need to be supported. We also met Greek Government Ministers—probably the same ones that the Minister for Immigration met last Friday—who said that they want help, particularly to resettle children quickly because they are at risk and are out of school.
By agreeing to Lords amendment 87B, we will be saying that we are prepared to do our bit. However, I urge the Minister for Immigration to move swiftly on the practicalities. I welcome the steps he has set out, but I urge him not simply to go along with the original objective of the Dubs amendment, which was to help 3,000 children—I hope he will still aim to achieve that by providing support for 3,000 child refugees—but to set a milestone by accepting the proposal put forward by UNICEF, Citizens UK and the group of bishops to help all those currently stuck in limbo in the family reunification system. In particular, we should help the nearly 150 children in Calais and the first 300 children from Italy and Greece to do our bit to speed up the process as rapidly as possible so that we can get them in place and resettled by the beginning of the school year. Some of those children have been out of school for far too long already, and we should do our bit to help. Of course, that will mean giving support to local authorities to enable them to do so.
Stella Creasy
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. She is right to say that this amendment is supported not just by Conservative Members, but by people across the country who think we should help such child refugees. Indeed, people in my own community were so inspired by her work and that of Lord Dubs that they raised over £1,000 in five days to pay for caravans for children to stay in in refugee camps in Calais while waiting to be resettled in this country. There is clearly support for this across the country. It is right that we look at the 3,000 figure as a milestone, but I hope she agrees that we can do a lot more.
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a lot of support and interest in this amendment, and we should be drawing on that. The Government have talked about working with the LGA, but I hope that they will also work with all sorts of other organisations. For example, I had an email only this morning from an independent boarding school local to my constituency that wants to offer two free places from September for child refugees. I will pass that offer on to Ministers, who I hope will take up not only that offer, but those of about 80 places from independent boarding schools across the country, as well as others from other community groups and organisations that want to do their bit to help—from faith groups to Home for Good, which wants to work with the Government to bring forward more places—
Yvette Cooper
I will not give way because there is very little time and other Members want to speak.
Home for Good wants to involve foster parents who would be prepared to sign up and work with local authorities.
Kelly Tolhurst
Will the right hon. Lady outline the conversations she has had with her local authority about the number that it is prepared to take? When Kent was in crisis last year and we asked other authorities for help, very few came forward. My question is: how many, and what has changed?
Yvette Cooper
I think the hon. Lady makes an important point. In fact, among the points I was going to make was to say that the Government should not only work with local authorities—they need to make sure that local authorities have the funding—but, frankly, should not expect Kent to take more child refugees, because it has already done a huge amount and other local councils across the country need to do more. That support will need to be funded.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees has done a great job in working with local authorities to make sure that funding is available for the existing programme for Syrian refugees. My local authority, Wakefield Council, has offered to take some of the families under that programme, but that offer has not yet been taken up. The council has come forward saying it is ready to help and it has offered places, but such places have not yet been forthcoming, because the Government have not yet brought them through the system.
Yvette Cooper
I will not give way because I am conscious that other Members who have put in a huge amount of effort want to make a quick contribution.
Sir Erich Reich, the chairman of Kindertransport, the Association of Jewish Refugees, said last week:
“The echoes of the past haunt many of my fellow Kinder and I whose fate similarly rested with members of the British parliament. I feel it is incumbent on us to once again demonstrate our compassion and human-kindness to provide sanctuary to those in need.”
For us, as Members of the British Parliament today, it is a fitting echo of the past that we can stand together to support the amendment in the name of one of Sir Erich’s fellow Kinder, Lord Alf Dubs, and help a new generation of child refugees.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Like many other Members of this House, I welcome amendment 87B, as a more thoughtful articulation of the widespread desire to help unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, one that takes into account the practical challenges of doing so and recognises that it will be on top of the enormous amount we are already doing to help refugees from Syria.
I have three brief points. First, I urge us to make sure that we take the most vulnerable young people, whether from camps in the region around Syria or from the camps in mainland Europe. Whatever we do, we must take the most vulnerable children, because our capacity to help is limited—although I believe it is greater than the numbers we have at the moment. But we should not have targets for a particular place. Let us simply make sure that we help the most vulnerable along with those who have connections to and family in the UK, and so will be more able to settle in.
Helen Whately
I am going to be very brief, because others want to speak.
My second point is that we must make absolutely sure that we avoid the pull. I know some Members are sceptical about that, but from my conversations with young men in Calais I am convinced that there is a pull factor, particularly for older teenagers—16, 17 and 18-year-olds. We must not encourage people smugglers to be paid to bring more of those people across Europe, so we must do this in a way that avoids a pull—as is, quite rightly, the plan.
My third and final point is we must make sure that we do it well. The Government are absolutely right to carry this out in consultation with local authorities. I represent a Kent constituency that is managing over 1,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and care leavers. It is a huge burden, and very few other local authorities have stepped up to help. I sincerely hope that more local authorities will now take on their fair share. As part of that, let us make sure that we make use of the upsurge in interest in fostering—many people have put forward their names to be foster carers—not only to look after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and refugees but to provide more homes for British children who are in care.
Tim Farron
Seven months ago I used my first Prime Minister’s question as party leader to call on the Prime Minister to give sanctuary to 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children. The campaign has been cross-party and cross-community. Today we celebrate in particular the work of Lord Alf Dubs in pushing his amendment and being so utterly dogged with it. I also pay tribute to the Government’s own Back Benchers, whose compassion and equal doggedness have brought the Government to the brink of this change.
We should understand, however, that although we are finally able to give hope to some of these children and although this is a victory, it is certainly not the end of the story. Even tonight we are hearing from No. 10 that the Government will not take a single one of the refugees for another seven months, will not help children who arrive after the arbitrary date and will not commit to a fixed number.
Tim Farron
I do not have time, sorry.
In January, the Government claimed to be supporting child refugees, and we became optimistic, but then it turned out that that was just a repackaging of existing funds to the region. Last month, the Government said that they would take 3,000 children, and we were ready to cheer, but it turned out that none would be the desperate children alone in the camps in Europe. Last week, on the eve of elections, the Government gave way and said that they would accept the Dubs amendment, but now we discover that although they may have accepted the letter of the amendment they continue to flout its spirit.
With depressing predictability, we again see that the Government view desperate refugees as a media and political management issue, and not as the greatest, cruellest humanitarian disaster to face our continent in 71 years. Better late than never comes to mind, but remember this: in the seven months since we first raised this matter, it is likely that hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerable children will have joined the 10,000 who have gone missing, into the hands of people traffickers, into forced labour and into child sexual exploitation. It keeps me awake at night that some of the children I met in Lesbos, in northern Greece and in Calais will now, I know, have shared that desperate fate, because of the Government’s prevarication. Now, the clock is ticking. Every week that we delay taking these children, more will disappear into the hands of those who wish to exploit them. The Minister has the blueprint that we produced, together with the help of local authorities of all parties, Save the Children, fostering agencies, and Home for Good. He will see that with sufficient leadership and Government resources, we could take these children pretty much straightaway.
Throughout this ongoing debate, all that has hindered us from doing the right thing as a country is the lack of political will from this Government. Last month, I saw in northern Greece a razor-wire fence on the Macedonian side of the border. It was backed up with tanks every 50 yards, and it was built in 36 hours because when politicians want to do something quickly, they can. This Government could act quickly if only they had the political will.
I do not care whether this counts as a U-turn. As a result of this campaign, many of us know that hundreds, hopefully thousands of children will be granted sanctuary. That is a welcome change of position, but it is clearly not a change of heart. Taking these children is not the best that we can do as a country; it is the least that we can do as a country.
Kelly Tolhurst
I am actually quite sad tonight given what I have heard, because there is a clear sense and determination among Labour Members to suggest that the Government have not been doing enough. I spoke to the amendment two weeks ago, and the county of Kent has been rehoming unaccompanied minors and refugees for decades. Kent has been a gateway for people making their way to safety into this country, and this Government, and previous Governments, have been doing their bit.
As I have outlined previously, it is all very well making a simplistic argument—“We’ll just put these young people with foster carers”—but the reality is, as my hon. Friends have said, that we have a shortage of foster carers in this country. What I have found saddest about this whole debate in the weeks leading up to it has been that, week after week, Opposition Members have stood up and spoken about unaccompanied minors. I do not know about them, but I do a hell of a lot of work with looked-after children, and since I have been elected to this House I have not heard Opposition Members stand up and champion the outcomes of young looked-after children in this country. Labour Members have stood up and talked about unaccompanied minors, but they have not made that point.
I have spoken to friends on the continent over this past week, and as has been said, they feel quite depressed about the debates that we have had in this House, the accusations that have been levelled at some countries on the continent, and the fear that this is unsafe. This Government and country are doing enough.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I wish to deliver this petition of the residents of Scunthorpe to the House of Commons. The petition states:
The petition of residents of Scunthorpe,
Declares that local pharmacies are a vital frontline health service, forming part of the fabric of health communities across England; further that they may be forced to close as a result of Government proposals; further that this could deprive people of accessible medicines advice and other valuable support from trusted professionals; and further that it may also put more pressure on GPs and hospital services.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to reassess their proposed plans and protect local pharmacies.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001691]
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The petition relates to a railway station for Wellington and has 402 signatures. The petition declares that
“a new railway station in Wellington in the constituency of Taunton Deane should be opened”.
Following is the full text of the petition;
[The petition of residents of Taunton Deane,
Declares that a new railway station in Wellington in the constituency of Taunton Deane should be opened; further that this project has a local support from residents and businesses; further that the rapidly expanding town is experiencing high volumes of road congestion and that a rail link could help alleviate this and improve local air quality whilst at the same time improving rural transport networks in the area; and further that Taunton Deane Borough Council have committed £40,000 to a feasibility study and pending commitment from the other involved partners we seek the support of the Department of Transport through the New Station Fund.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to open a new metro style railway station in Wellington and support the feasibility study.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001692]
European Convention on Human Rights
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity this evening to raise the issue of the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights. I want to focus on the issue in the context of the referendum that will take place on 23 June—and let me say, as a Brexiteer, that it is good to know that a fellow Brexiteer will be responding to the debate.
I should, at the outset, set out my position on sovereignty and human rights. I want our Parliament to make the laws to which United Kingdom citizens are subject, and I want our independent judges to interpret those laws without fear or favour. I believe that if Parliament does not like a court’s interpretation of the law, Parliament should be able to change that law, prospectively but not retrospectively. I also believe that supranational courts should not be able to legislate for us by judicial means. If the wording of a treaty is to be changed, it should be changed by an amending protocol and not by judges.
That is why I support the European convention on human rights, but am very uneasy about the way in which it has been extended by judicial activism into fields that Parliament has never approved—a prime example, obviously, is giving votes to prisoners, an issue which the Prime Minister told us made him feel physically sick—and that is why I am so keen for the United Kingdom to take back control over the making and interpretation of our laws. Currently, 60% of our laws are made by the European Union, and they can be changed at will by the European Union against our wishes, because even if all United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament vote in one way, they can muster fewer than 10% of the votes in that Parliament.
I applied for this debate because I am very confused about Government policy on UK membership of the European convention on human rights. I read the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on 25 April, entitled “The United Kingdom, the European Union, and our place in the world”. In that speech, my right hon. Friend set out what she considered to be the principles for Britain’s membership of international institutions. She said:
“We need…to establish clear principles…Does it make us more influential beyond our…shores? Does it make us more secure? Does it make us more prosperous? Can we control or influence the direction of the organisation in question? To what extent does membership bind the hands of Parliament?”
Having asked all those questions, she said that
“the case for remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights—which means Britain is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights—is not clear.”
She went on to say:
“The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign”
criminals.
“If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
If we want to have influence, we should bear in mind that tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of the imprisonment of seven Bahá'i leaders in Iran. They are prisoners of conscience, and were imprisoned as a result of their religious belief. That is an unquestionable violation of their human rights.
Outside Europe, the United Kingdom’s membership of the European convention on human rights sends a strong signal of our continued commitment to upholding and advancing human rights globally. Is there not a good reason for our being a member of the convention when we can do something for those Bahá'i leaders in Iran who have been violated and persecuted because of their beliefs? That is one example.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well. However, I am concentrating on what the Home Secretary said. She seemed to be announcing a Government policy that the United Kingdom should leave the convention but stay in the EU. Her speech led to an urgent question, which was granted by Mr Speaker, and I—and other people who were present on that occasion—could not understand how we were going to be able to deliver the Home Secretary’s agenda on human rights if we remained in the European Union and subject to the EU charter of fundamental rights.
Questions were raised by Members during those exchanges, and it became clear that the Home Secretary—and, indeed, the Government—were indeed rather muddled about this. One of the questions that was asked was whether membership of the European Union required us to be a party to the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary was not answering the urgent question. The Attorney General answered, as a Law Officer. He said:
“It is not…in any way clear that membership of the European Union requires membership of the European convention on human rights…there are considerable legal complexities”.—[Official Report, 26 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1291.]
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) then cited article 6.3 of the treaty on European Union, which states:
“Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention…shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.”
He went on to refer to the fact that the Commission had said that any member country of the European Union that sought to disengage from the European convention on human rights might have its voting rights suspended.
Then, as so often happens in this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) asked a really pertinent question. He said:
“Can a country remain in the European Union and still come out of the convention? What is his legal opinion on that?”
The Attorney General replied:
“As I have suggested, the legal position is not clear.”
He went on to say that he did not
“have the time to go into all the ins and outs of that particular question now, but I suggest it would also be wrong to say that it is clear in the opposite direction.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1301.]
So that was what the Government were saying about this particular matter.
This morning, I heard the Prime Minister chiding Brexiteers for having no clear comprehensive plan for life outside the EU, but that was a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. As I have just said, the Prime Minister and the Government have no clear plan for life inside the European Union if there is a remain vote on 23 June. They do not know what will happen to their human rights agenda. There are many other examples beyond that.
It is a failure by the Government not to address this issue up front, and to leave it hanging in the air pending the referendum. We have had some quite clear advice from lawyers of great distinction. For example, Lord Woolf said:
“You can legally reconcile the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament with the European Convention on Human Rights. You cannot do that with regard to the European Charter, because the position there is that you can trump a statute.”
Lord Woolf was being quoted there in the House of Lords paper 139, which was published today. We now have a situation in which the Home Secretary seems to be arguing that we would be more secure if we left the convention on human rights but retained European law relating to fundamental rights.
I should like to give the House some examples of how EU law is undermining our security. In The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, it was reported that six Algerian terror suspects with links to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were to be allowed to stay here after a 10-year battle in the courts. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) has made the point that the number of people fraudulently trying to gain entry into the United Kingdom has almost doubled in a year. That is because those people realise that we do not have the power to turn them away at our borders if they are waving a European Union identity document.
I was speaking at a conference on European freight security last week, at which it became apparent that we are not allowed to X-ray lorries in Calais to see whether they contain illegal migrants because it might be damaging to the human rights and health of those illegal migrants. That is another example of how human rights laws undermine our ability to keep our borders secure. Another example is that we are not allowed to take DNA samples from migrants who refuse to give their fingerprints when they enter the European Union, which is expressly prohibited by the Eurodac regulations.
Then we have the example, which came out a couple of months ago, of Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law. We found out that she was his daughter-in-law only through a freedom of information request. An advocate-general in the European Court of Justice said that it was in principle contrary to European Union treaties to remove the lady from the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that she had been convicted and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. It was subsequently revealed that she had been convicted of attempting to smuggle a Sim card to Abu Hamza while he was in a high-security prison, but even that grave crime was insufficient to allow the courts to remove her from the United Kingdom because of the intervention of the European Court of Justice, which exercised its powers under the EU’s fundamental rights laws.
I cannot understand how the Home Secretary can consistently argue that we should stay in the European Union when the logic of everything she said in her speech was that we should be leaving the EU. It is potentially misleading for members of the public to think that they can have their cake and eat it by leaving the European convention on human rights while still remaining subject to the European Court of Justice.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Perhaps all these complexities explain why so little progress is being made on our manifesto commitment to leave the European convention on human rights. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will make it clear that the Government have not gone cold on that.
Mr Chope
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that. We had a debate towards the beginning of this parliamentary Session in which the Minister made it clear that the Government intended to bring forward a consultation document on this sooner rather than later. I think he envisaged that that would be before Christmas, but it then became after Christmas and now it is after the referendum. They were talking about a consultation document, so why can we not have even a discussion? I fear that it has been kicked into the long grass on the instructions of No. 10, because it was realised that it would lead to lot of awkward questions. The Government have demonstrated throughout the course of the referendum debate that they are quite happy to ask hypothetical questions and complain when people are unable to answer them, but they are unwilling to respond positively to the questions that people are asking them.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am sorry that I missed the first part of my hon. Friend’s speech; I very much look forward to reading it tomorrow. While the view of the general public is that infringements on the rights of Parliament are the result of the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights, will my hon. Friend confirm that even if we were to leave the European convention on human rights and remain in the EU, we would still be subject to the same kind of interference from the European Court of Justice?
Mr Chope
Yes. It would be not only the same type of interference, but graver. That is the conclusion of the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, the report of which I referred to earlier and came out today. The European Court of Justice has much greater powers and can effectively remove legislation from our statutes. The European Court of Human Rights is much more restricted and can deal only with individual cases, which then can be the subject of negotiation and we can ultimately exercise more discretion or have a greater “margin of appreciation”, to put it in legal language. As Lord Woolf was saying, the European convention on human rights may not be perfect, and we may not like the way in which it has been changed by judge-made law, but most people would agree with its actual wording.
The European charter of fundamental rights is anathema. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the charter was first brought forward and the then Labour Government were saying that it would have no application to the United Kingdom, the then Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), memorably said that it would have no more status in UK law than a copy of the Beano. That just illustrates the speed with which change comes about. One moment we think something has been passed which is not going to apply to us and now we find, on the highest authorities in the land, that we are indeed subordinate to the European Court of Justice and that the European fundamental rights agency and charter are supreme. My plea to the Minister is: can we get this sorted out? Will he confirm that the UK would be in an absurd position if it wanted to stay in the EU but denounced the European convention on human rights?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing tonight’s debate and pay tribute to his recent work as chair of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He is very knowledgeable in this field and he made a very powerful speech.
For all the contentious debate about human rights, few argue against the common-sense list of rights set out in the text of the European convention on human rights. The Government are and will remain committed to the protection of those rights. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the convention and was instrumental in its drafting. I have said on a number of occasions that those who suggest it was somehow an exclusively British creation are overegging the pudding or rewriting history. The negotiation of the convention saw an interesting contest of views between the common law and civil law traditions, as evidenced clearly in the travaux préparatoires of the convention, which are available online. The convention—the product of those negotiations —reflects the compromise between those two very different traditions and approaches.
Nevertheless, the concerns that have arisen about the convention are far less about being objections to the strict list of rights set out there; they lie more with its interpretation and application, which has been expanded and extended exponentially, well beyond what the original drafters intended. That is partly the result of judicial legislation by the Strasbourg Court, but it has been compounded by the design and structure of the Human Rights Act. It should be pointed out at this stage that serious criticisms have come from Labour Lord Chancellors, lawyers across the spectrum and senior British judges, as well as from Government Members. These problems have fuelled a rights inflation that has undermined this country’s liberal tradition of freedom and its approach to human rights, which is founded in Magna Carta and in the thinking of great British philosophers from John Locke and John Stuart Mill through to Isaiah Berlin. We have shifted towards imposing more and more obligations on government that require it to provide, rather than merely insisting that it refrain from acting in certain arbitrary ways, which was very much the history and tradition of the liberal approach. These developments have exposed us unnecessarily to judicial legislation at home and in Strasbourg that takes decisions out of the hands of this House.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Minister is making a powerful critique of the convention, so perhaps he can now tell the House when we are going to fulfil our manifesto commitment to get out of it.
Mr Raab
I will come on to the manifesto commitment and resolve to deliver on it shortly.
I want to make this point very clearly: there are legitimate different views as to what we should include in a list of fundamental human rights. There are liberal models, Marxist models and a social democratic tradition, which informs an approach to human rights. There is even a shift from individual rights to collective ones, including environmental rights. We can take different views on that, and hon. Members will, but whatever our view, if we are a democrat, the legislation and the definition of that list of rights must be made by elected representatives who are accountable to the British people. That is the objection to a rights inflation through judicial legislation—whether it takes place at home or abroad. It corrodes the most basic principles of democracy, and that was a point that my hon. Friend made very clearly and powerfully.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for allowing me to intervene at this late hour. The Minister will know when he reads through the Belfast agreement signed on Good Friday—I am sure that he has studied it at length—that the European convention on human rights is an integral part of that agreement and that that agreement was voted on in a referendum in Northern Ireland and also in the Republic of Ireland and thousands and thousands of people supported that agreement. Where does the Minister think it would leave the peace settlement in Northern Ireland if this country were to withdraw—and I hope that it does not—from the European convention on human rights?
Mr Raab
I will come on to address that point very squarely in a moment. I hope to be able to give the hon. Lady the reassurance that she needs.
I will, if I may, return to some of the problems of the democratic deficit that have been created. One example that has been mentioned by Members on a number of occasions is the creeping extra-territorial extension of the convention. The negotiating record of the European convention—the travaux préparatoires—is very clear on that point. No one intended that those making military decisions on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan should or would be subject to the convention. That area was rightly left for the law of armed conflict, including international humanitarian law.
Another example, to which my hon. Friend referred, is the situation whereby increasingly elastic interpretations of article 8 rights to family life override the very clear public interest in deporting serious foreign criminals. The Government are clear that where there is a real risk of torture to an individual, they should not be deported, but the right to family life is an inherently qualified one and must be balanced against the rights of others. That balance, which should properly rest with Parliament, has been tipped out of kilter too much and by too great a degree by the courts. This is not to attack the ECHR. In truth, those making that point are being faithful to the convention, because paragraph 2 of article 8 makes it crystal clear that Governments should be able to qualify the right to family life to take effective law enforcement measures. In this regard, it is the judicial branch, which is, through creative extrapolation—that is the most generous gloss that can be put on it—departing from the convention. Those are two illustrations. There could be many more, but we have limited time this evening.
There are two strong reasons why this Government will reform the UK’s human rights framework, and with it, our relationship with the Strasbourg Court. The Government were elected with a clear mandate to deliver that reform, and I can confirm to my hon. Friends that we remain absolutely resolute about delivering on that pledge.
Our proposals will remain faithful to the principles in the European convention—I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured on that point. Our focus will be on restraining and restricting the expansion of rights by the Strasbourg Court and the Human Rights Act, without proper democratic oversight.
Mr Raab
If the hon. Lady will give me more of an opportunity to address her concern.
As the 2015 Conservative party manifesto pledged, the Government will repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Our aim is to protect fundamental rights, prevent the abuse of human rights law and restore some common sense to the system.
My hon. Friend asked for clarification—the hon. Lady did as well—on the Government’s position on the European convention. Let me repeat what I and the Justice Secretary made clear at oral questions towards the end of last month. Although we cannot rule out withdrawal from the convention forever, that is not part of the proposals that we are finalising for consultation. We aim to achieve reforms while remaining members of the European convention. Our proposals will help restore a more balanced separation of powers between the proper role of the courts and greater respect for the Supreme Court in this country, and also the proper role of the Legislature and of Parliament.
Lady Hermon
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Two points require clarification. The Minister appears to have completely contradicted the line taken by the Home Secretary, for whom I have enormous regard. She clearly stated in this House that it was her wish that we would withdraw from the convention. The Minister can confirm this evening that that is not Government policy—that there is no intention of this country withdrawing from the European convention on human rights. As for a British Bill of Rights, would that extend to Northern Ireland, or does Northern Ireland have to come up with its own formulation?
Mr Raab
On the position on the convention, I think the hon. Lady will find that the Home Secretary’s remarks were made not in this House, but elsewhere. The Home Secretary is, of course, entitled to her view; there is a degree of licence and latitude in the current debate on the EU. What I have explained clearly to the hon. Lady is the Government’s position on the ECHR. On the application to the devolved Administrations—I understand the hon. Lady’s particular concerns relating to Northern Ireland—obviously we will consult fully, including with the devolved Administrations. We are mindful of the interrelationship of the convention with, and its effects on, the Belfast agreement, which she mentioned.
Critically, our reform agenda is not about eroding people’s fundamental rights. The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of respect for human rights that goes back long before the Human Rights Act 1998, and long before the European convention. Our history of protecting human rights at home and fighting for them abroad stretches back over 800 years to Magna Carta, and even before that, in truth.
We will take no lectures from the Labour party on this front. It was the last Labour Government who introduced identity cards and proposed 90 days’ detention without charge.
Mr Raab
I will not give way, because the time I have left is so limited. This Government also brought forward the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We have transformed the fight against sexual violence in conflict, persuading more than 150 states to agree for the first time that sexual violence should be recognised as a grave breach of the Geneva conventions. This is a record that we can be proud of, and are committed to building on. Our commitment will not falter or fail, but we need to restore some credibility to human rights, which many people in this country increasingly view as dirty words—an industry or bandwagon for lawyers, rather than a tradition to take pride in. We can do that by restoring common sense to the system. We are confident that we can deliver our common-sense reforms within the bounds and parameters of the European convention.
We have already sought and listened to views from practitioners, non-governmental organisations, academics and politicians right across the entire United Kingdom. We know there has been consistently strong public support for these measures. We will consult fully on our forthcoming proposals before introducing legislation, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will, as ever, bring to bear his considerable expertise and experience at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as we proceed with the Bill in the House.
Mr Raab
The relationship between the convention and the EU is complicated; we risk shedding more heat than light on the subject by conflating the two. It is certainly true to say that if we pulled out of the convention altogether, it would be something of an open invitation to the Luxembourg Court to fill the vacuum.
Question put and agreed to.
Community pharmacies
Improved mobile telephone signal in South Suffolk
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
EU Referendum Leaflet
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 116762 relating to the Government’s EU referendum leaflet.
The petition, which remains topical, had 219,535 signatures a few hours ago .
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The figure is now 219,553 and rising.
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing to my attention the extra 20 people who have been galvanised by the thought of this afternoon’s debate. I want to read into Hansard the whole prayer of the petition, headed “STOP CAMERON spending British taxpayers’ money on Pro-EU Referendum leaflets”:
“Prime Minister David Cameron plans to spend British taxpayers’ money on a pro-EU document to be sent to every household in the United Kingdom in the run up to the EU referendum. We believe voters deserve a fair referendum—without taxpayer-funded biased interceptions by the Government.
We, the petitioners, demand the Government STOPS spending our money on biased campaigning to keep Britain inside the European Union.
The Great British Public have waited since 1975 for a vote on our relationship with Brussels. No taxpayers’ money should be spent on campaign literature to keep Britain inside the EU.”
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Prime Minister could have learned something from Harold Wilson? Not only did he give a free vote, but the information that was circulated made both cases equally.
Paul Scully
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady. As Members will see as I develop my argument, it is important that we have a fair and level playing field for the important decision that we have to make on 23 June.
When an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the Government must issue a response, and they have done so. I will read a brief extract, though I am sure that the Minister will expand on it when he responds. It states:
“This is a big decision for the country. The Government is determined that the public should be clear on what reforms have been agreed, and what EU membership means for the UK.
The Referendum Act requires the Government to publish reports that set out the outcome of the negotiation of our EU membership and the Government’s opinion on that outcome and provide information on rights and obligations in EU law and on examples of countries that do not have EU membership but do have other arrangements with the EU.”
The leaflet went to households across England between 11 and 13 April, but it is going to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland this week, to avoid the pre-election purdah rules in relation to last week’s elections.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that it gets there before we disappear into a war?
Paul Scully
What can I say to that? I thank my hon. Friend.
The total cost of the leaflet and the website and marketing that go with it is £9.3 million of taxpayers’ money. On top of that, the Treasury is publishing documents and the Government continue to have propaganda at the top of every gov.uk web page. At least that is not being posted to every house in hard copy at the expense of the resident receiving it.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I actually asked what the budget was for the entire campaign that the Government are conducting, and I was told that it was absorbed within other costs. That surely cannot be the case, and it certainly was not announced in the Budget.
Paul Scully
What worries me most about that answer is that the Treasury is projecting figures to 2030, but it cannot answer questions about Budgets now. That is of concern to me. Some colleagues have encouraged voters to return their leaflets to No. 10, but since that would mean even more cost to the taxpayer if they did it by freepost, I have not followed that line myself.
As might have been predicted, the publication of the leaflet has not been universally welcomed. Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance, said:
“This is a disgraceful abuse of taxpayers’ money. When cash is scarce and budgets are tight, politicians should not be wasting nearly £10 million of our cash on political propaganda.
The country is having an important debate about its relationship with the EU and it is essential that it is held on a level playing field.”
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent introduction to the debate. Four hundred and seventy-six of my constituents were so outraged that they signed the petition. Is not the main point that the publication of the leaflet goes against the very British sense of fair play? We want a level playing field in the referendum, but the Government are trying to stack the odds in their favour.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is right, and I am glad that Mr Isaby said exactly that. It is important that people in the public eye who have the ear of the press have expressed that opinion.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The TaxPayers Alliance is neutral in the debate. It is important to bear in mind the fact that it issued a statement only because of the waste of taxpayers’ money; it is not taking a side in the referendum itself.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. As many such organisations find, its members are split either way, so it is right for it to take a neutral view on the main question. That does not mean that it cannot be concerned about the £9.3 million which, as Jonathan Isaby says, is
“not ‘government money’, it is all taxpayers’ money”.
He concludes by saying that
“it is deplorable that ministers see fit to use it to try and instruct us how to vote.”
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Of course, my hon. Friend knows that that is happening in pursuance of a legal duty introduced into the House of Lords, which became part of our legislation through ping-pong. Is he also aware that I tabled an amendment calling for accuracy and impartiality in that information, which the Minister for Europe, who is here today, told me there certainly would be? Do we not expect a proper answer from him this afternoon?
Paul Scully
I am sure that the Minister has heard that, and I hope that he will respond in full to the debate.
Katie Ghose of the Electoral Reform Society expressed similar concerns, and after the referendum on Scottish independence the Electoral Commission warned the Government over taxpayer-funded propaganda, saying that it could give an
“unfair advantage to one side of the argument”.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is this not a terribly easy case? No previous Labour or Conservative Government have ever thought they should spend taxpayers’ money on promoting Government policies ahead of a general election in the hope of getting a better result. Is that not exactly what the leaflet is doing, and is it not therefore a scandal?
Paul Scully
Absolutely. The Government are taking many difficult decisions across the five years of this Parliament, but we do not need to write in full to every household to explain why we are doing it. That is why the media and websites are there, and that is what Parliament is there for—we can report on that through our speeches and debates. I am not sure that the Government’s case for remaining is being helped, because it is likely that the contents of the leaflet will be long forgotten by the start of the purdah period on 27 May, but the £9.3 million price tag will still resonate with voters.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Since my hon. Friend mentions the content of the leaflet, does he find it strange that there is no mention in it of the existential risk of war and genocide? Does he think that is because a) the Government had not recognised that the risk existed, b) they recognised it but were unwilling to contemplate it, or c) it is a complete fabrication?
Paul Scully
I will come back to that, but that multiple choice question is interesting, because it reminds me of the website www.eureferendum.gov.uk, which goes with the leaflet. We are told that it will be up all the way through to 23 June. It majors on pro-Remain propaganda and contains a pdf of the leaflet. It also has an EU quiz, which I had a go at. I fared pretty well on how well I knew the EU. I got a pat on the back:
“You’re clearly well informed about the EU.”
Unfortunately, it is exactly for that reason that I will be voting to leave on 23 June. What worries me is that less informed people will buy the line that disaster will unfold if we leave. Surely that cannot be the case. A responsible Government would not go through the whole process of having a referendum when one of the two results would lead to the UK going to hell in a handcart, would they?
Ms Gisela Stuart
During the passage of the Lisbon treaty, the then shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, referred to the red card of national Parliaments only ever being invoked if something like the slaughter of the first born was proposed. As the red card was part of the Prime Minister’s deal, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that could be the next threat—one that is not mentioned in the leaflet?
Paul Scully
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is interesting that the orange card in the Lisbon treaty has been replaced by the red card in the reforms secured by the Prime Minister, which sets a higher bar for reversing or rejecting legislation proposed by the EU.
As we have heard, back in February the Prime Minister ruled nothing out if he did not manage to succeed in securing reforms. Those reforms, meagre as they were, were based mainly on pull factors for migration and avoiding deeper integration. He and the remain campaign have gone as far as saying that we might be risking a war if we vote to leave. Is that really what this debate has been reduced to—cheap holidays or war?
I am pleased to see that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), has taken a more measured view. He worked through the possible effects on our foreign policy of two positive options, in a report agreed unanimously by his Committee, before coming to his decision in favour of Brexit only today.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has done extraordinarily well. Has he seen the article in The Daily Telegraph today by the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who comes out very strongly indeed and says that what the Prime Minister is talking about with regard to war is complete and utter nonsense? Surely the Chairman of the Defence Committee must know better than the Prime Minister.
Paul Scully
I will leave my hon. Friend to be the judge of that. There is nothing in the leaflet about the actual option available to voters, which is between a UK able to take its own democratic decisions and an EU emboldened by our thumbs up to further integration.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I used my leaflet to light my fire on a cold Yorkshire night; it was a thoroughly useful use of taxpayers’ money. Is not a more important point that, if we vote to remain in by a very small margin—say, less than in the Scottish referendum—a large part of the electorate, including many in my constituency, will feel that the result has been fiddled precisely because of this wasted document that we have all been provided with?
Paul Scully
I really hope that we do not get to that. All Conservative Members in the 2015 intake, no matter what side of the debate we stand on, have signed a letter to say that, come 24 June, we will come together and abide by the result, because we have a Government to support, a country to help to run and difficult decisions to continue to make. It is important that we come together. We do not want anything to push people towards a sense of unfair treatment on one side or another. My hon. Friend makes a good point.
The Five Presidents’ report shows the direction of travel, should we vote to remain. It sets out plans for fiscal and political union, further pooling of decision making on national budgets and harmonisation of insolvency law, company law, property rights and social security systems. It makes it clear that those plans are to be pursued as single market measures applying to all 28 states. The Governor of the Bank of England admits there are risks of remaining in the European Union, in particular in relation to the development of the euro area. We have been roped into bail-out packages before, despite assurances that that would no longer happen. The latest guarantee, I am afraid, is no better. The Financial Times reports that it has seen the German draft White Paper pushing for progress towards a European army. That was due to emerge in June but is now being held back until July. Make no mistake: should we vote to remain, the European club will not be the same as the one we are already in for long.
The EU budget relentlessly increases. Only last month, Jean-Claude Juncker told my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) that he did not have to answer to her when she asked him what he was doing to bear down on the EU budget at a time when member states were having to bear down on budgets. That is not the answer of a man who cares much about greater accountability; that is the view of a man who wants to be left alone to get on with the project without interference from irritating ingrates.
Voting to stay in is not the same as voting to stay put. Despite the leaflet having positive headlines on each page, the body of the text suggests, in a number of ways, that the only way is Europe and that we are stuffed if we leave. Some are implied. For example, it suggests that many jobs might be lost, via the dubious claim that 3 million jobs are linked to the EU—a link described by the academic on whose study that figure was based as “pure Goebbels”. That link, by the way, first came about in around 2000 as a reason for joining the eurozone.
Some claims are more direct but simplistic and with little merit, such as the EU abolishing roaming charges. I can either wait until next year to use my EE phone in the EU at the same rate as I pay in the UK, or I can use my other phone, which is on the Three network, to travel today to EU countries, as well as Hong Kong, Indonesia, Israel, Macau, New Zealand, Norway, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and the USA, with absolutely no roaming charges. I do not have to wait for the EU to catch up with me.
That is another way in which the free market is far more agile than an unwieldy 1950s political project that is representing a smaller proportion of global trade over time as the rest of the world overtakes, despite the number of EU states tripling since we first joined. The economy of every continent has grown over the past decade except that of Antarctica and that of Europe. It is baffling that we should shackle ourselves to a political project with a limited vision to continue being a regional power, rather than looking further and using our attributes to be a global trading nation. Why are we paying to be a member of the world’s only stagnant customs union?
The leaflet claims that, as the UK is not part of the EU’s border-free zone, we control our own borders. We can certainly check passports at our border, and we can refuse entry to those without any valid identity documents. However, that is not the same as saying that we can refuse entry to anyone from other EU countries if they have valid documents, and it is certainly not the same as saying that we can control immigration.
Mrs Main
Following a recent answer to a question I asked on how many people are turned away from this country, it seems that 20 times more applicants from non-EU countries are turned away than those from EU countries. That shows that, unless people are particularly criminal outside the EU, we have only cursory checks and a cursory ability to stop people from EU countries coming in.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend makes a good point. My father was born in Burma. I have seen the good side of immigration, but mass uncontrolled immigration has a major effect on our infrastructure and public services—the NHS, housing and school places. We cannot tackle that effectively with one arm tied behind our back. Even the Treasury report uses the assumption that the Government will fail in their policy commitment to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, not just this year, but every year until 2030.
That is not the platform on which I stood last year, when immigration was such a huge issue on the doorstep in Sutton and Cheam, as it was around many parts of the country. The equivalent of the population of a city the size of Newcastle comes to the UK from the EU each year. Apart from the obvious lack of ability to control those numbers, those people join the queue in front of migrants from outside the EU who may have more suitable qualifications and skills that we need or desire in this country.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) mentioned the leaflets produced for the original 1975 referendum. Page 11 of one of those leaflets claimed:
“No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.”
Well, something has changed over the last few years, has it not? The reality 41 years later is that 65% of our laws, regulations and directives come from Brussels. The emergency brake on migration benefits is not applied by the UK; it is applied by Brussels. The red card system that is held up as a meaningful renegotiation success actually raises the bar for vetoing EU legislation, compared with the current orange card under the Lisbon treaty. Contributions to eurozone bail-outs are still a threat, despite assurances to the contrary, as we have seen before. We are contributing financially towards Turkey’s pre-accession assistance, despite assurances that it will not be a member any time soon.
Enough is enough. We have the fifth largest economy. We have the fourth largest army. We speak the language of business. We have the ideal geographic location for world trade, and we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Yes, there are risks on either side, but I am confident that we are big enough, bold enough and entrepreneurial enough as a nation to manage that risk and to thrive if we vote to leave.
That vote to leave is a vote to take control, to bring decision making back to accountable people here in the UK and to decide how we spend up to £350 million per week here in the UK on the NHS, schools, housing and other vital services. It is that positive vision that I will be sharing with people. I perfectly understand the anger and frustration of the petitioners, who see their money—taxpayers’ money, not Government money—spent on propaganda. Even some remainers are quietly dismayed and uncomfortable at that move. I hope that the circling establishment, led by the Government, will cut the hyperbole and exaggerated claims.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the 1975 referendum, but there is a cautionary tale about that. In 1974, 36% of the population told pollsters that they were opposed to our membership of the then Common Market. The Government and the equivalent of the remain campaign outvoted the leavers by 10 to one with lies, innuendos and supposition. We should be aware, and the Government should be aware, that they can outvote us 10 to one, but there will be a tremendous sense of grievance about it.
Paul Scully
As my hon. Friend outlines, that grievance has lasted for 41 years. That is something we want to avoid at all costs. We must ensure that the decision that the British people take is taken freely and fairly, with as much information—unbiased, impartial information—as possible, and after listening to the two campaign groups. It is important that the Government do not continue to stack the decks on a vital constitutional question that will have long-term consequences far beyond the careers of any of us in this Chamber. That is why the question is rightly being put to the British people in a referendum. Let us make our cases fairly and freely and trust the people of Britain to make the right decision.
Mr James Gray
On a point of order, Mr Evans. Would it not be normal in a debate such as this, having heard from a speaker in favour of the motion, to hear from a speaker opposed to it? Would that not be better? As I understand it, the hon. Lady is on our side. Is there not someone who would advance the opposite case?
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
You have been here long enough, Mr Gray, to know that we go from one side to the other. Kate Hoey caught my eye and therefore Kate Hoey has been selected to speak next. As we go back and forth, if other hon. Members on the Opposition side catch my eye, irrespective of whether they are for or against the motion, I will clearly be in a position to call them.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Evans. I will not take up my share of the time for the vast array of Labour MPs sitting here! I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I will just say a few words. I am sorry that so few of my colleagues are here and that our Front-Bench spokesperson will presumably put the case that this leaflet is a wonderful way of spending public money. I am clear that the people who signed the petition feel very strongly that it is a waste of public money and, indeed, that many of them, as I think has been said, were remainers. Many people just felt that this was not fair.
We went through the process and got legislation about referendums, and one aspect of that is that there is a campaign on each side. Each campaign is formally accepted, designated and can spend certain amounts of money and do certain things. They are the people who should be putting the arguments back and forth, apart from all the discussions that are going on anyway in our pubs and supermarkets. I think it is quite shameful that the Prime Minister has seen fit to go against what he would always personally argue about being fair and the British system of doing things—how we do things in this country.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is a fellow member of the Committee. Will she recall that, last summer, we fought valiantly to stop the Government taking powers to limit the application of section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which would have allowed the Government to carry on campaigning in this manner in the last 28 days of the campaign? Is it not now clear that they were presenting excuses to us as to why they needed those flexibilities? It was simply so that they could carry on exploiting the system, as they are planning to exploit the system and possibly even breach section 125 by keeping up their websites for the entire campaign instead of taking them down for the last 28 days.
Kate Hoey
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He and other members of the Committee feel so strongly about this matter that they are prepared to take very strong action if we do not get agreement from the Government to take the websites down. What is even more amazing to the public is this. When they talk about “the Government”, it is the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is actually split on this matter. If the Government were really being fair, two thirds of the leaflet would have been from one side and one third would have been from the Brexit side.
Andrew Percy
Is not the situation even worse than that? The official policy of the party of government is neutrality.
Kate Hoey
I do not normally look at the detail of Conservative party policy, but I am very pleased to hear and to repeat that. I felt very angry when the leaflet came out. I looked through it and saw all the so-called facts that we can go through and spend a lot of time pulling to pieces, but when it comes down to it, I have great confidence in the common sense of the British public. I think they will already have seen through the leaflet and seen it for what it is—full propaganda. Then, of course, we wake up literally every day to another shock-horror dreadful scare story. The stories become more ridiculous every day, today’s one being just about the most ridiculous possible—that we are threatened with war. In fact, it is absolutely shameful, because there are some people in this country who believe Prime Ministers and who will be slightly worried about that. It is absolutely shameful that the level of debate from the leadership of this country is so trivial and ridiculous that they come up with scare stories such as that.
Dr Fox
The hon. Lady should not believe that we have heard the worst—we have not yet got to plague and pestilence or the imminent asteroid impact that will happen if we vote to leave the European Union. Is this not more than a question of money or even fairness or the rubbish content of the leaflet itself? Is not the real importance here the fact that it may, if there is a very tight result, call into question the legitimacy of the result itself? Does the hon. Lady agree that those who believe that they should win the referendum at any price might want to consider what “any price” might look like?
Kate Hoey
That is a very important point. The one thing that we all said when we were debating the details of the referendum Bill was that the referendum had to be seen as free and fair. At the moment, I do not have confidence in its being free and fair, and I do not even have confidence that if, nearer the time, it looks like those who wish to leave are winning, something will not happen to make it even less free and fair. I genuinely have that concern, and it is a shocking thing even to be thinking as a democratically elected Member of this great House of Commons.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my declaration of interest as a director of Grassroots Out Ltd. One thing that seems to be causing great confusion in the country is the statement on the back of the leaflet about needing to register to vote in order to participate in the referendum. Does the hon. Lady agree that Ministers need to do more to set the record straight? The fact is that if people are on the electoral register, they are registered to vote; it is wrong and misleading to suggest otherwise.
Kate Hoey
That is a very important point. I hope the Minister will clarify how the Government will do more to reassure people that they do not have to re-register if they are already on the register, because many people are worried about that.
While we are talking about all the different scare stories, I have been thinking about the way every time the Prime Minister speaks or some of the remainers speak, they challenge us on which international figures support our leaving the European Union. I just have this vision that the Prime Minister will do something so that one morning we will wake up and hear on the “Today” programme that President Putin has asked us to stay in the European Union. That is the level to which I think we have got.
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Order. Before we hear from Dr Lewis, let me just say that I am sure that each and every one of you has an interesting ringtone on your mobile phone, but I do not want to hear them during the debate, so please check that your phones are in silent mode.
Dr Lewis
For a moment, I thought that that “Ride of the Valkyries” ringtone meant that the remainers were coming late to try to save the day. Has the hon. Lady not noticed a certain inconsistency in the Government’s position? They try to frighten us with the fact that President Putin, evidently, would like us to leave, whereas it is regarded as praiseworthy that the President of communist China wants us to remain. It seems to me that there is an element of cake and eating it at the same time.
Mr Jenkin
It is worth remembering that it is not the first time that the United States of America has misconstrued its own interests. President Roosevelt did not want Churchill to fight Hitler. He wanted us to make peace with Mussolini. Ronald Reagan pleaded with Margaret Thatcher not to take the Falkland Islands by military force but to do some kind of shared sovereignty deal with a south American dictator. Our allies may be our allies, but they are not always right.
Kate Hoey
Indeed, President Obama was quite wrong. When I was in Washington last weekend, we met a lot of senior Democrats and Republicans who said to us quite publicly, behind the scenes, that the UK leaving the EU would really not make any difference whatever to the United States. That is what the ordinary political person in America thinks. However, the vast majority of the American public do not even know what the EU is, so what President Obama said is not too worrying.
It annoyed me so much that one of the facts in the leaflet is:
“The UK has secured a special status in the EU.”
I have read a lot about that and have been through various documents, and I would love to see where that wording is actually included in the renegotiation document by the Heads of Government.
The renegotiation is not legally binding. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has done a lot of work on that in the European Scrutiny Committee. We cannot be confident that the aim of ever closer union will, in any way, do anything other than to take the renegotiation into account. It is so ridiculous that that has been put in, and I want the Minister to respond to that point.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I raised that point with the Prime Minister and asked him whether he could cite a single occasion when ever closer union was the sole basis for legal judgment. He wrote back to me admitting that there was not an example.
Sir William Cash
It is a question not only of whether the renegotiation is legally binding, but of whether it is legally binding and irreversible. It is not.
Kate Hoey
I always bow to the hon. Gentleman’s wisdom. I will not go through all the facts in the leaflet because I am sure that everybody would like to mention particular points.
When someone writes the history of this Administration and, particularly, of this Prime Minister, the way the Prime Minister has behaved on this matter will go down as very sad. It is eating into the kind of country the UK is. He should be ashamed of what he is doing. I just hope that, in some way, the response here and from the public will make him realise that he is clearly showing the country that he is deeply frightened about what will happen on 23 June. If that is the reason that all the scare stories are coming out, I am pleased. On 23 June, I want the Great British public to speak out, get out to vote and take us out of the anti-democratic EU.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My fellow European Scrutiny Committee member, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), so rightly referred to scaremongering. I simply say that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Those words will haunt the Prime Minister in due course.
The leaflet arises from sections 6 and 7 of the European Referendum Act 2015. The words were only introduced, with a degree of connivance, I would suggest, in the House of the Lords, and came back to the House of Commons on ping-pong. We did not actually have an opportunity properly to look at the wording, which imposes a legal duty on the Government to provide information.
I tabled an amendment on the question of accuracy and impartiality. As the matter was drawing to a vote, I was besieged by various buzzing bees, who suggested that I should withdraw the amendment. I said, “No, I will not, unless I know that the Minister will answer the question I am putting to him.” The question was like this: “Yes or no—will he accept that the information must be accurate and impartial?” The Minister replied, “Certainly,” and said it would be “perverse” to do otherwise. He remembers that and knows perfectly well that I am saying exactly what happened.
When such a senior and highly respected Minister in the House of Commons replies on the Floor of the House specifically to the question of withdrawing an amendment, it is regarded by all of us on both sides of the House as being binding on the Government. I simply cannot accept that that has in any way been fulfilled. I am sorry to have to say that I regard it as disgraceful that this leaflet has been produced in those circumstances. It is not accurate and it is not impartial. In fact, a whole slew of White Papers have been produced in pursuance of those two sections of the Act.
To add insult to injury, when a White Paper is presented to Parliament—unlike the leaflet, which goes to all the households—by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe, the ministerial code kicks in. In Prime Minister’s questions, I asked the Prime Minister whether he accepted the White Papers were in breach of the accuracy and impartiality prescribed in the framework of the ministerial code, for which he has direct responsibility. It is up to him to make certain that those are reviewed as the situation could even lead to resignation by senior Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. This is a very grave and serious matter. It is not just a question of whether we like it or not.
I entirely agree with and commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who laid out many of the issues and the reasons for the petition. We ought to be 100% behind the petition for all the reasons that so many hon. Members are here today. A serious issue lies beneath the petition, which is that what has happened is a serious breach of the ministerial code. Nobody can argue that those White Papers fulfil the criteria.
With regard to the issue of war, the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) were extremely apposite. The reality is that none of that is in the documents, and nor is the catastrophic effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday alleged would happen with regard to leaving the single market in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord). The plain fact is that the omissions—to get this right regarding impartiality and to be anything other than economical with the truth—are of the gravest concern to the people of this country. They are being asked to go to the polling booths on 23 June on the basis of arguments to which they have a right, particularly as they are paying for it and for the running of the machinery of government, which is being thrown behind the referendum, despite the fact that we won the argument on purdah. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, it is atrocious that the machinery of government is being used to put such material on the Government website. That would be regarded as unacceptable in any democratic country.
I take the view of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on what happened in 1975, and I was around in 1975—in fact, I have been around since 10 May 1940, so it is my 76th birthday tomorrow. As it happens, I was born on the day that Hitler decided to invade France and Holland, and Churchill became Prime Minister that evening, so I take particularly badly to the Prime Minister’s references to what Churchill would think about all this. We were drawn into that war by unprovoked aggression and, with respect to the questions of defence and other matters contained in these documents, I do not believe for one minute that the people who fought and died in the war, as my father did, would ever have believed that we would be where we are now as a result of the sacrifice they made.
Dr Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend has just anticipated my intervention. I recently raised that point at Prime Minister’s questions, because I know my hon. Friend does not normally touch on it. His father paid the ultimate sacrifice at the battle of Normandy, having won the Military Cross. He lies in France, having secured the freedom of the people of not only Britain but France to rule themselves. We now have a little video, timed to coincide with the Prime Minister’s speech, showing four veterans of world war two saying that they were fighting for a united Europe, but I very much doubt that that is the view of the vast majority of people who fought and died in that campaign.
Sir William Cash
I endorse my right hon. Friend’s intervention. It also made me particularly angry to hear Mr Juncker say that Eurosceptics should go and visit war cemeteries—people will understand the impact of that comment on someone like me—and I deeply resented President Obama’s reference to the same matter with respect to both United Kingdom and American troops. My father fought with American troops, and I am absolutely certain that the kind of undemocratic, dysfunctional, authoritarian, centralised system represented by the European Union, which does not work, is the antithesis of what they fought for. I want to get that firmly on the record.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a measure of the remain campaign’s desperation that it has to invoke the memory of those who died fighting dictatorships in order to try to present its case as patriotic when, in fact, we know from all the language that the campaign uses that it wants to do the country down?
Sir William Cash
The hon. Gentleman is right. I would go further, with reference to the historical analogies that permeate these documents and what the Prime Minister said today, and say that the very idea that Brexit would create war completely turns on its head the reality that, for at least four centuries, this country was drawn into all the wars in which it has been engaged by the desire of those in Europe to create European empires. That started, for example, with Philip of Spain and the armada, and later there were the Dutch wars, the Napoleonic wars and the first and second world wars. Those are realities. We were drawn into those wars. If we leave the European Union, we will be able to stand alone and, as we did in 1940, remind people that we are not going to be part and parcel of this dysfunctional system, which has so much instability and insecurity built into it that it is bound to lead to deep disturbance. Our attempt to make sense of all that has led us to argue so strongly for so many years that this European Union is dysfunctional, which is why, ultimately, we have to leave it.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the European Scrutiny Committee’s reports. She is an excellent member of the Committee, which I have the honour to chair. In the Liaison Committee’s examination of the Prime Minister last Wednesday, I was asked to go first after the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). I explained to the Prime Minister and to the Committee why I believe that the voters are being cheated on 23 June and, ultimately, a false prospectus is being offered to them. The reason is simple: the outcome of the question of whether there will be a full-on treaty change, which we were promised, cannot be guaranteed, if at all, until after the vote. When the voter goes to the voting booth and votes, they simply will not know whether, for example, there will be a treaty change, whether the European Court will intervene, whether there will be a change of Government or whether there will be a referendum in any other country on the basis of the changes that are made. The outcome of any one of those questions cannot be guaranteed under any circumstances, so I allege that requiring people to vote in such circumstances is cheating the voters.
I was most impressed to see the numbers on the petition, and it may be of interest to Members to know that the clip of my allegation that the Government and the Prime Minister are cheating the voters has now reached 175,000 viewings on Facebook, which is quite a lot. I strongly believe that that message is getting home to all the people who need to hear it.
The question of the single market seems to be so central to the economic case, the political case, the democratic case and the accountability case for why we should leave because it is in contradiction to what the people fought and died for in the last war. That is extremely important, but the Government also make an economic case in the leaflet, which talks about our having a massive single market:
“EU countries buy 44% of everything we sell abroad, from cars to insurance.”
What the leaflet does not say is outlined in a note I received from the House of Commons Library, and it is as simple as this. When we are trading with 27 other member states, the question of whether we have a deficit in goods and services, and in imports and exports, is the equivalent of asking whether we are making a loss in relation to those 27 member states. This is the answer from the House of Commons Library:
“UK trade deficit with EU countries: £67.8 billion”.
That is annual, and it is going up. That is a vast amount of money in our dealings with the single market, and it demonstrates that the single market does not work for us across the board. On the other hand—this is important—Germany has a £81.8 billion trade surplus with the 27 other member states. We make a loss of £67.8 billion, and they have a surplus of £81.8 billion. I do not have time to go into all the reasons, but it is a salutary lesson about the real value of the single market to us.
The UK’s trade surplus with the rest of the world, in relation to the same goods and services on which we make such a monumental loss with the other 27 member states, was £31.1 billion last year, and it is growing. We have a bright future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s accusation that leaving the single market would be catastrophic, the idea that we would end up at war if we do not carry out the diktat that the Government are issuing to the British people, and all the accumulated international bodies that are being brought in to support this flimsy argument that we should stay in, are all to be taken into account when people come to vote on 23 June.
I reject the manner in which the Government have gone about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has done us a service in bringing this issue to the House, as have the petitioners. Jayne Adye deserves 100% credit for doing so. There is only one answer to this shambolic European Union, and that is to vote to leave it.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Oh, the joys of email inboxes. I received an email about the leaflet; it had an attachment that I printed off. It looked much like the Government’s leaflet, except that it was by “A British citizen”, who had written her own leaflet based on the Government’s, called “Why I believe that voting to leave the European Union is the best decision for the UK”. I thought her leaflet made a darn sight more sense than the Government’s. Given the current debate about national security, I thought I would share what she wrote. The only reason why I do not name her is that I did not check whether it was all right to do so. She was happy for me to use the leaflet. Under “Keeping us safe”, she wrote:
“Our UK police and intelligence agencies do a fantastic job. There is no EU intelligence sharing arrangement, and there is unlikely to be one soon. Security and intelligence services are intrinsically secret organisations which share their information only with those they trust to keep their secrets. There are direct agreements between certain member states. These are not dependent on membership of the EU.”
Based on my impressions from reading the Sunday newspapers, she shows a greater understanding of how our intelligence services work than some of our former heads of MI5 and MI6, who put the facts in a way that suits their case.
Mr Jenkin
The Prime Minister discussed in his speech today the importance of sharing our intelligence with our European partners, but I am sure the right hon. Lady knows about the importance of our relationship with the United States, which spends $52 billion a year on signals intelligence and gives us everything it has whenever we ask for it. It would not do that if it thought we would give it to the French and the Germans; it would cut us off instantly. That was its experience in the Kosovo campaign, when there were intelligence leaks to the French. It would simply not countenance supporting that intelligence relationship if we shared all our intelligence with our European allies, as the Prime Minister seemed to suggest we do in his ludicrous speech.
Ms Stuart
I could not agree more. The House is currently considering the Investigatory Powers Bill, and our intelligence services operate under strict democratic oversight processes that determine how they use data. Agreeing to European Union-wide intelligence sharing, or handing over data to systems when we are not even certain about the democratic scrutiny of those systems, is just not going to happen.
It is dangerous to distort historic events, given that the referendum has historic significance and that a whole generation of young people who have probably never experienced anything else will be voting. As it happens, tomorrow will be the 75th anniversary of the day when this House was severely damaged during bombing raids. Churchill made it clear that whatever happened, Parliament would have to go on. I see that I am getting a puzzled look; it was the night of 10 to 11 May. It was clear that the most important thing, even at the height of real attacks, was that democratic processes go on, because they were at the heart of this country.
There have been statements such as, “We have secured 70 years of uninterrupted peace in Europe.” Try saying that to the hundreds of thousands of Bosnians and Serbs who had to give their lives before the United Kingdom and the United States took action, without a UN mandate. When the European Union did get involved politically, it made a complete and utter hash of it. We must not lie to the young. I expect the old at least to be able to make up their own minds and have historical perspective.
I object to the final page of the leaflet. The Minister is looking at it; he needs to note this. People came up to me in my advice surgery saying, “Do I have to register to vote for the referendum?” I did not know what they were talking about until I looked at the back page, which says:
“If you’re aged 18 or over by 23 June and are entitled to vote, this is your chance to decide.”
So far, so good.
“Registration ends on 7 June. Find out how to register at aboutmyvote.co.uk and register online at gov.uk/register-to-vote.”
People are reading that to mean that they will have to register specifically for this vote. That is misleading.
It is also highly dubious to align the issuing of postal votes closely with the date on which purdah will kick in. The Electoral Commission is issuing postal votes very early on. In my understanding, the whole purpose of purdah is so that Government machinery will not unduly influence voters’ decisions. Electors are used to political parties taking sides, but they are not used to the Government, in their guise as the Government, taking deeply party political decisions. I want the Minister to show me that he has taken due account of that, so that purdah and the issuing of postal votes will not overlap and there will not be some Treasury report a day before the postal votes land on doormats telling us that we are all going to starve and start sending children up chimneys again. Will he have a word with the electoral registration officers about the misleading statement that has been made?
Similarly, we must put the costs of the leaflet into context. It has cost £9.3 million. The Electoral Commission was set up as an independent body to facilitate fair conduct of such a referendum. As part of that fair conduct, two organisations have been designated to make the case for and against. Those participating have strict financial limits. The Minister will have to explain to me why it is fair and proper to allow the in and out campaigns to raise £7 million each from individual sources, not Government money. There is a real misconception about that. People think that the campaigns have been given that money by the Government. They have not. They have been given permission to raise it. Yet the Government, in one mailshot, have spent more taxpayers’ money than they are spending on the whole process of facilitating the election. That kind of imbalance is simply wrong.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I have done some brief calculations on the back of an envelope. We have 650 MPs—let us say that each of us was entitled to £13,500. There are a couple of worthwhile projects in my constituency that I would have supported, including a new transport plan for St Teath. Does the right hon. Lady have any projects in her constituency on which she would have liked to spend that £13,500?
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
It might help the right hon. Lady to know that the Minister for Europe and I share a county in which the health trusts’ deficit this year is approximately the same as the amount of money spent on the leaflet.
Ms Stuart
The sad thing is that not only has that money not been spent more helpfully and usefully, it has been spent to undermine democratic processes. What worries me more than anything else is that this vote is meant to reinvigorate democracy and encourage participation, but it is causing increased mistrust and cynicism, which is not helpful.
Tom Pursglove
One thing that I know as a former local councillor is how much work local authorities and public bodies must do to prove value for money. Does the right hon. Lady think that the Minister will be able to set out for us what value-for-money steps were taken in the procurement?
Ms Stuart
I am sure that he could, but the problem is that it is a bit like spilt milk—once the damage is done, if we were to say that we wanted another leaflet putting the facts straight, that would simply compound the problem.
The only points that I want the Minister to respond to in his summing-up are how intends to redress the statement about voter registration and how he will deal with the situation with postal votes and purdah.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Government document is a disgrace. It is morally wrong, it is financially wrong and I think that it will backfire on them politically, which is the only good news in this otherwise rather sad debate. We should not need to do this. Any British democratic Government should understand that we want to have fair elections and referendums, and that we have a long tradition of not taking taxpayers’ money to spend in promotion of party political purposes or other political purposes during an election or referendum. In my experience, no Government have ever taken taxpayers’ money close to an election to propagandise for party policies. Nor should this Government be taking money from the many taxpayers who wish to leave the European Union in order to spend it on propaganda to try to thwart their wishes.
I was proud to stand in the general election on a platform of offering people a free choice and a free vote, after all these years when we have had no right to such a thing, and it is a great pity that it is being sullied by taking money from taxpayers and spending it in the distorting way that others have already mentioned.
I know that many other colleagues wish to speak, so I will concentrate on just two matters. This leaflet is extremely misleading and part of a very misleading campaign that is based on fear and misinformation about our relationship with the EU and what the EU is doing to us. The two claims in the leaflet that I wish to highlight go together in some ways. The leaflet says that we now have “a special status” and that often we can get our own way as a result of that special status. So I thought I would look at three crucial areas and ask, “Do we have a special status and are we getting our way?” Those areas are our right to choose our own taxes; our right to control our own borders; and our right to decide what benefits to give to which people who live in our community. All previous Governments who have negotiated treaties have always solemnly promised Parliament that we still had complete control over what taxes we raised, complete control over what benefits we chose to spend our money on and complete control over our borders. I am afraid, however, that none of those things is true.
Let us take part of the negotiation—this special status. We were told that, as a result of the negotiation, changes would be made to the VAT system. It is clearly the settled will of this Parliament that the tampon tax should be abolished, and it is clearly illegal under European law to do so. It is also clear that last summer our European Union Commission took our Government to court and successfully prosecuted them for daring to set the VAT rate on green products—insulation, all sorts of boiler controls and other things that promote the green agenda—at 5% instead of at the full VAT rate, and of course the Commission successfully won that court case. So our Government are now under a legal requirement of the European Court of Justice to put our VAT up to 20%, although of course they have not done so before the referendum because it would be embarrassing and tedious for them to do so.
We were then told that this new special status means that that is going to change, so that we will not have to put up our VAT on green products and we will be able to get rid of the VAT on tampons. So I looked at the document that the EU has now issued following the negotiation to see whether that is indeed the case.
The first thing to note is that the consultation that the EU is holding on VAT reform is mainly about centralising and taking more powers to Brussels over VAT, not giving more powers to member states. The second thing to note is that the document makes absolutely no reference whatever to the EU-UK agreement, or to the special status that we asked for and we were told we had got on VAT. The third thing is that, in the talismanic last couple of paragraphs about whether it might be possible to offer more freedom to member states to choose their own rates of VAT, no mention is made of the rates that we wish to remove or keep low and no guarantee is offered that there will be any legislation forthcoming. Again, the document says that it is terribly important not to have tax competition within the single market and very important to have a central policy that has political support.
One has to read that document to understand that there is absolutely no agreement on special status and no agreement at all that the UK can choose its own VAT rates. That is a broken promise. Also, we are told by the Treasury that we will lose a series of court cases on corporation tax again in this Parliament. We lost many such cases in the last Parliament and it cost £7 billion of revenue, which the British Parliament wished to raise on corporations but had to give back, and the Treasury forecast is that we will lose another £7 billion in this Parliament in losing court cases in the ECJ. The Treasury has never suggested that this new special status will prevent that. Therefore, it is quite obvious that we cannot raise taxes from companies where we want to and we cannot cut taxes on consumers where we want to, and that we have no “special status”.
If one then asks, “Is there a special status on borders?” the answer is, “No, of course, there isn’t.” We are governed by the freedom-of-movement provisions and that means we have to allow in anyone who can get a job or who is seeking work under the provisions of the freedom-of-movement clauses. The Government, who made a solemn promise to the electors to reduce the number of migrants coming into the country—so that we can catch up with the need for more school places, more GP surgeries, more hospital capacity, more roads and more houses for people—are unable to fulfil that pledge in any way, and the Treasury has now admitted that that pledge is for the birds over the five years of this Parliament and all the way out to 2030. Goodness knows why the Treasury thought it could forecast to 2030, because it cannot even forecast for this year, let alone to 2030.
Mrs Main
My right hon. Friend has just made a fantastic point about the lack of transparency. Does he share my concern? An independent report states that 3.5 million people are expected to come in by that time—it will probably be considerably more than that—but there is no indication to the British people where they are going to go, and it is calculated that a quarter of a million acres of extra developed land will be required to provide the housing for those people coming in.
John Redwood
My hon. Friend is right—there is absolutely no proper provision for the very large number of people that the Treasury now admits are likely to come in. That is one of the few Treasury forecasts that I might believe. It is quite obvious that it could not forecast its own public spending, its own interest rates or anything in the recent Office for Budget Responsibility and Treasury documents. It had to make another revision again in the March Budget—it revised the forecast made in November—because it had found it difficult to grasp how the world might change between November and March. So there is this inability to forecast the economic numbers, but for once I think the Treasury may be honest in forecasting a substantial increase in migration. I suspect that the Treasury’s estimate is an underestimate because it has been constantly underestimating these figures in recent years, and it proves that we have no control over our borders and no “special status” whatsoever.
The third area is benefits. The Prime Minister made a great deal about benefits in the renegotiation; it was one of the few areas where he really pushed quite hard to get reform in the way that Britain wanted. I think both major parties campaigning in the last election wanted, for example, to no longer have to pay child benefit to children who are not resident in our country, but apparently that is something that we cannot negotiate. There is no “special status” to allow us to decide that child benefit should go to children living in our country rather than to children living elsewhere. There is some kind of fudge whereby we could pay the benefit at the level that applies in that country, which means in some cases that we will have to pay a higher level of benefit, although in other cases it means we will pay a lower level of benefit. So there is absolutely no control there.
Again, both major parties wanted amendments so that people coming here to work under the freedom-of-movement provisions would not automatically get the full range of benefits until they had been here for a bit and made some kind of contribution. We were not able to get a guarantee on that, either. There is some sort of four-year clause as a temporary expedient, but the benefits have to be phased in over the four years and the negotiating aim was not met.
On the big three things, therefore, which all independent democratic countries control through their Parliaments and Governments, Britain is unable to exert control: we cannot decide what taxes to impose; we cannot decide what benefits to spend our money on; and we cannot control our own borders. So I have to submit that the Government are completely misrepresenting the position when they say that they have negotiated a “special status”. They are completely wrong when they say that shows we can get our own way. They could not even get their own way on a very limited number of negotiating objectives at a point when they were threatening withdrawal and a referendum, so how will they ever get their way at all once the referendum is out of the way if, by any chance, the British people have not seen through this and voted to stay?
Sammy Wilson
Does the right hon. Gentleman find it strange that, although the Government claim to have special status on some issues—and he has proved they have not gained such status—they refer time and again to things that we have opted out of? They make a case for joining Europe, but they boast that through our special status, “We opt out of this, we opt out of the euro, we opt out of border controls—we opt out of a whole range of things.” The Government are actually making a case for staying clear of the European project.
John Redwood
I agree. I always liken it to someone joining a football club and then announcing truculently that they have no wish to play football or watch football, getting cross when they go to club functions and people talk about football, and wanting to reduce the club subscription because, as they do not join in the football, they think they are overpaying. That is what the Government are doing to Europe. They do not want to join the single currency or Schengen, or the quota system for refugees. They do not like political union being talked about, although that is the EU’s main purpose, and they think that the club subscription is too large. They are right about one thing: the club subscription is far too large for us because we do not believe in practically any of the club’s purposes. Most of us would draw the conclusion, however, that the simplest thing to do would be to leave the club and spend the subscription on things we do like.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for an outstanding opening presentation and for taking so many friendly and supportive interventions. I also echo the thanks to the petition organisers, who have done a brilliant job. As of now we are at 219,560 signatories.
I have just one regret about the debate. It ought to have been held in the main Chamber of the House of Commons, because then we would have been able to have a vote at the end of it and put to the test the sincerity or otherwise of those who say that the Government have behaved decently, fairly and honourably, rather than deeply unscrupulously, over the production of this expensive leaflet. It was produced at the expense of taxpayers, most of whom—hopefully we will find this out on independence day, 23 June—do not believe the Government’s argument.
I must make an observation on something quite striking here. I may be wrong, and I may have misinterpreted the voting intentions of some of the colleagues from various parties who are here today, but it seems that there is not a single right hon. or hon. Member here, other than the Front-Bench spokesmen for the Government, the official Opposition and the Scottish National party, who is likely to try to defend the production of the leaflet. If that is the case, it may well be that had a vote been possible, at least among Members in this Chamber, any motion deploring the Government’s production of such a leaflet at such expense for the benefit of one side in a contested referendum debate would have been overwhelmingly carried.
There is something else I find deeply worrying about the whole process. It seems that the Government arrived at their conclusions first and are now scrabbling around ever more desperately for one new argument after another to buttress them. As right hon. and hon. Members have already asked, why were these terribly important arguments about war and peace not included in the leaflet that was sent out? Why, indeed, was the Prime Minister willing to threaten—during what appear, I am sorry to say, to have been sham negotiations in Europe—that if he did not get his way on whatever minor changes he was trying to get he would be prepared to leave the European Union? If war, pestilence, flood, boils, frogs and the rest of the 10 plagues of Egypt will descend on us—
Dr Lewis
Indeed, and I will come to the question about war and peace a little further along, if I may.
It is a strange argument to suggest that out of something between 150 and 200 countries recognised at the United Nations, we, with the fifth strongest economy, are somehow deemed incapable of surviving outside the European Union. The vast majority of countries in the world do not, at least so far, belong to the 28-strong European Union network of nations. Who knows where the ambition will end? Perhaps one day half the countries in the world, or all of them, will belong to the European Union. One thing is clear, however. If countries are forced to integrate without the consent of the peoples concerned, the resultant political construct cannot possibly be run democratically.
Sir William Cash
Does my right hon. Friend accept that although we keep being told that we have to stay in the European Union because the other countries want and even need us for stability, democracy and accountability, the one thing that can be guaranteed to come out of the process of political integration is that we will be dumped into the second tier of a two-tier Europe, which I believe will largely be run by Germany? The consequence will be that we will not have influence because of the majority voting system and the lack of democracy.
Dr Lewis
As in so many things, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Let us be in no doubt about this: if, heaven forbid, we vote to remain in the European Union on 23 June, other countries will know once and for all that our ability to assert any independence or influence within that organisation is done for.
Mr Jenkin
To pick up a refrain from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the entire construct of the document that we are discussing, and indeed of the Prime Minister’s speech today, is that somehow we are withdrawing from Europe. We want to leave the European Union, which is a failing institution, but we want to remain an active member of NATO and remain engaged with our European allies and partners on all the matters that the European Union deals with. We just do not want to be told what to do as a member of the European Union.
Dr Lewis
Absolutely, and in which of the two alternative models can we more influence other European countries? We have one model in which we can express our view and, with a democratic decision of our own Parliament, pursue a policy to try to enact that view. Alternatively, we can take the view that we will have more influence by submerging our voting power in a collective pool of voters, with a construct made up of legislatures and commissioners appointed by the 27 other member countries as well as by Britain. We can be outvoted time and again by an overwhelming majority of other countries’ Parliaments or commissioners and have our views totally disregarded.
It is understandable that people on the other side of the Atlantic who on two occasions, against their initial inclinations, have been forced into a conflict originating on the continent of Europe as a result of German militarism would prefer that Britain remain part of an organisation that they know can spell trouble for the United States of America in the future, just as it has in the past. However, they are making a fatal miscalculation if they think that we will be better able to keep the Governments of the remaining parts of Europe on some sort of track of common sense and reliable policy making by being outvoted by them at every turn. We need a system in which we can make our criticisms, and if those criticisms are not accepted we can go on making them and formulate policies to try to mitigate the effects of foolish policies that others might adopt.
I must say that the developments we have seen in the past couple of days are frankly very worrying. First there was the use of intelligence chiefs to say publicly that we would somehow be less safe in our intelligence sharing if we left the EU. At least one of the two intelligence chiefs concerned told me privately that we would be no worse off. We have seen that before—we saw the same operation when Downing Street tried to get a large number of retired military figures to sign up to a letter. Several of them did, but quite a lot of them refused. One of those whose signature was attached had not agreed, and Downing Street had to apologise to him. Another who had reluctantly agreed said that it was nevertheless unpleasant that he felt pressured to sign and that it was not the sort of letter he would have written himself.
Let not the Government turn around with innocence in their eye and say, “Good heavens, the very idea that we would try to manipulate senior figures or public opinion is outrageous.” The reality is that they have been caught doing it before. For that reason, they probably did not do it directly with the two intelligence chiefs, but we all know the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s official line on Britain remaining in Europe. No. 10 would not have to do a great deal to persuade a former senior diplomat—later the head of an intelligence agency—to put forward a line amenable to the Government’s standpoint.
Kate Hoey
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that many of the people who are being asked to do things on behalf of the Prime Minister—or indeed the Prime Minister himself—are looking towards a future job with the European Union, perhaps when they retire from whatever they are doing at the moment?
Dr Lewis
I would not like to attribute any particular motivation. It may often go no further than the fact that for someone with a long and honourable record of public service, who is used to serving democratically elected Governments, it is very difficult to refuse a request from high up in the political establishment—possibly from the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister’s representative—that they should speak out in support of Government policy. Let us put it this way: to refuse might be deemed ungrateful and against the ethos of civil servants’ obedience to Government rule. One does not have to look for base motives; one can simply say that it would take a special sort of independence of mind for someone to tell the Prime Minister or his representative that they were not going to help out in his hour of need.
It certainly seems to be an hour of need, because the reality is that the campaign seems to be getting more and more desperate and unscrupulous. Everything the remain campaigners do seems to be unavailing in shifting public opinion. The further they dig themselves into holes through dodgy tactics, the harder it becomes to defend them. I revert to what I said at the beginning: it appears that no Back Bencher is willing to attend the debate and speak up in favour of the Government’s tactics in producing this one-sided leaflet. These things do not happen by accident.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it goes further than that? Many Back Benchers—I include myself among them—feel desperately let down by the Government. We genuinely had an open mind. In my case, I am generally Eurosceptic, but we genuinely wanted to see what the Prime Minister came back with from the negotiations before we made up our mind. Now we discover that the Government had no intention of ever recommending that we should leave, and were completely set on the remain campaign from the very beginning.
Dr Lewis
Yes, it is absolutely clear that the Government are and always have been set on remaining come what may. The manoeuvres do not happen by accident. It is no accident that there appears to be a total boycott of the debate by Members from the remain side of the argument, other than the Front Benchers who have to be here. It was no coincidence that we had the intervention from the retired heads of MI5 and MI6 just 24 hours before the Prime Minister made his speech today. Such things are orchestrated. I can only assume that the more questionable the Government’s tactics come to be, the less able they will be to find people to stand up and defend them.
I had better bring my remarks to a close, because many other Members wish to speak. I do not know whether the debate will go right to 7.30 pm, but although I will stay as long as I can, I apologise for the fact that I will not be here for the winding-up speeches if the debate goes to its full length.
The Government’s only defence of the leaflet, which they have produced at such great cost to the public purse, is, “We can only look at the facts honestly, and the facts as we see them all come down on one side of the argument.” If that were honestly the case, there would be no need for a referendum in the first place. There would not be huge disagreement among a large part of the population with the idea that Britain should remain in an organisation hellbent on doing away with the system of parliamentary democracies that has kept the peace and replacing it with an undemocratic supranational Government. That could bring about the tensions and conflicts that always happen when we do not have democratic Governments dealing with other democratic Governments. Who can name an example of a modern democratic Government of one country going to war with a modern democratic Government of another? No one, because it does not happen. The idea that breaking up our system of peace-loving democracies and shoehorning people into a supranational state will somehow keep the peace rather than undermine it clearly shows that the Government have entered into something of an “Alice Through the Looking Glass” existence.
I once again thank everyone who has contributed to the debate so far. I am sure that when the time comes, the country will seize its one and only opportunity. If the Government win, they will expect us to accept defeat with good grace, just as we would expect them to accept defeat with good grace if we win. In reality, by adopting one-sided tactics such as producing this propaganda leaflet at public expense, they are delegitimising the result, and no one will benefit from that.
[Graham Stringer in the Chair]
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on taking up the e-petition. No doubt it probably now has nearly 220,000 signatures. My constituents often say, “E-petitions make no difference. No one is really listening. What is the point of signing them?” but this debate shows clearly that that is not the case.
When the leaflet dropped through the door, I got three copies. I am not entirely sure why.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I also received three copies, which seems extremely unusual, and it enhanced the irritation that I felt. Does my hon. Friend agree that the leaflet shows a lack of value for money for taxpayers?
Mrs Trevelyan
Indeed. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I think that value for money was not given a great deal of consideration when the document was published.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Two hundred and one of my constituents signed the petition, as did 214 constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). The leaflet has not been sent to the people of Northern Ireland yet, and yet the anger grows. Since the arguments for the Government’s proposition in the leaflet have been shot through so convincingly, does the hon. Lady believe that the Minister should at least take the honourable step of saying, “Enough is enough; we recognise we made a mistake and we will not send it to the devolved regions”?
Mrs Trevelyan
I hope the Minister takes note of that and perhaps saves the taxpayer a little bit of the money that the Government have so unscrupulously chosen to spend.
I want to look at one section of the leaflet—the wider issues have already been raised by other hon. Members and will no doubt be covered in more detail. The heading on page 7 is, “What happens if we leave?” That is clearly an open question—it sounds like an A-level question. One would expect the answer to cover both sides of the argument, presenting the for and the against, and giving a bit of detail and a concluding position, but it is clearly from one side of the argument. Apparently, voting to leave would create uncertainty and “potential economic disruption”. “Potential” leaves a little uncertainty. I think we have had definite economic disruption forever. Economies go up and they go down. Anyone who suggests that staying in a particular bubble will maintain some kind of economic stability has not been looking out of the window much.
Richard Drax
On that particular point, the leader of the opposition, Mr Rose, said there would be no change at all.
Mrs Trevelyan
My hon. Friend is right. It is always a little confusing when leaders of opposing camps in any election start to talk about the other side’s views. I hope that uncertainty and economic disruption will not be caused by Brexit. It is safe to say that we see much ahead of us that could cause that anyway.
The question of what happens if we leave is presented in the leaflet. What is not offered for those who have had the pleasure of having it through their door, or who have that pleasure still to come, is the question of what would voting to stay look like, since we know what would happen if we leave. It would ensure that we remain wedded with almost no influence, as several colleagues have already said. We are outwith the battered and struggling eurozone framework, but we are wedded to it. We are seeing Greek residents yet again put under unbearable financial strain so that EU bankers can circulate IMF money through Greece to ensure that the bankers do not come off too badly because of the euro chaos going on there. That is something we will definitely stay attached to in our uncontrolled sector outwith the eurozone, but that will cost us money. We will have to continue, as required, to bail out future eurozone crashes.
Jim Mellon, a successful entrepreneur who works across a large number of EU states, has made it clear—his forecasts, unlike the Treasury’s, have often been accurate—that the likely next crash of the euro, possibly a complete crash, will be within the next three years. It seems to me that voting to stay in will almost certainly ensure that we are wedded to a big bill over which we have little control, watching nations around us suffer even greater debt. The reality is that France’s and Italy’s debt balance sheet is pretty unsustainable. The chances are that the bill will be a lot bigger than just Greece’s costs. It is clear what will happen if we choose to stay.
The Government leaflet briefly suggests that we might strike a good deal in terms of trade with the EU if we were to leave, but it goes on to dismiss that as a pie-in-the-sky idea that is incredibly unlikely, because, somehow, there is no reason why a trade deal would be struck. The leaflet indicates that 8% of EU exports come to the UK and that 44% of UK exports go to the EU. That sounds terrible: 8% in, 44% out. That is a big imbalance, but let us look at that in real terms—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned this earlier—and in the terms that businesses and those who make the exports and provide the services that we sell abroad would actually understand: the terms of money.
I am an accountant; percentages can be a useful way to present an issue, but also a useful way to create a level of dissimulation. There is a £67 billion deficit of goods and services this year.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Lady accept that the argument about a trade deal is really a non-argument? The United States has no trade deal with the EU and yet sells billions of euros’ worth of goods every year to the EU. Trade occurs because people want to buy the goods and because the prices are competitive.
Mrs Trevelyan
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman anticipates my words.
On the numbers, there is real cash—real money—involved in selling and buying goods. I am not willing to brook the scaremongering message that businesses that sell us their products—all £67 billion of them—will want to stop doing so. It is said that the EU creates jobs and makes us money. None of that is true. The reality is that hard-working businessmen put their houses on the line to set up a business and employ people. They make a great product that other people want to buy. That is how jobs are created and how business and growth happen. It has nothing to do with the EU. It is about people buying and selling goods. It is as old as the hills and will continue.
British car drivers will still want to buy BMWs and Mercedes, and I have no doubt that the Germans will still want to sell them to us. We will be in what is described as a free trade area, which goes from Iceland through to Turkey. The risk of dramatic and terrifying tariffs is not a real risk. That is not what can happen under WTO rules within a free trade area.
The leaflet is frustrating. Not only is it biased, but it is unable to explain the reality of what trade means and how it might work, for better or worse, if we were to vote to leave on 23 June. At best, it is simply scurrilous. One of the real problems with the message about exports being key is that only about 5% or 6% of our businesses, which are a very important part of our UK trade, actually export to the EU. In my constituency in north Northumberland, I have a large number of small businesses, very few of whom export at all. They mostly sell their goods to other UK citizens. Of those who do export, they export to all corners of the globe, not only to the EU. In fact, thanks to the Emirates airline that set up a Newcastle to Dubai route four years ago, many now trade in the middle east in a whole new world. We have opened up dramatic new markets thanks to one aeroplane that goes once a day. It has been a fascinating thing to see. The EU is not the be-all and end-all of trade.
Paul Scully
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Emirates airline is a really good example of a Dubai-based airline benefiting from the European open skies policy, despite, funnily enough, not being based in the EU?
Mrs Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I agree entirely. The EU seems to have a propensity to believe that its status and existence is vital to everything else, but I am very pleased that business people around the world continue to override that and do what businesses do: create great new products and provide services that the whole world can reach and make use of.
My postbag has been heavily weighted by the views of businesses—before the leaflet arrived, but even more so after it arrived—overwhelmingly saying that being part of the EU has been hugely onerous, often adding enormous and unnecessary regulations that are not relevant or necessary because they do not trade in the EU. They add to costs, reduce productivity and often create frustrations in the day-to-day life of the businesses. Farmers, mackerel smokers, drone engineers and pastry producers are under more and more pressure from the EU, which has brought them unbelievable packaging regulations—and the weight of extra costs—that they would not need if we were not in the EU. They could trade with UK businesses and overseas global traders under a set of regulations that were sensible and financially viable, which would help their productivity to grow. If they continued to trade within the EU, no doubt they would be perfectly comfortable to meet whatever packaging and other requirements were needed for those markets.
In conclusion, the thing I found most frustrating about the leaflet—other than the fact that it was deeply depressing, presented only one side of the argument and managed to skew information in a way that anyone sitting an A-level would be chastised for because they were not presenting the facts as they should—was that £9.3 million is a lot of money in anyone’s book. I currently do a great deal of work with military charities. Combat Stress has been struggling to persuade the Chancellor to maintain funding for the incredibly important veterans services it provides. It received £6.3 million from the Government in 2014, but that was brought down to £4.6 million last year, and the charity is fighting to maintain that level for this year. I consider it wholly unacceptable, as do many of my constituents, that the Government have chosen to spend £9.3 million on this leaflet rather than finding one of the many ways to spend it to support those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect our nation. To suggest that war and genocide are the likely outcomes of voting to leave is insulting to our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and to every member of the British population who had to read such rubbish. I am sad for those yet to receive the leaflet who will do shortly.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on such a brilliant introduction to the debate, and thank the many Members who have already spoken so well and so clearly. I shall not speak for long.
I have a copy of the leaflet—I sent mine back to the Prime Minister personally. As I said in an intervention earlier, I am delighted that I have the opportunity to speak about it before war breaks out and I am summoned. I am an ex-serviceman, my uniform is still hanging in the cupboard and I am ready to serve again, but I hope that we do not have to use armed force against our European allies. If they are allies and the EU state is so wonderful, as the Prime Minister and others believe, it is simply beyond me as to why one country’s leaving should cause war and genocide. The argument just does not stack up. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and others have said, it is shameful that the Government are using such language.
When we hear from the Minister later, I am sure we will hear what we have heard from him before: a lot of—well, I cannot think of the appropriate word because he and I so fundamentally disagree. I wish this could be a light-hearted debate, I really do. I wish a sense of humour could be injected—although occasionally it is because the arguments for staying in are so farcical—but this is all about our country and its future. It is not about individual politicians or political legacies; it is about the future of our country and the freedom of the people who live in it. It is as simple as that. It is about our right to our own destiny and to guide our country in the direction we wish her to go.
On the back of the leaflet it says, “Protecting jobs”, and next to it is a tick. Tell that to half the members of the EU. They have huge rates of unemployment and are crippled by the euro and bankrupt. Italy was run by bureaucrats for a short period. Could that happen to us? The same people advised us to sell off the pound and join the euro. What an absolute disaster that would have been! One of the main reasons why our economy is potentially strong now is because we retained the pound. The leaflet also says, “A stronger economy”, with a tick. Again, tell that to the millions of people who are struggling to find work. It says, “Providing security”—security! Look at the evidence: civil unrest, terrorism, uncontrolled immigration and the rise of the left and the right. That is just what everyone feared all those years ago and, as has been mentioned, why so many millions died to keep us free. The EU is creating that same fear again because none of this makes sense.
I am staggered. I find it very difficult to comprehend how my party is in league with left-leaning parties, except for a few honourable exceptions. That is not to defame anyone for being on the left, right or centre, but it seems to me that the socialist-leaning parties want the EU to survive because it is a bureaucracy. Bureaucrats run it and are paid God knows how much money, with pensions, huge offices and secretaries—the cost is astronomical—and they are unaccountable.
Kate Hoey
The hon. Gentleman mentioned EU pensions, which is something that really bugs me. There are all those Members in the House of Lords who have worked for the European Union as commissioners and so on and now have big pensions—really, they are signed up to never bringing the European Union into disrepute. Does he agree not only that should they have to declare an interest, which they do not, but that they should not be allowed to take part or vote in anything to do with the European Union? They are deeply committed to it because of their huge pensions and if they say anything wrong they might get that taken away.
Richard Drax
I agree with the hon. Lady. It certainly seems from those who have contributed to the debate so far that people are easily manipulated, or bought, or whatever. If the allegation is one of corruption, perhaps that is a bit strong, but certainly for ex-servicemen to speak out as they did is most unusual. Generals and highly respected people who have served this country should not be politicised. They should never have been asked to write that letter on behalf of the Government. It was an absolute disgrace. I have since spoken to one of the signatories, who shall remain nameless, and I have to say that I do not think he is particularly proud of signing that letter.
Let me return to the document. Interestingly, it has seven pictures. It does not have very many pages, but it has seven pictures: a calendar; a gentleman working on a bit of engineering; a basket of food; a ship; a “UK Border” sign; a family in the kitchen, washing up the breakfast, lunch or dinner; and a family walking down the street with a baby. You could not make this up. If the argument to stay in is so strong, why are these pages not full of facts trying to persuade people to stay in? The fact is that the Government do not have sufficient facts to fill this tiny, shabby leaflet.
Mrs Main
Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that there is no real image of what staying in looks like? There is absolutely no mention of the accession of Turkey. There is no mention that 70-odd million Turks will soon be able to be part of the European Union or that it is our official position to welcome and support that. We have not resiled from that and it should be in the leaflet.
Richard Drax
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the potential mayhem that could be caused by uncontrolled immigration continuing. We have seen the evidence now: people are dying trying to cross seas to get to us. I do not blame them; if I were living in terrible conditions and I looked at my telephone and saw Dorset, I would say, “Darling, children, we’re off!” but we cannot allow uncontrolled immigration to continue. Turkey is a classic case.
Nor does the leaflet refer to the defence of our country. In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, I warned that staying in the European Union would inevitably lead a Government—I suspect a socialist Government more than this one—to look at the European army, navy and air force and say, “We’ve got all these ships, planes and men and women in uniform. Why do we need 80,000 British soldiers, 12, 13 or 14 squadrons, or whatever we have, and 19 warships? We don’t need to spend billions of pounds on our defence, because we are being defended by the Europeans.” The temptation to cut our armed forces to pay for other socialist agendas will be enormous.
Let me talk about the Falklands briefly. I was serving at the time. Friends of mine in the Welsh Guards and the Scots Guards were sent down there, and some lost their lives. Where was Europe during that war? It was nowhere in sight. We stood alone again until the Americans came to our aid and provided us with equipment to pursue the war more effectively.
This is about our democracy, our decision making and—dare I say?—our royal family, whom no one has mentioned yet. Is a 28-nation bureaucracy run from the centre going to want to see little England waving its Union Jack? Is it going to want to see our royal family reminding our great country of the country we used to be? The Head of State is the Queen. They ain’t going to like that for much longer, I warn you now.
We have heard about the special status. We have also heard that the deal, if it can be called that, struck by the Prime Minister has been lodged with the United Nations. We were promised a treaty change but we do not have one. As I understand it, MEPs and the European courts can overrule the reforms that we have achieved, pathetic though they are. I fear that if we vote in and fall for this con trick, they will.
Over the page, the leaflet talks about a stronger economy and how the EU is creating all these marvellous jobs, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) has said, it is not the EU that does that, but the brave entrepreneurs who go out there and put their houses at risk to build and generate jobs. They then trade with other nations, as has been done since the world began. That will not change, because the Germans, the French and everybody else will want to trade with us, as we will with them, whether we are in or out.
We need strong economic partners to trade with. What if they are all basket cases? What if we simply cannot trade with Italy, Greece or Portugal because they are bust because they are trapped in the euro? The nature of those countries—they enjoy the sun and the wine—means that they do not make cars quite as effectively as the Germans. They make beautiful wine and enjoy life. They are different. The euro does not respect that. In the past, we would go and have amazingly cheap holidays and restore their economies. That can no longer happen, and it is to their detriment.
The leaflet talks about healthcare. We know that the pressures on the NHS are enormous. The many millions who come here are free to use it. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned the trade deals. What happens if we leave? It says that:
“The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.”
So what? We can do it, and we will be in the driving seat. We are told that Canada has taken nine years to negotiate with the EU. I challenge anyone in this room to negotiate anything with 28 people from different backgrounds and come to a solution. It takes a long time.
Regrettably, I think this document is a sham, a disgrace and a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. I am ashamed—the hon. Member for Vauxhall used that word, and I will too. I thought better of the in campaign. We are going to see more fear sprayed around the country in the ensuing days.
I will end on this note. I was enjoying a ride with a taxi driver the other day. When he learned what I did—to my relief, he did not press the ejector button at that point—he said, “Look, guv; in or out?” I said, “What do you think?” He said, “Just the very whiff of having our country back makes me feel proud.”
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As has already been pointed out, the people of Northern Ireland have not yet been subjected to having to read the dodgy dossier that has been published by the Government. No one should be surprised that it is not an objective assessment of the case for staying in or leaving because, as a number of hon. Members said, the Government made up their mind at the outset that, regardless of what happened in the negotiations, they would put forward the case for remain. No doubt, when the leaflet eventually makes its way through the Royal Mail’s postbags to my constituents’ houses, they will treat it with contempt because they will know it is not an attempt to set out the facts and figures.
We have just finished the Assembly election campaign in Northern Ireland, and the question I was most commonly asked on the doorstep over the past three and a half weeks, even though it is nothing to do with the Assembly election, was, “Are you in or are you out?” From the conversations I have had with thousands of my constituents, I have absolutely no doubt which way they will be voting on 23 June.
The Government are desperate. We saw the degree of their desperation when the Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland at the beginning of this campaign. He brought together farmers and told them that their crops will die in the fields, that their bank balances will be slashed, that European money will end and that we will no longer be able to feed ourselves because of the disaster that will befall Northern Ireland if we drop out of the EU and no longer have the support of the CAP. He ignored the fact that, as most farmers know—a large part of my constituency is rural—EU support for agriculture in the United Kingdom has been falling because support is increasingly being directed towards eastern Europe, and that many small farmers are crippled by bureaucracy and the CAP’s requirements.
Of course, the Prime Minister pulled out the ultimate card: he said that somehow or other the peace process might be in jeopardy. I lived in Northern Ireland right through the troubles, and I never, ever heard any IRA spokesman say that he was determined to bomb the life out of people in Northern Ireland to stay in the EU. It was never an issue with republicans. Indeed, it is significant that, until it got embroiled in the politics of the Irish Republic, Sinn Féin used to be a very anti-EU party. Suddenly, because it wanted to curry favour with voters in the Republic, it decided that it was pro-EU. Saying that the peace process will somehow be in jeopardy is another scare tactic.
In Northern Ireland, whenever we get into trouble with the peace process, we can be sure that political leaders whose names the President of the United States has never heard before will get a telephone call from the White House. “Jimmy, how are you?”—I cannot do an American accent, so I will not even try—or, “Peter, how are you?” and the soft-soaping starts. It has been no different in this referendum campaign. The US cavalry has ridden to the rescue of General Cameron, who is making his last stand. I believe that he knows it is his last stand. He cannot convince the people of the United Kingdom to go into the reservation of the EU, so he has to bring in the American President to frighten them, but I think the American President’s ham-fisted attempt has not weakened but strengthened the leave campaign.
Many Members have already talked about the false arguments in this document, and I want to pick up on one or two of them: first, that the cost of living is going to go up. How do they justify that—on the basis, primarily, that the value of the pound will fall. However, our exchange rate goes up and down. We have a freely floating exchange rate mechanism, because we are not part of the euro. Our exchange rate goes up and down all the time. We live with the consequences of that: sometimes it helps our exporters and sometimes it is to the detriment of our exporters; sometimes it brings down the cost of living because imports become cheaper, and sometimes it puts the cost up—but that is what happens without a fixed exchange rate. Our membership of the EU will make no difference to that—but that is the main way in which the cost of living could increase, according to the Government leaflet.
We have had that reinforced by the Chancellor’s predictions and the Treasury’s model up to 2030. I taught economics at one stage and the one thing I know about economic models is that we do not rely on economic models to tell us what is going to happen in 2030 when we are living in 2016. A Treasury model also told us that the deficit would be wiped out by now. The Treasury revises its estimates almost on a yearly basis, because economic models are subject to a whole range of assumptions. If we are looking 14 years in advance, how can we possibly know what parameters to put into an economic model? We are certainly not going to be able to tell people, “You are going to be £4,302.22 worse off,” which is what the Government want people to believe.
That is the first scare tactic. The second is the idea that people will not be able to go on their holidays any longer, they will have to get a visa to go to the sun and flights will cost more. For those who are concerned about carbon footprints, that would be a compelling argument, but it does not really play much with me. Again, that is based on what? The price of flights has come down not because of the EU, but because of people such as O’Leary, companies such as Ryanair and easyJet, and competition between airlines. That has nothing to do with the EU, yet it is rested at the EU’s door.
Next is the argument that millions of jobs will be lost because it is more difficult to get access to European markets. However, in my constituency, there are companies that do research for the pharmaceutical industry; one firm has 140 workers who research new drugs and, as a result, drugs worth £750 million are produced across Europe from the patents for which they are responsible. Do people buy that information because we are part of the EU? No, they buy it because the research is good quality, and the drug has been tested and is capable of being marketed.
In my constituency, too, Schrader Electronics provides valves that tell drivers whether their tyres have gone down, without them having to look at them. The valves are sold to car manufacturers all over the European Union, as part of the supply chain. On 24 June, are those manufacturers likely to say that they will no longer buy the valves? Of course not, because the technology is good and the price is good. The company is part of the supply chain and will remain part of the supply chain.
For anyone who flies on an airplane, every third seat is made in Northern Ireland—anyone sitting on seats A or D is probably sitting on one. Why? Is it because we are part of the EU? No, it is because we have a manufacturer that produces a competitive product.
I could go on. People buy our goods for those reasons. All around the world, we sell goods to countries that we do not have trade deals with. So what about the idea that, if we left the EU, suddenly we would not get a trade deal with it? First, the supply chain would demand that the goods are bought anyway and, secondly, if the product is not competitive, people will stop buying, but if it is competitive, they will keep on buying. The argument is that it will take us years to negotiate a new trade deal. It will not, for the simple reason that, if firms want our products, they will continue to buy them.
On the last argument to be made, I have to say that the Prime Minister has been despicable today, invoking the war dead. It shows desperation to say that people died for the European Union, or for a united Europe. They died for a Europe free of dictatorship; they died for a democratic Europe. The whole essence of the EU is that it is not a democratic institution—some people do not even try to defend it as that any longer—and it is not an institution in which the will of the people is reflected in the decisions made; the will reflected is that of people who believe they know better than the elected politicians. The bureaucrats believe that they can develop an efficient system of government, free from those pesky politicians with their mad ideas and everything else. For the Prime Minister to invoke the war dead was an absolute disgrace.
We have seen the security argument, unfortunately, blown apart in Paris and Brussels. Terrorists, because of the Schengen arrangements and open borders, can wander around Europe like jihadic nomads, crossing borders, planning and plotting, and then killing. That is why we need to have control over our own borders. That is why we need to be out of an institution that leaves us open to that kind of terrorist activity.
I made an intervention about this earlier, but it is significant that the Government’s own document eulogises the fact that our special relationship with Europe enables us to opt out of and to distance ourselves from most of the major policies of the European Union. If there is a compelling argument, it is in the Government’s own document. We do not want to be part of the euro, because we have seen what it has done, the devastation that it has wrought across economies in European countries, the youth unemployment, and the way in which democratic institutions have been undermined in Italy and Greece as a result of the requirements to stay in the euro. Looking at the arguments in the document, we can also opt out of Schengen, another essential part of the EU.
By the way, the Government say that no country has been able to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU without allowing free access to labour. That is not true. Many countries outside the European Union trade freely with it, and they do not have to accept anyone and everyone who wants to move from EU countries to their country, but the document makes that claim—although the Government say that part of our special relationship is that we can opt out of that as well, and we can opt out of any other interference. If it is so good to be able to opt out of those policies, is it not even better to opt out of the EU altogether?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Three people are standing, and I intend to call the Scottish National party spokesperson at 7 o’clock. People can do the arithmetic themselves.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Stringer. I pay a special tribute to all Members who have taken part so far. I was particularly moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), which was powerful and sobering.
I am yet to find a constituent in Telford who thinks that the leaflet provides value for taxpayers’ money, yet the Prime Minister tells us that it is money well spent. The decision to spend £9 million-plus on a glossy leaflet, sent out 11 weeks before the referendum, sends unintended messages to voters about the EU. It tells us that the Government are willing to spend taxpayers’ money with no regard for the opinions of the people. It tells us that they are willing to waste taxpayers’ money, and it is fundamentally anti-democratic. No Government should spend public money to tell the people they govern how to vote and what to think.
We know that public opinion is divided on whether to leave or remain. It is about 50:50 at the moment, and that is why we are having a referendum. As I remind my local council from time to time, taxpayers’ money should not be used on publicity blitzes or vanity projects, and never to promote political ambitions.
Even those who think that a remain vote would be good for us and in our best interests have doubts about spending £9 million-plus on a leaflet. The BBC’s headline on 7 April was “Will anyone read £9m government leaflet?” Some may do, under duress, but I have to admit that I did not, despite receiving it three times. I read it only when I came to prepare for the debate. Anyone who has ever taken part in a political campaign knows that one glossy leaflet, sent 11 weeks before election day, will be passed over, sent off for recycling and completely forgotten about when the time comes to put an X in the box.
The public deserve and clearly want unbiased, neutral, factual information about the referendum. This is a big issue for our country. Why would we not want to hear both sides of the argument so that we can make up our minds for ourselves? The Minister—I greatly respect him for sitting here this afternoon and listening to what we have to say—may say that the leaflet was produced because there was a thirst for information. The Government should recognise that the reason why there is a thirst for information is that they have not provided it. They have a duty and responsibility to give the public the facts, not just the account they want us to hear.
The leaflet was clearly designed to masquerade as a Government information leaflet, yet from a cursory glance at its contents we can see that it is nothing of the sort. We have been told that the Government are not neutral about our decision on whether to remain or leave. That is true, but the leaflet needed to make that point and not pretend to be factual public information from a neutral and unbiased perspective. For example, there is no recognition in the leaflet that the mutual self-interest of other members of the EU would ensure that a leave decision would be achieved with minimal disruption to existing trading arrangements. There is no comment on the challenges facing the EU, which are set out in the Five Presidents report. I am sure the Minister knows who those five important people are, but I did not until one constituent of mine described them to me as the five best reasons to leave the EU. I would like to name those five reasons: the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker; the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz; the President of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem; the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi; and the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. Yes, those are five reasons—very expensive reasons—to leave the EU.
We, the British people, do not like being told what to do by self-important bureaucrats. We do not like being told what is in our best interests or what is good for us. This debate is about liberty, economic freedom and democracy, and if the £9 million leaflet did anything, it served to remind the British people why we cherish those ideals and what the EU is really about. Perhaps the leaflet did have some value after all, and perhaps not all of that £9 million was wasted.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not want to give the Minister all the arguments about why we should remain in the EU or leave. Many of them are well known, and I am not sure that the debate is entirely about those arguments. I want to talk about fairness—that is what the debate is about. We all have strong views, and we could all give long speeches explaining why, in our view, the leaflet is wrong on a particular fact and is based on supposition. We could ask how, when the Treasury has difficulty in getting its own borrowing figures correct even for the next year, it can possibly foretell what will happen in five or 10 years or how exchange rates will move. We could go through the entire leaflet and tear it apart—no Back Bencher from the remain camp has bothered to come to the debate, which is faintly sinister from the point of view of fairness—but I am not sure that anything would be achieved by doing that. I want to concentrate on the argument about fairness.
The Minister will quite rightly say that the Government have a particular point of view and are constitutionally entitled to put that point of view. No one denies that, and no one denies that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe can give whatever speeches they like, whether or not they agree with them. We all accept that. The Minister will no doubt also say that Governments have argued particular cases during past referendums, and all the rest of it.
We cannot deny that the Government have a settled view, although of course we should point out that we are in an unusual situation where several members of the Government have a completely different view, which should temper some of the rhetoric. The Government have a point of view, but our question is, what is the whole point of this referendum? Is the point not to draw a line under the debate so that both sides feel that they have had a fair crack of the whip, that both campaigns have broadly spent the same amount of money and had the same amount of airtime, that the arguments have been made and that the public have decided one way or the other? I say to the Government that even if they win, nothing will have been achieved if at the end of the campaign people feel a fundamental sense of unfairness and if one side—the remain side, with all its resources and backed by the Government, thousands of civil servants and so on—has had an undue advantage.
There is history in this debate, as I mentioned in my earlier intervention. I will quote John Mills, the Labour donor and deputy chair of Vote Leave, who was a national agent for the no campaign in the 1975 referendum. He wrote recently:
“We were deluged by propaganda heavily weighted in favour of the stay-in campaign. The total expenditure spending on advertising, leaflets, posters and all the other elements of the campaigns conducted on each side was roughly 10:1 in favour of staying in. This had a massive effect on public opinion and can’t have failed to have had a significant impact on the result…In the autumn of 1974, only 36 per cent of the population thought membership of the Common Market was ‘a good thing’. But by 1975, this figure had shot up to 50 per cent. It is very hard to believe that this huge increase in support for staying in was not largely down to the massive and disproportionate propaganda campaign waged by the pro-Common Market campaign.”
There is history in this debate.
Presumably, the remain campaign has come to the conclusion that it has to bombard the people and outspend the leave campaign. That is unfair. The remain campaign and the leave campaign are each allowed to raise £7 million. I actually talked to the Vote Leave campaign today about having a rally. I asked, “Can you organise a rally in Lincolnshire?” and the campaigners said, “Well, we’d rather you did it, because of course it comes out of our spending, which is very carefully controlled.” That is all fair enough. The leave campaign is limited to £7 million. The remain campaign will spend £7 million, and in addition the Government have produced a leaflet at the taxpayers’ expense for £9 million. That comes to £7 million plus £9 million on the remain side, compared with just £7 million on the leave side, which is fundamentally unfair. Surely the whole point about the British mentality and way of doing politics is that both sides get a fair crack of the whip. Is that not why we have such hugely careful spending controls in all our general election campaigns in our constituencies—because we feel that there is a right to put an argument, but taxpayers’ money should not be used to overwhelm the other side?
Perhaps I may make one comment about fairness. People are asking for a genuine debate. They want genuine information. Many people are still undecided. If it were possible for the Government to help facilitate a genuine debate in which the arguments, facts and economics would be put, people would understand that, but they find it increasingly irritating that there seems to be a Government tendency to increase the war tempo of the rhetoric—there has been the latest claim today, of course. If the result of leaving would be so utterly disastrous for peace, the economy and all the rest of it, why are we having the referendum in the first place? Why did the Prime Minister risk it? Why did he say during his negotiations that he was prepared to consider recommending that we should leave if he did not get his demands, which we know were about only minor changes on migration? Now he says that leaving would have a devastating result on the economy, the prospects for war or peace in Europe, and many other things. Why did he risk all that? Why did the Foreign Secretary say during the negotiations that he was prepared to consider leaving, whereas apparently he now says that leaving would be a disaster?
I say to the Government, by all means put the arguments—no one is criticising them for doing that; they are the duly elected Government and have a right to do it—but just try to be fair, and do not try to overwhelm the opposition with taxpayers’ money. That is what other Governments have done, in places such as eastern Europe. That is what the Council of Europe is all about, and it is why we had the debate on purdah. I know the Minister will say that he made it perfectly clear that purdah would apply only for the last 28 days. We understand all those arguments, but was not the reason for that debate our wish to make it clear that the Government should not misuse their massive power and resources to overwhelm the opposition? If the Government win on that basis it will be a dirty victory, and will not close down the debate. I also believe that it is counterproductive for the Government in their campaign, because people react to it. They are not fools, and they know when they are being taken for fools and fed propaganda. It will not work, and will create a nasty taste. I regret the fact that the leaflet was published in such a way and paid for by the taxpayer. I hope that the Government will learn from the reaction to their leaflet and not make a similar mistake in the future.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be called to speak, albeit late, in this well attended, though I must say one-sided debate. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to spare a thought for my right hon. Friend the Minister. He reminds me of one of those renaissance pictures of St Sebastian, who stands tethered to a tree, his body pierced by a multitude of arrows shot by myriad archers. He has been called on many times to defend the Government’s handling of the referendum process. Today he seeks to defend the frankly shabby piece of disinformation posing as an informative leaflet, which has been comprehensively shredded, metaphorically, by the participants in the debate, just as it has no doubt been physically shredded by many of the people who had the unfortunate experience of finding it dropping through their letter box.
The arguments have been advanced and I do not want to repeat them, but there is one point that I want to touch on as a Welsh Member of Parliament, which is the timing of the leaflet. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) pointed out, the leaflets have not yet been delivered in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, because the Government wanted to avoid a clash with the elections that took place last Thursday. In England, of course, they were distributed between 11 April and 13 April, which was before the regulated period of the referendum campaign began. In Wales, they will be distributed this week, as they will in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the timing had no effect whatever on the Welsh Assembly election campaign, because I had exactly the same experience as the hon. Member for East Antrim. Everywhere I went when I was canvassing in that campaign, I found that very few people wanted to talk about the Assembly election, but everyone wanted to talk about the referendum. In particular they were incensed at the fact that the Government had spent £9.3 million of their money— taxpayers’ money—on a piece of propaganda.
The practical effect is that the leaflets will be delivered in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales squarely during the regulated period, which I suggest will give the remain campaign an unfair advantage. During that time, expenditure is carefully regulated and limited. The Government are not affected by those limitations of course, but in any event the remain campaign’s expenditure will be augmented by the delivery of the leaflet through people’s letterboxes. That is deeply regrettable, and the Electoral Commission has pointed out that after the Scottish referendum it recommended that Governments should not conduct any taxpayer-funded advertising during the regulated period. That is what has happened in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I suggest that the Government should have had regard to the Venice Commission’s code of good practice on referendums, which provides:
“The use of public funds…for campaigning purposes must be prohibited”
and states that any explanatory report produced by the authorities should
“give a balanced presentation not only of the viewpoint of the executive and legislative authorities or persons sharing their viewpoint but also of the opposing one.”
The Government’s document is completely silent in that regard. The leaflet clearly contravenes those recommendations. It is utterly one-sided.
As a Conservative Member of Parliament I am bound to say that I find it highly regrettable that my party’s Government has conducted itself in that way. I would go so far as to say that I am deeply ashamed. The fact that so many people have signed the e-petition, which no doubt is at somewhere around the 220,000 signature mark by now, is a clear sign that my concern, and the concern of so many other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, is shared widely by the British people. It has been an unfortunate episode in an unfortunate campaign, and I hope that on reflection my right hon. Friend the Minister will find it in his heart to apologise for what the Government have done.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, I remind the House that there is approximately 10 minutes for each Front-Bench speaker. Perhaps the Minister will leave two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to respond to the debate; that is what we do by convention.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I wish you and all other colleagues here a happy Europe Day, Mr Stringer—of course, that has yet to come up in the debate. I particularly wish the Minister a happy Europe Day. When I attend debates such as this I seem to be in the unusual situation of being one of the friendlier faces he encounters. That is a sad state of affairs indeed, but he will be glad to learn that I have brought reinforcements, who are also champions of the remain campaign. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) have just returned from a visit to Brussels, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) made a strong case for remaining part of the European Union. The Scottish National party is helping where others are not at the moment.
Today’s debate, like the broader debate, appears to have a lot more to do with Conservative in-fighting than with the future of the European Union or the European debate. Indeed, some of the language used today has been rather intemperate and unfortunate. Of course, the leaflet is not yet for viewers in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales; I have no doubt we will get ours soon. We have just come through an important election period when we have been discussing issues such as education, transport, local government and our health service. I wonder whether we should take the opportunity to press the reset button on this particular debate now that we have come through those elections.
We would like to hear some positive remarks. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) threatened to grind government to a halt over the leaflet. He also made reference to the armada. Of course, some historians think the armada set forth as a direct result of the execution of Mary Queen of Scots. We have talked about the royal family, and Mary Queen of Scots’ forebears could not be any more European. [Interruption.] We have a monarch on the throne at the moment who is descended from Germans and married to a Greek-Danish prince. You cannot get a lot more European than that.
Mrs Trevelyan
The key point that I have probably had to reiterate more than any other is that there is Europe, and then there is the EU. The EU is a political construct. Europe is a geographical construct made up of many countries, some of which are in the EU and some of which are not. To continue to misuse the two terms is to treat the Great British public as stupid. They understand clearly the difference between the two.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Lady. She will be glad to hear that we will not be putting the fact that the Queen is married to a Danish-Greek prince at the heart of our campaign. We will be putting at the heart of our campaign the fact that the European Union makes us greener, wealthier, fairer and safer.
Fundamentally, we need to think about questions of fairness. That was reflected in the amendments that SNP Members tabled to the European Union Referendum Bill. I see in the Chamber Opposition and Government Members who backed some of those amendments—they were unsuccessful, but we are getting used to that in this place. We tabled those amendments because fairness has to be at the heart of this debate.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said that whoever is defeated must be able to do so with good grace. That is critical. I hope the Minister will agree that the referendum needs to be seen to be scrupulous. In our amendments to the Bill we were quite particular about the purdah period, because we hope not to see any last-minute promises or vows from either side, made out of panic.
I note that some Government Members have hit out at “Project Fear”. I am glad that since the Scottish independence referendum, a large number of Conservative Members have had their hallelujah moment about that. I feared seeing far too much of “Project Fear”. I sincerely hope we will move on from that.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I apologise, Mr Stringer, for not having been here for the whole debate. As my hon. Friend said, several of us were in Brussels and have returned by Eurostar, having heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) make an eloquent and clear positive case for remaining in the European Union—the antithesis of the scare stories we are hearing from both sides south of the border. I have no doubt that he will be a figurehead and champion for the remain cause in Scotland and across the UK. Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on whether such a figurehead or champion exists for the leave side in Scotland?
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend raises a good point. We keep on hearing that there is nobody here from the remain side. My answer to my hon. Friend is: I do not know. I have no idea who will be in charge of the leave campaign up in Scotland, because we have no one. So far, we have 59 out of 59 SNP Members of this Parliament in favour of remaining, 128 out of 129 Members of the previous Scottish Parliament in favour and five out of the six Scottish Members of the European Parliament in favour. Nobody is emerging for the leave campaign, but we will see what comes from the new lot.
I know that Members will be wondering what happened in the Scottish Parliament elections. They will all be glad to hear that the SNP won again, with 47% of the vote, which was up on 2011. Furthermore—[Interruption.] I hear sedentary points being made by Conservative Members; I would love to take an intervention. No? Nothing at all. The SNP Government won the highest proportion of the vote of any sitting Government in Europe. They are the most trusted Government in Europe.
Let us compare the track records. The Scottish Government have already published their agenda for EU reform, and they have a better track record on publishing documents. The White Paper published for the Scottish independence referendum was downloaded free, at no cost to the taxpayer, 100,000 times. Will the Minister tell us how many times he expects the referendum leaflet to be downloaded?
Sir Edward Leigh
What would the hon. Gentleman have said during the Scottish referendum campaign if the Government had paid for a leaflet to be issued to every household in Scotland, urging people to vote for one side? Would he not have complained? Therefore, to be entirely consistent, should he not also complain during this referendum campaign? I am looking for consistency.
Stephen Gethins
The Scottish Government did produce a leaflet, and the Scotland Office, under the Conservative party, also produced a leaflet that was sent to every house. The hon. Gentleman should raise that issue with his Government’s Minister. Our leaflet was downloaded 100,000 times.
Since the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the Scottish independence referendum, let us look at it. There was an 85% turnout—I wonder whether the Minister thinks this referendum will reach that—with 16 and 17-year-olds engaged in politics and taking part, and in a study conducted afterwards there was a 95% satisfaction rating with how the referendum was carried out.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman will be interested in this point, so I will round off with it: it was not bad for our poll numbers either, as last week’s election demonstrated.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
We are here to state the merits of a petition that I understand was started by Jayne Adye, who is the director of the Get Britain Out campaign. She is therefore not a disinterested person who is independent of the issue or whose only concern, as the petition claims, is about the spending of public money.
We need to be honest about what this debate is about. It is yet another example of the wider leave campaign wanting to talk about process and not the real issues. I do not have a problem with that, but let us not pretend that this is about a leaflet issued by the Government. The faux outrage is intended to drown out the arguments made in the leaflet. I very much doubt that the director of the Get Britain Out campaign would have raised a petition if the Government were spending taxpayers’ money on a leaflet arguing that we should leave.
John Redwood
Has the hon. Lady been listening to the debate? Colleague after colleague has stood up and pointed out that the leaflet is simply wrong and misleading, because we care passionately about getting back democratic accountability and control for the British people.
Pat Glass
As the right hon. Gentleman said, I have sat through almost three hours of the debate very politely and courteously and listened to all of the arguments.
If we are going to do this, we should get it right. This is a small issue, but the petition talks about the Government spending
“money on biased campaigning to keep Britain inside the European Union”
and about the “Great British Public”. If we want to get this right, we must talk about the UK, not Britain. Britain is the island; the UK is much wider than that. I am sure that it was not the intention of the campaigners to cut out an entire country and all of the people of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, let us get it right.
Pat Glass
It is not. It is called “Labour In for Britain”. I am part of a Labour campaign. As far as I can see, the leaflet is entirely legal. It has been issued by the Government well in advance of the last 28 days of the referendum period, when section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will apply and restrict publications about the referendum by bodies or persons that are wholly or mainly publicly funded. The leaflet represents the official view of the Government on the biggest decision that this country will make in a generation and which will impact on this country and our neighbours for decades. In my view, it would be unacceptable for the Government not to have a view on that and not to share that view with the people of this country.
Pat Glass
No. As has been pointed out, we have had a huge debate, but we have heard one side of the argument. Hon. Members should do me the courtesy of allowing me to give the other side of the argument.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me for the Government of the day to set out their position in the referendum. This is not a precedent; it is exactly what Governments have done before. This leaflet is clear, and the title is not misleading. It seems to me, and no doubt to those watching the debate today, that those challenging the leaflet are hoping to silence the arguments contained in it, rather than discussing the merits of issuing a leaflet or the cost.
We know that, on this issue, the Labour party—I expect to get one or two requests for an intervention here—is largely of one voice. A handful of my colleagues—I think it is five altogether—have long-held and deep-set views on the issue, and I absolutely respect that, but I think they are mistaken, and they would certainly have to agree that they are out of step with the vast majority of the parliamentary Labour party, constituency Labour parties and Labour voters. The Conservative party, however, is split on the issue. Let us look at the facts. We have a parliamentary Labour party pro-EU group. That group has 214 members.
Pat Glass
I will come on to that in a moment. They include all of the leadership and all of the shadow Cabinet. On this one issue at least, in comparison with Government Members, we look like an old married couple.
I have sat here throughout the debate and listened to the arguments, and some good arguments have been made. I absolutely accept some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about fairness. However, I was hoping that, in almost three hours, I would have heard what “out” looks like in terms of jobs, consumers and the environment. What would it look like for women and young people and for our future security? I have not heard any of that. What I have heard is that it will be all right on the night. Even the leading Brexit economist now says that an EU exit would kill off our manufacturing sector.
As someone from the north-east, I was surprised at what was said by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), who is not listening at the moment. We are the only region in the country that has a trade surplus. We are a manufacturing region, and hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on our being part of the European Union. Leaving the EU would be a disaster for regions such as mine. I understand what the hon. Lady says about one Emirates flight out of Newcastle airport every day, but that cannot compare to the hundreds of thousands of cars that we export from the north-east to the European Union.
In the leaflet, the Government make a clear recommendation to the people of the UK that they judge it to be in our national interest to remain a member of the European Union. For once, I agree with them. The Cabinet Office has told us that independent polling shows that 85% of voters are seeking more information on which to make an informed decision. That supports what I am finding on the doorstep. When I talk to people, they are clear that this is not their No. 1 priority at the moment. However, they know it is important and they want the facts on which to make a decision.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), I apologise for arriving late. I was stuck on a Eurostar train or I might have wanted to make a speech in the debate. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a great pity that the referendum is taking place among the citizenry who are the least well informed in the whole of the European Union about what the European Union actually does? Is she concerned, as I am, that whatever the result is, it might not be the result of an informed electorate, and that cannot be good for democracy?
Pat Glass
Governments of both colours, over the last 41 years, have failed to make the case for the European Union; they have failed to make it real for real people’s lives. That is part of the problem: we have had 41 years of one side of the argument. It is not unreasonable that we should now start to see some of the other side of the argument.
The leaflet has cost £9.3 million, which is equivalent, we are told, to 34p per household. The official in and out campaigns will each receive £15 million and a higher spending limit of £7 million each, the use of public rooms and a public grant of up to £600,000, in order to make their case to the people of the UK, so the cost of the leaflet will presumably not now be the issue. Presumably there will now be another petition, asking us not to spend the £15 million on each side and provide the access to public rooms and so on if the issue is really the spending of public money.
My understanding from talking to people who have received the leaflet is that it has certainly caused debate and a thirst for further information. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said that he had received 476 complaints about the leaflet, and I do not doubt that for a moment, but I have received two complaints from constituents about it. In the past four weeks, I have received almost 500 contacts and complaints from constituents about tax havens in UK dependencies and overseas territories. I have actually received more complaints from constituents about the degrading quality of modern bricks than about the leaflet. That shows that it is a much greater issue among different people and in different parts of the country. My reading of the situation on the doorstep is that there is a public thirst for information. The public want a debate on the facts, and they do not want a debate on a leaflet that has been sent out already in England. One thing that I hope we can all agree on is that at least the leaflet encourages everyone to be registered to vote—everyone should take part in this far-reaching referendum. No one can say that this issue does not affect them.
I want to reference this fact sheet. Full Fact contacted every Member of Parliament in advance of the debate—I have no reason to think it contacted only me. Having checked the leaflet, Full Fact says, in summary:
“The government explicitly states that the leaflet is arguing for the UK remaining in the EU. So it is not attempting to be even-handed...Given that, much of the leaflet is accurate and the government deserves some credit for ensuring that it was published with details of the sources, making it easier for”
people to “judge independently.”
Finally, I simply want to set out Labour’s case for remaining in the EU. It is a simple case. We believe that for jobs, growth, investment and security reasons, we are better off in the European Union. We believe that, for the protection of the workers of the UK and for environmental reasons, the UK is better off in Europe. We believe that we are safer in an increasingly unsafe world if we are part of a strong economic group of 520 million people. We believe that the people of Europe can tackle those big issues that do not recognise borders and that threaten our future—climate change, international terrorism and global tax avoidance—only if we do so together.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
This afternoon, many of the arguments and—dare I say it?—many members of the cast have been an extended reprise of the exchanges that took place following my statement on the publication of the Government’s leaflet on 11 April. The Government’s position remains as I set out then: we believe that the referendum is potentially the most important decision that the British people will make on any political issue in their lifetime.
Independent polling carried out on our behalf made it clear that 85% of people wanted more information from the Government to help them to make an informed decision. We believe that the leaflet that we have distributed, the footnotes that we have published on the Government website so that the evidence on which we have made the statements presented in it can be examined and challenged, and the other Government publications, deliver on that commitment and help to fulfil that need.
Yes, as others have said, the Government are not neutral in the debate. The Government have a very clear collective position to support the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union.
Richard Drax
The Minister uses the word “collective”. The position is not collective, in that the Cabinet is split and the party is split—it represents, in effect, the Government; we are the party in power. It is not a collective decision at all.
Mr Lidington
I am sorry, but there was a collective Cabinet decision. There are and always have been—for as long as I have been in politics—honourable, sincerely held differences of opinion within our party and within the Labour party about the European question. The Prime Minister therefore said that, on this issue and this issue alone, he would relax the normal rules by which Ministers are obliged to support the collective Government position without question and that those Ministers would, in a personal capacity, be able to express their dissenting views.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I am happy for the Minister to write to me on this point. As he places significant importance on the Government’s website, can he tell me where, as of today, I can find certain quotations by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? As recently as four months ago, they said that we would be perfectly alright outside the EU, but those quotations have disappeared from the website.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady does not have to search through the Government website. She can look at Hansard and will see that my right hon. Friends have, on many occasions, said that the United Kingdom could survive outside the EU. However, the question that faces the electorate in the referendum is whether remaining in the EU or leaving the EU is the best outcome for our prosperity and security. It is my contention, and the Government’s contention, that the economic and political interests of the UK and all its people are best served by continuing to remain as active and leading players in the primary international organisation on the continent of Europe.
The leaflet follows precedent from previous referendums, including that on EU membership in 1975, when a Government leaflet was also distributed. It also follows the precedent of the referendums on the creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in 1997 and on the creation of the mayoral system in London in 1998, and of two Government leaflets during the Scottish referendum in 2014. Government publications of this sort, including the distribution of the leaflet, are entirely lawful. However, I can confirm that, as set out in section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, special rules limiting Government publications of all kinds will apply during the last 28 days of the referendum campaign.
Mr Lidington
I will give way but I am very conscious of the need to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) to reply.
Tom Pursglove
Will the Minister accept that the leaflet has undermined the trust not only of the country, but also of this place, which operates on the basis of trust? I was assured by Ministers in private not only that there would be no leaflets in the 28-day period, but that there would be no leaflets full stop. Does he accept that our trust has been undermined?
Mr Lidington
I have taken part in debates and responded to questions about the application of section 125, including in the Chamber and while giving evidence to the Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I was very clear, as was my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that we were talking about restrictions and whether they should be applied in the final 28 days of the campaign. Indeed, the hon. Members who often were most fervent in challenging the Government’s original suggestion that there might be particular circumstances in which the section 125 arrangements should be relaxed were saying to us, “Don’t worry because the Government will have every opportunity to present their case during the earlier stages of the referendum campaign.”
Although hon. Members are right that the overall spending limit for each of the designated campaign organisations is £7 million, those two campaigning organisations will, in addition, have the right to take advantage of a free leaflet distribution to every letterbox or every registered elector. They will also both have the right to a broadcast to the British public.
If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) is willing, I will write to her about the two specific questions that she asked. I assure the House that no copies of the leaflet will be distributed during purdah and that postal votes will not arrive before 27 May. That includes postal votes sent to registered electors living overseas. I hope that satisfies her to some extent.
A number of hon. Members suggested that, if we remained the EU, we would be inexorably dragged into further forms of political or military integration against our will. I remind hon. Members that we already have, in the European Union Act 2011—an Act that has now been accepted on a cross-party basis in the House of Commons—very considerable safeguards. They provide for a referendum of the people to take place before the UK, under any Government, could join the euro, sign up to an EU army or a European public prosecutor’s office, join the Schengen agreement, or give up national vetoes on areas of policy that are currently subject to a requirement for unanimity.
Mr Lidington
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to allow time for our hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam to reply.
The truth is that the UK is a European power with global interests, and Europe matters to our prosperity and security. Decisions taken in Europe will affect us, whether we are out or in. I want the Ministers of this country to be at the table, leading the debates, shaping the rules, and deciding the arrangements through which we trade and how we operate in the world. We should not be outside the door waiting for others to sew something up and tell us what they have decided that affects us.
We know at least that the leave campaign believes that we should withdraw from the single market as part of departure from the EU. That would put at risk not only the current tariff-free trading environment, but the enormous reduction in—and, in many cases, elimination of—non-tariff barriers that have proved to be one of the key advantages to British industry of EU membership.
As the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) mentioned, one of the leading gurus of the leave campaign, Professor Minford, has said publicly that we could expect to lose our manufacturing sector if we leave the EU, and that we should not be scared of that prospect. For people who have spent their lives working in the manufacturing industry or hope for jobs in manufacturing businesses, that would be a very alarming prediction indeed. It is little wonder that all the major business organisations report that a decisive majority, and in some cases, an overwhelming majority, of their members want to remain in the EU. That applies whether we are talking about the Confederation of British Industry, the EEF, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the National Farmers Union or TheCityUK.
Those who argue that we should be unconcerned about security risks ignore the opportunities that membership gives us. We have played a key part in successful European initiatives to defeat piracy in the Indian ocean, to reconcile Serbia and Kosovo, to train the military in Mali and to impose sanctions that brought Iran to the nuclear negotiating table. We would be foolish to throw that away. I am confident in the ability of our country to continue to set the agenda. We should not look inward. We should not retreat to isolation. We should go ahead and help to shape the direction of the continent of which we are, and will remain, a part.
Paul Scully
I pay tribute to Jayne Adye and the many people who signed the petition, including the 340 constituents of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). They may not have complained to her, but they signed the petition none the less. The establishment are circling the wagons so, no matter where we shoot, we can hit something. We need a fair and free debate from this moment on.
Question negatived.
Written Statement
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 the amendment made at Lords consideration of Commons reason (LCCR) and the motion tabled for Commons consideration of Lords message (CCLM), ahead of CCLM. The Department’s assessment is that amendment 7TB does not 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.
[HCWS714]
House of Lords
China: Market Economy Status
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on the European Union granting market economy status to China.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Price) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. The Government believe it is important that WTO members meet their obligations. China’s 2001 protocol of accession to the WTO removes certain provisions after 15 years, so countries may need to grant China market economy status when conducting anti-dumping investigations. We recognise there are real concerns about this. We are committed to discussing implementation of the protocol’s requirements with our international partners and look forward to the European Commission’s proposals in this area.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his role. He will be aware that several studies show that if China were granted market economy status, it could reduce Europe’s GDP by 1% to 2% and reduce total output by up to €220 billion per annum. It is not a straightforward matter. I suggest to the Minister that he is legally allowed, under Article 15(d) of China’s WTO accession plan, to put the onus on Chinese manufacturers to prove that they do not benefit from state aid or manipulation of currency policy. When he is having discussions with other EU member states, will he suggest to them that this compromise is perhaps the way forward, rather than kowtowing to the Chinese Government in a self-defeating way for British manufacturing and jobs?
Lord Price
I thank the noble Baroness for her suggestion. There are a number of things we are doing as this process moves through. First, as your Lordships know, the EU is looking at the legal position with Article 15 and we continue to assess that and have discussions with countries that have not yet agreed the protocol with China. Secondly, a piece of work by the Commission will assess the impacts and when we receive that, we will know what position we are actually in. Thirdly, we are discussing a number of mitigations in the event that we find the impacts unfavourable. So a number of things are in train, both legally and in terms of mitigations, to make sure that our position is one where we trade fairly with China.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
In welcoming the Minister to his position, I wonder whether he would like to comment on the potential effect on the north-east, which is the only region in the country to have a positive balance of trade, because of manufacturing. What effect does he think the suggestion yesterday that we can prosper outside the single market would have on the north-east of England?
Lord Price
I thank the noble Baroness for her question about the EU and the north-east. The Government believe that the country is far stronger inside the EU than outside it, for a whole host of reasons, which have now been well documented by the Prime Minister and others.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his new post but is he aware that although EU-China trade has been growing, particularly in goods, in fact the Commonwealth’s trade with China has increased by 14 times since 2000? The pattern is one of growth all round but the weak point is inward investment into China, which has fallen quite sharply, and of course services to China, where we have considerable difficulty. Since we are an 80% service economy, it is really in our interest to expand that side, particularly given that the EU services single market is not very active and quite difficult to get into.
Lord Price
My noble friend is right that it would be good to see the United Kingdom exporting more services to China. The good news is that we have now moved to number four with China in our goods exports, and China is currently the seventh-largest market for our goods and services exports. However, we believe that as the Chinese economy develops into more of a service economy, we will indeed be able to do more.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord to his new position, and on behalf of everyone, I think, I congratulate the new Mayor of London—London will play such an important role. Will the Minister welcome today’s relaunch of the “Stronger in” campaign? We look forward to working to make sure that we stay in the Union, for this and other agreements.
Lord Price
The noble Baroness supports my own position: that the UK is stronger inside the EU. We have more trade agreements between the UK and the rest of the world than the United States and Canada together. We believe in free trade and, in our current position, we are best placed to access the world through free trade through the agreements that we have with the EU.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, you need to help me out when this happens. I suggest that we hear briefly from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and then go back to the Conservative Benches.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
But my Lords, if we were not in the European Union, would we not be able to make our own free trade with China, as many smaller economies have done?
Lord Price
The noble Lord is of course right that we would be able to do that. It is worth considering the fact, though, that Australia took 13 years to reach an agreement with China. It is not about just one or two agreements. I think we would have to negotiate the best part of 60 agreements at the moment, so it would be a considerable piece of work. It can of course be done but, through that period, there will be a time of uncertainty.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My Lords, is this not just another example of important international decisions being taken in which Britain would have virtually no role to play whatsoever, were we to leave the European Union?
Lord Price
The noble Lord is of course right. Being a member of the EU gives us the opportunity to take part in all kinds of discussions around the world on a whole range of topics.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. There would be concern on all sides of the House if we allowed market economy status to China, until and unless the state stops interfering in market pricing. Does the Minister agree that we need the negotiating power of being part of the largest market in the world to get a better deal for Britain from China and other economies, too?
Lord Price
The noble Baroness is right that being part of the EU gives us considerable weight when it comes to negotiations. On the MES point, we can certainly do a number of things. We need to look at the legal position in Europe and we will have a part to play in that. We also need to make sure that any mitigations we put in place—we are currently considering four—will have the desired impact. Where tariffs have been imposed, led by this Government, they have been successful in reducing imports, particularly in steel, which I know is of great concern to the House. Where that has been done, we have reduced imports by 90% and that has had the desired effect.
Euro: Support for Joining
Lord Robathan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish a list of organisations and individuals in public life, including Members of both Houses of Parliament, who have previously urged that the United Kingdom should join the euro.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, no, the Government have no plans to publish such a list. The Prime Minister has been clear that Britain will never join the euro.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, when the CBI warns that a million jobs may be lost should we leave the EU, it is spookily reminiscent of what it said during the euro debate and uses exactly the same arguments. If my noble friend will not publish a list, will he encourage those who told us that terrible things would happen if we did not join the euro to fess up before they tell the British public that there will be a disaster if we leave the EU?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, it depends on who my noble friend has been listening to. The Treasury assessment and analysis was clear at the time that it was not in Britain’s interest to join the euro. Many other experts, such as the Governor of the Bank of England, the IMF and the OECD, also raised concerns about Britain joining the euro. They are now unanimous that Britain should remain in the EU.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Why did the Minister not tell his noble friend that this Question has nothing whatever to do with ministerial responsibility? It would be quite sinister if the Minister said he could publish such a list, rather than saying that the Government will not publish such a list. I cannot understand why this Question was allowed on the Order Paper.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, one reason is that I did not think of it. Secondly, I am not responsible for the Questions that are tabled in this House.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I think the Minister is probably too young to have been in the House when Lord Dahrendorf was here. He once said—I think in this House but certainly in writing—that anybody who has not changed his mind in the last 10 years has probably not been thinking.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am too young to have been in the House then, but I know Professor Dahrendorf was at the LSE, which is quite clear that we should remain in the EU.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, if the intention behind the Question was to infer current wisdom—or otherwise—from past behaviour, could the Minister remind the House which Chancellor of the Exchequer shadowed the deutschmark and pressed the late Baroness Thatcher to enter into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Given the Government’s warnings that leaving the European Union might result in a war in Europe, so we are told today, mortgages going through the roof and the loss of 3 million jobs, could my noble friend explain how on earth the Prime Minister decided to call a referendum on this matter in the first place? How could my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have possibly contemplated, as he told us he did, walking away from the negotiations and recommending a no vote?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Taking the last part of the question first, I do not think it is right for my noble friend to dwell on the negotiations. The point is that we are where we are. We have a choice before us, which is dramatic uncertainty if we leave and knowing what we are in now, with a reformed Europe, if we stay.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister not recognise that there is a total difference between what we might or might not have lost from not joining the euro and what we might or might not lose from leaving the European Union and—as I gather the leave campaign now proposes—leaving the single market? The two things are apples and oranges, and it is not wise to confuse them. By the way, the names of those who supported joining the euro in 1999 are a matter of public record, and I will help the noble Lord by saying that I was a member of the council of Britain in Europe.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that being a member of the euro and being a member of the EU are two different things. The Prime Minister has negotiated that we will have a special place in Europe, because the decisions of the EU will not depend on whether we are in the euro and we will be protected in the EU although we are not a member of the eurozone.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his ringing endorsement of Gordon Brown’s leadership. Moving on, surely this debate is bigger than our currency; it is about what being a member of the EU really means. Does he agree that it is vital that over the coming days, we facilitate the broadest ranging debate possible, because it will be in so doing that the benefits of being a member of the EU will be demonstrated beyond doubt?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord: there are many things apart from the economics of the situation. Security and safety against terrorism, the science base and many other things, not least our position in the world order, depend on our being in the EU.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that he is not too young to recall that in January 1989, when I was still Chancellor of the Exchequer, I made a speech spelling out why the euro—monetary union—would be a disaster, why we should not join it and why the European Union would be foolish to go ahead? Perhaps he can set the record right against those who are clearly too young to recall the past.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I do not remember every speech that my noble friend made, but in many cases he was very wise.
Investor Visas: Money Laundering
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what retrospective checks they intend to make, if any, into the financial backgrounds of foreign citizens, predominantly from Russia and China, who were granted United Kingdom residence through tier 1 investor visas, in the light of the reductions in applications and acceptances since the introduction of prior money-laundering checks in 2015.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ludford, who is unwell, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
While I cannot disclose the specifics of ongoing investigations, I can assure the noble Lord that the Home Office is working with partners across government and, where evidence of wrongdoing comes to light, robust action will be taken with respect to pre-April 2015 applications.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I welcome the implications of that statement. We are coming up to the anti-corruption summit, but it is clear from the numbers between 2011 and 2014—when, happily, the Government tightened the rules—that a number of Russian, Chinese and central Asian businessmen were in effect exporting corruption into Britain. It was a breach of British sovereignty, in effect, allowing these people to buy residence and, in some cases, citizenship. There are those who raise the question of criminals from abroad being allowed into this country. This was criminals from abroad being allowed to buy their way into the country. Does not that seem to be a very important issue for the Government to use their retrospective authority to investigate much more closely?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Lord, the proposition that no proper checks were carried out prior to April 2015—or, indeed, November 2014 —is not well founded. I believe that Transparency International, in one of its important pieces of work, referred to what it termed a “blind faith” period, but there was no such thing because persons wanting to invest in the United Kingdom pursuant to a tier 1 visa application were required to do that through either a broker, a bank or a lawyer, who would be regulated under the FCA and therefore bound to carry out relevant financial due diligence and anti-money laundering checks.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, how effective does the Minister think that any checks will be as long as they are carried out by the very banks which the National Crime Agency informs us are laundering billions of dollars every year? If the anti-corruption summit, which we are told the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Jersey have declined to attend, is to be anything more than gesture politics, will the Government follow it immediately by effective action: legislation to abolish the tier 1 visa racket and to require transparency of beneficial ownership of offshore companies and trusts?
Lord Keen of Elie
The Government have no plans to abolish the tier 1 route.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Could the Minister remind Members of the House who have short memories who was in government with the Conservatives at the time we are talking about?
Lord Keen of Elie
Well, in fact the relevant tier 1 form of application goes back to 1994.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, there are schools, hospitals, nationality and honours. Is it possible for people with enough money to buy anything from a Tory Government?
Lord Keen of Elie
The question, in my respectful submission, is not well aimed, and there is no question of persons being able to buy their way into the United Kingdom. There is a means by which they can invest in the United Kingdom, but they are subject to very clear checks, which have been improved since 2014.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am greatly encouraged by what the Minister has said about investigations going on into pre-2015 cases. Can he tell the House how many tier 1 visas have been revoked as a result of those investigations?
Lord Keen of Elie
At the present time, I am not aware that any tier 1 visas have been revoked. Of course, tier 1 visas lead on to an application for indefinite leave to remain. When that application is made, one issue that is addressed is any suggestion of criminality.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, as I understand it, according to the ONS, 76 fewer grants in the tier 1 investor category, which is the category for the really wealthy, were made in 2015, following changes introduced in November 2014, including the introduction of money laundering checks. In October 2015, Transparency International, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, said that,
“it is reasonable to infer that a proportion of money invested into the UK by Russian and Chinese Tier 1 investors is linked to crimes of corruption”.
Do the Government agree with that statement with respect to the situation prior to 2015 and, if they do not, why do they think that there has been such a significant reduction in the number of tier 1 investor grants made in 2015 compared with previous years?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, Transparency International’s report was looked at and considered by this Government. However, it referred to a period prior to April 2015 of “blind faith”. There was no such blind faith. As I indicated, when an overseas investor made a qualifying investment, he made it through a regulated authority and was therefore checked. As for the numbers, it will be a matter of notice that the sum required for investment has been doubled from £1 million to £2 million. Over and above that, the noble Lord will bear in mind the relevance of the exchange rate over the relevant period, as well. The rouble went from 50 roubles to the pound to 100 roubles to the pound, with the result that the required investment from someone in Russia is now 200 million roubles.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Clearly, that increased sum is unlikely to deter the sort of individuals who are the subject of this Question. Since there was a reduction, what was the reason for it, in the Government’s view?
Lord Keen of Elie
There are a number of reasons for the reduction. It is noteworthy that the reduction in the number of applications from Chinese nationals began in 2013, before any of these changes were made, and has progressively lowered thereafter. It may be attributed in part to capital controls being increased and improved in some of those countries.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The Minister said that the Government had no plans to abolish the tier 1 visa system. How does he justify that to ordinary Londoners, who see themselves priced out of the London housing market in consequence of large quantities of ill-gotten capital being imported into this country through the tier 1 visa system and invested in London housing?
Lord Keen of Elie
The premise underlying the question is fundamentally wrong. It is not necessary to have a tier 1 visa or visa application to invest in property in the United Kingdom. Conversely, an investment in property in the United Kingdom is not a qualifying investment for the purposes of a tier 1 visa application.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Have the Government noticed the Spanish Government’s prosecution of a number of Russians resident in Spain taking place over the last week? Is the Minister aware that the Panama papers have provided a good deal of new evidence on some people who are now British citizens and where their money came from within Russia?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not going to comment on individual cases at this time.
Young Asylum Seekers: Deportation
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is their continuing policy to deport failed unaccompanied asylum seekers on reaching 18 years of age.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
In the absence of adequate reception arrangements in the country of origin, our policy is not to return unaccompanied children who are refused asylum. Instead, we grant leave until they reach adulthood. At that point, individuals can make further representations, but if they do not qualify for protection or another form of leave, it is right that they leave the United Kingdom. Support is available for people to return voluntarily.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
I thank the Minister. I tabled a Written Question on 13 April asking for the number of 18 year-olds deported in each of the last 10 years. One month later, I have still not received a reply. I received a reply last October to a Question about deportation figures, and was given a number for 2010 of 132. After another Question in March, that was corrected to 778. The initial figure given for 2014 was 151, which was later corrected to 445. Is the Minister happy with these sorts of misleading citations of figures from the Home Office? Is it not time that we had some explanation for why this happened? The Home Office is reluctant to give answers, and when it does so, the answer is wrong.
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no reluctance on the part of the Home Office to answer these questions. Given the diverse number of figures that the noble Lord has mentioned, it might be difficult to determine which of them was wrong and which was right.
Lord Keen of Elie
However, I am advised that for the year 2014 the number of removals was 402, and for 2015 it was 333.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, if it is unsafe for youngsters to return to their countries of origin before they are 18, how do those countries suddenly become safe? I ask this question because a number of young people with family here—I have met such young people, some of whom are as young as six—suddenly discover, when they are 18 and starting school, that they do not have the right papers. Why has that not been investigated sooner? Why are children not returned home sooner when it is safe, not at 18 when their lives are changing?
Lord Keen of Elie
With regard to children who have been here from the tender ages mentioned by the noble Baroness, I would point out that where a person under 18 has lived continuously in the United Kingdom for seven years or more and it would be unreasonable to expect them to leave, arrangements will be made for them to remain.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that there are no circumstances in which anyone would be removed from this country unless it was absolutely safe for them in their country of origin?
Lord Keen of Elie
Whether it be a matter of assistance for voluntary return or of compulsory return where someone has overstayed and has no right to remain, in the first instance this Government will always seek to ensure that there are appropriate reception arrangements for a person returning to a country of origin.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, many of these young people have no memory of the countries that they are being deported to and no experience of living independently in those countries. Can the Minister imagine a teenage relative of his being deported to somewhere like Afghanistan to fend for themselves? Will he explain how this policy is justified?
Lord Keen of Elie
The majority of unaccompanied minor children making asylum applications are aged 16 or 17 years, have not been here for many years and have not lost contact with their country of origin. With regard to the country of origin, at least one-third of those making applications in 2015 were from either Albania or Afghanistan. In the circumstances where they volunteer to return, appropriate arrangements are made to assist them. Meetings with NGOs or social workers are arranged for them, and they are given considerable assistance, equivalent to a maximum value of £1,500, if they go through the voluntary return procedure.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, adolescence is a pretty stressful and turbulent time for young people in any circumstances. Obviously, being unable to make plans for your future, and perhaps being terrified of being returned to your country of origin, will make your growing up a little more difficult. Can the Minister assure the House that young people facing deportation will have their mental health assessed, and that the state of their mental health will be taken into account before such a decision is finally made?
Lord Keen of Elie
Where an unaccompanied minor makes an application for leave to remain, they will be granted leave for at least 13 months or until they reach the age of 17 and a half. An assessment will then be made as to whether or not it would be reasonable to return them. Whether that involves a positive mental health check I cannot say, but I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness on that point.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend assured the House that nobody would be returned unless the Home Office was assured that there were appropriate arrangements for reception. Can he please tell us the criteria by which the Home Office defines what is appropriate?
Lord Keen of Elie
The Home Office gathers evidence with regard to all potential countries of return from diverse sources before arriving at a conclusion as to whether the available evidence indicates that a person can be returned without risk of persecution or serious harm.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister care to answer the question, which was about the criteria used, in writing? It would be extremely helpful for Members of the House to see the criteria used.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not entirely clear what the noble Baroness refers to by way of the criteria, but I will consider what she has said and I will undertake to write if we are in a position to do so.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, what account is taken of in-country reports, particularly those produced by Amnesty International and Save the Children, before a person is deported to their country?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am very sorry, but I did not hear the question from the noble Lord. I apologise—it is my fault.
Lord Dholakia
I will repeat the question. What account is taken of in-country reports, particularly those produced by Amnesty International and Save the Children, before an individual is deported to their country of origin?
Lord Keen of Elie
The Home Office has regard to all in-country reports that are available to it before arriving at a conclusion with regard to individual countries.
Procedure Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That the Report from the Committee, Ballot for Oral Question Slots During Recesses, Tabling Oral Questions, Introduction of Private Members’ Bills (2nd Report, HL Paper 142) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Laming)
My Lords, the second report from the Procedure Committee covers three areas. They are all minor amendments that the committee hopes will be of assistance to your Lordships.
First, colleagues will recall that the House agreed a pilot of a ballot for Oral Questions slots that became available during the recent Christmas, February half-term and Easter Recesses. Since the report was agreed to, two further short recesses have been announced. This report proposes extending the ballot to cover those periods as well. I assure the House that the Procedure Committee will undertake a full review of the pilot before the Summer Recess, and the statistics gathered from these two further short recesses will of course inform that review.
Secondly, the report proposes that the limit of seven Oral Questions per Member should apply to each Session rather than to a calendar year from 1 May to 30 April. This brings it in line with other limits on how many times a Member may table certain items of business. If in future there is a particularly long Session, we of course expect to address any consequences of that. This change would take effect from the start of the next Session.
Thirdly, the committee reports its approval of a minor change to the timetable for introducing Private Members’ Bills. From the next Session onwards, the ballot will be held on the day after State Opening, not on the day of State Opening. This will give the Public Bill Office a few more hours to ensure that all Bills are in order before the ballot. The deadline for entering the ballot remains the rise of the House on State Opening day. I beg to move.
House of Lords: Domestic Committees
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That this House takes note of the report from the Leader’s Group on Governance, Governance of Domestic Committees in the House of Lords (HL Paper 81).
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, last March, just before Parliament dissolved for the general election, I appointed a Leader’s group to consider governance arrangements in the House of Lords. I am very glad that it was not my last act as Leader. The group, chaired by my noble friend Lady Shephard, published its report in January this year. On behalf of the whole House, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend and the other members of her group, all of whom brought an invaluable range of experience—of government, Parliament, business and beyond—to the task. I am pleased to see many of them in their places today.
As a House, we often—some noble Lords might say too often—debate our procedures, practices and composition, but how we take decisions on the services we provide to Members and the money we spend we look at far less. Indeed, the last significant changes in that regard were made well over a decade ago when the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, set out the domestic committee structures in place today. Yet, in my first few months as Leader of the House, I sensed a growing appetite for us to seize the opportunity to examine our present structures.
In speaking to colleagues on the House Committee and to those who serve on other committees, as well as to colleagues across the House, the same questions kept coming up: whether our domestic committee structures were accountable or transparent enough, and whether it was sufficiently clear where decisions were ultimately being made. As those concerns grew, so we became united about the need to take a proper look at those decision-making processes and at how our domestic committees fit together to deliver the accountability and transparency required of any successful organisation.
Those were specific questions, able to be looked at in a focused way, and there was the shared desire to act upon them no matter who was in government after May. I was very confident about a Conservative Government returning after the general election but I was pleased that there was a unanimous view that, whoever was in power, this was an important task. That is why I set up the Leader’s Group, with a remit drawn tightly around our domestic committees, confident that there would be the consensus to make progress with the resulting report, whoever the Leader was to whom it eventually reported. I am pleased to say that the group has set out a clear-sighted package of reforms, which I hope we can all get behind.
Just as the remit of the group was focused, I hope that this debate can be too. The group brought forward a specific set of recommendations to address a specific set of issues, and I want today to be an opportunity for noble Lords to discuss those recommendations and to set the course for the way forward.
For the benefit of those less familiar with our domestic committee structures, I should perhaps run through the present arrangements. These have the House Committee at the apex, as the body responsible for financial matters and setting strategic direction. It guides the work of the various domestic committees—Administration and Works, Refreshment, Information and Works of Art—as well as the House of Lords administration.
At this point I want to place on record my sincere thanks to, and respect for, all noble Lords who serve on those committees. The structure they operate within, in theory, aims to separate the strategic from the logistical, leaving to the subordinate bodies the nuts and bolts of keeping the House running. But my noble friend’s group found that in practice it does not work like that as often as it should. I am sure she will expand on that further in her remarks but, in outline, the group found a lack of clarity in the decision-making process between the committees. It found that responsibilities among the committees are blurred, with too many committees covering similar areas; in some cases the roles of committee members are unclear and there is not enough communication between the committees and the House as a whole. In short, the group outlined the need for more—more accountability, more effectiveness and more transparency—reflecting many of the same concerns that had been raised in setting up the review. It set out an effective blueprint, looking at structures, memberships and ways of working, to address those issues.
As to structures, the group’s report calls for more clarity on remits and roles. In place of the present House Committee would be a newly refocused, although as yet untitled, senior committee, established to take a strategic, high-level approach at the head of the decision-making hierarchy. In place of the present cluster of domestic committees there would be only two: a services committee, dealing with administration, works, catering, retail and information services, and a finance committee to commission, examine and make recommendations on financial matters to the senior committee. These would be established as supporting committees, meaning that, instead of unclear responsibilities, there would be explicit delegations of powers and terms of reference, as well as the ability to refer strategic matters upwards. This would give clarity to staff and members, enabling them to take the decisions needed to drive forward priorities.
With the broad roles of these new finance and services committees, it is proposed that each has its own separate Back-Bench chair, both ultimately reporting to the Lord Speaker who would, as now, chair the senior committee. This in turn would allow the role of the Chairman of Committees to focus on the core proceedings of the House, deputising for the Lord Speaker on all matters and chairing the Procedure, Privileges, Selection and Liaison Committees. The Lord Chairman would remain a key link between the various strands of our work internally and, as such, would be a pivotal member of the senior committee. To reflect this reconfiguration, the report recommends that the Chairman should adopt a new title: senior deputy speaker. While I understand the case for this, and it may emerge as a day-to-day title, the House might like to note that to change it formally would require primary legislation.
The group also suggests two further adaptations to structures to make the Audit Committee a formal sub-committee of the senior committee and to redesignate the Works of Art Committee as an advisory panel reporting to the Lord Speaker, to reflect its specific and distinct role. Both, I believe, would add coherence to the structure overall.
On the second theme of membership, the group calls for a more focused approach. That means smaller committees of 10 members rather than 12 in most cases, with Front Bench representatives able to give clear political direction but with Back-Benchers at their heart, including the new chairs of the services and finance committees, so that committees can draw upon dedicated and expert memberships. Interestingly, and for me importantly, the report also suggests the introduction of non-executive members on the senior committee, shining more light and bringing greater accountability to the decisions we make. Together with the broader structural reforms, I believe that these changes would set the stage for a new approach.
However, to take advantage of those changes the report also identifies a third, essential theme: a need to reform ways of working. That applies first and foremost to encouraging a collegiate approach among members of the committees, as well as among members and staff, but it applies also to ensuring that members take seriously their responsibility to keep their parties and groups, and the House as a whole, informed about their work on these committees, as well as to working closely with the other place. These behavioural changes will be just as important as those we make to our structures. Ultimately, a governance regime can be effective only if the people operating within it really want it to be.
As we begin the debate today, that is the key message. To fulfil our core purpose we must be able to give the public confidence in how we operate. That applies just as much to how we take decisions internally as it does to our core work as a revising Chamber. The group’s report sets out a positive vision that works with the grain of our present approach, offering the potential for better engagement between members serving on domestic committees and the wider House, a more strategic approach to taking decisions, and a more effective framework for members and staff to work together to make changes for the better.
As I conclude, I thought I might set out where we go next. In reading the report, I was struck in particular by paragraph 62. It was emphatic that lying behind each of the examples of good governance the group saw was a clear commitment from all involved to making things work. For me, a crucial first step was for us to consider the recommendations properly. That is why, when this report was first published earlier this year, I wanted to ensure there was time for noble Lords to study it in detail and for it to be considered in party groups and the usual channels so that concerns might be brought forward. That way, when we brought the report forward to the House for discussion, we could be confident that its recommendations would command broad support.
I am extremely grateful to my counterparts from the other parties and groups for their support in that process and for joining me in supporting the recommendations that the group has outlined. I hope that other noble Lords share that enthusiasm today. Should they do so, we can move to the implementing phase. I will deal with the exact process that would follow in my concluding remarks, but noble Lords can be assured that the other party leaders and office holders, the Convener and the existing committees will be consulted. It will be during that phase that we can consider all the fine details. It will be then that we have the opportunity to take account of issues that are raised this afternoon and elsewhere, and where the House will be invited to endorse the implementing proposals we bring forward. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing more from all those taking part today and to my noble friend’s contribution, in which she will give more detail of the work of her group.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for her kind remarks and congratulate her on her initiative to introduce some practical and modest reforms to the domestic governance of this House. I give my warmest thanks to the noble Lords who served on the committee: the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor, Lady McIntosh and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lords, Lord Kirkham and Lord Turnbull, many of whom are here today. We are all most grateful to our clerk, Judith Brooke, who was outstanding in every way, especially in her energy and attention to detail.
The committee was informed by a study of earlier reforms to the governance of this House, and I am pleased to see in his place today my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. We met at least weekly, sometimes more, from June to December last year, and we decided from the outset to invite as much participation and comment as possible from noble Lords and from staff. We used Red Benches, emails to everyone, even posters in the corridors, and we were delighted and grateful to have the number of responses that resulted.
Many noble Lords and members of staff attended the regular drop-in sessions that we organised. Many also gave generously of their time to give oral evidence to the committee. We met the Lord Speaker and the Speaker, party and Cross-Bench group leaders, past and present officeholders and members of staff and colleagues from the other place. As a result, we received a huge amount of evidence and dozens of submissions.
As my noble friend has said, since the publication of the report committee members have presented its findings to their own party and Cross-Bench groups, where it has been positively received. I was also delighted to be invited to answer the questions of a well-attended meeting of the Cormack and Norton group, with again, I think, a largely positive reaction—I am bit hesitant but I think it was okay; yes, I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Cormack is nodding enthusiastically.
We agree strongly with the remarks of the Leader of the House today. Given the accelerating change and increasing scrutiny affecting all public institutions, it is right that our much enlarged House should be concerned with the transparency and accountability of its decision-making processes. There is a self-evident need for ever closer working between the two Houses of Parliament given that—we were surprised by this statistic—64% of their total spend is already managed jointly. We were also mindful of course of the complexity of the restoration and renewal programme, where the interests of this House will need to be strongly represented.
We acknowledge the inherent constraints on governance and administrative systems in a political setting like the House of Lords. How often have we all heard, “Why can’t you do it as they do it at ICI?”? Well, there may be internal politics at ICI—I have no idea—but what we do know is that there are internal and external politics in a political setting like this, and some decisions have to be taken for political reasons. Clearly, there are unavoidable tensions between the parties, the two Houses, and the Front and Back Benches. Unlike in many large organisations with which we are sometimes unflatteringly compared, we have no control over our own size nor of the number of days that we sit. The support needed by noble Lords to fulfil their responsibilities varies enormously, as does their interest in governance matters. Some noble Lords have neither time nor inclination to engage in them; others are keenly interested and have much relevant experience and expertise to contribute.
Although our report strongly advocates change in a number of governance areas, we were struck by the way that goodwill on all sides of the House currently succeeds in supporting its work—which is important—even despite a less than satisfactory governance system. We hope that, if the main thrusts of our report are accepted, less time will have to be spent on working round the system and more on using it.
My noble friend the Leader of the House has outlined the main findings of the committee and the changes we recommend. All of us on the committee were struck by the extraordinary unanimity of the evidence we received. We have long experience in large organisations—we represent between us the worlds of business, government, the NHS, local government and voluntary sectors—but none of us has ever known quite such a uniform response.
My noble friend the Leader of the House summarised in her speech today the findings of the committee—that is, the areas where there was overwhelming consensus for change—and the reforms we recommended to effect that change. I emphasise again that our remit was modest. We were asked to examine the functioning of, and interaction between, the House Committee and the Administration and Works, Refreshment, Information and Works of Art Committees. We were not asked to look at the work of the Liaison, Procedure, Privileges and Conduct or Selection Committees, nor to comment on any other procedural matters, including conduct in the Chamber.
My noble friend divided the proposed reforms into three main areas, and I will comment briefly on each area. On reform to structures, the evidence received by the committee was overwhelmingly of the view that the current remits of the domestic committees are unclear. We were told that, on occasion, some issues may be considered by two or more committees, and those committees may have contradictory approaches. In such cases, staff had to prepare papers in different formats—but on the same issue—for the different committees. It turns out that printer ink is dealt with by one committee and printers are dealt with by another. Worse, one committee, after a great deal of thorough and good work, might take a decision only to find, because of the unclear remits, that that work and that decision is overturned by another committee. Our guiding principle should surely be accountability and transparency. The structure as it is too often delivers neither, and there has to be change.
We therefore propose that the new House Committee—we call it the senior committee and so I shall say “House Senior Committee”—should, as its first task, define its own terms of reference and report them to the House for ratification, making clear which decisions might need approval from the House. Thereafter, it should approve the terms of reference for the two new supporting committees, services and finance, and, most importantly, decide questions concerning delegations.
The establishment of a new services committee, which brings together all the services which support the work of noble Lords, would avoid confusing and time-wasting duplication and clarify accountability, as we also propose that the chair of that committee,
“should be the first port of call for … questions or comments about services and facilities”.
The chair should also be accountable to the House for Oral Questions and Written Answers.
The job of the proposed new finance committee will be to do the groundwork on financial matters and to make recommendations to the House or senior committee, thus enabling that committee to make timely and appropriate strategic decisions. In turn, these proposals would allow the Chairman of Committees to concentrate on deputising for the Lord Speaker, focusing on the proceedings of the House and, of course, chairing the Procedure, Privileges, Selection and Liaison Committees. We thought that perhaps an appropriate title for this post would be senior deputy speaker, although I do not think that any of us want to wander down the path of legislating for this kind of change, and I hear what my noble friend says. We also propose that the very special and specialised role of the Works of Art Committee be recognised through making it an advisory panel reporting directly to the Lord Speaker. We were not asked formally to consider the role of the Audit Committee. Its members have different membership tenure from other domestic committees, but we did suggest that it become a formal sub-committee of the House or senior committee.
I turn to reforms to membership of committees and ways of working. The report lays out proposals for the membership of the new committees and, as importantly, strongly recommends that there should be two non-executive members of the House or senior committee, thus bringing decision-making in this House into line with the pattern we find in most large organisations. We also propose that members of all committees should be chosen for their expertise and experience of the work in hand. I am looking especially at the usual channels as I speak, but that is what we meant.
To encourage strong collaborative working between the senior House committee and the management board, we propose that the Select Committee format of meetings be abandoned in favour of a round table approach, and that there should be a detailed memorandum of understanding to specify which matters are delegated to the management board and which matters need endorsement by the House or senior committee. Moreover, the all-important matter of communication with noble Lords on committee decisions must be tackled head on. We must know who to go to when there is a change in the car park. We never know and we need to know, so we have to have better communication for all noble Lords. One way of enhancing what is already done through Red Benches and emails would be to require committee members routinely to report back on discussions and decisions being taken to their party groups or the Cross-Bench group.
I hope that today noble Lords will judge that the committee took its work seriously. We did a thorough job and we made sensible and realistic proposals that we believe go with the grain of the way this House works. All of us have the interests of the House at heart and we strongly hope that our modest proposals find favour with your Lordships today.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, it has been my experience in this House that the further down the speakers list one is placed, the less there is left to say and the danger of repetition therefore increases. Unfortunately, on this occasion the opposite appears to be the case. I have rarely been this high up the speakers list and found myself with so little left to say. That is because, of course, everything that needs to be said in respect of the Leader’s Group, of which I was privileged to be a member, has been put most eloquently, first, by the Leader of the House herself, to whom I add my thanks for allowing this debate to take place, and of course by the person to whom I should refer as the noble Baroness but who I would like to refer to as my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. She has just set out the work of the group so comprehensively.
It was a huge privilege to be a member of the group and to work under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. Her qualities are well known in the House and so it will not be a surprise to anyone that she led our work with a winning combination of forensic thoroughness and absolutely irresistible charm. She has presented the report this afternoon with characteristic clarity. We were also lucky, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, has already said, to have Judith Brooke as our clerk. Without her diligence and, I have to say, her elegant prose style, our task would have been a good deal harder.
I should say at the outset that I have served on several of the committees whose role we were charged with examining, including the House Committee, and I have a very high regard for the work that they do. However, as has been said, the need for review became clear as soon as we started taking evidence—which, as indeed has also already been said, we did over a number of months and in considerable detail. Everyone we spoke to, including representatives from almost every aspect of the work of the House, expressed significant concerns about current arrangements, albeit in a variety of ways—some of them quite pungent.
The recurring themes, as set out in our report, have been explained already by our chairman, so I shall not repeat them, but it really is hard to overemphasise the consistency of the messages that we received. It is always easier—and very human—to leave things as they are, particularly when there is no apparent crisis. Things get done: why meddle? But this is a critical time for Parliament—not just for the House of Lords but for the whole of Parliament. Trust is low, reputations are vulnerable. There are significant challenges ahead, not least the looming prospect of a major and extremely costly refurbishment of these buildings.
On the face of it, internal governance is not much on the minds of those who comment on what we do. But it has the potential to become much more so, especially if anything goes wrong. At present our arrangements are opaque and confusing, even to those actively involved. It is not easy to explain the governance systems clearly or to understand the lines of accountability.
The recommendations in the report are intended to provide clarity and coherence. They are not perfect; there are downsides—fewer committee places and challenges with the structuring and managing of the workloads of the new committees. As we say in the report, there is detail to be worked out and, of course, the noble Baroness the Leader has already told us that it is her intention, should the broad thrust of these recommendations be accepted, that that detail should be examined after this debate has concluded.
On balance, however, we in the Leader’s Group felt that the possible disbenefits of our proposals were outweighed by the potential for a more streamlined, transparent and functional system within which the vital need for mutual trust and respect between what we might call, though somewhat inaccurately, the Executive, or the Administration, and what might be called, though equally inaccurately, the non-Executive, or the Members, which is addressed directly in recommendations 102 to 106, has a better chance of being met. This must be a goal worth seeking, limited as it may seem to some whose hearts and minds are set on more radical reform of the workings of your Lordships’ House.
This report is significant but not revolutionary. I say this with all due respect to my colleagues—and indeed to myself—and not in any way to undervalue what it represents. Rather, I want to make the point that the changes it proposes are modest, incremental and intended to improve the working lives of all of us—Members of the House and the staff who support us so ably. It may not be perfect but it represents a bit of progress. I very much hope that the House will support it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for introducing this debate and setting out the background to the report from the Leader’s Group on Governance, its recommendations and how she proposes to move forward. I also express thanks and appreciation to the Members of the Leader’s Group who have done a very thorough job in a relatively short time. I particularly wish to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, for her excellent chairing of the group, the clarity with which she set out the group’s report to your Lordships’ House today, and the example she gave of the lack of clear boundaries between committee responsibilities. That underlined the need for the work that has been done. I also thank my noble friend Lady Doocey, who served on the group. She made great efforts to engage with colleagues on these Benches and ensured that our views were fed through to the work of the Leader’s Group.
I very much welcome the report from the Leader’s Group and I fully support its recommendations. As it clearly sets out, this House had changed considerably since the last time there was a thorough review of the domestic governance arrangements, conducted under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Tordoff in 2001-02. The House is busier, with more and more Members, who engage more regularly in the legislative responsibilities of the Chamber, which are rightly taken extremely seriously. There have been procedural innovations to ensure that more Members can participate fully in all aspects of the work of the House, such as the establishment of ad hoc Select Committees and of topical QSDs, which allow the Chamber to discuss issues that are currently relevant to the country in a timelier manner.
As the report points out, this has led to an increase in demands for services and facilities, which are necessary to ensure that the Members of this House can carry out their roles as legislators in a professional way. We cannot function as a proficient legislature, undertaking the serious work of scrutiny of the Executive, which is our primary role, without such help and support as IT support, a desk, the production and distribution of papers et cetera. This is also an important opportunity to thank all the members of staff—the clerks, the technicians, the catering staff, the cleaners—who work to support this House and its Members to ensure that we play our roles effectively and efficiently.
There is also, rightly, more scrutiny of this House than ever before. As we are an unelected Chamber, the public must be confident that our practices and procedures are as scrupulous as those in the House of Commons, if not more so. This extends not just to how we conduct our business in this Chamber, but to how we take decisions about the facilities and services that support aspects of work in the House. We have a responsibility to ensure that our internal arrangements are governed by best practice, that our financial decisions are underpinned by best value, and that we are open, transparent and accountable.
I was struck by two contradictory thoughts when looking back at the work conducted some 15 years ago under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Tordoff. On the one hand, progress has clearly been made in tackling some of the internal difficulties that the House faced then. It has been some time since Members felt it necessary to raise any great dissatisfaction with the delivery of services or internal governance directly on the Floor of the House. On the other hand, the issues raised in my noble friend’s review regarding communication, consultation, and clarity of roles and decision-making are still recognisable today. It is disappointing that the ambitions expressed by the review have still not been realised. In particular, the objective set out in paragraph 52 of that report—
“The fundamental objective of our suggestions is that Members of the House should be able to influence decision-making on the services and facilities that they enjoy. Views should be expressed at the beginning of the process, not at the end”—
still has not come to fruition. The role of the domestic committees as “user groups”, canvassing the views of Members and providing a vital channel of communication for Members to make complaints or suggestions about the services, has, I believe, not been realised. Therefore, I was, and remain, fully supportive of the decision of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to establish this group to review the governance arrangements.
As well as the informal consultations that my noble friend Lady Doocey conducted among Members on these Benches, I initiated a discussion at a group meeting to enable colleagues to air their views on domestic governance arrangements in your Lordships’ House. The view of my colleagues was very much that a radical overhaul of the domestic committees is needed, including the House Committee. Colleagues felt that there needs to be more transparency in how the business of the domestic committees is conducted, and they were keen to see a fundamental change of culture and attitude in the committees, with new ways of working and support being given for new and innovative ideas.
I was therefore pleased, although not wholly surprised, to see some of these concerns well reflected in the report from the Leader’s Group. It is clear, as has been echoed in comments that have already been made about the unanimity of views expressed to the group, that the issues are not just of concern to Members of my own party, but felt right across the House. In my view, the recommendations contained in the report give us an opportunity to start afresh. As I indicated, I fully support the recommendations. I believe that the new structure proposed in the report resolves some of the issues that have been of most concern to Members. Having a strong senior committee, responsible for developing, setting and approving the strategic, business and financial direction of the House administration, will ensure that there is appropriate, high-level oversight of the running of your Lordships’ House.
A particular concern of mine during my time as a member of the House Committee is that I was not always confident that its strategic aims filtered through to the numerous domestic committees to ensure that the decisions then taken by those committees reflected the overarching objectives of the House Committee. I am pleased to see the recommendation from the Leader’s Group that the chairs of both the finance and services supporting committees should also be members of the senior committee. This will be vital to tie the work of the supporting committees into the work of the senior committee, and to ensure the flow of information in both directions.
I also agree with the conclusion of the group that there need to be clearly defined terms of reference for the domestic committees, and clearly defined reporting structures and relationships between them. I am hopeful that with fewer domestic committees, as the report suggests, it will be easier to establish who has responsibility for what, and that the many decisions taken to ensure the smooth and effective running of this House are taken at the appropriate level. I also approve of the recommendation to encourage greater sharing of working practices between senior administrative staff and Members of the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, reflected, the committee should not approach its work as a Select Committee, even down to the seating arrangements. I do not think I am giving away any secrets if I say that the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster took a view very early on that we should not operate as a Select Committee but more like a board. Those of us who have served on that committee believe that has worked well.
My noble friend Lady Maddock will seek some clarification on the position of the Works of Art Committee, which she so ably chairs. This is an important committee, particularly in its role in ensuring a historical record of this House for future generations. It is important that we reflect on that committee’s views.
I recognise, as the report itself does, that the proposed new structures impact upon the duties of the Lord Speaker and the Chair of Committees. As has been said, the Chair of Committees will continue to chair, amongst other committees, those relating to the procedures of this House: the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. These are essential to how we operate as a House, and our reputation in the country. However, in light of the recommendations, the Chair of Committees will not chair as many committees as they did previously. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, whether she intends to take forward the suggestion in the report that the remuneration attached to the post of Chair of Committees should be reviewed. I probably share the view that a proper name will evolve and we will find it without having to go down the path of primary legislation. Given the status of the Chair of Committees—or senior deputy speaker or whatever—and of the chair of the European Union Committee, and the fact that significant salaries are attached to both, it is my personal view that they should be elected by the whole House in the same way that the Lord Speaker is.
I absolutely agree with the view expressed by the group that new ways of working are fundamental to the success of the new committee structures. For Members to be confident that the new committees are working on their behalf, there must be better communication, innovative working practices and a willingness to embrace ideas and suggestions from Members across the House. Although much of this challenge will rest on the shoulders of the chairs of the new committees, it will be incumbent upon all their members to embrace that philosophy and take it forward. I therefore hope that the leaders of the respective parties, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, will recommend individuals for membership of these committees, bearing in mind the requirements of membership.
It was a particular honour and privilege for me to serve as Deputy Leader of this House during the latter stages of the coalition Government. I am therefore mindful that one’s responsibility, as the leader of a political party, is not just to one’s own Benches but to the House as a whole. That responsibility is to ensure that how we conduct ourselves conforms to the highest standards of propriety. I therefore conclude by saying that I look forward to taking up my responsibilities as an ex officio member of the new senior committee, and I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendations of the Leader’s Group on Governance.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for initiating this debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, and the other members of her group—including the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, from these Benches, who unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon—on their helpful and constructive report. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the compelling way in which she presented the report and the reasons for the conclusions that were reached.
At first sight, this is perhaps not the most exciting topic for a debate, but keeping our systems for organising how this place is run effective and up to date is a matter of first importance. I am very glad we have been given this opportunity to discuss what the report recommends. I am sure that both the Leader and the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, will be encouraged by the number of noble Lords who have remained in their places to listen to their speeches and, indeed, will be present for the rest of the debate.
I think one must have a basis of knowledge and experience to subject a report of this kind to constructive criticism. I am very conscious that I am a relative newcomer to the work of the domestic committees. It was not the practice for the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to be asked to serve on them when I was serving here as a Law Lord. Then, for four years, on moving to the Supreme Court as its Deputy President, I was disqualified from taking any part in the work of the House and my interest in what was going on here diminished accordingly. My disqualification was lifted in July 2013, after my retirement from the court, and suddenly, on taking up the post of Convenor last October, I found myself a member ex officio of two of the committees concerned with the governance of the House—the House Committee and the Administration and Works Committee—as well as of the Procedure Committee and the Privileges and Conduct Committee, with whose work the report is not concerned. So I have that advantage. I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in expressing my admiration for the work of the committees of which I now find myself a member and all those who contribute to their discussions.
As I am not a member of the three other domestic committees—the Refreshment, Information and Works of Art Committees—I have no first-hand experience of their work; nor do I have any experience of their work at second hand as, unless I am very much mistaken, there are no arrangements for the work of these other committees to be subjected to regular scrutiny by the House Committee, as the governance structure in figure 1 on page 9 of the report suggests it ought to be. I may not have been paying attention. If that is the case, I apologise, but I simply cannot recall the kind of communication between these committees in either direction that one might have expected. During my time on the House Committee I have not had to consider anything about the works of art with which that committee is concerned.
I have no doubt that the officials on whom we depend so much for what goes on in this Building are well in touch with each other, and that the high quality of their work is not affected at all by any defects that may have been drawn attention to in the noble Baroness’s report. But my experience suggests that there is a lack of clarity about how the committees should work with each other and the roles of the Members who serve on them. Given my experience, I do not require much persuasion that there is a real problem here that demands our attention.
Another feature that perhaps should be stressed is the relationship with the House of Commons. I have become aware through my membership of the House Committee of what is going on in the House of Commons. About two-thirds of our services are shared and, as the report points out, there is a growing need for a sense of cohesion and shared purpose between the two Houses. Those who serve on the House Committee at least are very much aware of this and of the work that is being done to achieve this where it is in our interests to do so. The main driver for this, no doubt, is the need to achieve efficiency savings right across the board in public expenditure, but working together is not just about saving money; the increased efficiency that it brings is a virtue in itself.
The recently introduced governance structure in the House of Commons, which is set out in figure 2 on page 12 of the report, has been designed in the interests of efficiency. In comparison with what the other place now has, our governance structure does look rather out of date. I agree with the report that greater clarity is needed, especially about the role of the senior committee. I do not think we should copy precisely what goes on in the other place but I agree with the report that greater similarity between the overall structures of our respective domestic committee systems is desirable. That should make the process of decision-making in the areas of shared and joint services simpler and easier to achieve. I also welcome the recommendation that the work of the senior committee should be supported by two non-executive members with suitable boardroom experience. In an increasingly complex world, we need to keep pace with the outside world in how the managerial functions of such a body are and should be conducted.
Lastly I welcome, too, the emphasis on the need for behavioural changes on the round-table approach to our meetings. Rather like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I do not think I am giving away a secret when I say that at the last meeting of the House Committee, which was chaired by the Lord Speaker, we were shown how those could work effectively. We were invited to the River Room and served with biscuits and tea, as we sat around a table with a white tablecloth to discuss the business of the committee. It was a welcome change and, perhaps, an example of what can be achieved to make our discussions a little more friendly and constructive.
In principle, therefore, I agree that the structure recommended in this report should be implemented. I hope this can be done without delay but I should like to mention a number of points of detail. They are concerned with what the Leader of the House referred to as the next phase. For that reason, they are matters not fully set out in the report but I suggest that we need to give careful attention to what lies ahead and I offer these thoughts with that in mind.
First, I have some questions about structure and timing. Reference is made in paragraphs 64 to 69 of the report to the need for clarity in delegation and the setting of targets. I of course welcome the emphasis on both. The first task of the senior committee is to be for it to define its terms of reference and report them to the House for ratification. Only after that has happened, it seems, can the terms of reference of the supporting committees be approved and the appropriate delegations take place. This sounds very sensible but how is it to work in practice? Which committee is to be set up first? I assume it will be the senior committee, as the services committees cannot start work until their terms of reference have been worked out for them—and that cannot happen until the senior committee’s terms of reference have been ratified.
If I am right about this, however, the phasing of the transfer of responsibility from the old committees to the new will require careful planning. The existing committees will have to remain in being until the committees to which they will transfer their responsibilities have been established. We must remember that we are talking here about real people and the contribution our Members, from all groups, make to the running of the House. The work of the officials will no doubt go on as normal but for the Members it is different, as the scrutiny committees on which they serve are created or cease to exist. In their interests I ask: what is the timing to look like? Can each of the committees be given a business plan for this, so that the whole process is completely understood and properly co-ordinated?
Then there are the criteria for appointments, to which paragraph 88 of the report refers. I see merit in the proposal that there should be more stringent criteria for nomination and that the chairs of the two supporting committees should have an input into that process but here, too, there are questions about timing. When and how are the chairs of these committees to be appointed? As they are to be members of the senior committee as well, it would seem that they need to be identified and appointed at the outset, when that committee is being set up. But for the recommended process to make sense it would seem that their appointments should precede the nomination of the other members of their respective committees. Is that what is intended?
It would seem to follow, too, that they would need to be appointed before the terms of reference of their respective committees have been worked out and that they should be able to contribute to that process. That would seem a sensible way of dealing with the matter but, again, is this what is intended?
Lastly, I suggest that we need a little more clarity as to who is to take on the responsibility of presenting the reports to the House from the domestic committees when the post of Chairman of Committees—whose present holder does such an excellent job under our current arrangements—is brought to an end, as recommended in paragraph 70. In that paragraph, it is said that the holder of the new post—let us call him the senior deputy speaker—should concentrate on areas of procedure and conduct. But if that is to be so, who will be answerable to the House for the work of the other committees—the senior committee and the services committees? I suppose the chairs of the services committees should fulfil that role in their individual cases, but at least one of these chairs is likely to come from the party groups. What about the senior committee, which most of all needs someone to speak in the House on its behalf?
At first sight, the choice would seem to lie between the senior deputy speaker and the Lord Speaker, but of course under our current arrangements the Lord Speaker does not have a speaking role. It was otherwise when we had a Lord Chancellor—I remember very well debates being conducted with great skill from the Woolsack—but those days are past and it may very well be a step too far for the Lord Speaker to assume the responsibility of speaking on behalf of these committees. Does this then mean that the responsibility for answering for the work of the committees should be given to the senior deputy speaker? If it is, following the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, would that affect the salary that that post might be expected to attract?
I throw these points out for further thought, well understanding that the Leader is not in a position to provide answers to them. It suggests, however, that a great deal of thought is still needed, and discussions will no doubt take place to find proper answers. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long with these points. This afternoon we are really looking at the recommendations in principle, and I offer from these Benches my support for what the report has recommended to us.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I particularly agreed with the point that he made on the working relationship between the two Houses, which I will come to.
I will be very brief. I very much support this report and congratulate my noble friend Lady Shephard and all her colleagues on the substantial work that has gone into this over a six-month period. It is precisely work such as this that too often, and quite wrongly, goes unnoticed outside this House. Perhaps not even everyone inside this House is interested in the governance of services and facilities—at least not until something goes wrong or we are confronted with an issue, such as the future of this building, that we can scarcely avoid. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, said, this is a crucial time and we should regard it as such with the kinds of decisions that we all know are coming up.
I will concentrate on two underlying themes in the report: the mystery that surrounds some committees, and the difficulties in consultation and accountability to Members generally. At paragraph 33, the report states:
“The operations of domestic committees appeared shrouded in mystery to many members who had not served on them”;
and, not surprisingly, that some Members complained about “insufficient accountability” to the House. Perhaps I may give an example of both the difficulties and the solution from a committee which is not part of this review, because it comes under procedure, but which nevertheless illustrates the point exactly.
Ten years ago, a number of colleagues and I wanted to set up a communications select committee. We were summoned to a meeting of the Liaison Committee to put our case. I for one had never come across the Liaison Committee—indeed, I am not altogether sure that I knew there was a Liaison Committee. Having met it, it seemed to me that its main function was to knock down the bright ideas of Back-Benchers—which, I am bound to say, it duly did. However—this was the instructive part—the committee was required to report to the House. It was up to the House to approve.
It became clear that in the preparation of the report, at the very last moment, unknown to us, the then chairman of the Culture Select Committee in the other place had submitted a letter which said, roughly: “Keep off our pitch. These are not matters for the likes of you”. Frankly, all I had to do at that stage was to read out the letter. The House rose as one and the committee’s recommendations were totally overruled. In celebration of the letter without which we would not have succeeded, we subtitled the new committee the Whittingdale committee, for it was John Whittingdale who had signed the letter. Given some of the later reports of our committee, in his new role as Secretary of State, he probably feels that his reservations were entirely justified.
The point is this. Without accountability to the House built into the system, the proposal of a committee shrouded in mystery would have held sway. What is important is to ensure that there is utmost transparency and a route whereby Members of this House can have their say. As the committee states, the best way to ensure that is to have a structure which is as clear and straightforward as it possibly can be. For my money, the organisation set out on page 20 achieves that.
I know that there are questions about the position—indeed, the title—of the Chairman of Committees, and we all know the recent problems, but we should acknowledge that it has been a role, certainly during my time in the House, carried out by noble Lords with extreme distinction, as it has by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, when he generously stepped into the breach. It seems to me that there will be a small gap before this part—certainly the title of this part—of the report is implemented. We might also want to see the result of the referendum and how the title of chair of the European Union Committee fits in to that.
I just point out two further points. The first is the previous report of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and his later review, together with my noble friend Lord Hunt. They had intended the domestic committees to act as user groups. Committee members were expected to report to their party groups on the activities of their committees and then feed back their views to the relevant committee. That is an extremely good idea but, frankly, it has not happened. Indeed, many committee members were unaware that that was expected. If that is what we want—I suggest that it is—we must, as the report suggests, make the role of committee members extremely clear.
The second point I pick out is a very basic one. Members of committees in this House are both Members of the House and, often, clients for the services provided. Decisions involve the use of public funds, and it is important that there should be no perception of conflict of interest. Therefore, good non-executive directors would have an important role here. My guess would be that we would have no difficulty in recruiting some very good men and women. All my experience as chairman of four or five companies is that the role of the non-executive is vastly important and essential for this House, if we are to demonstrate outside the importance that we place on that.
When I was reading the report, I was struck—this point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—by the amount of joint working in services between the two Houses. In so many ways, we are 200 yards from each other but operating in different worlds with, at times, little knowledge of what is happening in the other world. That was certainly my experience and, I think, that of many others when we were in the House of Commons, so it is undoubtedly good news that about two-thirds of the resources of the two Houses is already spent on shared services. The committee now reports other areas of shared services, such as Hansard, internal audit and several others. Of course, the really big issue for joint decision is the restoration and renewal programme, which involves a decision of immense importance and an immense amount of money. For a Member like me, who has worked in the Palace of Westminster for the last 45 years, it is particularly difficult, but I am only glad that we will have the guidance of a Joint Committee, which will be reporting on the position and which I hope and know will maintain the interests of the House of Lords.
On one last point, looking down from above, the late Lord Roper would not forgive me if I did not mention the position of the Library. Like me, he thought it rather eccentric that we had two different Library organisations; like me, he benefited from the exceptional service we received in the Commons and Lords alike and, like me, he totally supported the staff here in the service that they give. What we missed, and miss, was the ability we had to phone an undoubted specialist in something like social security to explain an apparently unintelligible measure in words that could be understood. They were truly excellent—and we need to look at that particular area. I realise that I could be accused of some bias here in that my wife worked as a clerk in the Library department for many years, in the House of Commons, just like the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—they worked together. But there is a potential for an increase in service to the benefit of everyone concerned.
The report is excellent and first class. I congratulate my noble friend and the other members of the committee and hope, above all, that it will be implemented in the new Session.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, almost everybody in this House has an interest in governance, and many noble Lords have served on the various committees, but perhaps I should declare a particular sectarian interest as the chairman of the House of Lords Audit Committee who is also invited to attend meetings of the House Committee so that I can see its works. I join fellow Members of the House in welcoming the report. It is proportionate, sensible, beautifully written and well organised—but it has one outstanding problem in relation to the place of the chairman of the Audit Committee.
My Audit Committee and I gave written evidence to the Leader’s committee, in which we advised that, given the importance of audit and the unanimous practice in private and public sectors, the chairman of the Audit Committee should have a seat rather than a guest place on the top committee—on the main board, as it were. As the Leader of the House said in her opening speech, the report accepted the importance of the role of audit but recommended that the chairman of the Audit Committee should be an extra member of the new finance sub-committee rather than being a member of the new senior committee, and should not have a seat on the new senior committee.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we will deal with a budget of £100 million plus over the next five years, rising to uncontrollable and unseeable amounts when finally we come to restoration and renewal. I say “uncontrollable” because I think that it will be very difficult to stick to the figures that are suggested. The budget will increase exponentially in 2020 when we come to the restoration and renewal programme. The control, of which a formal audit is a key element, of that amount of public money, is critical. I and my Audit Committee in this House have to be represented on the senior committee. We have great difficulty in finding anywhere where the Audit Committee is not on the senior committee, and the five members of the Audit Committee have all served everywhere in the private and public sectors. I should make it clear that this is not a personal bid for world domination via a place on the senior committee—although I can think of worse places to start. What we propose is that the Audit Committee should not only report to but be chaired by a member of the senior committee.
The report postulates a 10-person board containing four Back-Bench Members, two of whom, while not exactly spare, would not be chairing the new finance committee and the new services committee. There would therefore be two Back-Bench Members without specific duties and two new committee members recruited from outside. I welcome this proposal particularly, by the way; I have two outsiders on my Audit Committee and they are both absolutely invaluable, with their wide experience of other places. Any of those four could be chairman of the Audit Committee. Indeed, since the changes to the House of Commons administration, one of the two outside appointees, Dame Janet Gaymer, chairs its Audit Committee and is on its new main board.
I very much welcome this report on governance—which, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, is not revolutionary but evolutionary. Otherwise, I feel that we have got pretty much everything right, so it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to go all the way in conforming to public and private sector practice and ensuring the scrutiny of £100 million-plus—and much more in the years to come—in the way that the private sector and most of the public sector do, and in the way that the House of Commons does, by having the Audit Committee chaired by a member of the senior committee who also sits on that committee. When we come to consider the recommendations of the report, I hope that this view can be taken into account.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to serve on the Leader’s Group on Governance. It is a great tribute to the superb chairing skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, that any observer attending our meetings would never have realised that all the members sitting round the table were from different political persuasions because we operated very much as a close-knit team all rowing in the same direction.
I will confine my remarks to recommendations 3 to 5, which deal with the domestic committees. The evidence that we received, from a wide range of individuals, had a common theme in lamenting the inadequacies of the current committee structure. Recommendation 3 puts the present position pithily:
“The current governance arrangements do not meet standards of best practice”.
For me, the current position was best summed up by a senior Member of the House who said in his evidence that,
“the remits of the domestic committees are grossly unhelpful. It is possible for two committees to be operating legitimately within their own sphere of influence and to be pulling in different directions”.
I experienced this first-hand when I served on the Refreshment Committee for nearly three years, although it seemed more like 30. It was quite unlike any private or public sector committee that I had ever experienced. The role of its members was seen as to note and to consider but seldom to take decisions. I recently looked back at my Refreshment Committee papers and found that out of 20 that I reviewed at random, just four asked the committee to make a decision. In addition, on the occasions when decisions were made, they could be overturned by other committees that had had no involvement in the discussions that led to the original decision. We received evidence of similar experiences from members of other committees. A by-product of the frustration that that causes is a lack of collective responsibility by Members for decisions taken on the committees on which they sit. With responsibility so diffused, it is hard to get anyone to own difficult decisions when they are taken.
The structure that we are proposing should ensure that all parts of the House and the administration talk to each other and work as a close-knit team, that decisions have widespread support in the House, and that Members who serve on the domestic committees will be have a more effective voice. We believe that the clearer terms of reference for the two committees will result in many more Members wishing to serve. The job should be seen as requiring just as much time and dedication as serving on a policy-based Select Committee. There will need to be much greater emphasis on reporting back and on ensuring that those serving on committees consult their colleagues in order to represent their views. We have suggested that the committees themselves should determine how this is done, but communication is crucial.
Our key concern throughout has been to recommend a structure that will be effective, transparent and accountable. We seek a 21st-century system in which staff are empowered and supported to take what are sometimes difficult decisions and make difficult recommendations, with clear, cohesive Member oversight. Our recommendations fulfil these criteria, and I strongly commend them to the House.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. It is the sign of a good debate when one’s speaking notes are a morass of changes and notes, because everyone has made some good points already. I, too, congratulate warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and her whole committee, on what I found a very clear and brief report that was full of wisdom.
In my 25 years at Hiscox, which is a FTSE 250 company, I spent, inter alia, a decent period as the group company secretary. Hiscox at the time operated in more than 10 countries, with regulated entities in all those countries and with independent non-executive directors, both at the senior board level and on a number of operating levels. I can assure noble Lords that the organigram of the group was at least as complicated as that of our committee structure here in the House. Things similar to that marvellous story about the printing ink probably happened—I have a nasty feeling that I might have been part of that story as well, but that is for another time. On top of that, the senior independent director at the time was also the dean of the Cass Business School, so we were doing things properly. I therefore thought it would be helpful to the House to look at the report with the eyes of FTSE corporate governance. I accept entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said. It is only persuasive authority and we cannot follow corporate governance slavishly, but I thought it would be instructive. I came up with four points.
The first point is to do with evolution, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. I note that the corporate governance code in Britain started with the Cadbury committee in 1992, and the current corporate governance code, which came into force in September 2014, is the fifth iteration. That just goes to show how we should view this as an iterative step on our own journey to corporate governance over what will be many years.
My second point is to do with the number of independent non-executive directors that the senior committee will have. I feel that two is not enough, for three reasons. First, we will need a balance of skills on this committee; we need to pick carefully, and not all the skills needed will necessarily easily be found in only two people. Secondly—and speaking as someone who is a non-executive when occasionally there are not many other non-executives around—you need to have at least two non-executives along to each meeting. There is a danger that there would be only one because someone could not make it. Thirdly, non-executives take a very long time to train up. At Hiscox we felt that it took about two years for a non-executive to understand the entity, and I dare say that it would take at least that here. Accordingly, our experience bank would be pretty overdrawn if we lost either of the non-executives at any one time. Therefore I recommend that that number is increased to three or four.
My third point concerns board evaluation. This process was coming in as I was the company secretary, and I was initially quite a sceptic. However, I am now a comprehensive convert, and I believe that board evaluation would be extremely valuable on at least the senior committee and a number of the other committees as well. The second main principle of the UK Corporate Governance Code of September 2014 is effectiveness. It says:
“The board should undertake a formal and rigorous annual evaluation of its own performance and that of its committees and individual directors”.
That is a very good way of attempting to deal with known problems or allowing unknown problems to surface. I am not necessarily in favour of a huge, very time-consuming exercise. It is quite possible to do such an evaluation on an internal basis, with each member of a committee spending only an hour or so on it. Obviously the chairman would have to spend more time on it, as would someone whom I call the governance secretary, about which more in a second.
Paragraph 48 of the report worried me. It says:
“We conclude that relationships between members and staff could be improved”.
That is a Gypsy’s warning, and a board evaluation process is one part of trying to deal with that. I strongly urge that a board evaluation process is considered.
My final point concerns the creation of a governance secretary. The governance bit of a company secretary’s work is only part of the role but it is very important. To me, it was the most interesting part. There are a number of things that the governance secretary would have to do. First, for instance, there would need to be an induction programme for every member to find out about the committee, even if it involved only providing some documents. Secondly, there would need to be some sort of search process for replacements on the committee. Thirdly, there is the board evaluation, which I have just mentioned. So such a person would be needed for a number of reasons. He or she would also be needed as a “go to” person. If the chairman had a question about governance, he would need to ask someone for help. The same would go for any of the members of the committees, and indeed for anybody who was interested in the work of the committees from a governance point of view. I think that it is a part-time role—I am sure that it could be folded into the work of the Clerk of the Parliaments’ busy staff—but it would be greatly to the benefit of governance improvement.
All those points notwithstanding, on our iterative road of evolution, I think that the report is truly excellent and I hope that the changes it seeks will be implemented rapidly.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, always makes very pertinent and constructive suggestions, and we have had a very good example of that this afternoon. I begin, as have others, by thanking my noble friend the Leader of the House for initiating the debate and for the manner in which she did so, and of course I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold, who gave us an exemplary précis of her report. It was clear and concise, and it illustrated the underlying wisdom with which she and her colleagues approached a very difficult task. She was quite right in interpreting my vigorous nods as indicating that the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which I have the honour to chair, produced a very good turnout for her meeting, and there was a great degree of consensus in welcoming the report and the good sense of its recommendations.
One problem with your Lordships’ House is that how it operates is a bit of a mystery. I often think of those words of Churchill in a very different context: it is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma. I feel it is important that we shine some light not just on what we do but on how we do it, and perhaps I may give a specific example. A few months ago, we suddenly noticed ladies and gentlemen with cameras walking around the place. I lost count of the number of times I was asked, “How did this come about?”. Indeed, the gentlemen with cameras and the producers came to the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber for what was an extremely constructive meeting. I make no criticism of the fact that the decision was taken, but many Members of your Lordships’ House were in ignorance of it. That in itself illustrates a certain fault line in the way in which things are decided. I believe that the recommendations of my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold and her committee would help very much in that regard.
Before I make a few general comments, I would like to make two specific ones. First, I do not want to go down the road of primary legislation, and am glad that my noble friend Lady Shephard does not want to either. If that is necessary to change the title of Chairman of Committees, then I think we should put that to one side. We can always have a rider that says, “The Chairman of Committees, who will act as Senior Deputy Speaker”—that can easily be done and does not need legislation. The last thing we want to do is to give the impression that we are going in for navel-gazing legislation at a time when the public’s mind is on rather more important things.
The second specific point is this. I had the great honour to be chairman of the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art in another place for some 14 years. I did my three years on the Works of Art Committee here under the chairmanship of the late lamented, much-respected Lord Luke and then in the initial meetings taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who is doing an excellent job. I believe that the recommendation in the report that this should be an advisory committee to the Lord Speaker has a great deal to commend it, not least because when people with a great knowledge and interest in a subject such as works of art are appointed, it is a pity if their time is limited to three years. On an advisory committee, that would not necessarily apply. Therefore, I welcome that recommendation very warmly.
My noble friend Lady Shephard, in her admirable introduction, referred to tensions. There are, of course, tensions in this House and in another place, which stem from the single simple fact that, in our system, the Executive are drawn from the legislature. So there are tensions between Front and Back Benches on both sides of the House, very apparent at the moment in various ways but I will not amplify on that, and between the two sides. One finds that especially in another place—the elected House; the superior House—although it does spill over here a bit. It is crucial that we recognise that, just as we recognise how important it is that our two Houses should work more closely together. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Fowler said in that context, and very much hope that if we do adopt these recommendations, which I hope we will, they will lead to a greater understanding between the two Houses and a greater understanding of the need and importance of common services—my noble friend Lord Fowler referred to the Library specifically in that context.
It is very sad indeed that not only the mechanism of your Lordships’ House but what it exists for and what it does are not sufficiently known in another place. The more that we can work together through Joint Committees, and the more that we can understand each other’s procedures, the better it is for parliamentary government. The better it is also for the principal purpose of Parliament, which is to hold the Government to account. We have said in different debates recently that it is the Government who are accountable to Parliament and not the other way round. That is of fundamental importance.
While it is, of course, necessary to have the usual channels—I was part of them myself alongside my noble friend Lady Shephard for some years and it was a very agreeable experience—I always remember the famous Enoch Powell definition of the usual channels as being the most polluted waterways in Europe. That does not of course apply to the wonderful distilled water in the usual channels in your Lordships’ House, but it is important that too much power should not be exercised by the Executive or the opposition Front Bench, directly or indirectly, in the way in which committees are chosen. In another place—this is since I left—they have shown us that the election of chairmen and members of Select Committees has not brought the House of Commons crashing down. It would be sensible, if we are to have these more representative committees, if there were at least elections within the party groups deciding who should serve on them—I commend that particularly to my noble friend the Leader of the House.
I often think, as I am sure do other noble Lords, of the 18th century and Dunning’s Motion in the other place that,
“the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished”.
That applies to the Executive in 2016. Our structure of governance has an important role in ensuring that we are a vibrant House with a real contribution to make to the legislative process. We can do this more effectively if there is greater understanding across the House of the way in which we operate and greater support for it.
I hope that from today’s debate we will move forward towards implementation, but we have to take into account points made not only by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who preceded me, but by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who made a characteristically wise speech indicating that there are t’s to be crossed and i’s to be dotted as we work out precisely how we do this. However, my noble friend and her committee have given us an admirable blueprint. It is incumbent on us all to do whatever we can to ensure that it is properly and constructively implemented, because—and I go back to the title of the group that I have the honour to chair—this way lies the creation of an even more effective second Chamber, and that is what we should all be about.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to those offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and her committee for their report and congratulate them on it. A review of our governance is certainly long overdue and I agree with virtually all its recommendations. I particularly welcomed the opportunities the committee created to give evidence informally, which I think produced evidence from many people who would otherwise have kept silent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and others spoke of the need for clarity in the way we are managed and governed. I agree. This will certainly help those involved in outreach who have to explain the practice of deciding many things “through the usual channels”, which is very opaque and hard to explain, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, indicated. I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would agree with me that it is also good and accepted practice that together with governance should go stewardship: nurturing as well as controlling; looking after as well as managing.
It is with this in mind that I raise three points, the first of which is the position of staff. We are fortunate in having exceptional members of staff. Noble Lords who have worked on various Select and other committees will have experienced how much better these committees work once the barriers between staff and Peers are gradually removed. Noble Lords who have worked on management boards of companies, hospitals, schools and charities will have experienced this. Yet the report seems to indicate that it wishes to maintain this division of “them and us” even though it is unhappy about it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded us, the report refers to the divisive seating arrangements at committee meetings, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Bearing this in mind, I suggest that staff members serve as equals on the senior committee, the Audit Committee and the services and finance committees, rather than just being present as advisers. This would not only be a step in modernising our governance and good practice but would also help to recruit and retain good staff—nurturing and managing.
My second point concerns the position of the senior deputy speaker. This is a sensible proposal because it represents the actual situation—the work that he or she will do. The report rightly makes the point that its remit is not about proceedings in the Chamber, but the post of senior deputy speaker also relates to this. So, in creating the post, it must be good governance to provide for the powers that the senior deputy speaker needs—powers to implement the decisions he or she may make. This matter has been debated in this House for years and, in creating this new post, now is the time to deal with it. It is part of governance. As we come more and more into the public eye, a solution becomes more pressing. In creating the post we need to define not only its terms of reference but its powers of enforcement, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, indicated—looking after as well as managing. The rest can be left to other reports.
My third point concerns the finance committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, refers in her paper to the committee being in the strange position of being responsible for our finances but unable to control our costs, particularly our variable costs. It is accountable but not responsible because the main variable costs are the number of Members and the days that we sit—costs outside its control. Most of the rest of our other costs are fixed. In every other organisation the finance committee has a say in controlling its variable expenditure—but not here. Surely an important part of modernising our governance is that a way needs to be found for the finance committee to influence these costs, and not just leave things as they are. Can the Leader of the House suggest how this may be done?
I again congratulate and thank the Leader’s Group for its report. It is full of common sense. I look forward to its implementation, both in terms of governance and stewardship.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for instigating this review and for her exposition at the beginning of the debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, for her chairmanship of the group. Having known her in another place a long time ago and through having served with her on the Committee on Standards in Public Life, I am not surprised by the accolades she has received this afternoon.
I must declare an interest as the chairman of the Works of Art Committee, a post I have held for almost three years. I should like to take the opportunity to thank all those who have supported me in this job, which I have greatly enjoyed. I am mostly a political operator, so this is something quite different. I thank in particular the curator, Malcolm Hay, and his staff, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the two clerks I have had to the committee, and I say how much I miss the help I had from Liz Hallam Smith, who was the director of information services in the Library. I greatly miss her wealth of experience.
The report refers to the Works of Art Committee in two places: first, in its terms of reference on page four—which are rather brief, like most of the terms of reference to committees—and then in a short series of recommendations set out on pages 22 and 23, which, as we have heard, seek to change slightly the nature of the committee, making it an advisory committee reporting to the Lord Speaker. What I hope to do in my remarks is, first, to expand on what the committee does. This is a rare opportunity to explain to Members of the House quite what goes on in the Works of Art Committee. I also want to make some comments on the recommendations which I hope will be helpful to those trying to take them forward. I hope it will lead to an understanding of how we work.
As stated in the report, we administer the House of Lords Works of Art Collection Fund. We draw down modest sums of money each year, and I should say that during austerity they have been even more modest than they were in the past. We use the funds for two purposes: to take care of the wonderful collection of works of art in the House and to add to it. There are two ways in which we do this. Sometimes we commission works of art. Noble Lords will know that in recent years we have commissioned portraits of the Speakers of the House, and before that the Lord Chancellors. Last year, we also unveiled a portrait of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which we had commissioned.
We also acquire works of art to fill what we see as gaps in our historical collections. Sometimes the curator will find something that is up for auction. If we think it is something that would add to the collection, we give him the ability to bid up to a certain amount. We are also offered the chance to acquire works by people outside the House, sometimes from art dealers or organisations, and occasionally organisations will donate works to us. We are also offered works by Members of the House and their families. But in judging whether to purchase or to accept new works of art for the collection, the committee is always guided by detailed, well-thought-through policies. An explanation of our recent acquisitions may help with this.
The portrait of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was chosen because of the history of his work in government over a great many years. It was agreed by the committee and the portrait, which now hangs in the Members’ Dining Room, has received all sorts of accolades. It is indeed a very splendid portrait. Most recently we have commissioned a portrait of the Lord Speaker which we hope to unveil later in the year, and I will say a little more about that later on. Sometimes Members of the House come to us with ideas. This year the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, came to us with an idea. He thought it would be rather nice if we could have printed on vellum the prayer that is said every day in the Lords and the Commons, and to have it hanging here; indeed, he volunteered to pay for it. We hope to unveil the prayer in June.
We have also been offered recently a portrait of Lord Mansfield for rather more money than we normally spend. Lord Mansfield had been a Speaker of the House of Lords, so we decided that, given the history of all that he had done in his political career, there was a gap in our collection and we would like to purchase the portrait. However, there was not enough money in our normal fund. We attempted to raise money for it, and I am grateful to Members of the House who helped me in that. We did not get quite enough money, but by spreading it over two years of our budget and adding the money we have managed to raise, we hope to be able to purchase it.
Care and conservation are ongoing. At the moment, noble Lords will be aware of the conservation of the Maclise paintings of Waterloo and Trafalgar on the wall in the Royal Gallery. We have been helped again to work out how to do it—we are very prudent in my committee, I must say—by PhD students from Germany. If people are particularly interested in that, I can let them know exactly what is happening. There is further information in the minutes of our committee.
The Royal Gallery is part of the Royal Apartments, which include this Chamber, the Royal Gallery and the Robing Room, and we have to pay particular attention to how we conserve them. We work closely with the House of Commons Works of Art Committee because we have a shared responsibility for what happens in Westminster Hall and St Stephen’s Chapel. When I took over chairmanship of the committee, I did not quite realise that until I started attending the meetings of the House of Commons Works of Art Committee. That committee had been working up a wonderful work of art to celebrate women’s suffrage, which was going into St Stephen’s Chapel. None of my committee members had seen this. I thought, “Oh dear, if they don’t like it we will have a problem”, so I immediately arranged for the artist to come to explain her ideas and how the work had evolved. The committee was so impressed that members burst into applause when she had finished and said, “We must give some money towards this”. Mostly, however, it has been paid for by the House of Commons.
The curator, his deputy and his team, who are our expert advisers, work across both committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The lion’s share of their salaries are paid by the Commons and the line management is in the Commons. The Speaker does not attend their meetings but generally agrees to the programme. I would ask how we think the Lord Speaker would work with our committee if we were to follow this. Occasionally it could cause problems but we need to work out carefully how it would happen because the role of the Speaker here is very different from the role of the Speaker in the other place. I am not saying that it cannot happen but we need to think carefully about it.
I understand that a lot of consideration is being given to how members are selected to serve on committees. I know that there have been discussions about how important expertise is on the Works of Art Committee. At present I have a very committed committee. Invariably, I have full attendance and members always send their apologies if they cannot make the meeting. We have a mixture of art lovers and experts, and the names put forward by the various party groups have produced an excellent committee. It is important to have a mixture of skills. I do not think everybody needs to be an expert—we have good experts to advise us—but it is always helpful to have people who have some knowledge and are familiar with the art world. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who is not in his place, when he talked about the role of committee members. I agree that we need to try to make sure that more people know what we are doing in our committees.
Another matter that comes our way, and can be controversial, is the choice of Christmas cards. I keep asking how this ever came to be the role of the Works of Art Committee. I have tried to streamline it a little and to get Members of the House to make suggestions, but in the two years that we did it we had very few. That may be due to it being quite difficult to communicate with everybody when we ask them to give us their opinions. That has come out in today’s debate.
The other area we are sometimes asked about is what happens in the shop and what we sell there. That is interesting because I realise that there is somehow a better connection between the Works of Art Committee, acquisitions, celebrations and the House of Commons shop than there is here in the House of Lords. We do not run the shop—it is run by the refreshment department—but it is something we could look at.
Almost daily, visitors come here to admire the Palace of Westminster and to appreciate the nation’s history, much of which is illustrated by the works of art contained in the building. We are shortly to make important decisions about how we deal comprehensively with restoration and renewal. The Works of Art Committees in both Houses will surely play an important role in ensuring that the unique collections we have are properly safeguarded. It is therefore important that whatever changes we make to the committee structure do not detract from the important work that the committee presently undertakes and what it will have to undertake in the future. I hope my intervention will help to ensure that, as reforms are rolled out, we put in place arrangements that will work to this end. I look forward to hearing more and to helping with the rollout.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to hear the opening speech from the Leader and speeches from other noble Lords. This is an interesting report and raises a large number of salient points. One of the most key is point 44 on communication. The committee is right to diagnose poor communication between the domestic committees and the House. As a result, I and other noble Lords are sometimes not made aware of the issues under consideration until well after the report is published and sent to the House to seek approval for publication. It goes without saying that this means that we cannot lend our voices and expertise to the reports while they are being written. That undermines confidence in the domestic committees and sucks a great deal of accumulated wisdom out of the final product.
The report endorses,
“a need for significant improvement in communication between domestic committees and the House”.
That is easily enough done. Even our most senior Members have phones in their pockets that can get email, or, failing that, computers that they can get email on at home. What is so hard about circulating a monthly email with all the issues under consideration by the domestic committees, so that we might glance at our screens and have a look? It is a simple enough solution and I cannot see why it would not work.
Another key point raised was on the appointment process. The current system works on a party-representation basis. This is important to the functions of investigative Select Committees, but party proportionality is less critical on the domestic committees. We all have a shared interest in keeping this House working as effectively as possible. Any attempt to manipulate the rules for political gain would be rapidly neutered by the other place, which would not mind curtailing the powers of this place further if given a good reason. Party representation is not a good idea. We need senior Peers and experts taking the reins in the committees, not people picked by the Whips. With the removal of this restriction should come greater scrutiny. At present there are no clearly defined lines of inquiry when one wants to raise a point or contest an assertion. When you want to raise a certain issue, it is rare to find an accountable committee member. Members ought to be assigned priorities so that we can use them as points of reference when we need to ask questions and get answers.
Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to expect Members to be able to question chairs and other reports when those reports come out. The Dispatch Boxes are reserved for Ministers, so we cannot use those. However, an informal drop-in session in which to raise concerns post publication could be a useful innovation.
One area in which the report falls short is on progress in lowering the number of committees. It clearly states that there are too many committees and, to be fair, it recommends downgrading the Works of Art Committee to an advisory panel. However, it also recommends the creation of two new committees, springing up like a hydra’s heads. The answer to too much bureaucracy is to reduce it, not increase it and create three new posts.
Finally, this report recommends a new senior committee, chaired by the Lord Speaker. This committee will have certain powers, and I submit another now. If committee members turn up to less than 30% of their domestic committee meetings, then the senior committee should have the power to strike them off and ask for a replacement. There can be no room for half-hearted effort if we want the governance of this House to run smoothly into what are potentially turbulent times.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for scheduling this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for her report. I thought it was me who gave her the titbit about printers being dealt with by one committee and printer ink by another, but the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is also claiming to be present at the birth. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, we all served together as members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, so it is nice that we are in this debate together.
As chair of the Information Committee, I have been privileged to work with a wide range of Members of this House. Their collective enthusiasm and expertise has helped enormously to add value to the work of the House. I also have the distinction of presiding over a committee which is being made redundant and of being the only chair to be made redundant in this report. I assure the House that I am not taking this personally. Members will know my distinguished predecessors who chaired the Information Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. I am the only Labour chair and the only woman. Again, I assure the House that I am not taking this personally.
I will make a couple of points about the recommendations of the Leader’s Group on Governance before concentrating my efforts on the work of the Information Committee and the legacy issues arising from its demise. The long-term objectives for the governance of this House have remained the same. As has already been said, 15 years ago the Tordoff review said that,
“there should be a coherent strategy covering domestic management and services and the financial arrangements of the House”.
The Leader’s Group was asked “to consider” what arrangements were necessary,
“to ensure that domestic committee decision-making … is effective, transparent and accountable”.
We have spent a lot of time not getting very far. It is clear that nothing will be ideal in a complex parliamentary system. I accept that the current system did not provide an effective sounding board or series of user groups, except for the individuals who served on the actual committees. The recommendations in the report did not refer to the importance of sounding boards or user groups and I would be interested to know what consideration will be given to this.
Members’ attitudes to the functioning of the House will vary depending on whether they regard the House as a workplace, a legislative assembly or a club, and on which of these carries the most weight. Our obligation is to provide the best people we can to populate the new structure, avoiding the temptation simply to reward absolute party loyalty—a point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Suri—or to use it as a channel for trouble-makers to swim in. I am sure this has not happened in the past and I am hoping it will not happen in the future.
Another important obligation is to provide a management structure which is fit for purpose. The current structure of clerks is absolutely excellent for running a legislature. We are fortunate to have talented, hard-working and flexible staff who serve in the Chamber and in committees and Select Committees. It is not necessarily a good structure for effective management and financial clarity and it does not provide a comfortable home for the specialist professions, such as digital services, the Library staff, archivists, broadcasters, press and media staff, and certain education staff. All these areas are covered by the Information Committee and it is important that the new structure finds satisfactory ways of acknowledging those staff as vital contributors to our outward-facing role. We need more people in management with professional expertise, particularly in human resources, and the lack of diversity on the management board is extremely concerning. I accept that the management structures were not necessarily part of the Leader’s Group remit but that means the report can give only a partial picture.
I turn to the work of the Information Committee. We are meeting on 8 June to consider the legacy issues arising from our impending demise. The timing is not ideal but we were unaware of the date of this debate. I still believe it will be an important piece of work for the committee to do. I emphasise, therefore, that I am speaking in a personal capacity but I hope to reflect the committee’s views in general.
A significant amount of the committee’s time during my term of office has been spent on digital service issues: the helpdesk, Members’ equipment and the accessibility of the internet in the House. The appointment of a senior post in digital services was long overdue. Before that, we had a number of service failures and project overruns. Rob Greig has been with us for two years and is gallantly trying to bring some order and to reduce the number of systems—39—that we have in the House. Yes, we are the people who have curtailed broadband and printers for some Members, and who indicated as a committee that if Members wanted an iPhone they should purchase one themselves; I am beginning to appreciate why we are being chopped. This work is time-consuming and requires much patience. It is vital that the new structure deals with digital services in a fair and transparent way, as we have tried to do, and has a system for dealing with complaints. I think the point has already been made by other noble Lords that we need to know who to go to on the different topics.
My committee spent hours acting as a sounding board and participating in pilot projects. For that, I thank its members. We have encouraged tours of the Parliamentary Archives and I encourage Members to participate if they have not already done so. The location and development of the archives are at a key stage given the plans for restoration and renewal to which they are linked. The development of parliamentary broadcasting has been vital to get our message to the public. Remember, the House of Lords was the first to introduce parliamentary broadcasting. We are opening up to all the newer forms of technology, with encouraging results. Not long ago there were more hits for the Big Ben bongs than the proceedings of the House. Now on the bigger issues our coverage is increasing by leaps and bounds.
On press and media, we had a brief debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, so I will confine myself to two remarks. First, our staff do a brilliant job promoting the objective role of Parliament. They cannot promote partial or subjective material. Secondly, on the question of instant rebuttal of issues which affect the reputation of the House, we need to agree on a method within the Member/management axis which authorises action within a reasonable time. We do not have that at present. The committee also looks at the bicameral public information services, including parliamentary outreach and the Education Service, although the House of Commons leads on this. Whatever Members’ views on the actual building of the education centre on its current site, I urge them to visit the centre to see the work being done on our behalf to open up democracy to a younger generation. I am happy to facilitate this if anyone is interested.
Last but by no means least, we have a wonderful Library providing a high quality of service for the unique requirements of your Lordships’ House. Again, the Library organises visits to see what it can do to help, whether that is to access newspaper cuttings, e-books or research. Members of the Information Committee who have taken advantage of these workshops agree that it has increased their knowledge on what to ask for. The only caution I make is that the needs of Members of this House are very separate and distinct from those in the Commons, where the main need is devoted to answering constituency questions by researchers acting on behalf of MPs. A merger of these functions would not necessarily be in the best interests of the Lords, in my view.
Finally, the Information Committee has always believed strongly in openness and transparency. We believe that we should be able to say what equipment is available to Members. The politics of this is sensitive—I accept that—but openness will win in the end. Some members of the public think that we should walk barefoot to work over broken glass. They will never be satisfied but rational decisions about equipping Members of the Second Chamber to do their job can be defended and we should be prepared to do so. I have been privileged to serve as a chair of the Information Committee and thank all members of the committee who have served.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some diffidence because I have not served on any of the relevant committees but I would like to make two points. One is that, having read the report, I can say that it is excellent and I hope that it will soon be implemented. There is a very great deal behind it that needs to be done. I picked up with some interest what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said about the way in which it will have to be implemented. Those were useful points, which the Leader of the House might wish to take into account.
For my second point, it is very convenient to be following the chairman of the Information Committee as I wanted to say a few words about that. First, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that I am delighted with my Nokia and do not need an iPhone. However, I am concerned about the very wide duties and remit of the Information Committee and the fact that it will be subsumed into the new services committee, which will also deal with a large number of other matters. Nobody has so far raised this issue, so I thought that perhaps I should. I shall take the Library as perhaps one of the most important examples, since several people have spoken about it. It would be very sad if the new services committee was so busy with other matters that it did not give sufficient time to the importance of the Library. I have had a huge amount of help from the research people in the Library on all sorts of issues; I know that so many other Members of this House have as well.
The Parliamentary Archives are not to be underestimated. They tend to be, unless someone really cares about them; the Information Committee clearly does. Will the new services committee do so? The digital services, such as information services for Members, public information about the House, the education and training service and broadcasting are all important and have had their own committee. I am quite concerned that they may not be given the same degree of concern and attention in a much larger committee. What is the Leader of the House going to do to make sure that that committee, which will affect us all in this House, is given proper attention when it is subsumed into this much larger committee?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, speaking fairly late in the debate, I am reminded of that horrible sentence, “Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it”. It is a mark of the quality of the debate that so many noble Lords have made quite different and very important points about this very excellent report, on which I congratulate the Leader’s Group. The report was down to earth and—thank the Lord—had no highfalutin mission statement, which I am increasingly allergic to. I will make one or two points that I hope will be helpful.
I am reminded of when I was chairman of the Refreshment Committee, some years ago now. Then, we were supposed to be a user group, and in many ways I found it very interesting. I went behind the scenes as much as I could and relayed, with as much enthusiasm as I could, the innumerable complaints I received from individual Members—which actually continued for up to four years after I had left the committee. However, more seriously, I was concerned that I seemed to be operating in what one might call a vacuum. I was quite unaware of what was happening above with the House Committee—indeed I am not sure I was fully aware it existed, any more than my noble friend Lord Fowler was about the Liaison Committee until he came up against it.
There was certainly no remit or terms of reference to which one could work—you did it as best you could, which was a very real weakness. In particular, one did not report to Members of the House, issue reports or do anything of the sort. When I saw this new report, I was extremely pleased that this is going to be considerably tightened up: there will be terms of reference, and committee members will be given a much better idea of what they should be doing. Above all, it is very important that the committees report in some way. Several suggestions were made by my noble friend Lady Shephard as to how this might come about, but again we need to experiment with that and then perhaps review it, to see how effective these various means are.
The noble and learned Baroness who spoke just before me anticipated the very point I was going to make about it being a major commitment for anyone to serve on the new services committee, bringing together as it does not only the Information Committee, with all that does, but the Refreshment Committee and the Administration and Works Committee. That is very major indeed, and those who serve on it will have to be prepared to give considerably more time and effort than would be expected of any of us on a single committee. I hope that any preparations made for those who are willing to serve will look at that very closely. They should be asked, in my view, whether they are prepared to give that amount of time and effort.
I turn now to the question of non-executive members. I fully approve of the idea that they be added to the senior committee—by whatever name that is known—although I take on board the suggestion, made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that there may not be enough. I notice that there is no suggestion that the services and finance committees should have similar members permanently attached. I just wonder about that. I noticed the paragraph which says that they should be able to call upon expert advice from time to time if they so choose, and maybe we should start with that, but I suspect that it would be very helpful indeed to have permanent members from outside this House to assist with what will be a very major remit.
All in all, this is an excellent report, but clearly we need to have a running review of how this will operate. The mistake in the past has perhaps been to say, “Right, we have done this: forget about what may happen to it”. We ought to have a regular period of reflection on how we are doing—not necessarily in order to have major changes or upheavals, but a running remit to see that it is as effective as possible.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, because some of the points she just made illustrate the kind of information that we were getting about how the committees are working or have been in the past.
I start by thanking the Leader for providing this debate and all the leaders for the way they have sought to respond to the problems our report has highlighted. I join others, especially those on the group, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for operating as an inclusive chair while keeping us on the straight and narrow, and echo the thanks to our clerk, Judith Brooke, who did a sterling job fulfilling her responsibilities and providing assistance.
My starting point is that our report and recommendations may not be absolutely the last word on all these issues—we are not claiming that—but we should bear in mind that not one person gave evidence to us defending the existing system. Nobody from any side of the House or any member of staff came along and said, “No. Don’t change things. Everything is working perfectly”. Very clearly, from all the evidence we received, everything is not working perfectly and we have to revise what we are doing. Indeed, the main concern expressed to me was that our remit was too narrow because we were not allowed to look at procedure or the role of the Speaker. Had we been able to, we would not be having this debate today, because we would be nowhere near finished. It was hard enough work to get to where we are with our limited remit.
On behalf of the group, and without consulting it, I apologise to my noble friend Lady Donaghy if she felt at all victimised; that really was not our intention. I am glad that she is not taking it personally and I am sure that, in time, her suggestion of user groups will be considered by the new senior committee as appropriate or when a specific issue is raised, because communication was certainly one problem we identified.
The themes the report threw up have been well mentioned: lack of clarity, buck-passing, delays, lack of accountability and lack of direction on occasions. The example used of printers and printer ink explains exactly the nature of the problem, and is one that everyone will remember indefinitely. Our stunned reaction when we first heard about it sums up much of the problem that the committee felt we were facing, as do our examples from the Refreshment Committee, which have been mentioned quite often.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned that the committees’ working is sometimes a mystery to those who are not on them; we found that it was sometimes just as much a mystery to those who were. That should not be the case and is often a problem for staff as well.
I think that our proposals create the right framework and are clear and straightforward. As everyone has mentioned, the detail is not finalised. These recommendations can be tweaked and considered. I heard what my noble friend Lady Cohen said about the Audit Committee, what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said about induction—something on which I think we would all agree—and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said about phasing in or transitional arrangements for the new system. What we just heard about the work of the Information Committee going forward could be particularly useful in that respect; those are important points.
However, there is a sense of urgency about this. We really need to act to strengthen the governance of this House, not least because we already have 64% joint working with the Commons—but, as others have mentioned, we are now moving on to the phase of restoration and renewal. It is important that we feel confident that we have the right structures in place in this House. The key in all we were trying to do was to get clarity in our structures and responsibilities. We need proper terms of reference for any committee of this House and proper systems of delegation, be it to the chair or to officers. We need to end the confusion that exists. That is particularly important not just for the good working of the House, but because we are talking about public funds. It is important that we have the degree of accountability and transparency that is the essence of good governance. Making those changes will benefit Members, who will know what decisions are being taken, why, and by whom. It will be significant for the staff of the House, officers and others who work in the House because they will have clearer instructions, there will be less possibility of confusing and conflicting instructions, and less scope for delays caused by prevarication and things being passed from one committee to another. We all have every reason to be grateful to those who work in this House. The evidence we got from members of staff through the drop-in centres told us of the difficulties that can arise for those who work here because of the confusions that exist.
We have got the framework right; we need to look at what might be the detail. I was glad that the Leader of the House made it clear that she would be willing to make sure that there are transitional arrangements. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, we have not been dotting “i”s and crossing “t”s—we have been creating a framework. It is not a mission statement but something practical, which will take us further forward. The remit we had from the Leader of the House was to ensure that domestic committee decision-making was effective, transparent and accountable. We have made a good start, and I hope the House will take the proposals further.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to contribute to this discussion on the very interesting report of my noble friend Lady Shephard and her colleagues. I have been involved in various capacities in the governance of your Lordships’ House, and I was previously in another place for some years. I am currently a Back-Bench member of the House Committee, but for some years I was the opposition human resources manager, known for historical reasons as the Chief Whip. I was therefore at the centre of the great jigsaw puzzle of who does what, although I hasten to add that I was by no means the only player in that puzzle. I found that, broadly speaking, subject Select Committees attracted plenty of volunteers, but the administrative committees did not, with the notable exception of the Works of Art Committee.
The fact is that few of us take a sustained interest in organisational aspects of the House. There are important exceptions to this, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who spoke so well. Most Members of your Lordships’ House have a lifelong interest and great experience in various policy matters, such as medicine, education, economics or the law. They are only intermittently interested in the administration of the House—and usually, as my noble friend Lord Fowler pointed out, when something goes wrong, or is thought to have done. This tendency of your Lordships’ House is of course strengthened by the efficiency of the clerks, those who serve us so well in Black Rod’s Department and so on. Things generally run smoothly so your Lordships do not need to take an interest.
So what about the changes proposed in the report? With regard to the House Committee, there is not really much change on paper. The proposal is that the House Committee should be replaced by a new senior committee, with little if any change proposed in the remit. The new committee is supposed to develop, set and approve on behalf of the House the strategic plan and annual business and financial plans of the administration, working with the management board of House officials, and then monitor performance. The present terms of reference for the House Committee, as fully advertised, are:
“To set the policy framework for the administration of the House and to provide non-executive guidance to the Management Board; to approve the House’s strategic, business and financial plans; to agree the annual Estimates and Supplementary Estimates; to supervise the arrangements relating to financial support for Members; and to approve the House of Lords Annual Report”.
That is of course what we do. The only extra element of our current explicit terms of reference that is not so far part of the new committee is the reference to the supervision of the financial support for Members, but I am in no doubt that that will come within the remit of the new committee.
Some changes are proposed to the composition of the senior committee compared with the present House Committee: first, that the new services committee and finance committee chairs should be members of the senior committee, which I thoroughly support, but also that there would be two fewer Back-Bench representatives and instead two outside members, described as non-executive, although as a matter of fact those words describe us just as much as they would describe someone from outside. The idea is obviously to bring in individuals with suitable expertise, particularly where administration rather than anything else will be their specialist subject, and I support that.
The new factor is the proposed junior finance committee—below the senior policy and resources committee or whatever it turns out to be called—to do some groundwork, some detailed financial and technical scrutiny, on behalf of the senior committee. The terms of reference for that committee will presumably be very similar to those of the senior committee, except making it clear that it is junior to the senior committee. I worry that this will bring in duplication, which in other respects is what we are trying to get rid of. When the senior committee agrees with the junior committee, all will be well, but when the two disagree then the House itself will have to adjudicate, which might involve considerable delay.
I am also concerned about the proposal in paragraph 86,
“to align the work of the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee”.
I trained and worked as an auditor and consider that those functions should essentially be independent, not “aligned”, whatever that means, with the finance committee itself. I certainly do not think that the chair of the Audit Committee should only be a member of the junior committee; she—or, at some time, maybe he—should of course be a member of the senior committee.
The other new committee, the services committee, will combine the duties presently undertaken by the three committees. Like others in this debate, I am concerned about the width of those responsibilities on those members and that chairman. It will of course reduce by two-thirds the number of Back-Bench Members serving in these various capacities and so reduce the problem of finding enough committed Members to do the job, but the remit will be very wide, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out just now. Of course, it neatly avoids any boundary confusion between the three committees, which has been part of the difficulties of defining who is responsible for what, and gets round the printer’s ink problem. However, it leaves the problem of defining the difference of remit between the senior committee and the junior committees. What is strategic? So the decisions to be made about the precise remit of these two new committees, including the services committee, will not be very easily made. In any case, neither I nor, I think, the committee or the House believe that these adjustments to the committee structure and senior posts will of themselves make much difference to the reporting procedures or methods of working. They also need to be modified.
There is concern that those of us who currently serve on these committees do not report enough to our colleagues. Perhaps more proposals for change which are thought necessary could be brought to the Floor of the House before being instigated. However, I must warn the House that there is limited appetite for that among Members who want to raise other topics. I notice that the future business currently shows 65 Back-Bench Motions awaiting debate. Only one of those is about administration; the others are all about different aspects of policy.
Perhaps we members of the House Committee and other committees do not advertise our services as a channel of complaints enough. However, in my experience, Members who wish to complain about something that has gone wrong find their way to us quite often, and obviously we take up the points that are made. I add that I have only occasionally reported to the Association of Conservative Peers in my capacity as a member of the House Committee or in that sort of capacity, but I have also rarely observed an appetite for administrative matters to be raised in that forum either. In practice, of course, concerns are usually raised in the weekly session of the Association of Conservative Peers with the Chief Whip, as my noble friend Lady Shephard will recall from her time as the excellent chairman of the ACP. Not the least achievement of the Leader’s Group she chaired was to have brought out the views of Members about governance which are not normally expressed and have not been over the years. This report has given us a useful opportunity to reflect on how this rather special place works, and we can and should go ahead with its proposed changes.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I became aware of some of the difficulties of suggesting innovations about 24 years ago, when I put it to the Refreshment Committee that yoghurt should be available in some of our catering outlets. I considered it a victory when it appeared. I congratulate the committee and the chair on the report. I support the recommendations, many of them with much enthusiasm, although my experience of partners’ meetings and board meetings around a table is that one spends a disproportionate amount of time discussing what sort of biscuits one should have.
The terms of reference for the group included the effectiveness of domestic committee decision-making. This evening I will put down a marker for considering effectiveness in another part of the forest: legal services and shared legal services. Currently seven lawyers work in this House, two of them part time, and 13 work in the House of Commons. This is not about job creation for lawyers—although I declare an interest as a solicitor; my point is about effectiveness and efficiency.
The two Houses work towards the same ends, not in competition—mostly—but with a different focus. Although we try to complement one another, not to compete or duplicate, inevitably we consider many of the same issues. So it seems logical that, for instance, the same lawyers should advise when a House of Lords committee considers a Bill sent to us by the Commons. This is about value for money and the effectiveness of Parliament. Shared services in this area would probably also lead to the same amount of legal resource being more readily available to committees and Members across both Houses.
I have seen a submission on the issue by a staff member. I take the points made about assisting business planning within legal services by enabling a single unit to anticipate and co-ordinate provision, and about making it easier for a single unit to collaborate with other services, such as research. I do not know whether there are problems with the recruitment of lawyers—probably not—or with retention, which is possible, but this would contribute to a career structure for lawyers within both Houses and a workforce with a diversity of background and experience.
I do not for one moment suggest that Parliament’s lawyers do not co-operate with one another, or that there are not all sorts of issues that would need to be addressed, but I was surprised to learn that lawyers operate in discrete entities—I do not want to say “in silos”—and this part of our structure would be well worth looking at when the next opportunity arises.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader for setting up this committee, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, on a truly excellent report, from which we can all benefit greatly.
It is probably worth making one or two comments. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I have thrown away the speech that I had prepared simply because everything has been said more than once, and certainly better than I would have said it. However, I think that the point has been made only indirectly that, although there were all sorts of things wrong with the previous system, at least part of what was wrong was us. People were not taking commitments seriously. I serve on the Information Committee. When I joined that committee, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the then Chairman of Committees took a great deal of trouble to brief new members. I think that we had two significant briefing sessions but only a minority of members attended them. That is a problem, and it is going to be a problem for the new structure unless we change our ways.
Today, I want to concentrate on the Information Committee. All sorts of benefits of a services committee have been outlined but, frankly, I simply do not think it is credible that the range of activities and inquiries carried out by the Information Committee could be carried out by the services committee with the major and broad remit that is proposed. The same point has been made very clearly by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others. Either one has to say that the work that the Information Committee was doing was not very useful and did not need doing or one has to find a different way of managing it.
One possibility is to have an information group or sub-committee that takes on some of those responsibilities but then reports to the services committee. In other words, it would use the proposed structure but tweak it, and this could be done in one way or another with all sorts of finessing. However, I think that some of our work has been useful. Perhaps it has not always been to the liking of some of those whom we have interviewed but, under the skilful chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I think that the meetings have always been constructive and have probably been helpful to the officials whom we have seen. We operated with a very high degree of informality. We were constrained to a horseshoe-shaped arrangement by the rooms in which we generally, although not always, met, but it worked extremely well. I suspect that quite a number of people would feel that it was a loss if that sort of activity ceased.
I urge the Leader and those whom she consults on this to think upon this question and how these things can be managed within the new system.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, everything that I wanted to say has been said by the previous 20 speakers. My noble friend Lord Geddes has just said, “Sit down, then”. I resist that, if I may, just for a moment, to join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in paying tribute to the inspiring leadership, certainly when I first entered this House, of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I entered this House in 1997, and I still treasure the annual report and accounts of the House of Lords which I received at the time. It may be interesting for colleagues to hear this extract from the then Clerk of the Parliaments introducing the annual report in 1997, who said that in the last year,
“91 life Peers have been created, the highest number … Total membership increased from 1,204 to 1,273 … daily attendances (over 400) were the highest ever … Accommodation is very limited and increases in membership and attendances have exacerbated the situation”.
If we then turn to the organisation chart in this annual report, we see that it defies imagination. In a rash moment, I said that to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, because I had just been appointed to the Offices Committee, chaired then, I think, by Lord Boston of Faversham. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that the same thing had just been said to him by Lord Sharman. He turned to me and said, “The interesting thing is that you and Lord Sharman have one thing in common: you are running very substantial organisations outside the House”. He went on, “Why don’t you just present us with a report showing how the management and internal governance of the House of Lords should be conducted?”. So Lord Sharman and I took advice from all our colleagues and in our partnerships and produced a report. I am not going to detail that report, because I was taken to one side by Lord Grenfell, who said, “You may want to see the sort of simple change that you have outlined, with a chief executive, management board, non-executive members of the board, et cetera, but you’ll learn in this place that it’s evolution not revolution”. And so it was that we then combined in 2002 and produced a report that set out a number of changes. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was brilliant in explaining, defending and urging those changes on the House.
Then we come to 2007. Again, I was reminding myself that that is when the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I presented another report on internal governance to the then Lord Speaker. We pointed out that since 2002 there had been a number of significant changes: the development of what is called strategic and business planning; the establishment of the first fully joint parliamentary service, PICT; and the acquisition of the Millbank Island site. We also listed a whole number of others. But in 2007 we said that the one thing that had not happened which should happen was the greater involvement of the membership of the House in decision-making—there had to be wider consultation and greater opportunity for all Members to participate. We wanted to see user groups.
That was 2007. I therefore congratulate my noble friends the Lord Privy Seal and Lady Shephard of Northwold and all their colleagues on producing a report which has such a positive vision: “effective, transparent and accountable” internal governance. We are taking that step-by-step approach that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, so clearly saw. We should not only endorse the report but move to implement it as soon as possible.
There was just one thing I was concerned about, having seen the brilliant leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, when he occupied the position of Chairman of Committees and of several similar holders of that office since. I would not want a significant alleviation of the duties of the Chairman of Committees. I know that the new structure suggests that but, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I think that there must be a better way, because the role of Chairman of Committees or whatever we call it has a huge and significant opportunity now to strengthen public confidence in the House of Lords, not only as a revising Chamber but as a Chamber that has a clear sense of direction. Some of the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, were in the original report that I produced with Lord Sharman. Slowly but surely we will get there, but a lot will depend on the leadership, particularly of whoever succeeds as the Chairman of Committees.
I conclude with three points. First, we have here a blueprint for better engagement between Members of the House of Lords—how much I want to emphasise the need for better consultation. Secondly, we now have a much more strategic approach for taking decisions. Thirdly, we have an effective framework within which Members and our excellent staff can work together far better than ever before. What a great opportunity we have. Do not let us miss it; let us move swiftly to enact the very good proposals put forward by my noble friend.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very useful piece of work by a committee that I understand was superbly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, whose reputation as a reformer goes before her. However, I have a few questions which follow on from the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Oxburgh, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
At the heart of the report is the proposition that three committees be consolidated into one. I want to list what is in the remit of the new committee: access to internet; equipment; Library services, Parliamentary Archives; information services, broadcasting; catering facilities; banqueting; food procurement; gift shop issues; catering budgeting; catering staff issues; restoration and renewal; access arrangements to the House; aspects of security; office accommodation; acquisition of property; parking; and property maintenance. It is a very substantial remit indeed.
There is reference in the report to the fact that the new committee will meet more frequently. So it will, but what worries me is that, with this substantially widened remit, there will be a dilution of debate on many issues that currently come before the existing three committees. If that debate does not take place, paragraph 67 proposes:
“The Services Committee should agree appropriate delegations to its Chair and to the Management Board”.
In other words, we may well see a substantial increase in the amount of delegation as a result of the increased workload that falls upon this committee. Furthermore, the committee might well decide to establish sub-committees to deal with many of these issues which, in effect, reflect the existing remits of the existing three committees. I am concerned about the wide remit.
Secondly, I believe there is a contradiction in the report, which I am sure can be corrected by the Leader of the House when she winds up the debate. Paragraph 66 states:
“We would however expect the Services Committee to refer matters with a clear strategic impact to the senior committee, with recommendations, for a final decision”—
“a clear strategic impact”—and yet paragraph 88 refers to:
“Ideally the new committees should be composed in such a way as to ensure that the senior committee usually accepts any advice offered, and does not seek to unpick decisions or return to first principles”.
I ask a simple question: what is the difference between “clear strategic impact” and “first principles”? There seems to be a conflict inbuilt in that.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in dealing with the issue of bleed-over between the new House Committee —the general purposes committee—and the finance committee. There will be confusion over who is responsible for what and who takes the final decision on what.
I accept a lot of what is in the report but I regret that I did not give evidence. I presumed that we were following the report produced by my noble friend Lord Hunt for the Labour group on these matters. I did not give evidence and that is why I did not apply to speak in the debate today.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is always nerve-racking to be the 22nd speaker in a debate, even when winding up. I was slightly nervous when the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, referred to everything having been said but not yet by everyone. I was even more alarmed when my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall—the third speaker—observed that she had never spoken so early in a debate when almost all the points had been covered. As 22nd speaker, there is not much I can add that is new. However, I can reflect on the debate and try to draw some of the points together.
I have found this debate helpful and useful and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for ensuring that it took place. She will know that we were keen to get the views of the House on the report and its sense has been made clear today. Certainly the report has our broad support and we endorse its recommendations. A number of useful comments have been raised today. I add our thanks to all those on the committee, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, who chaired it. We are grateful for the committee’s work and to all those who have spoken today.
It is clear from the report and from those who gave evidence during the committee’s sessions that the committee was diligent, detailed and brought considerable thought, discussion and analysis to its work. It is helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, outlined the wide experience that the committee brought to its deliberations. It has been said, but it is worth repeating, that the remit was narrow and focused. It was purely about the governance arrangements of this House and whether improvements could be made to the way decisions are taken about its services and facilities that we, as working Members of your Lordships’ House, rely on to do the task that we are charged to do. It was solely focused on the domestic committees that deal with facilities and services and not the four that deal with procedural matters.
I appreciate, as we have heard from some noble Lords, that there are many other areas of your Lordships’ House for which reform and change could be considered. There has been debate in recent years about the role of the Lord Speaker and whether there is any merit in introducing a similar model to that of the other place, particularly at Question Time. Scrutiny of appointments and an enhanced role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission has been raised many times in your Lordships’ House, and many of us believe that the time has come to end by-elections for hereditary Peers, particularly as there is now no real distinction between a hereditary Peer and a life Peer.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was asked by the Government to make recommendations on how this House considers secondary legislation. It would be fair to say that that report has not been as well received as this one and that it is more controversial, dealing as it does with the powers of the House. It is worth saying that we remain committed to a constitutional convention to examine these wider issues that have a deeper impact, beyond your Lordships’ House, than just that on the work we do here. But this committee was set a very clear and focused remit. It was not about procedure, proceedings, powers or appointments. If at times that was frustrating, it also had great merit. A wider remit would have made a broad acceptance and consensus far more difficult and therefore less likely to effect any change.
I shall start by touching on something in the report. I welcome the appreciation, which is often lost in reports on governance, that we are a unique political organisation which brings with it other complexities and tensions. It is wise that paragraph 59 cautions against “oversimplified” comparisons with other organisations or companies. Too often, decisions in debates about governance look for a model of examples from other organisations, but they are so very different from us that it is impossible to draw direct comparisons. An example drawn from the report shows that a member of the House Committee has complex, multiple roles and multiple relationships, which are additional factors that have to be taken into account. It has to be recognised that although the House Committee has responsibility for strategic and financial direction, unlike other policy and resources committees it has no control over two of the major factors that influence expenditure in your Lordships’ House—the number of appointments and the number of sitting days. This point has been made by a number of noble Lords. The committee has to make decisions around things which have an impact but over which it has no control, which is hugely significant.
As the summary sets out, the aim of the committee is clarity: clarity of the roles and remits of the different committees and clarity in the decision-making process. That clarity should bring with it greater understanding across your Lordships’ House of how decisions are made and where authority rests in decision-making, thereby increasing accountability.
When I gave evidence to the committee, it was shortly after taking over as leader of my group and as Leader of the Opposition. Having been in the other place for 13 years and in your Lordships’ House for five years, I thought I had some understanding of how committees work, although, like most colleagues, I had not looked at them in any great detail. Almost immediately on my appointment, I was given a list of committees of which I would be a member. It was a very long list, and I was helpfully provided with information about the role of the committees. Having spoken to colleagues, it became clear that the House Committee is the most senior committee dealing with strategic issues.
The point at which I began to question the structure was after a particularly long discussion at a meeting of the House Committee. Those who have attended that committee will know that it is on occasion prone to holding long discussions on issues. Only towards the end did it become clear that we were not being asked for a decision, we were having a decision reported to us with no further decisions to be taken. There is a lot to be said for committees of expertise to investigate and make decisions on the understanding that unless something serious and important is raised about process or new information that had not been previously considered comes to light, those decisions should be endorsed by a senior committee. My point is about the lack of clarity. It was not clear to me and to most, or possibly all, of the other members of the House Committee what was being asked of us when we embarked on that discussion.
The terms of reference for the domestic committees are set out in Figure 1 on page nine, to show their remits. Under the graph it states:
“The House Committee sets the policy framework”,
and is responsible for strategic and financial planning. The Administration and Works and the Information Committees “consider”, the Refreshment Committee “advises”, while the Works of Art Committee “administers”. I cannot think of any other organisation that would operate in that way, so it is not surprising that there is a lack of clarity on how committees operate today. Those who have served on these committees take their responsibilities very seriously, and I suspect that it often makes their work harder if it is unclear whether they are being asked to decide on something or note something, or whether a decision has been taken or they need to advise.
Let me add to the points that have been made today about the recommendations. The new structure is more streamlined and provides greater clarity. The decision-making process can be better understood, thereby providing greater accountability. The new senior committee has considerable authority. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may have a better view on this, but it seems to me that the role being proposed is perhaps that considered by the previous review he was involved with—a high-level, strategic and overview committee.
I welcome the ability to bring in outside expertise to the senior committee. That may also be helpful in managing relationships between staff and Members. I am not particularly concerned about the number; the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—two or three—was quite helpful. I agree that outside expertise should be available to the finance committees and service committees, but not as full members.
The report made the point about induction and support for committee members, which applies to all the committees, particularly the senior committee. Some further thought needs to be given to how that can be achieved and what is appropriate. Again the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, commented on that. The advice and expertise of outside non-execs should complement and supplement existing expertise in your Lordships’ House; we should not assume that we do not have it here. There is a lot of expertise and we need to channel it in the right way. Advice from outside experts may change the kind of advice we want; it depends on who we have as members on those committees.
There also needs to be greater consideration of the balance between building up expertise and the rotation of members. We want members to be experienced in the work of the committee and to understand its history and background. There also needs to be a rotation of members so that it does not become stale, and we are able to engage more Members of your Lordships’ House in the work of all three committees.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, on the role of the Chair of the Audit Committee was very helpful and valid. I had previously thought that it would be helpful for the Chair of the Audit Committee to be on the House Committee. I always found it strange that the noble Baroness sat slightly apart from the committee, given that there was a lot of value in what she had to contribute. That is something certainly worth considering.
The role of the Chairman of Committees has been raised by a number of noble Lords. It is a different role but I am not sure I share the view that it is a lesser one. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, picked up on this issue as well. If the post is also expected to deputise as the Lord Speaker—and, I assume, speak for the senior committee when required—as well as maintaining responsibility for procedure and privilege, it remains a pivotal position in your Lordships’ House. As with all these positions, but particularly this one, the first postholder will have a very important responsibility in how they fulfil that role and maintain the other part of the existing role, particularly at a time of transition and change. I still see this as a very key role in the work we do.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, reflected on the role of the staff of the House and their relationship with Peers. He made the crucial point that that relationship is key to effective working. The comments of my noble friend Lady Donaghy on user groups and sounding boards were very helpful. There is a wider point about communications, which the Leader of the House also referred to. I wonder whether we need a more formalised and comprehensive reporting process. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to the BBC film, saying that he was unaware of it, as were many other noble Lords, until it happened.
What is of interest to colleagues is not just the decisions that are made, but transparency in how they are made and have been made. We have all had reports in our groups, but not all issues are of interest to all Members. Sometimes, as the report identifies, those reports are made in response to rumours, which may be false, or they are late in the process. Trying then to report on the “how and why” can make the decision-making process even more complicated. Although we deal with these issues in our party groups, as the Leader of the House said, very few are party political. That is the channel of communication, but they are not really party-political issues. Perhaps sometimes, they sit a little uneasily in other discussions the groups have. I would like us to give a little more thought to whether there is something we can do. Red Benches is very good at informing; I wonder whether that can be extended to raising issues early on.
My noble friend Lady Donaghy, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in some ways issued a challenge, in that there cannot be a dilution of commitment to the issues they have raised—those dealt with by the Information Committee and the Libraries, and those relating to IT. The report appears to be saying that these have to be drawn together; otherwise, you get the absurdity of the printer situation, which is now familiar to us all. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, spoke about a review. I am not sure that we want ongoing review at all times, but I have always been a great believer—I might one day regret saying this—in post-legislative scrutiny. We have pre-legislative scrutiny but we do not have proper post-legislative scrutiny. There is an opportunity here, perhaps after a year of operation, to ensure that things are working as we intend them to and that we have got it right.
When my noble friend Lady Donaghy spoke about the work of the Information Committee she also spoke about external communications, which was not part of this review. It is something about which we should be mindful in all the work we do. I add a personal note about my noble friend. The work and chairmanship of the Information Committee may have seemed really innocuous and easy when it was first mentioned. Yet, she steered us through a minefield of iPhones, broadband, complications and printers. We found that there was nothing set down; no two situations were exactly the same. What she did is perhaps a model for the report: she brought clarity, transparency and accountability to the work of that committee. She made a point about seeing our work not in a vacuum, but in the political context. That makes the point rather well for the whole report.
Finally, looking at the way forward, the Leader’s Group recommended in paragraph 116 that,
“the revised structure is implemented without delay”.
That was reflected in a number of comments in the debate. However, it also said in paragraph 115:
“There is a significant amount of detail to be settled before the changes can be made. However, we urge against any temptation to defer difficult decisions to a later date”.
Those on the group who spoke, including the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said the same. Those are wise words, and I agree with both those statements. This debate will help enormously to inform how we proceed towards implementation. The noble Baroness the Leader will recall our discussions. I accept that the usual channels can be opaque, as a couple of noble Lords said, but I am content that they should be charged with taking this forward. However, I also think—I have spoken to her about this—that it would be helpful to have the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and perhaps other members of the group engaged in that process to advise and support us. Their work has been invaluable. I would hate it if the usual channels referred to something without understanding the background and the discussions. We have the group’s report, but we do not have transcripts of its debates and discussions. In some ways the report is a minor part of the work undertaken over several months. It would be good for the usual channels to engage with the group during that process and have the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, given her experience. I would certainly find that helpful.
It would also be helpful to be clear today about the next stages and the timeframe. It is clear that there is broad agreement. Clearly there are some “i”s to be dotted and “t”s to be crossed. I assume that we will need to come back to the House at some point with a resolution of the whole House so that we can move forward with implementation. I wonder whether, built into that, there can at some point be some post-implementation reflection, so that, if something has not gone as the group and this House intended, we can examine it and make any tweaks that may be required.
We certainly have here a model for good governance, decision-making, transparency and, importantly, accountability. It is clear from the report that there is an intention—for those who are willing—to engage the whole House.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am very grateful for all the contributions today. It has been an excellent debate; I found it interesting as well as informative. I noted the loud chorus of “Hear, hear” after my noble friend Lady Shephard concluded her contribution. That is a reflection of the respect we all have for her work as chair of this group and for the group as a whole in taking on this challenge, giving it proper, careful consideration and coming forward with a very thoughtful report and set of recommendations. We have been able to see from today’s debate that there is broad support for what has been recommended, for moving forward and for making progress.
As in all organisations, the question of how we should structure our decision-making is an on-going process; it is not something where you ever arrive at the exact point when you say, “That’s that then—that’s done”. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, governance is a process of evolution. If we are to remain modern and relevant, we have to take account of changing experiences and circumstances on matters such as this.
My noble friend Lady Fookes recommended that we keep a watching brief on how these changes are implemented. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested that, as part of the implementation phase, we should consider how we look at how things are going post implementation. I am happy for that to be part of the next stage. It is probably best not to prescribe how we do that, but I acknowledge that it should be part of our work.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, acknowledged, there is no perfect model of governance. However, what strikes me from today’s debate is how much the group has captured the concerns of noble Lords about the way decision-making happens in this House and has set out a coherent way to tackle those concerns. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, it was striking that, in the group’s consultation process, nobody argued for the current structure to be maintained. Although I am sure there are noble Lords who may have wanted the group’s remit to be set wider, the fact that the remit was narrow, and it was able to do its work in a way which has attracted consensus, is another good example of incremental reform being a model for progress. This is a lesson which I continue to learn.
On timing, I hope we are able to put in place the changes that we have been discussing today early on in the next Session. We can concentrate on the implementation phase in the period between now and the autumn and look at the detailed issues that have been raised in the course of the debate and which we need to consider further. I will talk about the implementation process and then try to respond to some of the specific queries that have been raised this afternoon.
Several noble Lords asked exactly how all this would unfold in practice and how we would consider these issues before they are finalised. Having consulted with the House authorities and with the Clerk of the Parliaments, I think that it would be most straightforward to do most of the detailed implementation through the House and Procedure Committees, the recommendations of which would ultimately come to the House for approval. We will keep this under review as we go, but the way I am expecting things to unfold is that, rather than another single resolution coming before the House, the specifics that will need to change in order to bring some of this stuff to life will feature in reports from the relevant committees, which will then get approved by the House. Thanks to the provisions of Standing Order 64, we can continue with the committees that currently exist, as presently constituted, into the new Session. Further discussions will continue alongside those formal processes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned the usual channels. In light of some of the comments this afternoon, I am a bit nervous about talking about the usual channels. Some things lend themselves best to the usual channels, but I readily acknowledge that they are not the only channel of communication. I hope also that in the weeks ahead we will continue to be able to take advantage of my noble friend’s expertise from the work she has done and that of others in the group—and, indeed, members of the existing committees—in considering the way to move forward.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said about the Information Committee’s decision to consider the outstanding issues that would need to roll over to the new structure is a very important part of the transition period. I do not think that the schedule she has set for her committee is in any way out of step with the next stage of this process. I very much welcome that initiative.
Indeed, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for her excellent chairmanship of the Information Committee. I echo all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made in her tribute to her. I assure her personally that the decision of the Information Committee on iPads and iPhones had my full support. She has nothing to fear in terms of the decisions that have been made previously being relevant to our proposals for changes in governance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised some very detailed questions about the phasing and sequencing of some of the decisions—what committees should be set up first and so on. Again, this is something that we can take away and consider carefully. He made some important points.
A range of points were raised today. I will do my best to respond to most of them. If I fail and any noble Lord wishes to discuss any of this further with me outside the Chamber, I will be more than happy to do so.
I will make a couple of brief points about joint working between this House and the other place. It is worth reflecting on the fact that 64% of expenditure is already joint between the two Houses. That is something that we should be very pleased about, actually. It is far higher than both Houses get credit for. It is something that we want to see continue to increase. Noble Lords may like to know that there is already a big review going on to look at where there is scope for more joint working and what services would be most suitable for a next stage.
As noble Lords will understand, it is easier for some services to implement joint working than others. I note what my noble friend Lord Fowler said about the Library. I do not think that that will be in the next phase but that does not mean that it will not or should not be something for us to consider down the line. I note also what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said about legal services but, again, that is not something that is about to happen soon.
I pay tribute to the Lord Speaker with regard to joint working between the House Committee and the commission of the other place. She has already established some joint meetings of both those bodies and has been very much behind our efforts to improve co-ordination and collaboration between both Houses.
Finally on this topic, I acknowledge, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and others, that the restoration and renewal Joint Committee, which I have the great privilege of co-chairing with the Leader of the House of Commons, is a really good example of a Joint Committee of both Houses where the membership is equal and we are working together, recognising that the issue before us is one that we have to address together and cannot address separately.
Moving on to some of what I might describe as the points of detail that arose in the debate, I shall respond first to the points raised on the remits of the new committees and the relationships between them. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised the question of whether it would be clear under this new structure which decisions would sit with the senior committee and which would sit with the junior committees, or sub-committees, and my noble friend Lord Cope made similar points. I think that they both referred to some specific committees, such as the services and finance committees. I understand the concerns raised, but this is where the preliminary discussions that will take place in the House Committee, and will then have to be followed through once the new senior committee is established, are the crucial part of this change. It is about getting that clarity of remit right from the start and having the proper delegation of powers from that senior committee to the sub-committee so that, once those committees are in place, the people on them know what their responsibilities are, what they are accountable for and what the House expects from them. There were points made well about this by all noble Lords who raised them, and we need to take serious account of them in the next phase.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised a specific question about who would speak for the senior committee. There were other points raised as well about the role of the Chairman of Committees. Who will speak for the senior committee can, again, be discussed in the next phase, but it would be perfectly reasonable for us to assume that the person in the new post of the senior deputy speaker would be the one who would speak for the senior committee. I do not consider what is proposed in the report to be any kind of diminution of the responsibility of the Chairman of Committees—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said this, too. I see this role as being a very senior Member of this House. Yes, it will be someone whose responsibility is more focused, but we should see that as a positive step forward and not in any way a relegation of seniority.
Because of that, I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said about the salary of the new senior deputy speaker post. I am happy for us to consider that, but I do not think that it would be something I would necessarily advocate, because that role will continue to be very substantial and significant. As for the title of the role, the point I was making in my opening remarks is that, whatever new title we might decide to give it—whether that is senior deputy speaker or deputy Lord Speaker—we would not be able to remove the Chairman of Committees officially from that role without a change to primary legislation. However, we can of course use whatever title we choose to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, raised an important question about the Audit Committee and whether its chair should also be a member of the senior committee. That is another important and wise suggestion, which I think we should reflect on further.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked about the number of non-executive directors on the senior committee and whether that should be increased. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I think it is important that we do not consider the non-executive directors as the only people who would bring expertise to the senior committee. In that regard, I would see their contribution as slightly different to that which one would normally expect non-executive directors to make to a board. I also make the point that the senior committee is one with a supervisory function, so that the Members of this House on that committee will not themselves be the executive; the executive is the administration. The noble Earl also raised an interesting point about board evaluation. That, again, is something we can consider in next steps.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, raised questions about members of the administration being full members of the group. My noble friend’s group did reflect on this carefully but did not recommend it. However, it is important that the members of staff and officers of the House who attend these committees feel able to make a full contribution to the discussions and are not in any way seen as somehow being prevented from playing their full part in them.
Other concerns were raised about the potential effects of the changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is an excellent chairman of this House’s Works of Art Committee, and I was very grateful to her for giving us all an insight into the responsibilities of the committee. The work of that group is important and should, and will, continue. I do not think that the proposal in the Leader’s Group report for it to sit as an advisory panel to the Lord Speaker does anything to detract from the important work that it does, but again we can reflect on the relationship between the Lord Speaker and that panel, and how that works in practice, in the next stage.
Noble Lords, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and my noble friend Lady Fookes, commented on the continuing role of the Information Committee. I would again come back to what I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Although that committee currently has a very important remit and set of responsibilities, the new structure envisaged in the proposals from the Leader’s Group means that these committees will not necessarily just replicate all the work that was there before but will have a different focus and approach. They will try and look at these things at a more strategic level and avoid some of the duplication. One of the most telling examples for me as a member of the House Committee where I felt that some of the distinctions between responsibilities were not quite right was a matter which had gone through the Information Committee at great length but then became a matter that the House Committee felt it needed to get involved in.
As I say, the arguments and concerns that noble Lords have raised in this debate will be instrumental and informative as we design the remits, the delegation of powers and the memorandums of understanding. We have to get this right in the first place and be clear as to what these different committees will be responsible for.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is the noble Baroness not referring to the issue of equipment for Members generally? There was a lot of concern in the House about this. There will be less opportunity within this new structure for the widest possible consideration of all the concerns that exist on this and other issues. I do not really think that the structure that the noble Baroness is referring to will deal with these concerns.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, and it is one that we have to be mindful of, but I do not think it means that what is being proposed as an alternative route for our decision-making is somehow not appropriate. What is being put forward here, and what has attracted widespread support today, is about clarity and making sure that we do not again in future find ourselves in a situation where different committees are looking at decisions that have been made by other committees and trying to reopen them and unpick them.
My noble friend Lady Fookes mentioned the workload, time commitment and different responsibilities and demands that may be placed on members of the new services committees versus those laid on members of existing committees. Again, we need to reflect on that, but I would argue that we should be clearer with potential members of the committees what the responsibilities are and, I hope, attract volunteers for this work who will be willing to take on the necessary time commitment.
Some noble Lords felt that we should remove some key elements of the package put forward by my noble friend’s group or add significantly to it. I caution against that, because it could jeopardise the progress that we have made, slow the momentum that has built up in recent months and make it difficult for us to implement. I know that there is now support for us to progress.
My noble friend Lord Cormack asked about electing members of Select Committees and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about electing the Chairman of Committees and the chairmen of the European committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, talked about the administration and staff structures. The first of those was considered by my noble friend’s group, and it was clear in its recommendation that the members and posts of those committees should continue to be appointed. As has been reflected in the discussion today, the respective leaderships of the groups should pay particular attention to the responsibilities and skills required for them to be effective once they are in place.
I conclude by saying that I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and to the group for setting out the path towards a more effective decision-making framework which can make pragmatic but important reforms to our internal processes. I stress again that structural changes on their own are not enough; a governance system is only as good as the people who operate within it. There needs to be a shared purpose and commitment from all those involved, and there must be a common goal and real desire to change behaviours as well as inputs. I think that we have seen that today in our discussion.
If we want the new framework to be effective and for us to embed real change, we must all be committed to making it work. Seeing the shared sense of purpose on all Benches today has given me real hope for the future in that regard. As I said, we will consider some specific points of detail very carefully, but I look forward to working with all noble Lords and making swift progress from here. I commend the Motion.
Prisons: Violence
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I wish to repeat as a Statement an Answer given to an Urgent Question in the other place by my honourable friend the Prisons Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Before I move on to the substance of this question, I should like to update the House on events which occurred at HMP Wormwood Scrubs this weekend.
On the morning of 6 May, prison officers refused to enter the prison citing health and safety grounds. Later that day, an agreement was reached between the National Offender Management Service and the Prison Officers Association. All officers have now returned to work and the prison is running a normal regime. NOMS and the POA are jointly committed to resolving any outstanding health and safety concerns at HMP Wormwood Scrubs.
On Sunday 8 May, two members of staff at Wormwood Scrubs were assaulted and taken to hospital for treatment. We do not tolerate any violence against our hardworking officers. The alleged perpetrator is now facing a police investigation, which could lead to criminal charges.
Moving on to the wider question, I take the issue of safety in prisons very seriously. Reducing the harm that prisoners may cause to themselves or others is the Government’s top priority in prisons. The most recent statistics on safety in custody show that levels of self-inflicted deaths, self-harm and violence in prison are too high. The figures demonstrate the very serious challenges facing the Prison Service.
There is no single, simple solution to the increases in deaths and violence in prisons. These trends have been seen across the prison estate, in both public and private prisons, and in prisons both praised and criticised by HM Inspector of Prisons. We have already taken a number of steps to address these problems: we have recruited 2,830 prison officers since January 2015, a net increase of 530; we are trialling the use of body-worn cameras in prisons; we are strengthening case management of individuals who risk harming others; we have introduced tough new laws which will see those who smuggle packages over prison walls, including new psychoactive substances, face up to two years in prison; and we have reviewed the case management process for prisoners assessed as being at risk of harm to themselves, known as assessment, care in custody and teamwork, and are implementing the recommendations. However, it is clear we must do more. We need to reduce violence and prevent drugs entering prison. We have to do better at helping prisoners with mental health problems. We have got to ensure prisoners can be rehabilitated so they are no longer a danger to others. That is why this Government are committed to fundamental reform of our prisons. We have secured £1.3 billion to modernise the prison estate, and we will give greater autonomy to governors so they are truly in charge. I look forward to setting out our plans in greater detail shortly.
These problems are deep-seated and there are no easy answers, but I can assure the House that this Government will not waver in their determination to reform our prisons, so that they become places of decency, hope and rehabilitation”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Given the long-standing concerns about overcrowding, self-harm, violence and suicides in prison, last week’s revelations about the use of synthetic cannabis and the damning reports on the misuse of force and restraint of young offenders in Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre last March and Medway Secure Training Centre last week, is it not time for a judge-led review of the management of custodial services and the Youth Justice Board along the lines of the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, published in 1991? Should that not include reconsideration of the outsourcing of provisions to overseas private companies and palpably overstretched organisations such as G4S?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, of course, any outbreak of violence, wherever it takes place, is concerning. The noble Lord referred particularly to Medway and Rainsbrook. On Medway, I hope to be able to update the House shortly, following the inquiry into how Medway Secure Training Centre had been run in the wake of the “Panorama” programme.
In the Statement, I said that there was no single solution. It is significant that there is violence in all sorts and types of prisons, so one must beware of thinking that there is one particular solution. I take the noble Lord’s point about the very useful and seminal report prepared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, following the Strangeways riots in Manchester, which provided a lot of guidance to prison management in future. We will learn from that and from all these events. As the noble Lord will be aware, reports are shortly to be published on education and mental health in prisons. All that will help to inform the substantial reform that I mentioned, and we hope that that will contribute to stamping out the violence.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, there are two aspects that are matters of concern. One was mentioned in the Statement: the use of psychoactive drugs and the extent to which that could destabilise the control of discipline in prisons. The Minister has not mentioned the other one, though, so I wonder if he could throw some light on the extensive use of severe and harsh sentences. They are one of the causes of overcrowding, which ultimately results in the type of violence that we saw in Wormwood Scrubs.
Lord Faulks
The question of sentences is difficult. As the noble Lord will know, the choice of sentence is a matter for the judge in the individual case and generally will reflect the severity of the offences that have been committed. From time to time Parliament will intervene—notoriously, for example, with IPP prisoners—and set certain parameters within which judges have to sentence certain offenders. The fact is that there is currently a higher cohort of violent offenders in prison than there has been for some considerable time. Together with the substantial difficulty caused by psychoactive substances, that contributes to the problem of violence in prisons. It is important not to generalise too much about sentences. A sentence should be long enough to reflect the seriousness of the offence but short enough to give the offender a chance to rehabilitate and give them some hope. In due course, through the work that we are doing on rehabilitation, we hope to ensure that when people leave prison they do not return, because of course the biggest increase in prison sentences is for those coming back again through the prison door.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, are prison staff trained enough in dealing with alcohol and drug abuse and mental health?
Lord Faulks
The noble Baroness raises the important point of training for prison officers. I can tell her and the House that the training of prison officers has increased in terms of the length of time, from six weeks to 10. I have visited the training centre at Newbold Revel, and included in the training is a greater emphasis on the very things that the noble Baroness mentions. Mental health problems are very apparent in the prison population; NICE estimates that 90% of prisoners have some sort of mental illness, so it is extremely important that prisoners are assessed on arrival in prison and that any change in their condition is properly monitored through co-operation between prison governors, who have greater power, and NHS England at a local level. Alcohol and drug problems are profound and must be treated as medical issues. Drug issues tend to last longer in prison than alcohol problems, but of course both provide challenges for the Prison Service.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, during an extradition case recently I inspected a prison in Abu Dhabi, where I found completely the opposite conditions to here. The cells were on locked landings but every cell door was open 24 hours a day so that prisoners could get showers and have access to telephones, recreation, television and so on. There have been three suicides in prison in Abu Dhabi in the past 25 years. Having seen exactly the same conditions in Dubai and Kenya, I wonder whether in fact our locking people away for so long and not allowing them to circulate with others has something to do with the violence presently in our prisons, and whether anything is being done to look at doing things in the completely opposite way.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his insights from what he learned in Abu Dhabi. The Government are looking at all sorts of different indicators for why violence occurs in certain circumstances. Plainly, keeping people locked up for longer than necessary can provide a significant exacerbation of what is a tendency to violence anyway. As I say, there is no one single cause. The problem with psychoactive substances, which at the moment are a very significant cause of the violence, is that the drug or drugs not only precipitate violence in the individual, but promote an unpleasant subculture within prisons whereby debts are incurred in the buying and selling of drugs, which then promotes violence between prisoners. Therefore it is multifactorial. However, what the noble Lord says should of course be very much part of the general response to the challenge that prisoners present.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I am interested in what the Minister says and apologise for being a moment late—I was chairing another meeting. Within the last parliamentary working week, including the weekend, two sets of people have come to me to talk about violence that they are experiencing in prison and about which they can do nothing. One case involves a woman whose child was killed by a paedophile in a famous case. She is being harassed from prison by the person who killed her son and is being told that nothing can be done about that. The second is a case I am trying to pursue, so I will not say too much about it, in which gangs in two of our major London prisons are running extortion rackets. A woman is paying to protect her son, who has not only been badly beaten up twice—there has been no incident report—but severely radicalised while in prison. I have two questions. First, what is the management doing in our large prisons where there is gang influence and where the gangs are able to work with gangs outside to terrorise families, and secondly, what are we doing to ensure that where telephones are available—and there are reasons why they should be—they are not used inappropriately to harass families outside?
Lord Faulks
The noble Baroness will understand why I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly when all the facts are not yet known. However, she makes a general and important point. It is perhaps significant that the problems in prisons do not come entirely from within prisons, and it is most important that prison governors work closely with the National Crime Agency and local police officers and that their intelligence reaches beyond the prison gate and walls. I have to say that from my understanding that is not consistent across the country as regards its effectiveness. However, the noble Baroness identifies an important point which we feel should be more realistically achieved once there is greater governor independence and there can be this link of intelligence which will prevent the sort of situations that she describes.
Education: Academies
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education on all schools becoming academies. The Statement is as follows:
“In our White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, I set out this Government’s vision to continue the rise in educational standards in England over the rest of the Parliament. We are committed to building on the reforms of the past six years, which have led to 1.4 million more children being taught in good and outstanding schools. But we are not content to stop there: 1.4 million children is a start, but it is not enough. We have to ensure that we deliver a great education to every single child; it is what we owe to the next generation—to give them the tools to realise every ounce of their potential. The White Paper was called Educational Excellence Everywhere for a reason: as I have said before, for me the ‘everywhere’ is non-negotiable. In the White Paper, for example, we set out our plans for achieving excellence areas, where we will focus specific resources to tackle entrenched educational underperformance.
The White Paper sets out how we want to see the teaching profession take responsibility for teacher accreditation, tackle unfair funding, build leadership capacity and set high expectations for every child with a world-leading, knowledge-based curriculum in a truly school-led, self-improving system, learning from the best from across the world and preparing the next generation to compete on the global stage.
The vision of a fully academised system has attracted most attention. Over the course of the last few weeks, I have spoken to many honourable Members on both sides of the House, as well as to school leaders, governors, local government representatives and parents. What is clear from these conversations is that the strength and importance of academies is widely accepted. There is a clear recognition of the case for putting greater responsibility for the school system in the hands of school leaders.
Let me be clear. We firmly believe that schools becoming more autonomous and more directly accountable for their results raises standards. Academies are the vehicle to allow schools and leaders to innovate with the curriculum, have the flexibility to set the pay and conditions for their staff, and bring about great collaboration with other schools. We still want every school to become an academy by 2022.
We always intended this to be a six-year process, in which good schools should be able to take their own decisions about their future as academies. However, we understand the concerns that have been raised about a hard deadline and legislating for blanket powers to issue academy orders. That is why I announced on Friday that we have decided it is not necessary to take blanket powers to convert good schools in strong local authorities to academies at this time.
In March, a record 227 schools chose to apply for academy status, showing clearly where the momentum lies as school leaders, parents, governors and teachers across the country embrace the benefits that being an academy brings. Since then, we have also issued more than 104 academy orders to underperforming schools, meaning that the young people in those schools will soon benefit from the strong leadership provided by expert academy sponsors.
That is why those who took to the airwaves this weekend to crow about a victory in their battle against raising standards will find themselves sorely disappointed. There will be no retreat from our mission to give every child the best start in life and to build an education system led by school leaders and teachers on the front line, running their own schools as academies.
The Education and Adoption Act 2016 already enables us to rapidly convert failing schools and schools which are coasting where they can benefit from the support of a strong sponsor. As a result, when schools underperform, it is now easier to respond swiftly and effectively. Schools will not be allowed to languish unchallenged for years.
As we set out in the White Paper, and as I have subsequently argued, the most pressing need for further powers is to boost standards for those schools languishing in the worst performing local authorities and to provide for schools in local authorities likely to become unviable. So, instead of taking a blanket power to convert all schools, we will seek powers in two specific circumstances where it is clear that the case for conversion to academy status is pressing.
In our worst-performing local authorities, we need to take more decisive action so that a new system led by outstanding schools can take their place. Similarly, because of the pace of academisation in some areas, it will become increasingly difficult for local authorities to have the ability to offer schools the necessary support, and there will be a need to ensure that these schools are not dependent on an unviable local authority. We will therefore seek provisions to convert schools in the lowest-performing and unviable local authorities to academy status. This may involve in some circumstances conversion of good and outstanding schools when they have not chosen to do so themselves. But the need for action in those limited circumstances is clear because of the considerable risk to the standard of education that young people in those schools receive, as the local authority is either unable to guarantee their continued success or support further improvement.
We will consult on these arrangements, including the thresholds for performance and unviability. I am making a clear commitment that the definition of and thresholds for underperformance and viability will be the subject of an affirmative resolution in this House.
I would also like to reassure honourable Members on concerns raised about how we protect small schools, particularly those in rural areas. I have already made it clear that no small rural school will close as a result of the move to have more schools becoming academies. There is already a statutory presumption against closure of rural schools, but we will now go further. Where small rural schools are converting to academy status, we will introduce a dual lock to ensure their protection: both local and national government will have to agree to a school closing before a decision can be made. There will also be dedicated support to help rural primary schools through the process of conversion and a £10 million fund to secure expert support and advice.
While we want every school to become an academy, we will not compel successful schools to join multi-academy trusts. In order to share expertise and resources, we expect most schools will form local clusters of multi-academy trusts. But if the leadership of a successful school does not wish to enter a formal relationship with other schools, we trust them to make that decision and will not force them to do so. Small schools will be able to convert to stand-alone academies as long as they are financially sustainable.
I began this Statement by saying our goal has not changed. This Government will continue to prioritise the interests of young people in getting the best start in life by having an excellent education over the vested interests that seek to oppose the lifting of standards and the rooting out of educational underperformance—those very same vested interests that allowed schools to languish for years unchallenged and unchanged until the launch of the sponsored academies programme by the last Labour Government.
Our work to improve our education system will continue apace. We will continue to empower school leaders and raise standards. We will continue to hold high expectations for every child. We will establish a fair national funding formula for schools so that young people everywhere get the funding they deserve. We will continue to work towards a system where all schools are run and led by the people who know them best in the way that works for their pupils, as academies. These reforms will transform the education system in our country and ensure we give every child an excellent education so that they have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In it there was mention of people crowing at the Government’s climbdown. I am not going to adopt that approach, although I have to say that I can understand why many would. U-turns are becoming a regular feature of this Government’s attempts to initiate or see through legislation, and the number of times that we have witnessed the brakes being applied soon after bold statements of intent suggests that a little more than bad luck is at play here. Bad judgment is more likely, I think, and that is certainly the case with forced academisation. Before I leave the issue of crowing, I find it rather depressing to hear the Statement say that people are crowing about a victory in their “battle against raising standards”. Is that really what Ministers believe? Nobody is against raising standards. The Minister and the Secretary of State should realise that they and the whiz-kids at the No. 10 Policy Unit do not always know better than those who, day in and day out, are at the sharp end of things, delivering education for our children. Of course there are examples of where schools are underperforming, and they must be helped to improve, but that does not justify the conclusion that academisation is the only answer.
The opposition to the White Paper proposals encompassed a broad alliance, including head teachers—I hardly need to remind the Ministers here this evening that head teachers made their collective voice very clear to the Secretary of State when she spoke to their conference—and also parents, governors, teachers, local government leaders from all parties and Members of Parliament, more than a few from their own party. Although the Secretary of State has conceded on the ideologically driven idea of forcing good and outstanding schools to become academies against their wishes, she still apparently holds the ambition that all schools will become academies, though still without advancing a single convincing reason as to why this aim is sensible in the first place.
The Statement today is certainly welcome, but it none the less leaves questions, one of which is whether high-performing schools will be forced to become academies. At one point, the Statement says:
“We will therefore seek provisions to convert schools in the lowest-performing and unviable local authorities to academy status. This may involve in some circumstances conversion of good and outstanding schools when they have not chosen to do so themselves”.
Yet later it says:
“While we want every school to become an academy, we will not compel successful schools to join multi-academy trusts”.
I say to the Minister: which is it? The Government clearly cannot have it both ways.
There is also the issue of autonomy. Do the Government really believe that that is the outcome when a school becomes part of a multi-academy trust? They claim that academisation devolves power to the front line, but that is a myth. Schools and academy chains actually lose most of their autonomy because the chain controls their premises, their budget, their staffing and their curriculum. The ultimate irony is that chains have far more power over schools than local authorities currently do.
Last week, I asked the Minister in your Lordships’ House whether there was any evidence that academies automatically performed better than local authority maintained schools, particularly those that are already categorised as high performing. The Minister avoided answering the question, perhaps for the good reason that the honest answer was no. What he did do was to pray in aid what he thought was a supportive comment from the Sutton Trust. But what he did not tell the House was that the research by the Sutton Trust found that there is a very mixed picture in the performance of academy chains and no evidence at all that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement.
The White Paper promotes academy chains as the preferred model, yet many chains are performing badly and significantly worse than many local authorities—a point recognised by the head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw. There have been too many examples of financial mismanagement verging on corruption in academy chains and—perhaps it is a debate for another day—the Education Funding Agency is widely recognised as not being up to the job of supervising even the number of academies that we now have. So I again ask the Minister what evidence the Government have that only academisation leads to school improvement. Where is the choice and autonomy that the Government are so fond of emphasising despite advancing a one-size-fits-all approach? Is there sufficient capacity and accountability in the academy system to ensure that it is best practice, not poor practice, which is being spread?
These questions remain as the Government seek further powers to speed up the pace of academisation. Your Lordships might like to ask why this has been deemed necessary so soon after the Education and Adoption Act was in your Lordships’ House. We spent many days and hours going through the fine detail of that Bill; but were the White Paper proposals to be adopted, it would mean that we had effectively wasted our time on it. If the Government were so convinced that only forced academisation would do, why did they not amend the then Education and Adoption Bill appropriately? That would have been the honest approach instead of leading noble Lords and MPs down what is effectively a false path, knowing that the Bill was merely a stop-gap measure.
It is surely self-evident that we all want to see educational excellence everywhere, but at a time when schools are facing huge challenges from falling budgets and teacher shortages, top-down reorganisation of the school system will remove even more money, time and effort from where the focus should be. It is high time the Government recognised that further structural changes are at best a distraction and, at worst, could damage standards. Will the Minister now accept that, when it comes to change in education, the Government need to carry the professionals with them if such change is to be successfully delivered?
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is actually good to listen; it is good to hear what other people have to say rather than immediately jump to conclusions, and I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to people who have considerable experience in these matters and adjusted the likely content of the forthcoming Bill.
The Minister said in the Statement that the Government wanted to,
“deliver a great education to every single child”.
But don’t we all? I suppose that the difference is that some of us do not believe that the blind concentration on structures and types of school is really the answer. We think that, more importantly, it is about the quality of leadership of those schools. It is about the teachers—who are highly trained, highly respected and given proper continuing professional development. It is about a broad national curriculum which every pupil takes, and includes, as some of the Minister’s colleagues believe, PSHE and good careers advice. It is about parents being involved in the education of their child, not divorced from it; and it is about a curriculum which celebrates technical, vocational and creative education.
There is no evidence that turning a school into an academy will improve standards. In fact, academies tend to perform less well in Ofsted inspections than local authority schools do. I hope that we will see, once and for all, the end of the ideological obsession with pushing aside the role of local authorities in community schools. They need to be cherished, nurtured and given the resources to do the job.
I am very pleased with what the Minister said in the Statement about rural schools, which have been neglected for far too long and need special attention. But putting them into multi-academy trusts is not always the best solution. If they have to go into a multi-academy trust, the trust has to have a relationship with the community that the school is in, because the community is hugely important to the rural school.
I have two questions for the Minister. So far, he has resisted publishing tables to compare trusts’ overall performance. Will he now agree that that should happen? Secondly, he has refused to let Ofsted conduct full inspections of academy chains. Will he now agree that this should happen as well?
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for his comments about supporting the raising of standards in schools. I have no doubt that he supports that aim.
Many people wanted to see more detail on our direction of travel for academies, so we provided it in the White Paper. However, as I have said, it is clear that the blanket power outlined in the White Paper created anxiety in the system. So we have listened—I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about that—to the concern of head teachers and teachers and removed those powers so that people can now take time to understand the benefits of becoming an academy or joining a multi-academy trust. I am confident that once people have had the opportunity to understand that, many more will come forward to convert, as schools are in record numbers at the moment. I hope that noble Lords across the House who have not had the opportunity of spending time with leaders of academies or multi-academy trusts or with the regional school commissions will take the time to do that over the next few months. I am happy to arrange visits or meetings. We will continue to listen and to have dialogue with the sector, parents, teachers, governors, unions and local authorities over the next few months.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to evidence, an issue we have discussed a great deal in this House. I said in answer to his question that schools that have chosen to convert to academies—that is, those that are high performing already—are obtaining better results. Despite their already high performance, they are improving their results and are more likely to be rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. Secondary converters are performing 7 percentage points above the national average and results in primary-sponsored academies open for two years have improved on average by 10% since opening, more than double the rate of local authority maintained schools over the same period.
In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in certain limited circumstances, high-performing schools may be obliged to become academies—that is, where they are in local authorities that are either performing poorly or are unviable. As I have said, we will be setting out more on that and consulting on what the viability test will be.
We make no apologies for the benefits of schools working in multi-academy trusts. There are particular benefits in relation to leadership development and CPD for teachers. People who work in multi-academy trusts talk often about the retention of staff benefits. They say that when they were running one school they tended to lose their rising stars because they could not offer them career development opportunities. They can now have rising stars programmes in place and retain their best staff. There are benefits such as the sharing of good practice and economies of scale, and many others. I invite noble Lords, when they meet with people from multi-academy trusts, to discuss this with them.
On accountability, as I have said before, academies are held to a higher standard of accountability than local authority maintained schools. They are obliged to publish annual third party-audited accounts, which local authority maintained schools are not; no one in a governance relationship with an academy can profit from that relationship, which can happen in a local authority maintained school; and they are also held to the standards of the Charity Commission and the Companies Act.
As to leadership, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, made a good point about the capacity and leadership. We have £600 million available to develop this programme. We have invested in a leadership programme with future leaders and executive educators, and we are in discussions with a number of business schools about their developing leadership courses for people who work in academies and multi-academy trusts. I hope to say more about that in due course.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his comments about rural schools. I agree entirely about the importance of their being intimately engaged with their local communities. In answer to his last two questions, we will be publishing MAT performance tables based on this summer’s results. We have had extensive conversations with Ofsted, and agreed an arrangement whereby Ofsted will carry out batch inspections of schools in multi-academy trusts and look at the school improvement services provided by the head office. However, we do not think it appropriate for Ofsted inspectors to inspect the finances, governance and management arrangements of these organisations. We have discussed with Ofsted the idea that in certain circumstances, there may be joint inspections: Ofsted inspecting school improvement and the performance of the schools, and the EFA—possibly working with consultants—inspecting the head office, management, governance and financial arrangements of the trusts. We have also had discussions with Ofsted because we know that it has inspected weak performing multi-academy trusts. We hope that it will soon be inspecting some strong performing multi-academy trusts so that we can see what a really good chain looks like.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, I welcome much that is in the Statement repeated by the Minister. As a good Cross-Bencher I have no interest in being drawn into any frisson or hint of triumphalism perhaps coming from the other Benches, nor even a collective sigh of relief from the Benches behind the Minister, because that is there as well; both apply.
There are many things in the Statement which I am sure that I and others agree with. We want to ensure that we deliver a great education for every child—who would not? Of course we do. We want to focus resources on tackling entrenched underperformance, and of course the Minister has made it plain that he knows that resources are not simply cash. They are to do with leadership and talent working in the schools in question. The strength and importance of academies is widely accepted. I absolutely agree with that, on the basis of being well acquainted with quite a number of academies and academy chains.
However, I want to register two questions which are premised on the most important point made in the Statement. While we want every school to become an academy, we will not compel successful schools to join multi-academy trusts. That is the point on which many supporters of academies were hung up. It is the most important statement that we have before us. It is also important to emphasise that, yes, we can persuade, but no, we cannot compel. In that context, I would like to be reassured that the aspiration for converting every school into an academy within six years is not a sotto voce way of bringing into play a form of compulsion that will be part of the next series of policy decisions. A reassurance on that is rather important.
Finally, the Minister indicated that the definition and thresholds of underperformance and viability will be the subject of affirmative resolution. Presumably that applies to the Commons, but will it apply to this House? Will we also have an opportunity to debate those issues?
Lord Nash
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for his comments. Given his vast experience in this area, he always makes helpful observations. He is absolutely right in what he says. There is no doubt that our comments about compulsion had caused anxiety in the system. In order, if you like, to take the heat out of it, we have decided to remove that because we think it is right that people should work out for themselves the benefits of academisation, whether on their own or in multi-academy trusts. In answer to his last point, yes, those issues will be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister responsible for converting the first local authority education schools to independent city technology colleges, at the time I believed that if we could show that they were successful, others would follow; it would be a natural flow of events. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. Progress can be achieved by the natural flow of events rather than prescription, so I am glad that the Government have accepted that approach. I should also say to the Minister that I agree very much with the point made by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches that all good schools should not necessarily join multi-academy trusts. On the other hand, multi-academy trusts are essential between the institutions and the Government, which cannot possibly be responsible for 30,000 schools and the independent schools in our country. I am also glad to see that there are to be tough inspections by Ofsted. There are some very good multi-academy trusts, the best of which is that run by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, who has been working at it for 30 years. But there are also some poor multi-academy trusts, and a poor multi-academy trust is no better than a poor local education authority.
Lord Nash
I entirely support my noble friend’s comments about success proving itself. Of course, he is vastly experienced in this area and, indeed, if it were not for his invention of city technology colleges all those years ago, we would not be here today. Of course, there are poorly performing academy groups and we are intent on intervening whenever we can to improve them. As my noble friend said—and I entirely support his comments about our noble friend Lord Harris—we now have enough outstanding academy groups, such as Harris, Ark, Outwood Grange and many others. We know that when a multi-academy trust is functioning well, it provides a standard of education to which all multi-academy trusts, we hope in time, can aspire.
Lord Lexden (Con)
I return to the position of rural schools, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Do they not face considerable pressures at the moment and require additional support in dealing with them? Secondly, does my noble friend agree that a responsible Government must have the power to intervene where local authorities are clearly failing?
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with my noble friend that rural schools face certain pressures. We are absolutely determined that no school—particularly rural schools—will be left behind. Our national funding formula will, for the first time, provide many rural schools with more support than it has in the past. We are proposing both a lump sum and a sparsity factor for rural schools. As I said, we will have a fund of £10 million to help them explore the academisation. We will have people working with them and will do all we can to help them. We believe that rural schools working together may be able to afford, for instance, a language teacher, which on their own they would be unable to do. On my noble friend’s second point, we accept that where we have underperformance—wherever it is, whether in the local authority or elsewhere—we must have powers to intervene.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister made it fairly clear that although the element of compulsion has been removed at least from the rhetoric for the time being, it is still the determination of this Government to encourage, by whatever means, all schools to become academies. Building on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, when he said that a poorly performing multi-academy trust is no better than a poorly performing local authority, can the Minister say why the Government are so bent on creating this new monoculture? A well-performing academy trust is obviously a very fine thing and we all like to see schools succeed, but some local authorities are also succeeding and are creating and supporting schools that are doing well. Should we not celebrate that success as well as the success of academies?
I shall follow on from the question asked by my noble friend on the Front Bench. The issue of autonomy for schools—much vaunted in the progress of this Government’s determination to encourage academies—is surely diluted in multi-academy trusts where there is, of course, one leadership team. The degree of autonomy that then resides with the individual school must by definition be reduced. Is that really what the Minister has in mind?
Lord Nash
As I have said, I accept that there are multi-academy trusts that are not performing, but we have ambitions to bring them up to the standards of those that clearly demonstrate that this model works. As far as a monoculture is concerned, we would say that we have much more diversity in the academy trust structure than under a local authority structure, whereby a school is stuck in one local authority because of a geographical accident. An academy can choose to convert, maybe on its own or as part of a small local cluster, or as part of a larger group. Of course, there are high-performing local authorities, and we encourage them to spin out and form multi-academy trusts, which some are discussing at the moment, or to subcontract out their school improvement activities.
As far as autonomy of individual schools is concerned, we have said a lot about how we would expect schools in multi-academy trusts to work together in local clusters. We think that is absolutely essential to their being intimately involved with their community. Ultimately, we are concerned with standards and pupils ahead of everything else.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his Statement. I was one of those breathing the collective sigh of relief referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. I am delighted that the Government have withdrawn the word “compulsion”, but, since he has made his understanding of rural schools clear, I ask my noble friend to remember that in many rural schools—I had some 40 in my former constituency—parent governors play a particularly important part. Just as he will encourage schools to become academies, will he encourage all schools to maintain parent governors?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree that parent governors play a very important part in all schools, particularly in rural schools, where, as we have discussed, they are so intimately connected with their local community. That is why we want parents to be more involved in their schools than they are at the moment. We want them to be intimately involved in all aspects of their child’s education, be that attendance at parents’ evenings or whatever. For the first time, we will create a new expectation that every academy will put in place arrangements for meaningful engagement with all parents to give all parents a voice. We will put in place a parent portal, setting out the key things that parents need to know about their schools. We will introduce more regular surveys of parental satisfaction and we will provide guidance on handling complaints.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I will ask two quick questions. First, what is the Government’s view of the establishment of multi-academy trusts by local authorities? Clearly they will require them to be at arm’s length, but is this something that the Government would encourage to reach that 2022 objective? Secondly, will my noble friend give your Lordships’ House an indication of the pace at which those schools that are some distance below the target in the funding formula will be able to attain it over time?
Lord Nash
To answer my noble friend, as I said, we certainly encourage individuals in local authorities to spin out and set up trusts. Local authorities are allowed to have just under 20%. We will encourage people in local authorities to get involved in MATs in any way that works for them. As far as the national funding formula is concerned, the first changes will take place in 2017-18. We are keen to phase this in over a period of time. The second phase of the consultation will deal in much more detail with the granularity of the figures and the timing.