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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
1. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of demolitions by Israel of Palestinian homes and other structures in the west bank in 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Before answering this question, may I take this opportunity to say that, two weeks ago, I had the difficult task of responding to the written Foreign Office question submitted by our former colleague, Jo Cox? Given her active role in foreign affairs, I completed this task because I believe it is what she would have wanted. Given the frequency and the passion with which she spoke and indeed influenced policy in this very forum at Foreign Office questions, I thought it appropriate to begin by paying tribute to her.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he said, which is warmly welcomed in the House. More than anyone in this House, the hon. Gentleman knows of what he speaks, and I thank him.
Mr Ellwood
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We are deeply concerned by the continued demolition of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities, and the worrying spike in the rate of demolitions this year. In all but the most exceptional circumstances, demolitions are contrary to international humanitarian law. We regularly raise our concerns about demolitions with the Israeli Government. We make it clear that such actions do not encourage the confidence-building measures needed for talks to recommence.
Richard Burden
I associate myself with the Minister’s words about our former colleague and friend, Jo Cox. She was an exceptional Member of Parliament and an exceptional person as well. Perhaps the greatest tribute any of us can give to Jo is to continue her work to support human rights throughout the world.
One of the things Jo was passionate about was justice for the Palestinians. According to the UN, Israel has demolished 649 Palestinian structures this year, and 1,000 people—over 400 of them children—have been displaced. The situation is getting worse, not better. I know that the Minister condemns these things, but if Israel feels it can continue with a culture of impunity, why should it stop? What can the international community do to show Israel that it does not have impunity, and what specific actions would the UK Government support?
Mr Ellwood
Thank you very much for those initial comments. We agree and we are hugely concerned about the rate of demolitions. We need to place additional pressure on Israel and, indeed, the Palestinians to come to the table. I am pleased that we held a summit in Paris to discuss the overarching challenges that we face and the role that the international community can play. The extent of the demolitions was highlighted in the Quartet report, produced by Russia, the US, the EU and the UN, which underlines the very concerns that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I, too, would like to associate myself with the Minister’s moving words about our late colleague, Jo Cox. As for the general point, my hon. Friend is quite right when he says that this will not help in moving towards a position in which people come together to talk. There is, however, the other side of the coin, with 36 Israelis, along with four foreign nationals, murdered this year. Instead of condemning the murders, the Palestinian Authority glorified them. Surely, when just this weekend the Israeli Prime Minister said that he would meet without conditions, we should urge the Palestinian authorities to do precisely that and have direct talks.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. We regularly raise and discuss these matters at Foreign Office questions. Now that we have had the Paris summit and seen a meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry, we can see this issue coming back on to the agenda. My concern—I raised it at the Paris summit—is that with all the other distractions and concerns in the middle east, we have lost sight of something that needs to be resolved. My right hon. Friend makes the important point that the actions of the Palestinians do not go unnoticed, and we require the leadership of President Abbas to make it clear that those actions must be condemned.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
As well as demolishing Palestinian homes on the West Bank, Israel continues to arrest and detain Palestinian children in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. G4S, which has provided services for Israeli military checkpoints and prisons, has been found by the UK national contact point for the OECD guidelines to be in breach of its fundamental human rights obligations. Will the Minister join me in calling for G4S to withdraw fully from its relevant contracts with the Israeli state agencies?
Mr Ellwood
I will certainly look into the case that the hon. Lady raises. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is concerned about the treatment of Palestinian children detained in Israeli prisons and has raised it with the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, and I raised it during my recent visit to Israel. We have done some work—and, indeed, have invested some funds—to ensure that the children are looked after in the best possible way.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The demolition of Arab houses, and of Jewish houses, was started by us, the British, between the wars, during the operation of the terms of the British mandate for Palestine. Today, the Israeli Government specifically cites British mandate law as a justification for the current demolitions. Has the Minister had conversations with his Israeli counterpart about the legitimacy of using that law today?
Mr Ellwood
Given our legacy and the breadth of our influence over the last couple of hundred years, I think it wrong for any Government in the world to point to British policy and say that, historically, it is the cause. All laws can be updated, and both sides have a responsibility to come together and resolve this matter for the long term.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
2. What guidance he issues to British embassies on whether they are obliged to respond to inquiries from British companies seeking assistance to understand the laws and regulations relating to their business dealings with the country in which the embassy is based.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Our embassies and high commissions play a key role in promoting British interests and helping British companies to enter new markets. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have led delegations of businesses overseas, and we work closely with UKTI to ensure that our businesses receive continued support and advice.
Mhairi Black
One of my constituents has written to a certain embassy many times, and, although it acknowledges his correspondence, he has never received any further response, which is preventing him from fulfilling an important part of a significant business deal. Could the Minister provide any assistance by obtaining a full response from the embassy on behalf of my constituent, so that he can be given more information?
Mr Ellwood
I was aware of that case, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it. If any other Members are concerned about a lack of support from embassies for businesses in their constituencies, will they please let us know?
I understand that the head of UKTI in Morocco, with which the company concerned wishes to trade, has been speaking to the company directly. I can only apologise for the delay in providing the normal level of support that we would expect to give any company wishing to do business in Morocco or, indeed, anywhere else.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that not enough small and medium-sized businesses export around the world, and that, because our balance of trade is widening, we must constantly review our trade policy? In particular, does he agree that British embassies around the world could help with digital linking between consumers around the world and potential exporting companies in this country?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which covers a specific interest that we can espouse. The Foreign Secretary had an opportunity to brief ambassadors and high commissioners when they returned to the UK last week. Given the new environment in which we find ourselves, the role that embassies and high commissions can play throughout the world in establishing new markets and exploring new opportunities—as well as revisiting old ones—is now critical.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
3. Whether his Department plans to recruit more trade specialists as a result of the outcome of the EU referendum.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
Let me begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) to her new post, along with her compact team—a model, I hope, of improved productivity in the UK economy, although time will tell.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last month, the Government are creating a new EU unit which will bring together the brightest and best from Whitehall and the private sector, including lawyers, financial experts and trade experts. The Government are actively seeking to recruit trade specialists, and that includes approaching former civil servants who have retired or moved to the private sector.
Mr Cunningham
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer, but can he tell the House how much this is going to cost?
Mr Hammond
No, not at this stage, but what I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, facing the opportunities we now do, recruitment of trade specialists, whatever that costs us, is likely to be an investment very well worth making.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Is the Foreign Secretary heartened by the fact that since we voted to leave the EU a number of key countries and economies, including India, China and Australia, have approached the UK regarding furthering trade, and how well that compares with the stalled trade talks that have taken many years between the EU and such countries as the US and Canada?
Mr Hammond
Yes, it is a source of some optimism that a number of significant economies around the world have indicated that they would be open to the idea of trade agreements with the UK, and my hon. Friend makes a point that is very obvious but none the less important: that negotiating a trade deal between two countries is always going to be much easier than negotiating a trade deal between one country and 28 countries.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Last week at the Foreign Affairs Committee Oliver Letwin stated that
“we clearly need a new cadre of highly skilful and highly experienced trade negotiators.”
I hope the Secretary of State sees the irony in the fact that the very best of our trade negotiators are based in Brussels, but can he assure the House that from now on we will indeed bring in the best trade negotiators notwithstanding their nationality?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Lady had in mind the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin). I am not sure I recognised the name she mentioned.
Mr Hammond
I was puzzling about that myself and am grateful for your clarification, Mr Speaker, and, having had it, I am very happy to answer the hon. Lady’s question. As I said in response to the initial question, we will need to hire significant numbers of trade negotiators and—I said this in the House a couple of weeks ago—I see no reason why we would not hire people who were non-British if they were the best people to do the job. Clearly, one would not want to hire a citizen of another country to negotiate a trade deal with that country, but having entered that caveat, I would hope we put together the best and most capable teams from wherever.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I am sure the Foreign Secretary will agree that the Prime Minister’s trade envoys have played a very important role around the world. As our relationship with the EU changes, will he make representations to ensure that that programme is rolled out across Europe as well?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend raises a good point, and that will of course be an issue for the new Prime Minister as trade envoys are personal appointments of the Prime Minister.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the assessment of a former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office that to deal with the legal and political complexities of leaving the EU the Foreign Office will need to double in size?
Mr Hammond
I absolutely recognise there is a huge and complex task ahead of us in negotiating both our exit from the EU and, perhaps more importantly, the new arrangements Britain will have with the EU 27, but this is a project that will have a limited duration: once the negotiations are completed the task will be done, and I am not sure increasing the size of the Foreign Office will necessarily be the most appropriate way of doing that. Having a specialist unit to deal with this short to medium-term task may well be the most efficient way of delivering the outcome.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The incoming Prime Minister told us yesterday that she intends to make a success of Brexit and part of that is clearly going to be trade talks with countries throughout the world. Has the message already gone out to our embassies and high commissions that even before Brexit happens initial talks about trade should start with other countries?
Mr Hammond
The message that has gone out is that Britain will need to redouble its efforts in international trade and refocus where the trade is concentrated in the future. I should also make it clear that until we have served an article 50 notice, we remain a full participating member of the European Union. Our ability to negotiate new trade agreements is restricted by the continued application of EU law until we have negotiated our exit from the European Union, so we have to tread a careful path. Of course we can have preliminary discussions, but we must ensure that we remain on the right side of our international obligations at all times.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Chinese Government on the promotion of human rights in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
We regularly raise human rights with the Chinese authorities. I most recently discussed human rights with the Chinese ambassador a fortnight ago, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the human rights dialogue with State Councillor Yang last week. In addition, my right hon. Friend raised concerns last month with the president of the Supreme People’s Court about the detention of human rights defenders.
Jeff Smith
Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, we will need to develop a new set of trading relationships with China. What reassurances can the Minister give me that that process will not diminish our ability or our resolve to publicly condemn the Chinese Government for human rights abuses?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are very keen to get a date for the annual human rights dialogue. That is the right architecture within which to raise individual cases. However, we will continue to raise individual cases of human rights abuse, and if there is no human rights dialogue, we will have to increase that.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
22. Can the Minister tell us exactly what action he is taking to question the Chinese Government about their brutal persecution of those who peacefully practise Falun Gong, particularly in relation to the live harvesting of organs?
Mr Swire
We have raised concerns about reports of organ harvesting, as well as about the torture and mistreatment of detainees, during the annual UK human rights dialogue. We will continue to do that at the next round. Equally, we pay close attention to the human rights situation in China and we remain extremely concerned about restrictions placed on freedom of religion or belief of any kind, including Falun Gong practitioners.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I should like to associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about Jo Cox, the MP who tragically lost her life. She was a fellow colleague from the 2015 intake. She was an advocate for refugees and a fierce and passionate champion of the dispossessed. We miss her very much at FCO questions, and her memory inspires us all as parliamentarians to work selflessly for those whose voice is rarely heard.
In relation to the human rights situation in China, Amnesty International has stated that at least 248 human rights lawyers and activists have been targeted by the authorities over the past year. They include the prominent lawyer, Wang Yu. She and 12 others are now under formal arrest on charges of subverting state power. What is the Minister’s assessment of this targeting of human rights activists? Does he agree that, on occasion, the Government’s approach lacks assertiveness in relation to human rights in China?
Mr Swire
I should like to associate myself with the hon. Lady’s first remarks, but I dissociate myself from her concluding remark. I believe that, on balance, we have got the situation just about right. We are concerned about the human rights lawyers and we continue to raise the issue. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so with the president of the Supreme People’s Court of China, Zhou Qiang, on 9 June. He has also raised our concerns with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, and we will continue so to do.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
5. If he will ensure that the Scottish Government are included in negotiations on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
11. If he will ensure that the Scottish Government are included in negotiations on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we must ensure that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom are properly taken into account as we progress these negotiations. So, as we prepare for talks with the European Union, we will fully involve the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments as well as the Mayor of London, the overseas territories and other regional interests. Officials of the new EU unit, which I mentioned a few minutes ago, will be making contact with counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
Owen Thompson
While that answer is encouraging, it does not exactly give a lot of detail—much like the plans of the Brexiteers as they went into the referendum. What formal role will the Scottish Government and the other devolved Governments have in the process of formalising Brexit?
Mr Hammond
As we do with other matters, we will consult the Scottish Government both formally and through informal dialogue, including at senior official level on an ongoing basis.
Stephen Gethins
The Scottish Government have been clear that EU nationals must be a priority. Given their net financial contribution, does the Foreign Secretary agree that EU nationals should be more of a priority than new nuclear weapons? Any new Chancellor should be especially mindful of that.
Mr Hammond
I am unsure whether the two issues need to be prioritised. They can both be pursued in parallel. The decision to renew our nuclear deterrent is quite separate from the negotiations that we will be having with the EU, including negotiations to ensure the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and the reciprocal rights of UK nationals living in EU countries.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Regardless of whether the Scottish Government are involved in the negotiations, will the Secretary of State confirm that the negotiations are purely about us leaving the EU and not some sort of renegotiation of our terms of membership that will result in a halfway house where we are half-in and half-out of the EU?
Mr Hammond
Yes, I can confirm that. The next Prime Minister has made it clear that Brexit means Brexit: we will be negotiating our exit from the EU. However, we will of course also seek to negotiate an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU 27 to regulate our trade and other relationships with the EU.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be far better for Scotland to play a productive role in securing a new relationship between the UK and the EU, rather than looking to join as a new member, get the euro and put a border across this island?
Mr Hammond
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Scotland’s best future is in a strong United Kingdom, trading effectively with the EU. We saw the case for independence during the previous referendum—it did not stack up at $100 a barrel of oil and it certainly does not stack up at $50 a barrel.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
19. The highlands and islands currently benefit from an additional €192 million of transition funding. Given the incoming Prime Minister’s haste to get on with Brexit, will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK Government will guarantee that funding?
Mr Hammond
Britain is a significant net contributor to the EU, but that contribution includes a significant number of flows to particular regions, areas, projects and bodies within the United Kingdom. We will have to address how the recipients of those flows of funds from Brussels are to be protected in the future and that will be an important part of the negotiations.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
20 . Scotland has benefited from access to EU research and a wealth of talented researchers and academics. The Guardian worryingly reported this morning:“Britain’s vote to leave the EU has unleashed a wave of discrimination against UK researchers”.Scottish universities and their staff are concerned. What is the Foreign Secretary’s message to the universities, research staff and workers that benefit from being part of the EU? How will he ensure that Scotland and its interests are protected?
Mr Hammond
This issue is not just about Scotland; it is much wider than that. I will say two things. First, as long as we are a full member of the EU and are paying the full sub, we must ensure that there is no discrimination against the UK, UK institutions, UK applicants for funding or UK citizens. Secondly, the point of negotiating an arrangement for Britain’s relationship with the EU 27 after we have left the EU is precisely to protect collaborative research, educational projects and cultural exchanges in addition to our important trading relationships.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for welcoming me to this new job? It is right to say that we are compact team, but we have the advantage of being made up of two blessed difficult women, and so we are formidable and up for the task. If rumours of promotion are true, this may be my final session with him before he takes another job. It would seem that everyone is in flux. He has a reputation of being a formidable but approachable Minister to shadow, so I will be sorry if our acquaintance is so brief.
The Foreign Secretary rightly said that he has given assurances that he will consult Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London and Gibraltar on the Government’s negotiating strategy for Brexit prior to triggering article 50. Will those assurances also apply in respect of Her Majesty’s Opposition, to ensure that the needs and concerns of the communities we represent are reflected as the Government develop their negotiating strategy?
Mr Hammond
First, I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady saying that she expects promotion. I thought that those in the Labour party who were expecting promotion threw their hat in the ring yesterday—perhaps she is going to be a late entrant to that competition. On the substance of her question, of course there will be extensive discussion about all these issues in Parliament. The Opposition will have an opportunity to present their views, and we shall listen carefully to them.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I was hoping that I would get greater assurance than that and that there would be formal consultation with Her Majesty’s Opposition prior to the start of negotiations. We must avoid the mistakes made by the outgoing Prime Minister before his resignation. He had no proper consultation with Opposition parties, no proper discussion took place and there was a totally artificial timetable. Had the Prime Minister done those things, perhaps he would have got a better and more inclusive deal, the country might not have voted for Brexit and he might not be stepping down tomorrow. Does the Foreign Secretary not accept that the Prime Minister made a mistake and can he guarantee that those mistakes will not be made by the new Prime Minister?
Mr Hammond
Perhaps I dare say to the hon. Lady that I might have been a bit closer to those negotiations than she was and I can confidently say that engaging with the Opposition would not have affected the outcome.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry, but the questions and answers are taking too long. [Interruption.] Order. What we need now is a couple of pithy inquiries, not elongated ones.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The whole of Scotland is deeply concerned about the personal future of the Foreign Secretary, given his apocalyptic statements during the recent referendum. For example, he told Chatham House on 2 March that leaving would take longer to negotiate
“than the second world war.”
Will it take longer to negotiate Brexit than the second world war? How would any future Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with such uncertainty?
Mr Hammond
I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the concern is this: if a future treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union 27 is deemed to be a mixed competence, it will have to be ratified by 27 national Parliaments. I believe I am right in saying that the shortest time in which that has been done in respect of any EU treaty is just under four years—that is after taking into account the time it takes to negotiate.
Alex Salmond
That is a yes then. Did the Foreign Secretary see the poll at the weekend carried out by YouGov across European countries? It showed two things: first, that the UK Government were deeply unpopular in every other European country; and, secondly, that massive majorities of the public in every country surveyed were looking forward to an independent Scotland within Europe. Why are the UK Government so unpopular, and why is Scotland so popular in Europe?
Mr Hammond
I would have thought if there was one lesson to take from the events of the past three weeks, it was, “Do not read polls”.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to support political liberty, freedom of expression and human rights in Bangladesh.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
Our condolences go to the victims and the families of those involved in the horrific and cowardly terrorist attack in Dhaka on 1 July. Where credible allegations of human rights abuses exist, we raise them with the Bangladesh Government. Bangladesh is named as one of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 30 human rights priority countries. The British Government also fund a number of programmes that support civil society in Bangladesh.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Supporters of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist party have told me that hundreds of its party workers have now disappeared, and Amnesty International referred to at least 43 enforced disappearances in its latest international report. Whatever the true number, does he agree that the political situation in Bangladesh is now extremely serious and it is vital that political rights are protected?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Human Rights Watch identified Bangladesh as having the highest rate of child marriage. This is a fundamental breach of human rights, particularly for those girls who are forced into marriages at such an early age. What are the Government doing to make their views known to the Bangladesh Government, and through the Commonwealth and other organisations, that such practice is not acceptable?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Hindu priests have been brutally murdered and other religious minorities savaged. What actions has my right hon. Friend taken to inform the Bangladeshi Government that that is completely unacceptable and that they have to face up to their responsibilities?
Mr Swire
Indeed. I can only repeat what I have just said. We have robust discussions with the Government of Bangladesh. We are extremely concerned about the situation in that country, not least because of its connections with Daesh and other organisations and its basic human rights as well.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
What specific representations has the Minister made to the Government of Sheikh Hasina following the brutal murders in the diplomatic enclave of Gulshan in Dhaka? The area should have been very secure, and yet those murderers and terrorists were allowed in to murder 20 people on 1 July.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the strength of diplomatic and economic relations between India and the UK.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
Our relations with India remain extremely good. Only this week, I spoke to a high-level group of Indian businessmen here in the United Kingdom, and of course they wanted to know what is happening now with our relationship with India following the recent referendum.
Alex Chalk
For individuals and businesses in Cheltenham, the UK’s relationship with India is increasingly important. How will it change post-Brexit?
Mr Swire
We still have in this country 1.5 million Indians or people of Indian descent, so the connections are huge and robust. People come to the UK a lot and people go to India a lot. Clearly, early talks about the shape of our trade relationship with India will form part of our discussions over the next year or so.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
On the diplomatic front, what discussions has the Minister had with the Indian Government about the recent events in Kashmir?
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend referenced the fact that discussion about a future trade relationship will take place in parallel with our exit negotiations from the European Union. What kind of capability does he need to recruit to his Department to get into the detail of those discussions?
Mr Swire
My hon. Friend will know that trade policy is with UK Trade & Investment, but I will repeat what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier. We are aware that we need to recruit and retain more trade negotiators. We are still a member of the EU until the last of the negotiations have taken place, but there is absolutely no reason not to start having exploratory talks, and we are beginning to do that.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
8. What steps the Government are taking to support the French initiative to start peace talks between Israel and Palestine. [R]
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
12. What steps the Government are taking to support the French initiative to start peace talks between Israel and Palestine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
As I mentioned earlier, I attended the French ministerial conference on the middle east peace process in Paris on 3 June. We are in close contact with the French Government and will consider how the UK might contribute as their plans develop.
Andy Slaughter
It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary could not attend that conference. Will he be attending or advising his successor to attend the main conference later this year, and will he join France and other European countries in recognising Palestine if Israel refuses to co-operate with the French initiative and continues building settlements?
Mr Ellwood
To make it clear, the summit was moved at short notice to accommodate the US Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Africa at the time, which was why I was able to attend. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not feel short-changed by the fact that I was there instead of the Foreign Secretary. It was an important meeting, as it registered the need for the international community to play its part and we look forward to moving ahead with the process. Discussions will take place in the next few months to bring the parties together.
Ms Ritchie
In the light of recent moves by the Egyptian Foreign Minister, does the Minister believe that the chances for successful peace talks are improving? What efforts will the Government make to ensure that both Israel and Palestine are sufficiently incentivised to come to the table to talks?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady is right to say that both parties need to be sufficiently incentivised. The worry that I have had when visiting both the Palestinian areas and Israel is that the leaders on both sides are not necessarily speaking for the people, who generally want something different. My concern is that unless we see the affirmative steps taking place to reverse the trends that we have been seeing, we will drift towards an entrenched position of a one-state reality, with perpetual occupation and conflict.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
23. Will the Minister assure us that the Foreign Secretary or his successor will attend the peace conference that the French are planning later this year?
Mr Ellwood
On the day before a reshuffle is to take place, let me say that I will heed the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and we will do our best. The implication seems to be that the Foreign Secretary is somehow not engaged in these matters. We have those set conferences and summits, but an awful lot of bilaterals also take place, not least at the NATO summit in Warsaw, where my right hon. Friend had bilateral meetings with his relevant counterparts. These very important issues are raised there as well.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
9. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU, Africa and the middle east on dealing with the refugee crisis in Europe and the middle east.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
We have these discussions regularly and our consistent focus is on securing a comprehensive and durable solution which tackles the causes as well as the consequences of migration.
Michael Tomlinson
Will the Minister reaffirm this Government’s commitment to Operation Sophia? Can he confirm that we will continue to co-operate with our European allies in relation to the refugee crisis?
Mr Lidington
I can confirm that. The Prime Minister said shortly after the referendum that we would continue our contribution to Sophia, which has already saved more than 16,400 lives and has destroyed more than 160 smuggling vessels.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister in close contact with the leading aid agencies—the International Rescue Committee, Save the Children and Médecins sans Frontières? They seem to have a different take from Governments on what is happening in camps and with movements. Is he keeping in touch with them?
Mr Lidington
My colleagues in the Department for International Development are in constant touch with the main aid agencies, and our very large humanitarian effort in Turkey, Syria itself and the neighbouring countries, Lebanon and Jordan, is very much focused through the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other such agencies.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
25. In view of the fact that the appalling hardships and loss of life arising from the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean are clearly long term and in danger of becoming institutionalised, will my right hon. Friend give consideration to the proposal from the International Chamber of Shipping, originally put forward last autumn, to establish a UN humanitarian zone covering the affected areas?
Mr Lidington
Although the International Chamber of Shipping proposal was indeed constructive, I do not want to underestimate the difficulties of getting agreement in the Security Council on anything through the UN. We have Operation Sophia, which is working and to which many European countries are actively contributing, and we should aim to make that work still more effective, help the Libyans build up the capacity of their own coastguard, and use the instruments available.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does the Minister accept that in respect of the Brexit negotiations, much work will require to be done to secure joint EU-UK efforts in northern Africa on tackling the escalating refugee crisis?
Mr Lidington
So long as we remain members of the European Union and afterwards, it will remain in the interests of this country that we work very closely with our European friends and allies. This is a problem that will be with us for a generation and it will need concerted international co-operation.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
10. What steps the Government are taking to promote trade and diplomatic connections between the UK and other Commonwealth countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
We have eight Commonwealth trade envoys representing British business interests in 10 Commonwealth states. We have expanded the British Government’s representation in a number of countries, and we are looking forward to the inaugural Commonwealth Trade Ministers meeting in London in March next year, which will be co-hosted by ourselves and the Government of Malta.
Martin Vickers
With the decision to withdraw from the EU, many British companies will be looking to expand their business with Commonwealth countries. What specific plans do the Government have to support them in that respect?
Mr Swire
That is something we are concentrating on. Intra-Commonwealth trade is estimated at over $680 billion, and it is projected to surpass $1 trillion by 2020. The Commonwealth includes 53 member states, a quarter of the world’s land mass and 2.2 billion people, and 60% of the Commonwealth’s population is under the age of 30, so there are some huge and exciting opportunities there.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
17. Now that we have this wonderful opportunity to boost trade with the Commonwealth, will my right hon. Friend make sure that small countries in Africa and Asia are not left behind in what I believe will be a trade bonanza?
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
13. What steps his Department is taking to enhance diplomatic and economic relations with the Caspian and South Caucasus region.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The United Kingdom has strong bilateral relations with countries in the Caspian and South Caucasus region. It also has significant commercial interests there, particularly in the oil and gas sector.
Mr Baker
To defend Europe against excessive reliance on Russian energy supplies and to provide opportunities for small British energy firms—particularly those from Scotland—will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage and support BP in its work with the Government of Azerbaijan to deliver the trans-Turkish pipeline?
Mr Lidington
Indeed. That pipeline is in the economic and strategic interests of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend also makes a strong point about Scotland: many Scottish companies are in Azerbaijan in the wake of BP’s investment, and that is another example of how the UK and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through our embassies, are helping to deliver for the people of Scotland.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I was in Tbilisi, in Georgia, last week with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. A number of people we spoke to were extremely concerned about the impact of the UK leaving the European Union on a lot of the diplomatic work that is going on to encourage countries such as Georgia to move towards western Europe. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of that issue, and what steps is he taking to persuade people in countries such as Georgia that their future lies in links with western Europe?
Mr Lidington
We were very active in the preparation for, and at, the NATO summit in Warsaw to emphasise that our commitment to working closely with countries such as Georgia to bring them into the Euro-Atlantic family of nations continues, and I think their Governments well understand that commitment.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
14. What recent assessment he has made of the progress of the international campaign to defeat ISIS/Daesh.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
Significant military progress has been made in Iraq, Syria and Libya since my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary updated the House on 24 May. Iraqi security forces have liberated Falluja. The Syrian Democratic Forces are closing in on Manbij in Syria. In Libya, Misratan forces have pushed Daesh back to the city centre in Sirte, and the Libyan national army is winning the battle against Daesh in Benghazi. We now need to see political progress in Syria, Libya and Iraq to match those military successes.
Dr Whitehead
What initiatives has the Secretary of State undertaken recently to ensure that the international effort concentrates on securing the defeat of Daesh, rather than of the proxies, or the allies, involved in the process?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is referring, I think, to the situation in Syria, where there are two separate battles going on: the civil war between the regime and its opponents, and the battle by the international community against Daesh. We are clear, and always have been clear, that there cannot be lasting success against Daesh unless we resolve the political crisis in Syria and create a regime that is acceptable to the Sunni Muslim population of Syria, giving them an alternative to the appalling offer from Daesh.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Countering Daesh in Libya requires a stable Government and an end to the country’s ongoing civil war. On 19 April, the Secretary of State said that the new Government of National Accord is
“the only legitimate Government of Libya.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 781.]
Will he therefore assure the House that, since the GNA was formed last December, no British support has been provided to any Libyan militia group that is not allied to the GNA, such as those working with former general Khalifa Haftar?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady knows that if we were minded to commit combat forces to activity in Libya, we would first come to the House of Commons. We are working very closely with the Government of National Accord, including talking to them about how we can use exemptions from the UN arms embargo to forge a closer working relationship between militias and that Government. She will be interested to know that later this afternoon I will meet Prime Minister Sarraj here in London.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
My priority is to ensure that we continue to address, head on, Islamist extremism and the threats to the rules-based international system, while at the same time pivoting resources to respond to the major foreign policy challenge of implementing the UK’s decision to leave the EU and negotiating the terms of Britain’s future relationship with the EU 27.
Alex Chalk
Britain is a global trading nation. What steps have been taken to ensure that our embassies and high commissions around the world are in the best possible position to forge excellent trading deals for the United Kingdom?
Mr Hammond
As one of my colleagues said earlier, last week we had all our senior people in London for the annual leadership conference, and I clearly set out to them the challenge to the Foreign Office and its network as we move into this new phase where we will seek to redouble our efforts to build trade relationships around the world beyond the European Union. I can tell my hon. Friend, and the House, that I got the resounding response that they are up for that challenge.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Earlier today, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled against Chinese claims to territorial rights in the South China sea, backing a case brought by the Philippines. Does the Secretary of State agree that the PCA’s ruling must be respected, and that any non-compliance by the Chinese Government would not only cause severe reputational damage to China but constitute a serious breach of international law?
Mr Hammond
The UK’s position has always been, and will remain, that we urge respect for international law and the rules-based international system, and decisions arising from international tribunals. As the hon. Lady will know, the ruling is 501 pages long. It flopped on to my desk just before coming over here to answer questions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is obviously super-efficient; I might test her later. We will study the decision carefully. If the hon. Lady can give me any insight into her understanding of page 432, I would be very grateful.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
T2. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the threat of nuclear proliferation, especially across Asia and the middle east?
Mr Hammond
We take the threat of nuclear proliferation very seriously indeed. We have made huge progress over the past 18 months in shutting down the Iranian nuclear weapons programme. We remain deeply concerned about the programme in North Korea and about the risk of proliferation particularly from North Korea. We work very closely with allies and partners around the world to address that challenge.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
T4. Given the upsurge in violence in South Sudan over the weekend, what action have Ministers taken on the situation there?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns about the growing conflict in South Sudan. The outbreak of fighting around Juba is very serious indeed. I attended a signing bringing the two sides together in South Sudan over a year ago, and there was a huge amount of optimism at that point. Unfortunately, that has dissipated, and there are now 2.4 million displaced people there. We are watching events very closely, and we urge the sides to come together to begin peace talks again.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T3. After five decades of armed conflict in Colombia, where some 200,000 people have lost their lives and many millions have been displaced, a historic ceasefire has been agreed between the Colombian Government and FARC. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the peace process and Britain’s role within it?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
Yes, of course. I welcome the bilateral ceasefire and disarmament agreement reached by the Colombian Government and FARC on 23 June. That is a significant step towards ending more than 50 years of conflict that have affected the lives of so many Colombians. We will continue to support Colombia during the implementation of the peace accord.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
T5. The Foreign Secretary is probably aware that over the weekend the Indian security forces opened fire on a funeral procession in occupied Kashmir, killing more than 30 people, with the death toll expected to rise, 100 wounded and ambulances attacked. Will the Minister meet his counterpart in the Indian Government and inform them that opening fire on funeral processions or protestors is not correct and that the perpetrators should be brought to justice?
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
T8. The situation in the Maldives continues to deteriorate. What steps have been taken to persuade its Government to change its current trajectory?
Mr Swire
We are extremely concerned. We strongly encourage the Government of the Maldives to engage constructively with both the United Nations and the Commonwealth envoys and to implement all of the recent recommendations of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. It is crucial that concrete progress is delivered by CMAG’s September meeting. We are also considering bilateral action, including exclusion orders against senior members of the Government and the judiciary.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
T6. The Chagos islanders were the first victims of the UK’s nuclear policy, given that their eviction helped the UK get a discount on Polaris. Lords at the Supreme Court now advise that a refusal to permit resettlement may be “irrational, unreasonable or disproportionate”. Will the Secretary of State advise the new Prime Minister of those factors and ask her to make a quick decision on resettlement for the Chagos islanders?
Mr Philip Hammond
As the hon. Gentleman and the House will know, we have been studying options relating to the British Indian Ocean Territory and the situation of the Chagos islanders. The current Prime Minister has taken a great interest in the issue, but it is clear that it will now fall to the new Prime Minister to make a decision.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The people of Gibraltar feel particularly concerned about pressure from Spain now that we are leaving the European Union. Will the Minister for Europe confirm that their Government will be fully involved in the negotiations, and does he agree that their economy could be given an immediate boost, first, by a free trade agreement between Gibraltar and the UK, and, secondly, by ruling out any redundancies in the civilian, locally employed Ministry of Defence force?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of Gibraltar. I saw the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, yesterday; it was my third such conversation with him since the UK referendum. I have not only recommitted the British Government to the full involvement of Gibraltar in the negotiations for our exit from and subsequent relationship with the EU 27; I have also invited the Chief Minister to identify the key economic priorities for the people of Gibraltar as we approach those negotiations.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
T7. Judicial executions in Iran have more than doubled since 2010 and there have been 2,400 executions since President Rouhani was elected three years ago. What representations have the Government made to the Government of Iran over the execution of children, particularly those such as Fatemeh Salbehi and Jannat Mir, an Afghan boy who was hanged when he was just 14 or 15 years old?
Mr Philip Hammond
We regularly make representations to the Government of Iran about the widespread abuse of human rights there, including the widespread use of the death sentence and the completely unacceptable practice of imposing death sentences on minors. We will continue to make such representations at every opportunity.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Commonwealth countries are already large investors into the UK. Will the Government continue to work with Commonwealth business groups, such as the Confederation of Indian Industry, to make sure that that track record continues?
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
T9. May I thank the Foreign Secretary for hosting an event at the Foreign Office yesterday evening to commemorate the 21st anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica? We all listened in silence to the tales told by survivors of the massacre. Will he join me in saying that it is important not only that we remember Srebrenica, but that we redouble our efforts to show future generations where hate and intolerance can lead?
Mr Philip Hammond
Yes, of course I will. Anyone who was there last night will have heard the moving testimony of people who survived the terrible events in Srebrenica 21 years ago and their harrowing tales of their experiences and the utterly needless and unjustified slaughter that occurred. The whole purpose of remembering Srebrenica is not just to remember, but to ensure that we apply the lessons and that it can never happen again.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
An important economic relationship that we have with India is the Tata Steel UK portfolio. Will the Secretary of State continue to make sure that its protection continues to be at the forefront of our diplomatic relationship with India so that we can continue to have a sustainable steel industry in this country?
Mr Hammond
I can tell my hon. Friend that this remains a high priority for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Claire Martin died in Italy four years ago due to stab wounds in the neck. Her death was recorded as suicide. Her parents are my constituents, and they need the full weight of the Foreign Office to help them. Support has been lukewarm and half-hearted so far. Will the Minister promise to step things up a gear and help this family?
Mr Lidington
I am happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Lady and her constituents about this tragic case. Of course, it remains the case that the United Kingdom cannot carry out investigations in the Italian judicial system, any more than the Italian Government can do so here. However, my understanding is that the magistrate has offered a meeting with the family, and I hope that that may provide a way forward.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
The anniversary of the Iran nuclear deal falls in two days. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions he is having with his US counterparts on banking sanctions to encourage more British businesses to invest in Iran?
Mr Philip Hammond
Those discussions continue. I promise that this is not a planted question—[Interruption.] Sorry. What is one of those? The hon. Lady will not know this but there is a meeting this afternoon at Lancaster House between the Iranian Central Bank, the United States Treasury and international banks based in London in an attempt to try to make some progress on this matter so that the people of Iran can start to benefit from the seminal deal that was done a year ago.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
It is a pleasure to welcome back to the House the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, Tulip Siddiq.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My constituent Nazanin has been detained in Iran for 100 days now, with no access to lawyers and minimal contact with her three-year-old daughter. Will the Minister join me in formally denouncing the actions of the Iranian authorities and make sure that Nazanin and Gabriella are returned to their home in West Hampstead as soon as possible?
Mr Hammond
We continue to lobby the Iranians regularly about all our consular cases in Iran, including that of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I have raised the case a number of times, and, on 4 July, spoke to Foreign Minister Zarif. I subsequently followed that up with a letter. On 18 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Minister with responsibility for the middle east, met Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s family. We will continue to push the Iranians for consular access to her—the challenge is that Iran does not recognise dual nationality—and for more information about the charges that are alleged against her.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
From my recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly visit to Kiev, I know that there is palpable fear from the Ukrainians that sanctions may start to be lifted against Russia and President Putin. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that cannot happen until meaningful discussions have taken place on Ukraine’s sovereign borders?
Mr Hammond
I would go a little further: that cannot happen until Russia has complied with its obligations under the Minsk agreement. At the weekend, in Warsaw, I met the Ukrainian Foreign Minister. My hon. Friend is right that there is concern among Ukrainians that Britain’s departure from the European Union may lead to a weakening of European Union resolve on this issue. I very much hope that that will not be the case, but it is certainly true that we have been one of the leading advocates of a tough line within the European Union.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In the light of the ongoing dreadful events in Sudan, many of us find questionable the context and the content of the UK-Sudan strategic dialogue. What red lines do the UK Government have in that dialogue?
Mr Ellwood
If I may, I will ask the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), the Minister with responsibility for Africa, to write to the hon. Member with more detail. However, I can say that the dialogue is an important juncture in our relationship, and we were invited by Sudan to commence it. Let me make it very clear that we need to continue to support Sudan. It is a source, host and transit country for migration. What is going on there affects the rest of Europe, and so we want to continue to help with the dire humanitarian situation there. The 2.5 million people long-term displaced people need our support.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
May I join those who are welcoming the fact that a large number of big players in the global economy are queuing up to do bilateral trade deals with the UK? My many Korean constituents would very much like to know whether that includes South Korea, which is a brilliant trade partner with the UK.
Mr Philip Hammond
Of course, the European Union has an existing free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea. Under that free trade agreement, the UK’s exports to Korea have more than doubled over a very short period of time. Once we are outside the European Union, depending on the details of the arrangements we make with the European Union, we will be ready to enter into new trade agreements with all countries around the world. The UK will remain an outward-facing trading nation, delivering our prosperity by our success around the globe.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
What recent discussions, if any, have the Government had with Turkey about its opposition to the Syrian Democratic Forces’ offensive to relieve Manbij, which is a very important strategic battle?
Mr Hammond
I met my Turkish opposite number and sat next to President Erdogan in the plenary session at the NATO summit in Warsaw at the weekend, and we discussed this issue. Of course, the SDF assault on the Manbij pocket is vital, and it will close a strategic gap and cut off supplies and routes for fighters into Syria in an important way. The Turks’ concern is the role of Kurdish organisations within the SDF, including some that are associated with proscribed organisations. The US is brokering a solution that seeks to reassure the Turks while reinforcing the SDF and their ability to deliver their objectives in Manbij.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We have run out of time, but my appetite for hearing my colleagues is almost insatiable. I call Kevin Foster.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We recently marked the first anniversary of the dreadful terrorist massacre at Sousse in Tunisia. Can the Minister update me on the work that is being done by the Foreign Office to support the families of the victims and to mark that dreadful event?
Mr Ellwood
I had the honour of representing Britain at the ceremony that took place in Sousse to mark the anniversary of the tragic events there. We have done everything we can, from a Government perspective, working across Government to provide support to those who are bereaved, those who were seriously injured and those who have been affected by the mental trauma of what they saw. That help continues, and I am pleased to confirm the announcement that the Prime Minister made at the weekend that a memorial will be built—it is expected to be in the north of England—to mark the horrific events and to give the families a solemn location at which they can pay their respects.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what progress has been made in persuading our allies to provide support for Yazidi women who have escaped from sexual slavery under Daesh and who are now in great need of medical and psychological support, which they cannot access properly in either Syria or Iraq?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to those who are fleeing persecution by Daesh. We have had a number of debates on the matter, and it is not just the Yazidis; it is Christians and other minorities as well. We are using our Department for International Development funds to support the non-governmental organisations that directly target those people to provide that support in the immediate aftermath, but also in the long term.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I thought I had detected emissions of steam from Slough. That is a fate better avoided, I think. I call Fiona Mactaggart.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reason I was steamy is that I spoke this morning to my constituent whose husband, Nawaz Khan, has been detained in South Sudan since 18 June without charge. It seems to me that in view of the situation and the turmoil there, it is urgent that the British authorities demand his release or charge instantly. This man is a diabetic, and he is not being properly looked after. It is time we defended our citizen.
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this matter. We have already touched on the concerns that we have about South Sudan and the instability that we are seeing there, despite the transitional Government of national unity. The right hon. Lady has raised an important consular case, and I will ask the Minister with responsibility for Africa to get in touch with her to find out what consular support is being provided.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sorry that I cannot accommodate all colleagues, but I will take Joanna Cherry.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Can the Minister tell the House whether following Brexit the United Kingdom will continue to participate in the Paris climate change agreement, or whether that agreement will need to be rewritten?
Mr Ellwood
This is a prime example of where we need to calm down and not scaremonger. We are absolutely committed to COP 22 on climate change, and to the target of reducing our emissions by 2050.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I will call the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) who I think wishes to raise a constituency matter, but that really will be the last question.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The Minister will recall the case of my constituent, Deborah Pearson, and her niece Julie Pearson who was killed in Israel last year. Her family are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh). We now have the autopsy report, but it is in Hebrew and it has been suggested that the FCO might assume the cost of translating it. Will the FCO support that? I am grateful for the Minister’s support so far, but the family are desperate and need more support. Will he consider further help?
Mr Ellwood
This has been a difficult case for the family and for everybody involved. I have met a number of hon. Members who have been involved, and I also raised the issue with the Israeli authorities. It is not normal for the Foreign Office to provide translation facilities. Perhaps we could discuss the matter outside the Chamber and work to provide assistance to the family.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I know we have overrun, but Foreign Office questions tend to break box office records and Ministers should take some pride in that fact—the other way of looking at it is that I am giving them additional speaking opportunities.
Petition
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I rise to present a petition relating to Dr Keilloh and the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. Over 3,000 petitioners believe that Dr Keilloh has suffered a miscarriage of justice and would like him reinstated as a practising medical doctor.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to take note of the damage done to Doctor Keilloh’s life and career by what the petitioners believe to have been a flawed disciplinary process; and call on the House to urge the Government to re-examine the statutory basis for the jurisdiction of the MPTS with a view to remedying this and potential future injustices; and to urge the Government to open an investigation into the written statements from the Iraqi witnesses as presented by Public Interest Lawyers, and the evidence they gave under cross examination in the Al-Sweady inquiry, the original British army court-martial in the Baha Mousa case, the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry and Dr Keilloh’s Fitness to Practice hearing.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the decision made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) to remove Doctor Derek Keilloh from the Medical Practitioners Register was a travesty of justice; further that the petitioners believe that it was not in the public interest to have a community deprived of their so obviously well-loved and much appreciated family doctor; further that the petitioners believe that it is unfair that any appeal against the decision can only be made within 28 days when the doctor has just been deprived of his or her income, and no longer has financial support for legal affairs and is in a state of shock; further that the petitioners call into question why well documented 'inattentional blindness' was not taken into consideration during the MPTS hearing; further that the Professional Standards Authority only exists to protect patients and will only investigate Fitness to Practise outcomes if they believe that the sanctions have been too lenient, not if the patients complain that the sanction has been too severe, prejudiced or faulty; further that there is no equivalent body to support the registrants; further that previously a handwritten petition from 1,034 patients and colleagues was sent to the MPTS and to Parliament in 2013 asking for his re-instatement; further that the petitioners have been informed that the new statutory rules governing MPTS procedures 'Adjudication Section 60 Order' which were brought about in December 2015 now allow the General Medical Council (GMC) to review the MPTS decisions, the petitioners believe that although it probably cannot be post-dated the new ruling should make a difference in bringing about justice in this case; further that the petitioners believe that the case was prejudiced by the publication of damning articles in the media, some of which quote the MPTS tribunal chairperson as pronouncing Doctor Keilloh guilty even before the commencement of the hearing; further that the petitioners call into question that the MPTS panel of three people was able to strike Doctor Keilloh off on probability which was not beyond reasonable doubt for supposed public interest failing rather than any clinical failing; further that the petitioners believe that the complainant against Doctor Keilloh was Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, a lawyer acting on behalf of complainants not from this country, about an event in a war zone almost ten years ago, rather than from his NHS patients who are the people who have suffered from Doctor Keilloh's erasure; further that the petitioners believe that in this case written statements from witnesses for the prosecution, presented by Phil Shiner, the lawyer acting on their behalf, were accepted by the MPTS panel without opportunity for cross examination; further that the Al-Sweady inquiry collapsed due to a lack of convincing evidence some of which was presented by Phil Shiner; further that the petitioners understand that Phil Shiner has been under investigation for professional misconduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and is now to face a tribunal; and further that an online petition on a similar matter has been signed by 3,496 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to take note of the damage done to Doctor Keilloh's life and career by what the petitioners believe to have been a flawed disciplinary process; and call on the House to urge the Government to re-examine the statutory basis for the jurisdiction of the MPTS with a view to remedying this and potential future injustices; and to urge the Government to open an investigation into the written statements from the Iraqi witnesses as presented by Public Interest Lawyers, and the evidence they gave under cross examination in the Al-Sweady inquiry, the original British army court-martial in the Baha Mousa case, the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry and Dr Keilloh's Fitness to Practice hearing.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001700]
Points of Order
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Reports have come in that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who is standing for the leadership of my party, has had her constituency windows broken, and the police have confirmed that such an incident has taken place. Can we take this opportunity to deplore such hooliganism and thuggery, whoever commits it and whichever party is involved? It is totally unacceptable, and one hopes that the police will apprehend the culprit as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is not strictly in any procedural sense a matter for the Chair, but it is in one respect because, in common with all colleagues, the Chair believes in democracy and the peaceful exchange of opinion. We are a pluralist society, and if people think that they will get their way through violence, threats and intimidation, they will soon find themselves wrong. If I may say so, no one is more suited to making that point than someone who has served as a democratic parliamentarian for as long as the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, for all sorts of reasons, I was not able to be here for business questions last Thursday, so later I had to read Hansard, which I scoured for announcements regarding next week’s business, particularly for next Monday. On Saturday, I gather that the Prime Minister announced—not to the House or even in this country, but in Poland—that next Monday we will be debating the renewal of Trident. I make no judgment about how people should vote on that, but why has the House still not been formally told that that will be our business next week? Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence had the perfect opportunity to make that clear to the House, had he wanted to. On today’s Order Paper, a motion tabled by the Leader of the House states:
“That, at the sitting on Monday 18 July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the UK’s nuclear deterrent not later than 10.00pm”.
That is a kind of sub-announcement that we will debate the issue next Monday, but we have still had no sign of what the motion will be, whether it will be amendable, and under what terms that debate will be held. Surely it would be more courteous to the House to have a proper supplementary business statement that lays out next Monday’s business.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has the advantage of being right on both counts.
Mr Speaker
A junior Government Whip chunters from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not right always, but the same could be said of junior Government Whips. On this matter, however, the hon. Gentleman is right in both respects: motion 5 on today’s Order Paper is posited on the assumption that there will be a debate on Monday 18 July on the UK’s nuclear deterrent; and this debate has not been notified to the House, other than via a passing reference to it yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence in the course of the statement on the recent NATO summit. I make no complaint about what the Prime Minister might have been thinking or what he intended, or if he was caused or tempted to comment elsewhere—I am not focusing on that point. What I am focusing on is that if there is to be a change of business, there should be a supplementary business statement. That is the way we do our work in this place.
If I may say so, the usual channels, whatever their opinions on the merit of the issue, really ought to be aware of that point, which is blindingly obvious and brooks no contradiction—it is very, very, very straightforward. We cannot get into a situation in this place in which we do business in a disorderly fashion. The procedures of this House are for the protection of this House and all Members ought to take that very seriously. They certainly ought to be aware of the significance of that and some sort of remedial training is required for those who are not.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Ministry of Defence released a press release—this is therefore not just a glancing reference by the Secretary of State—stating that there would be a motion, but the House has certainly not been informed. Indeed, the motion is about not renewal, but the principle of continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, which in my view seems to be a different issue.
Mr Speaker
Well, I confess I do not know what press offices get up to in these matters, but suffice it to say that ultimately the Secretary of State in a Department is always everywhere and for everything responsible in that Department. We probably should not dwell on this further, but let us try to learn from it for the future.
Mr Speaker
I am in a benign and generous mood, so I will allow a further point of order from the hon. Member for Rhondda.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The point, surely, is that, as things stand, unless the Leader of the House gives a clear statement to the House, Thursday morning will be the first time we will know for certain what next Monday’s business will be, by which time it will be impossible for us to table amendments to the motion that will be taken on Monday, unless you are going to be very generous about the tabling of manuscript amendments and so on. Surely, when we are considering the defence of our nation, it is ludicrous for the Government to indulge in such shenanigans?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, it would be better if there were a supplementary business statement. I would have thought that the terms in which I have answered him make that so clear that the point needs simply to waft from the scholarly cranium of the junior Whip on duty to the powers that be in the relevant Government Department. Secondly, in the absence of any such supplementary business statement, which I really would regard as a considerable discourtesy to the House, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members can be assured that it will be possible to table amendments on Thursday. I have not thought about the precise chronology of events, but if it is necessary for me to allow manuscript amendments, because of circumstances not of the hon. Gentleman’s devising, they certainly will be allowed, subject only to those amendments, in terms of content, being orderly. I think the Whip has got the message.
Mr Speaker
I hope it is a point of order and not the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman used to chunter when he was heckling me 30 years ago at the University of Essex student union.
Ian Austin
Whether or not it is a point of order is for you to judge, Mr Speaker. On a happier note, I would like to thank you and the Officers of the House for enabling us to display in the Jubilee Room today a range of products manufactured in the black country, which as you know, Mr Speaker, is the greatest place in the world. If you have five minutes in your busy schedule to visit the Jubilee Room, you will see parts manufactured for Bugatti, Lamborghini and Ferrari, and the Olympic torch, which was also made in the black country. If that is not enough of an attraction, there is also some beer that was brewed in Dudley North. All Members are very welcome.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself.
I very much appreciate what the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) has just said. If it is possible for me to pop in, I will try to do so, although I am not sure what the hours of this event are.
Mr Speaker
I will do what I can, and I encourage other Members to do likewise.
We come now to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has been so patiently waiting.
EU Citizens Resident in the United Kingdom (Right to Stay)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a bill to grant EU citizens the right to stay resident in the UK following the UK’s withdrawal from membership of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
On 24 June, 3 million EU citizens in the UK and 1.3 million British citizens in the EU woke up to an uncertain future because while the Brexiteers had pithy slogans aplenty, our Government had no plan for the long-term future of EU citizens in the UK or the UK post-Brexit. EU citizens were unable to vote in the referendum and were therefore left without a voice during the campaign. They now find themselves without the protection of their EU citizenship rights in the UK. EU citizenship includes not just the right to live, work and study in the UK but, for example, the right to participate in local, regional and European elections.
The current Prime Minister gave an assurance that there would be no immediate change, but this now carries little weight, given that we will have a new Prime Minister tomorrow. His assurances are therefore time-limited and have an imminent sell-by date. He has offered no protection for the rights of EU citizens and Brits abroad in the future. By calling and then losing the referendum, the current Prime Minister pulled the rug out from under the feet of these citizens. He needs to get that rug out of the removals van that is parked outside No. 10 and put it back before he departs. EU citizens need certainty about their long-term future in the UK, and they need this assurance now, before their futures are used as bargaining chips in our negotiations with the EU.
The Prime Minister has just appointed a new EU commissioner to replace Jonathan Hill, rather than leaving that to his successor. He should also act now while he still has time to secure the rights of EU citizens by unconditionally granting the right to stay to all EU citizens who were resident in the UK on 23 June. He can never make full amends for triggering a chain of events that will lead to economic and diplomatic disaster for the UK, but this would help to restore a modicum of credibility in the dying day of his premiership. If he fails to do so, there are three ways in which EU citizens’ rights could be safeguarded in the future.
First, a legal challenge might rely on an appeal under article 70.1(b) of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties. However, as Professor Douglas-Scott pointed out in an article for the UK Constitutional Law Association entitled “What Happens to ‘Acquired Rights’ in the Event of a Brexit?”, there is no consensus among lawyers about the application of the convention to EU citizens living in the UK. Neither does there seem to be much scope for protecting the position of EU citizens in the UK or Brits abroad through customary international law. EU citizens might have to wait years before any rights that they might have under the convention could be tested in court.
Secondly, the Government could negotiate an agreement with EU member states to allow the right to remain on a reciprocal basis for EU citizens living in the UK and British citizens living in the EU. The problem with that approach is that it turns EU citizens into bargaining chips. Such a negotiation does not yet have a start date, and the House has already condemned it, by 245 votes to two, as wrong in principle. To barter over the future of EU citizens and Britons in the EU would be to treat EU citizens as if they were children in a divorce settlement. That would be humiliating to the individuals concerned and their families, and it would demonstrate a shameful lack of political judgment on the part of the British Government. It would also be a very weak negotiating strategy, because there is a good chance that EU member states are likely to act to guarantee the rights of British citizens unilaterally.
Unless a future UK Government intended to hold EU citizens hostage in order to achieve concessions in other areas of the negotiations, such as access to the single market, there would be nothing else to negotiate. In his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this afternoon, I am sure that the Immigration Minister will be pressed further on this issue. There were signs over the weekend, given comments by the Foreign Secretary at the NATO summit and reports on Saturday, that the Government’s position might be softening.
The third approach, which is that proposed by my Bill, would be for the Government to legislate now to secure the rights of EU citizens unilaterally, thereby providing desperately needed certainty for all EU nationals living here. We must make EU citizens feel welcome and safe in Britain. This reassurance would also help the 1.3 million British people living in the EU, help to secure the future of the 9% of NHS doctors who work in the UK and are from the EU, and help to ensure that Britain remains open and welcoming.
Yesterday, I met the campaign organisation New Europeans, which is a voice for EU citizens in the UK, and other charities and non-governmental organisations representing migrant communities. New Europeans has gathered more than 2,000 signatures on a letter to the Prime Minister asking for the issue to be resolved now. I also draw the House’s attention to early-day motion 259 on the status of British citizens resident in the EU and EU citizens resident in the UK, which makes the same call.
As I have mentioned, following a debate on a Labour motion, the House showed by a clear majority of 245 votes to two that it favoured sorting out the situation of EU citizens living in the UK immediately. Thanks to New Europeans, in the next few days I will also be meeting the EU Commission in the UK and ambassadors to EU member states in London to discuss the issue.
It is quite clear that many EU citizens no longer feel welcome in Britain and that many are leaving. I met someone earlier this morning who said exactly that: he and his partner feel that the only thing to do is to leave the UK, and they will be doing so shortly, even though they have lived here for more than 20 years and paid significant tax during that time. They no longer feel welcome. Numbers of race hate crimes and xenophobic attacks have increased since the referendum. In London alone, where more than 800,000 EU nationals live, there have been three race hate crimes every hour. These threats and acts of discrimination will continue unless and until the Government make it clear that they will ring-fence the rights of EU citizens who were living in the UK before 24 June. Providing such clarity is the purpose of the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tom Brake, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas, Mark Durkan, Dr Philippa Whitford, Kevin Barron, Mr Mark Williams, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Mr Nick Clegg, Norman Lamb and Greg Mulholland present the Bill.
Tom Brake accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 50).
Opposition Day
EU Referendum: Energy and Environment
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the uncertainty created by the result of the EU referendum for the protections currently in place for the UK’s energy security, climate change commitments and the natural environment; notes that the discussion leading up to the EU referendum made little mention of environmental protection or climate change and considers that regulations and ambitions in those areas should in no way be diminished as a result of the outcome of that referendum; has serious concerns about the signals being sent to investors in those sectors by continued uncertainty; and therefore urges the Government to identify and fill any legislative gaps in environmental protection that may arise from the removal of EU law.
The motion stands in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members in the shadow Cabinet.
Before the referendum vote, the Government were already facing major problems securing the energy needs, emissions targets and environmental protections that the UK requires for the 21st century. These problems were mainly self-inflicted: an energy policy that left companies and investors confused, with feed-in tariffs for solar changed retrospectively; an effective moratorium on onshore wind power, despite its being the cheapest form of renewable energy; the subsidy for offshore wind cut; and the Government failing to indicate what would happen to the levy control framework beyond the cliff edge of 2020.
Investors were told that the Government were simultaneously incentivising new unconventional gas and phasing out unabated coal by 2025, yet the £1 billion still remaining for the development of carbon capture and storage was cut just four weeks before the final bids were to be made, with the consequent announcement by Drax of the abandonment of the White Rose CCS project and the announcement by Shell that it no longer saw a future in the near term for the Peterhead project. The Secretary of State’s energy reset speech last November ended up leaving us the equivalent of 54 million tonnes of CO2 further from achieving the fourth carbon budget.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
For many of the companies involved, the investment lead-in times are quite long, resulting in a very uncertain environment in which to work. That is leading to some of them pulling out of the UK altogether.
Barry Gardiner
I must, reluctantly, agree with my hon. Friend. This is not good news; it is really bad news for all of us. The investment climate in the UK is in a really dire state. In fact, the UK has now fallen from eighth to 11th to 13th in the Ernst & Young index of the best countries for investment in low-carbon technology, when we have previously never been outside the top 10. These are really worrying matters.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I recently asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what action she was going to take to promote zero-carbon homes, given that the Government had announced last July that they were going to scrap the target set by the previous Labour Government for all homes to be carbon-neutral by this year. She replied that she could reassure me that an EU directive was due to come into force in 2020 and that she believed near-zero carbon emissions would help to reduce bills. Given that we are leaving the EU, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take immediate action to reintroduce ambitious targets for zero-carbon homes?
Barry Gardiner
What an excellent point my hon. Friend makes. She knows, as I do, that the Secretary of State was someone who saw the value in the UK’s staying in the European Union and in all the directives and regulations that came from Europe, which afforded the sort of environmental protections and energy policies that would secure our future. No doubt the Secretary of State will respond responsibly to today’s brief, but I think she will feel a great deal of sympathy both with the remarks that my hon. Friend has just made and indeed my own remarks from the Dispatch Box.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case about the lack of investment and about economic instability. Does he agree with me that now is a good time for the Government to reverse their decision to privatise the Green Investment Bank, and that when they negotiate withdrawal the Government should make a strong case to remain in the European Investment Bank? If those two things do not happen, we will be in really difficult times.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady, whom I regard as an hon. Friend, particularly on these matters, speaks with great knowledge. She is absolutely right about the Green Investment Bank, which was set up for a particular purpose: the Government recognised that there was a market failure. It was quite right of the Government to put the Green Investment Bank in place, but unfortunately the borrowing powers did not come quickly enough, and I think it is a huge mistake now to privatise the bank. It is a matter of deep regret to all who work in this environment. As for the hon. Lady’s remarks about the European Investment Bank, I shall come on to that subject later in my speech.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On the subject of insecurity in investment, National Grid has said that fuel prices are about to rise as a result of the Brexit result. My “Prepay Rip Off” campaign showed that consumers were being overcharged to the tune of £1.7 billion a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Government outline what they are going to do to ensure that consumers are not ripped off further by having to pay more for their fuel?
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour has run a superb campaign on fuel poverty. She makes reference to the £1.7 billion that the Competition and Markets Authority report showed UK bill payers were being overcharged—overcharged by quite obscene amounts. It is, of course, right for the Government to come up with clear proposals about how to tackle that abuse, without just saying, as they have to date, that people need to be enabled to switch more easily.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
This is one of the first of our debates to mention the result of the EU referendum. I know that the hon. Gentleman was on the other side of the argument, so it would be useful if he told us whether, when it comes to a vote, he will vote to leave the EU despite his heavy heart or will he vote against the wishes of the British people?
Barry Gardiner
I always try to look at the motion in front of me on the Order Paper and make a judgment on it when I see what it says. I have done so for the past 19 and a half years, and I suspect I shall probably do it for the next few years as well.
Even the Government-dominated Select Committee has warned that what it calls the “hiatus” in project developments could threaten the UK’s ability to meet its energy and climate security targets, so when the Department’s own figures show the need for £100 billion of investment by 2020 to make our electricity infrastructure fit for purpose, the Secretary of State really does have to explain where she believes that investment is going to come from, given that investor confidence in her Department is at an all-time low.
Before the Secretary of State does so, however, perhaps she will confirm whether she instructed her Department not to prepare in any way for a leave vote, as the Prime Minister apparently directed. If that is so, can she explain why, because that is what business leaders out there are asking? It seems incomprehensible to them that the Prime Minister took such a gigantic risk with their future—a risk that will increase their cost of capital and the cost of energy to bill payers, both corporate and domestic alike—yet made absolutely no preparations for what might happen when that risk went the wrong way.
The IIGCC—Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change—a group of institutional investors representing over €13 trillion in assets, said in the aftermath of the vote to leave that it had brought
“considerable uncertainty and market turmoil.”
That only goes to prove that the art of litotes is not yet dead!
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of that dramatic uncertainty, does my hon. Friend agree that one thing the Government should do is to give a cast-iron guarantee that they will honour, post-Brexit, the environmental standards and undertakings that we have made in the EU to date?
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend, who takes a consistent and committed interest in these matters, is absolutely correct, and the precise intention of this motion is to flush out those issues and ensure that the Government do precisely as he says.
In the aftermath of the leave vote, the Government’s own external adviser has stated that a future for the Hinkley C nuclear power station is now “extremely unlikely”. Vattenfall has said it is now reassessing the risk of working in the UK, which could jeopardise its plans for a £5.5 billion wind farm off the east coast of England, while Siemens has announced that it is putting a freeze on its future—not its current—clean energy investments in Hull as a result of what it called the “increased uncertainty” from the leave vote.
I must say that for all the talk from the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), about the “sunlit uplands” of the post-Brexit world, there is really no use in the Secretary of State trying to pretend that she thinks the vote is anything but a disaster when she herself is on record quoting the analysis of Vivid Economics warning that the result of an exclusion from the EU’s internal energy market could cost the UK up to £500 million a year by the early 2020s. The stock response of the right hon. Lady that Labour Members should not “talk Britain down” will simply not serve, given that these quotations come from her own advisers, industry leaders and, indeed, her!
Bloomberg New Energy Finance was not scaremongering when it said of the upcoming Brexit negotiations that they were
“likely to cause project investors and banks to hesitate about committing new capital, and could cause a drop in renewable energy asset values”.
That was an authoritative, independent commentator telling the unvarnished truth.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I always follow the hon. Gentleman’s comments with a great deal of interest, but is it not about time that he and his party moved on? The British people have delivered their verdict. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not terribly helpful of people like him to continue to talk the British economy down in that way?
Barry Gardiner
I understand that there is a need to move on, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must now look to the future, but I think that if he bears with me, he will find that that is what I am trying to do. Yes, I am critical of where we are, but the criticisms that I have adumbrated so far are not my own. They are criticisms made by the Government’s own advisers, they are criticisms made by industry itself, and, indeed, they are criticisms made by the Secretary of State. I am not talking the UK economy down; I am trying to set out the present situation with clarity, and then see whether we can move on from it.
Perhaps the Secretary of State could do the same as Bloomberg in telling the unvarnished truth, and inform the House what assessment her Department has made of the increased price of imported energy as a result of the falling pound. I will happily give way to her if she wishes to do so.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
indicated dissent.
Barry Gardiner
Perhaps, then, the Secretary of State could tell us what assessment her Department has made of the price premiums on loans that will be demanded by investors in energy infrastructure to cover the cost of political uncertainty. Is it 1%? Is it 2%? Again, I will happily give way to the Secretary of State if she wishes to inform the House what assessment her Department has made of those matters. No? In that case, I will give way to the spokesman for the Scottish National party.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman take the Secretary of State to task on what she intends to do to achieve the climate change targets in respect of completely decarbonising the transport and heating sectors in order to achieve 2050 targets?
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is clear from what the Committee on Climate Change has said that the area in which the United Kingdom is falling behind most badly is not the power sector, but the transport and heating sectors. Of course, dealing with that does not rest solely with the Secretary of State; it also rests with her colleagues in the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Perhaps the Secretary of State would find it easier to explain how the UK might continue to benefit from the EU internal energy market—or does Brexit mean Brexit in this regard as well? We really do need clear answers to all these questions. Perhaps the right hon. Lady can tell us what will happen to the four clean energy projects that are currently being assessed by the European Fund for Strategic Investments. She knows that the European Investment Bank has been the UK’s biggest clean-energy lender, having put €31 billion into clean energy over the last five years. Has she identified a replacement source of funds for such projects?
Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why, last week, the Government pulled their funding for the only large new gas plant that had managed to secure finance under the capacity market scheme after Carlton Power was unable to secure the investment that was needed for the Trafford plant. The capacity market has resoundingly failed to secure the new gas build that it was introduced to incentivise.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady can explain—after the failure of the green deal, and after acknowledging that neither the warm home scheme nor the energy company obligation is sufficiently well targeted to reach those most in need—precisely how she proposes to address energy efficiency and tackle the fuel poverty experienced by 2.38 million of our fellow citizens. Let me correct that, Mr Speaker: 1 should have said 2.38 million households, in England alone. Perhaps the right hon. Lady might also explain why National Grid warned on Friday that the lights were kept on only by emergency measures last year. The fact is that the Government’s energy policy has pushed us further towards energy insecurity.
Our purpose in securing this Opposition Day debate is precisely to ensure that the Government cannot ignore such pressing concerns following the referendum. The vote to leave was not a vote for blackouts and soaring energy bills; it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that those things do not happen.
The Committee on Climate Change, which has a statutory duty to advise the Government on the most cost-effective route to decarbonisation, has always made it clear that early action is cheaper action. As its chief executive warned us last week, leaving the EU calls the mechanism of how we reach our targets into question. The Government’s policy failure has created a 10% gap in emissions projections towards our legally binding climate target for the mid-2020s, and they are nearly 50% short of meeting their intended target for 2030—that is, if the Secretary of State ever gets round to actually complying with her statutory obligation to set the target. I believe that that is now due to happen on Monday, which would make it only 18 days beyond the legal statutory limit.
Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee gave the Government a red card for their record on managing future climate change risks. The chair of the Infrastructure Operators Adaptation Forum concluded:
“we simply do not know the capability of the vast majority of stuff out there for current weather, never mind the future”.
The National Security Risk Assessment cites flood risk to the UK as a tier 1 priority risk, alongside terrorism and cyber-attacks, and, of course, it is our most deprived communities that face the greatest increases in flood risk. However, new evidence released today by the Committee on Climate Change renders starker than ever the threat to British households and businesses from a failure to manage climate change. Its published estimates show that, without increased Government action on climate adaptation, the number of homes at high risk from flooding will rise to well over 1 million even if we meet our current climate targets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
I apologise for intervening so early, Mr Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman please explain the precise relationship between the European Union issue and the questions that he is raising about flooding?
Mr Speaker
The Minister is not intervening that early, although some people might think that the hon. Gentleman was approaching the conclusion of his preliminary remarks.
Barry Gardiner
I am sure you are correct, Mr Speaker, in referring to “his preliminary remarks”.
I am happy to explain that relationship. Unless we have clarity about the post-Brexit scenario, unless we know where we will be able to secure funds to replace all the funds that fell within the common agricultural policy to finance measures to mitigate flooding, and unless we are able to deal with land management in the way that was allowed by the European Union, we will not have clarity on these matters, and clarity is vital to adaptation.
We are living at a time of increased risk, and robust planning is required to limit harmful impacts on British communities and businesses. I say in all seriousness that, following the devastation of communities and cities around our country by recent floods, this new assessment requires a new response from the Government. Cuts in the budgets, and in the staffing capacity of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency, have left the UK increasingly vulnerable, and the Government must take responsibility for that.
The UK’s ability to face up to energy and environmental challenges—more than almost any other area of policy—was strengthened by our EU membership. Given that the Treasury’s principal response to the leave vote so far is a U-turn on the Chancellor’s core election pledge to balance the books by 2020—
Barry Gardiner
I think you would like me to press on, Mr Speaker, so I will not. I have, I think, been most generous in giving way.
Given the Treasury’s response, it would be helpful to hear from the Under-Secretary, when he winds up the debate, precisely where he proposes to find the additional resources that are required for adequate flood defences to meet the new assessment. Last week, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the House:
“It is absolutely clear that it is business as usual while we remain members of the EU.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2016; Vol. 62, c. 1030.]
Perhaps she will understand that what concerns many of us is that, as soon as we are no longer members of the EU, many of the protections the UK natural environment currently enjoys will fall away. The clean air directive has been strenuously opposed in Europe by this Government, who tried to water it down for years; indeed our own Supreme Court has now found them to be in breach. I pay tribute to ClientEarth and its work in holding Government to account for the 52,500 excess deaths every year as a result of polluted air in the UK, and I pay particular tribute to Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London who used the 60th anniversary of the Clean Air Act 1956 to unveil a new clean air programme.
The Government must remember that they have a job to do, and that includes taking concrete action to meet the legal air quality standards as ordered by the UK’s Supreme Court. The Government need to explain to the House if they will incorporate the provisions of the clean air directive into UK law and then begin to comply with its provisions in a way that they have, tragically, failed to do for the past six years.
The birds and habitat directives may well already be fully transposed into UK law, but we need to know if our beaches will still be protected from sewage by the bathing water directive or whether swimming through sewage will once again become a feature of a day at the seaside. We need to know which elements of the waste and electronic equipment directive were not transposed into UK law under the 2013 regulations and what the impact of leaving the EU might be for our recycling industries and our commitment to the circular economy.
Barry Gardiner
No, I will not.
The fact is that fish and birds and insects do not carry passports; pollution is oblivious to the strictures of national airspace or inshore waters. If we wish to manage all of these, whether as pests, problems or resources, then it is better to do so in concert with our regional neighbours. The vote to leave the EU has made that harder. The Government must outline how they propose to overcome that problem.
The Environment Secretary told the House last week that the subject of continued subsidies to farmers up to 2020
“is not a decision I can make at this stage.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 1028.]
Surely it is a decision that should have been made long before anyone asked farmers to vote to leave the EU. Much of the subsidy that farmers receive is for environmental stewardship schemes and other land management practices that benefit biodiversity and wildlife. To turn round to farmers now and say that the £3.5 billion total of subsidy that used to flow each year from the EU into their pockets is no longer secure is not just an attack on farmers’ livelihoods; it is an attack on all the work that farmers do to enhance our environment and protect our landscapes.
These are not abstract challenges. Managing the risks born of the uncertainty from the referendum outcome is a responsibility for Government. Ministers must urgently identify any legislative gaps in environmental protection that may arise from the removal of EU law, and develop plans to replace any protections so that the UK does not become a riskier, unhealthier or more polluted place to live in or do business in.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the CAP, but he would be hard-pressed to find any conservation or environment group in the country that believes it provides a net benefit to the environment. There are bits that are good for the environment, but overall I do not think anyone would defend it as a net good for the environment. Surely Brexit gives us an opportunity to take those funds and tailor them in such a way that they genuinely are used to subsidise farmers in delivering a genuine public good? This is a massive opportunity.
Barry Gardiner
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I have been a critic of the CAP, as he has, for many years, but the pillar 2 arrangements under the CAP and the environmental stewardship arrangements under the CAP were positive and there was a net benefit from those. I want the Government to set out the new arrangements they propose, so that we can be sure that the environmental protections remain in place, and that that money is not frittered away on something else.
The Government must provide answers to Parliament and the public, who want to be reassured that our environmental protections are not to be weakened in some Brexit bonfire of the regulations. The environmental protections we have enjoyed under the EU are not bureaucracy to be done away with; they are part of what it is to live in a civilised country that respects the natural world and believes that the only prosperous future is a sustainable one.
So, finally, I ask three key questions. Will the Government now move swiftly to ratify the Paris climate agreement? How will the Government press for access to the internal energy market? How will the Government ensure that energy bills do not go up as a result of the increased investor uncertainty following the vote?
Ultimately, the Government must commit to safeguarding environmental protections to at least the same level we have enjoyed within the EU, by passing into UK law all those regulations that would otherwise fall away upon leaving the EU.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
I thank the Opposition and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for giving the Government the opportunity to address some of these important questions which I know are high in people’s minds, particularly among stakeholders. I also want to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison): it may have escaped some people’s notice, but I did campaign on the other side of the EU referendum. I do agree with him, however, that we must move on: Brexit means Brexit and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, we will make a success of it.
It is true that the decision the country made on 23 June is of historic importance and it is true that the key challenge facing us now is to work towards a settlement that is in the best interests of Britain. But it is not true that, as the hon. Member for Brent North has been suggesting, our commitment to protect the environment, tackle climate change and provide homes and businesses across the country with secure and clean energy has faltered in any way. Our commitment to these tasks has not changed and will not change.
I have made it my priority to reiterate these points over the past fortnight. I have said that security of supply would be our first priority, and it remains so. My Department announced last week how much electricity capacity we intend to buy in the forthcoming capacity market auctions. This commitment is the backbone of our energy policy. I announced that the Government would accept the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation for the level of the fifth carbon budget, a long-term commitment taking us way beyond this Parliament to 2032. I have also made it clear that we remain committed to holding a competitive contracts for difference allocation round later this year.
While much remains the same, there is no point pretending that the vote to leave the EU is not of huge significance. There are risks for us to overcome, but this Government will continue to do our part to deliver on the energy and environmental challenges our country faces.
Geraint Davies
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government intend to honour their commitments to the environment as set out in EU directives in the past, so that standards do not slip from the current standards, whether on air quality, flooding or climate change, and does she agree that there should be legislation to say that these should become minimum standards?
Amber Rudd
What I can say is that this Government’s commitment to a clean environment and our climate change commitments remains unchanged. I will address in my remarks climate change and energy issues, and I will allow the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), to address the environmental ones in his remarks, no doubt dealing with the exact points that have been raised.
Dr Murrison
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a pity that Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that the EU has dragged the UK from darkness into enlightenment? Does she also agree that Britain has traditionally led the way in environmental legislation? I would cite particularly the Clean Air Act 1956, which the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) cited without a hint of irony.
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend and, as he rightly said earlier, we must move on. There are benefits to what we have already proposed and there have been benefits from the EU directives as well. They have raised standards in some areas, and I believe we will now maintain them and not allow them to slip at all.
Caroline Lucas
We were speaking earlier about investment and how, unfortunately, investors are getting increasingly cautious. Will the Secretary of State do all she can to persuade her colleagues that we must remain part of the European Investment Bank, at least as long as the negotiations are going on, because if we withdraw right now there will be another huge amount of potential investment not coming into this country when we need it most?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Lady for her question; I was going to talk about investment anyway. She is absolutely right to mention the importance of investment in securing our clean energy. Like her, I appreciate the impact that the European Investment Bank has had on supporting clean energy in this country and I would hope that our membership of it will continue. I cannot give her any commitments, however. I shall wait to see how this emerges as part of the negotiations, but I share her view on how important it is.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State’s decision, in the midst of the post-Brexit turmoil, to publish the fifth carbon budget. I congratulate her on that. The Environmental Audit Committee has heard this morning from the National Audit Office that a 10% achievement gap has already opened up in the fourth carbon budget between 2023 and 2027. Will she acknowledge that the Treasury’s decision in the last spending review to cancel the carbon capture and storage competition will do little to encourage investor confidence in that area?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady is right: we have always known that we had an issue with the fourth carbon budget, and there is more work to be done. That is why it was a reasonable achievement to get cross-Government approval for the fifth carbon budget, and I thank her for her comment on that. There is still a lot of work to be done. There are policies to be decided on, and we will bring forward the emissions proposals by the end of this year in order to address those policies that are going to be needed in the 2020s.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
In a former life, I was the rapporteur in the European Parliament for the European Investment Bank. We are not only a stakeholder in the bank; we are a shareholder and one of its biggest funders. It funds projects across the planet, not just within the European Union. Surely there is no risk to investment in the United Kingdom while those factors remain the same.
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that position, which will no doubt give the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) as much comfort as it has given me.
I want to make some more comments on investor confidence, which is central to this afternoon’s debate. Since the referendum, I have met investors from across the energy spectrum: nuclear, renewables, energy efficiency—all areas in which we need investment. Yesterday, I spoke to members of the managing board of Siemens to reassure them of the commitments that I am setting out here today. Officials across my Department have regularly kept in contact with investors and energy companies to reiterate that message.
The message from business is clear. It still sees the UK is a great place to invest in. Britain remains one of the best places in the world in which to live and to do business. We have the rule of law, low taxes, a strong finance sector and a talented, creative and determined workforce. We have to build on those strengths, not turn away from them. Those factors combine with a clear energy policy framework and a strong investment-friendly economy to make the UK an ideal place to attract much-needed energy investment. The UK has been the fourth highest investor in clean energy globally for the past five years. This is investment in the energy infrastructure that we need to underpin a strong competitive economy, and this Government will do all we can to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place for investment. Whatever settlement we decide on in the coming months, those fundamentals will remain unchanged.
I want to underline our commitment to addressing climate change. Climate change has not been downgraded as a threat. It remains one of the most serious long-term risks to our economic and national security. I attended the world-class team of British diplomats at last year’s Paris climate talks. Our efforts were central to delivering that historic deal, and the UK will not step back from that international leadership. We must not turn our back on Europe or the world. Our relationships with the United States, China, India and Japan and with other European countries will stand us in strong stead as we deliver on the promises made in Paris. At the heart of that commitment is our own Climate Change Act 2008. The Act was not imposed on us by the EU; it was entirely home grown. It was also a world first and a prime example of the UK setting the agenda that others are now following. And let us not forget that it was delivered with unanimous support from right across the House.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The Secretary of the State will be aware that the fifth carbon budget means that the UK is reducing carbon at a faster rate than any country in the EU and significantly faster than the EU’s intended nationally determined contribution put forward in Paris. Is the risk of Brexit not that we might go back on our climate change objectives, but that we will not bring the rest of Europe with us, given the leadership position that we have taken and the fact that we are moving so much more quickly than they are?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend, who knows this area so well, has raised an important point. I hope to be able to reassure him that we will be able to continue to use our influence to encourage the European Union to raise its game and to reach the high standards that we do, but I agree with him that this will be an additional concern, on which we will have to work to try to deliver.
It is true that we had to make tough decisions on renewable energy when we came into office last year, reflecting the need to cut costs and the need for technologies to stand on their own two feet. I will not shy away from taking tough decisions. We need technologies that are low cost and clean, to protect bill payers.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State mentioned India as being among the countries standing by us in respect of investment. Given that about 2,400 coal-fired power stations are planned or under construction around the world, including in India and China, does she agree that cancelling the carbon capture and storage project represents a massive missed opportunity for this country?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been through the issue of CCS many times. We would like to have a CCS programme and we are working on an industrial strategy to address having such a programme. I know that he has played an important part, working with Lord Oxburgh in the other place, in ensuring that we put together a clear plan. At the time, we could not go ahead with the £1 billion that had been planned for the CCS proposal, but it is not off the table at all. We are still working towards having some sort of CCS proposals.
Our commitment to decarbonisation is clear, with £13 billion of investment in renewable electricity in 2015 alone and with investment in renewables increasing by 42% since 2010. We have already set out funding to be provided through auctions during this Parliament to support up to 4 GW of new offshore wind and other renewable technologies, and with the potential for deployment of up to 10 GW in total between 2020 and 2030 if the costs continue to come down. We are also making real progress to deliver new nuclear power in the UK, addressing a legacy of underinvestment. We have announced record investment in new heat networks to enable innovative ways of heating our homes and businesses. And we will lead the world by consulting on closing unabated coal-fired power stations. That commitment has been praised across the world, and we will be setting out further details of it soon.
All those commitments remain in place. They will help us to dramatically rebuild our energy infrastructure and they are underpinned by our commitment to carbon budgets, which is why the CBI, the EEF, businesses and investors from a wide range of sectors were all so supportive of our decision to set the fifth carbon budget.
We have a proud history of energy innovation. The world’s first coal-fired power station was built on the banks of the Thames in the late 1800s. The world’s first nuclear power station was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in Cumbria in 1956. And well before the EU referendum had begun in earnest, my Department was making sure that this country would remain at the forefront of energy and climate change innovation. That is why, as a Government, we have committed more than £500 million over this spending review to supporting new energy technologies. That means supporting entrepreneurs as they look to develop the innovations of the future—in storage, in energy efficiency and in renewables. As part of that programme, we will build on the UK’s expertise in nuclear innovation. At least half our innovation spending will go towards nuclear research and development. That will support our centres of excellence in Cumbria, Manchester, Sheffield and Preston. Our nuclear programme will include a competition to develop a small modular nuclear reactor—potentially one of the most exciting innovations in the energy sector.
Although I have focused primarily on energy and climate change, we must not forget the trade and businesses surrounding the environment and agricultural sectors, which are so profoundly affected by our decisions on tackling rising global temperatures. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to engage with farmers, businesses and environmental groups to ensure that their voices are heard. It has been made clear to them that there will be no immediate changes and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will address the environmental issues later.
Trading energy within Europe and being an entry point into Europe for the rest of the world has provided significant advantages. Europe has led the world on acting to address climate change. The economic imperative that drove those relationships has not changed and openness to trade remains central to who we are as a country. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, we will work towards the best deal for Britain. As I have said, our challenges remain the same: securing our energy supply, keeping bills low, building a low-carbon energy infrastructure, and protecting the environment and farming. Our commitment to them is unbowed.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
This is a good debate to be having and I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and the Labour Front Bench team for giving us the opportunity. It is a shame, however, that the hon. Gentleman did not get beyond his introductory remarks in what was an excellent overview of the issues.
SNP history is being made today in that it is the first time that the full force of “Team Callum” has been deployed at the same time. We will hear later from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr)—or, as I like to call him, the junior member of the team.
Today’s debate feels a little bit like the last day of school. There is a little bit more work to do, but not a huge amount of Government work is going on as we discuss things, pick over the bones of Brexit and ask questions about how we go forward. I am sure that the Secretary of State is pleased—as we all are—that we have a new Prime Minister because that will help to ease some of the uncertainties that were building up and it is welcome that we will not have several weeks of uncertainty. I hope that the Government use the summer recess to come up with some plans, because plans are badly needed.
Last week, we discussed the excellent Energy and Climate Change Committee report on investor confidence and were able to discuss some of the issues affecting the sector that have been exacerbated by the Brexit vote. It is fair to say and it bears repeating time and again that Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and we will be doing everything in our power to ensure that we do not leave. We should change the lexicon slightly and refer either to “Exit” or perhaps “Wexit”. Scotland is not for leaving, and our Parliament and Government have united around keeping Scotland in the European Union. However, the uncertainty afflicting the United Kingdom following the vote will have some effects while we wait for clarity about our maintained position in the European Union
On energy bills, The Guardian reports today on uSwitch research suggesting that, since 23 June, 12 providers have pulled their cheapest fixed-rate tariffs and replaced them with more expensive deals. That is the impact of Brexit, which will be felt by consumers and those who can ill afford to pay more. The weak pound will have another cost impact as the UK is a net importer of electricity. Such things will drive up bills and are an unfortunate consequence of the Brexit vote. The future of interconnection is also uncertain. Interconnection is important and represents a valuable and sensible Government aim. I have often said that we should not see it as a way of importing cheap electricity from the continent, as the Secretary of State said in her “reset” speech; we should be using it to export electricity to the continent. We should be investing in domestic, low-carbon electricity generation, for which Scotland has immense and highly enviable potential.
The prospect of cheap electricity from the continent is also slightly questionable. Exchange rates will obviously change over time, but the assumptions about future interconnection decisions built into the sums might not look so good when the pound is not faring so well against the euro. Such things will come out in the wash, as we say in Scotland, but we need to look at energy policy and interconnection to see whether it is the right thing to do.
Hinkley is another big question about which we have had some discussion and it will come as no surprise to anyone on the Government Benches that the SNP is not in favour of it. We have discussed it ad nauseam, but it bears repeating that the economics of Hinkley were, in the views of my party, myself and a large number of people in the Chamber, highly dubious. The fundamental economics have only been undermined by the Brexit vote, and we need to reconsider them. We cannot afford to have all our eggs in this particular basket, because if it does not happen—I suspect it will not—there will be a rather large hole to be filled. We cannot, like we did with the Brexit vote, enter the unknown with no back-up plan.
Caroline Lucas
To give some shape to the hole that the hon. Gentleman mentions, does he agree that it is shocking that the expected fall in wholesale electricity prices has driven up the Government’s estimate of the whole lifetime cost of Hinkley to £37 billion from the £14 billion of only a year ago?
Callum McCaig
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The costs are eye-watering. Given the extent to which Hinkley is an international project, the costs could rise even further still. It is time to have a sincere look at the plans and to decide whether the project is possible, but I strongly assume that it is not, so we require a back-up plan. If we do not address the huge strains on our energy system, the bread and butter of keeping the lights on will be put in jeopardy—perhaps not today but in the decades to come. It is incumbent upon the Government and the Department of Energy and Climate Change to act now.
We also need clarity from the Government on the position of the internal energy market in the European Union. The Vivid Economics report that was cited last week and again today about the potential of being outwith the system adding £500 million per annum to the costs of our energy system is sobering. When DECC and the Government as a whole are engaged in their summer homework of working out how to get out of this particular pickle, I suggest that ensuring that we keep the co-operation of the IEM should be high up the agenda because it delivers for us here and for folks abroad. It will help us to meet the trilemma of energy costs and should not be sold down the river lightly.
To maintain security of supply, the time has come to scrap Hinkley and to invest in viable and cheaper forms of domestic energy, including onshore wind, on which we need to lift the embargo. We need the contract for difference auctions that the Secretary of State has mentioned. They should be as wide as possible, technology neutral—as they are supposed to be—and no one should be excluded from bidding. We need to get serious about building the suggested new gas plants, and I will make the case for Scotland again: if we can get the anomaly of transmission charging sorted, we are ready to go with gas plants in Scotland that will contribute significantly to reducing the forthcoming hole in energy production.
Above all, we need to invest in energy efficiency. The Scottish Government are doing strong work and that needs to be replicated right across these islands. If we are to deal with an ever more challenging set of energy circumstances, including where we get it from, the best way is to use less of it. The benefits for everyone are substantial in the long term.
On climate change, I agree with the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who is no longer present, that it is regrettable that the UK will not be a member of the European Union. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for her role in the Paris talks, where the UK played a strong hand—perhaps not as strong as I and others would have liked, but it was played well and resulted in a pretty good deal. The fact we are no longer going to be at the heart of the decision-making process is regrettable, because the UK can be proud of what it has done on tackling climate change and has more it could offer the EU. We need to work out how that will happen in a renewed relationship with the EU, but there will be an absence and that is regrettable.
I have some specific questions to ask about what the process will be and what the impact of Brexit is on our commitments from the Paris talks, which have been touched upon. Our nationally defined contribution was the European Union’s NDC, and I am not clear whether that still applies to us. I assume it does, as we are still a member, but we can and should do more. I am also unclear about some issues on the ratification of the deal. Do we have to ratify this before the Brexit deal is concluded? Is there an impact on the EU as a whole? I understand that the EU ratification process requires all member states to ratify before the EU can ratify it as a whole. Ultimately, the UN requires ratification by the 55 countries that account for 55% of the emissions. So are there implications for us? Are there implications for ratification by the EU? Are there implications for the whole deal if we are not able to do that?
Amber Rudd
I may not answer all the hon. Gentleman’s questions in this intervention, but let me say, as I did not pick this up from the questions put by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) either, that we are pushing for early ratification of the Paris treaty on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Callum McCaig
I thank the Secretary of State for that intervention and very much welcome it; that is progress and I hope it can be done. I do not think there will be any opposition on that—none will come from Scottish National party Members.
I do not want to go through the negativities, but on the eve of the Paris summit we had the sweet and the sour. We had the sour on CCS, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) referred. The sweet was the commitment from the Secretary of State and the Government on coal. That was welcome and it was a significant step forward, but are there questions about its deliverability now? I think that there are, as the commitment had a subtle caveat, which was that it would be done only if and when it was possible. The combination of the effects on investor confidence and the lack of clarity on a number of these things will make it more difficult to meet the conditions required to have that coal taken off the system. There is a requirement to look at that again. Above all, although we all welcome the fact that we are getting the fifth carbon budget and that it agreed with the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change, we do need the action plan. That is the fundamental thing; the bread and butter of this is how we do it. The ambition, determination and commitment is there, but it will come to be only if we have a viable plan. I do think this is achievable, but it has become more uncertain because of the Brexit vote.
In conclusion, yesterday’s events probably put us in a better place than many of us expected to be in. We do not have the added unwelcome uncertainty of a nine-week leadership contest, but a power of work needs to be done by Government over the summer. I hope the Secretary of State continues in her post to do that. I look forward to continuing to work with her and to marking her homework after the summer recess.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. Oppositions, being Oppositions, often fire questions at Governments and this is a particularly difficult time for a Government to answer all the questions. We are about to change Prime Minister, there will probably be a substantial reshuffle in the Government and Ministers will then get down to dealing with the consequences of what the British people have decided.
Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) were, “What’s going to happen with regulations?” and, “What’s going to happen with things we have signed up to?” I do not believe this Parliament is going to go through every piece of European legislation we have passed over the past 40 years and decide whether we want to keep it or not. The most likely outcome is enabling legislation that rolls everything we have agreed with the EU into UK legislation, with this Government and future Governments at their leisure then being able to pick through what they want to do. That is the most sensible approach. It may mean that we get rid of some legislation in some areas and in others we strengthen it. Whatever the outcome, this Parliament will make sure it picks what is best for our country. We must bear in mind that quite a lot of the legislation has been agreed with 27 other states. Some of it may not be that applicable or relevant to us, but there may be things where we want to improve standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, our environmental record on clean air and everything else predates our joining the EU, and the UK has often been more vociferous in these areas than many EU states.
Mary Creagh
The hon. Gentleman said that most of our air quality legislation predates the EU, but of course the Clean Air Act 1956 was all about stopping people burning things in London and creating the big smogs—it made no mention about diesel particulate matter, because diesel cars had not been invented then.
Mr Syms
I shall make a little progress, if I may.
My guess is that we will have enabling legislation and we will deal at our leisure with the consequences of Britain leaving in terms of the detail and the European directives we have signed over the years, with this Government and future Governments determining their priorities.
I now wish to talk about energy. I am sure that when the Secretary of State was given her tasks the first thing the Prime Minister said to her was, “Don’t let the lights go out.” Given the capacity, the grid and demand, that is probably her principal concern in her job and it was probably the principal concern of her predecessors. I am pleased with many of the things that the Government have done, but we do have to increase capacity, and where I disagree with the comments from the SNP and others is on the fact that we do need nuclear capacity as part of that. Whether the deal is a good or bad one depends on crystal ball-gazing over the next 40 years as to what will happen with energy prices. They are terribly difficult to predict. All I predict is that they will go up and they will go down, but I do not know when. In the last Parliament, the Labour party had a policy of freezing energy prices, but the moment the party made that its policy, energy prices started to fall, which proved that freezing them was probably the worst thing to do. We all know that energy prices go up and down, and that that is to do with the market; it is not necessarily about our being in the EU.
I also caution colleagues against drawing any long-term conclusions from what has happened in the markets, given that it has been only about two weeks since we had a vote to leave the EU. Long-term interest rates have fallen, the pound has gone up and gone down, and markets have gone up and gone down. I suspect that over the next year or two there will be a bumpy ride in some markets as decisions have to be made on our future. The UK Government have to do our best to increase capacity, and that means nuclear power, more gas and fracking. I know a lot of people do not like fracking, but there is a natural resource that we have to make use of.
There is one area where I might have some disagreement with the Secretary of State. She mentioned running down some of the coal-fired power stations, but until we are certain that some of the investment is starting to kick in, I would be a little reluctant to close off some of that capacity, because it will be challenge for us to keep the lights on in the future. The problems we have in capacity are largely caused not by this Government or the coalition Government, but by the previous Labour Governments, who put off taking decisions. In particular, they had a White Paper that did not even include nuclear power. I welcome a lot of what the coalition Government did and what this Government have done, but we need to improve confidence and investment so that we have more capacity in the energy market.
I welcome a lot of what the Government have done. There is no reason why this country should not still be at the forefront of fighting environmental damage. I still think this country can provide lessons to the EU. I do not believe our leaving will be a disaster; it is a great opportunity for our country. We have to make it a success, and I am sure this Parliament is perfectly capable of making decisions that benefit our citizens rather more than some of those made in the EU.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms).
We have heard today that environmental problems do not respect borders. I would like to posit an alternative argument to the one just advanced by the hon. Gentleman, who said that everything was pretty much okay. I say that things are not that okay and that Britain’s membership of the EU has been instrumental and crucial to the improvement of UK air quality, the cleaning up of water pollution, the management of waste, and the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. It has also given us a global platform on which we can show global leadership in tackling climate change.
Earlier this year, the Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair—I can see several colleagues from it dotted around the Chamber here today—carried out an inquiry into the effects of EU membership on UK environmental protection. We heard from a wide variety of witnesses, including business people, academics, politicians and non-governmental organisations. The overwhelming majority told us that the environment was better protected as a result of our EU membership.
We do not have to look too far to find examples of that protection. In the 1970s, the Thames was biologically dead. It may not look any cleaner from the Palace of Westminster than it did in the ‘70s, but it serves as a great reminder of how EU membership has cleaned up our environment. We can now see seals and dolphins—I have yet to see one from my window. Otters are now in the high end of the Thames. That success story has been repeated up and down the country, as once dead rivers have been brought back to life. Where once it was dangerous to swim, now it is safe for people and wildlife alike. The EU water framework directive has cleaned up our beaches and our rivers, and the marine strategy directive has encouraged us to set out that ecologically coherent network of marine protection zones. It has not been an easy task and I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), for his work in this area.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend and colleague agree that one of the things that we found in the Committee’s study was, in essence, that the European Union is a union, which therefore has minimum standards that are ratcheted up? It does not allow individual members to undercut other members on the environment, which means that there is a platform across Europe, and across the globe as well, of best practice.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but of course the setting of those minimum standards does not prevent individual member states from going above and beyond them. Vitally for business, it also provides a common baseline and a harmonised market for products. That is absolutely crucial for UK businesses as we move forward into the uncertainties of a Brexit world.
EU membership is also key for air quality. Successive Governments have dragged their feet on this very difficult issue. Since 2010, the UK has been in breach of EU legal air quality limits in 31 of its 43 clean air zones, and one of those is in my constituency of Wakefield. Although London tends to get all the attention—as a cyclist in London I am certainly aware of the very high pollution levels—constituencies such as Wakefield with the M1 and M62 crossing by it have severe burdens of cardiovascular disease and lung disease as a result of the breaching of those limits.
EU legislation has allowed UK campaigners to hold the Government to account. The High Court has ordered Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come up with new air quality plans. In April, those Ministers were back in court over allegations that their plans were still insufficient to bring the UK’s air quality in line with EU minimum standards. There is a series of question marks about what will happen to air pollution standards in the brave new Brexit world.
On biodiversity, the nature directives have preserved some of the most treasured places, plants and species in our country. Many of our best-loved sites, such as Flamborough Head, Dartmoor and Snowdonia, are protected by the EU.
Caroline Lucas
The birds and habitats directives are the real jewels in the crown of our environmental protection. Does the hon. Lady agree that, even if we do keep them in British legislation—as I hope we do—what we must do is ensure that there is a proper enforcement mechanism? That is what the EU has provided us with, and we will need to create a new enforcement mechanism that is as rigorous as possible.
Mary Creagh
I do not think that anything can be guaranteed in this world. The first step is to hear from Ministers, but it is said that today is like the last day of term. I wish the Under-Secretary well in whatever future role he is called on to play in the Government. He has been an excellent Minister, and he has appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee many times. I do not think that anything should be taken for granted. As a passionate pro-remain campaigner, I took part in many debates during the EU referendum campaign, and I heard many different versions of Brexit depending on whom I was debating with.
In an interview with The Guardian, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) described the birds and habitats directives as “spirit crushing”. He said that if we voted to leave, “they would go”. We will have to see whether his version of events is the same as that of the new Prime Minister. He also said that leaving the EU would free up both common agricultural payments and up to £2 billion in “insurance and incentives” for farmers. Nowhere in that do I hear anything about the need for protecting species, wildlife, and plant life. There is no mention of the vital services provided by soils and bogs or of the need for the restoration of bogs and peatlands, which we recommended just a month ago in our excellent report on soil, and which was echoed this morning by the Adaptation Sub-Committee report of the Committee on Climate Change. So, we have seen otters, hen harriers and bitterns making a comeback, and the referendum result could put all that progress at risk.
The EU has also played a key role in promoting investment in sustainable businesses and technologies. Investors need clear policy signals emanating from strong legislative frameworks, and, to be fair, those frameworks are provided by the Climate Change Act 2015. However, our Committee has received some mixed messages from the current inquiries into both the Department for Transport and the Treasury. In particular, I posed a question on the cancellation of the carbon capture and storage competition, which has had a massive debilitating effect on investor confidence. We do not want to get into a position where consumers are not spending and investors are not investing, because that is absolutely disastrous not just for the economy, but for the UK’s environmental progress.
Twenty years ago, in 1997, the UK sent almost all of our household waste to landfill. Now we recycle almost 45% of it, although I was disappointed to see those numbers slightly dip last year. The Treasury introduced the landfill tax escalator in response to the EU landfill directive. Over the past five years, according to the Environmental Services Association, the waste and resources management sector has invested £5 billion in new infrastructure thanks to this long-term policy signal. Those policy signals are vital as is the need to keep investing in infrastructure if we are to meet those 2020 waste targets—if they still apply in UK law. [Interruption.] A sip of gin to keep me going. A slice next time, please.
I shall end on the topic of microplastic pollution. The Committee is concluding its inquiry into microplastics—tiny particles of plastic, which can come from larger particles of plastic that are broken down, or from products such as shaving foams, deodorants, toothpastes and facial scrubs. Unfortunately, it seems to be the higher-end products that have not been cleaned up as quickly as the mass volume scrubs. We are finding that the particles have washed down the sink, passed through sewage filtration systems and ended up in the sea. Anyone who has had a dozen or half a dozen oysters recently will have consumed about 50 microplastic particles. For those of us who like seafood, that is something to reflect on. Bon appétit.
Over a third of fish in the English channel are now contaminated with microplastics. As an island nation we must take the problem of microplastic pollution seriously. The way to solve the problem is to work with our partners in the EU. Those are not my words. It is what the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told our Committee when he gave evidence just before the referendum on 23 June. If the EU takes action to address an environmental problem, it creates not only a level playing field for businesses, but an opportunity to market environmental solutions.
Brexit raises a series of questions. There is the issue of the circular economy package, which is the EU’s drive to get us to reduce waste, recycle more and have a secure and sustainable supply of raw materials, such as paper, glass and plastics. That would have driven new, green jobs in the UK economy. The decision to abandon all that has left investors reeling.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the shadow Secretary of State, about Siemens’ decision to freeze its investment in the wind industry in Yorkshire, Hull and the Humber and we face a protracted period of uncertainty. When the Under-Secretary of State appeared before our Committee as part of that EU inquiry, he told us that the vote to leave would result in a “long and tortuous” negotiation. That has not even begun yet.
The period ahead is fraught with risks. The UK risks not being regarded as a safe bet, and investors may no longer wish to invest their cash in UK businesses. Significantly, contracts are no longer being signed in London because the risk of London no longer being part of the European single market means that people want contracts to be signed in a European country so that if something goes wrong, contract law will be enforceable across all the countries of the European Union. That will have a very big effect on our financial and legal services.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that in the emerging recycling market across Europe, with us being at arm’s length and possibly facing tariffs, regulations and so on, people will invest in Europe rather than in Britain?
Mary Creagh
That is the point I was making. When looking at where to put new foreign direct investment, investors will look again and go to the area of least risk. Those risks are reflected in the economy.
We found out from our inquiry that the environment and the UK’s membership of the EU had been a two-way street. It forced us to take action much more quickly on waste and on water, but it also acted as a platform from which we could project our own British values, particularly in relation to climate change. DECC Minister Lord Bourne told the Committee that the UK’s voice was louder in Paris because we were part of a club of 28 countries. I worry about the global agreement reached at Paris and the possible damage to achieving those climate change targets as a result of our withdrawing from the European Union.
In the 1970s the UK was the “dirty man” of Europe. Economically, we were the “sick man” of Europe. Since then we have cleaner beaches, we drive more fuel-efficient cars, we have more fuel-efficient vacuum cleaners, and we can hold the Government to account on air pollution. Environmental problems do not respect borders, and require long-term solutions—much longer than the five-year term of a Government or, in some cases, the two-year term of a Treasury Minister.
EU membership has allowed the UK to be a world leader in tackling environmental problems with our brilliant science base and our pragmatic civil service to provide good nuts-and-bolts solutions to many of the challenges we face, and created British business as a world leader, whether through its retrofitting diesel buses in China or helping the Indian Government with water management for the Ganges delta. These are knowledge and services that our country can export proudly because we have been clean in the European Union. The result of the referendum has caused a great deal of political and economic uncertainty. I hope we will get some reassurances from the Government about the threats that it poses to our common home, and the actions that any new Government will take to ensure that we leave a better future for our children.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), for whom I have a great deal of respect in her role as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, although I would like to be a little more positive about life post-EU than she was.
I am pleased to speak about the important subject of post-EU referendum implications for energy and the environment. The environment is something that we cannot avoid. It affects us all: the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the soils that produce it, the trees that take in the carbon dioxide, the flora, the fauna, the landscape—everything we touch. It is essential that we deliver policies to determine that we can have a healthy life, and that all God’s creatures can have a healthy life, too.
As we have heard many times today, much of our environmental legislation stems from Europe. We have been instrumental in writing much of it: the birds directive, the habitats directive, the bathing water directive and the air quality directive. The motion states that in the run-up to the EU referendum, “little mention” was made of environmental protection. Actually, a lot of people, including myself and some of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber, as well as many from the Environmentalists for Europe group, did refer to environmental aspects. Interestingly, it was the media who gave the environment little coverage, as statistics show that the environment featured in only 1.7% of the referendum coverage in all media, and 0% of television coverage. People were talking about it, but that was not picked up, and that is one of the issues we face.
Once one starts talking about the environment, people engage with it, so I have set up an environment forum in Taunton Deane. I held a debate in the forum about the EU and the environment. Opinion was not in favour of one side or the other, but the event was a big talking point, and more than 100 people turned up to it, which shows that there is interest in the subject. We are where we are, however. We are out of Europe, and we have to move forward positively.
I shall mention a few small concerns that have arisen to show that we have some immediate problems to sort out. For example, I have been contacted by a number of landowners who were about to sign their higher level stewardship contracts for the next 10 years to protect precious parts of our habitat, but they are now holding off. I would like some reassurance about what will happen and where the money that is required will come from. We do not want to lose those wonderful protected habitats while people wait to find out what happens. Similarly, on other greening issues for farmers, we do not want to risk farmers being forced to plough up field margins, edges or ponds because they do not know what is happening with their environmental protection money or where it is coming from. Some reassurance on that, even for the short term, would go down well.
Nobody today has mentioned farmers or landowners, but they are the people who own all the land that we keep talking about. We have to work with them. The same applies to fishermen. I have heard rumours—I do not know whether this is true—that fishermen are now ignoring many of the marine protections because they think that we are out of Europe and therefore the protections do not apply any more. It would be extremely helpful to hear some reassurance about that.
What now? As I said, we should be positive. We have a real opportunity to take ownership of the environment and to adopt the systems and frameworks that work best and deliver for us. Now more than ever—we have talked about this in the Environmental Audit Committee—is the time to start building in sustainability and a healthy future, and to think more about how every Department delivers on these things.
We should, for example, think about how infrastructure works when it goes through special landscapes or land with ancient trees. We should think about how our homes can be more sustainable. We have touched on all this, and I am pleased the Government are undertaking an inquiry to look again at sustainable urban drainage system, and the carbon efficiency and energy efficiency of homes, but we need to build those things in.
We should also think about how we reduce the impact of flooding. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is carrying out an inquiry into flooding, which will bring forward really useful ideas about how to build flood resilience into our land use plans. This is the time to get all these things in, so we have a great opportunity. We can also do more on low-carbon energy generation and transport so that we have lower emissions and reduce our terrible air pollution statistics. All that is possible with clear planning for and thought about land use.
I have talked to lots of bodies about these issues, from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, the Ancient Tree Forum and the Soil Association. However, I have also spoken to farmers and landowners, and I reiterate that we have to work with and support them if we are to deliver what we need.
I would like to suggest some things that we should consider. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, EU legislation sets our targets regarding air and water pollution, and it was the EU that took us to task if we did not hit them. We must therefore ensure that we set targets and have a system of checking and reporting back—I suggest annually—on how we are doing. I urge the Government to ensure that we do not lower our air or water-quality standards. We have heard the shocking statistic that 50,000 people a year die from air pollution-related diseases, so we would be crazy to lower those standards. I am sure that the Minister is listening to that point.
I have a few thoughts about how to proceed, although some have been mentioned by other Members. Let us transpose the relevant EU directives into UK law—we can then amend them as we think fit, but let us at least have them—and let us keep special areas of conservation. Let us also do more on the world stage, because we really need to. We need to increase our global influence with bodies such as the UN and the OECD. The Bern convention and the animal welfare legislation are really important, and we also need to stay part of Natura 2000.
I applaud the fact that DEFRA has been working away on its—I will not say elusive—25-year plans for farming and the environment. That is excellent, but let us see those plans as soon as possible, and let us make sure that the environment is inextricably interwoven with farming production targets. We have a great opportunity, so let us make greening slightly less complicated for farmers. Most farmers are keen to undertake aspects of greening, but some of the forms that they have to fill out and the demands that are placed on them are so tortuously complicated—I heard this only this morning from a barn owl expert who works with farmers across the south-west—that some farmers are thinking of not bothering in the future if we cannot simplify the system. To deliver what we need to deliver, we need to make things easy to do.
While we are rewriting our plans, let us get in some soil monitoring. Let us recognise that soil is an ecosystem, not just a growing medium to be abused. Let us also deal with the circular economy. DEFRA suggests that that could bring in £22 billion of savings, so let us look at that and build it all in.
I reiterate that subsidies will have to be part of the system, but let us work out how they are given to our farmers and landowners. I suggest that they should not just be based on land ownership, but that farmers and landowners should have to deliver something for them, whether that is green services or food production. Perhaps caps should be put in place. If someone has 3,000 acres of arable land in the east, is it right that they clock up so much per hectare? Why not have a cap so that everything is on a level playing field? Farmers and landowners are discussing these issues countrywide, as are environmental organisations, so let us put all their findings together and build them into our forward-thinking plan.
Finally, I am going to touch on energy, because it is referred to in the motion. I am pleased that the Energy Secretary has committed to delivering secure, affordable and clean energy. I welcome the system that is enabling consumers to switch to lower-cost energy to help with bills. I really welcome the commitment to continue leading on climate change, to which many colleagues have referred. I also welcome early ratification of the Paris agreement, and I reiterate praise for the proposed climate change system, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) referred to, so I think we are all together on that.
The Government have committed to low-carbon energy. They are phasing out coal and are also committed to nuclear. The south-west is pressing ahead with the commitment on Hinkley Point, which will be a crucial part of our economy, delivering 7% of our energy. I welcome the Government’s involvement in establishing the National College for Nuclear, and there will be a big spin-off for Somerset, where Bridgwater College has just linked up with Somerset College in my constituency. That is spawning not only new engineers, but the new skills that we will need to move forward in the low-carbon energy sector that has to be part of our brave new world.
To conclude, let us not be negative. The Government must listen—I am absolutely sure that they are listening. We must link farming closely with the environment for the good of the nation. That will deliver for the environment and, indeed, for us all, in terms of health, wellbeing and life chances.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for graciously allowing me to make my maiden speech in this really important debate.
I am deeply honoured to be standing in this Chamber as the new Member of Parliament for Tooting. When I think about this Chamber’s long and proud history, and about the women and men who have sat here before me, and all they have achieved, I feel humbled. They include Clement Attlee, Nye Bevan and, very recently, Jo Cox, to name but a few. I am also reminded of the vast responsibilities that we in this Chamber are entrusted with over the coming years and the magnitude of what we must achieve for our country. I would like to talk a little about that task and about the mindset with which we should approach it.
First, however, I would like to talk about where I come from—Tooting. It is hard for me to adequately express my gratitude to the people of Tooting for putting their trust in me. During my campaign, I said I would be a passionate, energetic and tireless representative for absolutely everyone in my constituency, and it is with that promise that I intend to serve.
Just two months ago, I was working day and night on our NHS frontline in A&E as an emergency doctor. Now I find myself wandering the corridors of Westminster, grappling with vast piles of dry booklets and mistaking Members’ offices for lady Members’ rooms—it has happened.
It was a piece of good news that set me on the journey that brings me here today: the election of our new Mayor of London, my good friend Sadiq Khan, with the largest personal mandate in British political history. From the first time I met Sadiq, it was clear that he was destined for greatness. When I became a councillor, he took the time to offer me support and guidance, as he remembered well what it was like for someone to suddenly find themselves holding the responsibilities of elected office. Sadiq spent 11 years working tirelessly for the people of Tooting. His commitment to equality, justice and inclusivity is inspirational. Whether he is celebrating International Women’s Day year after year, breaking bread with every religious community, or talking to children about how they can achieve no matter what their background, Sadiq’s interactions are always warm and welcoming. He truly believes in the power of people and communities, as he has shown throughout his time representing Tooting—and now the great city of London. He has made improving the environment a top priority in City Hall, and has already started tackling the important issue of air quality in London. This debate gives us an opportunity again to see what a difference we can make in the House when we get legislation right—legislation like the Clean Air Act 1956, which was passed 60 years ago following the London smogs of the 1950s.
I will endeavour to build upon Sadiq’s fine legacy, standing tall for all of Tooting. Sadiq’s shoes are big to fill, but then I have the benefit of much higher heels to help! We share a lot in our histories and our characters: our surname; a love of football; and a keen interest in boxing. Perhaps most importantly, Sadiq and I are children of Tooting who are now choosing to raise our families in the very streets where we grew up. We have one important difference, though: my dad was not a bus driver—[Laughter.] However, my mum did work in the local petrol station, so—who knows?—perhaps Sadiq’s father filled up his bus there.
As a Tooting girl through and through, I never like it when people say, “Tooting is becoming a fantastic place to live.” Anyone who has lived there for as long as I have knows that it has always been great, with the wonderful green open spaces of Tooting and Wandsworth commons, the iconic Tooting market, and the lido, which has been open for residents of Tooting to swim outdoors for 110 years. There has always been a rich tapestry of communities living harmoniously alongside one another. That unity should be celebrated, and I will defend it with every fibre of my being. That unity is woven into me—it is an essential part of who I am. When people ask me where I am from, I say: “I’m half Polish, half Pakistani; raised in England; married a Welshman; and I am 100% Tooting.”
There is a serious point in this, though: what binds us together. In Tooting and across the country, it is a sense of common purpose. The selflessness that drives community groups and charities binds us together. Tooting’s many local businesses, traditional and modern, not only fuel our thriving economy, but bind us together. St George’s hospital and our NHS, where everyone is treated with equal concern, based not on their race or religion but on their need, bind us together. In these fragile times, we should never forget that these charities, businesses and proud national institutions are important not only because they provide us a service or grow our economy, but because they bind us together as local residents, as citizens, and as human beings, too.
So why am I here now? Well, life was not easy growing up, but I always had the bedrock that was the love and support of my mum, Maria, even in the face of adversity. She was on her own, a single mum, but like a small army, showering my brother and me with praise and providing a palpable sense of possibility. She gave me hope. She showed my brother and me that even people from our background can achieve anything with hard work and determination. She instilled in me a deep-rooted determination to help others who have seen hardship and who fight for social justice. But I am also here because of Labour. My dream of becoming a doctor became a reality not only through my own hard work and support from my family, but because a Labour Government made it financially possible for me to access a world-class medical school at Cambridge. That is one reason why my ambition will always be for Labour to win power, not just to sit on these Opposition Benches.
I have served in an ice cream shop, I have fried eggs at a hotel, and I have aided patients, but my proudest job is being a wife and a mother. My heart bursts with the love I have for my husband, Tudor, and my two young daughters, Anaiyah, aged three, and Layla, aged just one. They are an immense source of strength to me, and will continue to be so over the coming years.
We must now all look to those coming years. They will be turbulent and challenging, and in them history will be made. This House will be responsible for shaping Britain’s future in the 21st century by guiding, overseeing, and providing accountability for the most important negotiations our country will have seen for decades. In that period, important and defining questions will be asked about who we are as a nation and who we want to be, about the legacy we will leave the next generation and the generations after that, and about the relationships we want to have with our friends and allies across the whole world.
Britain has always been an outward-looking country—one that does not shy away from the challenges that face us all. My experience as a doctor, and internationally all over the world, has taught me a lot about those challenges. I have lived and worked in squalid refugee camps, pulled dead bodies out of floodwater and watched children suffer as victims of war. I have witnessed aching, aching suffering. My commitment is to be a voice for those who have none, to find hope for those who have lost it, and to build strength for those who are weak, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. We all bleed, we all breathe, and we all feel pain. The sound of a parent losing a child is an international language. It is, tragically, a sound that is increasingly common in our unstable world.
We live in a time of insecurity and change without parallel in recent history. Europe is in flux. The middle east is in crisis. The axis of global power is shifting. The old certainties no longer seem so certain. It is all too easy to write off calls for international social justice as irrelevant when we ourselves live in such difficult and uncertain times— “We have so much to do to sort out our own country; why should we be thinking about responsibilities overseas?” That is to misunderstand what social justice is about. It is not simply a goal to be ranked and prioritised in relation to other goals; it is about how we think and who we are. It applies to everything we do, whether protecting our NHS in the UK, protecting workers’ rights in our negotiations with the EU, or working to seek peace in Syria and Yemen. Everywhere I look, there is work to do.
Here at home, I pledge to bring my years of experience in, and deep commitment to, our NHS in order to stand up for it. I could not be prouder of my NHS colleagues at St George’s hospital and elsewhere who work day and night, with little thanks for the work they do. Anyone who has worked in the NHS—indeed, anyone who has worked in any of our vital emergency services—knows well the feeling of leaving behind the comfort of home and family, day after day, night after night, selflessly to work gruelling hours in difficult circumstances, and serving the communities we love without complaint. I will work to protect them from the attacks they are under. Our NHS staff see work as a vocation, not as a job. This is why they have been so damaged by the recent mishandling of the junior doctors contract, and it is why nurses are so distraught when they see their bursaries axed. It is morally reprehensible that student nurses are forced to seek food banks, or that women in medicine are penalised for having children.
I have already asked two questions in my short time in this House, and I am afraid I shall not stop asking questions until I get satisfactory answers. In these times, who knows how long I may be sitting here? What I do know, and what I can tell Members, is that I am going to make every single minute, every single day, count for the people of Tooting, and of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
What an absolutely fantastic, brilliant maiden speech we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). I have served in this House for 14 years, and I have to say that that is the best maiden speech I have ever heard. It was eloquent, moving and witty. It talked about Tooting, about history, and about where we are and where we are going. My hon. Friend is a great credit to Tooting, and a great credit to her family. I know that her mother, Maria, is here, as are her brother, her best friend, Monique, her husband, Tudor, who I am very pleased to hear is from Neath in Wales—I hope to be sharing a Joe’s ice cream later in the summer if all goes well—and her supporters in the Gallery. [Hon. Members: “And the Mayor of London.”] I will be mentioning the Mayor of London. It is fantastic to hear about Tooting and it is great to have the Mayor of London back with us today.
This debate is about the environment. Our concern as we break free from Europe is that we will no longer have mandatory standards of air quality. I am very proud that Sadiq Khan, our Mayor of London, has made headway after two terms of, frankly, indolence from the previous Mayor in terms of making progress on air quality. There are about 9,500 premature deaths a year in London alone as a result of air pollution, largely from diesel cars and vehicles. The number across Britain, according to the Royal College of Physicians, is 40,000. We are talking about lung disease, heart disease and strokes, and problems for children, whether they are in the classroom or in the womb.
I am very pleased that Sadiq Khan is present. I was with him last week when he launched his new air quality standards on the 60th anniversary of the Clean Air Act 1956, and I look forward to ultra-low emissions zones using the latest technology. The Minister may know of the new technology from America that uses lasers to count the emissions of each pollutant from each car, thereby setting standards for emissions standards.
One of my main concerns about leaving Europe is that mandatory standards will no longer be enforceable in the courts. I am glad that ClientEarth is taking the Government to court to ensure that we deliver those standards. The fact that it has to take them to court shows that, left to our own devices, we are in danger of becoming the dirty man of Europe again, which was our embarrassing former status. The World Health Organisation has standards, but they are not enforceable. I hope that the Minister will say that we will sustain and honour our commitments not just to air quality standards, but to all EU standards. We have a responsibility to make future laws ourselves, but unless they are integrated and harmonious they will not work as a platform to make the world a more sustainable place.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has touched on the important issue of the fines levied for breaches of air quality standards. Does he think that there is an important job to be done in terms of joined-up government? The British Government will pass the fines down to local government, even though issues such as local government housing targets are also controlled by central Government. That means that not only will local government have to approve new developments in areas of towns and cities that suffer from poor air quality, but the British Government will pass down fines to it for doing so.
Geraint Davies
That is a concern. I promoted the Air Quality (Diesel Emissions in Urban Centres) Bill to give more powers to local authorities, with Government support, to introduce more air quality zones and testing, and to encourage the use of trams and hydrogen and electric-driven transport systems. We need not just a series of zones that have to reach minimum standards, but improved air quality for all people across all our nations. We do not want the Government to pass the buck or to revert to becoming the dirty man of Europe again. We have had a lot of benefits from being in Europe. My constituency of Swansea West has some beautiful, blue flag beaches, and we do not want them to revert to becoming like the old low-tar and high-tar beaches of the past.
Responsibility for research and development in environmental innovation is shared across Europe, but we are in danger of risking that. We were leaders at Kyoto from Europe, and we were leaders in Britain and throughout Europe on the elimination of chlorofluoro- carbons and on closing the hole in the ozone layer. We do not want to miss such opportunities in future, but I am sad to say that we are likely to do so.
The Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change had a meeting today to discuss the latest problems with adaptation to climate change, including what we have to do in relation to flooding and changes in biodiversity, water supply, health, food and so on. We need to face those big challenges together, so I hope that the Minister will reassure us that we will be working together, not just floating off on our own and becoming worse and worse environmentally.
The environment faces challenges from the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US. Now that we are leaving, we will find that we cannot veto, influence or change those negotiations; we will be a bystander and we will have to live by those rules, which at the moment do not protect the environment from investors. We run the risk of being fined by big fracking companies. Loan Pine sued Canada for hundreds of millions of dollars when there was a moratorium on fracking in Quebec. I do not want that to happen in Wales, Scotland or elsewhere when companies are given the open door by the new Administration.
I am pleased and honoured to be a member of the Council of Europe. I am a rapporteur on both TTIP and fracking, and I hope that the advice from the thorough reports will be taken up by the Government. I am glad to say that I am also a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and we have said that working together as one with Europe has to be good to retain standards. We do not want to see us undercutting other countries with regard to the environment for competitive reasons, which would bring everybody down.
On climate change, it was agreed in Paris that we should set a target, using the 1750 baseline, for our world temperatures to go up by no more than 2 °C. We have already moved up 1 °C, and, on the basis of carbon dioxide that is in the pipeline, it has been calculated that the figure is already 1.5 °C up, which was the Paris aspiration. That means that we need to move towards zero-carbon technology and carbon capture. Regrettably and shamefully, however, the Government, even before leaving Europe, have abandoned their aspirations and plans for carbon capture. As an environmentalist, I am really concerned not just that we will become the dirty man of Europe, but that we will start playing dirty to reduce standards in order to attract jobs as we face tariffs, which is one of the inevitable consequences of the Brexit vote.
I will present a Bill tomorrow on UK environmental protection and the maintenance of EU standards. It gives the Government the opportunity to sign up to at least keeping the current standards and to not sink back while the EU moves forwards. I hope that that will be agreed.
I view the vote for Brexit with great regret. I hope that we will have a second referendum on the exit package, so that people will know precisely what they are voting for, and if it does not deliver on their reasonable expectations they will have the option of defaulting back to recover membership of the EU again. We will see how it goes. Government Members are shaking their heads, but I do not think that we should continue to walk into what may be an environmental disaster.
Finally, I want to say once more that the hon. Member for Tooting made a fantastic speech.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin- Khan), whose speech was excellent, in both content and delivery. My son is a junior hospital doctor and I know how hard doctors work. We need more scientists and doctors in the House of Commons, so for that reason, too, she is really welcome. I congratulate her.
The implication of the Opposition’s motion is that somehow, by leaving the EU, we will become the dirty man of Europe and that, without the glad hand of European legislation, we will go back to our dirty ways.
I want to talk about climate change police, particularly how far ahead we are of the rest of the EU, and how Europe’s slow pace is causing increasing difficulty for the rest of the world.
People are right that environmental protection and policy is cross-border. We produce 1.3% of global emissions. Since 1990, the UK has decreased its carbon emissions by 28% and the EU has decreased carbon emissions by 21%. That figure includes our contribution of 28%, so the rest of the members have done a bit worse; although that in itself is not a disaster. What is extraordinary is the variability between different countries in Europe on carbon emissions since 1990: Austria has increased emissions by 14%, Ireland by 7% and Poland by 14%; Germany has decreased emissions, but not by anything like as much as we have. It is really quite bizarre.
Quite often, people talk about countries such as China as being the issue when it comes to emissions. However, the reality is that the Chinese are taking the whole issue a great deal more seriously than a number of OECD countries are. China has 40 to 50 nuclear power stations under construction. It increased its proportion of energy from nuclear by 30% last year, and from renewables by 20%. That is a huge effort. The truth is—
Philip Boswell
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that China is making commendable progress in respect of nuclear construction. However, is it not also the case that, along with India, it is constructing up to several thousand coal-fired power stations? The argument, as was well put by the Prime Minister of India, Mr Modi, is this: why should we come to the banquet, have only a dessert and be presented with the bill?
David Mowat
I have a lot of sympathy for that argument, and that is why we have to cut more slack for these developing countries. I am going to come on to talk about coal, but in November the Secretary of State in this country said that we were going to phase out coal by 2025. The following week, Germany commissioned a brand new lignite-burning power station. That sort of behaviour plays to the point just made by the hon. Member from the Scottish nationalists that it is very hard to lecture the Indians and the Chinese on coal when there are countries in Europe, this year, commissioning brand new coal power stations.
We have talked about how important Paris is. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made the point that we may well be close to 1.5% anyway—it is a statistical model and it is quite hard to tell. However, the fact is that the INDC that the EU, including the UK, put into the Paris commitment is approximately half as onerous in terms of decarbonisation as that which the Climate Change Act 2008 requires us to do in the UK. We will reduce our emissions by the fifth carbon budget by 57% in 2030. The EU offering was a 40% reduction, which includes the UK’s 57%. We are seeing the result of this already. Last year, carbon emissions across the EU as a whole increased by 0.7%. I accept that that was only one year, and that this is not something to be looked at one year at a time, but 18 of the 28 countries in the EU either had no decrease in emissions or an increase. For completeness, in that same time the UK reduced its emissions by around 3%. Those statistics are from Eurostat.
I want to talk more widely about why it is that the EU has lost its way on climate policy. There is a fixation on coal in the EU. Germany is often regarded as being a leader on renewables, and it is; Germany has far more renewables than we have. However, it also has much higher carbon emissions than we do. The reason for that is the coal that it has: Germany has four times as much coal as the UK, and it is not four times more populous. There are parallels in other countries. Does it matter? Perhaps not, in one sense; someone has to lead, and it is us. However, the DECC website shows that electricity prices in the UK for domestic consumers are something like 50% above the EU mean—our gas prices are not—and our industrial prices are about 80% higher. Why does that matter? I come from a constituency in the north of England, where we still try to manufacture things. It is very hard to talk about rebalancing the economy and the northern powerhouse on the back of differentially high energy prices.
I do not think that the EU has taken the position that it has on purpose. So why is it that the policy objectives of reducing carbon have not been realised? The first error that was made—this is true of a lot of directives—is that there was confusion as to the target. A lot of the early EU directives were about renewables and not decarbonisation, which is a secondary target. The consequence is that CCS, which we have talked about, was not emphasised, gas as a transition fuel was not emphasised and nuclear was not emphasised—the biggest omission of all. Of all EU electricity, 30% comes from nuclear. The fact that, for many countries in the EU, that is not even regarded as part of the solution is quite bizarre.
Two or three hon. Members this afternoon talked about CCS, and I regret that the UK is not pushing ahead with that. However, it really beggars belief to say that that is a European issue when a number of countries in the EU, including Germany, have banned CCS. It is not a question of not developing it; they have banned it.
The other error that the EU has made is to create a general parity between different types of fossil fuels. Coal and gas are very different indeed in terms of their materiality on this. One reason why the UK does a lot better than the EU is the amount of gas that we use and the fact that we have displaced coal with gas. I like to quote this statistic: if the world were to replace all the coal that we currently burn with gas, that would be equivalent to five times, or a factor of 500%, more renewables. To pretend that that is not part of the solution is just plain wrong. One reason that people regard it as not being part of the solution is that the pathway has been mistaken for the objective.
Yes, at some point we need to get to an emissions level below that which is afforded by gas, but the truth is that emissions are cumulative. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said that we may well be close to the 1.5% in terms of particulates and all that goes with them. That is true and it is a cumulative effect. Carbon does not go out of the atmosphere for a very long time. It is not just about pathway. For that reason, gas should have been far more of a factor in this than it has been.
Geraint Davies
On the related matter of where we are, is the hon. Member as concerned as I am about the leakages of methane from fracking, which are 5%, given that methane is 83 times worse than CO2 in global warming?
David Mowat
I recognise the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. If methane were being released from fracking at that level, it would represent that percentage. However, I do not think that that is the case in the United States of America. I am prepared to be corrected on that, but I do not think anything like that amount of methane is being emitted by fracking in the United States of America.
Geraint Davies
I can provide the hon. Member with satellite evidence of this. The figure is somewhere between 3% and 8%, with the best judgment being that it is 5%. That makes it two and a half times worse than coal in terms of global warming.
David Mowat
I do not accept that that is true, but if it was, it would apply to fracked gas only and not gas generally. Most of our gas is liquefied natural gas from Norway and Russia. That said, various papers have been written on the amount of methane coming out of wells in the United States, and I do not think that the evidence is quite as the hon. Gentleman said. I think we should leave it at that for now, and maybe have a coffee afterwards.
The other thing that was not done was that the EU has no price for carbon. The emissions trading system was an attempt to put in place a price for carbon. However, because of the recession, carbon permits became very cheap indeed and it became no issue at all. We in the UK then established a carbon floor price. The EU Parliament debated that and it was blocked by MEPs, particularly those from Germany, so there is no price of carbon in the EU, which would have fixed some of this.
The result of all this is a policy that overly emphasises renewables as a solution, without taking into account some of the other things that we could have been doing, such as nuclear, CCS and the displacement of coal with gas. Result: we see in Germany a country with very high renewables, but also very high carbon emissions. Something like 15% of Germany’s total energy and 30% of its electricity come from renewables, but because of the amount of coal it produces, its carbon emissions are a third higher per unit of GDP and a third higher per capita than those of the UK.
So, there is an issue with our leaving the EU. It is not an issue of us learning from the EU how to reduce carbon emissions; it is a question of the EU not being held to account for the level of emissions that many of those countries are currently going on with. If Brexit has got a downside in terms of environmental policy around climate change, it is that the leadership that the UK has been able to demonstrate—so far, perhaps unsuccessfully—to the EU on climate targets will not necessarily be so evident in future.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was immensely frustrating to me that the environment received so little attention during the referendum campaign, despite the best efforts of my fellow members of the steering group of the cross-party Environmentalists for Europe. It seems like a lifetime ago that I stood on a rather windswept beach in Hove with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and Sir Stanley Johnson, the father of the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), brandishing a beach ball and exhorting people to remain for nature. Brighton and Hove voted to remain, and I am sure that that was entirely down to our efforts with the beach ball that day. I am proud, too, that my constituency voted to remain. The public voted narrowly for Brexit, however, although I do not believe that they voted to remove the environmental protections that have served us so well over the years.
Much that is good has flowed from our EU membership. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and others have said, Britain was once dubbed the “dirty man of Europe”. We used to worry about acid rain, but our sulphur dioxide emissions fell by 89% between 1990 and 2010, and our nitrogen dioxide emissions were down 62% thanks to EU directives, the EU ban on leaded petrol and the requirement for catalytic converters in cars.
Andrew Gwynne
I represent a constituency that has an air quality management area. My hon. Friend will know that there is a public health issue here in respect of obtaining clean air. Does she think that it is incumbent on the Government to tackle the air quality issue so that we narrow the health inequalities that are endemic in constituencies such as mine?
Kerry McCarthy
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Sixty years on from the Clean Air Act 1956, it is clear that many urban areas, in particular—although not just urban areas—are still suffering greatly from air pollution. It is an issue of social justice, because people in poorer communities tend to be most affected. The Government have been taken to court on the matter by ClientEarth and, whether we are in the European Union or outside it, we need to see further action on the issue.
It is hard to believe that we used to allow untreated sewage to flow into our seas before the EU’s bathing water directive forced the UK Government to make our bathing waters fit for swimming and to test for bacteria such as E. coli. In 1990, only 27% of our bathing waters met minimum mandatory standards. By 2014, 99% complied. The EU’s waste framework directive has been the driving force behind our domestic waste policy, requiring us to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020. As we have heard, it looks as though the UK is moving slightly backwards when it comes to progress towards recycling targets, and that needs to be halted.
The nature directive protects our most threatened habitats and birds, with beauty spots such as the New Forest, the Brecon Beacons and Ben Nevis designated as special areas of conservation. Post-Brexit, many of those protections would still apply in certain scenarios, but not in others. There is a lot of uncertainty, and I am keen to hear some early indications from the Minister of what our negotiating stance will be, as well as some reassurance about the importance of such protections. My understanding is that if the UK were to negotiate membership of the EEA, most EU environmental legislation would continue to apply, including measures covering pollution control, chemicals and waste management but not the bathing water directive or the birds and habitats directive. If the UK were outside the EEA, most environmental legislation would cease to apply. The main exception would be when companies sought to export to the EU; they would be obliged to conform to product standards and other requirements in order to do so.
Many EU directives have been transposed into UK law through primary or secondary legislation under Acts other than the European Communities Act 1972, and that legislation would continue to apply until it was changed by Parliament. EU regulations would present a different problem for the Government, however. They are directly applicable in the member states, so they could immediately cease to apply. A thorough audit must be carried out and clear guidance given to the House and the general public—who felt, throughout the referendum campaign, as though they did not really have the information that they needed to make the momentous decision that lay before them—about what protections could be under threat in each possible scenario, so that they can make up their minds about which of the scenarios they ought to support. We also need to know what the Government intend to do in each case.
There are, however, serious doubts about DEFRA’s capacity to do that. We know that the Department was woefully unprepared for a Brexit result; the Secretary of State told us that there was no plan B. The coalition Government slashed DEFRA’s resource budget by 38%, and the Chancellor last year announced a further cut of 15% for this Parliament. DEFRA and its agencies have lost a quarter of their staff. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how the Department will begin to review and untangle EU directives and regulations when we know it does not have sufficient staff or resources for even its day-to-day work.
I urge the Government to bring in experts from outside Parliament—for example, Professor Tim Lang and the Food Research Collaboration—who are already gathering ideas, meeting, discussing and trying to collate a strategy for how we should proceed. We need to know from the Minister which civil servants from DEFRA and DECC will take part in the EU unit led by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), and what their remit will be.
I am concerned that if some in the Government have their way, we will have a bonfire of protections. Some of the most prominent leave campaigners are also climate change deniers, and there has also been much anti-EU rhetoric over the years, casting environmental protections as an over-bureaucratic burden rather than a benefit. The Chancellor, before he became an EU enthusiast, tried to claim that those protections placed
“ridiculous costs on British businesses”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 808.]
but the Government’s review proved him wrong.
During the referendum campaign, the Minister with responsibility for farming, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), vowed that the nature directives would go after Brexit. He described them as “spirit-crushing green directives”—although, to be fair to him, he later said that that comment was slightly misrepresented. He also said that the marine strategy framework directive, which requires member states to achieve good environmental status in marine waters by 2020 and promote a more sustainable approach to marine-related economic and social activities, would go. We need reassurance from the Minister that those voices will not prevail in the post-Brexit scenario.
The European Commission’s “fitness check” of the directives and, tellingly, their regulatory burden, is due to report soon. In the largest response ever to an EU consultation, more than 500,000 people called for the nature laws to be kept and to be better enforced. More than 100,000 of those responses came from UK citizens. British organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have been instrumental in defending the directives, not just in the UK but across Europe.
Another example of the European Union discussing issues that affect the UK—it is not a question of legally binding obligations being imposed on us, but we certainly ought to be part of the negotiations—is the EU circular economy package, which was agreed at the end of last year. There have already been reports that during the negotiations, the UK tried to water down the package, arguing against mandatory targets and priding ourselves on inserting the word “voluntary” throughout the text. Scotland has brought forward national plans to implement the package, and Wales has its own blueprint for moving to a more circular economy. What will England do now? If the EU circular economy package is properly implemented—that is quite a big “if”—the potential for new jobs and innovative new lines of business is huge. I would like the Minister to reassure us that we will not allow Brexit to derail our progress.
A further example is the neonicotinoids ban. The European Food Safety Authority is reviewing the EU’s restrictions on the use of neonics and the latest scientific evidence of their harm to bees and other pollinators. Its assessment will inform whether changes should be made to current EU restrictions and, indeed, whether they should be extended to cover all crops. Will the UK base its view on future regulation on the EFSA assessment? Or, since those restrictions were only introduced in the first place thanks to the EU, do the Government see that as an opportunity—as the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) does—for overturning the current ban?
I also want to mention the impact on farmers and the managed environment. The common agricultural policy is far from perfect, but it is a lifeline for British farmers—around 55% of their income comes from EU subsidies. Britain’s lack of food self-sufficiency, which now stands at 61%, makes us overexposed and vulnerable to Brexit. As most experts are agreed that prices for imported food are likely to rise, we will have real difficulties offsetting that with more, much needed British-grown food, given how reliant the sector is on free movement of labour from within the EU and on migrant labour—I think I am right to say that 38% of workers in the food and farming sector come from outside the UK, and their situation is much in doubt in a post-Brexit scenario.
The leave campaign promised that a post-Brexit UK Government would be more generous to farmers, but we know that the UK lobbied for cuts to CAP support. We also know that the UK had the option of transferring 15% spending to pillar two for rural development, but only opted for 12.5% modulation, showing worrying signs about the possible direction of travel.
There are already too many examples of the Government not meeting EU requirements. As I have said, they had to be taken to court by ClientEarth for breaching EU clean air laws, as well as by the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Angling Trust over their failure to protect our rivers, lakes and coastal areas from agricultural pollution. The water framework directive required “good” ecological status by 2015 in all water bodies, but only 19% of those bodies currently comply. Some beaches have been de-designated by the Government so that they do not have to warn swimmers about poor water quality or test the waters.
Finally, some people were worried that by staying in the EU we would end up as a signatory to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and that our hard-won environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards could be compromised as a result. For example, the EU does not allow hormone-pumped meat, but the US does. What happens now? Just when the EU looks as if it will resist TTIP—signals from France and Germany suggest that it will do so in its current form—will Brexit mean that the UK Government end up negotiating a bilateral trade deal with the US? If so, will our much weaker bargaining position mean that we cede ground on those important standards? Rather than “taking back control”, bilateral negotiations with the US could leave us with even less control. With so many unanswered questions, and faced with losing EU protections, Ministers need to assure us that Brexit will not mean environmental degradation and pollution spiralling out of control.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. As well as having a fantastically named constituency—it is much easier to remember than Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk—the new hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) did herself proud and stood tall for Tooting today. There were so many Labour MPs on the Benches around her that I wondered whether she was going to make a bid for her party’s leadership.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig)—the other half, as he claims, of Team Callum. He failed to mention that he calls himself Callum 2.0. He is taller and has more hair, but anyone who can see his shoes knows that there are clearly some flaws in the design.
Calum Kerr
We do, absolutely.
This has been an excellent debate—it is a shame that we did not have more such debates prior to the referendum. SNP Members did everything in our power to promote the case for the UK remaining in the European Union, and a key part of that was about keeping the protections that EU legislation has brought in the workplace, and on human rights and the environment. Unfortunately, those issues were too often brushed aside in the fierce political contest that we experienced during the referendum. Indeed, as we have heard, the environment scarcely featured in the debate about Britain’s membership of the EU.
The environmental protections that we have enjoyed in this country for decades, which cover areas such as air and water quality, emissions, waste, chemical regulation, and habitat protection, are all underpinned by EU legislation. Britain’s membership of the European Union has had an extremely positive effect on the quality of Britain’s beaches, our water and rivers, and on the air that we breathe. It has underpinned protection for many of our rarest birds, plants and animals, and their habitats. Like so many other questions on the detail of Brexit, the question of how we will continue to protect those precious assets needs a coherent answer.
Whenever we look at an issue in more detail, the value of European collaboration becomes clear. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) told the country just days after encouraging us to vote to leave:
“There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment.”
It is not clear how that picture of intensifying European co-operation squares with the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday that “Brexit means Brexit”.
On matters that stretch across a range of different fields that are vital to our prosperity and wellbeing, there has been little more than evasion and confusion from the Government thus far. That is why Ministers must do everything in their power to clarify how they will take forward the protection of the UK’s environment in this new political situation. There is so much about the EU that we do not want to abandon. For example, as part of my other brief, I have noticed in meetings on the digital single market a strong view that it makes sense to continue to adhere to EU directives and projects, even though we have voluntarily given up the capacity to shape them.
It is worth considering how the country’s approach to the environment has been shaped since it joined the EU. As many hon. Members have said, in the 1980s Britain was known as “the dirty man of Europe” because of widespread pollution of air, land and water. There is a risk that Britain will end up regaining that reputation. Although the UK has sometimes willingly followed the drive for environmental standards, and even at times led the way, it has taken years to get this country to meet some standards that are considered the norm in Europe.
When we consider environmental protection, it is worth remembering that in addition to the inherent worth of our landscape and ecosystems, there are key economic benefits to protecting biodiversity. Our natural environment in Scotland contributes an estimated £21.5 billion to the Scottish economy. Scotland also provides the major part of the UK’s contribution to the EU-established Natura 2000 network of protected sites, with more than 15% of our land designated for a wealth of habitats and species.
During the campaign, we heard nothing from the Brexiteers about what a vote to leave would mean for the habitats directive, for the circular economy, with its need for long-term planning and investment, or for issues around water quality, on which the UK still has a lot of catching up to do. What we did hear was a deep and often ideologically driven opposition to “red tape”. That red tape includes measures that protect rare species and unique habitats, and that prevent companies from damaging the environment or using dangerous chemicals in their products. It is now time to put the rhetorical bluster about red tape behind us and move on to focusing on what the Government’s red lines will be as they undertake these negotiations. If their priorities are muddled, or if key protections are sacrificed for short-term gain, we could be living with the impact for generations. Wherever all the moving parts of this constitutional crisis end up, we must ensure that the UK continues on the right path. As a range of environmental groups asserted before and after Brexit, co-operation and collaboration within Europe and with the EU works, because we do not solve such problems in isolation. My nation, Scotland, understands that, but does this House and do this Government also understand?
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
When considering this question, and in respect of investor confidence, my concerns are as follows. Investment in oil and gas renewables, or any energy or environmental project or initiative, relies on, among other things, stable legislation. Investors must be able to rely on the conditions under which they are prepared to invest lasting for, preferably, the duration of that project or initiative. That has not been the case with this Government and previous Governments.
There have been about 18 legislative changes in the oil and gas sector in the past 15 years. Allied to that, there has been the withdrawal from green initiatives such as the zero-carbon home policy. The green deal home improvement fund was abolished. Solar subsidies have been cut and the onshore wind farm subsidy has been removed. The door has been opened to fracking and a cap for biomass fuel subsidy has been introduced. The UK Green Investment Bank has been privatised, the green tax target on renewable energy investment has been abandoned and green car incentives have been cut. Particularly significant for me, as I worked on one of the projects, was the cancelling of the competition for carbon capture and storage.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is illustrating the sorry place the Government have now taken the country. It is no longer Britannia rules the waves: it is Britannia waives the rules.
Philip Boswell
That is an excellent point well made by my hon. Friend.
The legislative changes in that short list can do nothing but discourage investors from investing in new energy production. The cancellation of the £1 billion carbon capture and storage competition initiative set out in the 2015 autumn statement will make it almost impossible for the UK to meet its climate change targets.
Calum Kerr
My hon. Friend highlights one reason why there is concern among Opposition Members. I have a degree of faith in the ministerial team who are sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), and the Secretary of State understand the challenges. In this place, however, all too often the Treasury decides. Will my hon. Friend join me in pushing for a member of the ministerial team in the Chamber to become Chancellor?
Philip Boswell
I thank my hon. Friend for his commendable comments. I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Matthew Bell, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, said:
“if you don’t have CCS, then you really need to virtually completely decarbonise your transport sector and completely decarbonise your heating sectors, in order to deliver on the 2050 ambition”.
Since both these sectors seriously lag behind in the decarbonisation of energy production, this seems extremely unlikely, to say the least. The underlying message of the changes is that the cost of subsidising renewable energy has been underestimated by the Government. That has led to the Treasury’s withdrawal of the green deals for consumers, housebuilders and energy investors alike. The Government have instead put all their eggs in the dual basket of fracking and nuclear energy, neither of which looks to be progressing very smoothly, and that makes achieving the UK’s mandatory climate change targets highly unlikely. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in the Chamber, touched on the problems of Hinkley C. As anyone can see, this history of successive short-termist UK Governments continuously moving the legislative goalposts can only undermine investor confidence. Brexit will only serve to exacerbate that problem further, which was a point well made by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who is no longer in the Chamber.
On energy security, last year I was a member of the European Energy Market Design Committee. The Committee was at a very early stage of engagement, but the potential for cross-European energy sharing among EU members via interconnectors and the like was striking. I wonder if that Committee will even sit again this year, given Brexit. It should be obvious to all that an efficient interconnector network and shared energy design across Europe would benefit all. When the wind is blowing in Scotland, as it invariably does, the energy that is generated can be used elsewhere. If there is no wind, but the sun is shining in Spain, we can share that mutual benefit. I sincerely hope the Committee does meet again, but we have just made things much harder for ourselves as we try to co-ordinate European efficient energy supply from without the EU.
I should say at this point that Scotland has no intention of suffering the fallout from Brexit, the ramifications of which are still to be understood. As my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) both pointed out, we are staying in Europe.
I, like most sensible politicians, turn to independent experts for opinions and answers to questions about complex matters such as the natural environment. My points about the circular economy have been well made by other Members, so I will skip on to my next point.
The Institution of Environmental Sciences is currently conducting a survey of its members, in which it asks:
“What impact do you think the UK’s decision to leave the EU will have on environmental protection?”
An overwhelming 81% of highly educated, experienced environmental professionals consider that
“Without binding EU law, it is likely environmental regulations will be weakened or scrapped in the UK.”
A pre-EU referendum survey of members of the Institution of Environmental Sciences showed that 68% were in support of the UK remaining in the EU. The UK has been disproportionately successful in securing funding for research projects in the environmental sciences and other sectors due to the strength of our science base. Under the seventh framework programme, FP7, which ran from 2007 to 2013, €1,704 million was spent on projects falling under the environment theme. Of the 4,055 projects funded under the FP7 environment theme, according to the Community Research and Development Information Services, 603 were based in the UK, which made us second only to Germany, with 645.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about the contribution of EU funding to research. I recently visited the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. While I was there, it was announced that it would receive a significant six-figure sum from Europe to fund some of its research, but obviously it is now very worried about what Brexit will mean. I also went to Harper Adams agricultural University, which does amazing work with lasers, drones and all sorts of hi-tech research. Again, that is dependent on EU funding to a large extent.
Philip Boswell
I completely agree with the hon. Lady and share her concerns about funding when Britain leaves the EU. Brexit does not bode well for the future of positive environmental projects in the UK.
I want to ask a number of questions of the Minister and to make a final point. First, Scotland has an incredible opportunity to be a world leader in a range of renewable technologies that are a vital part of our energy supply in the UK. They help the environment and create jobs in communities across Scotland. What steps will the Secretary of State and her Government take to ensure that Scotland remains at the forefront of renewable and offshore industries?
Secondly, the recent vote to leave the EU has plunged the UK’s energy sector into further uncertainty. The SNP calls on the UK Government to halt their damaging programme of austerity and to inject the economy with the investment necessary to stimulate growth and create a healthy environment for investors and consumers alike. What will the Government do to protect businesses and consumers from the Brexit fallout?
Thirdly, the SNP believes that enhancing energy efficiency in homes throughout the UK can provide valuable benefits to individual consumers, from improvements to quality of life to reducing fuel poverty, which is a key issue that has not been touched on enough today. The energy efficiency of homes should be a top priority so, in that respect, what does the Secretary of State intend to do to reduce fuel poverty? Fourthly, what do she and her Government intend to do so that we will hit our climate change targets and keep the lights on?
Renewable energy storage and efficiency are key to the future of UK energy. More needs to be done on non-intermittent green energy, so I urge the Secretary of State to invest in pumped storage, particularly at Cruachan and Coire Glas in Scotland.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had an important and revealing debate—revealing because it has confirmed our worst fears: that the Government called a referendum without first carrying out an analysis of what might happen should the electorate opt to leave the EU. It can be called nothing but reckless to enter upon a process without first carrying out a risk assessment. The analysis should have come first, as we have heard from many hon. Members in this debate.
This has been an excellent debate, however, with a deep understanding of all the impacts of leaving the EU. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), talked about the impact on climate change and the impact it is already having on some of the poorest people in our communities—2.83 million households are already in fuel poverty and, as we have heard, fuel bills are rising. We also heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the outstanding Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, highlighting many of the protections at risk if we leave the EU, along with the advances of the past 40 years—40 years of marriage summed up in two years of divorce. In particular, she highlighted the issues of air quality, water management, waste and, of course, biodiversity protection.
We were privileged to hear today the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). It was a tour de force. She brings to the House the energy with which she served her patients in accident and emergency and her community, and we are honoured to have her in the House. I know that she will be an excellent advocate for her constituents for many years to come. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has been a strong campaigner on air quality and emissions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who said many of the things I wanted to bring up. She brings great expertise to the House. We heard from other hon. Members across the House concerns about the impact of leaving the EU.
It was the Government’s determination that we should have a referendum, but first the impact of leaving should have been analysed—clearly, remaining would have resulted in normal policy processes. They could have then shared the outcomes with the electorate. We have heard today about the many risks. Not only should the impact assessment have taken place, but there should have been an understanding of the volume and depth of our regulatory ties with the EU and some scenario planning for what environmental protections the Government would prioritise should the pound plummet, as it is at the moment.
For instance, a member of the public asked me whether pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy would be implemented in full or whether the Government would scale back on the £563 million currently received back from the EU, and whether they would meet their match-funding obligations. We need to know the detail. How will farmers maintain a competitive edge while addressing conservation challenges and ensuring sustainable protections? We have not heard from the Government how much legislation is tied up with the EU. It is estimated that about 70% of our environmental protections originate from Brussels, but what is the real figure and how integrated are we? We have not heard from them how much resource is needed to carry out detailed analysis of the impact of leaving the EU in the context of the cut to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of 57% by 2020. Neither have we heard what amount of resources would be necessary to renegotiate each regulation, if that is the path we go down. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) suggested an alternative way forward.
How will we—or will we not—engage with the EU in the future on so many of these important environmental issues? How will we regulate, police and enforce the new UK-based law system as it affects the environment in respect of what currently occurs in the EU courts? What will be the mechanisms of the future? We still do not know. We have not heard about the costs of the necessary work and we have not heard even whether the people with the right skill sets are present in the Department at this time. We have not heard how the fall of the pound, wiping millions off the value of our economy, will impact on environmental projects and research. Neither have we seen any analysis of the global impacts. Perhaps the Government plan is simply to buy the whole package off Europe, but at what price? Will the cost be the same as for existing EU nations or will we pay more for those benefits? These are questions that must be answered.
Many Labour Members are concerned about the global impacts on the environment because we believe that protecting our climate and environment is one of the most important functions of Government. We are already witnessing a massive impact of decades of neglect. We see floods and famine, disease and drought, climate change and conflict, and we see population migration as a result, the impact of which can be felt across the globe, including on us here in the UK. The environment does not respect national borders. From the macro level to the micro level in respect of the loss of habitats and species, the Government have a weighty responsibility to drive forward a programme of responsible stewardship.
In 2010, the UK led the world on issues such as climate change and improving the environment. Opposition Members are proud of that, even while we acknowledge that there was so much more to do. As we have heard today, when it comes to dealing with climate change issues, we have slipped out of the top 10 nations and are now ranked 13th in the world—not the way in which we want to progress on these issues as we move forward. The UK led the EU as a major player on the global stage for environmental protections. We want to ensure that we maintain a strong voice as we move forward, rebalancing our natural environment. The strength of our influence, however, is now unclear. We will no longer be at the EU table, pressing the EU to go further.
Given that we have a falling and failing economy, I must press the Minister to commit to legislate to secure protection on all environmental measures that we are currently obliged to meet in the EU. How will he advance them, and how will he regulate to ensure enforcement of them? As we look back at our history, we do not want to become known as “the dirty man of Europe”; we want to make real advances on where we are today. Labour is clear: the Government must act urgently to replace these vital environmental protections in full.
On the most simple level, I want the Minister to clarify whether we will see—before the summer recess as the Government committed to provide—the two long-awaited 25-year plans for food and farming and the plans for the environment, or are these now placed in the box marked, “We did not have a leave plan, so we do not know what on earth we are going to do”? Will the Minister please provide some clarification today?
Labour wants to ensure that external pressures still lean on this Government. On air quality, we saw the World Health Organisation report released earlier today. Air quality is a public health issue; it impacts on people’s respiratory functions. As someone who worked in respiratory medicine for 20 years, I understand the impact that bad air can have. We have heard today how up to 50,000 people’s lives are ended prematurely as a result of the quality of air in our country. Yes, people are dying prematurely.
We need to know what the Government are going to do about the urgent question of air quality. It is already a serious issue in my own city of York, where people are dying prematurely, and I am aware of plans for developments that will worsen the air quality in our city. There are questions that we must address, from the question of how many trees we will plant to the question of how we will protect the provisions of important directives, to which so many of my colleagues have referred today. We want answers to those questions. The Government must set out their strategy for the future, which they failed to do before the EU referendum to take account of a possible leave vote.
Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us today. Will he commit himself to continuing to apply the precautionary principle when scientific data are not complete, or will he agree with the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and adopt the much weaker United States risk-based approach, which imposes limits on the way in which pesticides, genetically modified crops and food management are dealt with, so that profit is often placed ahead of environmental protections? We have a right to know the answer, as do the people of our country.
If there were time, I would raise many more of our concerns about the Government’s environmental protections. Ours is a fragile and complex environment. Over the last decades, we have worked diligently with our European friends and neighbours to rebalance our environment and climate, and today the Government should have made clear how they will advance the progress that has been made so far. We cannot afford further delay. We believe that the Government must, as a matter of urgency, replicate the multitude of EU directives in UK law. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will secure our environment for the years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
Let me begin by paying a huge tribute to the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for an extraordinary maiden speech. It contained five elements that, I think, encapsulated the heart of this debate. First, there was her extraordinary sense of history, and the commitment that she showed in talking about Nye Bevan and the Clean Air Act 1956. Secondly, there was her sense of responsibility, and of the scale of the challenge that we face. Thirdly, there were her energy and optimism. Fourthly, there was her sense of place: she said she thought people who said that Tooting was becoming a fantastic place were missing the fact that—as she felt—it had been a fantastic place all her life. Finally, there was her sense of the importance of humans in the history of the landscape, whether she was talking about the lido at Tooting or about her own community and family.
In general, through her rhetoric, through her language and through her love of this place, the hon. Lady—as the Member of Parliament who has entered the House at the moment when we are leaving the European Union—gave us a real reason to be optimistic about Parliament and the sovereignty of Parliament. The five elements that she contributed represent exactly what we hope to bring to the British environment in the future.
An enormous number of questions have been asked today. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), asked the Government to respond to specific queries on—I think—nine separate occasions. I counted 35 questions posed by him, and a further 117 posed by other Members. I have approximately nine minutes in which to answer those questions, and, with the House’s permission, I will therefore focus on the natural environment rather than on energy issues, with apologies to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig)—Callum senior. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell), who initiated an extremely erudite discussion of many energy-related issues, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who drew attention to a number of ways in which domestic legislation underpinned UK energy policy, and explained that some of the references to the European Union were a little misleading.
I shall not be able to engage as fully as I would like with the forensic speech made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), although it was an extraordinary speech which raised an enormous number of very important points. However, I shall try to deal with those points in the round.
In essence, four main types of point were made in this debate and they form the structure of an answer. First, the importance of being deeply optimistic about Britain’s future outside the EU was pointed out, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and the Secretary of State. That is partly, as the Secretary of State said, because of the very real strengths that exist in this country. As Members on both sides pointed out, we derive immense positives from our membership of the EU, and they have been concisely listed. The hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), for Bristol East and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) laid out the powerful progress made over the past 42 years in air and water quality, and that is driven by EU law and EU financial assistance, and by the structures of the EU that protected our landscape. As the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) pointed out, it is important for our international industry to ensure we have uniform standards so there is not a race to the bottom. We cannot simply think about this island as though we were not exposed to environmental factors from abroad; 85% of our birds are migratory, and between a third and a half of our air blows in from other countries—that is the air pollution coming into our country. Indeed, our terrestrial biodiversity is dependent on ensuring there is not acid rain and sulphur dioxide raining on the peat bogs and grasses on which we depend.
However, as my hon. Friends the Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Poole (Mr Syms) pointed out, we in the United Kingdom had a strong tradition of environmentalism long before we joined the EU. Indeed, the history of environmental protection in the UK stretches back almost 1,000 years to the formation of the royal forests in Scotland and in England and the habitat protection brought in place to nearly 23% of our land mass at that period, and it carries on through the contributions of Walter Scott and Wordsworth to ensuring the protection of our landscapes. Indeed, over the next four years we will be celebrating several anniversaries: the centenary of the Forestry Commission, founded in 1919; the anniversary of our national parks, founded in 1947; and the anniversary of the Clean Air Act, passed in 1956.
There will be opportunities available to us from leaving the EU. The hon. Member for Brent North pointed out that there have been some advantages from EU funding for flooding, but there have of course been significant challenges too. One way in which we would like to address natural responses to flood management is by planting trees. In order to do that, we need to be able to look at flexible and intelligent ways of moving money between what are currently quite rigid budget structures. If we are dealing with farmers planting trees on their land to slow the flow of water, we need to think intelligently about how the payments we give for agriculture, the environment and flooding can work together, rather than against each other. When looking at laws, we need to ensure we remain flexible with regard to the best of modern science, and there are ways in which rigid legal structures brought into place by 27 member states have in the past made it difficult to respond to recent evidence. Members raised the question of inspections and fines as well, and, again, those rigid inspection regimes have, at their worst, sometimes discredited the very environmental regulations we wish to protect. Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) pointed out, there are perverse consequences of parts of the CAP for the environmental conditions we value so much.
The principles on which we now need to move forward were laid out very powerfully by this House, and by the hon. Member for Bristol East in her initial intervention, and they seem to me to be sixfold. They are the principles of realism, of humility, of honesty about conflict, of being honest with the public, of confidence and of identity. I shall expand briefly on those principles. First, on realism, we have to acknowledge that leaving the European Union will not mean leaving government behind. People will continue to be frustrated by bureaucracy and they will continue to have to respond to procurement regulations. We will continue to have to operate in an international environment. We will have to make compromises.
On the principle of humility, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane rightly pointed out that not everyone in this country is always interested in the environment. We have to be realistic about our power and about our capacity as a Government to respond. On the principle of honesty about conflict, land remains a deeply conflicted issue. We must not imagine that simply leaving the European Union will overcome the serious conflicts between different land uses in our constituencies. There are conflicts between people’s desire to build housing, people’s desire to create renewable energy, people’s desire to produce productive food and people’s desire to protect the species and habitats that we value so much.
The principles of confidence and identity are perhaps the most important of all. The decision in the referendum was made by one of the most well educated, well travelled populations in the most mature democracy on Earth, and we need to ensure that we recognise the legitimacy of that democratic choice. We need to put our full energy and optimism behind it. We need to understand, in responding to this, that the British identity—this extends to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—is based fundamentally on our land.
In moving forward, we need to reassure people. As the Secretary of State pointed out, we need to play a full role in all our international conferences. We need to ensure, for example, that we play a responsible and reliable international role in the forthcoming conferences on biodiversity and on the convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES. We could also be far more imaginative.
Geraint Davies
Does the Minister accept that there is still a case for a second referendum on the exit package and the precise terms of our leaving the EU? We have only agreed to leave in principle; people have not yet seen what is in the can.
Rory Stewart
Absolutely not. I disagree strongly with that intervention. However, the hon. Gentleman has shown the optimism we need through his focus on technology, just as the hon. Member for Bristol East did through her focus on the markets in China and India. There is so much potential out there in the environment. We could show the lead in the Amazon rainforest. We could show the lead in defining, through our natural capital approach, what it means to take a British initiative—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Minister is saying some important things, but people are chatting.
Rory Stewart
In conclusion, land and the conflicts around land have been fundamental to the problems in our society since the days of Cain and Abel, but we can be confident in this country. We have extraordinary natural scientists. We have a rich civil society with 9 million people connected to environmental non-governmental organisations. We have extraordinary legal structures in place. We have incredible new Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Tooting, bringing their energy and optimism to this House. If we can bring all that together, we can prove in the future, as we have proved over the last millennium, that the British landscape and environment, and their extraordinary combination of productive food and nature, can remain at the heart of our national identity for ever.
Question put.
SATs Results
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that every child deserves an excellent education which enables them to grow and thrive; notes that the Government has published figures showing that a lower proportion of children were meeting the expected standard at the end of Key Stage 2 overall in 2016 than in 2015; further notes that, as a result, in 2016 47 percent of children will be told that they have not reached the expected standard in at least one of their SATs papers; regrets that the Secretary of State for Education has pushed ahead with chaotic and confusing reforms which mean that thousands of children will be unnecessarily labelled as failures, and that the Secretary of State is steadily losing the confidence of teachers; and calls on the Government urgently to review primary assessment and the 2016 SATs results and to clarify that these will not be used for measuring and judging school performance.
The 2016 key stage 2 standard assessment tests, which assess children in reading, writing, spelling, grammar, punctuation and maths, are the first to assess the new primary national curriculum, which was introduced in 2014. The Government claim that they have raised expectations for pupils at the end of key stage 2, but those at the chalk-face—primary school teachers and school leaders—say that the expected standard for SATs has been set at a level that is beyond the reach of the majority of children.
Our children are being set up to fail. Almost half of England’s 11-year-olds will now go on to secondary school, having been told by this Government that they are failures. However, the real failures are this Government, particularly the current Secretary of State for Education who pushed ahead with this flawed system despite all the warnings from the education profession that the primary assessment system was not fit for purpose.
Under this Government, children who fail to meet the totally unrealistic expected target at the end of key stage 2—47% of children—will be required to resit these tests in future. School leaders were told yesterday that the catch-up funding for secondary schools will not increase despite the rise in the number of pupils deemed to be below the expected standard. For these pupils, the first year at big school—and all the excitement and anticipation that it should bring—will instead become an anxious replay of drilling for tests in English and maths, which they sat in primary school. I can only imagine the impact on those young lives—to have to go through it all again, to feel a failure, to see their friends getting on when they should be looking ahead to new challenges and new opportunities.
I remember being told that I would never amount to anything, but look at me now. I want—teachers want—every child to know that they are amazing. I want an education system that helps every child realise their full potential.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Lady may remember that under the last Labour Government we had such a system. It was fantastic. Every child was told that they were succeeding. It was just that when we looked at the international league tables, we went down, down and down. We had grade inflation. Whatever her critique of SATs results this year, does she not agree that we must have high standards and we must maintain those standards over time; otherwise we will go back to those days under Labour when we let down the future of young people by pretending that they were successful when, in fact, they were not?
Angela Rayner
I remember that under Labour we had Sure Start, we had Every Child Matters, we had new schools, we had teachers in the profession, we had people and children feeling that they were happy. At present we have teachers taking unprecedented industrial action and leaving the profession at record rates, so I take no lectures from those on the Government Benches regarding the current situation.
The Opposition recognise that ongoing assessment and consistent testing in schools is extremely important to help teachers and parents support and provide new challenges for all children. Such tests can identify and close any gaps in knowledge so that all pupils can do well. But a proper assessment regime needs consistency and needs to be understood by all.
The Government have utterly failed to deliver on this. The current SATs tests go too far. The Secretary of State has chopped and changed too much. She has caused disruption and chaos in our schools and extra bureaucracy for our teachers. The key stage 2 assessments have been an unmitigated disaster and a nightmare for thousands of children, ending in disappointment and prolonged uncertainty. They also have serious consequences for thousands of schools because of the way this Government use them as part of the school accountability system.
KS2 SATs are used to rank schools in league tables. They are scrutinised by the Department for Education and regional schools commissioners, who form judgments on schools’ performance. Ofsted uses SATs results when forming its inspection judgments, and parents take them into account when choosing their children’s school. Schools’ reputations are heavily dependent on how their pupils perform in these tests.
The National Association of Head Teachers asked the Secretary of State not to publish the data, as she herself has conceded that it is not to be compared with that for previous years. The NAHT general secretary, Russell Hobby, said:
“Given the changes to SATs this year, and the mistakes we’ve seen, it is hard see how valuable this data will be to parents who want to understand how well a school is performing year on year or compared to other schools. But the government does love a league table, regardless of how accurate it may be.”
Worryingly, the schools commissioners are already using the provisional results from these tests to identify those schools to which they can apply their extensive legal powers to force them into academy status on the spurious grounds that they are failing, coasting or underperforming.
Does all this remind us of anything—children who are judged failures at an early age, being separated from their primary school classmates; schools which are being wrongly condemned as second class? That sounds to me like the dark days of the 11-plus, with children branded failures before they have even reached their teens and separated from their classmates, with all the stigma that that can bring. Many adults today still recount the lasting effects that that had on them.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I have to confess that I myself am one such failure—of the 12-plus system. However, does the hon. Lady agree with any form of testing? If so, what type of testing would she bring forward?
Angela Rayner
I made it quite clear in my opening remarks that the Opposition recognise the need for testing, but it is the chaotic way in which the Secretary of State has brought in the new key stage 2 SATs that is damaging and that potentially makes people feel a failure. Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I am sure he recognises that the 11-plus and 12-plus caused uncertainty and that feeling of failure. I remember how I felt when I was branded a failure, and these things do not help our young people today.
The Government seem hellbent on bringing back the 11-plus through the back door. They can deny that, but the evidence is right in front of us: children are being selected on the basis of muddle-headed tests into two separate groups—winners and losers, successes and failures—and their primary schools are being branded in exactly the same way. It is the 11-plus by any other name.
The tests do not give a rounded picture of the work of individual pupils or their schools. I could not put things any better than Mrs Jane Grecic, the headteacher of Lansbury Bridge School in St Helen’s, who wrote to one of her 11-year-old pupils, Ben, about his SATs results. Ben is autistic, and Mrs Grecic congratulated him on his fabulous progress, writing:
“these tests only measure a little bit of you and your abilities…Ben…is made up of many other skills and talents that we at Lansbury Bridge see and measure in other ways…These tests do not measure…Your artistic talents…Your ability to work in a team…Your growing independence…Your kindness…Your ability to express your opinion…Your abilities in sport…Your ability to make and keep friends…Your ability to discuss and evaluate your own progress…Your design and building talents…Your musical ability”.
This fine headteacher concludes:
“we are so pleased that all of these different talents and abilities make you the special person you are and these are all of the things we measure to reassure us that you are always making progress and continuing to develop as a lovely bright young man. Well done Ben, we are very proud of you.”
I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating young Ben on his development at the tender age of 11 and, indeed, his headteacher, on showing in very real, human terms how these test results should in no way make a child feel they are not developing well.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case. Does she agree that we should be encouraging children and giving them confidence, particularly in areas such as mine, where there are high levels of deprivation, and where children are told by many people that they cannot achieve or go far in life? These things add to that, and we should be encouraging our children and giving them confidence, not discouraging them.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have to heed the concerns of the professionals. It is a real tragedy when we set children up to fail. The Government need to work with the profession to make sure this year’s mistakes are not repeated and to build a system that works better for children, parents and schools. These results do not reflect the dedication of teachers and the many extra hours they have worked to ensure that all children can fulfil their potential, despite the turmoil caused by the Secretary of State’s chaotic and confusing reforms.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Is the shadow Secretary of State aware of the real danger of children leaving primary school and heading to secondary school without adequate maths and English? Once they have done that, there is only a one in nine chance they will cover the ground necessary for them to develop into proper adults. Is that not a serious matter, and should it not at least be addressed through some form of knowledge about outcomes?
Angela Rayner
I am only too aware of that, because I failed my GCSEs—I did not get grades A to C. We had a well-attended Westminster Hall debate about early years intervention and it is important that we put the structures in place to help children, not make them feel like failures through our own failures.
These SATs undermine the morale of our dedicated primary teachers, who have battled against the odds to prepare children for tests they knew were inappropriate while trying to protect them from their worst consequences. They could result in thousands more schools being forced to become academies. They do not reflect the hard work of children with special educational needs or those for whom English is an additional language. These tests are designed to measure what children cannot do, not what they can do. Nor do they measure the many ways in which our children learn to develop and succeed every day of their young lives.
The impact of these SATs on children is best illustrated by their parents. Rachel McCollin from Birmingham says:
“My son is tired, stressed and paranoid that he’s going to fail—I can’t wait for this week to be over.”
Katharine Lee from Bath says:
“My son hardly slept on Sunday night and was a nervous wreck on Monday morning, despite us telling him that these tests are not the be-all and end-all. It’s way too much pressure at 11.”
We have already forced the Government into a U-turn on forced academisation, but they are using these results to compel even more academisation through the back door. It is hardly surprising that teachers and school leaders have lost confidence in the Secretary of State and her education policies. Guidance arrived late and changed frequently. Test papers were leaked and the design of tests was poor. Preparation for the SATs had a negative impact on children’s access to a broad and balanced curriculum. Ninety per cent. of teachers thought that this year’s changes had had a negative impact on children’s experience at school. Teachers spoke of demoralisation, demotivation, and physical and mental distress. This is a damning indictment of the Secretary of State’s performance. She has been entrusted with the future of our children and the future of our country, and she has failed; we do not need any test to see that.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
I wanted to give the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) the benefit of the doubt, because she has not been shadow Secretary of State for Education for very long and I can sense her passion for the subject, in terms of her own experiences in education and her family. However, her speech captured everything that is wrong with the Labour party at the moment: mad conspiracy theories, deferring to the unions, and zero answers to the problems facing this country. This is about young people who were let down by a Labour Government who consistently sold them short in terms of their life chances.
The hon. Lady was wrong on all counts—wrong on tests, wrong on selection, and wrong on giving young people the best start in life. Nothing—nothing at all—is more important than making sure that young people master the basics of the three R’s, and master them early. If they do not, they face a struggle for the rest of their lives and are denied the opportunity to realise their full potential. That is why making sure that every child in this country has a good grasp of literacy and numeracy is a matter of social justice.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is particularly sad is that Labour Members appear to think it is more important to let children think that they are ready for secondary school than actually to ensure that they are?
Nicky Morgan
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, a former Chair of the Education Committee. He is absolutely right that Labour Members appear to want to sell young people short, rather than being clear with them about the standards that are needed to compete not just with the best in this country, but with the best in the world.
When this Government came to office in 2010, too many young people entering secondary school were not able to read, write or add up well enough. England’s pupils were far behind their peers in top-performing countries right across the globe. International test after international test showed other nations surging ahead while England’s performance stagnated. In fact, the OECD identified England as one of the few countries in which the basic skills of school leavers were no better than those of their grandparents’ generation. To me, that is nothing short of a scandal, and central to that scandal was that the curriculum being taught in many primary schools, and the tests that the pupils were taking, were not up to scratch.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My constituency has some spectacular primary schools and some outstanding secondary schools, but as I go around the schools in my constituency, I find that too many young people are let down at the secondary stage of their education. They come out of primary school with very good results, but slip back over their five years in secondary school. What is the Education Secretary going to do about standards in secondary education as well as in primary?
Nicky Morgan
I will not give the hon. Gentleman all the details that I could set out if we were having a broader debate about education, because that would risk straying off the subject of key stage 2 SATs. We are, however, reforming GCSEs, introducing the EBacc, looking at technical and professional education and increasing the number of young people over the age of 16 in apprenticeships. Last Friday we launched the skills plan. I do not disagree that there are challenges at both stages of education. The chief inspector of Ofsted has identified those first three years at secondary school as a time when children, particularly bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds, slip backwards. To me, that is also a matter of social justice, and I think that the hon. Gentleman and I can find common cause on the need to tackle it.
The trouble with the attitude of the Labour party is that while it allowed Labour politicians to trumpet ever higher pass rates, the price was low standards that let down the young people trying to master these vital subjects.
Neil Carmichael
To reinforce the Secretary of State’s point, is she concerned by the observation of National Numeracy that 78% of this country’s adult population scarcely reach level 2 in maths? That is appalling and we must work with total devotion to put the situation right. The SATs under discussion are one tool in a toolbox that we must use.
Nicky Morgan
I agree entirely with the Chairman of the Education Committee. Numeracy and literacy are basic skills and building blocks—the Prime Minister has called them the ultimate vocational subjects. Everybody needs to have confidence in them. On post-16 funding, this Government have required those who do not have a grade C at GCSE English and maths to continue to take the subject. It is worth noting that 70% of key stage 2 pupils who took the new test last week achieved the expected standard in mathematics. They are to be congratulated on their hard work.
This Government refused to accept the status quo that let young people down. That was why, in consultation with experts from across the education sector, we introduced a new, world-class primary school curriculum. That curriculum raised the bar on what counts as a good enough standard in the three R’s so that children would leave primary school genuinely ready for success in their secondary studies.
To measure how schools and pupils were performing against the new curriculum, new tests were required. I know that some oppose testing, but they could not be more wrong. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) about what tests she would introduce, but she could not answer that question. I think we can agree that tests are a vital part of teaching because they allow teachers to know whether a pupil has understood key subjects, give parents confidence that their children are on track and allow schools to identify where extra support is needed.
These tests are not about holding children to account and they are not exams. The best schools try to make sure that taking SATs involves as little stress as possible. As one teacher said to me just last week, “The children had such a positive attitude towards the SATs, which definitely paid off.”
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows about teachers’ concerns on this issue. What is she doing to assuage these concerns and to engage with the profession? More importantly, what is she doing to ensure that, next year, more than 53% of children in our primary schools meet the expected standards?
Nicky Morgan
I am of course aware of the concerns. I read emails and letters from teachers, and I have conversations with teachers at every school that I visit. Those concerns were inevitable, given that this was the first year. This was always going to be a challenging year, as is the case for the first year of any new tests. I say that as someone who took the new GCSEs in their first year, way back in the late 1980s. We have made moves to tackle the workload and we are, of course, listening to the feedback that teachers have given us this year as we think about the structure of the assessment frameworks for next year. We will continue to do that.
I talked about a positive attitude towards SATs because that is not unique. Polling from ComRes of 10 and 11-year-olds found that 62% of pupils either “don’t mind” or “enjoy” taking the tests. That is far more than the number who say that they “don’t like” or “hate” taking the tests.
As I said, I know that in the first year of these tests being rolled out, the administration was not as smooth as it could have been, and for that we have apologised. However, in the few cases where errors occurred, we took immediate action, ensuring that the overall roll-out of the new SATs was a success. Lower results do not represent a failure of our reforms. I have been very clear that it is not possible to compare this year’s results with last year’s. We have always been clear that because we not only introduced a new curriculum but raised the bar, results would be lower as the new curriculum is bedding in.
That brings into sharp relief the contrast between this Government and the Labour party. We want children to really understand the curriculum so that they can compete with the best in the world. We do not want to run the risk of them leaving school without the knowledge and skills that they need to succeed. The Labour party, in contrast, clearly appears quite happy for that to happen. Labour Members forget that it is not the children in schools in leafy areas with supportive parents who read to them every night who most need their primary curriculum to set them up for life. It is the ones who are not brought up with high aspirations and interested parents who need their teachers and schools to aim high for them, and that is what these tests and the new curriculum are about.
In fact, the results showed that schools have resoundingly risen to meet the higher bar: two thirds of pupils achieved the expected standard in reading; seven in 10 achieved it in mathematics; and almost three quarters achieved it in writing. Despite the doom-mongering from Labour Members, more than half of young people achieved the expected standard in all three subjects. That number will rise as schools and pupils experience more of the new curriculum.
What does this mean for children who did not meet the expected standard? It means one thing: secondary schools are now aware of that and are able to give those pupils the support that they need to catch up. It absolutely does not mean, and never has meant, that those children have somehow failed. The only people who have used these results to label children failures are the National Union of Teachers and now the Labour party. That is absolutely shameful.
Nicky Morgan
No, I am not going to give way.
Let me also be clear about what this means for schools. Conservative Members believe that schools have to be held to account for the results that their pupils achieve. However, they need to be held to account fairly, which is why we are judging schools not just on the standards that they achieve, but on the progress that they make with every child, so that schools with challenging intakes get proper recognition for the achievement they are making by pushing their pupils to success. On top of that, in recognition of the fact that this is a transitional year, I have also announced that the proportion of schools judged to be below the floor when the new progress bar is set will be no more than one percentage point higher than last year. That progress bar will be released in September, and no school can be identified as being below the floor before then.
Having listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I was struck by just how easily it could have been written by the NUT’s acting general secretary. It represented the final stage of the Labour party’s transformation into the parliamentary wing of the NUT.
Nicky Morgan
No, not at the moment.
It was noticeable last week—this is noticeable today—that there was a greater presence on the Labour Benches for an urgent question about the NUT strike than there was for the previous day’s Education questions.
Nicky Morgan
No, I am not going to give way at the moment.
In our March White Paper, we set out plans to tackle areas of entrenched educational underperformance. What we did not expect was that one of those areas of entrenched underperformance would be the NUT itself. Its readiness to use the word “failure” about children, and to oppose every reform that is designed to recognise and reward great teaching and to enable schools to tackle the not so good, is yet a further example of the chronic underperformance by that union on behalf of its members. More importantly, it is a failure for the children with whom its members work.
We now see the same attitude from the Opposition. In my two years as Secretary of State for Education, I have seen the transformation of the Labour party’s attitude to our education reforms from the secret support of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) to the hedged bets of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We now have the outright hostility of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to the raising of standards. I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) will forgive me for lacking the time to work out where she stood.
The Labour party has firmly chosen, as the motion indicates, to become the anti-standards party, devoid of ideas and determined to protect vested interests and union barons rather than putting children and parents first. It has gone from the party of education, education, education, to the party of low standards, low aspiration and low expectations.
I do not want to end this speech by focusing on the collapsing Labour party; I want to end it by saying thank you. Rather than doing down the achievements of schools, teachers and pupils, I want to celebrate them and commend their exceptional work.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way, is she? No.
Nicky Morgan
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I say thank you to the teachers, who once again have risen to meet the challenge and to deliver for young people. I reiterate today that teaching is the most noble of professions. Last week’s achievements in helping young people to demonstrate their mastery of the basics is yet another example of why that is so. I urge the House to reject the motion.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Sometimes in debates such as this, criticising the Government can be quite difficult. When the Secretary of State describes the debacle of SATs as a great success, however, criticising Government policy becomes relatively easy. It is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I start by referring to a headteacher in my constituency—headteacher of the largest primary school in the north-west; it is a standard, middle-class school—who put his pupils through SATs recently. He was so shocked by the outcome that he felt it necessary to write home to the pupils in the following terms. He told the children to look on the bright side, and he wrote:
“The only thing people will remember about the tests from 2016 was that they were one big mess! Your result will not stop you achieving really well at high school and going on to be a fabulous success in the future. Put whatever you got to the back of your mind and move on!”
He told the children:
“Fairness is always vitally important in whatever we do in life. Unfortunately, these tests were really not fair.”
This is a very experienced headteacher of a large primary school, in a standard, middle-class area, which has a record of success behind it. He said to the pupils:
“They were much harder than usual and this meant that you didn’t get the chance to show how much you have learned. There has been lots in the news about this in the past week and schools all over the country are feeling the same…I think we all feel a bit let down.”
He continued:
“You feel let down because you worked so hard and maybe you didn’t quite get what you deserved. Your teachers feel the same because they have tried everything in their power to help you achieve and they are frustrated because it hasn’t quite turned out as they would have wanted.”
He went on to say what a great experience it had been to have the children at the school and that, compared with everything they had enjoyed at school,
“a few test scores mean very little, particularly when the test was unfair anyway.”
Graham Stuart
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is as disappointed as I am that when we had inflation in standards—when we had the perception of success, but not the reality—headteachers such as the one he speaks about did not write letters home to parents. It would be good if, in response to that selling out, they had showed outrage similar to that which they showed at the early implementation of a new, higher standard.
John Pugh
I am sure that this headteacher would have done whatever was professionally necessary at the time. I am not sure that he was a headteacher at that time, so I cannot really comment for him. He concluded his letter to his pupils:
“We don’t need tests to tell us how great you all are.”
The worst thing about the letter is that it shows that there was a clear need to remove the feeling among those good, hard-working children that they had failed. I do not think that anyone here is against the summative assessment of primary school children’s progress. I do not think that any Labour Member said that. Nobody is against meaningful feedback or having a tool to establish a baseline for improvement. No one wants to go back to the days of total freedom where there were no reasonable expectations, but we must all—including the Government—be prepared to learn something. We must learn from places such as Finland, which has few tests like our SATs but which, as everybody knows, does very well. We must learn from experts and from teachers who have to implement what we impose. We need a sense—this is clearly lacking from the Secretary of State’s comments—of common enterprise between the teaching profession and the Government. I know that the NUT is the teaching profession, but the Secretary of State needs to incorporate some measure of support for what teachers have been trying to say to her.
We need a bit of humility, which perhaps I can illustrate by using the vexed issue of grammar—I took a look at the grammar sections of this year’s tests. I think that grammar has its place. It provides a recursive definition of a living language and, like a language, it evolves. I happen to think that grammar helps more in understanding foreign languages than our own, and I argue that the greatest orators in this place are not necessarily the greatest grammarians. If someone was stopped mid-sentence and asked what type of clause they were using, they might be in some difficulty. Most people have been speaking grammatically for most of their life with a fair amount of success—it is rather like Molière’s character Monsieur Jourdain, who found, with some surprise, that he had been talking prose all his life.
There may be value in trying to understand the rules that one unconsciously follows, and there is genuinely value and fun in a bit of clause analysis—I certainly enjoyed it when I was at school. However, it is arguable how far that benefits the users of language, and how much meta vocabulary one needs to acquire, particularly as there seems to be no particular consistency as to what vocabulary one ought to have, and there seems to be some opacity in what terminology one needs to pick up. Fronted adverbials certainly were not there in my day. I did Latin, preferring the imperfect to the past progressive. All these things are fairly arcane, esoteric stuff, and it is arguable how far you can go down that road without descending into the kind of pedantry that dismisses split infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions. But it is simply unarguable that imposing, in haste, a curriculum and test of limited value, with scant preparation, and discouraging well-intentioned pupils and teachers in the process, is rash. It is rash, and it requires some serious explanation and apology.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to talk about SATs this year. I remember that when I chaired the Education Committee a number of years ago, we had the SATs fiasco under the previous Government. That was when a true mess was made of SATs. This year a new assessment has been brought in, and I can share with the House, having chaired the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) is in that Chair now—that whenever new assessments are brought in, there is some level of volatility. We will not get everything right, and I would not try to claim that we necessarily have this year, but at first there is volatility and then, over time, outcomes improve.
The central question is, how are we going to raise standards? Well, actually, the first question is: are we doing a good enough job? That would have been a good question for the shadow Secretary of State to ask. Were we doing a good enough job in 2010? Are we today? Things are always partial, and it is always hard to get data that are entirely comparative, but the answer is that, in the context of what is happening around the world, it would appear that too many of the children in England are not given the requisite skills, capability and knowledge to flourish in secondary school, with lifelong negative impacts on them and their families.
That would appear to be the evidence, but we did not hear that from the shadow Secretary of State. Instead—I do not mean to be too harsh on one of her first outings—we had a rather incoherent if passionate denunciation of testing, because if we feed back the results of tests to people, some will be told that they are not at the required standard and others will be told that they are. The hon. Lady’s speech seemed to be an attack on that in principle, yet that passionate denunciation was married with a public statement that she and her party believe we should still have tests. I do not see how those two things can be put together. It seems an extraordinary conjunction. The shadow Secretary of State needs to think clearly: that is what education policy requires. It is not just a political fight in this House; what happens in schools has real-world effects on children. That was disappointing and it would be really good to hear what the Labour party thinks about tests.
The shadow Secretary of State’s strong, lurid language around failure and failing is unwelcome. We aspire to a high standard. Not everyone is going to reach it, but that is the nature of high standards. It does not mean that everybody else is worthless and it does not mean their learning is worthless. It does not mean that they have not done a good job or worked hard. None the less, do we not have to give people objective ideas about where they would ideally like to be, or do we throw that away because it might demoralise some? She appeared to contradict herself on two sides of the argument.
Neil Carmichael
It is a great pleasure to have an opportunity to comment on my predecessor’s observations. Does my hon. Friend agree that the tests are part of a wider mission to improve standards? They are linked to differences in the curriculum and to the attitude we have, which is to give young people aspiration and the tools to deliver on that aspiration. Does he agree that that is part of our complete determination to give young people more opportunity in life?
Graham Stuart
I agree with my hon. Friend. Although I defer to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who made such a fine speech, I would have to say that I did not agree with him about his use of the split infinitive and would prefer it was not used in this House, orally or otherwise; but that is because I am a bit of a pedant in that respect. There is a genuine argument to be had.
The hon. Member for Southport rightly started to unpick some of that grammar. How practically useful is it? What exactly is it designed for? Is it excessive in its extent and application, compared with what is sought from it? Those are legitimate questions and perhaps we do need to row back. I do not know. I have not studied it and I would like to hear more. Focusing on those practicalities might be a much more useful dialogue. Instead, the shadow Secretary of State moved on from her two contradictory positions to a rather crazed assessment that this was like the 11-plus. The whole point of the 11-plus was to divide children and select them. I do not think that anyone can suggest that that is what has happened with the SATs this year.
Vernon Coaker
To stop this becoming a sterile debate, let me say from the outset that I do not think there is anybody in this House who is in favour of not trying to improve standards in schools. I think there is also a consensus that testing is part of improving standards in schools. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State’s speech did not address the very real problems with the SATs tests this year. The hon. Gentleman has made that point, but we did not hear from the Secretary of State what she intends to do about those problems to put them right for next year.
Graham Stuart
As I said a few minutes ago, all new assessments and tests go through, and create, additional volatility. Members will remember the changes to the English GCSE. They were called a fiasco; I would call them a furore. The unions said they were a disaster and a disgrace, and the schools said it was nothing to do with them, but when they went to court they lost on every single count. It was a new test and it took time. The following year, with pretty much the same test, the schools that had done badly had learned how to do it better. They read the spec in a way that they had obviously failed to do previously, and other technical changes were made.
This is a new assessment. It is not a disaster. We need to unpick its components and look at them carefully to find out whether there is the right balance between raising standards, having high standards and not creating something that is negative in the way it is perceived by children and schools.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
This year, of course, it will be very difficult to embed the new assessment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new curriculum assessment gives children a mastery of the subject before they move on? That is far preferable to them moving through the system without having that grasp of the subject.
Graham Stuart
I agree with my hon. Friend. If the answer to my first question—about whether we are doing a good enough job—is no, it is not because we have lazy teachers. Fundamentally, if we are not doing a good enough job or as good a job as our neighbours and competitors, we need to raise standards, and when that happens, there is going to be a shock to the system. That is partly because of the volatility and adjustment and partly because the system needs that shock. It needs to be told.
I sometimes clashed with the hon. Lady’s predecessor on the question of what simply raising the bar did to raise standards. It is a mixed answer, but I have seen standards in the system raised partly because the bar was raised and there was clarity about what was required. Whatever the difficulties—there are all sorts of issues and complexities, including academisation—and notwithstanding some of the downsides, we have fundamentally better schools now than we did six years ago, and that is partly because we have stated clearly what we want and asked schools to meet the challenge. I have absolute confidence that next year, as schools learn to adjust to the challenge and headteachers work out how better to use their people and their funds, including the pupil premium, more than 53% of children will meet the standards.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Going through change is difficult. Do the Government have a role to play in keeping our teachers with us, which is what I worry about most of all? Change is hard for the children and teachers, but our teachers are under unprecedented stress, and I worry for them. Do the Government not need to keep a close eye on that and listen to teachers at all times?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole House has a role to play and ought not simply to trumpet the negatives, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) did, in this early outing as an Opposition spokesperson. It might have been more devastating to be understated than to suggest that this was a return to the 11-plus, which it clearly is not. But there are issues about maintaining engagement with teachers.
People might think that the Secretary of State’s fairly vicious assault on the NUT was over the top, but, given my experience of the NUT, I do not think it was. The NUT opposes almost everything. It is tragic. All I can say by way of uplift is this: when I go to primary schools, yes, I meet teachers concerned about the changes in the curriculum and the assessment and about the speed, from their end of the telescope, so to speak, at which they feel the change is happening—they genuinely find it difficult and challenging—but I find them to be a lot more positive than their national representatives on the NUT. It is unfortunate that the NUT is so often seen as speaking for all our teachers. I do not think it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) is right that we need to keep teachers on board. We must recognise that the teacher is the most important person in the system. Teacher quality is the key. The one thing I learned in five years chairing the Education Committee was that teacher quality was the most important thing. Leaders are important only insofar as they help to bring out the best in teachers. Teacher quality is transformational.
Graham Stuart
I promised I would not be that long, but I have obviously broken my word—not for the first time.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right to lay down that challenge—though before mentioning Finland, he said he remained in favour of tests too. When a system moves to a certain level of excellence, as in Finland, and starts to recruit teachers from the top 30% of graduates in the country, and when 10 people are competing for each job—these are old data, admittedly—not only does it get people with high academic ability but it can select on empathy, enthusiasm and other skills as well, and then has a first-class workforce.
We are a much bigger country with different challenges, and we do not recruit our teaching workforce from the same pool as Finland. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman ever saw the work by McKinsey about how good systems keep getting better. It is a fairly basic thing when one hears it, but one has to hear it to realise it. Systems are different and require different interventions at different points in their development. I look forward to the day when we have such a self-confident, self-critical, self-improving education system that we can slowly cut down Ofsted and the accountability system and leave it to keep improving by itself. The reason why the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the hon. Member for Southport and my hon. Friends have not reached that point is that we do not yet have the confidence, but I hope that one day it will come.
I have one final point on the issue of children’s stress. It is important not to talk up lurid references to failure and it is important to say to schools generally that they should look at the schools where the children are not showing any stress. Does the system mean that all children have to be stressed? No, because we can find many instances where children are suffering no stress. They can be prepared for SATs without it feeling like some great ordeal coming down the road on which their whole future depends.
The message that the House should send—hopefully from all sides—is that schools should look at and learn from the schools that do not put stress on kids and use the SATs as an “assessment for learning”—call it what we like—rather than making them into an ordeal. Teachers and headteachers need to ensure that whatever the stress they are feeling—they are accountable for their results, so they should be feeling some—they do not pass it on to children. It is possible for that to happen; it does happen; it needs to happen everywhere.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Let me state from the outset that am a child of the ’70s when grammar purism was not much taught. I think the Secretary of State and I are of the same vintage—from 1972—so I am not going to be a grammar fascist or purist in this debate. We used to play in the sandpit in those days rather than learn the declensions of nouns.
I want to contribute to today’s debate because of a case raised with me over the weekend by a constituent. She is deputy headteacher of Christ the Saviour, a Church of England primary school that is outstanding in all four categories. This is not a Bash Street school gasworks comprehensive or anything like those sort of places. The deputy head, Katie Tramoni, is someone I was at school with. I have lived 44 years in Ealing, so I have spent a lot of time there, and both the schools I attended are in my constituency. I am now a mum, bringing up my own children in the borough.
As I say, Christ the Saviour is a well-regarded school and I was at school with Katie. This weekend, I went to the Acton carnival, and she literally grabbed me by the lapels and said, “Can you tell Nicky Morgan this from me?” When I saw this debate coming up, I thought, “Now is my opportunity.” Katie is worried about the floor standards of key stage 2. Like everyone else, I have read the headlines saying that almost half of 11-year-old primary pupils will not reach the required standard, but Katie’s issues are with the marking, so let me raise them directly.
Katie tells me that the KS2 reading paper was so poorly marked that 55 out of 86 papers—64%—had to be returned for re-marking. The quibbles sometimes seem very minor, but it costs the school £9 per paper if the complaint is not upheld. That does not seem to make sense economically, and the school is in fear of sending things back because of that £9 penalty. For the GPS paper—on grammar, punctuation and spelling—the complaint was that the marking scheme was exceptionally harsh. If, for example, a pupil inserts a semi-colon in the correct place in the sentence, but in too large a size so that it comes out larger than the letters, it is marked as wrong. A zero mark is given, and there are many things like that. Katie said, “I know I go on and on. Don’t get me started on SATs report; let me know if you need more; I must dash.” It was at 7 o’clock this morning that I noticed this debate was on.
The point has been made by Government Members that we are anti-testing, but that is not the case. We presided over tests for all those years in power. As the Secretary of State pointed out, it was Tony Blair’s mantra that his top three priorities were “education, education, education”. We have never been against testing as such, but the particular tests this year have been a dog’s dinner and a shambles. I know this from numerous examples in my inbox, in my postbag and when people literally collar me when I am trying to go to a fun event at the weekend. Surely it is the Government’s responsibility to make sure that these tests are marked properly.
Nicky Morgan
I appreciate the constructive way in which the hon. Lady is raising her constituent’s concerns. If she writes to me or to the Minister for Schools, we will of course convey her views to the Standards and Testing Agency. I should point out that any comments relating to the review of the marking should be submitted by 15 July. The hon. Lady may wish to encourage her constituent to submit her thoughts, but I hope that she will contact us and let us know, because the whole point of the system is feedback that will enable us to do better in future years.
Dr Huq
I thank the Secretary of State for those constructive and collegiate remarks.
I conduct a great many assemblies in my constituency. Ealing is a leafy suburban borough, and my seat was a Conservative seat as recently as May 2015. While I am standing opposite the Secretary of State, let me point out that one of the issues that arise is the retention rate of teachers in a borough such as Ealing. Headteachers tell me that they can easily recruit trainees in their 20s, but once those young people want to put down roots and settle, they are off to Slough, Milton Keynes, or whatever is the nearest affordable place to live near the M25. I know that this is slightly off the subject, but headteachers have suggested the introduction of tied housing, which exists on some university campuses, because that would make the jobs more attractive. Some heads say that they have lost people to schools where new arrivals can be accommodated in a caretaker’s house.
Conservative Members have suggested that this is just an NUT diatribe. That is why I wanted to raise the subject of real people—the kind of people who would naturally have been on their side. If the Government are losing the good will of people who would naturally be conservative with a small “c”, I think that they have problems. My constituent told me that education was in crisis. The word “crisis” is much overused, but she was in despair, shock and anger as she told me that.
Both the Secretary of State and I were guinea pigs in 1988, the first year of GCSEs. I realise that any system will have teething troubles, but I understand that teachers and educationists have begged the Government not to introduce these changes so rapidly, and to wait for a year. We are where we are. I know that “NUT” has been portrayed as something of a dirty word during this debate. However, the NUT’s Kevin Courtney has described the key stage 2 SATs as rushed and inappropriate, and has said that the curriculum is wrong and bad tests have been poorly marked. I talked about poor marking earlier. This kind of tinkering has led to chaos and confusion. It seems that these kids are guinea pigs as well. Schools should not be exam factories.
Friday’s edition of the Times Educational Supplement quotes Brian Walton, the head of Brookside Academy in Somerset, of whom I had never heard. He argues that we have a “results illusion”, and says:
“So much rides on SATs that the real purpose of education is lost”
in “statistical positioning”. It seems that we are being seduced by the numbers, and not recognising the whole child for who that child is. According to some assessments, one in 10 teachers has left the profession as a result of falling morale. The housing issue is intrinsically linked with that in areas such as west London, and something must be done about it. It is worrying that Ealing should be a borough in which its teachers cannot afford to live. We are seeing a hollowing out of our capital, and that is obviously wrong.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for spinning out an excellent intervention.
I suppose that what frustrates Conservatives is that the Labour Party wants tests, but then talks about the tensions that they can cause. What kind of tests are required that do not already exist? We have heard nothing constructive from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) at least suggested that the grammar test might be a bit over the top. What is wrong with these tests that could be put right, and should be put right, for next year? Any suggestion would be helpful.
Dr Huq
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the anecdote from the deputy head that mentioned earlier, but it seems that this time round the proper curriculum has not been in place, and the marking is all over the place. It is not testing per se that is wrong; it is the maladministration of this year’s key stage 2 SATs.
In the recent Brexit debate the Lord Chancellor said we have had enough of experts. That is a real mistake; we ignore the professionals at our peril. These are people at the chalk face. Educationists, heads and deputy headteachers like Katie Tramoni and—dare I say it—the NUT have been warning about this. I hope these problems can be rectified and that we hear from the Secretary of State what will be done to minimise next year’s disturbances so that there are no disturbances; otherwise, it will feel as though we are losing sight of the child.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). I resided in that constituency for many years and my eldest daughter went to preschool there, before we escaped to the countryside of East Sussex.
I share the sentiment expressed in the first sentence of this motion: that every child deserves an excellent education that enables them to grow and thrive. In order to deliver this aspiration, it is vital that children are assessed to enable parents and teachers to determine whether the education received is meeting that desired outcome. I therefore welcome the testing at both key stage 1 and key stage 2. The latter is of importance because it will inform parents and secondary schools on the progress reached and development required. The former is of particular importance, for both child and school, in order to assess progress in the intervening four years between each test.
I must declare an interest: having failed my own 12-plus exam, and having attended a secondary school which, by its definition, was for those who had similarly failed, I am disappointed that the motion says that children will be labelled as failures. Instead, these tests should be viewed as methods by which to benchmark progress, not talk about failure.
The motion focuses on the fact that only 53% of children have reached the standard in all three papers. When broken down, the Department for Education’s statistics show that 66% have met the standard in reading, 70% in maths and 72% in grammar. The motion is correct in that the rates for 2016 have reduced compared with those for 2015. However, the very aspect of a comparison is wholly misleading because the tests have been changed and made more difficult. It is therefore unsurprising that we now have grade deflation.
What we have now is a rigorous regime that will help drive up progress and standards and help give every child an excellent education that enables them to grow and thrive. Children will not thrive if the tests are set at a level that do not stretch them and inspire them to do better. We should not be alarmed by this benchmark; we should embrace it and do all that we can to help our children to reach their potential.
Rather than turn back to previous methods, we need to give this new regime the chance to bed in. We also need to give our teachers more time and space to teach our children. In that vein, may I make a few positive suggestions which I hope the Department can take on board?
First, teachers have had to spend time getting to grips with the new curriculum. Can we please therefore give teachers some time back so they can focus on inspiring and teaching our children? As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) said, too many teachers are working long hours and we need to help them.
Secondly, I embrace the need for all children to master English and maths so they have the basics aged 11 years. However, there is more to learning than these two subjects. Last weekend, I spent another morning with my seven-year-old and 10-year-old. One had maths homework, the other English. Can we please have time for science, art, history, geography and other subjects, or at least ask our teachers to use them as the basis for maths and English?
Thirdly, comparing our children with those of other nations whom they will be competing with in the global jobs race is helpful, but can we not be as obsessed about it? Perhaps not all our children master maths as well as, say, a child in India or Singapore. However, if we teach our children to be leaders, to be creative, to think outside the box and to inspire, they will probably end up managing a maths genius from India without the need to be one themselves.
A rigorous educational assessment underpins our desire on these Benches to give better life chances to everyone. There are numerous examples in public life of people enjoying a successful education and going on to have a successful career as a result of having had the support and drive of parents and, perhaps, a private education. However, there are not enough examples of success among those who have endured a difficult start, and who may have grown up in deprived communities where parental emphasis on education was lacking and where there was no one to support or inspire them outside the school gates. For those children, their schooling offers them the only route to a better place. This can make a difference to their health, wellbeing and, ultimately, life expectancy. I urge the House to think of that and to embrace the need to assess our children, as this Government are doing, so that every child can reach their true potential.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I want to make a couple of brief comments which I hope the Minister will be able to address when he winds up the debate. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) has said on this subject, which is one of the reasons that I wanted to attend the debate today. I am sure that the Secretary of State would also agree that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which SATs are currently administered, there can be no doubt that for many of our outstanding schools and dedicated headteachers and teachers, the harsh reality of the way in which the results have been presented to them has been a huge shock. Some have seen a huge drop in the standards that their schools have attained. In my view, the Secretary of State would have done well to address that point in her speech.
I am sure that we all have outstanding schools in our constituencies. Some of them, for reasons that they find difficult to understand, have seen their results almost collapse. That does not help them, it does not help the Secretary of State in her desire to raise standards, and it does not help any of us. In the end, it is the partnership between the Government, parents and schools that delivers the standards that we all want.
Heidi Allen
Does the hon. Gentleman think that when schools do better than expected, it might sometimes be because the children have been taught very closely in order to get them through the tests, with the breadth of education that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned being ignored?
Vernon Coaker
That is a good point. There has always been a danger of teaching to the test. The guidance for Ofsted during my time as a Minister—to be fair, it is the same under the present Government—was to look at the breadth of the curriculum and to see what emphasis was being placed on subjects outside those specifically designed for the SATs. The good schools have drama, history, sport and other things going on alongside the SAT subjects. In my view, the schools that do best in the tests—especially in relation to young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds—are often those that have that breadth of curriculum and that do drama and all those other things as well. Those subjects can give young people the self-esteem and confidence to achieve in the more academic subjects—for want of a better term—that they have to study.
Will the Minister tell us what he is going to do restore confidence among our teachers? Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, some people in my constituency have been absolutely distraught at the results they have been given. That cannot be right. I am not saying this to make a point; this is a statement of fact. Even in schools that are regarded as outstanding, headteachers have been crying. That cannot be what we want. Let us just reflect on all that. We know that 53% met the Government’s targets, while 47% did not. Perhaps we do not want to use the word “failure”. Is there something of particular concern in the three components? Is one area weaker than the others? Do we need to do something about maths? How are the Government, working with both sides of the House and the unions, going to ensure that we tackle the 47%?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes an important point about partnership. Where the tone of this debate has gone wrong today is that we have had comments like “Tory bad, Labour good,” “Labour bad, Tory good,” “Unions right, Government wrong,” and “Government right, unions wrong.” However, we owe it to our schools and teachers to work in partnership, because we all want our children to succeed, standards to improve and the United Kingdom to rise in the global league tables.
Vernon Coaker
I agree. Standards have risen over the past couple of decades, but we want them to rise faster. There is still too much inequality and social background still determines educational attainment. We should not blame people; we should ask what is preventing this country from overcoming something that has bedevilled the education system for decades. No one would stand up and say that we want the situation to continue. The question is how we best meet the challenge.
Given the embarrassment of the leaked and abandoned tests, what will the Minister do to improve security in the future? What is his response to the criticism of how the new tests relate to the new curriculum? It was introduced in 2014 and tests are being set on it in 2016—two years for a four-year course. Will that be taken into account? What has been said to schools? Next year, we will be three years into a four-year programme, so will that mean anything for next year’s testing? We all want to hear about that. It would be ridiculous to pretend that this year’s SATS have been an unmitigated success given the real problems. What are the Government going to do about that? How will they improve things? That is what parents, schools and all of us want to hear.
What will the key stage 2 results mean for schools’ Ofsted categorisation? If a school has seen its results collapse, what will that mean when Ofsted go in in September? I do not know the answer, which is why I am asking. The Secretary of State is nodding her head, but I do not know the answer. People want clarity. What will the results mean for a school’s Ofsted categorisation? If the Government set a standard and large numbers of pupils fall below it, including those at schools currently categorised as outstanding, what will that mean when Ofsted inspectors go in? Will the school get cast out? Perhaps not, but that is what schools want to—[Interruption.] The Minister will respond to that to reassure people—thank you.
The SATs have had real problems. Everybody in the House agrees that we need to improve standards. We will never reach a point at which we are all satisfied. Everyone will always want more, but what are we going to do about the problems? How will the tests that have been introduced allow us to build on any progress? What are we doing to reassure schools? What are we doing to reassure headteachers, teachers and parents? What will be different next year to prevent what has happened this year from happening again? Those are the sorts of questions that I was trying to intervene on the Secretary of State to ask. I was not trying to get up and say, “Tories wicked, Labour brilliant.” I just wanted to ask, because, with respect, I thought that people were not going to get answers to their detailed questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) will no doubt ask similar questions, but I will be grateful if the Minister answers some of them and makes some other points.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I should comment on the uniformly thoughtful and interesting contributions from Back Benchers. Let me begin by mentioning the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who challenged the Secretary of State on the whole issue of secondary improvements. Although that is not the subject of this debate, secondary schools would be assisted if they and their heads did not have to worry about how to play catch-up on key stage 2 SATs fails.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), in a thoughtful speech, was rightfully caustic about some of the Secretary of State’s newspeak on SATs. His quote from one of his respected local headteachers about this being “one big mess” is devastating, so we should all take it into account. It is worth mentioning that, in a survey, 97% of primary teachers and leaders expressed concern that schools were preparing pupils for the tests at the expense of the wider curriculum, and other Members have spoken about that today. The hon. Gentleman also talked about a sense of common enterprise. His contribution, like others, pointed out that we need not only a sense of common enterprise, but evidence-driven policy.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), the former Chair of the Education Committee, used the interesting word “volatility” to describe what has happened this year. That was not a great word to use; his five years as Chair might have given him a choicer set of words to describe the fiasco of the process and outcomes that this year’s SATs have left us with. He also talked about the need for people to row back in, but surely the whole problem is that the specs were not there in time for them to do so. That point needs to be taken on board.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) struck a chord with many Members by talking about the way in which we need to keep our teachers with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) regaled us with tales of her days, and perhaps the Secretary of State’s days, in the sandpit. Apart from that, the most enlightening thing in my hon. Friend’s speech was when she relayed what her local headteacher, Katie, said. Perhaps it should have been what Katie did and what Katie did next. To be fair, the Secretary of State was gracious and told us what Katie needs to do next: get her thoughts in before 15 July. Again, this raises the issue that people can have legitimate concerns without being anti-testing.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said that the tests should not be set to a low benchmark. Nobody in the House would dispute that point. He said that there needs to be more time for prep and more time for learning subjects other than English and maths. Perhaps we can welcome him as an additional recruit to those of us who talked to the Minister last week about the need to widen the EBacc.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) rightly expressed concerns that some of the outstanding schools in his constituency have had bizarrely low results. He also rightly asked what the Government would do about the security of the tests. I hope that the Minister will take on board those issues in his response.
My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State got an unfair blistering from the Secretary of State. My colleague painted a stark picture of the strengths and skills of the young people who took the tests this year being cast aside or ignored because they have been the guinea pigs and victims of the Department’s shambles this year. She did show passion, and she needed to do so, because the pupils who took this year’s key stage 2 SATs have been very badly let down. Why is that? It is because the Department’s resources and Ministers’ focus were obsessively trained on their national programme of academisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), among others, said when the previous statement was made, they took their eye off the ball. Tens of thousands of children have suffered, and for what? For a humiliating climbdown on forced academisation under fire from the Government’s own side, which now means that the Secretary of State will have to swerve and dodge in the academy-lite education Bill that may or may not come this autumn or under this Secretary of State.
In this instance, process cannot be divorced from outcome. Russell Hobby, the general secretary of the NAHT, was quite right to say that the Government had made
“serious mistakes in the planning and implementation of tests this year”
and
“with the delays and confusion in guideline materials.”
The Minister for Schools said in this House on 10 May that Pearson UK was investigating the uploading of the key stage test on to a website and was committed to investigating it quickly. I do not recall whether we have had a full explanation of that from the Minister, so I ask him to give us one now. I also echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said by asking the Minister to tell us what steps he has put in place to reduce the possibility of this happening again.
The Secretary of State wanted to cloud talk of her failures by saying that this was all driven by an NUT plot. If she were to pause for a moment from her rant about the NUT, perhaps she would like to look at the joint statement that the National Governors Association and the NAHT put out. They said that schools did not need to draw conclusions from the SATs data because they provide
“no intelligence on the rate of improvement of teaching and learning.”
They went on to point out that many will be “feeling demoralised”, saying:
“Pupils, teachers and parents and all involved in schools should be proud of the work they have put in to implement”—
the new curriculum and the testing regime—
“in what has been a very short timetable.”
It is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State to be complacent about this matter. The Government’s complacency has already been commented on by the Public Accounts Committee, although that does not seem to have affected the Secretary of State’s ability to be Madam Pangloss on the issue. In her first response to the results, she said that they had been a “good start”, but Anne Watson, who was the emeritus professor of mathematics education at the University of Oxford, said:
“The aim to raise standards has resulted in a new way to measure performance so that no comparative judgments can be made…This means we do not know from the data alone whether the Government has done a good job or a bad job and whether the test designers and score-scalers have done a good job or a bad job.”
After all, these results mean that, according to this Government, 47% of children in this country are not ready for secondary school. How do we tell children and their parents that?
The Secretary of State—the Minister has said this on another occasion—talked about the fact that pupils either “don’t mind” or “enjoy” taking these tests, and the ComRes poll gave them some comfort in that respect. Pupils might not mind taking the test, but they mind with absolute justification the test being taken out of context and their teachers being left frustrated that they are not able to engage at an early enough stage.
When the Minister made his statement in May, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe made an absolutely key point:
“By rushing ahead with the policy without properly involving professionals or parents, the Government failed to spot the fundamental flaw in the design, which was that the test that they had developed were insufficiently comparable. As a result, they were forced to abandon their approach to baseline test entirely.”
He went on to say:
“There has been a constant stream of chop and change in primary assessment under this Government. Since September, the Department for Education has updated or clarified on average at least one primary school assessment resource every other working day.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2016; Vol. 609, c. 554.]
We do not regard that as good enough.
On the floor standard, I think the Secretary of State said that the details would be made available in September, yet her Department told Schools Week that the results would not be published until December. Whether it is September or December—the Secretary of State or the Minister is welcome to clarify this—what an indictment it is that schools should have that sword of Damocles over their head for four or six months.
Ultimately, this comes down to what happens in individual Members’ constituencies and the responses that they get. In my own area of Lancashire, the spokesman for the National Association of Head Teachers said that, with 94% of Lancashire schools judged good or outstanding by Ofsted,
“there is something wrong in the assessment process”,
and that schools need to support their children and their staff
“and carry out what is effectively damage limitation.”
Last Friday I visited one of my primary schools in Blackpool, where the head and others are doing some extremely good work. I observed a session with an excellent Pobble literacy tutor, but when I spoke afterwards to the head, he had a huge sense of frustration that the school had not been able to structure its exam preparation because of the continuous chopping and changing to which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe have referred. The head said, “I fear it will put more pressure on testing in these students’ first year in secondary schools.” The schools will not regard the tests as useful, and the consequence will be deflated students and pressured parents—those are my observations, not those of the head.
The years between the ages of nine and 11 are almost as crucial for young people as the time of transfer to secondary school. I am old enough—I suspect that others in the Chamber may be old enough—to remember the nine-plus. I remember from doing the nine-plus that it was a testing time, so it is not good enough for the Minister and the Secretary of State to draw a veil over this year’s results by setting up straw people and saying that the Opposition or other critics are not interested in testing or in standards. We are interested in both, but we are also interested in their being delivered competently, and this Government have not shown competence.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
This has been a good debate, if a short one, about how we ensure that children leave primary school fluent in the basic building blocks of an education. Over the past six years this Government have been determined to ensure that our education system is properly equipping the next generation of school leavers with the knowledge and skills that they need for life in the modern economy, and the ability to compete in an increasingly global jobs market.
Under the remarkable leadership of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), now the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Education, we have introduced the most far-reaching education reforms for generations—reforms which are working.
Of course, it would have been easier not to have engaged with the reforms, and to have allowed the continued inflation of results—the year-on-year increases in GCSE grades and SAT test results—masking our decline in standards compared with the most successful education systems in the world. It would have been easier not to take on the vested interests; easier not to embark on raising the bar; easier not to demand phonics; easier not to look at better ways of teaching maths; easier not to challenge the publishers and demand better textbooks; easier not to insist on more pupils taking the core academic subjects that make up the EBacc; easier not to increase the numbers taking foreign languages; easier not to encourage more take-up of maths and physics A-levels.
But we were determined to halt Britain’s decline in the PISA international league tables, which showed the UK falling from seventh in reading in 2000 to 25th by 2009, and from eighth in maths to 28th, and we fell further still in the 2012 PISA survey. We therefore appointed a panel of experts, who examined the curricula of those countries that topped the PISA rankings. We produced a new primary national curriculum, which we consulted on in 2012 and finalised in 2013, and which came into force in 2014, with the first new SATs tests taken two years later, in May 2016.
The new curriculum requires fluency in reading, and it requires phonics in the early years of primary school, followed by a focus on developing a habit of reading. Spelling and handwriting techniques, and grammar and punctuation, which were neglected for decades, have been restored to the school curriculum.
In maths, we looked to the Singapore primary maths curriculum, ensuring fluency in calculation technique, long multiplication, long division and fractions. We reduced the age by which all children should know their times tables from 11 to nine. This year, we piloted a computer-based multiplication tables test. I visit schools up and down the country, and I see more and more pupils fluent in their times tables. That was not so six years ago.
The academic year 2015 was always going to be a challenge, with the new maths and English GCSEs being introduced for first teaching from September 2015. The new, revised GCSEs are on a par with the qualifications taught in the best-performing countries in the world. That is what the education reforms are about: raising academic standards in our schools, raising expectations and raising aspiration. And they are working. The focus on phonics has raised reading standards. In 2011, when we trialled the new phonics check—a short test to ensure six-year-olds are mastering the basic skill of reading simple words—just 32% passed. In 2012, 58% passed, and that rose to 69% in 2013, 74% in 2014 and 77% last year. That means that 120,000 more six-year-olds today are reading more effectively than they otherwise would, because of this Government’s reforms and the focus on phonics.
The new SATs in reading are designed to resist teaching to the test. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) hinted, the way for pupils to do well is to have read a lot during their time at primary school—to have read increasingly challenging books and to have developed the habit of reading regularly. That is why 88% of pupils at Harris Primary Academy Peckham Park reached the expected standard in the new reading test. It is why 88% at Elmhurst Primary School in Newham reached at least the expected standard in reading.
The new maths SATs are made up of one arithmetic paper and two maths reasoning papers. The only way to do well is to ensure that pupils are not only fluent in mathematical calculation, but have a deep, conceptual understanding that comes from practice and good teaching. That is why 94% of pupils at Elmhurst Primary School achieved at least the expected standard and 96% of pupils at Harris Junior Academy Carshalton reached at least the expected standard.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) read a letter from an experienced headteacher in his constituency to his pupils. However, the tests are designed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, to hold schools to account, not pupils. We know we are asking more, but we are doing that because we are committed to giving young people the best start in life.
This year’s results are the first to be released following the introduction of a more rigorous national curriculum, which is on a par with the best in the world. The results show that there is no limit to our children’s potential, and that schools can rise to the challenge of ensuring that pupils meet the new, higher standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) pointed out, neither schools nor parents should try to compare this year’s results with those in previous years; they simply cannot be compared directly. We have published data to show the national averages for the number of pupils meeting the new expected standard. That allows schools to see how their pupils have performed against the national average, which is a much more useful comparison for schools and parents.
The hon. Member for Southport also raised the challenge of the new grammar test. I have to tell him that the national curriculum tests that were sat this May took over three years to develop. During that process, they go through three rounds of expert review, which includes teachers, curriculum experts, markers, special educational needs and disability experts, inclusion experts and cultural experts. The questions are also trialled twice with pupils at the appropriate age—once to check that the questions are functioning as required and that children give appropriate answers, and once to determine the difficulty of the questions, which are improved throughout the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked the relevant questions about whether we, as a country, are doing a good enough job in educating our young people. As he said, too many children are not given enough knowledge and skills to flourish in secondary school. He is right to point out that there are always challenges when new tests are introduced, but as the tests bed down, teachers become more familiar with the curriculum.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) cited the headteacher at Christ the Saviour Church of England Primary School, an outstanding school in her constituency, as being worried about the floor standards. The Secretary of State has made it clear that given the greater challenge of the new SATs, the number of schools regarded as being below the floor will not be greater than 1 percentage point more than last year. In response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), we are publishing provisional progress figures early in September so that schools will know if they are below the floor. The December figure is the finalised figure after adjustments for errors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle pointed out that there is more to education than English and maths, and that we need more time in primary school for science, for art, for history and for geography. I totally agree. A knowledge-rich curriculum is key, and that is what the best primary schools in this country are delivering.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) says he knows of too many schools that have seen a sharp drop in their results this year. He is right that the results will focus the minds of the schools that are struggling to deliver the results that other schools in similar circumstances are delivering, and we will help them with that challenge. The stage 1 national funding formula consultation shows that we are proposing to introduce a lower prior attainment factor that will provide extra support to help children catch up.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Ofsted and the impact that it will have through the new, more challenging assessments. I have acknowledged that point. I have already written to Sir Michael Wilshaw to ask Ofsted to take into account, when inspectors examine schools, the fact that this is the first year of much more challenging tests and a much more challenging curriculum.
Vernon Coaker
For me, this is one of the most fundamental points. What does the phrase “take into account” mean? Does it mean that Ofsted reads it and then does nothing about it? I appreciate its independence, but this is a fundamental point. I have been where the Minister is in taking these things into account and looking into them, and so on, but schools absolutely want reassurance about whether they are going to go from being outstanding to being at risk. It would be helpful if he said a little more about that.
Mr Gibb
Experience so far is that inspectors are already taking my letter into account and adjusting their judgments. They are not looking at raw data in an unintelligent way; they are looking at it intelligently, reflecting the concerns raised in my letter. We have also now introduced the progress measure, which means that progress will be a much more important part of determining whether a school falls below the floor.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about Pearson. It has investigated the leak and taken a number of steps to ensure that rogue markers do not deliberately release marking schemes in future, and it is tightening up its contractual arrangements.
As a result of this Government’s education reform, 66% of secondary schools and 19% of primary schools now have academy status, with the professional autonomy that this brings. A total of 1.45 million more pupils are in schools rated “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted than in 2010. More pupils are taking and securing good grades in the core academic subjects at GSCE that employers and universities most value. More pupils are studying foreign languages and taking A-levels in maths, physics and chemistry. As a result of our reforms more children are reading fluently, and doing so earlier.
I was saddened by the approach taken by the new shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Yesterday, in a Westminster Hall debate on term-time holidays, she supported our reforms to improve school attendance. Today, she is reverting to the approach of her predecessor-but-one, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), in opposing the rise in academic standards and the rise in expectations that the new SATs reflect and assess. She is, alas, simply kowtowing to the NUT “line to take”. This Government are about raising standards, raising expectations and delivering successful and effective reform. I urge the House to reject Labour’s motion.
Question put.
Business without Debate
17:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 218 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dr Keilloh and the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I rise to present a petition relating to Dr Keilloh and the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. Over 3,000 petitioners believe that Dr Keilloh has suffered a miscarriage of justice and would like him reinstated as a practising medical doctor.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to take note of the damage done to Doctor Keilloh’s life and career by what the petitioners believe to have been a flawed disciplinary process; and call on the House to urge the Government to re-examine the statutory basis for the jurisdiction of the MPTS with a view to remedying this and potential future injustices; and to urge the Government to open an investigation into the written statements from the Iraqi witnesses as presented by Public Interest Lawyers, and the evidence they gave under cross examination in the Al-Sweady inquiry, the original British army court-martial in the Baha Mousa case, the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry and Dr Keilloh’s Fitness to Practice hearing.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the decision made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) to remove Doctor Derek Keilloh from the Medical Practitioners Register was a travesty of justice; further that the petitioners believe that it was not in the public interest to have a community deprived of their so obviously well-loved and much appreciated family doctor; further that the petitioners believe that it is unfair that any appeal against the decision can only be made within 28 days when the doctor has just been deprived of his or her income, and no longer has financial support for legal affairs and is in a state of shock; further that the petitioners call into question why well documented 'inattentional blindness' was not taken into consideration during the MPTS hearing; further that the Professional Standards Authority only exists to protect patients and will only investigate Fitness to Practise outcomes if they believe that the sanctions have been too lenient, not if the patients complain that the sanction has been too severe, prejudiced or faulty; further that there is no equivalent body to support the registrants; further that previously a handwritten petition from 1,034 patients and colleagues was sent to the MPTS and to Parliament in 2013 asking for his re-instatement; further that the petitioners have been informed that the new statutory rules governing MPTS procedures 'Adjudication Section 60 Order' which were brought about in December 2015 now allow the General Medical Council (GMC) to review the MPTS decisions, the petitioners believe that although it probably cannot be post-dated the new ruling should make a difference in bringing about justice in this case; further that the petitioners believe that the case was prejudiced by the publication of damning articles in the media, some of which quote the MPTS tribunal chairperson as pronouncing Doctor Keilloh guilty even before the commencement of the hearing; further that the petitioners call into question that the MPTS panel of three people was able to strike Doctor Keilloh off on probability which was not beyond reasonable doubt for supposed public interest failing rather than any clinical failing; further that the petitioners believe that the complainant against Doctor Keilloh was Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, a lawyer acting on behalf of complainants not from this country, about an event in a war zone almost ten years ago, rather than from his NHS patients who are the people who have suffered from Doctor Keilloh's erasure; further that the petitioners believe that in this case written statements from witnesses for the prosecution, presented by Phil Shiner, the lawyer acting on their behalf, were accepted by the MPTS panel without opportunity for cross examination; further that the Al-Sweady inquiry collapsed due to a lack of convincing evidence some of which was presented by Phil Shiner; further that the petitioners understand that Phil Shiner has been under investigation for professional misconduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and is now to face a tribunal; and further that an online petition on a similar matter has been signed by 3,496 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to take note of the damage done to Doctor Keilloh's life and career by what the petitioners believe to have been a flawed disciplinary process; and call on the House to urge the Government to re-examine the statutory basis for the jurisdiction of the MPTS with a view to remedying this and potential future injustices; and to urge the Government to open an investigation into the written statements from the Iraqi witnesses as presented by Public Interest Lawyers, and the evidence they gave under cross examination in the Al-Sweady inquiry, the original British army court-martial in the Baha Mousa case, the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry and Dr Keilloh's Fitness to Practice hearing.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001700]
Supported Housing
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this debate in the week before the start of the summer recess. While the Government are carrying out a review of supported housing, it is important both to obtain a progress report from the Minister as to how it is going and to re-emphasise the vital importance of putting the funding of supported housing on a sustainable long-term footing. It is absolutely essential that we do this, so as not to let down a very vulnerable group of people, whether they are elderly, young, have a physical disability, have suffered domestic violence or face mental health challenges. I seek to be helpful and not hostile, but those involved in the sector are very worried about the future, and it is vital that the Government know their concerns and take them fully into account in producing their proposals, which I hope will be available shortly.
The one-year exemption for supported housing from the 1% rent reduction for social housing landlords and the one-year delay in applying local housing allowance caps to residents in supported housing provide some breathing space, but the clock is ticking down to 2017, when this one-year grace period expires. It is important to have new policies in place well before then, so as not only to remove worries about the viability of existing schemes but to act as a catalyst for attracting much needed new investment in the sector.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and raising important issues about the barriers to good care that a lack of the right supported housing can lead to for people with learning disabilities and mental illness. Does he agree that on a daily basis many mental health wards struggle to find suitable step-down and community housing for patients who badly need it because, as he is outlining, this issue has not been properly gripped?
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend and Suffolk neighbour for his intervention. Yes, I agree that we need to tackle this issue very quickly.
This week, I joined the National Housing Federation’s Starts at Home campaign, which aims to highlight the unique benefits of supported housing and to show why it is so important to individuals and society. It seeks to secure a commitment from the Government to ensure that everyone can have a home that meets their unique needs. Over the past three months, I have received representations from, had meetings with and visited a wide variety of organisations, national and local, all concerned about the sector’s future. As well as the National Housing Federation, these include the Home Group, Homeless Link, the Local Government Association, Suffolk County Council, the Salvation Army, Papworth Trust and Give us a Chance, which, as well as providing accommodation, helps young people into work and sustainable employment.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman also aware of the Cambridge housing group providing sheltered housing in my constituency? It warns that the changes to the housing cap could cost it up to £500,000 a year and plunge four of its key schemes in the city into financial chaos.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I come across many such cases, and I shall produce some statistics to confirm it. It is very important to have specific case studies on the ground that emphasise the serious nature of the problem we face.
There are also local providers in Suffolk and in my own constituency, such as Access Community Trust, Stonham, Orwell housing association and the Professional Deputy Service, that provide advice and support to vulnerable dependent people. There are charities and social investors either already active in the sector or wanting to get involved, such as Emmaus, Cheyne’s Social Property Impact Fund and HB Villages. The depth and breadth of interest and concern emphasise the importance of putting in place a sustainable framework for the future funding of supported housing and the need to do so quickly.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I echo the welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for this debate. Is not “alacrity” the key word, in that 9,270 units—80% of all pipeline development in specialist housing—are under threat? Welcome though the review is, what we need is a quick decision from the Government to put on a firmer footing the long-term sustainable funding of specialist housing.
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend that intervention. He is right that we are getting to a stage when speed is very much of the essence.
The case for supported housing is compelling. There is a rising demand for care and support owing to an ageing population and increased levels of mental health and learning disabilities. As the National Housing Federation has pointed out, supported housing enables older people to retain their independence, and young people to live securely and in some cases to get their lives back on track; it ensures that victims of domestic violence are able to find emergency refuge and to stabilise their lives; it helps homeless people with complex and multiple needs to make the transition from living on the street to a settled home with education, training or employment; and it ensures that people with mental health needs can stabilise their lives and live more independently.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I want to say to the Minister that my hon. Friend has hit the nub of the problem. Such housing units have all these additional costs, which raises the issue of whether introducing this cap is at all appropriate for supported housing. Perhaps the Government should take stock and think again about what exactly is done in this sector.
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall come on to make that very point.
The National Housing Federation has also pointed out that ex-servicemen and women are able to find a stable home, and this includes those with mental health and physical disability needs; and that people with learning disabilities are able to maximise their independence and to exercise choice and control over their lives. It should also be pointed out that investment in supported housing can provide an alternative to more expensive residential care settings.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a very important subject. Does he acknowledge that the Homes and Communities Agency has identified savings to the taxpayer of £640 million through investment in supported housing?
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not interrupt while the hon. Gentleman was in full flow, but I must point out that by very long-standing convention, we cannot have interventions from Opposition Front-Bench Members in Adjournment debates. It looks as though the hon. Gentleman was not aware of that convention, but he is now.
Peter Aldous
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, too, am now aware of that convention, although the hon. Gentleman’s point was a good one.
The development of new supported housing schemes using innovative models is of vital strategic importance to councils providing adult social care services. It will help them meet the care and support needs of an ageing population, making the best use of limited budgets. Such models provide people with greater independence, meet the support needs of individuals and are more cost-effective than residential provision.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I apologise for missing the first few words of my hon. Friend’s speech. He is making a strong case.
Worcestershire County Council, which has contacted me, fears that some of the schemes on which it is working with Fortis Living and the Rooftop Housing Group may be under threat as a result of this application of the cap. The council wanted me to ensure that my hon. Friend expressed those concerns this evening.
Peter Aldous
The position in Suffolk is the same as the position in Worcestershire.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way, and he is making a powerful speech. Insecurity about funding, and the funding model, makes it difficult for a number of housing associations, including Stonham, to develop new products and secure the investment that they need in order to help people to maintain their independence in supported housing in a cost-effective way. Is that not the nub of the problem?
Peter Aldous
The hon. Lady is right. We are experiencing a period of limbo and uncertainty in which nothing is happening, and schemes that are desperately needed are not being developed.
Research shows that when a person with learning disabilities moves from residential care to supported living, about £185 per week can be saved. If that is extrapolated nationally, it means a saving of at least £72 million per annum for social care commissioning budgets. However, specialised supported housing has other advantages in comparison with residential care. In a care home, the minimum standard for an individual room is 12 square metres, whereas in an apartment in specialised supported housing it is about 50 square metres. In a care home, support is organised to meet the demands of group living, whereas in specialised supported housing it is tailored to meet the needs of the individual.
The Homes and Communities Agency has found that supported housing provision has a net positive benefit of £640 million for UK taxpayers. At present there is a shortage of 15,640 places, or 14% of supply, and if the current trends continue, the shortfall will double by 2019-20. Furthermore, there are 30,000 people in the UK with learning difficulties who are over 70 and still living with their parents. According to research conducted by Papworth Trust, 1.8 million people require some form of accessible housing, and the number is growing year on year. When disabled people are living in accessible homes that meet their needs, their quality of life is dramatically enhanced, and their job prospects also benefit.
The message is clear: there is a compelling case for supported housing, demand for which is increasing year by year. If we do not put its funding on a secure, sustainable long-term footing, a significant proportion of existing supported housing schemes will be forced to close, which will leave many vulnerable and disadvantaged people with nowhere to live. Moreover, the much needed new accommodation will not be built.
If we are to find a sustainable long-term solution to the problem of funding for supported housing, it is necessary to think outside the narrow departmental confines of the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions. It is necessary to break out of the silos, and to think holistically. Supported housing is not just a matter for the DCLG and the DWP, because it is not just about housing and benefits. It is a case for the Department of Health, as it concerns physical and mental healthcare. It is a job for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as it concerns the preparation of vulnerable people for the workplace. It is a case for councils, whether it involves housing authorities or social care providers. It is of interest to housing associations, charities and social investors who are keen to pursue innovative projects that would change people’s lives. Achieving good supported housing requires a focused partnership between housing authorities, housing associations, care and support providers, and councils delivering social care.
What all that means is that supported housing is not just about housing. Because it delivers benefits far beyond the walls of the DWP and the DCLG, it is appropriate to consider securing funding from a wide range of potential sources, including other Departments. In the fullness of time, devolved government may also have a role to play.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend is making a typically powerful speech. Does he agree that each year we have delayed discharge crises across acute hospital trusts in England, and were we to think long term about how we fund supported housing, it could pay for itself in terms of a reduction in the cost to the taxpayer of these crises, which happen every winter?
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we raise our eyes and think long term, instead of just short term, savings will be produced that can deliver the far better, high-quality supported housing we need.
Dr Poulter
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reality on the ground is that the lack of suitable supported housing is leading to hospitals and mental health wards having to discharge people either on to the streets in some cases, which is most undesirable as they will include some very vulnerable people, or into other very unsuitable housing situations? This issue needs to be addressed, and conversations need to be had with the Department of Health to make that happen.
Peter Aldous
I agree. It is important not to look at a specific type of housing in silos, because all types of housing are interrelated: we cause a problem in one, and it has a negative spin-off effect in another.
The prospect of the local housing allowance cap being applied to residents in supported housing after the one-year delay is causing considerable unease and concern in the sector. With housing benefit set to be abolished as part of the roll-out of universal credit, it is appropriate for the Government to review the future funding of supported housing. However, feedback from the National Housing Federation reveals that the threat of a crude LHA cap is having a detrimental effect.
Some 24% of supported housing providers have told the NHF that all their supported and sheltered housing units are at risk of becoming unviable and of closing. It is estimated that 156,000 units of existing supported and sheltered housing would become unviable and at risk of closure; that is 41% of all existing schemes. There would also be an impact on future development, with an estimated 9,270 units in the pipeline not being developed. That represents 80% of the total existing development pipeline and includes more than 8,000 specialist homes for older people and people with disabilities which were announced in last year’s comprehensive spending review.
The cap undermines several pieces of legislation introduced by the last Government. The introduction of specified accommodation in 2014 establishes a precedent of treating supported housing differently from other forms of social housing. In addition to being eligible for higher rates of housing benefit, specified accommodation has been removed from the current universal credit arrangements, and it is also exempt from the benefit cap. Failure to recognise this unique status when applying the cap is not only inconsistent with previous policy, but it also places at severe risk the step Government have already taken to protect housing for the most disadvantaged. It also threatens one of the Government’s own flagship policies, the transforming care programme, which relies on supported accommodation being available in the community.
In 2014 a rental agreement was approved by the Homes and Communities Agency that allowed registered social landlords to increase their rents by inflation plus 1% annually for the next 10 years. The purpose of the agreement was to provide RSLs with a stable base from which to invest in their services, including the provision of new supported housing. By capping social rents, the Government have removed this stability, making it virtually impossible for providers of supported housing to plan future developments. For those who have already invested in new schemes, the cap will also jeopardise their ability to meet the existing financial returns of current investments.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and learned speech. People often get things wrong in debates on housing benefit. I have completed many Government documents to set up new housing schemes specifically for victims of domestic violence. The Government have signed off on funding for such projects based on the current housing benefit rates, and they are now putting their own work in jeopardy.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, which provides a clear illustration of the point that I am making.
Inside Housing’s snap survey found that 95% of supported housing providers will be forced to wind up some or all of their schemes. HB Villages wants to invest in new developments. It requires no public grant, but the investment can only be made if returns from future rents are protected through continued rent exemption. I fully appreciate that Lord Freud’s review must be comprehensive and based on as much evidence as possible. It will also be important not to rush it, if we are to arrive at a sustainable long-term funding solution. However, an early assurance from the Government—perhaps from the Minister tonight—that the cap will not apply to supported housing will remove the uncertainty that currently hangs over the sector.
In framing their proposals for the funding of supported housing, it is vital that the Government have in mind the needs of those charities, housing associations and social investors already active and doing great work in the sector as well as those looking to get involved. There is an enormous amount of goodwill and capital waiting in the wings. If the right framework is put in place, those organisations, charities and investors will step up to the plate and carry out projects. In doing so, they will bring significant benefits to the lives of many.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that women’s refuge accommodation in Scotland is often owned by local authorities or housing associations? Scottish Women’s Aid estimates that a one-bedroom flat in a city such as Glasgow would incur a £7,100 a year loss. Does he agree that if the policy on the cap is not changed, those services will become unsustainable?
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. This evening’s interventions started off with an East Anglian flavour, but they have now widened to cover the whole country. This is very much a national crisis. Going back to East Anglia, however, a housing association active in Suffolk has emphasised to me the importance of a long-term plan. It says that it cannot run a business with a 10-year outlook on the back of local authority annual discretionary housing payments.
An organisation I would like briefly to mention is Emmaus. It was set up in the UK 25 years ago just outside Cambridge by Selwyn Image. It now has 28 communities across the UK supporting more than 700 vulnerable people, with the objective of increasing that figure to 1,000 by 2020. It needs the seedcorn of a stable funding regime in order to set up new communities such as All Hallows at Ditchingham, which is near Bungay in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) but which also serves my constituency and several others in the surrounding area. Ultimately, with the right initial support, Emmaus communities are self-funding. Research shows that the social return on investment in its communities, using the Treasury’s recommended discount rate of 3.5%, is £11 for every £1 invested. In addition, the present value of savings to the state is nearly £6 million per annum for a contribution of just over £2.7 million in housing benefit.
Providing the right long-term investment framework will also encourage the provision in new developments of adaptive technologies, which not only enhance residents’ lives but can also produce significant cost savings for local commissioning councils, releasing funds for investment elsewhere. Research by HB Villages shows that the introduction of adaptive technologies can produce savings of between £3 million and £7.8 million—7% to 20% of budget—in a typical council.
In conclusion, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and hope that he will answer the following questions. How is the evidence review going? When will the results be available? Are the wide range of interested parties in the sector being consulted? What is the impact of the roll out of universal credit? Will he give early confirmation tonight that the threat of the crude local housing allowance cap will be removed after next April? In putting in place the new framework for the future funding of supported housing I urge the Government to be sympathetic and visionary and to think strategically. It is important for the futures of so many vulnerable people that the Government pursue such a course.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) not only on his well-judged and sensible remarks, but on his commitment to the issue, as well as hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. When we discussed this matter in March, the Minister was receptive.
It would also be remiss of me not to record my delight at the result of my party’s leadership process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), our new party leader and, from tomorrow, Prime Minister, has made a specific and strong commitment to housing, making it perhaps the No. 1 issue in our country. That is important.
I welcome the Government’s decision to undertake a detailed strategic review of supported and specialist housing in response to a groundswell of concern not only from registered providers across the country, but from constituency Members of Parliament. I want to make a few general comments—I do not have the same command of the facts and figures as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—and to talk about the impact on my constituency and the surrounding area. I am extremely grateful to Alan Lewin, the chief executive of Axiom Housing Association, who has provided me with a strong briefing.
A year ago, I attended a social event at No. 11 Downing Street—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) is impressed. I do occasionally cross the threshold of some esteemed addresses in this country and I may do so again in the future, under the new dispensation—who knows? I am touched by the hon. Lady’s solicitude. On that occasion, I said to the Chancellor that the problems of supported and specialist housing, acute hospital care, adult social care and the interface with local government cannot be solved through salami-slicing or incremental policies. We need a long-term strategic vision of how to address the massive demographic changes that have led to many additional older people needing to be housed.
The Minister is somewhat caught here, because the matter is not really the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government; this is very much a Treasury-driven initiative. He cannot say that, but I can, as a humble Back Bencher. Unfortunately, his Department is caught between Scylla and Charybdis in that it has to continue to develop policy even though long-term thinking has not yet been put in place. The House must be aware that this issue is probably the most important that we face, because we cannot beat the demographic clock. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, we are undermining our own policies to a certain extent—the policy of oversight from local government of adult social care, health and the transforming care programme.
We certainly need extra time to put a new funding formula in place, but this must not be done on a spatchcock basis. We must think about predicting demographic change and helping local housing associations to deal with that. This is about supported housing for not only older people, but some of the most vulnerable in our society, such as those with special educational needs—
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate. I just want to say something briefly about supported housing for vulnerable people, which is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is talking about. This is not just about the country, so I want to bring London back into the equation. If we build these things only out of London, people have to leave their local communities. If we want to keep people within the family environment, it is important that we are able to build these expensive properties in London. The only other point I wish to make is that at the moment we can build them by using section 106 agreements, but if buildings are to become starter homes or will have to be sold off, there will be even less opportunity for councils to provide such housing. I urge the Minister to consider supported housing and this type of accommodation when thinking about what other options are available.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend goes to the nub of the issue. We are not talking about fiscal changes regarding general needs housing, which is a separate issue. We understand that there has been a significant increase in the housing benefit bill over the past number of years and we have to reduce that. We are talking here about young people who are fleeing violent backgrounds, women who are fleeing violent partners, and teenagers, children and young adults who have mental health issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney alluded to this point. That situation is different, so the Minister needs to put a case to the Treasury that a much more long-term and sustainable funding regime should be put in place before we go any further.
I mentioned delayed discharge. If only we were in a position to plan these supported housing schemes properly—they are now under threat, as my hon. Friend so eloquently revealed—we would make a net saving. The process might take five or 10 years, but we must consider the number of older people who are admitted to hospital when they do not need to be in acute hospital beds, but instead need appropriate housing to deal with their specific individual needs.
Mr Robin Walker
Does my hon. Friend agree that many elderly people and those with specific conditions might be able to avoid a hospital admission altogether if they had the right supported housing?
Mr Jackson
Absolutely. One of the great pleasures of being a constituency MP is that we get to visit some of these excellent supported housing schemes—these extra care centres—with Friary Court and the Pavilions being two that Axiom Housing Association has in the urban area of Peterborough.
May I allude briefly to the specific concerns that Mr Lewin raised about the impact of these changes in the Peterborough area? He said:
“Axiom has already felt one of the consequences of the proposed LHA policy—a flagship extra care scheme for 60 vulnerable people at Whittlesey is now on hold as we cannot commit to building these new projects when there is uncertainty surrounding the future revenue funding streams.”
Whittlesey is actually in North East Cambridgeshire, but the point is very reasonable. The policy has a particular impact when low-value land is involved, as is the case in our neighbouring authority of Fenland, although that also applies to other parts of the east of England.
Mr Lewin also mentions the services that are affected, which include young persons’ foyers, homeless hostels, specialist supported housing, extra care housing and sheltered housing. He goes on to detail the
“current impact on each of these schemes/projects based on current rents and service charges”.
For instance, the Peterborough Foyer and the Wisbech Foyer, which do a really good job for young people who want to get off benefits, find work, training or internships, and make something of their lives and improve themselves, will face a cumulative loss in annual income of £620,557. He said that our homeless hostels, such as Fairview Court and New Haven, would lose £461,735. The three Peterborough extra care schemes, two of which I have mentioned, will lose £794,704.
Part of the problem is that we do not get a generic service with such specialist housing. We have night porter services for safety and security, which is an enhanced service that has to be paid for. Losses will also vary according to the amount of Supporting People money that funds support costs. When there is little such money, the costs are included in the housing benefit element of the service charge, which will now be capped. Mr Lewin goes on to say that the projected lost revenue to Axiom for supported housing is £2.2 million.
Unless the Government have quite an innovative, forward-looking and visionary approach for how else that money can be made up, many of the registered providers that provide this much-needed housing for vulnerable people will find themselves in great difficulty, and that will clearly impact on work in the community and in general needs housing. A local housing association in my constituency, Cross Keys Homes, runs an apprenticeship school, which is a fantastic scheme. There will be a knock-on effect—a cumulative knock-on effect across the country—in terms of how individuals will have to be taken care of if they cannot be housed in the most appropriate way.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I agree with much of what he is saying. Does he agree that if people cannot access services such as Blue Triangle and the ARCH resettlement service in my constituency, they would be out on the streets and in very unsafe situations, because there are literally no other housing providers that will take them?
Mr Jackson
Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a very good point. There will be consequences if we do not step back.
I did not refer to the new Prime Minister because I want a job, as that is highly unlikely to happen. After 11 years, I am resigned to being a humble spear carrier in the drama of British politics—there has been a lot of drama this week. I did so because a new Government will have new priorities, a new vision and new principles. Housing is massively important, especially general needs housing. I am talking about housing our most vulnerable people, looking after them and getting them off the streets. In many respects, I am inordinately proud of what this Government have done on housing, but I am making my remarks because I do not want them to throw that record away through a short-term action of cutting £100 million here or there and therefore making the situation worse down the line.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for securing this debate. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for raising this issue previously. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that he will talk to his colleagues in the Treasury and other Departments and that he will come back to us, once the review has concluded in an expeditious fashion in the next few months, so that we can tell our constituents and housing associations that the Government are taking housing seriously and looking after the needs of the most vulnerable people in society. We are compassionate Conservatives, and that should be our watchword.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. From his speech it was obvious that he has significant knowledge of the subject, and in my speech I will do my best to respond to his comments. It is obvious from other interventions and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) that a considerable number of Members across this House also have significant knowledge of and passion for this important subject. I am particularly pleased to be responding to this debate because we are at a crucial point in our important journey to review and reform the funding of supported housing.
Supported housing plays a crucial role in supporting hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people in the country. A safe, stable and supportive place to live can be the key to unlocking better outcomes for individuals. For many, it is a stepping-stone to independent living in the longer term, as several colleagues mentioned. One of this Government’s key commitments is to protect the most vulnerable. The provision of supported housing underpins that commitment and helps Departments across Whitehall fulfil their objectives in supporting those most in need and delivering on this promise.
As has rightly been said, the sector supports people across the country, from those with mental health conditions to rough sleepers, people who are homeless, ex-offenders and those escaping domestic violence. It ensures that vulnerable elderly people can maintain their independence for as long as possible and live in safety and security, that those with learning difficulties can live as independently as possible, and that care leavers can safely make the transition to self-reliance. The importance of supported housing cannot be overestimated. Supported housing helps people meet the demands of daily life, it helps people get their lives in order, it improves and supports their health and well-being, and it provides a place of safety and stability where people can achieve independence and reach their full potential.
Mr Jones
I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, but I will heed Mr Speaker’s comments earlier in the debate.
While looking after the most vulnerable in society, we must also ensure that funding for supported housing is efficient, workable, transparent and sustainable, so that it delivers a secure, quality service that provides for those who need it and makes the best use of the money available. Long-term reform of the sector is overdue. Working with and listening to commissioners and providers to date has been invaluable in helping us to envisage what the future might look like, and I see a very positive future where high quality supported housing is there to provide the right support at the right time and for the right length of time, helping those who can move on into work and independence. Services must be outcomes-focused, accountable, planned and responsive to individual and local needs. Our new funding regime must support these goals. The decisions that we make now will lay the foundations for that future.
The roll-out of universal credit provides an opportunity to drive that reform as housing benefit is phased out. Reform of the sector and a new funding regime must be in place for when universal credit is fully rolled out. We think that better services for vulnerable people and value for money go hand in hand. Our reforms must drive both. We want the quality of services and a focus on outcomes for the people who use them to be at the forefront. We must consider new approaches to transparency and oversight in order to achieve this.
Let me therefore set out what I believe must be the principles for a new long-term funding regime. It must protect the public finances—for the taxpayer, as well as for central and local government. It must also build in a rigorous approach to value for money. At the same time, to protect vulnerable and older people, now and in the future, it must be funded in a way that recognises the increased cost of supporting people in the community, as colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned.
I also want to ensure that a future funding model provides enough certainty to allow the development of new supported housing units. In particular, an ageing population demands that services and supply keep pace with our social care needs.
Welfare spending cannot be left to spiral out of control. It is also right that people seeking help with their housing costs should not get higher levels of housing benefit for the same property if it is in the social rather than the private rented sector.
However, it is clear that supported housing is different and should be treated differently. The Government recognise the higher costs associated with providing supported housing for vulnerable groups, over and above the costs of general-needs housing. That is why it is crucial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, that we work across Government and alongside the sector and other partners to find a workable and sustainable solution.
There has rightly been great interest in this important issue. We have said all along that we wish to hear from a wide spectrum of stakeholders and other partners to ensure that we reflect the diversity of vulnerable people’s needs and the support offer across all the different parts of the sector. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who asked about our engagement with the sector, that we constantly engage with it over this important issue, and we have been doing so for some months, because the sector is absolutely part of coming up with a sustainable solution. Having spoken to the sector, I think it recognises that the status quo is not an option, and it is making strong representations, which we are certainly listening to.
As I say, we have been listening to, and working with, providers, umbrella bodies such as the National Housing Federation and the Local Government Association, and local authorities and other local commissioners, as well as those who represent people in need who rely on, and benefit from, supported housing.
Of course, in Scotland and Wales housing is a devolved matter, and UK Government officials have been speaking to their counterparts in the devolved Administrations. That dialogue has been crucial to guiding our thinking on this important issue, and we need to keep talking as we firm up our plans.
I take the opportunity to thank sector bodies and representatives, such as the National Housing Federation, for the extensive engagement and work they have undertaken to consider what the future regime might look like. It is important that we consider all their proposals in detail, continue the conversation we have begun with the sector and other partners, and hear all voices across this diverse sector.
It is clear that supported housing is an investment that brings significant savings to other parts of the public sector, particularly the NHS. At the same time, any loss of provision risks significant disruption to service users, as well as expensive cost-shunting. That is, why earlier this year, we listened carefully to the sector and put in place the one-year exemption. That short-term exemption was welcomed by the sector, but we recognise that it is only a temporary fix, which is why we are looking at a longer-term solution. That solution must work for all parts of the sector. We must make sure that we recognise the diversity in the sector, and we will continue to do that.
I will certainly take into account the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and colleagues across the Chamber, have made. We look forward to bringing forward a solution to this important issue as soon as is practical.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Mr Speaker
The Minister says that he has concluded his speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Gapes. I welcome the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Easington, to his place. I often attempted to entice him to contribute to these debates when he was a Whip, but I look forward now to hearing the contribution he has to make. At the outset, I should declare my interest in every sense in the draft statutory instrument, which is an important piece of legislation for the area that I represent and for the Tees Valley as a whole.
The draft order was laid before this House on 13 June 2016. If approved, it will create the position of Mayor for the Tees Valley Combined Authority, with the first election to be held in May 2017. It will also set the first mayoral term for a duration of three years, with the next election in May 2020 and subsequent four-year terms. The Government committed in their manifesto to
“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors.”
To give effect to that commitment, Parliament passed the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act earlier this year.
The order is a milestone in the implementation of the devolution deal agreed between Government and local leaders on 23 October 2015. It follows the establishment of the Tees Valley Combined Authority on 1 April 2016. As Lord Heseltine’s independent report stated, the Tees Valley Mayor will provide one voice and one direction for the area, and that enhanced leadership will help to accelerate growth. The order establishes a Mayor and sets the dates of elections and subsequent term lengths. It is laid before Parliament following the statutory process specified in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As required, all of the constituent councils have consented to the order being made, and we now seek Parliament’s approval before making the order.
The order is about delivering devolution and empowering local authorities to set their own policy agendas. It provides enhanced local leadership in the form of a directly elected Mayor with a strong democratic mandate. The Mayor will work closely with local leaders, who will sit on the combined authority board. Together they will drive forward the economic opportunities presented by devolution, with the Mayor acting as chairman of the combined authority and providing a single voice for the area that can be prominent nationally and help to drive the devolution agenda.
If the draft order is approved, it will open the way for full implementation of the devolution deal for the Tees Valley. It is therefore a significant milestone in the devolution journey, leading to greater prosperity, a more balanced economy and economic success. We are committed to that journey because there is a real opportunity for areas to assume powers and budgets, which will help places to achieve their potential and to take control of their growth and, importantly, have a positive impact on the lives of local citizens. The order will provide the Tees Valley with a strong voice and an effective leader who can deliver for the local area and help to rebalance the economy, including building and delivering on the northern powerhouse.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. It is an honour to represent the Opposition and the Labour party in this role. I served for 16 years as an elected councillor on Easington District Council. I served in the Whips Office. In a previous capacity, I provided support on communities and local government and on housing. I pay tribute to the valuable work carried out by my colleagues in the previous shadow team, my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who led on devolution for the Opposition.
As the Minister indicated, today’s draft order is very narrow in scope, converting the Tees Valley Combined Authority into a mayoral combined authority and setting the date for the election. That is the next step in the process towards the devolution deal. However, I challenge the assertion made by the Prime Minister quite recently that it is “devolution by consent”, and I have some questions to put to the Minister about the imposition of mayors.
Local leaders have not welcomed the imposition of a Mayor for the Tees Valley Combined Authority, but they have accepted it, reluctantly. In evidence to the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, Councillor Sue Jeffrey, the leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, said:
“It is a price we are having to have, so we will make it work...We have to take what is on offer and do what we can with it.”
I commend the pragmatic approach adopted by all five councils and their leaders in the Tees Valley area in defence of their communities. The Opposition want it to be clear that we support the principle of devolution, but would do things rather differently, particularly in relation to governance arrangements.
Having been through previous local government reorganisations—I was a member under the old committee system, chaired a number of committees and saw the transition to the executive-scrutiny split—I am concerned that, if the Government adopt a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach, with the imposition of mayors as a prerequisite for the devolution of substantial powers, that will be a detrimental step. We need to look at the evidence from previous reorganisations and impositions of this type.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend used the phrase “one size fits all”, but I understood that some combined authorities or devolved areas were not having an elected Mayor imposed.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I was going to come on to that point in a moment. A number of members of the governing party have expressed concern about imposition as a precondition, and I hope that the Minister will address that. If the Government are making an honest and true attempt to promote economic growth and rebalance the economy, that should not be a precondition. I am sure that the Minister is aware of concern in his party. From my perspective, and in the light of the remarks by my hon. Friend, that is a key point.
The Government’s approach has been rejected by local government leaders negotiating the deals and by a number of leading organisations, including the Local Government Association, the National Audit Office and the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, to name just a few. I had the opportunity to visit the LGA conference in Bournemouth last week. A number of local authority leaders—not just Labour ones—expressed concerns about the imposition of elected mayors. I hope that hon. Members are aware of the National Audit Office report, “English devolution deals”, which sets out the various packages on offer to different areas. It is clear that there is wide variation, and it seems that the Minister has accepted that the imposition of an elected mayor is not necessarily a requirement before powers can be devolved.
There have been concerns about the creation of a fourth or even fifth tier of local government creating the potential for a complex, over-bureaucratic and costly system of representation that is also potentially unaccountable. The Communities and Local Government Committee has warned the Government that such a system, leading to low turnouts at mayoral elections—as has happened—will have implications for the democratic legitimacy of elected mayors.
In case there should be any confusion, I stress that my party, and I personally, are not opposed to the concept of mayors. In many cases they can provide visible leadership and accountability. However, devolution should mean, if it means anything, that people and communities are free to choose the most appropriate model of governance for their community. The imposition of mayors risks undermining that process and public confidence in it.
I would like to pose a few questions to the Minister. In view of today’s order, I am not anticipating, although I am an eternal optimist, that he will announce any radical changes at this eleventh hour. However, are there any circumstances where he would acknowledge that an elected Mayor might not be the best model of governance? I refer him to examples in the National Audit Office report, where Cornwall and, I believe, Leicestershire have been allowed to proceed without the imposition or precondition of an elected Mayor.
Does he acknowledge that an elected Mayor might not be the best model of governance? If so, although I appreciate there is an eight-week consultation period, will he commit to working with local leaders, at whatever stage they are at, towards a devolution deal, and consider the merits of alternative governance models, where it can be demonstrated that the mayoral system may not be the most suitable, given local geography and circumstances? Unfortunately, without that flexibility, authorities and communities are effectively held hostage, with those opposing elected mayors locked out from accessing substantial devolved powers.
I hope that the Minister is aware of concerns expressed by the Centre for Public Scrutiny. It has warned that
“requiring elected mayors and overview and scrutiny committees may lead to combined authorities approaching governance as a ‘matter of compliance, where no further thought is required’.”
That would be as a sort of tick-box exercise. I believe there should be an opportunity to bring powers and decision making closer to the people. However, the imposition of mayors is a contradiction of the meaning of devolution.
I must also take this opportunity to ask for some assurances from the Minister about the implications of the Brexit vote. A key benefit of the Tees Valley deal was control over EU structural funds. That is absolutely a key issue. Not without justification, the Tees Valley has been a long-term beneficiary of European funding and has secured a commitment of £169.8 million over the current EU funding period.
It is a matter of record that the Minister was a leading advocate for Brexit. During the campaign, the Leave side—
The Chair
Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to get back to the actual wording of the motion before us today, rather than open up a general debate about Brexit?
Grahame M. Morris
Yes. I am seeking assurance, Mr Gapes, that, should we go forward with an elected Mayor, the Minister will give a pledge and cast-iron guarantee that the EU structural funds in particular will be made good. That is key to the deal.
Anna Turley
There is an important point here, which is related to the devolution deal. The combined authority was going to control the EU funding. We are seeking assurances, if we are to lose that money, of what that means in the longer term. We want clarification on the instability over inward investment that we are facing at the moment.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is precisely the point I was trying to make in a rather laboured way, for which I apologise. That is key to whether the deal can go forward. The control of EU funding is an essential part of the devolution deal. We seek reassurances from the Minister to the Tees Valley Combined Authority that expected levels of funding, including those expected from the EU, will be maintained, not just in the short term—without second-guessing the Minister’s answer— of the next two years, but in the longer term. We seek assurances that there will be local control of these funds.
In the light of the Brexit vote, there are understandable concerns about the impact on inward investment. Can the Minister offer some comments about how the Government are going to address potential instability and uncertainty on inward investment? That is key to the Tees Valley—as the Minister well knows having a constituency there—given the importance of the chemical industry cluster and the associated manufacturing industry.
I commend the work of the five councils in the Tees Valley Combined Authority and their efforts in seeking to secure the best deal possible for their area and their communities, despite the constraints placed upon them by Government. The £15 million devolution deal—that is £15 million a year over 30 years—can never fully compensate for the devastating cuts to local government. The Tees Valley area has already seen cuts in excess of £240 million per year since 2010: a huge sum of money to lose from local authority budgets. I appreciate the concerns about the Government’s commitment to investment, not only in the light of the referendum, but in view of the gross disparities between infrastructure spending in the capital compared with the regions. I ask the Minister to say a few words about how we are going to address these huge regional disparities.
The commitment to devolving education and transport can ring hollow when considering recent announcements regarding academies and the Bus Services Bill. I know we are not dealing with that here, Mr Gapes, but it is relevant to the package of the powers the elected mayor and the combined authorities will exercise.
I recognise that we are at the start of the devolution process and when the deal is complete, it will only be the first stage. While I am in post, I will support—
Grahame M. Morris
Thank you. While I am in post, I commit to supporting local areas in securing the deals that they want, that best suit local circumstances and that will best help them to meet the challenges they face in supporting and sustaining their local communities.
Jenny Chapman
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.
My constituents in Darlington are perplexed by all of this. The awareness of the combined authority is starting to grow and there is a growing understanding in my constituency about what is happening. I must say, however, that the idea of an elected Mayor for somewhere called the Tees Valley leaves many scratching their heads, because they know we had a referendum in Darlington on leythe subject of elected mayors and the idea was roundly rejected. They also rejected wholesale the idea of a north-east assembly. Their appetite for this kind of change and an extra layer of democratic accountability—they would say bureaucracy—is not great. When we have a group of local authorities that have proven they are able to work together over a very long period, collaborate and get their combined authority off the ground with minimum fuss and trouble—and they have worked with Governments of all colours—they question why they need this extra supervision above them for a place that, in my constituency, they do not recognise as legitimate.
I challenge the Minister that in the first three or four years of his role as MP for Stockton South, he led the campaign to get rid of the Tees Valley and replace it with Teesside, which does not include Darlington. Now he says we must have a figurehead for the Tees Valley, a place he did not previously think ought to exist at all. I had some sympathy with his campaign back then; maybe he should have stuck with that.
My constituents are also very concerned as they are seeing the decimation of their local services: libraries, sports facilities, children’s centres, support for families with disabled children and advice services. They are asking me—so I ask the Minister—how much is this going to cost? What will this election cost and how much will the salary of the elected Mayor be? They want to know this as sums of £90,000, £100,000 may not seem like very much to the Minister when he looks at this, but that would keep important services in our constituencies going for a very long time. He needs to think about how this is going to look to residents who are seeing their services removed from under their feet, to be replaced by a figurehead they do not want for a place they do not believe exists, and actually, nor does he. The idea of there being a single voice for the Tees Valley is naïve at best. I can see why the Government would like a single voice for the Tees Valley—it makes their lives much easier if they have one person to deal with from the Tees Valley. As he well knows, we are a collection of towns and we have many shared aspirations, but we have things that identify us separately too.
We want to keep having that direct dialogue with the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government, because sometimes there are things that we do not always exactly share on every level. It may make life easier for the Government but it will disguise many of those wonderful things that are unique to the identity of different towns within the Tees Valley. It would be a real loss if we pretended that the Tees Valley is a single place with one identity when we all know—and certainly the people who live there know—that that is not the case. They are fed up with being told that the place where they live, grow up and work has a different name, “We’re calling it this now, we’re calling it that now.” They are sick of it. My constituents live in Darlington and they are proud to live there. They do not want to have to elect somebody who is responsible for Hartlepool.
James Wharton
I will seek to address the questions raised by the shadow Secretary of State. I welcome the tone of his comments, although clearly there are areas of disagreement in terms of policy and the approach that the Government are taking. I have noted down the most salient points that I am to formally address. I will do my best to address them, but I am confident that he will intervene if there is anything that I have missed. The circumstances in which a Mayor might not be the best model—whether a Mayor is appropriate or not—seem to be the focus of much of his comments.
The Government have been quite clear. We have imposed a devolution deal on nobody. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 gives the Government no power to impose a devolution deal on anyone. A deal is a two-way process where there are things that the Government want to see and tests and robustness that they want to be assured of, but where local areas are able to ask for the powers that they believe they can best use. That process of discussion takes place in each area, based on geographies determined by that area. This is an issue that I will revisit when speaking on the points made by the hon. Member for Darlington, but it is a bottom-up and bespoke process.
Grahame M. Morris
I have heard the Minister’s comments in response to the first question. I am not suggesting that he has been disingenuous but is not the truth of the matter that, in these discussions, which he has referred to as a bottom-up process, not a top-down process, there has in essence been a precondition that unless the combined authority accepts an elected Mayor it will not go any further? I am aware of discussions and reports of discussions with other combined authorities. We should be clear that it is the Government’s intention—by whatever method—to ensure that there are elected Mayors leading these combined authorities. If that is not the case, perhaps he might make it clear that combined authorities are at liberty to come up with another model and will still be able to have devolved powers, as set out in the order.
James Wharton
The Government will of course consider any proposal that comes forward from a combined authority, but we have been clear throughout this process that, where areas want a significant package of powers, there is an expectation that that comes with the clear and sharp democratic accountability of an elected Mayor. I will not try to use words to avoid the reality of this—I have been very clear about it. We cannot force any area to accept a deal, and we cannot force any area to accept a Mayor. The Government’s position is that, where areas want significant deals, we expect a Mayor to be part of that package. It may be an issue on which there is disagreement across the Floor of the House, but it is one on which we have been clear throughout this discussion and debate.
The shadow Secretary of State also raised the issue of Brexit, but specifically with reference to European funding. He referred to control over European funding being part of this devolution deal. It has been agreed that intermediate body status will be delivered. That issue was also raised by the hon. Member for Redcar. I give what assurances I can, in that at least for the time being we remain a member of the European Union, so nothing will change until exit is agreed. We of course must see how the process evolves and unfolds.
The truth is that we are a significant net contributor to the European Union and so, on exit, will have the opportunity, taking control of money that Europe currently decides how to spend, to spend it in accordance with the interests of this country and, indeed, under the direction of its people and Government. My intention will be to advocate very strongly indeed the continuation and, indeed, improvement of funding to the regions from within Government, but nothing is going to change in the near future. I encourage local areas to continue to pursue economic growth and to make a positive case for the projects for which they want support. Indeed, I support the Tees Valley in doing that, and in continuing to deliver the letter and the spirit of the deal agreed between its local authority leaders and central Government.
There has been a welcome rise in inward investment across the north of England in the past two years. It is up significantly, and we want to continue to encourage the process. I have no doubt that stability is something that drives decision making, and that those who choose to invest look for it. That is why I welcome the decisions that have been taken in my party to offer the country stability in recent days. I hope that for Her Majesty’s Opposition that process will also be brought swiftly to whatever its conclusion will be.
The Shadow Secretary of State also said—rightly; this is an issue on which we agree—that the process is at its start. Agreeing the devolution deal is not the sum total of what will be done. The Government’s ambition, which I hope is shared by local areas, is for devolution to continue; they want additional powers to be devolved and the areas in question to identify additional opportunities, which, in discussion with the Government, can be delivered into local hands to drive economic growth.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the Minister’s point about the process being an ongoing one, but is not there something odd about the fact that the Committee is here to agree a statutory instrument about a Mayor when we do not really know what powers there will be? There will be a further statutory instrument in the autumn. I know there is a consultation document, but it seems we are putting the cart before the horse in agreeing to a Mayor before we even discuss their powers.
James Wharton
I do not agree. There is a deal document that is very clear about the powers that the Mayor will have. I am saying that there will be an opportunity for the local area and leaders to ask for further rounds of powers, if they want to. The measure is about establishing the framework through which they can be delivered, and about a process that is taking place—and has taken place—in all the areas that have agreed to such deals. This week, as I have done in previous weeks, I will be dealing with other statutory instruments of this type. If we do not put the mechanism in place, there will be nothing to which to devolve further powers. We know what is in the deal now. We know that there is ambition to go further, and I welcome those discussions. We know the agreed mechanism by which that can be done. That is entirely the right approach.
The hon. Member for Darlington asked about the Tees Valley and she is right; I would tend to use the term “Teesside”. But of course that does not include Darlington, as I know she is aware, and we are talking about a devolution area which was proposed by local authority leaders, not Government, and which does include Darlington. Therefore, the label that applies is Tees Valley, whether people like it or not. However, I want to make it clear to her that I maintain the view that the local airport should be named Teesside airport rather than Durham Tees Valley. It is a campaign with which I had rather limited success; however, I should welcome her support for that if she were minded to offer it.
The hon. Lady also asked about the Mayor’s salary and the mechanism for it. The Mayor’s remuneration would be a matter to be devolved locally. The local combined authority would take advice, of course, from the independent body on those matters, as happens for councillors’ allowances, but that would be for local determination. It will, I have no doubt—although I do not want to prejudge what it might be—be significantly less than the £15 million a year that will be brought to the area as a result of the deal, and if it were not I would join her in protesting about the proposed level of remuneration. I think it is unlikely to be of such a scale, or anywhere near it.
The hon. Lady also raised concerns about a single voice for different areas, and I do not think there is great disagreement between us on that, at least as far as recognising that many different communities and identities are contained in the area described as the Tees Valley. What we are doing is not about overriding or diluting those identities; it is about recognising that there are some things that are better done at a broader level, looking at the local economy and economic factors as a whole. The Tees Valley is a sensible economic area and was determined by local authority leaders. When the Government examined it, it stacked up and made sense, and met the criteria that we would expect, to be suitable for devolution. That in no way undermines or replaces pre-existing local identities, whether towns, villages, boroughs or other levels in the communities that make up the area.
What we are considering is an important step for the Tees Valley. It is a significant opportunity to transfer powers to local people to determine their economic future. I welcome it. We have had a helpful and broad-ranging discussion about the order’s implications and I hope that the Committee will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016.
draft Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (england and wales) regulations 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Owen, following the time we spent together on the Investigatory Powers Bill.
The regulations were laid before the House on 24 May, and I am satisfied that they are fully compatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. It is important to say just one or two things about the context. You will know, Mr Owen, that the ownership and use of mobile phones in prison is already illegal. Unfortunately, notwithstanding that, the evidence suggests that some prisoners continue to use mobile phones while behind bars and, more than that, they continue to be engaged in criminal enterprises, including offending, by means of modern communications.
There have been a number of recent convictions where prisoners have used mobile phones to commit a wide range of very serious crimes, such as importing automatic firearms and drugs. Indeed, in 2015 a prisoner received a 19-year sentence for using a mobile phone to orchestrate the supply of class A drugs. Mobile phones are also used for planning and plotting violent crimes. There are examples of their being used for intimidation and harassment. In essence, it is clear to the Government, as I think it will be to the Committee, that we need to take further steps.
As I said, the possession and use of a mobile phone in prison is already a criminal offence. The National Offender Management Service already uses a range of measures to prevent mobile phones from getting into prisons and to seize them when they do. To give hon. Members some feeling for the scale of the problem, in 2013 NOMS recovered more than 7,400 handsets and SIM cards from its estate. In 2014 the number of devices seized increased by 30% to 9,745. That is the equivalent of one seizure for every hour of the year, which it is fair to say is a truly remarkable figure.
We need to do more to ensure that we can prevent the use of mobile phones by prisoners without taking possession of the phone. A new, cost-effective approach is also needed to augment and strengthen the existing measures.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a compelling case for the need for the regulations, and he is absolutely right that they must be effective. Can he share with the Committee how he plans to measure their effectiveness once implemented, so that they do what they are designed to achieve?
Mr Hayes
I asked the same question. My right hon. Friend is an immensely experienced parliamentarian with an eagle eye for these things. He will know that it is all very well to pass regulations, but unless we know that they will work, that does not mean a lot. Of course, there is the contextual point, and no doubt the hon. Member for Swansea East, in what I think is her first encounter of this kind, will want to ask questions on this as well. The problem is that if I am right about the context—the figures suggest that I am—and the problem is growing and the number rising, how do we chart what difference these measures make against that backdrop?
The answer, I think, is that we need to put in place— I am happy to commit to this now—a review of the effect of the regulations that involves prisoners themselves, through prison governors. We should involve the National Crime Agency, which of course will be associated with this, and the police, and I think that we should have the engagement of the prisoner community itself. By a variety of means we should conduct a review. On the basis of that review, we should consider the effectiveness of the regulations, and clearly that would mean that if we felt that they had not had an effect or we needed to do more, we would do more. I am more than happy to commit to that now, in the course of this Committee. As I have said, I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will want to question me further on that.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Presumably the Minister will be able to tell the Committee how far the range will extend when these blockers are installed in prisons. Will that affect local communities around prisons?
Mr Hayes
That in itself is an interesting point. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is one of the challenges technologically. We have been engaged with mobile phone operators on this, and I held a roundtable event at the Ministry of Justice with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Prisons very recently. One of the challenges is finding a technological solution that does not have unintended consequences of the kind the hon. Lady describes. Part of that review was to look at the changing character of technology, which of course is by its nature dynamic, to ensure—[Interruption.]
Mr Hayes
I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, who I think might be indicating that he is going to intervene, but first I want to finish answering the question from the hon. Lady, as my hon. Friend would expect me to do as a matter of courtesy, chivalry and parliamentary practice.
The review will also need to engage the service providers, who will have to give us a view on whether the measures that they are being asked to put in place—for that is what this order does; it asks them to put measures in place—are fit for purpose, and whether technological changes necessitate a fresh approach. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that must be part of the review, and I committed to that in my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I serve as a criminal defence solicitor and see clients who will be affected by these regulations, which I welcome. I am particularly concerned about the prevalence of drugs in institutions. I want to focus on the types of institutions that will be subject to the regulations. Can the Minister confirm whether they will extend to other institutions where there are detainees, such as mental health hospitals? In those institutions people are also under an order and subject to detention, and mobile phones are particularly prevalent, so there will be an impact. Can the Minister also confirm that this will not extend to the immigration detention estate?
Mr Hayes
I asked those questions too when preparing for this short debate. In the course of my remarks, I will happily make clear the answers to those pertinent inquiries. The issue is of course most acute in the prison estate itself. The alarming thing—I think it is fair to be absolutely open with the Committee—is how apparently easy it is to smuggle those kinds of goods into prison. Of course, a SIM card is a tiny thing. There are even examples of devices being thrown over prison walls, and smuggling a very large number of very small SIM cards into and out of prisons has become something of a specialism for certain people. I am baring my soul to the Committee, but that is the way a Minister should behave among colleagues, because it is important that they know what I have asked of my officials.
My other question was whether it is possible to find a straightforward way of doing this merely by prison staff searching prisoners, dealing with visitors more effectively, checking cells and so on. However, given the sort of numbers I have mentioned, the logistics of that would of course make it extremely difficult. The business of switching SIM cards between phones, and indeed switching phones between prisoners, means that no prisoner is using the same SIM card on any consecutive days. Essentially, the trading of phones between prisoners, the movement of SIM cards and the business of bringing them into and out of the prison are such that simply putting in place a series of protocols, measures or disciplines in the prison would be insufficient to deal with this. We need to find a technological solution that is more comprehensive in its effect, which is precisely what these regulations do.
I turn now to the draft regulations, as I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, even though we are having this interesting and useful discussion. The draft regulations allow NOMS and other law enforcement bodies to apply to the county court for a telecommunications restriction order. If the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the handsets and SIM cards specified in the application are in use and inside a prison, they will make a telecommunications restriction order. The terms of the order will require the mobile network operators to take whatever action the order specifies to prevent or restrict the use of those handsets and SIM cards. In practice, the operators will blacklist the handsets, which will prevent the handset from connecting to the mobile network, irrespective of the SIM card inside that handset, and disconnect the SIM cards that are identified in the application from the mobile network.
The blacklisting of handsets and disconnection of SIM cards found to be operating without authority inside prisons will therefore allow us to take much more decisive, comprehensive and effective action against the use of mobiles that are doing the damage I described earlier.
The emphasis on asking the providers to engage in this process will rightly prompt members of the Committee to ask what view the providers take. I assure the Committee that this order has been brought to the House after extensive discussions with providers to ensure that they are satisfied that the measures contained herein will do the job that they are supposed to.
Carolyn Harris
For obvious reasons, I have had this discussion with several prison governors, and some see it as a much larger problem than others. For example, a women’s prison I visited recently said that there was no problem with mobile phones. In fact, only one had been confiscated in the last year. Will the cost of this be borne right across the Prison Service? Will prisons be expected to cut other budgets in order to pay for this technology?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Let me be clear about the priority here, which is those institutions where we know there is a profound, serious, compelling problem. I have mentioned some figures, but I cannot give the latest data, given that it is not yet publicly available. I assure the hon. Lady that this is a growing problem. We know that, year on year, the use of mobile phones is growing—despite all the good practice of prison governors, by the way; this is by no means an indictment of their management. We know, too, as I have already described, that phones are being used to facilitate a large number of very serious crimes. The hon. Lady is right that that will vary to some extent from place to place. Of course, the nature of the order is that a TRO will be applied for only when we know there is good reason to do so. In that sense, it is specific to the problems she sets out. If an order is necessary it will be brought forward, and the judge must be satisfied that it is proportionate and, on the balance of probabilities, the right thing to do. There is due process associated with this: it is not a question simply of applying the regulations without consideration of where they are needed and why.
On the funding issue she raised, NOMS has secured funding centrally to operate the measure, so there will be additional money.
On the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate raised, the regulations apply only to custodial institutions. I take my hon. Friend’s point that there may be a good case to look more widely, if we can find evidence that mobile phones are being used for malevolent purposes elsewhere. As I said to the hon. Lady, this is about application based on need. Nevertheless, I would not want to ignore the implications of my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I will go away and look at that. It is not contained in this order, but he makes a valid point. If we find, on analysis, that there is a need to look at the issue more closely, we certainly will.
Mr Burrowes
I actually want a proportionate approach. I certainly do not want the measure to be extended to the immigration removal centre for those who are not convicted prisoners, and I am concerned that there would be an extension. It needs to be dealt with proportionately. Having said that, in my local hospital, there is a forensic wing for convicted prisoners who are subject to a hospital order, and that could be a good case in which access to mobile phones should be prevented.
Mr Hayes
I am little surprised by what my hon. Friend said. He makes a reasonable point. All of this could be tested against the actuality of the problem. The regulations are not blanket provisions; they are provisions based on need. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am happy to build that into our further consideration.
I have set out the importance of the regulations, but it is right, too, that there are safeguards. We need to be able to disapply the order if mistakes are made and if anyone is affected in error. That is another point on which I am sure the hon. Member for Swansea East wants to be assured. We want to ensure that if someone is wrongly affected by a telecommunications restriction order, it can be disapplied quickly and they can be reconnected to the network. I want to put in place an additional safeguard to ensure that there is independent and transparent scrutiny of the measures, so I have provided that the use of the regulations will be overseen by the proposed Investigatory Powers Commissioner when the Investigatory Powers Bill receives Royal Assent.
With that introductory explanation of why we are doing what we are doing, I happily commend the regulations to the Committee.
Carolyn Harris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. If hon. Members will forgive me, this may be a very short-lived appointment so I am going to make the most of it and actually speak out.
Mobile phones are brought into prisons primarily to carry out illegal activity. At a recent inspection of Her Majesty’s Prison Lindholme in Doncaster, 67 mobile phones, 145 SIM cards and a kilo of psychoactive substances were confiscated in just one month. Mobile phones in prison are a major concern and facilitate the introduction of illegal contraband, such as Spice, into the prison system. I recently visited several prisons, where I spoke to staff who informed me that the prevalence of contraband for smoking hung so heavy in the air on some wings that they could actually taste the atmosphere. They added that the use of mobile phones was primarily the cause of the stuff getting into the prison system.
The Government’s argument is absolutely correct. If we could make mobile phones in prison an impossibility, the effectiveness of contraband smuggling would diminish. I have alluded to the fact that not all prisons are affected by the problem and I am satisfied with the Minister’s reasoning on that. However, for prisons that do experience the problem, it is an epidemic and a serious problem.
As we learnt from the recent inspection at Her Majesty’s Prison Lindholme, the smuggling of technology is creative, and the result can be quite prolific. This week, the Daily Mirror reported that a prisoner in Her Majesty’s Prison Wandsworth used a mobile phone to post videos of his cell on Snapchat, and boasted about the availability of drugs and weapons inside. His cellmate was found to be posting selfies online from inside his cell. We have to look at the blockers as essential for some prisons, but should tailor our reactions accordingly, and I am sure that applying to courts for a restriction order will adequately provide for that.
Over the past few months, one thing I have noted when visiting prisons—especially women’s prisons—is that there is a problem with the cost of phone calls. Perhaps the Minister could share those concerns with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. Things are especially hard for women who have to keep in touch with their families, or control them with a long arm. They tell me that they have to put as much as £40 a week on the cards because the call charges from prison are so much more expensive than a phone contract would be. Although smuggling of phones was not an issue in the female prison I visited, I fear it may become one because women need to keep in touch with their families.
The majority of mobile phones smuggled into prisons are brought in to organise deliveries of contraband. Their presence is facilitating illegal activities, but it also makes a mockery of the custodial system if prisoners are using mobile phones to advertise their accommodation and activity to the outside world. That must be remedied as a matter of urgency.
A major concern is that technology advances so rapidly, so we need assurances that blockers are reviewed regularly. Everything should be done to ensure that is done annually, rather than over any longer period. By the time network signal blocking devices are installed in prisons, somebody will have found a way around the obstacle. They will undoubtedly find a loophole.
Another area of concern is BlackBerry Messenger, which I understand does not need a wi-fi or phone signal to transfer messages. It works via Bluetooth, so perhaps the next step should be to look into blocking the Bluetooth network. I am led to believe that prisoners have been able to get messages to the outside world using BlackBerry Messenger.
As long as we have assurances that the system will be effective and will be monitored in as fireproof a way as possible, the Opposition will not oppose the orders.
Mr Hayes
I like to think of these things in theatrical terms, as you know, Mr Owen. I am grateful for the tone and spirit of what she said, as well as for the inquiries she made. Let me be clear: she is right that the issue is not only about crime. It is about crime, as she said, but it is also about the system being made a mockery of. Prisoners are using Twitter and Facebook in a way that makes prison authorities look foolish. It can be worse than that. They can send all kinds of messages over those media of a most unpleasant nature—I mentioned harassment and so on earlier.
The hon. Lady is right that, as I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, we need to be open-minded about how the system develops and how the technology changes. In the form in which it has been introduced to the Committee and the House, the instrument is a means by which we can cut off handsets and SIMs, but I take the hon. Lady’s point that we will need to review that over time, which is precisely why I committed to do what my right hon. Friend asked me to do.
I shall now give some detail on that commitment. My officials will not like this, but that is not a problem because the Ministers make the decisions. I suggest that we complete the review by the end of 2017, and that I, or whoever is Minister then, write to the House with the details of that review. The review should encompass all that I described, including the National Crime Agency, the police, the prison authorities—NOMS will clearly be closely involved—and the telecommunications operators, who Members from both sides of the House suggested will need to be involved. It will be based on an analysis of whether we need to go further both technologically and in terms of the prison estate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said.
Let us commit to that on the basis of what has been discussed in this brief debate. So that right hon. and hon. Members can go about their daily business, I draw my remarks to a close.
Question put and agreed to.
9.19 am
Committee rose.
Draft Nuclear Industries Security (Amendment) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Industries Security (Amendment) Regulations 2016.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.
The UK is highly regarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other key international partners in civil nuclear security. We take our international role in this field very seriously, including with regards to regulation. The draft regulations before the Committee will update the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003. Specifically, regulation 2(1), in the definition of transport, removes sub-paragraph (i) and adds references to air transport to regulation 3(5)(b).
The effect of these amendments is to bring the transport of civil nuclear material by air within the same stringent regulatory framework for security that applies to the transport of such material by land or sea. That means that the independent Office for Nuclear Regulation will have the same oversight and approval function in relation to the security of civil nuclear material transported by air as it has in relation to the transport of such material by land or sea.
There are two main reasons for making these amendments to the regulations. The first is that the UK is a party to an international treaty, the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material, which came into force in 1991 and was amended in 2005. The convention requires signatories to have in place a legislative and regulatory regime to ensure the security of civil nuclear materials stored or transported in that state.
The Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003 are the primary means by which the UK has implemented that obligation under the convention. When those regulations were first written, the transportation of nuclear material by air was not considered to be an option, so air transport was excluded from the scope of the regulations. As our work on decommissioning has gathered pace, we revisited our legislative and regulatory regime for ensuring the security of civil nuclear materials, and determined that the regime should apply to all potential forms of transport. Making these amendments to the regulations, to extend the regulatory regime that exists in the 2003 regulations to cover the transport of nuclear materials by air, will help to ensure that the UK gives full effect to the convention.
That brings me to the second reason for making these changes: our domestic considerations. Amending the regulations will allow us to consider all credible options when planning moves of nuclear material to ensure that we make the right operational decision with regards to both safety and security. Nuclear material can be safely and securely transported by air and it is right that our regulatory framework facilitates that. Air transport of nuclear material is already an established method of transport internationally. These amendments simply mean that civil nuclear material transported by air from or within the UK will now be subject to the same regulatory regime in relation to security as such transports by land or sea within the UK.
These regulations will also ensure that the independent Office for Nuclear Regulation will be involved with, and will oversee, the security arrangements for any air movements that take place. As such, the regulations will make the transportation of civil nuclear materials more secure. In practice, this means that the Office for Nuclear Regulation will be responsible for approving transport security statements and transport security plans for all carriers of civil nuclear material by air, as it does for carriers involved in the movement of civil nuclear material by road or rail that currently takes place. In drafting the regulations we have consulted the Office for Nuclear Regulation and it is content with them.
On a practical level, the regulations will let us better address the current challenges. In late 2015, we began a programme of moves to remove nuclear material from the Dounreay nuclear site in northern Scotland. The programme is of great importance and will help to ensure the long-term safe and secure management and treatment of that nuclear material, by storing it in the most appropriate place. As part of the programme, the Prime Minister announced earlier this year that the UK Government had reached a landmark agreement with the United States and the European Union on a multilateral swap of nuclear material. Under the terms of the agreement, the UK will transfer almost 700 kg of excess highly enriched uranium from Dounreay to the United States. In return, the US will send nuclear material to the European Atomic Energy Community, which will be used in the production of medical isotopes, for use in Britain and other European countries.
That agreement is groundbreaking. It will see nuclear material that we no longer need being exchanged for material that could save many lives. In order to complete the operation in the safest and most secure way, we need to be able to consider all transport options seriously. Without an appropriate regulatory regime, air transport may not be a legitimate option. While we cannot disclose timings or methods of transport that will be used in any future moves of civil nuclear material, the amendments made by these regulations will allow us to consider all potential options. I sincerely hope that the regulations will be approved, as they will help to ensure that any movement of nuclear material by air is regulated appropriately and carried out securely. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
As always, Mr Turner, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The statutory instrument does exactly what the hon. Lady has said it does. A number of questions are raised by her comments, and I move to those straightaway.
The threshold for bringing the amendment to the CPPNM into force was reached on 8 April 2016. The amendment to the convention was secured on that date. It is now 12 July. Will the hon. Lady confirm that we are in breach, and what the effect of that might be?
Since 2003, the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations, which this statutory instrument seeks to amend, have been the primary means under which we have kept to our obligations. The 2003 regulations should of course be updated to include transport by air. I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s explanation that, in 2003, it was not envisaged that transport would be made by air and so the 2003 regulations did not include that provision—despite the fact that the convention, which we adopted in 1980 and which entered into force in 1987, did require security to be guaranteed for international transport, including air travel.
It is of concern that, since 8 May—when the amendment to the CPPNM took effect—we have been in breach of our duties to ensure a competent authority has fully implemented our obligations under the CPPNM. If we were legislating on a purely academic basis, to cover all the bases, that would be one thing, but I am even more concerned to read in the explanatory memorandum that the transport of civil nuclear material by air is “uncommon”. That means that it has actually happened.
The Department says that it cannot reveal—the hon. Lady was clear in her remarks—the timings or details of future moves of the transportation of civil nuclear material. I am glad that she put in the word “future”, because the question that I wish to ask her is whether such movements have taken place by air in the past. I do not need to know the specific details, but I ask whether they have already taken place and whether the UK was therefore in breach of its obligations. I ask in particular about a possible breach of article 4(1) of the CPPNMN, which states:
“Each State Party shall not export or authorise the export of nuclear material unless the State Party has received assurances that such material will be protected during the international nuclear transport at the levels described in Annex I”.
It is deeply troubling that it appears that this statutory instrument is being used to close the door after the horse has bolted. Of course, the exchange of materials to which the hon. Lady alluded will have value and import and be worth while. I do not think that any of us would wish to resile from that. However, none of us would wish to entertain those exchanges being carried out, whether by air or not, without the appropriate regulatory oversight, which this statutory instrument would appear now to be trying to put in place.
Many communities will be deeply troubled if the implications of the Minister’s words and of my own surmise are in fact the case, and these transportations by air have taken place without the appropriate regulation and safeguards being in place. The hon. Lady said that security obligations are taken “very seriously”. I wrote it down; she said it. If my surmise is correct, it would appear that that statement is actually far from the truth.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. It does of course give you the opportunity to repay some of the generosity and the leeway that you received from the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for many years, of which you took full advantage. I will certainly attempt to do the same. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister back in her place. Conservative polity’s loss is, I hope, early intervention’s gain. I am of course very pleased to see my Whip in place, and thank her for giving me the honour of serving on this Committee. That is clearly because the Whips Office felt that it was important that established Members could make a serious contribution to this Committee, and I hope that we will do that. There are plenty of years’ service on the Back Benches here.
My main concern as a layman, not knowing much about this technically, is public safety. The Minister has touched on that. Why would that be a particular concern in respect of aircraft movements rather than the other forms of transport? That is pretty obvious. It is because an accident involving an aircraft could be catastrophic in a way that one involving a road vehicle or even a sea container might not be. I quote one of the experts whom I dug out, a Mr John Large, who is an independent nuclear engineer. He said that an air crash could
“contaminate large tracts of land with potential radiological consequences for unprotected members of the public”.
We need to refer across from the civil, which this is about, to the military, where there have been many aircraft movements transporting military grade plutonium, tritium and enriched uranium. There have of course been exercises to see what might happen should something go wrong. I understand that in 2011 and 2012, “Astral Bend”, the code name for the exercise, imagined a leak of enriched uranium and plutonium spreading up to five kilometres across South Wales. Under questioning, a previous Minister of Defence revealed that 23 flights had carried defence nuclear materials in the last five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North made an astute point about this, referring to the possibility of civil movements that may have already taken place and to civil uses of uranium. I urge him to press the Minister on that again, unless she can come up with an answer as to what has happened in respect of civil nuclear material transportation, because that is alarming. I have not found references to that happening before. If it does happen now—even in small numbers—it will be helpful for the Committee to know that before we make a decision on whether or not we note this statutory instrument.
Also, a stronger case needs to be made for the benefits of taking this extra risk. It was not envisaged when the regulations were first promulgated, so why now? Why do we need to have this extra risk by having the material flying around at high speeds above our heads and over built-up areas? Surely there is a greater risk carrying it in a plane. Is that not one of the reasons why there was no need for safeguards—it was regarded as unnecessary to transport such material by plane? The Government need to be clear with us on that.
My other concern is about the use of private companies to transport any nuclear materials by air. One assumes that that will be done under very tight regulations and that the flights will be strictly controlled by Government. Were we to see someone coming along and saying, “I can do this way cheaper than the Government aircraft, or possibly even military aircraft” because of some cost cutting or other, there would be an immense temptation in this era of austerity for people to have a bit of a punt, as they have done in a number of other areas, be it prisons or other sectors, where occasionally people do have lapses because they want to pursue the profit motive rather than 100% focusing on the public sector. I give way to my hon. Friend, who has far more expertise in this area.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend know that there is a grey area? The Ministry of Defence now routinely charters aircraft, especially for heavy lift capability, because there are some cargoes that cannot be transported even with the suite of aircraft that the MOD has. Does he think that, if the MOD were subcontracting or hiring in a transport aircraft, that could also be a concern or need clarifying?
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We need to have these matters clarified and I hope that the Minister can tell us or find inspiration to tell us that that is in fact the case.
The Ministry of Defence itself, when talking about military grade nuclear materials being transported, actually said—and we have to listen to these words carefully:
“in over 50 years of transporting defence nuclear materials in the UK, there has never been an incident that has posed any radiation hazard to the public or to the environment.”
One is forced to ask, “What were the non-radiation hazard incidents that took place?” It is common knowledge that a US plane lost a couple of nuclear devices in Spain, or near the coast of Spain. We need to be reassured when we are looking at issues as important as this about what the real facts are. I think we could then relax a little bit more and understand the safety regime, rather than being anxious about things that may not yet be in the public domain. Transparency is one of the most important things that the Minister can bring today. To finish on the joint question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and myself about the use of private firms, if private firms get engaged in this, is that the prelude to a further possible privatisation? If that is a possibility, it is important the Government come back here to explain the regime they wish to use—whether a private charter or a private company—to transport these materials. That way, the whole House can understand how that may happen.
No impact assessment has been carried out, as far as I can tell, on the use of private firms or on the transport of civil nuclear material. I feel the Government may have missed an opportunity to future-proof their legislation by not having an impact assessment in place. I urge the Minister to ask officials whether that can be done even at this point, without delaying the statutory instrument, so that there can be a clear impact assessment. That may yet still be assisted if the consultation goes wider than the ONR and the Civil Aviation Authority. Many other interested bodies would like to say their piece on the matter. A wider consultation would reassure the public that everything possible has been done to ensure that the essential movement of nuclear material has to be carried out with public safety as 100%, rather than 95%, of that driver.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
My contribution will be relatively brief.
I share a number of the concerns of colleagues about safety. The regulations relate to civil materials, but a lot of comparisons can be drawn with the movement of military materials. For that reason, we should be looking at this from a different perspective and there should be a larger review of the issues. That is why I will not be able to support the regulations today.
We are looking at this issue from the wrong perspective. The Scottish Government have a policy for storing nuclear materials on site or as near to site as possible and to do whatever is possible to minimise their movement, given the concerns regarding safety and security when this sort of material is moved.
We hear of some instances when there are accidents. Thankfully, none has led to fatalities, but is that just good fortune? The consequences of something going wrong in the movement of the sort of materials we are discussing are so grave that we cannot afford to take any chances and must do whatever we can to ensure the safety and security of our populations. The Government need to go back and look at the regulations as a whole regarding the movement of both civil and military nuclear materials, take these things off the roads and make sure our populations are safe. For those reasons, I cannot support this—
Mr Allen
Of course, these days, sadly, we have to factor in—God forbid—an act of terrorism. So far, we have been talking about accidents. We have heard of road vehicles spinning on black ice and so on. Accidents can also happen in the air, but releasing a dirty cargo over an urban area would be a terrorist’s dream. Will the hon. Gentleman also underline our anxieties, particularly if private firms get involved, about the catastrophic consequences of such an act?
Owen Thompson
I absolutely agree. It is no secret where this type of material comes from. It would not take a genius to sit outside and wait if they wanted to do so, to work out exactly when it was being moved. The best planning in the world can be put in place to maximise security around that, but anyone who wanted to could find a way of working out when this material was being moved. For those reasons, we need to take a completely new look at this and have an absolutely fresh start in how we move, monitor and deal with nuclear material.
Mr Jones
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner?
I broadly welcome the regulations, because it is a fact of life that nuclear material is transported by air. Anything that provides independent oversight has to be welcome. However, some questions need to be asked.
In her opening statement, the Minister referred to nuclear material from Dounreay, which is material that has been decommissioned from the nuclear process. Then she referred to the transportation of isotopes. From my previous life working with the nuclear industry, I know that there is a big difference between radioactive isotopes used for medical purposes and, for example, fuel rods and other things that are the by-products of the nuclear power industry. In her reply, will she give some definition of what type of material the regulations cover? Do they cover everything in terms of nuclear, from radioactive isotopes used for medical purposes right up to parts that have been decommissioned from Dounreay and other nuclear power stations? If she could give us the broad range of what the regulations cover, that would be helpful.
On the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, the explanatory notes state that most of this material would be transported by the Ministry of Defence. Paragraph 10.1 states:
“There is no expected impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies as the Department anticipates that only government assets and not those of private firms will be used to transport nuclear material by air.”
I know from my previous life in the Ministry of Defence that there is military assistance for civil powers for the transportation not just of nuclear material, but other things, by military assets. The costs are then recovered back from the Departments that incur them. Is it a fact that only Ministry of Defence assets will be used? I am not aware of any other Department that has air assets that are able to transport this type of material. Is it just Ministry of Defence aircraft that will be used for the transportation of this material? It would be helpful to have clarity on that.
On the point I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, there is the issue of how we define what is a military aircraft. We have some very capable aircraft, thanks to the last Labour Government, who purchased the C-17, Voyager and other aircraft after many years of neglect in the Ministry of Defence’s investment in transport capability. However, the Ministry of Defence routinely leases aircraft from third parties, some of which are based in a variety of countries. For example, the main suppliers of heavy lift aircraft are Ukraine and some of the other former Soviet republics, because they have the Antonov and other aircraft, which are capable of carrying these large loads. If those are used, they do not have military pilots, navigators or crew. Do they come under the definition of a Ministry of Defence flight? What would happen in respect of the regulation covering those companies, which are hired on a case-by-case basis, and what would be their role? I may be wrong, and somebody may correct me, but I am not aware of any companies in this country that possess those large aircraft. They are mainly foreign companies, so it would be interesting to know what the relationship will be.
Mr Allen
I imagine that aircraft undertaking this particular task would have to be of a pretty high specification or possibly even purpose-built; this material cannot just be strapped into a passenger seat in a jumbo jet. Since there are relatively few movements of that nature, the financial temptation could be to have a private contractor that services many nations to keep such an item of kit airborne and to offer a competitive price, rather than each nation having its own military capability that would be barely or infrequently used. Is that not another reason to be careful, because privately owned aircraft, whether it is UPS or somebody else, could tailor-make a vehicle specifically for that purpose and trade it on a marked down price?
Mr Jones
That is a possibility. On the nature of the material that is going to be transported, I think my hon. Friend is right. I do not think we can strap things into seats in the back of commercial airliners; that is not the way it is done. From what I know, some of the flasks that are needed to protect this material from the impact of a crash need quite a large aircraft. Of the aircraft currently available to the Ministry of Defence, the only one that could possibly fit that would be the C-17, but I do not know whether even that could take it.
Are we going to allow private companies to hire in that type of aircraft, or is it—this might be a possibility—that we have a nation-to-nation agreement with, for example, the United States? It has things like the C-5 Galaxy, which can take larger loads than the C-17. It is a question of what that relationship would be. What discussions have there been with the Ministry of Defence about how the regulations will impact on its regulations in respect of carrying out this type of work? Those are areas that need to be explored.
Paragraph 10.3 of the explanatory notes states:
“The impact on the public sector is expected to be very limited.”
It is quite clear that, for security reasons, those aircraft will sometimes fly in and out of military bases that have security around them. On other occasions they will—and I know that they do—fly into civilian airports that are not run by the Ministry of Defence. For example, Newcastle airport, which I know well, is partly owned by the local authority in the area and partly by a private sector company. What effect will the regulations have on that airport in terms of how it handles the material once it lands? That is important. The explanatory notes say that there will be a “very limited” impact, but what discussions have taken place with civilian airports such as Newcastle if the material is going to be transported in and out of them? I personally see no reason why it should not be, but I would be interested to know what the impact on those airports will be in terms of knowing how to handle the material and how to handle the regulations.
The other issue, which is also in the explanatory notes, is the scope of the regulations. Clearly they cover Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. What discussions took place between the Government and the organisations that are responsible for environmental issues, such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and its equivalent in Wales, before the regulations were laid? Do they have concerns or are they content with the proposals? It would be interesting to know. If, heaven forbid, the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North raised did occur, the local response in Scotland would come from SEPA. I am sure that the Scottish Government would have an opinion on this issue, so what discussions have taken place with the Scottish Government? Are they content with the regulations? Clearly, with the decommissioning at Dounreay, there is a good chance that some of these flights will take off from Scottish soil, so again, what type of discussions have taken place and have any concerns been raised?
Finally, the regulations cover the home countries, but if we are talking about international travel, what is the position of our overseas territories? There may be the possibility of an emergency landing in Gibraltar or one of our other overseas territories—for example, the Isle of Man, especially given its close proximity to Sellafield, where some of this material will no doubt be coming in and going out of. What is the position of the regulations regarding other jurisdictions that are part of the United Kingdom but are not specifically laid out in the regulations? It would be interesting to know whether they cover those areas as well. I assume they do, but I would appreciate it if the Minister addressed that point.
In summary, I have no problem with the regulations. They are a sensible move forward, but my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North raises an interesting point in asking why they have not been introduced before. If the public are going to have confidence in the regulations, it is important that any concerns that are raised not just today, but in future, are dealt with publicly. I am aware of the steps that are taken when military nuclear material is transported, and I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North that it is not simply a case of putting it in a bucket or cardboard container and putting it on an aeroplane; measures are taken so that even if there is a crash, things are in place to ensure that there is not a leak of material, but I understand people’s concerns. When we are doing this, we have to reassure not just our constituents, but the wider public. We do not want to breach security and the Minister is right not to go into that area, but I think some broader reassurance is needed.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The public are deeply concerned about the transportation of nuclear material through residential streets by vehicles. We hear that and we understand it. How do we imagine the public would react to nuclear materials criss-crossing the skies over their towns and cities? I think we can all imagine that the public reaction would be one of great fear and alarm, quite understandably and justifiably.
The hon. Member for Brent North made an excellent point earlier. There is a question about the wording of the document. Perhaps it is just semantics and the way the document has been written, but there is a concern about whether this has already happened. If it has, why are we hearing about it now? Is there some national security reason why we cannot hear about it? I doubt that very much.
Mr Jones
That is the point I was making, in terms of where the regulations meet, for example, the Ministry of Defence’s responsibilities. I do not think it is a great secret that the Ministry of Defence already transports nuclear material. The interface between the two will be important in knowing what the crossover is, and what the new future is. Who actually has supremacy regarding the regulations that govern that, whether it is civilian nuclear material or military nuclear material?
Patricia Gibson
If this stuff is going to be transported by air—I will say more about that in a minute—I think the public really have a right to know. They will be quite justifiably angry and will feel let down if this has been going on and they were not party to that information. We are talking about potentially extremely serious consequences if things go wrong. Sod’s law is that eventually, no matter what regulations are put in place, things can go wrong, and quite often, they are not the things that are expected to go wrong.
I want to draw attention to a point my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian made earlier. The Scottish Government’s policy on the transportation of nuclear waste is that it should be near surface and near site, storage and/or disposal facilities, where the waste can be monitored and retrieved if required, and the need for transportation over long distances can be minimised.
I would imagine, although I do not know for sure, that if nuclear materials are transported by air, it will, by definition, be a long distance, otherwise they would not be transported that way. I am concerned about the length of these distances and why we are moving from the current system to try and include air travel, which is fraught with danger.
I also ask the Minister to what extent, if at all, the Scottish Government have been consulted on these points. Have they simply been notified or have they not been notified? What input have we had from SEPA? I would like answers to these questions, because we are talking about public safety, which is really important. The transportation of nuclear materials is already a cause of alarm among the public. This will do nothing to allay those fears; in fact, it can only increase them.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to all colleagues for their contributions. As they have all rightly pointed out, this is a matter of the utmost importance. Reassuring members of the public is absolutely vital, and I take this incredibly seriously.
It has been suggested—and rebutted—a number of times that nuclear materials would be strapped into a passenger seat. Can I reassure anybody listening that that could not be further from the truth? This is one of the most serious aspects of governance and security. The greatest precautions are taken.
All hon. Members were right to raise their concerns and I will try to whistle through the answers to all their questions. I think I have them all here and obviously I am happy to answer any further questions. Specifically, I can tell the hon. Member for Brent North that we brought forward the regulations as soon as we became aware not that there was a gap in what we were doing, but that there was the potential for a gap in the regulatory regime. There are no specific consequences set out in the convention for failing to comply fully by having these regulations, but we are committed to being in full compliance.
A number of Members asked whether we have ever moved civil nuclear material by air before. It has been moved once by air in the UK in 2010. Although there was no specific regulatory regime in place, the air movement in 2010 was conducted under the auspices of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, with all the appropriate safety and emergency response arrangements implemented. We recognise that a formal regulatory structure is necessary and that is exactly what we are legislating for.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady has explained that this took place in 2010, and I am grateful for that clarification. The obvious question that follows is this: why has it taken five and a half years, given that she said the Government wanted to plug that gap as soon as they found out they were in breach? They must have known five and a half years ago that they were in breach. Again, the reassurances that the hon. Lady is giving us do not necessarily match up with the facts that she is telling us.
Andrea Leadsom
It was not understood at the time that a specific regulation—the actual writing of the rules—was required. Today’s debate is a further look at the rules. My Department has looked again at the legislation and concluded that, for completeness, the regulatory environment should be extended to include air transportation. However, I want to be very clear that the actual carrying out of the one movement in 2010 was done absolutely in accordance with all our regulatory and safety and security principles and supervised by the Office for Nuclear Regulation.
Barry Gardiner
Surely the point is that this statutory instrument, if passed, will give the authority the regulatory powers. The hon. Lady gives us a partial reassurance that it supervised what happened, but the point remains that it did not have regulatory powers at that stage, because that is what is being granted here today—if it is. Therefore, I am indeed surprised that it has taken five and a half years for the Government to wake up to the fact that they conducted this transportation of civil nuclear material and were known to have done so by an authority, but not by a competent authority. In knowing that it was not a competent authority, why were those regulations not then put in place?
Andrea Leadsom
Just to be very clear for the hon. Gentleman, at that time it was not believed that this regulation was identified as necessary. It is from a more recent look at the regulation that the Department has decided that this regulation should be put in place in order to be completely in line with the convention. It is not that there was some sweeping under the carpet or whatever; it was only identified more recently that this regulation should be put in place. That is what the Department has done: to act as quickly as possible to put that in place. At no time was there any sense, in reality or otherwise, that the one air movement was not carried out under the auspices, guidance and absolute control of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the interpretation of whether the regulations needed to be updated then, and the understanding was that they did not, but a more recent look has suggested that in fact it would be appropriate for the regulations to be updated.
Andrea Leadsom
I will give way one final time. I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman.
Barry Gardiner
It is indeed the case that the convention, when it entered into force in 1987, stipulated that it required security to be guaranteed for international transport, including air travel. Therefore, will the hon. Lady do two things? Will she enlighten us as to whether the movement that took place in 2010 was international travel and will she tell us—I think she owes us this at least—the date upon which it was realised that these regulations needed to be updated in this way? That is so that the Committee can make a judgment for itself as to whether the Government acted in a timely fashion.
Andrea Leadsom
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I am afraid I will not give him the answer he seeks about where material was transported to, because that would not—
Andrea Leadsom
I will not answer the hon. Gentleman, because the fact is that we keep all issues of specific operations absolutely confidential.
Andrea Leadsom
No, I am sorry, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I have answered his questions absolutely openly and transparently. What I am saying to him is that it is not a matter of realising we were in breach; it is a matter of a more recent look that has decided that, for completeness, these regulations should be updated. He is trying to suggest that there has been some sort of coming to the game late, and that is not the case. This is a case of a more recent review of the regulations suggesting that this should be carried out for completeness. That is the end. That is all I am prepared to say on the matter. I will now move on to the other questions.
Andrea Leadsom
No, I am sorry. I have completely answered the question.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked about the safety of moving nuclear material by air. The Office for Nuclear Regulation would always need to be assured of the robustness of not just the packaging, but all safety arrangements, before any movement by air could take place. All these amendments do is change the regulation of security. The existing safety framework remains completely unchanged. Nothing is changing other than the regulation of security.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North also raised the question of the Ministry of Defence moving material by air, and asked how that differs and whether it has been breaking the international convention. What I can say is that the transportation of nuclear materials for the purposes of the Ministry of Defence is not covered by the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material or the nuclear industry’s security regulations; it is an entirely separate matter, and outside the remit of this piece of legislation.
Mr Jones
If the Minister does not know the answer to this question, perhaps she can write to us afterwards. At Dounreay, for example, where there is plutonium, there is a difficulty in determining whether it is a by-product of the civilian nuclear process or whether it will go down the other stream and into our nuclear weapons programme. Is the Minister saying that if this material is deemed to be military it would therefore fall under one regulation, but for this purpose it would go down the other route if it was for civilian use? That would affect what she just told us about the regulations on the transportation of this material. It could be the same material but possibly have different owners.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman’s interpretation is correct. First of all, material is identified as being under the auspices of either the MOD or the civil nuclear programme, and the regulation is dealt with accordingly. As I have said, the Ministry of Defence is not covered by either the convention or the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003—it has its own regime—so the definition of which material comes under which regime is something that needs to be identified.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North also asked who moves the material. The amendments to the regulations bring the transport of civil nuclear materials by air clearly under the regulation of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. They do not state what specific organisations will move material. As I say, for security reasons we do not comment on operational decisions made for the specific transport of material, but any organisation carrying out the transportation of nuclear material to, from or within UK airspace would need to be approved as a carrier by the Office for Nuclear Regulation and regulated accordingly.
Andrea Leadsom
No, I am going to answer the question about who transports nuclear material, and then the hon. Gentleman may intervene. The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked whether civilian airlines could transport nuclear material. The Office for Nuclear Regulation would be entirely responsible for approving the transport security statement and plans, so no one would be able to fly material without the approval of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. We do not believe that there are any commercial carriers that are capable of securely carrying civil nuclear material, or that currently do so.
Mr Jones
I am a bit perplexed by that, because the explanatory memorandum states that:
“There is no expected impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies as the Department anticipates that only government assets and not those of private firms will be used to transport nuclear material by air”.
Is the Minister saying that the only people who will transport nuclear material will be the Ministry of Defence? I am not aware that her Department, or anyone else, has the transport assets to do that. Perhaps the Minister will come on to this, but could she also answer the point I raised about the MOD subcontracting to private firms?
Andrea Leadsom
As I have already mentioned a couple of times, for security reasons we cannot comment or speculate on different methods of transport, other than to say that the Office for Nuclear Regulation is entirely responsible for the transport plans. As I have already made clear, we do not believe that any commercial transportation group is capable of transferring civil nuclear material, but it is for the Office for Nuclear Regulation to determine all those plans, including the regulation of those who are authorised to carry out the transportation. That includes the vetting of the individuals, the security of the personnel, the security of the vehicles used and the training regimes that are in place.
Mr Allen
I thank the Minister for her answers to my questions. Of course, right now there will not be a civil aviation market for transporting this material, because this has not been going on very much. If air traffic increases, not least because of these regulations, it may start to be an attractive proposition to some people in the civil aviation market. My question becomes relevant at that point. Are we absolutely confident that those people will be held to account and regulated in such a way that in the worst possible case they will as far as possible be terrorist-proof against people who might want to explode one of these things? That is why we have not done this before; it is an enormous risk. Are we absolutely certain that the risk will be minimised as much as humanly possible if civil airlines undertake this traffic?
Andrea Leadsom
Again, I absolutely respect the hon. Gentleman’s concern and I absolutely share it. First, this is not something that would happen every day. Having looked as a Minister at some of these transportations, I know that the amount of planning is vast, as can be imagined. It is extremely carefully and rigorously carried out by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which exists to regulate nuclear matters—nothing else. I can absolutely assure him that the safety of the public, the transportation, the staff involved and so on would be completely uppermost in its thoughts.
The hon. Member for North Durham asked exactly what categories of material would be transported. The regulations will apply to a broad range of nuclear materials, as set out in regulation 3 of the 2003 regulations and the schedule to it. Quite a broad range of possible waste is being transported.
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, civil nuclear products, which could include a wide range as set out in the 2003 regulations, would potentially all be included. Likewise, the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised the matter of terrorist risk. Again, for security reasons we do not comment on operational security issues, but very robust safety and security measures are in place for all movements of nuclear materials. That is absolutely key.
One hon. Member, possibly the hon. Member for North Durham, asked whether the regulations extend to overseas territories. The answer is no. If there was an operational need, we would discuss putting appropriate regulations in place with the overseas territory.
The hon. Member for Midlothian asked about safety and what happens if there is an accident. Appropriate emergency response arrangements exist at nuclear sites and for all civil nuclear transports across the country. All relevant parties are made aware in advance of any movements and are of course ready to respond in the case of an emergency.
Owen Thompson
On that point, are the relevant agencies police, fire and local authorities? When it comes to nuclear weapons, I know that it is not the case that the fire and rescue services are routinely informed in the local area. The police are not always told locally and the local authority is certainly not told. When the Minister says that all the relevant authorities are told, can she be clear about who they are?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is always a balance between telling everyone what is going on, precisely because of the importance of security, and ensuring that the most robust steps are taken to ensure the safety of the public and those involved with transportation.
Andrea Leadsom
Again, I will not comment on specific operational measures. All Members will appreciate that there is a balance between telling everybody and making sure robust steps are in place. The latter is absolutely the case. Clear and careful steps are always taken, just in case, but for security reasons we do not disclose them.
As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, in the event of a movement by air, routes will be carefully planned. Obviously they would not be discussed in advance with members of the public, but the overflight would be carefully considered to minimise any impact on the population. I can also assure her that all appropriate Governments are aware of the proposed changes to the regulations and will be kept involved in discussions of any planned movements; indeed, that is the case today.
Patricia Gibson
On that point, I heard the Minister say earlier that the planning for such operations would be a vast, complicated and security-minded procedure. She also suggested that it would be a commonplace occurrence, or words to that effect. In light of that, I am still not clear. That said, can she enlighten us as to why the change is considered necessary?
Andrea Leadsom
I think that I have been clear about that. The change is merely to ensure that any air movements, rare though they may be, come under the same official regulatory regime as road and rail transport. It is not a change; it is merely an update to ensure that the regulation is complete for all potential modes of transport. It is not changing any policy.
Andrea Leadsom
I have given way a lot. I would like to move on to my conclusion now.
Finally, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran asked why we move radioactive waste over long distances. I reassure her that the swap announced by the Prime Minister in March 2016 is not a movement of radioactive waste; it is a movement of high-value nuclear material, as I explained in my opening remarks, in exchange for medical isotopes, which are important right across Europe for use in things such as scanners and so on. We are not moving radioactive waste long distances.
In closing, it has been a useful discussion. I absolutely understand and endorse the concerns of all Members. They are quite right to raise questions about safety and so on. It is absolutely vital. As I said in my opening remarks, the effect of the amendment is to bring the transport of civil nuclear material by air within the same stringent regulatory framework for security as the transport of such material by land or sea. This means that the independent Office for Nuclear Regulation will have the same oversight and approval function in relation to the security of civil nuclear material transported by air as it has in relation to the transport of such material by land or sea.
The regulations will help ensure that the UK gives full effect to the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material, and they will allow us to consider all credible options when planning moves of nuclear material to ensure that we make the right decision in terms of safety and security. Nuclear material can be safely and securely transported by air, and it is right that our regulatory framework facilitates that. Any future movement of civil nuclear material by air will be subject to regulation and oversight by the independent nuclear regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Early Years Development and School-Readiness
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Before James Berry moves the motion, I just want to indicate that quite a number of Members wish to contribute to the debate, which will last for only an hour and a half. Of course, the Front-Bench spokesmen and the Minister will need to make their contributions, so we are looking for brevity if we are to get everybody in.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children’s early years development and school readiness.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this motion, which had cross-party support, for debate. I also thank Save the Children, for which I am a parliamentary champion, and the Sutton Trust and London Councils for their help in preparation for the debate.
I would like to record my profound sadness at the death of Jo Cox, who was one of the signatories to the application for this debate. The subject meant a lot to her and she would have made a very valuable contribution were she here with us.
It is a real privilege to speak on this subject given my family background. Both my parents were teachers who dedicated their lives to improving children’s life chances, and they were firmly of the view that, of all the interventions available to the state, investment in education was the best tool for promoting social mobility. It is fair to say that since my parents finished their teaching careers, a significant body of evidence has developed that suggests that the best and ripest time for interventions that have an impact on a child’s life chances is in not secondary school or even primary school, but in the early years.
I was delighted to stand last May on a platform that included a commitment to invest in the early years, including by doubling the availability of free childcare for three and four-year-olds from 15 to 30 hours. Indeed, the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) launched that policy at Advantage Day Nursery in Tolworth in my constituency. As they were completing a puzzle with some four-year-old children, one child looked at the Prime Minister and said, “David, why are all those people taking photographs of us?” The Prime Minister’s response was, “If we finish this puzzle, they might just go away.” Well, the puzzle was duly completed, the election was won and this House has now delivered on the Government’s commitment to 30 hours of free childcare, which will be rolled out next year.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for a specific focus, and I entirely agree with that. The Welsh Labour Government focus on the years from pregnancy to the age of seven by looking at every single agency that is involved in a child’s life during that time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that sort of holistic approach is necessary?
James Berry
That sounds like an interesting approach. In January, the Prime Minister launched the life chances strategy, which looks at the whole process from birth onwards, and there are the childcare offers for two-year-olds and for three and four-year-olds, but the holistic approach sounds like a sensible way forward.
The purpose of today’s debate is to ensure that the opportunity provided by the Government’s significant investment is grasped with both hands so that children’s life chances really are improved. I will make three key points, which are about the importance of children’s early years to their development; the lasting impact of poor early years input; and how the Government can make the best of this opportunity to promote social mobility.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about the importance of the early years. Does he agree that one of the best starts in life is to grow up in a strong, stable family, whatever the make-up of that family? In such a family, a child can enjoy secure relationships, which they can then develop in school with teachers and with other pupils. That gives them a firm ground on which to proceed in their educational life.
James Berry
I understand that research shows that growing up in a strong and stable family is important for life chances. Not everyone is able to grow up in a strong, stable family, but the presence of one or two good parents—and, where that is not possible, the presence of good early years education—can make a real difference to a child’s life chances.
Recent data have shown just how important a child’s early years are to their development. The National Academy of Sciences in the United States found that:
“Virtually every aspect of…human development, from the brain’s evolving circuitry to the child’s capacity for empathy, is affected by the environments and experiences that are encountered in a cumulative fashion, beginning…in the prenatal period and extending throughout the early childhood years.”
Evidence has demonstrated that the rapid development of the brain in the first few years of a child’s life provides the foundation for future health, wellbeing and attainment. Without stimulating environments and experiences in those early years, children will fail to develop the skills that they need, particularly language skills, in the same way as their peers. The extent to which a child’s life chances are fixed in the first two to four years is truly astonishing, particularly in the field of communication skills, which provide the foundation for vocabulary development and the understanding of language. They are a springboard to the literary skills needed to get through school.
A responsive adult caregiver can minimise the effects of significant stresses on a child’s development, such as growing up in poverty. That echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Supportive parenting is recognised as an important protective factor against long-term disadvantage, as is professional early years input. Much could be said about parenting and the need for the state to consider supporting good parenting strategies, which the Prime Minister focused on in his January speech on life chances. However, for the purposes of this debate, I will focus mainly on the pre-school setting and the lasting impact of a poor early years experience.
Statistics show that one in three children in England start primary school without meeting the Government’s recommended level for early development. That figure is even higher among children from poorer backgrounds and among boys. In my borough of Kingston upon Thames, 87% of children reach the expected level of speech and language skills at the age of five, partly due to the demographic and partly due to the excellent early years opportunities in Kingston. The national average is 67%, but just 50% of children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds reach the expected standards at the age of five. That is worrying in itself, but it is even more worrying for three reasons.
First, children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to get the necessary help at home to get them school-ready. A study in Kansas in the United States has shown that by the time children of professional parents enter kindergarten, they have heard 19 million more words than children of working-class parents, and a staggering 32 million more words than children of parents on welfare. Secondly, the school-readiness gap between the richest and poorest five-year-olds is as big as 19 months, which is nearly two academic years. Thirdly, research shows clearly that children who start behind at primary school stay behind at primary school, and go on to stay behind at secondary school and in post-school academic and work opportunities.
Save the Children’s fantastic “Read on. Get on.” campaign, which a number of hon. Members here support, found that one in four children who did not meet the expected levels of speech and communication skills at the age of five failed to reach the expected reading levels at key stages 1 and 2. It also found that one in four of those children failed to meet the expected level in English at the age of 11. The findings go further than that, as they do not just apply to English but correlate with the development of ability in maths at the age of 11.
The Sutton Trust has demonstrated that the gap in early years development is directly correlated with later educational outcomes and, as a consequence, later life outcomes. Its paper “Subject to Background” shows that disadvantaged students are significantly more likely to do A-levels if they have attended any pre-school, and particularly if they have attended a pre-school offering high-quality early years education.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the early years point to later development. My local nursery in Torfaen—Abersychan Brynteg, which my daughter attends, incidentally—recently had an excellent Estyn inspection, achieved through innovative teaching and strong leadership by the headteacher. Does he agree that it is vital to have that in the early years?
James Berry
I agree entirely. Having visited a number of daycare nurseries in my constituency, as I am sure other hon. Members will have done in theirs, I have seen that well led operations are always the most successful, particularly when they are led by professional early years practitioners.
Children who start behind stay behind, and vice versa. Given that children who start and stay behind are more likely to come from families in socioeconomically deprived areas, a cycle of disadvantage is created. That cycle can be broken by improved guidance and support for parents and improved early years offers to ensure that when children arrive for their first day of primary school, they are ready to learn, whatever the circumstances into which they were born.
Finally, on how the Government can make the best of this opportunity, it is important to start by recognising what they have done. They have committed to investing nearly £3 billion a year in the early years, the greatest sum ever, to boost the availability and quality of the early years offer. There are a number of ways in which they can ensure that that massive investment has maximal impact on boosting social mobility. Those who speak later in the debate will no doubt add their own suggestions, but I have four.
The first involves the workforce. In Kingston, as in the rest of the UK, there are some excellent early years educators. Some are qualified early years teachers and others are not, but the workforce is bound to increase significantly when the additional offer of 15 hours a week comes into force next year. It is encouraging that the Government plan to deliver an early years workforce strategy; that offers welcome recognition of the important role of that workforce in a child’s early development. Unsurprisingly, international studies have found that good-quality, graduate-led childcare secures the best early years outcomes, but the evidence also shows that good-quality early education disproportionally benefits boys and children from disadvantaged backgrounds—the very groups currently being left behind—not only in the short term but right through primary and secondary school. Equally, the evidence shows that low-quality childcare has no benefit, or even a negative impact on a child’s development.
Early years educators and staff with equivalent qualifications can play a critical role in creating high-quality learning environments in a nursery, providing leadership and increasing the skills of other staff. What assurances can the Minister give the House that the early years workforce strategy will include plans to attract and retain enough bright staff for us to achieve the ambition of an early years teacher in every nursery setting?
My second suggestion is to increase the availability of speech and language therapy services. I was recently fortunate enough to meet the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and to see the speech and language therapy services provided by Your Healthcare in Surbiton, in my constituency. From those briefings, it is clear to me that access to high-quality SLT is vital to ensure that parents and early years staff are trained in the right strategies to optimise a child’s verbal communication development, and to enable early identification and specialist intervention when a child shows signs of a speech and language deficit.
Nevertheless, as the 2008 report by Mr Speaker—the Bercow report—showed, the availability of quality SLT services for nought to 19-year-olds is patchy across the country, and greater consistency is required. It is not possible, or indeed desirable, to have a full-time speech and language therapist in every single nursery, but high-quality SLT input into the curriculum and SLT-facilitated training for all staff in early years settings would be a big step forward. I hope that Kingston Council will consider funding such a programme locally, and that other local authorities will do the same nationwide.
My third suggestion is that we do not ignore the additional requirements of children with special educational needs or disability—a subject close to my heart, as my mother was a special needs co-ordinator. In London, 0.8% of children benefiting from early education have an education, health and care plan, the highest percentage in the country. The cost of providing childcare for children with special educational needs or a disability, whether or not they have a formal plan, is higher than for children without special needs. Under the current Government proposals, it is not entirely clear whether providers delivering the additional 15 hours for EHCP or SEND children will receive additional funding to meet those children’s needs. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.
Finally, on take-up, the Government have introduced a number of early years schemes since 2010. Research by the Sutton Trust and the National Audit Office shows that although take-up for early years offers has generally been good, it has been poorer among the most disadvantaged families. From 2010 to 2015, uptake of the 15 hours of free childcare was 98% in the least deprived areas, but only 90% in the most deprived areas. The figures for the offer for two-year-olds are more stark. Against a departmental aspiration of 73% to 77% take-up, only 58% of parents of disadvantaged two-year-olds have taken up the offer. I appreciate that there may be more up-to-date figures, but those were the figures available to me. The very children who need such interventions, for which the Government are making funding available, are the least likely to receive them.
I know that the Department for Education advertises its early years offers, but the advertising campaign appears to be missing some of its core target audience. Given the disparity in uptake, it seems to me that a better solution would be to mandate the provision of a user-friendly information sheet to all new parents. One fixed point of parental interaction with the state might be when parents register their child’s birth; they could then be provided with the crucial information about what is on offer to help their children.
In his January speech on life chances, our Prime Minister recognised that the early years present a window of opportunity, saying:
“Destinies can be altered for good or ill in this window of opportunity.”
In the early years, parents can make a huge difference to their children’s life chances, as can the state through early years education. We have seen how high-quality early education can transform children’s future, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. If we want to achieve social justice and promote social aspiration, we must ensure that the Government’s welcome investment in the early years makes the best possible impact in that short window of opportunity. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions about how best to achieve that, and the Minister’s remarks on how he will ensure that it is achieved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Order. To give further guidance on the interpretation of “brevity”, it will mean three and a half to four minutes; then I think we will get everybody in.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) for securing this important debate, and for his thoughtful opening remarks. I would particularly like to associate myself with his remarks about our dear friend, the late Jo Cox. We remember her fondly today.
I will be brief. I want to talk about poverty and its impact on children’s early years development and readiness for school. I recently produced a report on child poverty in my constituency, which showed that one in five children live in poverty. By any metric, that is a deeply concerning statistic. A childhood that is safe, supportive, warm and healthy, with the prospect of a bright future ahead, should be the right of every child, not just a luxury for some. It is important because how people start their life heavily determines what the rest of their life will be like. For those born into poverty, it is hard to climb out of it.
We know that poverty has a negative impact on children’s development in their earliest years. Figures from Save the Children, which does incredibly important work on early years development, show that in my constituency last year more than 200 children fell behind before they had even started school. Nationally, one in three children in England start school without meeting the Government-recommended level for early development. That should shame us all and ensure that we redouble our efforts to stop children falling behind.
A lot of good work is being done to stop children falling behind. In particular, I draw attention to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who has been a champion of early intervention for many years and was heavily involved in the cross-party manifesto “The 1001 Critical Days”, which contains a number of sensible policy suggestions. The Early Intervention Foundation is also leading the way on this issue by championing early intervention and, crucially, evaluating the evidence to find out what works.
Stopping children falling behind in their earliest years will require the Government to be bolder in their approach to tackling the root causes of child poverty and of children falling behind. I had hoped that a step towards that bolder approach would be delivered in the life chances strategy, which we were told would be forthcoming after the EU referendum. I was disappointed to learn that the announcement of the strategy has now been pushed back. I urge the Government to bring it forward at the earliest opportunity.
I make the case to the Minister that the possibility of new leadership at the top of the Government offers fresh opportunities to look again at these issues. There is no doubt that some of the Government’s measures over the past six years have contributed to children in my constituency remaining in or falling into poverty. There is now an opportunity to change that, so I urge the Government’s new leadership to be ambitious.
I am bringing forward a private Member’s Bill that will seek to legislate for a target to reduce child poverty and to introduce steps to measure how well the Government are performing in achieving that target. I would be happy to work with the Minister and the Government on the Bill, and urge them to consider the idea seriously. We can end the scandal that is child poverty only by everyone in this place working together, with national and local government working across society. I hope this important debate can be a step towards that goal.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) for securing this debate.
I would like to take the debate in a slightly different direction. I was a school governor for a long while before I came into this place, covering early years and senior years, and I have four children. I am concerned about, and want us to bear down on, the fact that the problem is not diminishing; school resilience, early years development and school-readiness are increasing problems throughout all parts of society. While I am talking, the Minister should keep in mind the fact that mine is a large, rural constituency. There are enormous problems with delivering in rural environments as opposed to metropolitan ones, such as the relevant organisations not having enough staff.
I shall concentrate first on the fact that school-readiness is not a “one hit”; it has to be started from the beginning. Early years teachers in the readiness setting cannot do it in that final year, with four-year-olds. It has to start earlier. We know what the problems are: they were largely indicated in the NSPCC report; the important research on speech and language therapy that was carried out for the Scottish Parliament in 2014; Speaker Bercow’s report in 2008; and the work done by Save the Children and Newcastle University in 2013. But what about the solutions?
Speech and language enable our children to communicate. If they cannot communicate, they are disadvantaged—end of. In Suffolk, we have a paucity of speech and language therapists. That is probably because the demand on the system is rising. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, we need to address that problem.
We teach our children through nursery rhymes and repetition. We now have less talk in our daily lives and more use of mobile devices and so on. Our children face away from us when we are pushing them in prams. From their earliest start, children need to look at an adult’s face to see our facial expressions. Not one Member present will not have laughed at a baby taking a little bit of lemon in its mouth and looking as if it has been given something dreadful to taste. These things help our children to learn and are incredibly important.
The way we ask our children to do things is important. If someone says, “Cake?” to a child, they can say yes or no. If someone says, “Does Emily want a piece of cake?”, that gives the child the ability to interact and develop language. A child who has had the benefit of good language skills before they go to school is not only not 18 months behind—those months are impossible to make up—but will accelerate through school.
Children learn to listen when we talk. As we know in this place, the ability to listen can be very useful throughout life. Children must learn resilience. It is hugely important that they are allowed to fail. The rise in mental health issues later in children’s lives shows that teaching them resilience—letting them understand that they can fail in a situation and that that is not wrong—helps them.
We do not do enough to develop personal skills. Children must be allowed to put on their own coats. One in four children arrive at school in nappies. It is absolutely criminal that teachers have to try to teach while spending their time getting children dry, and that is particularly difficult if there are few classroom assistants. I had four kids under five. Mine all got dry by 18 months, because it is ruddy expensive to leave them in nappies. There is no excuse. It was felt discriminatory to insist children were dry, but it is not. We should be providing environments that help parents to understand. Parenting support is one thing that I ask for.
Outdoor play is also important. Children climb and improve their muscle tension. A lot of children arrive at school unable to hold a chubby crayon because they have held iPads and other such things. Children need to play and to explore. We need to build that into their routine.
I urge the Minister to think of rural areas and not treat them the same as towns, particularly in relation to workforce planning. We parents buy our childcare for the hours that suit us. That might not work with the business model of nurseries and the early years provision that enables school readiness. As the Bercow report and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, we need to improve speech and learning support. We need to consider parenting classes to encourage supportive families around our children, to ensure that children do not fail in the system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Order. Speeches should now be kept to around three minutes.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) for securing this debate on such an important subject.
In these times of national turmoil, as the UK looks to redefine its status in the world and concerns about our economy loom large, it has never been more important for us to fulfil the potential of all our citizens. It has never been more important to ensure that we give our children every educational advantage available. We need each and every one to be equipped to play their part.
The previous Labour Government understood that education is the foundation for all: “Education, education, education”. In that context, there is a lot of talk of GCSEs and A* to C grades, and, as a former secondary school teacher, parent, school governor and nursery school governor, I know that they are extremely important.
In my constituency, which is fast becoming a hub for advanced manufacturing and is developing as a centre of prosperity, there is much talk of improving educational standards. It is vital that we all recognise the starting point. The launch pad for our children is not in secondary school, when they are aged 11, and nor is it in primary school. It is in those very important pre-school early years that the foundations for success are laid.
Consider the fact that the total size of the human brain is 95% of its maximum size by the age of six. That is really important. It is true that cortical and subcortical components of the brain change dramatically during childhood and adolescence, but the fact remains that 95% of human brain function is developed by the age of six, so what happens in the early years is incredibly important for the individual’s future wellbeing and economic success.
Of course, the earliest education for the child begins in the home. When that is compromised in deprived communities, when that is limited because parents and carers have themselves been deprived of education, opportunities and extended experience, when that is curtailed because every ounce of the parents’ energy is expended on grinding out an impoverished existence, the child is deprived of crucial learning opportunities and so often disadvantaged from the outset.
It is especially for those reasons that the state must concentrate on providing quality early years education. The experiences of a child in their early years are critical for their future, encouraging the drivers of learning, curiosity and imagination, as well as critical learning behaviours. Self-regulation, resilience and empathy are key to a child having positive early learning experiences.
Indeed, there is a growing body of understanding that demonstrates that these early behaviours have a significant impact on life chances and employment prospects. Recent research has clearly shown that children who have access to quality nursery school education go on to high levels of school achievement, have positive attitudes and achieve higher test scores. They are less likely to need remedial or special education; they are more likely to go on to further and higher education; and they are more likely to have stable employment. They have a significantly lower incidence of involvement in criminal activity, are less likely to need access to social services and are less likely to engage in substance abuse.
Therefore, it is clear that if we genuinely want to effect change in our country, we should begin in these early years. Only yesterday, I was speaking to a nursery school teacher in Tower Hamlets—I will have to leave her comments for another time, as my time this morning is limited. I will just say that I am extremely concerned that we are confusing childcare with quality nursery school education and I am worried to hear from nursery school headteachers that recent cuts in budgets for nursery schools mean that it is difficult for them to keep quality and qualified nursery staff in their schools. It is admirable that the Government want to increase free childcare to 30 hours, but that must not be confused with quality education. The Government know the difference and should invest accordingly, because while childcare can educate children, it is not the same as planned nursery education. For the sake of our children and the prosperity of the country, I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the Government will prioritise investment in early years education.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Order. To assist with time discipline, the speech time is now going to be displayed on the screens around Westminster Hall.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing this debate. I also declare an interest as a former infant schoolteacher. Indeed, almost exactly six years ago I was just ending my previous career. My first day as an infant school teacher remains the scariest new day in any job I have ever undertaken. Sadly, infant school was not the last time that I have dealt with five-year-olds’ behaviour.
I will talk briefly about the Imagination Library, which is a project we have developed in north Lincolnshire and in the east riding of Yorkshire—people may know of it. It is a free book-gifting scheme, which was originally established by Dolly Parton in Tennessee in the United States, and then brought here some years ago. As an infant schoolteacher, I obviously understood the importance of kids reading at home and how much better prepared they were when they turned up at school having actually opened and read a book, and read with their parents or carers. Sadly, for too many of the children I used to teach in Scunthorpe, that was not the case.
When I became an MP, I was fortunate enough to be able to work with North Lincolnshire Council, under the innovative leadership of Baroness Redfern and Councillor Rob Waltham, to establish the Imagination Library scheme in north Lincolnshire. The scheme now delivers books to 87% of all five-year-olds in our borough. Since we started the scheme in 2013, it has already had a significant impact on the results of kids who arrive at school. In 2015, 70% of our five-year-olds in north Lincolnshire were judged to have achieved a good level of development by the time they arrived at school, compared with just 53% in 2013.
This free book-gifting scheme is wholly integrated with the NHS locally and with our children’s centres—of course, we have protected and actually expanded some of our children’s centres in north Lincolnshire. The scheme is also integrated with our library service—of course, in north Lincolnshire we have actually built new libraries and extended all of our library opening hours to support this scheme, which has had a really transformative effect.
As I said, 87% of all five-year-olds in north Lincolnshire are now registered with the scheme; indeed, in parts of my patch, on the Isle of Axholme, 92% of children are registered. The scheme is open to every child and it is having a really transformative effect. In the other part of my constituency, which is in the east riding of Yorkshire, the council has not funded the scheme, but I myself run and fund a scheme in Goole that has 56 children signed up to it. Getting books out to kids from a very early age to get them reading and learning with their parents gives them the very best start in school.
I do not have time today to go on too much further, and have just two questions to put to the Minister. First, what assessment has been made of schemes such as the Imagination Library? The Scottish Government provide the Imagination Library to all looked-after children in Scotland and perhaps we could consider doing something similar. Secondly and finally, will he look at the Imagination Library’s bid to the Department for Education’s children’s social care innovation programme, which will mean more of these books being distributed to more children nationally?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I will focus on early intervention and school-readiness. In 2013, Home Start UK, working with the Department for Education, undertook a pilot programme over a two-year period called “Big Hopes, Big Futures”. The report that emerged from the pilot showed that, in 2014, there was a 19% gap in achieving a “good level of development” between children on free school meals and their classmates. Action for Children’s most recent report shows that, in the past two years, there has been improvement but by only 1%. Ofsted’s assessment in 2015 was that the gap between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers, in terms of early years development and school-readiness, was not closing.
Why are we not getting results? I had a quick look at some of the Library briefing papers on poverty in the UK and on early intervention from the Library. We have Healthy Child programmes, Healthy Start and Public Health England’s seven national priorities, and we are getting support from health visitors and family-nurse partnerships, so why are we not getting the improvements that all of us wish to see?
We can make a difference, but solely increasing free childcare hours should not be seen as a panacea. Families supported by the “Big Hopes, Big Futures” programme saw an improvement of between 25% and 33% in their children’s school-readiness for language, cognition, behavioural adjustment, daily living skills and family support. Not only did that programme directly affect the children, but it helped the parents in many ways, from improving their physical and mental health to improving their skills and knowledge of early years and child development, as well as their work-readiness.
If we know the impact of those schemes, why are two out of every five children in deprived areas lagging behind their classmates on measures of child development? That is true around the country and true in my constituency of Great Grimsby, where 34% of children—more than 400 children—are not reaching a good level of development by the age of five. The answer is not all about academic achievement, because everything from the ability to make friends and form good relationships to understanding feelings form part of what it means to be school-ready.
A study undertaken in 2000 found that socio-emotional and behavioural development help to improve a child’s “teachability”, and do far more than a traditional simplistic focus on reading, writing and arithmetic would. The “Big Hopes, Big Futures” report cited international studies that demonstrate the “pivotal” importance of family support in the transition from home to school. It recognised that many families in the “deprived” category have multiple needs, and that helping them requires complex intervention-based solutions. That is why I am surprised and disappointed that a scheme in my constituency that has existed since 1995 to provide exactly those sorts of solutions was first of all wound down to a narrow perinatal pilot scheme and then closed in March this year, owing to a lack of funding.
I know that I only have a little time left—well, not any time at all—but I will extend my speech anyway before I get told off. I will just mention the funding, because there are issues around where pupil premiums are spent and whether they are really making a difference, and around the reductions in and changes to the early intervention grant—that funding was reduced to a figure 20% below the original 2010-11 allocation. It also included a specified amount for education places for disadvantaged two-year-olds, but because it was not ring-fenced by local authorities, that money did not have to be spent in that way. Subsequently, the funding was subsumed into a dedicated schools grant; the payment of the remaining early intervention grants was transferred into the business rates retention scheme; and the remaining £150 million was centralised into the DFE for adoption and reform grants. We need to ensure that that funding gets to the appropriate areas and schemes that can actually help disadvantaged children.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I wanted to take part in this debate because I strongly endorse the four points with which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) began: the workforce, speech and language therapy, special educational needs and disability—SEND—and what the most disadvantaged need most. He was absolutely right about that last point and, with regard to my own constituency, I am sad to report that Norwich recently turned out to be a cold spot of social mobility according to the social mobility index—the Minister is familiar with that. I am leading local work to investigate the finding, which returns us directly to the fact that we need to focus on the point in the early years when intervention can make the most difference for later years. Evidence on life chances shows a very clear progression when intervention starts as early as possible.
On getting the help to those who need it most, I would like to present a local example of impressive joint working in Norwich between a children’s centre, health visitors and a school. It is a tight-knit geographical cluster, but they are taking on the challenge of reaching out to those who most need the help—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out that there is a risk that those who need the provision less are the ones who use it. It is no secret to anyone that children’s centres need to be able to use their resources in the most effective way, and I thoroughly support that team in Norwich in their efforts to reach out to those parents and families who need the support most.
There is also a clear piece of work that children’s centres and infant schools in particular can do together—approaching school-readiness—which takes me on to another theme that has been well-argued already this morning. I concur that school-readiness is crucial. Will the Minister take the opportunities presented by the expansion of the 15 hours’ childcare offer to 30 hours and the associated funding formula changes to review what he expects of school-readiness? I note that in the 2014 “Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage”, school-readiness is rightly laid out but, currently, settings report to local authorities on request. The Minister might like to look at that. He has a puzzled look on his face—it is on page 15 of the statutory early years framework document. I urge him to see what can be done to help childcare and early years settings work with schools, as in the local example I presented.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I was pleased to serve on the Childcare Bill Committee last December to try to improve what was, on the face of it, tremendously powerful legislation designed to make a huge difference for our youngest children before school. Sadly, Ministers did not recognise the flaws in their plans, so I tabled a new clause that would have meant they were mandated to ensure that all three and four-year-olds had access to high-quality, flexible and accessible early education and childcare provision, delivered by well-qualified, confident and experienced practitioners and led by an early years graduate. It would also have required Ministers to publish proposals for the development of the early years workforce. At the time, early language attainment was increasing, but the pace of improvement was so slow that it would have taken more than a decade of similar progress to get all children school-ready by the age of five. Figures from Action for Children suggest that one in three children across England still arrives at school not ready to learn. Yes, I recognise that policy changes take time to have an impact, but I have reservations about whether the world of childcare out there is able to deliver what the Government say is needed.
Half of children living in low-income families will arrive at school ill-equipped, as will almost 40% of children who live in our most deprived communities. In the north-east, where my constituency sits, fewer than two thirds of children will have reached a good level of development before starting school at the age of five, which is significantly lower than the 70% in the south-east. However, the gap between the most and the least deprived communities is growing, while the gaps between the north and the south and between boys and girls have not changed in three years. The Government will, I am sure, have the support of every Opposition Member if they can narrow that gap during the current Parliament. We must not settle for the small changes of recent years. Will the Minister therefore deliver a new measure of child development at age five to allow a national picture of child development that incorporates a definition of school-readiness, to remove the uncertainty regarding the outcomes the Government believe early years education should deliver? Will they set ambitious goals to focus on those children whose life chances are being blighted from their earliest years, to close the attainment gap?
High-quality early education—specifically nurseries led by graduate early years teachers—has been shown to have the most significant impact on the early language skills of young children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. But therein lies the cruelty of the current system. Childcare settings in disadvantaged areas are the least likely to be of high quality, which is why I argued during the Childcare Bill Committee for the Government to have both the power and the responsibility to ensure that all our children are cared for and taught by highly qualified professionals. Instead, we have a situation in which nurseries are unable to pay the wages needed to attract early years teachers because of the chronic underfunding of the free education entitlement from the Government. At the same time, universities are withdrawing their early years teacher courses because they cannot attract the applicants.
I ask the Minister: when will his long-awaited early years workforce strategy appear and will it include an assessment of the level of provision available and likely to be available in the next few months? Finally, what is he doing to ensure that all children have access to the high-quality care we all desire, delivered by high-quality professionals?
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing this important debate on the investment of resources, time and effort in very young children so that they get the best start in life and at school. It does start with the family, whatever format that family may have, but it is also important that they get access to pre-school hours and nursery education.
Starting school can be a stressful time for any child, but for a child with special educational needs it can be even harder, and it is on that aspect that I wish to concentrate from a Northern Ireland perspective. Imagine the challenges that every child faces on their first day in the playground—socialising with new children, being in a new environment and coping with separation from parents. Imagine dealing with all that while also dealing with the challenges of an educational disability, such as Down’s syndrome or autism. Such children may make up only a minority of those starting school each year, but we in this House never lose sight of the duty we have to give children with special educational needs the best educational start possible. I am afraid I am not confident that that is happening in the Northern Ireland context.
Earlier this year, the parents of young children with special educational needs were sent letters telling them that the pre-school hours they were entitled to would be cut from four and a half to two and a half. Those plans could only have hurt children’s school-readiness, which is why the leadership forum for special schools came out so strongly against them, particularly on the grounds that they would give nurseries less time to help children overcome severe to extremely challenging behaviour. We have been told that the plans have been put on review and will not be implemented until September 2017. I suggest to the Minister that it might be useful to have some good exchanges with Ministers in the devolved Administrations to pool knowledge and expertise and implement best practice from the devolved regions alongside that which exists in England to ensure that children with educational and behavioural challenges get the best start in life.
Despite that review of the plans, we are still hearing of uncertainty at an individual school level. The Northern Ireland Education Authority has stated that the root cause of the problem is an unprecedented number of families needing to find places at special needs nurseries. If that is so, it fits with the broader picture that we have heard about today of children being brought up in poverty: children who face poverty are also facing that more difficult challenge. Children’s early education and long-term life chances are being held back by a scarcity of accessible nursery places and a lack of action from decision makers.
I am conscious, Mr Evans, that I have gone over my time. The important thing is to find solutions, and that is about investment in resources and pooling knowledge from across the regions.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The way in which a child develops in their early years has a huge influence on every aspect of their lives, including their future economic wellbeing, educational attainment and health. More poignantly perhaps, a child’s early years development is key to their emotional development and their ability to sustain positive and meaningful relationships. Yet according to the Department for Education’s most recent early years foundation stage profile results, one in three children starts school without having achieved the expected level of early development.
To our shame, but perhaps not to our surprise, the likelihood of falling behind is much higher among the poorest children. In my constituency of Rotherham, 38% of children—almost four in 10—are not reaching a good level of development at the age of five. In fact, Rotherham ranks in the bottom 25%. How can four children in every 10 in my constituency be arriving for their first day of school unprepared to learn, socialise and thrive? It is appalling that we have a system where the postcode a child is born into can determine their readiness and preparedness on their first day of school. How can we have failed children to such an extent that their future chances of success have already been determined even before they begin formal education? I find the situation deeply frustrating, because it is something that this House could prevent with the right interventions.
Parents are the first mentors and role models for their children. They have a strong influence on their learning and play a fundamental role in helping their child develop. For a number of reasons, however, some parents simply need a bit of extra guidance on how to positively interact with their child. Through my Dare2Care campaign to prevent child abuse, I know that parents from all backgrounds are calling for support. There seems to be an assumption that people innately know how to be parents and have all the necessary parenting skills and that a parent is inherently skilled and ready to deal with even the most serious issues their child could face, such as sexual or online abuse.
During my roundtables, I heard from parents, charities and academics, and they all asked for support, including well-funded Sure Start centres at the core of every community, providing flexible, trusted parenting support; targeted support for parents who may be struggling to cope or may not be confident in their own abilities; and reviews of every existing point of intervention in a child’s development, including using the personal child health record or red book.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I completely agree that parents need much more support to break cycles and give young children much better opportunities and life chances. Does the hon. Lady also agree that in certain areas support is available, but is not promoted or accessible? In my county, there is a lot of support, but the courses are too expensive, the hours are not appropriate and nobody knows about them.
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with that, and it goes back to my original point about the postcode lottery, which cannot be fair. Every child in this country needs the best start.
The Government also need to run awareness campaigns highlighting the tell-tale signs of abuse. Tomorrow evening we may have a new Prime Minister, but can the Minister please tell us whether he still plans to take forward the Government’s life chances strategy? Will the strategy include action to provide parents with the support they are asking for to protect children from physical, sexual and online abuse? Will the strategy look at giving parents the tools to enable them to face the challenges their children have to endure? Will he look at every available existing opportunity, from Sure Start centres to health checks to free childcare, and outline how each intervention can be used to support parents? Finally, will he please tell us today whether the Government will use the opportunities created through the strategy to take action in the early years and improve the life chances of all children? The strategy should especially focus on the most disadvantaged children, because every child should have the opportunity to be the fully empowered citizen they deserve to be.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
We all recognise that the achievement of development goals in the early years is the foundation for a healthy life, whether that is socially, psychologically or economically. Given that, it is all the more important that state agencies and voluntary, community and faith sector schools, in partnership with and in support of families, do their utmost to play their part in ensuring that our children get the best start in life.
In my professional career as a social worker—I started in a day nursery—I never ceased to be amazed by the capacity of children to gain so much from play, social interaction, direction, encouragement and simple kindness. Children’s first smile, first wave, first frown, first crawl and first “no” are all part of the development process that brings joy to families. Of course, there are the downsides to child development, such as the sleepless nights, the tantrums, the crying, the sickness, the worries—and that is just the parents.
Notwithstanding the significant amount of research over the years in the whole field of child development, it is clear and self-evident that a loving and caring environment in which to grow is the most important gift that can be given to a child. I am sure that many parents in the room would do things differently in how we brought up our children, and I am no exception to that, but one key aspect for a child is the consistency of the care given to them by their parents or carers. At the other end of the spectrum, it is also important to ensure that parents or carers feel that they have a consistent economic environment in which they can nurture and help their children grow. It is therefore the responsibility of Government to ensure that the wider economic conditions in which families bring up children are as stable as possible. There also has to be the effective use of policy drivers, which many Members have alluded to.
It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that we have a nation of healthy children who have been given the best start in life, who live in a safe environment and who have good support and social systems there to help them. In particular, for those children who are not fortunate enough to have a stable, loving, caring family, it is all the more important that we do everything we can to ensure that they have as good a chance as possible to develop into mature, socially and personally confident children whose self-esteem is not damaged by their circumstances.
I hope this debate helps to play a part in keeping this very important issue on the agenda. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) for giving us the opportunity to say these few words of support. I also thank such organisations as Action for Children and Save the Children, which remind us of our responsibilities in this crucial area of social policy.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing this debate. I cannot compete with the expertise. A lot of people have done a lot of work in this field already. I am, however, the grandfather of six grandchildren, all of whom are close to me. Two live next door. I spend at least as much time every week playing narrative games with Playmobil as I do making speeches in this place, and to somewhat better effect.
The goal of education—and life, I suppose—is the fulfilment of potential, and fulfilment is far more variable than potential. Crucial to that, as we have all recognised, is a good start. What does that good start look like? I think it can be defined only in broad terms, recognising that not every child does or can develop in precisely the same way. There is a danger in this debate of being far too precise, because a good start is not the same as an accelerated start, and the phenomenon of tiger mums and people fretting about their child’s development is a new cultural phenomenon. In our society, we tend to value educational learning, possibly above other factors that other cultures might value, such as emotional resilience or social skills.
Broadly, however, we have a concept of what a happy, developing, normal child is like and what their capabilities should be, and we simply find that some children do not match up to that, and it is fair to call them deprived. They are deprived in a range of senses: sometimes deprived of environmental stimulus and emotional support, and often deprived of parental attention and opportunities for creative play. Those are all forms of deprivation, and such children therefore arrive at school less capable of taking advantage of school and without parents who can teach or encourage them in how to take advantage. School therefore becomes a struggle and life becomes a struggle. We all recognise that; it has been well laid out by other Members in the debate.
Sure Start and many other policy initiatives sought to correct that. There has been a whole pile of initiatives, local and national, and they have varied in reach, impact, resource and effectiveness. I pay tribute to all the researchers and policy makers. I pay particular tribute to a Member who is not here and who has done an enormous amount of work on this matter in this House: the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). He has done a tremendous amount to put it on the agenda. Some of the policies, it has to be said, are slightly conflicted. Is childcare primarily about developing the child or about freeing the employment market a little bit?
My central and only point is that key to so much of this is the acquiring and teaching of parental skills. Children spend a lot of time at home—more than they ever will at school—and we cannot just assume that the skills are transmitted and passed on. As a Government, we recognised that fact, but we tinkered rather than addressed it full on. When Sarah Teather was in the chair that the Minister now occupies, some pilots were conducted and the Prime Minister spoke warmly about developing parental skills.
Most of the learning that we engage in during our hard-pressed time in school—learning the pluperfect, trigonometry or how to make a coat hanger, none of which I have had to use—has not done me any good in life. But I have had to be a parent, as will most people. Early learning development is simply not on the school curriculum in the significant way that it ought to be. There is a serious danger that in trying to develop all the policies outlined today we leave parents out of the equation, and we also leave the training of parents as very much a backstop issue rather than something that we ought to put up front as a major policy issue for any Government.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I rise to speak in this debate as somebody who has experience of being an English teacher for more than 23 years before I entered this place. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, there are certainly similarities in the kind of behaviour that we might encounter. I have a particular interest in this debate from that perspective. I do not think I have ever been involved in a debate where there has been such consensus about the need for all children from all backgrounds to receive the best start that we can possibly give them in life, which they deserve regardless of the circumstances into which they are born. For that reason, I thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) for securing this debate today and for encouraging this consensus that is so unusual in this place.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) pointed out something that I think we would all agree on: if a child starts school when they are not school-ready, the entire school experience from primary 1 right through to the end of secondary is tainted by that. At worst, school is a very negative experience and at best it is tolerated. We have all talked about the importance of increasing the hours for early learning and childcare to 30 hours a week. That is to be applauded, but I want to pick up on some of the points that have been made. Fundamental to that increase is not simply providing childcare, but providing qualified professional experienced staff.
In Scotland, the 30 hours will be rolled out with the addition of 600 new early learning and childcare centres with 20,000 more fully qualified and professional staff. That is very important when rolling out extra childcare for the purposes of making sure that children are school-ready. But we can make all the policy decisions we like; we can sit here and pontificate and perhaps even throw investment, money and resources at the problem, but the experience at home is fundamental. We need to support parents at home as they bring up their children, particularly those who live in poverty and face much more challenging circumstances than we or they would like.
I want to bring a new dimension to the debate this morning because I believe that fundamental to child development, to being school-ready and to being a good citizen—indeed, fundamental to a happy life—is instilling a thirst for learning and an inquiring mind, and we do that through cultivating a love of reading. That must be nurtured in our children, but in order for us to nurture that in our children we need to nurture that in our citizens as widely as possible. That is why I will always argue and kick against any attempts to close libraries, particularly those in my own constituency.
I do not believe it is possible to talk about closing the attainment gap or raising attainment if we deprive citizens, particularly those in socio-economically disadvantaged areas, of access to books, because that is what closing down libraries too often means for too many of our citizens. Access to books for parents and for children is fundamentally and inextricably linked to reading attainment. If we want our children to come to school with inquiring minds, we must introduce them to books as early as possible: not just those living in poverty, but especially those living in poverty. We must support and encourage parents in their endeavours to read with their children so that reading becomes a part of what is done at home.
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) talked about the fact that the most needy families do not necessarily engage. The same applies to books and libraries and getting people to go to libraries. What is the Scottish experience in getting people from deprived communities into libraries, and accessing early childcare as well?
Patricia Gibson
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that point because in Scotland we have initiatives. We have the Bookbug, PlayTalkRead and Read, Write, Count campaigns, and every parent with a new child is given a bag of free books for their children. That experience is repeated intermittently as the child goes from birth to the age of five and is supported in nurseries where books—the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole talked about the Imagination Library—become integral to raising attainment.
I do not think it is possible to talk about raising attainment unless books are a big part of that equation, so I am delighted that the Scottish Government have taken that on board. I despair when I hear of libraries closing down in any part of the UK, because I know that that means depriving people of books. I grew up in a family where, if I had not had access to a local library, I would not have had access to books, because the school library, such as it was, did not really exist. Books are fundamental to a happy and fulfilled life, to feeding the imagination and creativity, and to feeding the mind. Access to books is fundamental and must be part of this conversation.
Very often when we hear about libraries being closed down, it is about cost cutting and how we cannot afford them and need to make cuts, but some things we cannot count in pounds and pennies, such as what we get back in terms of informed citizens who are encouraged and supported, particularly those who have children. We obviously want to reach out to people who do not have children and who do not access the library, but we are talking about the next generation. We need to think about what we lose rather than what it might cost in pounds, shillings and pence. The Scottish Government’s Bookbug, PlayTalkRead and Read, Write, Count campaigns offer universal support for parents regardless of their socio-economic circumstances. Everybody has a stake in this.
Closing the attainment gap is very important, and early intervention is the canvas on which we must paint everything that we do. Early intervention must be about instilling the love of reading into our citizens as they become parents. We cannot afford to leave our children behind: if they are not school-ready for a full school life, it creates all sorts of social problems for the future. How we support parents with young children is an investment in the future. We must in all conscience and from an ethical point of view try to create a more inclusive educational and social environment for our citizens as they grow up and have their own children. We owe it to our children and we owe it to our country.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I hope to be brief so that I can give the Minister time to respond to the fantastic contributions that have been made. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing the debate and thank him for his kind words about our friend Jo in his opening comments. I concur with many of his comments, and particularly his recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made stark comments regarding the one in five children who still live in poverty. I pay tribute to him for his work in tackling that issue. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) was passionate in her commitment to ensure that the problems of school-readiness and the early years are tackled. As she said, those are growing problems, especially in rural areas. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) reminded us that we must continue to consider all children, including those who live under devolved Administrations.
Getting a good start in life should not be a privilege; it is every child’s right. I have documented how my mum could not read or write. I was one of those children who did not see a book before going into education, so I can personally say how important early intervention prior to school is. I am also proud that I was a recipient of wraparound services such as Sure Start when I was a young mum, and I concur with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) about that. Those services gave me and many of my friends much-needed support and a hand up in difficult times. The Labour Government were a trailblazer for early years intervention, and Sure Start is one of Labour’s greatest legacies.
Unfortunately, however, under the current Government, childcare and early years services have been left chronically underfunded. Early intervention services are failing to reach those most in need. Families with young children have borne the brunt of unfair Government cuts, and that looks set to continue in the near future.
My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Julie Cooper) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) made important contributions about the importance of the early years—that critical time before the age of six. The early years are not only about childcare but about ensuring quality education, which is crucial. We need a bigger vision for early education and childcare. Our kids deserve the best early intervention services that are the envy of the world. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about some of his fantastic work before coming to this place and about the importance of library services—he helped set up a library scheme.
When will the Government commit the funds and resources required to match the universal acknowledgement, which we have heard today, of the benefits of the early years system? The Government response to Munro was fine words but no action. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not commit to a statutory duty on local authorities? One in three of the families who were promised free extended childcare by the Government before the last election are now set to miss out, as a result of the Government failing to make their sums add up. That was starkly illustrated in the pilot area of York, where not one childcare provider out of 30 was willing to take up the additional 15 hours due to the pitiful payment of £3.95 per hour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) spoke passionately about the closure of services in her constituency. Why were Labour programmes scrapped, such as the graduate leader fund, which supported graduates to work in private and voluntary nursery and childcare settings, and the requirement for Sure Start children’s centres in the most disadvantaged areas?
In addition, real-terms spending per child on early education has fallen. There are 763 fewer Sure Start centres, child trust funds are ending, and maternity grants are being cut. Every child deserves an education that enables them to flourish in childhood and sets them up for life in Britain and the world. Early intervention is key to closing the life chances gap that exists for too many young people in constituencies such as mine.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) reminded us of the importance of play in the family setting for learning and development. The first 1,000 days of a child’s life are crucial. What are the Government doing to recognise the importance of putting access to high-quality early education at the heart of Britain’s mission to tackle inequality? Today, 3.7 million children are growing up in poverty in the UK, costing the Government about £29 billion a year.
Parental income can have a profound effect on the educational attainment and long-term life chances of millions of children. Family income remains the most significant factor in a child’s success in education. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that changing child poverty targets could mean that thousands of children are forgotten, missed or left behind?
If we want to tackle poverty and build a truly productive economy, we need to look at how to make life easier for ordinary working families and help parents get back to work. The Government should be looking at how to ease the burden on working people and create a system of world-class early years provision. I am afraid their policies are doing just the opposite. Investing now in the essential formative years of a child’s life will be an investment in our country’s future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing this important debate.
I agree that improving the life chances of our children is important to all of us, so I will first strike a note of consensus. In this country, we have strong cross-party consensus on the importance of the early years and the need to invest in them. The free entitlement offer was started by the most recent Labour Government, with 12.5 hours of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds. The coalition Government extended that to 15 hours, and the Conservative Government are doubling the entitlement to 30 hours.
In addition, the coalition Government introduced a free early education offer for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, recognising that we have to start even earlier with disadvantaged children. We also introduced the early years pupil premium, extending the pupil premium in schools to the early years so that disadvantaged three and four-year-olds can get extra funding for reading and intellectual stimulation. I will come on to the detail of that later.
There is therefore cross-party consensus, and the direction of travel in policy is broadly similar. Sometimes, however, in such debates as today’s, some Members seem to have an interest in making out that what is happening is really bad. I am not saying that we can afford to be complacent, but some good work is still going on in early years, in which we lead many parts of the world. For example, the entitlement to free early education for three and four-year-olds, which has an average take-up of about 96%, is unique in the OECD. We have achieved what many other countries in the OECD have not: a universal early education offer. We should be proud of that.
Alex Cunningham
I praise the Minister for his work on childcare, but although putting in all those resources is tremendous, universities are still withdrawing their early years teaching courses, because, as I said in my speech, they cannot attract applicants. The Public Accounts Committee has stated that the Department for Education has no “robust plans” to ensure that there are
“enough qualified early years staff so that providers can continue to offer high quality”
education. What will he do about that? We can throw as many resources as we like at the problem, but if we do not have enough people being trained to do the job, we will not be able to deliver his ambition and mine.
Mr Gyimah
I will come on to the workforce strategy in more detail, but the simple point is that from 2019-20 we will be investing £6 billion a year in the free entitlement in this country, which is more than we have ever invested before. If we fund providers, they will be able to pay the quality staff that they need so that they can attract and retain them.
For the early years, we do not have a system such as we have in schools, in which the Government try to control the number of staff going in. Most of our early years sector consists of private or voluntary providers, so we need to ensure that they are adequately funded to be able to attract and retain high-quality staff. That is why the Government made a strategic choice to invest in early years provision even at a time when many other Departments were having to have their budgets retrenched.
Alex Cunningham
As I said, we have all those resources being poured in, but if people are not applying to go to university for the necessary training, how on earth do we get people in? How do we incentivise them further to get them into the profession, so that we can—I repeat—deliver his ambition and mine?
Mr Gyimah
As I said, later this year we will be publishing a workforce strategy to go along with the introduction of the 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds. The strategy will focus on removing barriers to attracting, retaining and promoting staff. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that 87% of the workforce are qualified to level 3 at the moment, compared with 81% in 2010. The proportion of graduates is steadily increasing, with 13% holding at least level 6 qualifications, compared with 8% in 2010. There is still a lot to do, but the direction of travel is positive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly mentioned the take-up of the free entitlements, in particular by the most disadvantaged. The three-year-old offer is a huge success, with 93% of families taking it up, and 97% of families are choosing to take up the offer for four-year-olds. In the case of the two-year-old entitlement, which is for the most disadvantaged 40% of families, 70% are taking up the offer. It is worth remembering, however, that the take-up of those entitlements is voluntary. Parents do not have to enrol their children, so it is remarkable that we have that many parents doing so.
My hon. Friend made a good point about how we market offers to parents, especially the two-year-old offer. We knew that a lot of disadvantaged families were suspicious of having to send their children to school that early, which was how some perceived it. Or if the mother was at home looking after the child—it was often the mother—they wondered why they should send their child to a nursery. The fact that the Government were involved made some of them nervous, so we did a lot of work in the Department to find new and innovative ways of marketing to those parents, even recognising that changing the colour of an envelope would make it more likely that it would be opened. To some families, brown envelopes looked like they came from the Government, so they would not open them at all, but if we made the envelopes more interesting they were more likely to open them. We are conscious that we need to drive take-up, and we need to look constantly at innovative ways to do so.
Julie Cooper
The Minister is making some important points about encouraging parents to take up the offer. Does he recognise the real concerns of nursery school headteachers that are driving them to come down to Parliament in numbers with their governors—they are coming again tomorrow—to express concerns that they are no longer able to fund qualified teaching staff? That is particularly important in deprived areas.
Mr Gyimah
Nursery schools do a fantastic job. We will publish a reform of early years funding to go with the 30 hours’ free childcare. I have had meetings with those people and understand their concerns. I can give an assurance that we recognise the important work that they do, particularly in disadvantaged areas, and I certainly want it to continue and will do what I can to ensure that it does.
Chloe Smith
An extremely brief factual question: will the Minister give us the results of his consultation and the funding formula he referred to before the summer recess, or should we await that a little later on?
Mr Gyimah
All I can say is that we want to provide that as soon as possible, because we understand the need for providers to prepare so that they can deliver the full 30 hours in 2017—it is in the “urgent” in-tray at the moment.
I will develop my points further and answer some of the questions that have been asked. On take-up, we will publish a workforce strategy shortly. Speech and language is absolutely important. If a child arrives at school and cannot communicate or recognise that those squiggly things on a page are words, and that words are used to form sentences, they have got a problem. One of the things the early years pupil premium is there for is for those disadvantaged kids to get extra funding—about £300 a head—and the nurseries can make a discretionary decision on how to spend that to ensure that those kids do not arrive at school already behind.
Mr Gyimah
I will not take any more interventions, because of the time.
We have introduced reforms to improve the standard of literacy in the early years, which has included awarding grants, for instance through the National Day Nurseries Association’s literary champions programme, which supports practitioners to provide a high-quality, literacy-rich experience for all children. In 2015, 80% achieved the expected goal in communication and language, compared with 72% in 2013.
All of that sits in the broader context of life chances. School-readiness cannot be divorced from the broader discussion of life chances. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister set out his vision for improving life chances, and the Government want to transform the life chances of the poorest in our country and offer every child who has had a difficult start the promise of a brighter future.
We are already transforming lives. Since 2010, there are 449,000 fewer children living in workless households. The early years foundation stage framework is improving the quality of early education and care for young children, and our most recent results show that 66% are achieving a good level of development at that stage. A number of hon. Members touched on that point. It is worth noting that 66% is an increase of 14.6 percentage points in the past two years. The quality of settings continues to improve, with the highest proportion ever—86% of settings—judged good or outstanding in their most recent Ofsted inspections.
We know that some of the poorest children are already behind their peers by age three, before they start school. Such children miss out in the number of words they speak, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out, although the proportion of school children eligible for free school meals who achieve a good level of development is increasing—it was 51% last year, compared with 45% the year before. However, I will be the first to admit that we still have a long way to go.
Obviously, in considering school-readiness and life chances we also need to take into account what happens in the health sector. A number of hon. Members touched on that. All children aged from two to two and a half are offered a universal health and development review by a health visitor, which includes checking a child’s communication development and referring families to more specialist support if necessary. One thing that I introduced when I became the Childcare Minister was an integrated review for children who are not in early years settings, so that health visitors could recommend and introduce parents to other support services that they might need.
To touch on a point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), we also published “What to expect, when?” so that parents know what they can do to support their children’s development in the early years. It is easy for Government to think that we have all the answers, but children, especially in their early years, spend a disproportionate amount of time at home with their parents, so parents need to understand what good development is and what they can do to influence it. That is what our guide is meant to achieve.
Alex Cunningham
I am particularly interested in the role of health professionals and others who go into homes in the most deprived communities. What are the Minister’s policy ideas and instructions to encourage them to play a greater role in directing families to the childcare and literacy support we want them to have?
Mr Gyimah
A lot of home visits are done by health visitors, which is incredibly important. Health visitors are trusted by parents and do a great job. The previous Government and this Government have continued to invest in increasing the number of health visitors. I would like to see more joined-up activity between health and education in the early years. There are a number of great programmes out there, such as the Lambeth Early Action Partnership, which are successful because they join up health and education in early years interventions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) rightly touched on assessment. Obviously Ofsted is one way of holding nurseries accountable and assessing what they do—as I said, 86% of settings are rated good or outstanding—but the early years foundation stage profile is another way of ensuring that individual children reach a good level of development. That will become non-statutory in September, but we are looking at ways of ensuring that we continue to have such evaluation. She therefore raised a relevant and important point.
The point was made that we should differentiate between childcare and early education, especially when we talk about the 30 hours of childcare. I completely agree that childcare arranged for the purposes of parents’ employment is completely different from early education. That is why the first 15 hours of the offer is universal—so that every three and four-year old in the country is entitled to 15 hours of free early education. Why 15 hours? Evidence from the effective pre-school, primary and secondary education longitudinal study, carried out over 13 years, suggests that children at that age need a little bit of education every now and again. They need little and often, not the equivalent of a school week at the age of three and four. The eligibility for the second 15 hours—the employment offer—is based around parents’ work.
Alex Cunningham
Perhaps the Minister can give us a few seconds on workforce development.
Mr Gyimah
I have made it clear that we will publish the workforce strategy, which will look at workforce development.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) asked whether I would consider the bid by the Imagination Library. That bid is interesting, so I will take that on board and look at it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered children’s early years development and school readiness.
Compensation for Rail Passengers
(7 years, 9 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
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered compensation for rail passengers.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. May I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), for being here to respond on behalf of the Government? May I also apologise to her for once again raising an issue involving trains?
My constituency, as the Minister knows, is home to many commuters. We are just under an hour away from London Liverpool Street station, and tens of thousands of my constituents travel on the Great Eastern main line every day. I admit that they have many complaints—short formations; staff members being unavailable; broken toilets; and services disrupted by too much rain, wind, sun and every other type of weather. My Twitter feed is often inundated with criticisms of our train operator; most are valid, and some less so.
All of us in this House know that few things are more annoying than a delayed train. All too often, we have swept this issue under the carpet by saying that at least the trains are clean, and with laptops we can still work, even if we are delayed. We prioritise new rolling stock and free wi-fi as part of new franchises, but let us be clear. We cannot just think of these people as passengers stuck in a carriage going nowhere and being a bit annoyed. They are commuters who cannot make it into work due to factors beyond their control, and job insecurity can follow. They are parents unable to get home in time to have dinner with their children or put them to bed, missing out on something so important to their lives.
I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the Government for recognising this issue and not only investing in our railways but committing to reducing the threshold for compensation to 15 minutes from half an hour. The Government are also extending the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to our railways, which will allow for compensation when the service our constituents receive does not meet expectations. I have some thoughts on this matter—particularly on the urgency of implementation, but I will spare the Minister those on this occasion. Much more needs to be done on making it as easy as possible for passengers to receive any compensation they are owed. I hope the Minister will agree that the end point must be commuters automatically receiving compensation when their train is delayed.
Another issue, which is potentially even more frustrating, is that many franchise holders may be profiting from these delays. As I have mentioned, passengers are currently able to claim for compensation from train operators when they suffer delays greater than 30 minutes. What many probably do not realise is that Network Rail pays out compensation to train operators whenever there is disruption on the track. That compensation is known as schedule 8 payments. The guidance on those payments states that their purpose is to
“compensate train operators for the financial impact of poor performance attributable to Network Rail and other train operators”.
That is not unreasonable; I do not think any of us would believe it is. Given that we do not have vertically integrated lines, Network Rail is responsible for track and signalling. Who would want to take on a franchise if they were financially liable for things beyond their control?
The problem is that there can be a big gap between the amount of compensation train operators receive from Network Rail through schedule 8 payments and the amount of compensation then paid out to passengers for delays. For example, Abellio Greater Anglia—the train operator that runs the line in my constituency—last year received £8.56 million in compensation from Network Rail for disruption. How much did it pay out to passengers for delays that year? Just £2.3 million. That is a subsidy of more than £6 million, and it is not a one-off. East Midlands Trains received £11 million from Network Rail but only paid out £516,000 to passengers. Southeastern received £7.09 million but paid out £1.35 million. Southern, which we know has issues at the moment, received £28.54 million from Network Rail and paid only £1.6 million to passengers. That is nearly a £27 million difference.
I know that train operators would say we cannot compare those figures and that they measure different things, but my response is simple. On seeing the massive subsidies for delays that operators are receiving, the average person will ask, “What incentive do our franchise holders have to push Network Rail to tackle these issues? Why would they demand better infrastructure when they are profiting from my disruption as a commuter?” As I mentioned, I welcome the Government cutting the threshold for when passengers can receive compensation. However, I truly believe we need further reform. We need to deal with the subsidy for delays.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
May I praise my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an extremely important issue and for the research he has done into the figures? It is essential that we highlight what is effectively a double subsidy. After all, it is a subsidy to Network Rail from the taxpaying population who are using the trains to get to work that is going back to the train companies they are already buying tickets from. It seems rather extraordinary that people are now paying twice for delayed trains, not just once.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend raises a good point. I strongly believe that rail operators should not receive more in schedule 8 payments than their passengers receive in compensation for delays and the cost of handling the disruption, and I have a solution.
One option is to claw back the difference to Network Rail and ring-fence the money for infrastructure improvements in the line, which I am sure the Minister would like. That would tackle the issue by ensuring that the necessary infrastructure was funded and delivered on. However, given that we believe very much in devolution, localism and empowering our constituents, we should ensure that passengers have a say on how the money is used, even if it is not in the form of direct compensation. I suggest that the Government seek to change the terms of our franchise agreements to require that, at the end of every financial year, train operators put any net difference between these amounts into a fund to be controlled by a local railway panel. That panel could be modelled on local highways panels and involve local authorities, businesses and rail passenger groups. It would listen to passengers on how they would like the extra funds to be used to improve their railway, whether it is through extra benches at stations, cleaner trains, stronger wi-fi or more staff.
I accept that that may not be possible without being subject to judicial review while train operators have existing franchise contracts. Instead, we should make those conditions part of all new franchise agreements, coming into effect on each line whenever the franchise comes up for renewal. No one disagrees with Network Rail compensating franchise holders when there are delays due to infrastructure problems, but it is not right that train operating companies are able to receive more money in compensation for delays than they pay out to their passengers. It is a subsidy for failure. We need to stop rail operators profiting from the disruption of passengers’ lives and end the subsidy they are receiving from delays.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
It is the norm for Members to have the permission of the proposer of the motion and the Minister if they wish to speak, but if both are happy, there is time.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My apologies, Mr Evans. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for securing this debate and permitting me to speak in it.
As the Minister knows, my constituents are currently subject to the most appalling rail services, made catastrophically worse this week by the introduction of the emergency timetable on the Southern railway part of the network, which has seen as many as four out of five trains per hour completely withdrawn from stations in my constituency.
In that context, I would like to raise two issues about compensation. The first relates to the compensation scheme as it currently works for commuter rail services in the metropolitan area in a normal scenario. Even with a reduction to a 15-minute delay for eligibility for compensation, the compensation scheme is still designed for longer journeys. My constituents commuting into central London have a maximum journey time of 25 minutes from the furthest away station in the constituency, so a 30-minute delay is a delay of more than 100% of their scheduled journey time and a 15-minute delay is still a delay of more than 50% of their journey time. In some cases, there has to be a delay double the scheduled journey time before they are eligible for compensation. The compensation scheme needs to be revised in order to be fit for purpose in normal circumstances for commuter rail services in London.
The second issue is the utter inadequacy of compensation arrangements in the context of the current Southern railway emergency timetable. To claim compensation at all, passengers need to demonstrate proof that they have taken the journey that they set out to take. This week in my constituency, all trains stopping on the Southern railway network in my constituency are full. There is no possibility of my constituents taking the trains that they set out to take, because they simply cannot board them. I will add that I was horrified, after reading that Southern rail is advertising a replacement bus service, to learn that no replacement bus service is provided by Southern rail at all. It is asking passengers to get on existing and already overcrowded Transport for London bus services. Essentially, it is just asking passengers to make their journey by any other means possible. My question to the Minister is this: how are my constituents to be compensated in the current context for what is in effect the large-scale withdrawal of commuter rail services from south-east London?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. If my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) will forgive me, I will try to address directly the points made by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), because of course the Southern rail situation is very much at the front of my mind and the minds of others.
The hon. Lady knows that the emergency timetable was put in place to try to restore some reliability to the services. It was almost impossible for someone to know whether they could actually get on a train and get home, and a decision was taken—I am sorry it has affected the hon. Lady’s constituents in that way—that where there were alternative services, whereby people could make an alternative journey on an additional service, the services would be withdrawn temporarily in order that 85% of the services could run. I was not aware that the replacement bus services to which she referred were actually just an invitation to take a bus journey, so I will certainly take that up, because I had reviewed carefully the planning of alternative provision and was told that it was satisfactory.
The hon. Lady’s point about compensation is well made. From my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister downwards, there have been conversations about how to target compensation for a sustained period of disruption. As the hon. Lady knows, back in April, when we met, performance on the whole network was running at about 84%. That was not good enough, but it was certainly on an upward trend. Since then, a whole series of issues, particularly in relation to industrial action, have caused the service in effect to become completely unreliable. I welcome the company’s commitment to reliability. The determination to get the majority of people to work and home in a more predictable pattern is good, but I take her point about compensation seriously, and although I cannot answer it today, I will certainly come back to her in the weeks ahead.
Let me turn to the substance of my hon. Friend’s debate. I congratulate him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) did, on once again being an extremely eloquent and well informed presenter of his arguments. He is always a joy to work with and to listen to, and although I may not have all the answers, he certainly always prompts me to go away and think even harder about the problems. I am also grateful for the other views that were expressed.
The logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is of course impeccable. When we look at the numbers, it does seem very bizarre that companies are paid compensation by Network Rail that they then do not pay out fully to customers. He and I know that behind the very clear logic is a whole series of complicated financial relationships relating to a future earnings hit to franchising, and relating to the fact that many franchises are not in a premium-paying position. They are subsidised by the taxpayer because of the social benefit of rail, so simply to say that the money should automatically be paid out to passengers risks unpicking the financial relationships and contracts that sit behind the railway system today.
However, I completely agree with my hon. Friend that, for too long, people taking train services have been almost treated as an afterthought in the system. One of the things that I have been so pleased to see in my last two years as Minister with responsibility for rail is that customers are being put front and centre of the franchising process. My hon. Friend will know from the current franchise competition on his line of the absolute commitment to delivering a much better service on brand-new trains and contracting for that. It is not contracting for the inputs—“Do you clean your stations; do you buy trains?”—but considering what the service actually looks like for customers. That is the start of a long focus on customer satisfaction that we all need to get to.
I will touch on the technical points about schedule 8 just in case there is one fact that my hon. Friend does not know, although I suspect that is unlikely, given that he is right across this brief. Schedule 8 payments compensate train operators for delays of which Network Rail is the cause. That is a contractual and commercially confidential element set up between Network Rail and each operator, overseen in this case by the regulator, not the Department. It does not include provision for additional costs, so train operators may argue that they pay out almost from a separate pot to compensate for provision of alternative bus services or, indeed, other compensation payments.
The compensation regime across the country is based on the passengers charter. As hon. Members will know, there is a discrepancy between some operators, which pay out on delay repay—I will address later the point about delay repay 30—and those that are still on the national conditions of carriage, which is a slightly less generous regime. Hon. Members will know that the Government are determined to get all franchises on to the same basis through the process of negotiating about franchising. Actually, we want to accelerate that through negotiations and perhaps not just wait for the franchises to come up for renewal. Interestingly, the headline compensation numbers for delay repay show that they are among the most generous in Europe, certainly when compared with other transport systems. People do not get a compensation payment if, for example, their long-distance coach is delayed; they just have to sit there and suck it up.
There was a proposal earlier this year. I was advised that we should have a permanent exemption for the railway industry from the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which I completely rejected, because in my view train companies are simply providing customers with a service. In this case, it happens to be taking a train from A to B. There was no logic in providing a permanent exemption, so I have granted basically a one-year grace period for the industry to get itself aligned before that Act comes completely into force. Of course, the work that Nicola Shaw has done for the Department, whereby she proposes aligning Network Rail’s route provision much more closely with the operating companies and joining that up, is another way of ensuring that those companies deliver a much more flexible and responsive service.
Currently, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood—I consider the hon. Lady a friend—we have a T-plus-30 trigger point for delay repay, which is not appropriate for many metro-style journeys. The other problem is that not everyone claims. Indeed, estimates suggest that only 12% of those who are eligible actually put in a claim.
The Department has been doing two things: first, it has been looking at how best to introduce a T plus 15 for delay repay, which I hope to be announcing shortly. I am not sure what the average journey time is for the hon. Lady’s constituents, but there is the possibility that it will capture at least some of them. Secondly, the Department has been looking at improving how compensation is paid. For example, compensation used to be paid in vouchers, which seems ridiculous in a world where people use cash or cards. That has been changed so that all passengers can receive compensation in cash instead of in rail vouchers.
We are also very much committed to the idea of automatic compensation, and I want to highlight the work that c2c has done on the Southend lines. It will be of interest to the hon. Lady, because c2c customers who are using its automatic payment card—about 25% of season-ticket holders—start to receive compensation if their train is delayed by even a minute. It is a pence-per-minute deal, so it means that their time is valuable. I think it starts after two minutes of delay—the clock is ticking and they receive compensation—and we want to see that right across the industry. Hon. Members will also be aware that Virgin Trains West Coast has introduced automatic compensation. If someone books a ticket through their website, they do not have to do anything to claim should the train be delayed; the money will automatically come through to their account.
There has been a lot of progress in the industry on compensation, but I absolutely recognise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has made. I am very keen to think about—either through franchising or through some of the alternative structures that Nicola Shaw suggested—how we can hold money that is paid out for poor performance in a way that targets it more specifically towards improvements on the line. My hon. Friend knows that I am sympathetic to the spirit of his proposal. It is a question of how we make it work in the often byzantine world of current railway structures.
Ultimately, what customers want is not to have to faff around with compensation claims; they want a reliable service that they can depend on to get to work and to get home. A major change that we are starting to see is about capturing the value of that reliability. I hope hon. Friends and hon. Members in the Chamber will have noticed the move among those in the industry to stop talking about punctuality as a train that arrives between five and 10 minutes late, focusing instead on the “right time”. If we arrive 10 minutes late to a debate, we are late, even though, in train terms, we are perfectly on time and everything is normal. I want to flag up the recent industry-led proposals to move to a “right time” railway and to measure performance and compensation claims from the “right time”, which the industry is moving rapidly to introduce. Ultimately, we want a “right time” railway, where people are confident in its reliability. That is what is driving this Government’s record investment in rail, but I am very sympathetic to all the points that have been made today, because if customers do not see and feel that benefit, we are not all collectively doing our job.
Question put and agreed to.
North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust
(7 years, 9 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
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust serves two thirds of my constituency and more than 350,000 people living in Enfield, Haringey and the surrounding areas. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important matter before the House.
The situation at the hospital is, frankly, a scandal. It operates the busiest emergency department in London, which is attended by more than 500 people a day, yet the Care Quality Commission has rated safety at the emergency department as inadequate. Medical care, including older people’s care, at the hospital also requires extensive and immediate improvement. The senior leadership team at the trust and the Government have serious questions to answer about how patient safety at North Mid has been allowed to have been put at grave risk.
What has been happening at the hospital has major implications for my constituents, for residents in north London and for health services across the capital and beyond. My speech will consider all those issues and the steps that need to be taken to ensure the safety of patients and the quality of care. I will call on the Government to give assurances that services at the hospital, including those provided by the accident and emergency department, will be protected and improved in the short and long term.
Before I get to the heart of the matter, I should make two important points. First, the many concerns and criticisms that I will raise about what has happened at the hospital are not directed at the front-line staff—the doctors, nurses and trainees who work there. They are overworked and under-resourced, and have been doing a challenging job in incredibly difficult circumstances. The CQC has made it clear that:
“Most staff were competent and endeavoured to provide good care and outcomes for patients.”
However, just like the patients, the front-line staff have been badly let down by poor management and a lack of leadership at the hospital, and by the Government’s health policies over the past six years, which have left the national health service on its knees.
My second point is one that I believe is shared by all London MPs whose constituents have been affected by the performance of the hospital. Although all of us have raised concerns about how North Mid has been operating, we were not made aware of the true extent of the crisis at the hospital until the CQC issued a warning notice at the beginning of June, requiring the trust significantly to improve the treatment of patients attending the A&E. That was almost two full months after its unannounced inspection of the hospital in April.
Many recent revelations about the chaos at North Mid have been exposed only because of the press via leaked documents, yet it appears that the terrible situation has been an open secret in health circles for a significant period of time.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I hesitate to interrupt my right hon. Friend, who is laying out the story so comprehensively. Is she as concerned as I am that many health professionals knew what was going on, but that MPs in the three boroughs covered by the trust were kept in the dark?
Joan Ryan
That was exactly the case and I am very concerned. It is not an exaggeration to say we were kept in the dark. All of us across Enfield and Haringey have, over the past year, raised the issue of North Mid in the Chamber at a local level and with Ministers at various times. We received no information until a recent meeting with the Minister, who, I am pleased to say, is here today. Prior to that, there was almost no answer to the points that we raised, other than to brush them aside with answers such as how much better the NHS is doing now than ever before. The phrase “kept in the dark” absolutely covers the situation, with those in the know including the likes of NHS Improvement, NHS England, the General Medical Council, Health Education England and, no doubt, the Department of Health. However, but for the actions of the General Medical Council and Health Education England, the situation for patient safety could be even worse.
I have had a number of meetings with the senior leadership teams at North Mid and at the Enfield clinical commissioning group, and many of the problems I will discuss today were not thought noteworthy enough to bring to my attention. If they were brought to my attention, the exposure of those problems was minimal, such that they did not raise the alarm bells that they should have.
In May, the severity of the situation at the hospital was discussed at a high-risk summit, involving several north London hospital trusts, clinicians and other stakeholders. MPs were not even informed that the summit was happening, never mind informed of the outcomes. I would be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that that state of affairs is acceptable given that our constituents have to suffer the consequences of the failures at the hospital. Even as of today, despite numerous requests, we have received no minutes of the high-risk summit and no account of what was discussed in any detail whatever.
Would the Government be willing to bring in early warning measures to ensure that MPs and constituents are kept properly informed about impending healthcare crises in their communities, rather than being notified after the crisis has hit? To do our job on behalf of our constituents—to safeguard their safety and interests in the use of and access to one of the most important public services any of us can imagine—we need some kind of early warning system. It is clear that very many people knew about the situation, but nobody who is accountable to the public at a local level was properly informed. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) in her place, as the hospital is just inside her constituency, although it serves a large number of my constituents and constituents from Hornsey and Wood Green. I think it also serves practically the whole of Tottenham—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is in his place, as is the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I am pleased to say that we have been working cross-party on the issue. Frankly, I will work with anyone—other hon. Members involved would do the same—who is willing to put the hospital first.
The CQC’s damning report into North Mid was published on Wednesday 6 July, and its inspection of the emergency department and two medical wards at the hospital was in response to a
“number of serious incidents…which had raised concerns about the standards of care”.
Between March 2015 and March 2016, there were 22 cases at North Mid’s A&E department where patients experienced serious or permanent harm or alleged abuse, or where a service provision was threatened. The CQC found that people were waiting far too long to be assessed on first arriving at the hospital, to see a doctor and to be moved to specialist wards in the hospital. The main experience of anybody turning up at the hospital’s emergency department was to wait, wait and then wait again.
The report tells of a lack of respect and dignity in how patients were treated, including a time when there was only
“one commode available in the whole of the ED”—
emergency department—
“to serve over 100 patients.”
Most people reading this will find that shocking.
Resources had been so stretched that, by the time the CQC issued its warning notice to the hospital in June, only seven of 15 emergency department consultants were in post, and seven of 13 middle-grade emergency doctors. As a consequence, junior doctors and medical trainees have been left unsupported by senior staff in A&E at night, including in emergency paediatric care. Junior doctors have been asked to perform tasks for which they are not yet qualified, and there have even been reports of receptionists with no medical training being used to triage patients, at least to the extent of deciding whether they should go to urgent care or the emergency department.
In February, A&E staff were so overwhelmed that patients, many of whom had already been waiting for hours, were told that they should go home unless they thought their illness was life-threatening. How can anyone be expected to know how ill they are without seeing a doctor? We have self-service checkouts in our supermarkets, but self-service A&E? I think not.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing the debate. Even though the hospital is not in my constituency, much of what she describes happens in hospitals in my constituency and just outside it. At Central Middlesex hospital, which is just outside my constituency but serves many of my constituents, healthcare provision has also been affected by cuts. A recent inspection by the CQC similar to the one that she is describing highlighted a lack of experienced medics for seriously ill patients. Does she agree that such staff shortages threaten patient safety?
Joan Ryan
I do indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. One point that I argue most strongly is that, although the MPs concerned are banding together to defend our hospital and fight for adequate and safe service, it is obvious that this is not just about North Mid—North Mid is just the first point where the crisis has hit. This is an issue around outer London, across London and probably nationally, particularly for district general hospitals.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has secured this debate, which resonates across London and probably outside it. We recognise the point about waiting, especially in ambulances outside hospitals. People are waiting for up to four hours and then being admitted just before the four-hour mark, so that it is not registered against the time limit, and then waiting again. That is happening even before the planned closures of accident and emergency departments. As one clinician said to me just today, there is no credible clinical evidence that out-of-hospital services can deliver on the scale necessary, but that is all we are being offered as an alternative.
Joan Ryan
I agree with my hon. Friend. Again, that demonstrates that this is not just about North Mid; it is just that North Mid has reached the crisis point before anywhere else.
The CQC has also raised concerns about the lack of equipment within the department, from missing monitors and missing leads for cardiac machines to trolleys in resuscitation rooms that are not fully equipped. I cannot imagine the distress of a patient with chest pains who is connected to a cardiac machine to monitor their progress, only to find that the staff member cannot connect it up to get an instant read-out because the leads are not there. Even a chute meant to carry specimens from the emergency department to the pathology unit was out of operation for six whole weeks. According to the CQC,
“this caused major delays to the speed in which results were returned to the department, thus slowing down the time in which some patients could be treated.”
That is unacceptable.
All those problems have been exacerbated by a lack of effective clinical leadership and a culture of bullying at the hospital, meaning that staff do not feel confident in raising concerns and have even
“stopped reporting incidents of staff shortage as management had not responded to them in the past”.
A quality visit report by Health Education England from March 2016 found that none of the medical trainees interviewed would recommend the emergency department to their family and friends for treatment, principally because they felt that the department was unsafe. The postgraduate trainee junior doctors at the hospital would not themselves recommend the hospital or the emergency department to their family and friends—what an indictment.
The General Medical Council, which oversees the standard of training for doctors, has threatened to ban North Mid from providing postgraduate training because standards have been so poor. The loss of junior doctors would leave the A&E so badly understaffed that it would effectively close. The future of North Mid’s emergency department is at risk.
I note that the chief inspector of hospitals—Professor Sir Mike Richards, whom a number of us are due to meet tomorrow—has said that since the CQC’s inspection in April, “some progress” has been made to improve the situation, although there is
“still much more that needs to be done.”
A new clinical leadership team has been put in place, and there have been moves to appoint more senior doctors. However, in almost every instance, the new appointments are short-term, with the doctors taken on loan from other hard-pressed local hospitals for up to six months. The situation is safe at the moment, given the number of doctors in the A&E, but the measures are only a sticking plaster, as many of the doctors are on a three to six-month loan. What measures are the Government willing to put in place to support North Mid and ensure that it has the consultants and doctors it requires on a permanent, long-term basis?
The CQC also states that North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust
“has supplied an action plan setting out the steps it will take to address the concerns identified in the Warning Notice and report.”
Does the Minister agree that the action plan should be published in full and updated regularly with the measures taken to improve patient safety at the hospital?
Tellingly, the CQC says that previous serious incident investigations and subsequent action plans at the hospital have not always been shared with staff in a timely manner, which has
“meant that in certain circumstances, reports were received when actions should already have been taken in order to mitigate against a future occurrence.”
Given the analysis of how things have been kept in the dark, which we have explored, and that statement from the CQC, the Minister will understand why I ask for a fully published action plan and regular reports on progress. This is about implementation and outcomes.
Surely the Minister will understand that without full transparency, many of my constituents and those of my colleagues who are here today will have little confidence that the required improvements have been made and are being sustained. As I said earlier, the trust’s shocking mismanagement and poor leadership have played a big part in creating the mess at North Mid, but the chief executive, who I understand is stepping down, is not solely responsible for what has happened. The Government cannot be let off the hook when they have done so much to undermine healthcare provision in Enfield.
The tipping point for the crisis at North Mid was the closure of the A& E department at Chase Farm hospital in my constituency. In 2007, the then Leader of the Opposition—the current Prime Minister, for now—posed outside Chase Farm hospital and promised to protect the emergency department on site. By 2013, his Conservative-led Government had ripped the heart out of the hospital, closing both the A&E unit and the maternity services. It went from a 480-bed hospital to one with 48 surgical beds. Those of us who campaigned against the closure at the time said that the decision would put huge pressure on North Middlesex hospital, Barnet hospital, our ambulance services and GP surgeries right across Enfield. We were right.
Andy Slaughter
My right hon. Friend describes exactly our experience in west London, where two A&E departments have closed and two more are intended to close, despite assurances having been given that they would not. We have heard nothing at all since February 2013 about what those plans will be. I was told just this week that the next report is not going to be in September, so until another report is done we will not know exactly what services there will be. People are waiting in limbo for years, and meanwhile there is a drain of staff and expertise from hospitals, so their closure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Joan Ryan
And that is exactly what happened at Chase Farm hospital. It was under threat for so long that it had no stability and it was no longer an attractive place for staff because they had no security. I hope I am wrong, but my fear is that in cases such as my hon. Friend outlines, no news is definitely not good news.
One year after the closure of Chase Farm’s A&E department, the CQC reported that services at North Mid were struggling with the additional workload. We know now that the hospital has had to manage an increase in A&E patients of between 20% and 25% as a result. That is unmanageable and unsustainable for an A&E department; many would bend, if not break, if put under such strain. The situation was so bad that by February 2016 only 67% of patients were seen and treated within the national four-hour target at North Mid, compared with an average of 88% across England.
Our local health services and the emergency department at North Mid would have been better placed to cope with the closure of Chase Farm’s A&E department if other promises to improve primary care had been fulfilled. In November 2013, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said:
“Enfield is…getting an increase in primary care funding. That is part of our plan of not cutting but expanding our NHS.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1226.]
But many people in Enfield find it really hard to get a doctor’s appointment when they need one. Over the last six years, 12 doctors’ surgeries in Enfield have closed and only one new practice has opened. That is why, even though Enfield is now the fourth-biggest borough in London, we have fewer GPs per head than almost anywhere in the capital. That situation is not sustainable.
Will the Minister join me in calling for a proper plan for at least 84 more GPs in Enfield over the next four years, as recommended by the Royal College of General Practitioners? Will he support my calls to improve health funding across the board in Enfield? As he will know, Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust anticipates a £13 million deficit by 2016-17; Enfield Council needs to deliver a saving of £24 million in adult social care by 2020 because of reductions in funding from central Government; and per capita spending on public health in Enfield is only £43 this year, far lower than the average across London and in England. Given that cutting preventive services piles pressure on hospitals, does he seriously believe that allowing the current situation to continue will take the strain off North Mid—or will it in fact do the exact opposite?
It should come as no surprise that I and many of my constituents have very little faith that the NHS is safe in the Government’s hands. The financial crisis in the NHS is a major reason why North Mid did not have enough equipment, consultants, doctors and nurses to cope with demand. The inability to recruit permanent staff has meant that many hospitals, including North Mid, have been forced to drain their resources on expensive agency workers and locums. One might have thought that, in the light of such circumstances, the Government would be bending over backwards to encourage people to join the medical profession—but no. Instead we are witnessing the sorry situation of a Government fighting with junior doctors over contracts and removing bursaries for nurses. What a slap in the face for the future front-line staff we so desperately need.
The Government also plan to make £22 billion of efficiency savings by 2020. I know that savings must be found, particularly in back-office services, but efficiencies on such a scale simply cannot be achieved without putting patient care at risk. I am also concerned that the Government’s methods to implement those cuts—described using woolly phrases like “the rationalisation of clinical facilities”, “the consolidation of trusts” or “the introduction of transformation and sustainability plans”—will result in takeovers, mergers and the downgrading of services. Even before the crisis at North Mid was revealed, plans were already afoot to launch an NHS pilot programme, involving the Royal Free London NHS Trust, to look at options to link hospitals including North Mid together and to merge clinical and support services. At the same time that it was announced that the chief executive of North Mid was going on leave, we learned that an acting chief executive was being appointed from the trust and that David Sloman, the trust’s chief executive—a very good chief executive, I might add—would be taking on the role of accountable officer on an interim basis. I fear for the future of service provision at North Mid as a consequence.
Local residents remember to their cost that the A&E and maternity units at Chase Farm were shut only a few months before the Royal Free London NHS Trust took over Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals in 2014. Chase Farm has been left as little more than a cottage hospital. North Mid cannot suffer the same fate; that would have terrible consequences for health services across North London. Think how much further people in Enfield would have to travel to get emergency hospital treatment, and how much pressure it would put on A&E departments at hospitals such as University College hospital in Euston, Barnet hospital and the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead.
What assurances will the Minister give my constituents, first that North Middlesex hospital will not be taken over by the Royal Free London NHS Trust by stealth, using this crisis as the back door to a merger; secondly, that constituents will be consulted fully on all future proposals for North Mid; and thirdly and most importantly, that its key services will be protected and improved in the short and long term? The performance of North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust must be a wake-up call for the Government. I urge the Minister to use every tool at his disposal to help North Mid make the immediate improvements required in the quality of care provided to patients. The Government must ensure that the hospital and our health services have the funding and support they need so that this situation never happens again. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which is vital for my constituents and for all those around Enfield and Haringey. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for securing it and for presenting a comprehensive case for the need for urgent action and reassurance for our constituents about the sustainable future of North Middlesex hospital. She has tempted me on to a political path: plainly this is a cross-party concern and call for action, but mention was made of the outgoing Prime Minister. I remember reminding a previous outgoing Prime Minister, Mr Blair, at his last Prime Minister’s questions—those are now coming up for the current Prime Minister—that he had said that there were
“24 hours to save the NHS”,
but that his Government had decided to downgrade Chase Farm hospital. There is a lot of history to this, but I will avoid, if I can, being tempted down that route.
I believe that, because of the Government’s investment, Chase Farm and the Royal Free hospitals have a secure future that is not shackled by the private finance initiative deals that have severely affected Barnet and North Middlesex hospitals. In terms of resources, they are paying a big mortgage, and in relation to finances they have been chasing their tail. Sadly, A&E has been part of that tail. In April, the hospital was whacked with a £320,000 financial penalty, which made a significant dent in its finances and contributed significantly to the £8.3 million deficit with which it is struggling to deal.
The issue is with the A&E. I want reassurances from the Government that someone will take responsibility and action will be taken. Many of us have been expressing concern about local A&E provision for far too long. The concern is that responsibility has not been taken and there has been no proper action. In short, how bad does it have to get before someone takes responsibility and action is taken?
Like the right hon. Member for Enfield North, I pay tribute to staff. We all do. There are obviously great, dedicated staff. Many of us will know them—they are friends and people we know locally. They are as concerned about what is happening as anyone else. Later in my speech, I will say a little more about my experience as a patient in the A&E department two years ago. I saw things for myself, and there are regular reports. The Care Quality Commission made particular reference to the “caring and compassionate” work and service of staff. The current situation is letting them down.
Health Education England and the General Medical Council said that, as much as there was a duty of care to patients, there was a duty of care to doctors training at the hospital, which was why there was such profound, extraordinary, exceptional concern that they reached the point of threatening to pull doctors out. We know that that threat will not be realised, that a corner has been turned and action taken, but why did it take this long for such urgent, expensive crisis management to take place? There were earlier warning signals, so why was there no proper plan?
It is all very well having a new programme calling for “safer, faster, better” services, but for goodness’ sake our constituents expect a safer, faster, better service without a new programme having to be put together, no doubt in glossy print and at considerable expense. They expect a basic service, not a new programme. They have been expecting that for far too long and have been let down.
The 10-year context is important. Despite some interruptions, we can all testify to that 10-year journey. It is so very frustrating because the context is positive: the journey of the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey clinical strategy since 2005-06. We can have our criticisms and our campaigns, but the context is London’s biggest reorganisation of acute services in more than a decade, which was inevitably going to be a challenge. It inevitably needed a careful plan and serious clinical leadership—not just proper clinical leadership in secondary care and the appropriate number of consultants and middle-grade doctors, but the appropriate primary care. Those of us who were involved in the discussions heard the promises from Sir George Alberti, and the talk about bridging loans and the pump priming of primary care, which was also necessary. Sadly, we are seeing the lack of all those things at the same time.
Nevertheless, North Middlesex hospital has been physically transformed since 2009, when it was mostly old Victorian buildings that were not fit for purpose. Those buildings were demolished and a new £123 million modern hospital took shape. That was incredibly welcome, as was the added investment. Some £80 million of public funds was invested to provide the new facilities in line with the reorganisation in the BEH strategy. The plan was, quite properly, to modernise the older facilities, and the hospital has been visibly transformed. Sadly, though, the service that has been provided to constituents has not matched the modern facilities from which they are now able to benefit.
North Middlesex has become one of the busiest A&E departments in the capital, so it is plain that no one can afford it to close. I know the Minister can counter the suggestion that there is any risk of closure, and I am sure he will reassure us that it will not close in any way, that there will be no partial closure and that it will continue, with a long-term, sustainable future. Nevertheless, the concern is why, with all that investment having gone in—initially private finance initiative investment, then direct taxpayer-funded investment—it has taken until this point, so far down the line, for regulators to be able to tell everyone what we all knew far earlier.
I have read the trust’s minutes from 26 May, which state:
“Since the problems first surfaced last year, we have been open with our health partners about the challenges and have worked closely with them to tackle the many interlinked contributory factors, both internally and in the local health care system.”
Well, the problems did not first surface in 2015. I was a patient two years ago and saw for myself that there were problems when I was sitting on a trolley for 11 or 12 hours and was missed by very busy, overstretched staff who were dealing with so many patients. It was an ordinary summer’s day in June—not a winter’s day—and there were more than 400 patients. The staff were absolutely overstretched and missed my CT scan. Lo and behold, my appendix burst. It could have been fatal. That happened because no one was available to take any responsibility for what was happening.
There was real concern about the leadership of staff who were overstretched. I raised the alarm then, as did others. Indeed, the CQC happened to be inspecting the A&E on the very weekend I was sitting on that trolley and seeing for myself the huge challenges it faced. The CQC said that the A&E required improvements. Its report recognised that the hospital was fully embracing the reconfiguration of services, but also said:
“While the hospital had achieved much in absorbing increased numbers of patients, its infrastructure of staffing levels, training provision, complaints handling and governance had been stretched, and there had been an underestimate of the resources needed to maintain services at the current level.”
The warning signals had gone out. Why was prompt action not taken to provide sufficient numbers of consultants and middle-grade doctors?
On Chase Farm hospital, one of the bottom lines for the reconfiguration was the fact that, true to the Prime Minister’s words, we had a moratorium and delayed the previous Government’s plans. All options were looked at, but it came back to the unanimous clinical advice from the local doctors and others, who said that it was in the best interest of the patients for the reconfiguration to take place. Why? They referred particularly to the lack of consultants and middle-grade doctors. That meant that Chase Farm had to be downgraded and A&E patients referred to Barnet and to North Middlesex.
How can it have come to pass that, three years later, we are still hearing the same excuse—that there are not enough consultants or middle-grade doctors? It is completely unacceptable. Why is the system not reacting quicker? Whoever the system is—whether it is the chief executives of the trust or the ever-changing roll-call of interim managers and directors of NHS Improvement, NHS London or NHS England, or, indeed, Ministers themselves—why has it taken so long, with the regulators threatening to pull out doctors, for everyone to pull out their fingers and turn the corner that has now been turned? It is not good enough.
Without my permission—there was a leak—the Daily Mail did a big splash on my experience, and there has been tension ever since about other very serious incidents, some of which have already been mentioned. There was the awful example of someone who had died being left unattended for four hours. There were other shocking and deplorable incidents. Staff themselves see it as something that shames them as well. Managers say to me, “Why hasn’t more action been taken?”
Until July 2015, the A&E department, which is in a very challenging London hospital, was performing relatively well against the standard of seeing and admitting or discharging 95% of patients within four hours. In the first four months of 2015-16, the hospital continued at 94% to 95%. We have to recognise that it has undergone extraordinary growth. Compared with 2013, before the BEH changes were implemented, the hospital now has 25% more staff, cares for 19% more A&E patients, admits 44% more patients, undertakes 44% more surgical operations and procedures, sees 27% more patients in outpatients, and delivers 37% more babies. Yes, all of that is happening.
Of course, performance dipped in other trusts in the country and the downturn continued in January 2016, but when it reached a low of 66%—yes, it recovered slightly to 70%—why were those signals not heeded? How could it get to that level and no urgent action is taken? It was mentioned by hon. Members and others at the time, so why was urgent action not taken? Why was somebody not ready to seize it and say, “We are not going to wait for these regulators, the CQC, to come and tell us down the line that it is inadequate, or for the HEE and GMC to say it is not even safe for doctors, let alone for patients?” Why did it take so long? How bad does it have to get? Why does our health service have to get to this stage for prompt action to be taken?
Many of us could have said that it was not just about secondary care, but about primary care as well. The right hon. Member for Enfield North has made that point already. I referred to the issue of a tale of two health cities within London. Compared with the Camdens and Islingtons of this world, we are very much the poor relations. We are 25% poor. We have had meetings with Ministers about mental health provision, and we have pressed the Minister about the need to ensure fair funding for London. We must get that. We have got this sustainability and transformation plan. It is another siren call. There will be other problems down the line on mental health and other issues affecting our constituents unless the Government and NHS England London ensure that we get fair funding.
The Government have put in a new fair funding formula, but it is taking far too long. We do not need to listen to the Public Accounts Committee to tell us it is taking too long—we can listen to patients, to this debate now and to the regulators. Although in the round our health economy is not all about resources, they have a big impact, particularly in primary care. Why does the health trust have to go through a financial penalty system? Another £130,000 was taken away in April, so more money is taken away from the system when there is a cry for help.
The chief executive, who has gone on leave or has left, made a plea for help over many years. We were all making a plea for help. Why has the NHS not done more about it? It is totally unacceptable for us to be in this position here with this debate. I know from our meetings that the Minister is holding the NHS to the fire now, but why were feet not held to the fire years ago to ensure that people took responsibility? Yes, they could have lost their jobs, but there could have been proper clinical leadership that did not let down our patients in Enfield.
I look forward to the Minister giving us every assurance that there is, as I believe there is, a long-term sustainable future for the A&E at North Middlesex. We cannot afford to lose it and I am sure we will not. The CQC tells us that a corner has been turned, but it was far too long in coming. I want the Minister’s assurance on consultants, although I understand there is a national crisis in getting consultants on the ground, particularly in emergency departments. I want to ensure that the Government will fix it to ensure there is every financial incentive for the right number of consultants and middle-grade doctors to come to Enfield to ensure we have the A&E service that our constituents need and deserve.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. The hospital serves almost the entirety of the constituency of Tottenham and has done ever since the closure of the Prince of Wales hospital in my constituency in the 1980s. It is important to emphasise that North Middlesex hospital is located in a strategically essential area. It serves not only the boroughs of Enfield and Haringey, but some of Barnet and Waltham Forest. Many years ago, when I was a Minister for Health, a neighbouring hospital, Whipps Cross, was a general hospital that on occasion struggled considerably with its emergency department, so I cannot emphasise enough that it is critical for the broader health economy of north-east London that the North Middlesex survives, flourishes and does well.
The concern that has been raised in this Chamber is really about how the situation has got to this stage over such a length of time, with so many Members of Parliament ringing alarm bells in a context where all of us have privately said, “We must tread carefully. We don’t want to talk down the hospital.” We say, “The chief exec seems to be…” as we whisper among ourselves. We do not want to talk down the hospital, but it has now got to the point at which we have to be absolutely frank about what has been happening at that trust, as we have heard, and we must ask some very hard questions about what has been going on.
I hope that the Minister will assist me on this point. There have been successive risk summits, meetings have been held, and the chief exec has asked for support, but I am not clear why support was not provided. In the old days, Members of Parliament would have been able to contact the strategic health authority and there would have been a clear line of leadership. We literally had two bodies to deal with: the strategic health authority and the chief executive of the trust. Frankly, chief executives went if they were not up to the job, and emergency teams were brought in to run the hospital. I did that as a Minister responsible for emergency care. I saw it happen in a range of trusts across the country as, under the Tony Blair Government, we pushed for the first targets of four-hour waits. I am struggling to understand how things have got to this level.
Life expectancy in a constituency such as mine is among the lowest in the country: men reach 74, six years behind the average life expectancy. We have homelessness and we have had two riots in a generation. The issues are clear, but what is not clear is who was in strategic charge? Why were meetings held in successive years? What is the role of NHS Improvement? Is it ever the case that anyone there would contact a Member of Parliament to say what they are doing to improve a trust? What is the role of NHS England’s London office? The individuals there are paid a hell of a lot of money—hundreds of thousands of pounds. Have they got a responsibility to contact a Member of Parliament to ask for a meeting or a conference call to speak to us about what is happening in the trust?
What is the role of Health Education England, which has been concerned about training and qualifications? We know the role of the General Medical Council, but has it been nobbled not to withdraw doctors by NHS England or any other body? What we have are numerous quangos. I have not even mentioned the clinical commissioning group. We have CCGs, HEE, NHS Improvement, NHS England London and the chief executive. The Government came into office determined to reduce the number of bureaucrats, but—my God!—each of us has at least 10 or 12. Then there are all the staff that work under them. Meetings have been held, but what has been done?
I have done the Minister’s job, so I feel for him. When I did his job, we did a lot of the running of the NHS from Whitehall. The Minister’s party came in and I understand why they said they could not run it from Whitehall, but we now have all these bodies and I am not clear what they have done. As a former Minister, I want to hear more of what they have been up to. I hope that the Minister will answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan). Given that there have been CQC reports—the one that we had on the 6th is not the first—and risk summits, what is the obligation to inform Members of Parliament and therefore our constituents? At what point does that kick in? Or is it expected that that should be done solely by the trust? If it is, that is problematic if it is a failing trust in which the chief executive has been put on emergency leave. I have the CQC report before me and it says that safety at the hospital is inadequate, and so is responsiveness. As to whether it is well led—leadership is also inadequate, which is presumably why the chief executive has been put on emergency leave. Overall the hospital is inadequate. Under the headings of caring and effectiveness, it requires improvement. That is pretty damning. It does not get much worse than that.
Many hon. Members are concerned—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I certainly are, having been around for a few years. We campaigned to get the PFI that put millions—I think it was £150 million—into building a brand new hospital. It is therefore deeply frustrating that we now have such an uphill struggle. Chase Farm has been mentioned and I will not discuss it again, but the Minister will recognise that we all rang alarm bells about the implications of closing emergency there. Money was put into the trust; yet it has got to its present situation.
I heard yesterday about the case of Mrs Alice Morfett, a 92-year-old lady who still went shopping in Morrisons. She had a heart operation in Barts and she was recuperating on the T3 ward. In the morning she told her daughter about her concern about a male nurse’s behaviour; she could not understand why he kept wanting to touch her chest. Her daughter said she did not believe Mrs Morfett and thought the anaesthetic had not worn off, but her mother complained about the nurse rubbing against her chest. After that Mrs Morfett was scared to ask for help. No one was summoned to help her. The next day, after an hour of asking for someone to take her to the toilet, Mrs Morfett tried to get out of bed herself and she fell. She ended up with huge open wounds; my constituent sent me a photo of the terrible wounds her mother suffered. Mrs Morfett died a couple of weeks later, and her daughter believes that she died as a result of her injuries. Mrs Morfett said to her daughter, “Please don’t let them get away with it; they have to pay for what they’ve done to me.” I do not lightly raise constituency case work in this way. I have used this letter because it is the latest one I have in a stream of letters from constituents about what is happening in the trust.
Joan Ryan
Such incidents are what the CQC calls “never” events because they should never happen: a patient dies, and it is not necessarily from medical issues or natural causes. I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that the CQC report notes that one patient lay dead in a cubicle for four and a half hours last December because there were not enough doctors even to do the hourly rounds. It does not get much worse than that.
Mr Lammy
No, it does not, and that cuts to the critical issue of safety at the hospital. In fact, the problems at the hospital have been going on for well over two years. What happened to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, who lay in the hospital with a burst appendix and who frankly would not be here but for a stroke of luck, says it all. How have we got to the situation where the local Member of Parliament is about to die of a medical emergency after waiting without being seen for 11 hours? He has been friendly—[Interruption.] Well, that is what happens with a burst appendix. The hon. Gentleman is looking well, but he is not that young. People die of a burst appendix if they are not treated.
Mr Burrowes
Perhaps it is an issue of profile, but they did not know I was the Member of Parliament. I kept it quiet and was there as an ordinary patient—which is the point. It was only when they found out 11 hours on, following some communication that I was the Member of Parliament, that, lo and behold, the seniors all came down and had a look, and saw what was going on. It was actually my mother who was banging on the desk saying, “Why aren’t you getting a scan for my son?” That is what it takes—it is the ordinary experience of any patient, who, sadly, may not have their mother there to badger the staff for them. That is the patient safety concern.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman took the business of mystery shopping a little far, but his encounter was well reported locally, and at that time alarm bells were being rung. By my recollection it was a good couple of years ago.
The CQC report confirms what we all long feared—that the closure of the emergency department at Chase Farm hospital in December 2013 had a significant impact on demand at North Middlesex hospital. Concerns were also raised about doctors training in anaesthetics, and they were removed from training in the hospital in April 2015, and have never returned to it because the GMC was so concerned. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health on 22 March—four months ago. I did not get a reply. I am grateful to have seen the Minister eventually, a couple of weeks ago; but he can see why I am concerned when, after failures of the kind we have heard about in the debate, the Secretary of State did not reply to me in March. I will gently say that a hospital where alarm bells are ringing about such issues would have commanded the attention of the Secretary of State in the past, under successive Governments. Certainly MPs and local authority leaders would have been called together and the issue would have been addressed. I raise the matter in the gentlest of ways, because I am concerned about it.
Many issues have been raised and other hon. Members want to contribute; and we want to hear from the shadow Minister, too. The bottom line is that we are very concerned that the hospital has reached the state it has, given the investment that has gone into it. Week after week there are complaints from constituents. Yes, the leadership has now changed. It is important that local governance and the hospital’s relationship with Enfield and the London Borough of Haringey should be retained; but we want to hear from the Minister that such things cannot happen again. It is a question of who is accountable, and when, and of how Members of Parliament could have been heard much more constructively. Given all that happened at Mid Staffordshire, it is a matter of deep concern that although things are clearly not quite at that stage, they could have reached it had leaks not been published in The Guardian and had MPs such as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North not rung alarm bells as they have in the past few weeks.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) on securing the debate. It feels a bit like mark 2 for her, I think, given the earlier experiences with Chase Farm. I am pleased about the cross-party nature of the debate; it was interesting to hear the personal experience of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) of care at the hospital.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), I am at a loss; I attended the annual general meeting a couple of weeks ago and have written letters to Ministers—indeed, the Minister present today has been kind enough to have a meeting with us. We have had press reports and urgent questions. We have asked questions at Prime Minister’s questions. We have had Adjournment debates, and the Mayor of London has raised the matter with NHS London. I am at a loss to know what we should do next, and which levers can be pulled.
I am pleased that management action has been taken, and that Mr Sloman has now taken an interest and is the accountable officer. I am equally pleased that Ms McManus has been brought in to take over on an emergency basis while the leadership of the hospital is being looked at. However, I have concerns for the long term about a situation in which decision makers in Hampstead would make decisions about a north London hospital whose area is Edmonton, Tottenham, Wood Green, Enfield and Haringey. I am concerned about how remote and out of touch they might be. I look forward to hearing in the spring what the management arrangements will be for the medium to long term. We must ensure that there is proper representation of local people at board level and a proper voice for our area in the hospital management and governance structure.
I will briefly raise two constituency cases. One is about medicines training, which was referred to in the Care Quality Commission’s report. I understand from a constituent that when her father was discharged from the hospital, somehow his name had got mixed up with another patient’s name, and when she got home she had the incorrect medicine for him. That is a basic error, and the wrong medicine could have been fatal for an elderly and frail man.
The second case arose after an anonymous phone call to my office reporting on the condition of an elderly patient. The caller was very distressed, as the patient was his elderly wife. He said, “I’m so worried to tell you, because I am afraid that they actually might kill her if I tell you her name.” There is a level of desperation, and that call was made not so long ago; it was within the last month.
There are some general lessons to be learned from this specific situation about the lack of leadership and lack of quality control in our public services. The first is about the recruitment and retention of properly qualified staff. We desperately need to tackle the low morale of staff, which has been exacerbated by the poor handling of the junior doctors dispute. Morale is low not only at senior level or consultant level but at the middle level, and even at the level of junior doctors. Once the hospital lost the contract for the training of junior doctors, everything went downhill from there. We need to get that training back, and we need to work very hard and very quickly to get back the doctors and experts who want to serve, learn and train in a university hospital.
The second lesson to learn is about the crucial issues in our health economy, one of which is the problems with primary care. I understand that there are immense problems with the current Enfield primary care arrangements. The clinical commissioning group is not in a good place. I would like to hear about any associated issues, and I would like to know what levers the Minister can pull to ensure that proper primary care arrangements are put in place for Enfield and that primary care in Haringey is strengthened.
I understand that Haringey has done some very good things, including putting some extra general practitioners into the accident and emergency department to educate people about where to go when they first come into hospital, and about how they can go and see their GP in the local community. I would be happy to hear about an evaluation of that programme and whether it has been helpful. Rather than rushing in with a band-aid solution, can we hear back about that programme? What has the evaluation been, and what do the experts think? Has that programme stopped the flow of people coming—perhaps incorrectly—to A&E, and has it helped the primary care health economy?
It is well known that Members including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham secured a debate in the main Chamber on mental health in Haringey. At St Ann’s hospital in Haringey, the acute care places are really overloaded, which has led to greater demand for beds at North Middlesex hospital. Once the health economy becomes unbalanced, that can put more strain on A&E departments from general patients who do not have mental health problems.
Furthermore, there is an ambulance crisis. Police officers have told me that there are not enough ambulances and that they have to take patients to the North Middlesex hospital themselves because the ambulances cannot cope. Of course, we know that once the ambulances get to hospital, people are being treated inside the ambulances, which is completely unacceptable.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will also appreciate that a major criticism in the CQC report was that after patients have left the ambulance, they are treated solely by nurses at grade 5, with no doctors in sight and no consultants available after 11 o’clock at night. How can there be an emergency department when there are no consultants available on a Friday or Saturday night?
Catherine West
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about an issue that must be monitored. I look forward to the Minister reporting back on the lack of the leadership and clinical excellence that we expect on behalf of our constituents.
The cuts to public health provision will have an extra impact. I will give just one example, which many Members here have pursued—basic HIV/AIDS care. We are not doing the preventive work, and we are unnecessarily cutting back the public health budget, which will eventually lead to more people turning up at A&E or acute care departments in crisis. These issues in the health economy are all linked, and we need to do much more about all of them.
We are all aware that litigation accounts for a quarter of NHS expenditure. Why do we not get better at doing the proper work first, so that the money we spend on lawyers and expensive court cases when we get things wrong does not add up to so much? The situation is absolutely desperate. We need more investment, and we need to stop making mistakes so that we do not have to pay for litigation and so that instead of litigation there can be front-loading of resources into prevention, mental health and good-quality primary care and basic services. People accessing the NHS could then have confidence that their local service is as good as we should expect it to be.
Finally, we know that in London, there are a number of issues with the cost of living, the cost of transport and the cost of childcare for medical practitioners and nursing staff. Those issues are linked to the others that I have mentioned, and I would like to see a more robust approach from the NHS around London to the needs of those working in our hospitals and our public services. London is not like other areas, where it is cheaper to rent homes and so on. We are unable to recruit the medical practitioners and nurses we need because they cannot afford to live in the area, and we should examine that issue more energetically and not just in a theoretical way.
Thank you very much, Ms Vaz, for calling me to speak. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s conclusions.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I point out to the Front-Bench spokespersons that the wind-ups are starting now, and we are expecting a Division in the House at around ten to 4.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) on securing the debate and giving a masterful summation of the situation.
There have been some important speeches today, including from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). I also note the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor).
This debate is about more than an individual hospital such as Central Middlesex or North Middlesex. There are certain underlying issues, which I will touch on. One source of pressure on an accident and emergency department—whether it is in the North Middlesex hospital, the Central Middlesex hospital or any other hospital around London—is what is happening in social care. For years, local authorities, both Labour and Conservative, have said that they are struggling to meet social care need, and studies show that many of the people who turn up at A&E would not have to go there in the middle of the night to get the care they need if the social care system was functioning properly.
There is also the difficulty of getting GP appointments. The level of difficulty may vary from constituency to constituency, but in the City and Hackney area, for quite a long time now—for years, in fact—it has taken two weeks to get a GP appointment. I am afraid that means that many of my constituents take it upon themselves to go to A&E, because they know that, however long they wait there, they will ultimately be seen. Another problem is the lack of investment in public health, which could deal with some of the health conditions that people turn up to A&E with.
There is also the issue of alcohol abuse. On a Saturday night, too many people are in A&E as a consequence of alcohol abuse, and we must consider how we can deal with those cases and stop A&E departments being filled up.
On the issue of staff recruitment, I am not seeking to be particularly party political, but I cannot believe that the junior doctors dispute will make it easier to recruit staff. One thing that was manifest in the junior doctors’ refusal of a contract that the British Medical Association had recommended to them was the complete collapse in morale among doctors, and that will be reflected in the difficulty of recruiting staff.
Part of the problem with outer-London hospitals may be the changing demographics of the areas they serve. I said I would not be party political, but I campaigned for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the last general election, and I was struck by the situation in areas such as Enfield, Edmonton and parts of Hornsey. When I was a child, those areas were very much leafy suburbia, but now they have a much greater density of population, a much more complex demographic profile and much more complex health and social care needs.
As shadow Secretary of State for Health, I hope to look at that issue further. We should remember that outer London does not have many socially connected teaching hospitals such as those that exist in inner London. I am not sure whether the level of funding that outer-London areas get reflects the demographic and social changes in those areas that I have seen in my lifetime.
It is easy to talk about the issue abstractly, and to talk about reports and hieroglyphics, but it is about people. The tragedy at North Middlesex is a tragedy for patients. Who would want their mother to be dead on a trolley for four and a half hours and have no one come to look for her?
We also have to think about staff morale. People have congratulated the staff but, strikingly, the unpublished Health Education England report, for which 24 members of staff were anonymously interviewed, said that some doctors found working in the A&E unit so stressful that they cried when they finished their shifts. It stated:
“Foundation doctors had been reduced to tears by the sheer volume of patients they had to deal with, for example 200 patients and a six-hour wait, and they felt that they regularly had to send children home without having discussed their case with anyone senior…They often finished their shift and returned home full of anxiety that they had not been able to provide care at an appropriate level.”
This is about the patients and their families, but it is also about the staff who know that they are not providing the right level of care and are demoralised and upset.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate have reminded us, we are told that North Middlesex is implementing a safer, faster, better programme to bring down waiting times and address the issues in the Care Quality Commission’s report. As the hon. Gentleman said, why should there have to be a shiny new programme to ensure that our constituents get safe, fast, high-quality treatment? It is good to hear that a new A&E clinical director—Turan Huseyin from Barnet A&E—has been appointed, and that there is a new A&E nursing lead and five additional middle-grade doctors and consultants on loan from other London trusts. It is also good to hear that in July the Care Quality Commission said that although North Middlesex was still inadequate, it had “turned a corner”.
I want to raise a few points with the Minister. One, which has already been made today, is that what happened could have been foreseen. The drop in both standards and performance at North Middlesex is intimately tied up with the closure of the A&E at Chase Farm in 2014. Members who are here today raised that point at the time. I would also like to hear from the Minister about how much support is being given to the emergency care intensive support team. In response to a parliamentary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham we heard that the trust had requested such support, so what is happening?
My final point is about doctors being kept in the dark. I want to avoid crudely party political points, but I spent three years in the Opposition health team dealing with the health Bill, and we were concerned about transparency and accountability. When there is a crisis in a hospital, despite all the different organisations that my right hon. Friend told us about, there seems to be no simple method of ensuring accountability to local representatives, and therefore to local people. Something is lacking in accountability, and we need to consider that. The fact that the collapsing performance at North Middlesex hospital was an open secret among the health service professionals but none of my hon. Friends knew about it—except anecdotally from constituents—is alarming.
This is about more than North Middlesex. There are systemic issues. There might be a systemic issue with NHS funding failing to keep up with changes in local demographics, and there is a systemic issue in social care. I am sure we will return to that in this Chamber, because local authorities have been flagging it up for some years now.
In closing, I can only repeat what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate asked: how bad does it have to get? It is troubling if our constituents, who pay their taxes and rates, cannot get a basic level of care when they go to A&E. For most of them, that is their engagement with hospital care. They are getting almost a third-world service. I do not say that lightly—someone being on a trolley for four and a half hours after they have died, and there being only one commode between 100 people, is more like a third-world than a first-world standard of healthcare. How bad does it have to get? Will the Minister assure us that we will not have a situation again in which a collapsing service at a major hospital is an open secret within the professional health services but not made apparent to Members of Parliament and the wider community?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
I thank the right hon. and hon. Members who have given such thoughtful, considered, well-researched and knowledgeable speeches, and also the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) who provided such a thoughtful reflection from the shadow Front Bench. Members will be pleased to know that I agree with much of what they have said. I will come on to how I think the NHS has let Members and their constituents down and what we will do to try to fix the situation.
If Members do not mind, I will first set the issue in a bit of context. North Middlesex hospital was classed by the Care Quality Commission as requiring improvement for reasons that have been mentioned. The quality of care was not consistent enough and there were concerns about patient safety. It was not one of the worst hospitals in London, or in the country, but it was certainly not one of the best. Until July 2015, it was largely meeting its institutional standards. The 95% waiting time target for A&E was being met most months, even though the department is one of the larger ones in the capital, and in spite of the reorganisations that were discussed at length by the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan).
We need to be careful, therefore, with causality, and I will not give a definitive reason why the problems came about. A direct connection between the reorganisation of Chase Farm, which began under the Government before the coalition, and the problems experienced at North Middlesex over the past year, cannot be made with great surety because the hospital was dealing with the A&E caseload within the required timelines, albeit with a standard of care that was not at the level it should have been.
Nor is this about money. It is important to point out that organisations across the NHS, as the shadow Minister knows well, have reported deficits in the past year and this is one of the smaller ones. The posts that are established in the hospital are fully funded; the problem is trying to get the right people into them. I do not deny that the hospital has a staffing problem—I will come on to that in a second—but it is not connected with funding.
Let us get to the core cause of the problems that Members have noticed and brought to the attention of the House. I am afraid that I am not able to give a complete answer at this stage, but Members are entirely right to ask why this happened. We need a better explanation. This morning, I agreed with officials and NHS England that we will look in detail at the reasons within the hospital why the performance standards slipped so significantly in the middle of last year, and why the training routines and practices slipped as well. That is the first part of the review.
The second part is on why the system did not react with the speed it needed to when concerns were first expressed about a year ago. Here, I offer an apology to Members on behalf of NHS organisations. Members were not informed at the pace and the time they should have been, and for that I offer regret. Members are right to say that they should have been the first to know there were problems so that they could properly represent their constituents and hold local leaders to account.
I offer that apology within the context of a much better story across the NHS of what happens when hospitals fail. A warning notice was issued—that was the first reason that the right hon. Member for Enfield North knew something was going wrong—because of a change to the law under the coalition Government in 2014 on when the CQC was able to issue warning notices.
Ben Gummer
I will in a second. The whole system of CQC Ofsted-style inspection ratings, which are designed to be user-friendly so that non-clinicians can understand how well hospitals are performing, was instituted by the Secretary of State because we wanted to shine a light on the performance and quality of care in hospitals. Through two and a half years of having special measures routines and regimes for hospitals, we have a much better understanding of why things go wrong and can put them right far more quickly. Most importantly, we have a process for engaging Members of Parliament right at the beginning. That did not happen in this instance, and I will explain why after I have taken the right hon. Lady’s intervention.
Ben Gummer
Ideally, if things are going wrong and that has been noted within the hospital, the hospital chief executive or commissioners should inform local people, but in the past—and over the two and a half to three years since we instituted the special measures regime—it has taken a Care Quality Commission investigation to highlight poor standards of care so inadequate that the hospital needs to be placed under special measures. At that point, before the public are informed, Members of Parliament are informed by the CQC and what was Monitor and the Trust Development Authority, but is now NHS Improvement.
Ben Gummer
Before I take the right hon. Lady’s intervention, I will explain why Members were not informed, and it is by no means an excuse. The core problem around emergency medicine and paediatrics was to do with the training places and the relationship between the General Medical Council, which looks at and regulates the quality of training, Health Education England and NHS Improvement. Because this case did not go through the traditional special measures route, which is governed by the CQC and NHS Improvement, things did not happen at the pace I would have expected and nor were Members talked to when they should have been.
The first thing I want to ensure, once we have receipt of the review I asked for this morning, is that we have a similar standard approach, were this to happen again. We have to assume that it might, because things in a large system do go wrong. We need to learn from this scenario over the past year, where Members have been let down, and ensure that it does not happen again. We can move with greater celerity and ensure that Members are informed at the earliest possible opportunity.
Joan Ryan
I appreciate the Minister’s expression of regret and his acknowledgement that something went badly wrong, but I take issue. A CQC report in 2014 noted added pressures in A&E that we are all aware of. I only came back into Parliament in May 2015, and over the past year a number of Members, including me, have raised the issue several times in the Chamber. We were given no information. The CQC report is very welcome, but for it to take more than three months to be published means it is of no use as a warning note with any detail. [Interruption.]
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Before the Minister responds, there is a Division.
Ben Gummer
I will answer the right hon. Lady directly. Of course there is more to do, but we are much further ahead than 10 years ago. There is no blame on any particular Government—we are further ahead than 20 or 30 years ago. The Care Quality Commission is a respected regulator that comes down with tough judgments and makes Members aware. When we come back after the Division, I will explain what we will do.
Ben Gummer
I promised to explain to the House what we will do to correct the situation. There are two parts to this. First, the short-term rescue plan has been put in place by Health Education England, NHS England and NHS Improvement, with the approval of the General Medical Council, to ensure resilience in the A&E department and for paediatric services. Two consultants have gone on secondment to the department, and a further five are coming this month. The GMC is happy that that will provide the rota resilience we need in the short term.
If we think that will fix things, however, we will quickly end up in the same situation. That is why we need to look at a far more robust plan for the next few years, so that the North Middlesex can become the centre of excellence that hon. Members and I certainly want it to be. A new improvement director will be in place to deliver an improvement plan, which I will ensure is shared with hon. Members. So the plan that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) requested will be available for other hon. Members to see. It will have the transparency that has been lacking so far.
I must answer a particular point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the General Medical Council. I do not think that it was silenced in any way. Genuinely, this is more muck-up than conspiracy, and I hope that it will not be repeated, as I have already assured hon. Members.
On the long-term plan, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was entirely right: the North Middlesex is like many hospitals on the periphery of London, which not only are seeing rapid demographic change, but suffer from the fact that they are not the attractive training places that the central London hospitals are—we have to be blunt about that. I think that is wrong, because many of the challenges that aspiring doctors want are in those hospitals, which are diverse with an extraordinary range of clinical conditions. However, because of the history of the NHS, which I cannot change, a glamour is attached to the central metropolitan hospitals, and that causes challenges for district general hospitals throughout the country, as well as those on the periphery of London.
I want to change that, but we cannot do it by fiddling around. That is why I am excited by the link-up with the Royal Free. That kind of branding, which the right hon. Member for Enfield North pointed to, the strong leadership, which will provide stability, and, I hope, the ability to move consultants and senior nursing points around—some people recruited already into the Royal London and Barts will also work at the North Middlesex—will result in the diversity of career opportunities necessary to attract the kind of clinicians that the right hon. Lady and her colleagues have requested for their hospital.
Mr Lammy
To press the Minister on a bit of detail, the CQC’s press release stated:
“We have strongly encouraged the trust to engage with other organisations across the local health and social care system to resolve this challenging issue...there are moves to appoint more senior doctors—and I note that the trust is calling on consultants from other departments within the hospital to provide the routine daily support to A and E which is so badly needed.”
That was on 6 July and, clearly, the CQC did not feel that the hospital had got there. Will the Minister therefore confirm what the required number is? If he cannot tell us that, it would be helpful for him to come back to us. What is the golden number that should comfort us? Will he also confirm, because this is important, that nurses are not still reviewing patients who arrive by ambulance, because that is seriously inadequate, and we want to ensure that patients are seen by doctors?
Ben Gummer
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that NHS England has a live rota stream from the hospital to give it the reassurance that every single junior doctor has a consultant supervisor in place at all times—precisely to ensure that the reported lapses of supervision do not recur. When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chief inspector at the CQC tomorrow, I hope that he hears something similar to what I have heard: things are not good, but they are better than they were, and the trajectory is in the right direction.
Nevertheless, we will not fix this without looking at fundamental reform of local health services, which requires changes to primary care, of the kind that we discussed when I met local Members of Parliament last week. I hope to meet them again, in a few weeks or months, and to be able to talk about progress and the plans for the future, so that right hon. and hon. Members will be satisfied that things are getting better at the North Middlesex.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister—my constituents in Broxbourne will be following the outcome of this debate closely.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust.
Free Childcare for 3 and 4-year-olds
(7 years, 9 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
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered free childcare for three and four year-olds.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this important debate, the background to which is the Government’s plan to double the number of hours of free childcare that working families with three and four-year-olds are entitled to from 15 to 30 hours per week from September 2017. Pilots are due to begin this September. That builds on the introduction six years ago of an entitlement to 15 hours’ free childcare per week, which, in 2013, was extended to include two-year-olds from disadvantaged families.
There are matters on which I profoundly disagree with the Government, but I firmly believe that when their record meets the needs of people in my constituency, credit is due. I very much welcome the Department’s good progress towards ensuring that all three and four-year-olds benefit from 15 hours of free early education and childcare. In 2015, 94% of three-year-olds and 99% of four-year-olds had taken up a funded place.
My work on the Public Accounts Committee has helped further develop my understanding of a range of issues, and childcare is no exception. The Committee’s recent inquiry and subsequent report—a copy of which I have with me, in case the Minister has not managed to peruse it in detail—helped me in this area. The report’s conclusions and recommendations are numerous, but probably chief among them is the danger that the Government may not deliver on their pledge to extend the childcare offer.
I will highlight some specific concerns. They fall into four main areas: the availability of quality information for parents; workforce planning and the supply of enough qualified early years staff; the high cost of childcare in some areas, and what I call “reverse means-testing”; and monitoring the impact to ensure value for taxpayers’ money, which is very much what the Public Accounts Committee’s work is about.
The first of those four areas is the availability of quality information for parents about the childcare available close to where they live. I have welcomed the Government’s progress on free childcare, but there are concerns throughout the House about unacceptable local variations in the amount of information that is available to parents about access to free childcare.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. I recently met members of the Rochdale branch of the National Day Nurseries Association, who had real concerns about provision and the low funding available for places, to the point where they thought that they would not be able to make the provision. They also have concerns about things like quality and who will pay for meals. Does she share the concern of those businesses?
Karin Smyth
I do. In the Public Accounts Committee, we have found that the situation varies across the country, and many hon. Members will be able to tell the Minister about their local experience. I will discuss quality later.
Local authorities have to provide the family information service, which gives parents details not only about childcare providers that offer free entitlement but about how to claim it. I know from my own constituents that navigating the processes can be as big a barrier to claiming entitlements as knowledge of the offer itself. That extends, incidentally, to other entitlements such as pension credit and income support.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an important contribution. The challenges are multifaceted. A couple of weeks ago I met the YMCA, which runs a local nursery, and it told me that it felt that some local authorities take very high administration charges when it comes to allocating per-pupil funding to children in their care. Does she agree that local authorities need to do all they can to ensure that free childcare is spread as widely as possible?
Karin Smyth
I do, and I will come on to the need for local authorities to abide by the statutory direction given by the Government. That was one point that the Public Accounts Committee picked up on.
Information for people in my constituency is generally good. We have 1 Big Database, a searchable database of 1,000 childcare providers that is a collective effort of Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire Councils and enables parents to locate the providers nearest to their home or workplace, although it lists only provision, not vacancies. However, it is clear that the quality of information varies between authorities nationwide. Shockingly, the Public Accounts Committee heard that only 30% of parents are even aware of family information services. If there is an offer but most of those who are eligible for it do not know about it or how to access it, its value is diluted to say the least. I hope that the Minister will outline how his Department will improve the quality and consistency of information for parents.
My second area of concern is workforce planning. As a former governor of a nursery and children’s centre, I recognise the importance and difficulties for providers of such planning. The Public Accounts Committee found that the Department lacked robust plans to ensure that there are enough qualified early years staff for providers to continue offering high-quality childcare. The sector has become increasingly professional, and there has been an increase in graduate recruits. That raises quality but brings challenges for providers, which now report that they are struggling to recruit. As the Department has set funding rates until 2019-20 based on 2014-15 costs, many providers are also concerned about the impact of the national living wage on their costs. The Department does not have a workforce plan for the early years sector.
There are also concerns that there is a real risk to the delivery of the pledge to provide 15 additional free hours from September 2017, due to too few providers being able to deliver that pledge because many will be minded not to become involved in the offer. I find that alarming, and it raises serious questions about the process of making pledges when deliverability appears not to have been properly assessed.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making some powerful arguments. I point out to her that one of the pilot schemes is in York. I have worked closely with the nursery providers in my constituency. Because of the funding stream and the hourly rates, there was a lot of concern among those providers to start off with about whether they would opt in to provide the second 15 hours, but the local authority and the Department for Education worked together closely and have now persuaded 60% to 70% of those providers to opt into the scheme. Does she not agree that we can persuade providers to opt in as long as there is good will from the Department and local authorities to deliver the scheme?
Karin Smyth
I certainly agree. That shows the importance of good pilots and good working nationally and locally, and we want to see that with the other pilots, which will start this year.
Private and voluntary providers reported to the Public Accounts Committee that the amount they are currently paid for providing free childcare is not enough to cover their costs, so in some cases they feel the need to charge parents for additional hours or obtain other sources of income to meet those costs. Providers can of course choose whether to offer parents free childcare, so there is a genuine risk that many businesses will simply choose not to offer the new entitlement because doing so could reduce their opportunity to charge parents for hours outside the entitlement. As hon. Members have said, it is important for that issue to be looked at, because different situations exist across the country.
Maintained settings—nursery classes and nurseries run by schools—tend to operate fixed morning or afternoon sessions and are less likely to offer additional chargeable hours, so their ability to offer the new entitlement is limited. That disproportionately affects children in disadvantaged areas, simply because those settings are more likely to operate in such areas. I hope the Minister will be able to outline how the Department will address the challenges of ensuring that there are enough people with the right skills to work in the sector in the years ahead. I also hope that he can reassure me that the Department will be able to use the pilots that will begin this year to test providers’ capacity to meet the expected demand for the increased entitlement. He may also want to explain how that will be done and how evaluation will be carried out, given that there is just 12 months between the start of the pilots and the scheduled full roll-out of the new entitlement, and I would welcome his thoughts on how the Department will ensure prior to the 2017 roll-out that the pilots have had genuine influence.
My third area of concern is the high cost of childcare. I know from my constituency that childcare fees present a real challenge for many working parents, as I am sure many hon. Members will agree. I have been contacted by parents who have been informed of some quite significant fee increases—up to 30%—being imposed by their private nurseries. Bristol already has some of the most expensive childcare outside London, as the Bristol Women’s Forum has highlighted, and I agree with the forum that childcare is an infrastructure issue and needs to be considered as part of our economic thinking. Indeed, the Women’s Budget Group in Bristol has indicated that 84% of the cost of universal free childcare will be recouped through taxes and reduction in welfare benefits.
High childcare fees are a key reason why the offer of 30 free hours is so important to so many working families and why I support that offer, but many parents have reported that some providers are offering the free entitlement only if parents also pay for the additional hours, and the charity Gingerbread receives calls from parents whose childcare providers have put conditions on the free offer. That contravenes the Department’s statutory guidance for local authorities, which states that they should ensure that
“if providers charge for any goods or services, this is not a condition of children accessing their place.”
The Department has acknowledged that issue, and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain what progress is being made on identifying the scale of the problem and how the Department plans to address it to ensure that those who are least able to pay do not miss out through such reverse means-testing.
My fourth and final area of concern is about measuring the impact of the offer to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money, which is why the Public Accounts Committee held an inquiry on this subject. As someone who is passionate about the value of investing in early years—I am a firm believer in the Labour Government’s Sure Start programme, for example—I am concerned that the Department’s most recent evaluations of the effectiveness of early years education and childcare are based on the academic outcomes of children who started early years education in 1997. I was surprised and alarmed to find that the Department had no routine data to assess the impact of its investment in the early years. That must be remedied, since such data must play a key role in helping to shape future policy. If the Department does not know what works well and how to get the best bang for its buck, taxpayers could be left short-changed. Since the Department appears to lack sufficient current data to measure the impact of free childcare, I hope the Minister will be able to explain, along with his responses to the other issues that I have raised, the steps that he is taking to bring its assessments up to date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for securing this important debate. Successful implementation of the extended free childcare offer is a key priority for the Government. Childcare was included in the Queen’s Speech for the first time after the last election, and the Childcare Act 2016 shows how much of a priority our manifesto pledge on childcare is for the Government.
At a time when there is austerity and a lot of other Departments face budget cuts, the Government have made a strategic decision to continue to invest in childcare, as a result of which an extra £1 billion investment will be made in the three and four-year-old offer from 2019-20, taking the amount going into the early years free entitlement to £6 billion a year. That is more than we have ever spent on childcare in this country. I reassure the hon. Lady that delivering on our pledge continues to be a high priority for the Government, and the passage of the 2016 Act shows that we are well on our way to turning that pledge into a full commitment for parents.
The hon. Lady mentioned the availability of information for parents about the offer. The high take-up rates for current three and four-year-olds indicates that parents are already highly aware of the free entitlement, but it is worth mentioning that we are not necessarily increasing demand but extending an offer. A lot of parents already use 30 or more hours of free childcare. The Government offer encourages those who do not get it to do so, but those who are already using the 30 hours of free childcare will get a subsidy from the Government rather than having to pay for it all themselves.
That principle is particularly important to understand because a lot of the criticism of the 30-hour entitlement, whether it is about workforce, places or whatever, seems to assume that somehow no parent in the market is already taking 30 hours of childcare and that, suddenly, from 2017 every parent will do that. The truth is a lot of parents already take more than the free 15 hours of childcare. By giving them an extra 15 hours, the Government are subsidising the additional hours they buy. We are therefore not necessarily increasing the demand, but extending the entitlement.
That principle is particularly important because it has a bearing on information and how we need to make parents aware of it. A section in the Childcare Act, which the hon. Lady will be aware of, asks local authorities to publicise information about the childcare available in the local area. The new statutory duty in the Act requires local authorities to publish information about childcare services in their local area, which will increase the information available to parents.
We have not stopped there. The Department has provided funding to the largest website in the country on childcare places—childcare.co.uk—to develop an innovative digital solution that will make it easier for parents to find information. Further, in my experience, generally when something that is otherwise quite expensive for people when they pay for it themselves is free, they tend to find out about it. I am very confident that, given the statutory duty, the innovative solutions we are taking and the fact that 98% of four-year-olds and something like 94% of three-year-olds already take 15 hours, parents talking to early years settings will realise that they can get that extended entitlement.
There will be a communications campaign before launch. I chair a cross-Government taskforce with the Minister for Employment, and at the right time we will launch a campaign alongside a new Government website to alert parents. I hope I can assure the hon. Lady that parents will be able to find out about this fantastic offer, delivered by a Conservative Government.
The second issue the hon. Lady raised was about workforce planning. As I said, the Department will launch a workforce strategy later on this year alongside the introduction of the 30-hour commitment. The quality of the workforce is already good and has been improving. Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of full-day care staff with at least a level 3 qualification—equivalent to A-level study—grew from 75% to 87% and the proportion with a degree or higher increased from 5% to 13%. However, we are not complacent. We want to continue to attract quality staff into the early years and support those already working in the sector to progress. That is why we will publish the workforce strategy to which I alluded—it will be on how the sector can attract and retain people. That is something we are focused on.
When the hon. Lady made the point about workforce, she also talked about places, and places in maintained settings in particular. One thing to be aware of when we discuss childcare is that no one size fits all. It is easy for us in Government to think that every parent should do this, but some parents want only the 15 hours of early education for their children. That is free, and they can continue to get it. Some might want 20 hours and some might want 30-plus hours.
The strength of the childcare sector is that there are different providers to deliver different types of childcare. We have full day-care nurseries that deliver all-day childcare; nurseries in schools that, as the hon. Lady mentioned, will do three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon, which are focused on early education; childminders who deliver excellent childcare; and sessional providers operating from, say, church or village halls that offer 15 hours a week.
The strength of the sector is that there is diverse supply to suit different parents’ needs, which is important. We should not try to impose one model of childcare on parents. However, for parents who have been using a nursery in a school, for example, that currently offers only the first 15 hours, there is capital available to enable those schools that want to expand their provision to do so. One of the interesting things we have seen in innovative local authorities such as York, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned, is the bringing together of childminders and school nurseries to offer a one-stop shop for parents, so that the child can be in the school nursery for a time and then be picked up by a childminder if that is what works for the parent. We will look for a number of different solutions to be available not just to increase the supply of places but to ensure that parents get the childcare solution that fits their working lives.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful for that assurance. I agree that diversity of provision is important and valuable—I took great advantage of that when my three children were younger. Will the Minister comment on the security of income for providers? Although I do not have data to verify his assertion that the people who take 15 hours are the same as the people who might take 30 hours—I would be interested in such data—income that gives struggling providers security is important. Choice for parents is welcome, but equally providers need security of income.
Mr Gyimah
That is an important and relevant question. We want the childcare sector to be sustainable and we want providers to be able to deliver this offer. That is why in November we published the most comprehensive review of the cost of childcare ever. In order for the Government—we will become the biggest buyer of childcare in the UK—to set a price for the sector, it made sense for us to work out what the unit cost of providing childcare was and set a price that allows providers to deal with increased cost pressures such as the national living wage, which the hon. Lady mentioned, and, given that 80% of the sector is in private and voluntary settings, to enable the sector to make a profit. That was the purpose of the review, which was described by the National Audit Office as “thorough and wide-ranging.” Those are not the Department’s words, so I hope she is reassured that the detailed work that underpins how we will decide the funding rate for providers is there.
That is what underpinned the spending review settlement. The Government’s commitment of an additional £300 million a year to increase the national average funding rates paid for the free entitlement was based on that research. We are also committing £50 million of capital funding to create an additional 4,000 early years places. More money is going into the system than ever before, but we need to ensure that it is distributed fairly. That is what we saw in York. The issue is not just the quantum of money. Because the funding formula is based on local authorities and history, we have a situation where some local authorities are getting £9 an hour per child and others are getting something like £3.50 a child. There is therefore no point in increasing the funding pot without reforming how the money is distributed to local authorities and, in turn, how it goes from local authorities to providers.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for securing this important debate. The Minister has made several references to the need to be sure about such and such, and my hon. Friend mentioned that the full roll-out will take place soon after the pilot, so will the Minister comment on how lessons will be learnt in time for the full roll-out?
Mr Gyimah
What I can say firmly is that the Government will bring about funding reform imminently to create a system that is transparent to local authorities and fair to all early years providers. Part of the package introducing the 30 hours will be wholesale reform of early years funding. That was mentioned in the spending review and the autumn statement, and that reform is imminent. We will consult on that to seek views on our proposals from across the early years sector. We already listen to the sector in a number of other ways to ensure the funding works. Our red tape challenge is looking at bureaucracy and barriers. We have consulted on ensuring that providers are paid on time, which has been raised specifically by childminders in many areas, and on making local authority contracts with providers more consistent across different parts of the country.
We are looking at the local authority role in building on the success of the existing 15-hour entitlement. Rolling out that manifesto commitment is an opportunity to improve the way the system works on the ground. We received over 1,300 responses to our recent consultation on key elements of the operation and delivery of the extended 30-hour free entitlement from a wide range of childcare providers, local authorities and parents. Crucially, those views will help to inform how the 30-hour entitlement will be delivered at local level. We will publish our response to the consultation in the autumn ahead of affirmative debates in the House and the other place on the regulations of the Childcare Act 2016.
I hope I can assure the House first that a record amount of funding is going into the sector. Secondly, in terms of how that funding is distributed, we are looking at wholesale reform and will be publishing our intentions, on which we will be consulting the sector, imminently. Thirdly, we are looking to reform how local authorities work with providers and will consult on that as well. Much of the disquiet around the 30-hour commitment and its implementation is from a number of people who are assuming that we will be following through with the system as it is, but we are going to reform the entire system to underpin the fact that, if the Government are going to be the biggest buyer of childcare, the old system will not work. That is because it was based on just 15 hours a week, which was a limited offer. If we are to move to 30 hours a week, we need to ensure the system we are operating in is fit for purpose.
The hon. Member for Bristol South also mentioned the high cost of childcare. The Family and Childcare Trust is the guru when it comes to childcare costs. I look forward to its childcare costs report with a degree of trepidation every year because I know I will have to tour the TV studios if the report says the cost of childcare is getting out of control. The most recent report showed that childcare costs, which had risen for the best part of a decade, are stabilising and only rose in line with inflation in 2015.
The principle here, and the reason why the Government are introducing the 30-hour commitment, is precisely to help parents with the cost of childcare, but the available support to parents does not only come in the form of the 30 hours. We will be introducing other childcare measures such as tax-free childcare, which will give parents 20% off the cost of childcare up to £10,000. If they spend £10,000 they will get £2,000 off the cost of childcare, so a parent buying in excess of 30 hours of childcare will get 30 hours free and 20% off for anything over those 30 hours—obviously, that is for three and four-year-olds. Other parents on the lower end of the income scale will get additional support through universal credit.
I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that a substantial amount of support goes to parents for childcare, but she is right that we need to make it simple for parents. The issue is that there are multiple areas of support for childcare that are parented by different Government Departments and there is a need to stitch those together. That is what the cross-governmental childcare taskforce is looking at, so that parents do not have to go to three or four different places to try to figure out which childcare offer works best for them. There will be one portal and one port of call from which they will be able to access childcare.
The issue of cross-subsidisation was also mentioned and it is particularly important from the provider perspective. A lot of providers have been content with the free 15 hours almost as a lead generation aspect of their business, so parents get 15 hours free and then have to buy additional hours for which the providers can charge a lot more. One of the things the funding reform will specifically look at is to price this in such a way that there is every incentive for providers to actually offer parents free hours, rather than thinking that they will opt out of it. The truth of the matter is that providers do not have to offer that, but parents will be looking around for providers that can. The Government have to set a price that brings the buyers and sellers in that market together and the cost of childcare review gives us a strong basis from which we can and, I am sure, will, get that right when the funding review is published. It is an issue that we are alive to.
Another point is that, with so much subsidy going into the sector—
The Oxford-MK-Cambridge Arc
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
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the report by the MK Futures 2050 Commission and developing the Oxford to Milton Keynes to Cambridge arc.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. Before I go into the substance of the debate, I pay warm tribute to the chair of the MK Futures 2050 Commission, Sir Peter Gregson, who is the vice-chancellor of Cranfield University, and his team of commissioners. They have drawn on their wide set of skills and experiences to produce an excellent report. That great care was taken to select commissioners from diverse backgrounds gives considerable weight to their findings, from Lee Shostak, a former director of planning at the old Milton Keynes development corporation, to the ever-inspirational Pete Winkelman, chairman of MK Dons, and to the young entrepreneur and broadcaster Oliver Dean, who spoke for the next generations.
The people behind the report care deeply about the future of Milton Keynes and I pay tribute to them all for their hard work. It is a body of work I have long argued for. I think the title of the report—“Making a Great City Greater”—is apt. I believe the report will be extremely significant in shaping not only the future development of Milton Keynes but of the whole Oxford to Cambridge arc, of which Milton Keynes is the fulcrum.
Before I go on to talk about some of the report’s findings and their implications, let me first put it in some context. The motto of Milton Keynes is highly pertinent—“By knowledge, design and understanding”. Milton Keynes will celebrate its 50th birthday in January, and as we approach that milestone it is worth reflecting on that troika of guiding principles. We certainly have design. Over the past half century we have filled out the urban space that was designed by the original developers and our population now exceeds the original target of 250,000. Throughout that period we have also applied great knowledge and understanding to inspire the design and grow the development of the city. Sometimes mocked by those who have never visited, Milton Keynes is characterised by quality urban design, open green spaces, inclusivity and cultural richness.
“Infrastructure before expansion”—I before E—has been key to our success. We are now expanding beyond the originally designed size of Milton Keynes, both in the physical footprint and in the number of people. In the absence of the report, which was published recently, we had to ask ourselves if we properly understood the factors that had made Milton Keynes a success as we went forward. Going beyond our designed limits has put pressure on infrastructure, which has been crucial in placing Milton Keynes as the most successful and fastest growing new city in the country.
In the previous decade, I contend that John Prescott’s English Partnerships proposals to double the size of Milton Keynes started to break that essential partnership of knowledge, design and understanding. Thankfully, those proposals were scaled back in the 2013 core strategy, which mapped out a more sustainable development of Milton Keynes into the mid and late-2020s. That strategy is now under threat. Housing developments that have outline permission are not being brought forward sufficiently quickly and place Milton Keynes in danger of not meeting the five-year supply targets.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and I join him in congratulating Milton Keynes on its 50th anniversary, which I look forward to celebrating. Does he agree that right across the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc, which he rightly says has such enormous potential, we need not only to provide additional affordable housing but to take the opportunity to show how economic expansion and growth, notably in public and other transport links, can be an agent of improving the environment and the sustainability of the ecology and biodiversity? Often, damage to the environment is put forward as a price worth paying. Should we not be able to show that there are gains in environmental quality that economic expansion can pay for?
Iain Stewart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will touch on the potential for growth later in my speech. One project that he and I share a passion for is the east-west rail link, which will not only be of huge economic significance for Oxford and Milton Keynes but hopefully will see a modal shift of transport away from roads and on to rail, thus enhancing the environment. I look forward to working with him on ensuring that the project happens.
Not meeting our five-year housing supply target will lead to speculative planning applications outside the core strategy being submitted, and sometimes granted, in the face of strong local opposition. That in turn creates unplanned demands on infrastructure, which may already be strained, and on services, and it means that Milton Keynes will continue to grow without an overall strategy or an understanding of the wider implications. There is a clear need for the thousands of already agreed planning applications to be brought forward.
My first ask of the Minister today is to explore every possible opportunity and to work with the developers, Milton Keynes Council, South East Midlands local enterprise partnership and all the other stakeholders on upping our annual rate of completions to levels that will satisfy the short to medium-term demand. We may also need to consider having some flexibility in the five-year target if we are able to demonstrate house building in the longer term. There are precedents for Government getting involved: one of the Minister’s predecessors helped to unlock the western flank and Newton Leys developments in Milton Keynes when they stalled in the previous Parliament.
Innovations such as council-initiated housing companies have been successfully deployed by other councils around the country to help bring forward developments. I know that the leader of the opposition in Milton Keynes, Councillor Edith Bald, has proposed that, and I urge Milton Keynes Council seriously to consider it. I also gently remind the Minister of the debate I secured a year ago on shared ownership. Shared ownership could tap into the extra capital sums made available by the Chancellor’s pension reforms, which could help to pump-prime the development of new housing estates.
I urge the Minister to consider all measures that could help to accelerate schemes that already have outline planning permission. Such measures would give Milton Keynes and the surrounding areas the space and time to develop their longer term strategy and their place in the wider Oxford-Cambridge corridor. Let me be clear: I do not see the core strategy from 2013 as the limit of Milton Keynes’s ambitions, but it has to be progressed and completed before we rush into further growth that would compound pressures on our infrastructure and services, which we might come to regret further down the line.
I regularly hear very real concerns from constituents about pressure on infrastructure and services. Those people are not anti-growth. The people of Milton Keynes have a positive, forward-looking, can-do attitude, but they are genuinely worried about ill-planned growth compromising the qualities that have made Milton Keynes the success it is. Those concerns cannot be ignored. By getting the short term right, we can plan our future and make our contribution to the national economic and housing growth that we need.
During and since the last general election, I have been calling for such a strategic vision to be developed. I was therefore delighted when Milton Keynes Council set up the Futures 2050 Commission last year. The commission has speedily but thoroughly produced its conclusions. I am particularly pleased that it sees Milton Keynes very much as an enabler in the development of the wider Oxford-Cambridge corridor. I strongly believe that our future economic development will be centred on us being a hub in the middle of that arc.
Looking at our housing growth in the context of that arc is a must. While some intensification of housing in the centre of Milton Keynes and some of the original estates is feasible and arguably would add to the vibrancy of the city centre, my personal view is that continuously adding housing developments to the periphery of Milton Keynes is not necessarily the answer. Nor is there an appetite for enormous housing developments in the greenfield areas surrounding Milton Keynes as that would start to compromise the open spaces and environmental benefits of our existing design. We should have a network of smaller developments that are proportionate and sympathetic to existing settlements, but not massive urban sprawl. That will be a subject of debate when the report is taken forward to Milton Keynes Council next week. If agreed, it will lead to further workstreams. I hope that my views will find favour with many of those who are taking part in that debate.
Whatever the future style of expansion, there are a number of prerequisites. Co-operation with neighbouring authorities will certainly be necessary, and I shall return in the last part of my speech to the administrative aspect of that. As I alluded to when answering the intervention from the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), there is a need to develop infrastructure along the arc. I am delighted that in the Budget this year, it was announced that the National Infrastructure Commission has been commissioned to look at those projects.
Infrastructure development will certainly involve proceeding as quickly as possible with existing schemes such as east-west rail and the Oxford-Cambridge expressway, but it will also involve ensuring that the arc is at the forefront of installing the very latest communications technologies, such as 5G. Most significantly, it will need to include the potential transformative effect of smart mobility technology and wider smart cities technology. Milton Keynes is already pioneering such work, with numerous projects up and running—for example, at the transport systems Catapult, at the Open University and in Cranfield. Such technology will facilitate a better network of smaller developments across the arc that will command far more popular support than ever greater urban sprawl.
By developing that infrastructure and placing us at the fulcrum of the arc, Milton Keynes and surrounding towns and villages will be ideally placed to develop a globally competitive knowledge-based economy of scale. Addressing skills is critical to that. The commission’s report contains many imaginative proposals, and one of the most exciting of those is the Milton Keynes institute of technology—MK:IT. Milton Keynes has long aspired to have a campus-based university of its own, but I am not sure that the traditional model necessarily fits with what we are and what we can aspire to be. We should innovate, and something like MK:IT would complement the existing higher and further education institutes and provide a pool of skills from which local companies can draw as the economy develops. It would be particularly well placed to be the centre for the intelligent mobility education needed to create a qualified workforce and to allow the UK to gain the lion’s share of the intelligent mobility market, which is forecast to reach £900 billion by 2025.
I urge hon. Members to read the report recently published by the transport systems Catapult, which identifies a real gap in our knowledge market and makes some interesting proposals about how we can address that. I believe MK:IT would sit squarely with that. It would also fit neatly with the Government’s intention to expand higher education and research, as set out in the recently published Higher Education and Research Bill, which I hope will be in front of the House soon. I urge the Minister to work closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and our local higher and further education institutions to explore that opportunity. I believe MK:IT can be the driver of our future growth.
My final point concerns the governance structure for the developments to which I have referred. Milton Keynes’s future cannot be seen in isolation from the wider area. Historically, the boroughs, cities and counties along the arc have faced in different directions; that is a product of history and geography. There have been some positive developments to get the different authorities to work more closely together. An example is SEMLEP, but I urge the Minister to consider other innovative solutions. The growth of Milton Keynes and the arc will have to be different from the other models of devolution being introduced in traditional metropolitan conurbations. I do not want the expansion of Milton Keynes to be seen in any way as a land-grabbing exercise from neighbouring authorities, which would rightly and inevitably be resisted, but I urge the Minister to engage with all the authorities along the arc to develop something new that is innovative and collaborative and will facilitate the sorts of development that I have discussed.
My key ask today is for the Government to give us the space and time to develop our long-term strategy and implementation timetable. There must be solutions to meeting the short-term housing needs while we develop Milton Keynes at the heart of the corridor. The Milton Keynes Futures 2050 Commission report and the work of the National Infrastructure Commission represent a golden opportunity to develop a bright and successful future built on knowledge, design and understanding. Let us not squander it.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on securing this important debate. I am obviously proud to respond on behalf of the Labour party to the issues raised, and I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
You will understand, Mr Walker, that I have been in post for only a short period and it has been rather a busy time for me, but I had the pleasure of serving as a local Labour councillor for 16 years in a previous life, and I understand the importance of strategising and of linking housing to economic development. I am pleased to see in the MK Futures 2050 Commission report a really good example of how a well run, Labour-led local authority—I accept that this is cross-party work—can provide leadership, direction and ambition for the future, even during a very difficult financial period for local government.
As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South mentioned, Milton Keynes is approaching 50 years since being designated a new town by the Wilson Labour Government in 1967. I am familiar with new towns. Peterlee, in my constituency, is from a similar generation, or in fact a little earlier—the post-war generation—and just slightly to the south of that is Newton Aycliffe.
New towns have particular strengths and problems. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this new town—actually, it is a new city—has developed to the extent that it is home to 270,000 people. As Milton Keynes has grown, so too has its regional, national and, indeed, international importance. I understand that it is now the biggest economy in the South East Midlands LEP area. It has a strong and internationally recognised smart city project and is fast developing into what could be described as the Milton Keynes city economic region.
The city is acknowledged as offering a particularly high quality of life, with many parks and open green spaces. The concept of the original planners was that open green spaces and parks would run throughout the built environment—that was a feature of many new towns of the period.
The importance of Milton Keynes to the UK economy was recognised by no less a person than the Chancellor himself in his Budget speech, when he asked that the National Infrastructure Commission should investigate how infrastructure investment in the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge arc—the so-called innovation corridor referred to by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South—could improve the overall output of the UK economy.
I therefore commend Milton Keynes Council for establishing the MK Futures 2050 Commission, a panel of independent, nationally respected figures from across the academic, business, public and private sectors who have come together to produce a report on how the city can continue to be prosperous into the future. Indeed, the commission has gone further, identifying the challenges and barriers to success and what the city can do in the short, medium and long term to ensure sustainable growth. It is a fine example of not taking the status quo for granted but instead ensuring that local authorities lead the way in innovating and adapting so that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) mentioned, the citizens they represent can access affordable housing, well paid jobs and a clean, healthy lifestyle.
The commission undertook detailed research and gathered evidence, including more than 6,000 submissions from local residents and stakeholders. It highlights the fact that the factors that have made Milton Keynes a success in its first 50 years are the very issues that may have an impact on future growth: affordability, access to well paid employment, good infrastructure and the advantageous geographical position that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South described—it is near the M1 and the west coast main line and between London, Birmingham, Oxford and Cambridge.
The commission identifies some of the risks to employment that could threaten many jobs, including well paid ones. Housing affordability is a key issue, as it is in much of the south-east, as unaffordable housing limits the supply of a skilled workforce. The city of Milton Keynes, like so many others, including Washington in County Durham, was designed on a grid system. That worked well originally, but is approaching capacity, which could have an impact on future growth. Finally, competition, not just from the UK but from our European and global competitors, will continue and intensify.
The commission concluded that to be successful, Milton Keynes needed to focus on the growth of high-quality, knowledge-intensive jobs and its continued development as a green and affordable place to live. To deliver that economic growth and prosperity, the commission has recommended six “big projects” that are vital to the future success of Milton Keynes. I will not talk about them all, because of the shortage of time, but I want to pick out a couple. The commission recommends that Milton Keynes’s population should grow in the future to at least 400,000 people. As the hon. Gentleman said, much of that growth would not take place in Milton Keynes itself; it would not be within the current local authority boundaries, but would take place along the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor.
I am told that at a recent meeting with the National Infrastructure Commission, the leaders of Milton Keynes, Cambridge and Oxford expressed strong support for that idea, with support from their respective local enterprise partnerships. I am pleased to say that those councils, along with Norwich and Swindon, have come together to form the Fast Growth Cities network, which has also promoted the idea, with the support of the much respected Centre for Cities think tank. Again, the hon. Gentleman referred to that. The importance of those cities to our national economy, with their high-wage, high-productivity, high-skill and low-welfare economies, is significant. To highlight that, I will make a comparison with my own region, the north-east of England. The gross value added output of those cities is almost equal to that of the northern powerhouse. Given recent events and the UK’s intent to leave the EU following the recent Brexit vote, the continued success of those economies is even more vital to the success of the public finances.
If I may, I would like to put a few questions to the Minister. I would like to ask, in particular, when the infrastructure investment in the east-west rail link linking Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge is to be delivered. The scheme has been subject to continued delays and time slippages. I understand that the local authorities, businesses and potential investors are concerned about the great uncertainty over the speedy delivery of that project. Will the Minister give top priority to making representations to the National Infrastructure Commission?
As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South identified, there is a gap in university provision. I point out that Milton Keynes is home to another excellent creation of the Wilson Labour Government—the Open University, a pioneer in distance learning. The MK Futures 2050 Commission recommends the establishment of a Milton Keynes institute of technology—a kind of Massachusetts Institute of Technology concept, like they have in the United States, which seems a brilliant idea. It would take advantage of, and apply, advanced research and training and transform it into world-leading innovative enterprises. The UK currently lacks that type of establishment, and the idea has enormous potential. Again, I echo the hon. Gentleman by asking the Minister to engage with his colleagues in making representations to BIS, asking it to make contact with Milton Keynes Council to investigate how the idea can be taken forward.
This is a good point at which to highlight that the commission is clear that if growth is to be delivered, the population of Milton Keynes must be able to share in the benefits of growth. It calls it “inclusive growth”, and the point requires highlighting that growth must benefit not the few but the many. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the shadow Chancellor, has pointed out for some time, that will be easier to achieve with sustained investment in infrastructure. I am pleased that the report favours that approach to growth. Will the Minister agree to meet representatives from the Fast Growth Cities group to discuss their needs, and does he agree that the opportunity of having five local authorities that want to embrace growth, and housing growth in particular, should not go to waste?
I am sure the Minister agrees that the report is an exceptional and groundbreaking exercise by a local authority. It provides a context in which Milton Keynes and the surrounding authorities can discuss growth for the future and address issues they face. I am sure that many local authorities in other parts of the country would be very interested in learning from their experience and example. I therefore urge the Minister to meet representatives from Milton Keynes Council to discuss the benefits and potential of this approach, and to offer any assistance he can in co-ordinating responses from other agencies.
Finally, I would like to place on record my thanks and appreciation to Milton Keynes Council for commissioning this forward-thinking report, and to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South for raising it today. In particular, council leader Councillor Peter Marland and the chief executive Carole Mills have shown excellent leadership throughout. The director of strategy, Geoff Snelson, the head of policy, Sarah Gonsalves, and the project manager, Fiona Robinson, have worked tirelessly to produce an excellent report. The Milton Keynes Futures 2050 report is a fine example of local innovation and the power of good local leadership. I look forward to hearing the Minster’s reply, and I hope that he will welcome the report; it is well worth considering taking it forward with Milton Keynes Council and the other local authorities.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Minister, you have until 5.45 pm, but if you would like to leave two minutes at the end for the Member who moved the motion, that would be very well received I am sure.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I will ensure that I leave at least two minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). I really want to congratulate him on having secured this debate, along with everybody involved in the work of the Milton Keynes Futures 2050 Commission—all the commissioners and Sir Peter Gregson, obviously—who have put this forward and worked with ambition and vision to feed into this long-term plan for Milton Keynes. I think it mirrors the clear ambition and determination that my hon. Friend has to see Milton Keynes continue being a very special place, which I know it is from my experience many years ago—I was not too far from there as a student—and from visiting him over the last few years. It is a really good example of the real success that there has been from the original new town’s ambitions; it has continued to grow ever since.
There is the ambition for seeing things like more lifelong learning opportunities at a new university, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on the Opposition Front Bench outlined, along with a good example of that kind of ambition. As was said, it is linked with the Open University. It is also important for areas to realise that the planned reforms in the Higher Education and Research Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech earlier this year make it easier to establish new universities, helping more providers to offer higher-quality degrees. As a Government we are making sure that we work to deliver in those areas.
No one is in any doubt about the clear ambitions for Milton Keynes for the future, not just through this plan but as part of that Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge growth corridor. In March 2016, the Chancellor announced that he had asked the National Infrastructure Commission to lead an inquiry into the potential of Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge. He asked the commission to explore the corridor as a key growth locale for high-tech, knowledge-intensive industries coupled with an ambitious, high-quality housing offer to meet the growing needs of the area. That commission’s inquiry is currently under way and I look forward to seeing its recommendations in due course. It is worth noting, in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Easington, that the consultation is open until 5 August and I encourage people to feed into that.
Increasing the supply of housing is critical to our economic success, in Milton Keynes and more generally. As a Government, we have got the country building again with a 25% increase last year alone. We have set out an ambitious vision for housing—probably the most ambitious vision for a generation—by doubling the housing budget to more than £20 billion to deliver on our ambitions to build 1 million new homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South outlined and commented on the type of homes, affordable homes and shared ownership. I would encourage the area to look at the available funds. There is £4.7 billion-worth of funding for shared ownership specifically, as well as the £1.2 billion fund for starter homes that is available as well. I hope that organisations in the area will look at those.
We also welcome the recent announcement by the Home Builders Federation, on behalf of its largest members, to further increase that growth in supply. My hon. Friend touched on this issue around build-out rates. This is also creating more transparency as we go forward about what those rates are, and building more homes to support the ambitions we all have to see the homes we need actually being built. Increasing housing supply cannot be done in isolation, and I recognise the important roles that having the right spatial plans, infrastructure and services play in creating the right communities for the future.
I will turn to a couple of points around this issue specifically. First, on planning, Milton Keynes adopted a core strategy in 2013 and I know that it is now working on a new local plan to be published, hopefully, later this year. It is right that local authorities keep their plans up to date and that they work with neighbourhood plans. I was delighted when visiting Milton Keynes not too long ago to see some of the ambitious neighbourhood planning work that is going on; indeed, I think the largest in the country is in Milton Keynes. Local councils need to make sure that they are making decisions on planning applications locally and neighbourhood plans are the ultimate way to do that with the local community having real involvement and control over planning by having a neighbourhood plan that has weight in law. In determining planning applications, local councils have to have regard to their local plan as well as to national planning policy and neighbourhood plans. We are committed to making sure that we keep the country building, to deliver the homes, and the type of homes, that our communities want to see.
Our consultation document in December 2015 proposed specific changes to the national planning policy to drive up the delivery of new housing and bring forward more land for development. However, I recognise that excessive pre-commencement planning conditions can slow down or even stop the construction of homes after they have been given planning permission, and my hon. Friend made the point about the frustration people feel about the gap between planning permission being granted and housing actually being built. The new neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill that was announced in the Queen’s Speech will seek to deal with that issue. We need to make sure that the homes that are getting planning permission are being built and that the process is not being slowed down by unnecessary bureaucracy.
Grahame M. Morris
Does the Minister accept that the constraints often do not just relate to delays in planning? In my experience, certainly in my authority, that was never an issue. The problems often relate to the lack of infrastructure. The MK Futures 2050 Commission has highlighted how important it is to invest in transport infrastructure. Will he at least acknowledge that that is one area—from the six big issues—that should be addressed?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is getting the cart and the horse the wrong way round. He is absolutely right that, in terms of getting homes built and planning for homes in future, infrastructure is part of the equation and is part of what a local authority should be looking at when it develops its local plan. However, once planning permission is granted—infrastructure is part of the consideration in granting planning permission—one of the main delays that causes the gap between planning permission being granted by the local authority and work starting on site is planning conditions. Examples from around the country show that there can be more than 1,000 planning conditions on one site. That explains why, in many cases, a council will give permission but it can be up to a year or two years later if not longer before a builder can get on site and physically start doing anything, including putting in infrastructure. That frustrates communities, local authorities and builders. We need to make sure that we are doing something about it, so we are taking that kind of bureaucracy out of the system. That is what I mean by saying that we want to continue to reform and speed up the planning process, so we minimise the delays caused by unnecessary or burdensome conditions.
Looking towards the longer term, I recognise the key role that dedicated delivery bodies have played in the creation and continued growth of somewhere such as Milton Keynes. At the outset, there was the new town development corporation, and more recently there has been the Milton Keynes development partnership. I welcome the MK Futures 2050 Commission’s focus on ensuring that the right delivery vehicle is in place to drive Milton Keynes’ further transformation in future.
Through the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which we have just passed, we have made some important changes to the new towns legislation to make it easier to set up new statutory development corporations when local areas decide that that is the best way forward, but having the right infrastructure in place to support growth is critical for the wider planning process. The neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill will transform how we make long-term plans for our nation’s infrastructure, empowering local communities to get the homes and local infrastructure that they want and need delivered, and making infrastructure policy at the national level much more strategic and consistent. The Bill will underpin that statutory function.
Significant funding is already being invested to support housing growth. More than £200 million of the local growth fund has been prioritised to date to support growth across the south-east midlands and the Northamptonshire areas. We are expecting a further bid for local growth funding from the south-east midlands shortly as part of the current bidding round.
In addition, the Government have announced plans to radically reform the business rates system to enable local government to be more self-sufficient and to benefit from growth. The changes build on the existing reforms that have given areas 50% of the business rate growth, and full retention pilots are going on in four areas. The 100% retention reforms are accompanied by additional flexibilities for local authorities to reduce rates to boost growth, and mayoral combined authorities will have the opportunity to increase rates through an infrastructure levy with the agreement of the local enterprise partnership.
Those are big changes with significant opportunities for local government. How local government chooses to use that retained income and the growth in business rates in areas such as Milton Keynes will be a matter for the people there. However, I am encouraged by Milton Keynes’s wish to earmark spending for education and infrastructure investment and by the ambition shown in the report through the six projects. We are sensitive to the challenges that will come with the changes we are making and are therefore seeking feedback on them in an open manner, through a consultation that was launched last week. I encourage people to take part in and respond to that.
Securing the right level of developer contributions is also vital to ensuring that infrastructure is delivered in the right places and is supporting growth. That is part of the planning process. A review of the operation of the community infrastructure levy is being undertaken by an independent panel, which will report back to Ministers later this year. That review is to look at assessing the extent to which the levy provides an effective mechanism for funding infrastructure and to recommend changes that would improve its operation in support of our wider housing and growth objectives, with a clear focus on the needs and plans for local areas.
I recognise the significant ambitions that Milton Keynes has, both as a city and as part of the wider Oxford-MK-Cambridge arc. We look forward to working with the area on just that, as the hon. Member for Easington said.
Grahame M. Morris
In view of that commitment, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of the Fast Growth Cities group to discuss how it is possible to embrace growth—housing growth, in particular—and how that initiative should not go to waste?
Brandon Lewis
I meet the cities group fairly regularly and have done as a local government Minister over the last few years, and I am always happy to meet any organisation that wants to talk about developing more housing in its area. There is very much an open-door policy on areas that want to develop housing.
This is all part of our drive for local areas to have the power to work out what is right for them. That is why it is absolutely right that we continue to devolve powers, and the devolution landscape has been driven by those local areas. Government have responded to places that are clear about their ambitions and how they want to get there. I encourage areas to work out what they think is right for them and then to make that pitch to us. With the right governance and structures in place, anywhere could look to drive forward its own priorities and find its own local solutions, and to have the power and ability to do that. I look forward to seeing that develop further in Milton Keynes and to seeing it work to deliver on the ambition it clearly has. I know that it will be supported and matched by the ambitions of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South.
Iain Stewart
May I place on record my gratitude to the Minister, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) for their contributions to the debate?
I conclude with this observation: Milton Keynes is unique and it has been an enormous success, and I believe it can continue to innovate and provide the exemplar for other towns and cities round the country. I think the report from the MK Futures 2050 Commission is inspirational and, although I will probably not be here looking back in 50 years’ time, I think history will judge this report as the start of a new chapter in urban planning and development.
I am heartened by what the Minister says on a number of fronts, and by the welcome that the Government will give to an innovative model of governance structure. What will work in Milton Keynes and surrounding areas will not be the same as for the west midlands, Greater Manchester, Bristol or any other urban area. It will have to be new and I look forward to seeing proposals coming out from Milton Keynes Council and the neighbouring authorities. I also look forward to seeing the detail in the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill, which will help to unlock developments that have been stalled. What will be interesting is if we can develop a new delivery vehicle for implementing the types of projects that the report contains.
In conclusion, I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to bring to the attention of national Government what we are doing locally. There are still many debates and conversations to be had locally about how we take this forward, but I hope they will be favourably received.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the report by the MK Futures 2050 Commission and developing the Oxford to Milton Keynes to Cambridge arc.
Written Statement
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
InitialTeacher Training
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
I am today publishing the reports of the three initial teacher training (ITT) expert groups which I commissioned last year, following a review of ITT carried out by Sir Andrew Carter OBE. Alongside these reports I am also publishing a Government response setting out how we intend to take forward the groups’ recommendations.
The review groups were tasked with developing a new framework of core content for ITT; behaviour management content for ITT; and a set of standards for school-based ITT mentors. The three groups were chaired by, respectively, Stephen Munday CBE, Tom Bennett, and the Teaching Schools Council (under the leadership of Vicki Beer CBE and, latterly, Dr Gary Holden).
Sir Andrew Carter’s report, published in January 2015, highlighted that the system in England is generally performing well, but that more needs to be done to ensure all trainee teachers receive a strong grounding in the basics of classroom management and subject knowledge development, as well as key areas of practice such as assessment and an increased understanding of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Sir Andrew also suggested that the quality of school-based ITT mentoring is not as good as it could be, and his report made a number of recommendations to both Government and the sector in this regard.
Good teachers are the single most important factor influencing pupils’ achievement in school. The Government are therefore committed to ensuring that the education system can recruit, train, develop and retain the best possible teachers in our schools. Key to this is to strengthen the quality and content of ITT programmes so that new teachers enter the classroom appropriately equipped in essential areas such as subject knowledge development and subject-specific pedagogy, practical behaviour management strategies, a sound understanding of SEND, and the ability to use the most up-to-date research on effective teaching practice.
The Government welcome the reports of the three expert groups as an important step towards realising our goals of further improving the quality of teacher training and raising the status of the teaching profession, while directly addressing the issues raised by the Carter review. Our recent White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, published in March 2016, set out plans to develop a new set of quality criteria that will in future be applied when training places are being allocated to providers. We will therefore consider how best the new framework of content can be used to inform those criteria, with a view to ensuring that all providers who are allocated training places are clearly demonstrating the quality of content in their courses. Further detail of how we intend to apply the new criteria to the allocation of ITT places from 2017/18 onwards will be published shortly.
Tom Bennett’s report sets out some clear recommendations for the teacher training sector on how behaviour management should be delivered within ITT. An abridged version of his full recommendations has formed part of the new framework of core content for ITT. It is clear from the report that providers of ITT should ensure that trainees are able to access high-quality training before they are ready to enter the classroom; this is a recommendation with which we strongly agree, and we would encourage all providers to ensure that their programmes are structured accordingly.
Linked to high-quality training programmes is the critical role that school-based mentors should play in supporting teacher trainees to develop into effective teachers. This is particularly true as we continue to drive the move towards more school-led teacher training, as set out in the White Paper. The Teaching Schools Council, led firstly by Vicki Beer CBE and subsequently by Dr Gary Holden, has developed a set of standards that I believe can help to bring consistency to the practice of mentors, raise the profile of the mentoring role in school-led training, and contribute to building a culture of coaching and mentoring within the teaching profession. All of these are crucial if our next generation of outstanding teachers is to have the greatest possible impact on improving standards of teaching and allowing our children to reach their full potential.
I am placing copies of the reports from Stephen Munday CBE, Tom Bennett and Dr Gary Holden, along with the Government’s response to their recommendations, in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS83]
Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the draft telecommunications restriction order regulations provide that the National Offender Management Service—NOMS—and other specified law enforcement bodies may apply to the civil court for an order requiring mobile network operators to prevent or restrict the use of communications devices, including mobile phones, by persons detained in custodial institutions.
The use of mobile phones by prisoners is on the increase. In 2013, NOMS recovered an astonishing 7,451 mobile phone handsets and SIM cards from its estate. In 2014, it seized a record 9,745 devices. That is an average of over 26 handsets and SIM cards seized per day, every day. If these numbers alone are food for thought, then the range of serious crimes committed by prisoners, all enabled by their use of mobile phones, is truly sobering. Prisoners have been convicted of an array of serious organised crimes, all underpinned and enabled by their access to and use of mobile phones. These include: arranging murder; importing automatic firearms into the UK from Europe; smuggling huge shipments of class A drugs from South America; orchestrating the supply of recommissioned firearms across London; controlling the supply and distribution of class A drugs across the UK; two separate and truly audacious prison escape plots—the list goes on. The use of mobile phones by prisoners does not just help them continue their offending in prison but threatens prison security as well. Unauthorised mobile phones are strongly associated with drug supply, violence and bullying inside custodial institutions.
NOMS uses a range of effective passive and active security measures to stop mobile phones getting into prisons and to prevent their use when they do, but the fact remains that it is seizing more mobile phones than ever. The problem is growing and, I say, will continue to grow unless we add to and strengthen the powers that prevent unauthorised mobile phone use. It is a criminal offence for prisoners to possess or use a mobile phone, but because of the relatively small size of handsets and SIM cards and the way prisoners can hide and move these around the prison estate, it is not always possible to take possession of these devices. There is a clear need for new, cost-effective measures to prevent the use of mobile phones which do not rely on first taking possession of the device—powers which allow mobile phones and SIM cards to be put beyond normal use remotely and effectively. These draft regulations achieve those aims.
NOMS or other law enforcement bodies will apply to the county court for a telecommunications restriction order. If the court is satisfied that those devices specified in the application are in use inside a prison, it will order the mobile network operators—MNOs—to take whatever action the order specifies to prevent or restrict the use of those devices by prisoners. I note in passing that each mobile phone has a unique identifier and, therefore, irrespective of the SIM that has been employed, once an order is obtained in respect of the mobile device, it will not be useable inside the prison estate. In practice, the order will involve the MNOs blacklisting the handsets—which prevents the handset from connecting to the mobile network—and disconnecting the SIM cards from their mobile networks. A disconnected SIM card will not work in any handset. These actions will be completed within a maximum of five working days. This quickly puts the mobile phone beyond normal use, without the need to take possession of the handset or SIM.
It may be useful if I summarise the main provisions in the draft regulations. These draft regulations confer on the civil courts powers to compel mobile network operators to disconnect mobile phones and SIM cards that are found by a judge to be in use inside custodial institutions without authorisation. There is no requirement to take possession of the mobile phone first. They provide the National Offender Management Service and other law enforcement bodies with a flexible, cost-effective measure which will add to and strengthen measures deployed to tackle unauthorised mobile phone use in prisons. They will provide that only a judge can order the blacklisting of handsets and the disconnection of SIM cards found to be operating inside prisons. They will protect law enforcement’s capability to disrupt and prevent offending in prisons using covert techniques by providing for court hearings to be held in private, and for non-disclosure of evidence beyond parties to the proceedings. In some circumstances—and only if the court is satisfied that it is not in the public interest —some sensitive evidence may not be disclosed to parties to the proceedings.
The regulations will enable the applicant for a telecommunications restriction order to inform the mobile network operator to remove the terms of a court order if an error is made and a handset or SIM card is incorrectly blacklisted or disconnected, without the need to return to court to vary the order. This safeguard will make sure that any mistakes are quickly put right and that anyone affected by an error can be reconnected as soon as possible in a matter of days, minimising as far as possible the impact of an error on anyone wrongly affected by a TRO. As an additional safeguard, and to make sure that there is independent and transparent scrutiny of these provisions, the use of the draft telecommunications restriction order regulations will be overseen by the proposed Investigatory Powers Commissioner when the draft Investigatory Powers Bill receives Royal Assent. I commend this order to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the order before us today gives an additional power to disrupt the use of illegally held mobile phones in the prison estate by way of a telecommunications restriction order, which requires the telecommunication provider to prevent or restrict the use of communication devices by persons detained in custodial institutions.
I very much agree with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, contained in Appendix 1 of the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The option to block mobile phone signals seems to me a far simpler and more effective option available, and it seems odd that that was dismissed out of hand largely, it appears, on the grounds of cost. Clearly, there is a serious problem and action needs to be taken. What is proposed here is better than where we are at present, but it is cumbersome—new phones or SIM cards risk being smuggled in, and a constant battle may take place to identify a new device or number so that another application can be made for a telecommunications restriction order. It does not completely solve the problem. As I said, it is cumbersome. It will require multiple applications to court on a regular basis and the more effective option has been ruled out.
As we have heard and read in the papers, mobile phones held illegally in prisons have enabled serious crimes to be committed by prisoners, including the importation of automatic firearms, the distribution of drugs, the sale of firearms, planned escapes and the harassment and intimidation of witnesses. With a list like that, I think the case for a blanket ban, through the use of blocking devices, is compelling. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us what review processes are going to be in place to evaluate this scheme and whether the blocking devices are off the table for good, or is it something the Home Office will reconsider at some point in the future? Although I prefer the blocking option, I fully support the order before us today.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
My Lords, I have had three privileges in my life. I have had the privilege of serving in every Parliament for the last 50 years. I have also had the additional privilege—the most recent one—of being a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and it is in that context that I rise to speak. I refer in particular to that part of the report in which our committee reported on the use of the statutory instrument.
Over the years that I have been in both Houses, these were all too familiar words:
“Regulations … may … make incidental, consequential, supplementary or transitional provision”.
Both Houses have warned Ministers and departments over the years not to use these generalised and imprecise words to promote regulations of importance and significance. Our own committee made that very point in the eighth report of 2008, yet here we are in 2016 with Regulation 8 being promoted through these imprecise and general words.
I remind the Committee what Regulation 8 seeks to establish. It will give the courts the power to order that some or all documents can be withheld and prevent a party to the proceedings from having access to such information. Who would deny that that type of restriction is both important and significant? Who would claim that this is just a consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional matter? If the Government intend to promote Regulation 8 on that basis, which of those applies? Is it incidental? It cannot be, surely. An instrument which will restrict access to information for parties in a hearing is certainly not incidental. Is it consequential? No, how can it be consequential? Is it supplementary? Is the Minister going to rest his case on the basis that this is just a mere supplement? An instrument of this kind, leading to the possible restriction of parties’ access to evidence in the proceedings? That cannot be supplementary. On what possible basis can the Government promote Regulation 8 as regulation that is incidental, consequential, supplementary or transitional?
The Government’s case is even more feeble and flimsy when one goes back and looks at the parent Act. The Act stipulates, in considerable detail, in Sections 80(3) and (4), the matters that should be subject to regulations. Section 80(3) lists some seven matters that must be considered in regulations, while Section 80(4) lists six that may be. Some 13 matters are specified in the two subsections, but what is not in them is the issue of the power to give the courts the right to withhold evidence. Why is that not there? This is an important issue. The 2015 Act specifically listed the kinds of issues that should be dealt with and addressed in regulations, but the important one that is now being brought forward, of withholding evidence, was missing.
Why was it not included in the list in the parent Act? There must have been some debate in the department about it, or among Ministers about such a big issue. Why was it left out? Why was it excluded and why is it now being brought in? Was it an oversight? Did they forget that this was going to be a big issue? If so, they are now trying to remedy an omission or an oversight. I want to find out from the Minister why and how an important issue such as this was left out of the parent Act and is now being brought forward and promoted under this raw, general and imprecise regulation. We deserve answers on this mysterious issue.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords.
I will first address the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rowland. I am aware of the report from the Joint Committee. The points made by the committee in its report were not raised with the department before the report was published. However, the Home Office has given careful consideration to this question and its position remains that Regulation 8 is intra vires. Section 80 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 gives power to the courts to make a TRO, and matters such as disclosure, costs, appeals and so on are all supplementary to that process—they do not have to be specified. I acknowledge that the words “supplementary” and “incidental” are broad, but they are broad for that reason, so that they can embrace these issues. In these circumstances, it is the view of the Home Office that the provisions made in Regulation 8 are supplementary to the primary or principal business of Section 80 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, and that remains our position.
Lord Rowlands
But surely, when one reads the list in Section 80, a regulation which allows a court to withhold evidence from a party to proceedings is more significant and important than even those in Section 80. Why was it not at least included in the original Act in those sections? I suggest to the Minister and the Committee that it is quite serious. If this precedent goes through, government departments will be able to use this loose, imprecise regulation to introduce the most wide-reaching changes by regulation, which were not included in the original Act. A quite fundamental point is at stake here.
Lord Keen of Elie
I note what the noble Lord says, but it is the view of the Home Office that these provisions are simply supplementary to the principal purposes of Section 80. The 13 examples that are listed are not conclusive or exclusive in that regard. However, I will undertake to write to the noble Lord further to explain our position with regard to Section 80 if he wishes me to do so.
Lord Keen of Elie
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with regard to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, at an earlier stage, and in particular the stated preference for blocking technology to be fitted in prisons, as opposed to the use of the sort of technology that is contemplated under the present proposed regulations. NOMS makes use of blocking technology in its estate and is committed to investing more in this area. However, while the technology is effective, it is extremely expensive as an option; it is estimated that the cost of employing it over the entire prison estate would be in the region of £300 million, which is massively in excess of the costs anticipated with regard to the provision of TROs—therefore, there is a real cost issue there. It remains the position that blocking technology is used within the estate and NOMS has committed to invest more in this area, but it will take time. On the employment of blocking technology, it is not just the cost of installation, but the cost of maintaining it in each wing of every prison is also considerable and has to be taken into account. That is why NOMS has adopted the position that these regulations should be employed and believes that TROs are the way forward for the immediate future.
Once commenced, the new powers will add to and strengthen the ability to prevent and disrupt offending behind prison walls. That is a key pledge in our serious and organised crime strategy and part of the Government’s overall commitment to tackling serious crime. We are working towards a commencement date for the regulations in England and Wales of July 2016. I therefore hope that this Committee will see fit to approve the draft regulations.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2016.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the order before us today adds zombie knives, zombie killer knives and zombie slayer knives to the list of offensive weapons by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.
The purpose of the order is to maintain public safety. Restricting the supply of weapons which can be used in violent crime or to create a fear of violence is a matter of public concern, which is why the Government are taking this action. Before setting out further details about the order and what action the Government are taking, I will briefly explain why it is necessary to tackle zombie knives.
We are concerned about the availability of these weapons, which can be purchased for as little as £10, have an aesthetic appeal to young men and have no practical use. In 2015, Stefan Appleton, a young man of 17, was murdered with a zombie knife marketed as a “renegade zombie killer machete/head decapitator”.
The Government believe that although the number of sales is relatively low, these weapons have a disproportionate effect because their appearance both creates a fear of violence in law-abiding members of the public and glamorises violence for those to whom these types of knives appeal. The police advise that they are often used as status symbols by gangs in videos inciting violence, and have asked that they are banned.
Unlike other types of knife, zombie knives have no legitimate purpose. They are designed for the purpose of violence and creating a fear of violence, and the way they are marketed, using names such as “headsplitter”, “decapitator”, “skullsplitter”, “chopper” or “executioner”, clearly demonstrates the purposes for which they are intended. Many of the knives are also painted in a way that suggests blood on the handle or blade. These knives pose a danger to the young men themselves and to wider society.
With that background in mind, I turn to the details of the order. Under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, or expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. The importation of any such weapon is also prohibited. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment.
The order does not provide for the possession of these weapons to be a criminal offence, but the possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place or school premises without good reason or lawful excuse is a criminal offence under Sections 139 and 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as is the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place by virtue of Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.
The Government want to add zombie knives to those weapons that are prohibited by order. This will be achieved by using the order-making powers in Section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to add these knives to the list of offensive weapons to which the section applies. These weapons are defined as:
“the weapon sometimes known as a ‘zombie knife’, ‘zombie killer knife’ or ‘zombie slayer knife’, being a blade with … a cutting edge … a serrated edge; and … images or words (whether on the blade or handle) that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence”.
I hope noble Lords will agree that this order should proceed. It will prevent these weapons being used in violent crime or to instil a fear of violence. I therefore commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I had never heard of these weapons before I looked at this order a couple of days ago. The descriptions in the Explanatory Notes and impact assessment are truly dreadful, and I am grateful to the Minister for showing me a picture of one of these knives a few minutes ago. I am very happy to support a complete ban on the manufacture, import, sale, hire, and offer for sale or hire of these weapons. The names—zombie knives, zombie killer knives and zombie slayer knives—are just dreadful.
The impact assessment makes it very clear that the benefits outweigh the costs, even in simple monetary terms, but what we are talking about here is not just money but serious injury to human beings and the killing of human beings with these awful weapons. There is no monetary figure you can put on that. If one life is saved or one serious injury prevented by introducing this ban, it will be a step well worth taking, and I am very happy to support the order.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am most obliged to the noble Lord. As he indicated, these weapons have no legitimate purpose and yet they have an appeal to vulnerable young people. Therefore, it is important that they should be added to the list of banned weapons.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2016.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its expert advice, which informed the order we are considering today, which was laid in Parliament on 15 June.
If the order is made, seven methylphenidate-based compounds, as well as their simple derivatives, will be subject to temporary control under Section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for a further 12 months, thereby maintaining the offences concerning their production and distribution. These compounds were controlled for 12 months under a previous temporary class drug order, which expired on 26 June 2016. The new TCDO came into effect on 27 June and will remain in effect for 12 months, subject to Parliament’s approval.
We are seeking to extend the temporary control following a request from the ACMD for additional time to strengthen its evidence base. This will give it the opportunity to consider the most recent data, including data from festivals, drug-related deaths and information from the drugs early warning system. The additional 12 months will allow the ACMD to consider whether these drugs should be made subject to full control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The ACMD notes that the initial TCDO has had a positive effect. Police Scotland has reported that in Edinburgh, where there had been reported injecting practices and an outbreak of infections involving some of these substances, there has been a reduction in harms.
These seven compounds are thought to be highly potent stimulants, similar to methylphenidate, a class B drug. One of these substances, ethylphenidate, had previously been marketed online as an alternative to cocaine. Their harms are reported to include anxiety, paranoia, visual disturbance, chest pain and a strong urge to re-dose. Other reported harms include anti-social and violent behaviour, loss of fine motor control, a high risk of bacterial infection and local tissue damage from injecting.
The order enables UK law enforcement to continue action against traffickers and suppliers of temporary class drugs while the ACMD gathers evidence. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially to young people, that these drugs and the brand names associated with them carry serious health risks. We know that the change in the law cannot on its own deter all those inclined to use or experiment with these drugs. However, we expect the TCDO to continue to have a notable impact on their availability, and in turn on demand for them, as we have seen with other substances controlled under a TCDO.
We know that legislation alone is not enough and continue to take action across education, prevention, treatment and recovery in order to reduce harmful drug use. We will continue to update our public health messages to inform the public of the harms caused by these substances, using the latest evidence gathered from early warning systems. In these circumstances, I commend the order to your Lordships.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the order seeks to renew a temporary control order on the substances listed in the paper for another year, while further work is undertaken and a decision is made on what should happen in the long term. I have no issue with the order whatever. All I would say is that I hope that in granting this temporary ban for another year, we are able within that time to gather the information that the council has asked for, so that it can come back to us to recommend a permanent ban. Clearly, these drugs are harmful to health, and it is important, as the noble and learned Lord said, that education, treatment and advice are made available to young people so that they understand the harm that they can do to themselves and to others by taking them. I am happy to support the order and hope that sooner rather than later we will be able to deal with this issue permanently.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should explain that generally speaking the council has to be helped to make a recommendation about six months before the expiry of a TCDO in order for there to be time to transpose the prohibition into the Act itself. It was therefore thought necessary in the present case that there should be an extension. I do not believe that it is anticipated that a further extension will be required, because further evidence of harm has become available and is now being analysed.
Petroleum (Transfer of Functions) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Petroleum (Transfer of Functions) Regulations 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations transfer certain functions relating to the licensing and taxation of oil and gas from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to the Oil and Gas Authority. With the recent debates on the Energy Bill—now the Energy Act 2016—no doubt still fresh in our minds, I am sure that most noble Lords will be familiar with the background to the establishment of the Oil and Gas Authority and Sir Ian Wood’s review of maximising the economic recovery of petroleum from the United Kingdom continental shelf. However, for the sake of clarity I will outline briefly where we have got to.
The benefit our oil and gas industry has brought to the United Kingdom is not in doubt, with around 43 billion barrels of oil extracted, over £330 billion of taxes paid and many thousands of jobs supported. However, as one of the most mature regions in this global industry, it is now facing new challenges, with remaining reserves increasingly dispersed and more difficult and expensive to exploit. Notwithstanding this and the additional pressures resulting from low prices, there is still great value to be extracted from the North Sea and the continental shelf. The Wood review recommended that delivering on this required a new approach, and the focused attention of a new independent regulator and asset steward.
In response to this, the Government legislated to establish the principle of maximising economic recovery —MER UK—and has set out a strategy to deliver this. Industry and the Oil and Gas Authority are now required to act in accordance with this strategy when going about their business. The authority has also been established as an executive agency of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and has made great progress. The successful passage of the Energy Bill—now Act—enables it to be set up as a government company and empowered with a broader range of tools to meet the challenge of MER UK, as envisaged by the Wood review.
A central part of the establishment of the Oil and Gas Authority is the transfer to it of essential functions currently exercised by the Secretary of State. Noble Lords may recall that Schedule 1 to the Energy Act provides for the transfer of the majority of these functions, including some relating to offshore oil and gas infrastructure, as well as the licensing of carbon dioxide and gas storage. However, it was decided that certain core functions in relation to petroleum licensing and taxation would not be transferred in that Act, due to the interdependencies with the new devolution settlements for Scotland and Wales, as outlined in the Scotland Act and the Wales Bill currently passing through another place.
Specifically, both those settlements include provision to devolve these functions in the onshore area. This all requires amending the same part of the Petroleum Act 1998. Due to the complexities caused by the sequencing of these pieces of legislation, it was decided that we would transfer these specific functions via regulation under the Energy Act to allow greater flexibility. The regulations before the Committee seek to give effect to this. The rationale for transferring these functions to the Oil and Gas Authority remains the same as for those transferred in the Energy Act; namely, the effective establishment and operation of the Oil and Gas Authority as a regulator and asset steward of the United Kingdom continental shelf. The only difference in this case is the legislative vehicle by which these functions are formally transferred.
It is worth noting that, as with the functions transferred in the Energy Act, these functions are all currently being exercised by the Oil and Gas Authority in its capacity as an executive agency of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, once the authority is established as a government company, it will be legally distinct from the department and, in order to continue to carry out its functions, they will need to be formally transferred to it.
In conclusion, these regulations make relatively minor amendments to legislation governing petroleum licensing and taxation, to enable the Oil and Gas Authority to continue the important work it is doing to regulate the oil and gas sector, and to ensure a smooth transfer of functions to Scottish and Welsh Ministers in due course. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of the order before the Committee today. As he reminded us, this follows the Wood review into maximising the recovery of oil and gas from the UK continental shelf. The Oil and Gas Authority is already established under the Companies Act 2006; its functions have now been extended under the Energy Act 2016, subject to the provision introduced under the Scotland Act 2016 to devolve onshore oil and gas licensing in Scotland. As the Minister reminded us, debate on extending the powers to the OGA was extensively undertaken during the passage of the Energy Bill. At that time, we fully supported the creation of the OGA, with powers to co-ordinate the industry and secure the best outcomes for the next phases of North Sea development. I am sure the noble Lord will also recall the debates on our amendments to the Bill to extend its environmental functions and to give the OGA powers on strategic decommissioning of infrastructure, particularly in relation to the development of carbon capture and storage.
We are happy to agree the order but we would have liked the powers to have gone further. Therefore, I have just one aspect to follow up with the Minister. At the time, all sides of the House appreciated the advantages that would result from the development of carbon capture and storage. However, this technology is largely untested. So does the Minister agree that the OGA’s planned licensing role could include research into CCS to develop the technology in the field so that we could benefit from it in the future? Is there a role for the OGA in that capacity?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. She correctly described the structure of the OGA and the fact that it is incorporated under the Companies Act 2006. She is right that the Official Opposition fully supported this aspect of the Bill. She is also right about the importance of carbon capture and storage. We did accept some amendments on CCS, some of which are now in the Energy Act.
The noble Baroness will recall that I suggested the establishment of an advisory committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. That is just about at the end of its work. I am seeing the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, next week to discuss its findings, of which I have had sight of some of the most important. We will be looking very closely at that advice. We accept the importance of CCS. Indeed, I have been discussing with colleagues in other countries the possibility of collaboration because many countries are further forward than we are on carbon capture and storage; for example, Canada has a very successful CCS plant run on a commercial basis at Boundary Dam, which I believe is in Alberta. Other states are happy to collaborate as well, at least on research and data. I assure the noble Baroness that we see the importance of CCS and are keen to take it forward.
I am very happy to update the House on developments as and when they happen but the important point to watch for is the publication of the advisory committee’s report, which I think will be forthcoming, certainly within the next two weeks. I am sure that that will be widely circulated. I thank the noble Baroness for her support.
Nuclear Industries Security (Amendment) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nuclear Industries Security (Amendment) Regulations 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I will give some background and explain why we are seeking to make these amendments, which will be an important addition to the nuclear security framework, both while we remain a member of the EU and as our relationship with Europe changes and evolves.
The United Kingdom is highly regarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other key international partners in civil nuclear security, and we take our international role in this field very seriously, including with regard to regulation. The draft regulations before the Committee would update the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003. Specifically, they would remove sub-paragraph (i) from the definition of transport in Regulation 2(1), and add references to air transport to Regulation 3(5)(b).
The effect of these amendments is to bring the transport of civil nuclear material by air within the same stringent regulatory framework for security that applies to the transport of such material by land or sea. This means that the independent Office for Nuclear Regulation will have the same oversight and approval function in relation to the security of civil nuclear material transported by air as it has in relation to the transport of such material by land or sea.
There are two main reasons to make this amendment to the regulations. The first is that the United Kingdom is a party to an international treaty, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was signed in 1980, came into force in 1991 and was subsequently amended in 2005. The convention requires signatories to have in place a legislative and regulatory regime to ensure the security of civil nuclear materials stored or transported in that state. The Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003 are the primary means by which the United Kingdom has implemented this obligation under the convention.
When these regulations were first written, the transportation of nuclear material by air was not considered to be an option and so air transport was excluded from the scope of the regulations. As our work on decommissioning has gathered pace, we have revisited our legislative and regulatory regime for ensuring the security of civil nuclear materials and determined that the regime should apply to all potential forms of transport. Making these amendments to the regulations to extend the regulatory regime which exists in the 2003 regulations to cover the transport of nuclear materials by air will help to ensure that the United Kingdom gives full effect to the convention.
This brings me to the second reason for making these changes: our domestic considerations. Amending these regulations will allow us to consider all credible options when planning moves of nuclear material to ensure that we make the right operational decision with regard to both safety and security. Nuclear material can be safely and securely transported by air, and it is right that our regulatory framework facilitates this. Air transport of nuclear material is already an established method of transport internationally; these amendments simply mean that civil nuclear material transported by air from or within the United Kingdom will now be subject to the same regulatory regime with regard to security as transports of such material by land or sea within the United Kingdom.
These regulations will ensure that the independent Office for Nuclear Regulation will be involved with and would oversee the security arrangements for any air movements that take place. As such, they will make the transportation of civil nuclear materials more secure. In practice, this means that the Office for Nuclear Regulation will be responsible for approving transport security statements and transport security plans for all carriers of civil nuclear material by air, as they do for carriers involved in the movement of civil nuclear material by road, rail or sea, which currently take place. In drafting these regulations we have consulted the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which is content with these changes.
On a practical level, these regulations will allow us to better address the challenges we currently face. In late 2015, we began a programme of moves to remove nuclear material from the Dounreay nuclear site in northern Scotland. This programme is of great importance and will help to ensure the long-term safe and secure management and treatment of this nuclear material by storing it in the most appropriate place.
As part of this programme, the Prime Minister announced earlier this year that the United Kingdom Government had reached a landmark agreement with the United States and the European Union on a multilateral swap of nuclear material. Under the terms of this agreement, the United Kingdom will transfer almost 700 kilograms of excess highly enriched uranium from Dounreay to the United States, and in return the United States will send nuclear material to the European Atomic Energy Community, which will be used in the production of essential medical isotopes for use in Britain and European countries. This agreement is ground-breaking and will see nuclear material that we no longer need being exchanged for material that could potentially save many lives.
While we will have to work through the potential implications of Brexit in due course, the importance of nuclear security, as embodied by these amendments, will not be affected. In order to complete this operation in the safest and most secure way, we need to be able to consider all transport options seriously. Without an appropriate regulatory regime, air transport would not be a legitimate option. While we cannot disclose timings or methods of transport that will be used in any future moves of civil nuclear material, the amendments made by these regulations will allow us to consider all potential options.
I sincerely hope that these regulations will be approved, as they will help to ensure that any movement of nuclear material by air is regulated appropriately and carried out securely, and will facilitate the delivery to us of medical isotopes. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order before the Committee. As he has said, the 2003 regulations are to be amended under the powers of the Energy Act 2013 in relation to the security of transporting nuclear material being subject to the oversight and approval of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. This amends the regulations to include transport by air.
Although I am content to approve the order, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, the security of civil nuclear material in transit is a UK obligation under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. However, as I understand it, the amendments which now apply to nuclear material transportation came into effect on 8 May. If this is the case, it appears that we have been in breach of the regulations for the last two months. Will the Minister clarify whether this is the case?
Secondly, it appears from the Explanatory Memorandum that the transport of civil nuclear material by air is uncommon elsewhere, and the memorandum says that the department is unaware of any private sector or civilian transport providers interested in or capable of securely transporting civil nuclear material by air. It is right that the ONR have proper oversight. I was going to ask if I am right in thinking that such occurrences would continue to be rare, but from what the Minister is saying, that is far from the case. Because of the multilateral agreement which he has outlined, there is potentially going to be quite a considerable amount of air transportation of nuclear material. I understand that he cannot give all the details, but perhaps he could at least give a sense of the scale and proportionality of the potential involvement of air transport.
I ask this question because if there are any concerns, they come about from a risk management perspective. In the quadrant of probability and impact, risks from transport by air would be placed in the low probability, high impact quadrant. As noble Lords will know, any air incident is newsworthy; air disruption and atrocities are the favoured target for terrorist groups and nuclear accidents are a major concern for the public. So, addressing the level of the risk, can the Minister say whether the transport of civil nuclear material by air takes place elsewhere in the world? Can he give the Committee any details? If transport by air is being regulated elsewhere, what regulations are applied and how do they compare with the regime here?
If there was an incident, any nuclear fallout from the air would clearly cover a far wider area than would be the case with other forms of transport. Is the Minister satisfied that any contingencies which would have to be implemented have been practised by the relevant authorities and organisations in advance of these changes? While I am on the subject of risk, the noble Lord will know that the issue of normal pension age has been raised by the Civil Nuclear Police Federation, which has argued that the physical and training demands made of its staff should lead to a normal retirement age of 60. I understand that this matter is subject to discussion at the moment and I would be grateful if the Minister could give some information about progress.
Thirdly, can the Minister say whether the transportation of nuclear material by air will be limited to low-grade material only? Will the planes be specifically marked or identifiable such that attention could be drawn to them? Fourthly, what requirements will be placed on the Office for Nuclear Regulation to report to the department on the risks and mitigations that are being taken? Will these regulations be kept under review?
Finally, the Minister will know that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its 2nd Report of Session 2016-17, asked the department a few questions on the regulations which the committee felt had not been adequately answered. When asked for what purpose air transport would take place, the department merely said that the regulations,
“will allow air transportation to be considered as a credible option”.
This perhaps amounts to the answer, “Because we can”. Can the Minister shed more light on why and for what purpose air transportation is now being considered?
I hope that the department will talk to the ONR about the very limited circumstances in which this form of transport should take place, given the risks involved. I hope also that the Minister shares my concern about the need for a proper risk assessment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution and for her support, qualified as it was by some quite legitimate questions.
Although the Civil Nuclear Constabulary pensions issue is perhaps a little off-piste in relation to these regulations, I am happy to say a bit about that situation. As the noble Baroness will know, we have sought to set the pensions arrangements for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary in the light of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, which if I am not mistaken was based on the recommendations in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, who was formerly a distinguished Labour Cabinet Minister. I am unable to say much more than that because she is probably aware of the fact that the matter is currently sub judice while the unions are challenging the matter in the courts. As I understand it, that is the position.
On the regulations, first I can reassure the noble Baroness that the prime concern for the United Kingdom in these matters is, as always, security and safety. Our reputation for nuclear safety and security both in relation to nuclear plants and in relation to the transport of nuclear materials is, I think, unsurpassed. I can also reassure the noble Baroness—I hope that I did not give a contrary impression, but the trouble in bringing forward such regulations for a specific purpose is that the feeling develops that this must be happening an awful lot, whereas that is not the case at all—this will remain the rarest form of transfer of nuclear materials. Transportation by air will be rare and will certainly be rarer than other forms of transport. However, as she indicated, the regulations probably require us to do this. Therefore, it is anticipated that air transportation does occur. The noble Baroness asked whether other states fly nuclear material. The US certainly does and has appropriate regulations in place.
Whether we have been in breach of the convention is perhaps an open point. The convention is perhaps not totally clear on whether we have to cover air, but certainly as we are envisaging that we might want to transport material by air, obviously we would need to. That is the full consideration behind these regulations: it is to ensure that we have the same very strong security regime for the transportation of civil nuclear material by air as we currently have for transportation by land and by sea. Other states do this, as I have indicated. Are there risks? I suppose the honest answer is yes, but the security and safety regime seeks to minimise those. That is why these regulations are important. Obviously, we study very carefully what the Office for Nuclear Regulation advises us.
The noble Baroness asked for specific examples. I think that I have already given some rather specific examples. She will understand that I do not want to give too many, but I mentioned that we are exchanging nuclear material with the US, which will in return provide us with material for medical isotopes, which are, as the noble Baroness knows, quite vital for life and medical research. I am sure that she welcomed that. I would not want to give too many specific examples, but that is certainly one.
I am not sure whether the planes are readily identifiable. I can only imagine that they are not; I am being reassured that that is the case. She will understand, and indeed she indicated as much, that I cannot go into the operational details of precisely how this is all organised. However, just to reassure her, as under successive Governments, nuclear safety and security both at the plants and in the transfer of materials is very much foremost in our minds. I beg to move the regulations.
Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016 and the Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016. These orders form part of the implementation of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. They will come into force on the day after they are made.
Pubs continue to play an important part in the life of this country. They are the hub of local communities in both rural and urban areas, and for many there are few pleasures in life that can compare to a pint, some other drink or, increasingly, a delicious meal with friends in a British pub.
It may be helpful for me to remind your Lordships why we are introducing a statutory pubs code. Tied tenants have for many years argued that their relationship with pub-owning businesses can be unfair. For example, the lack of transparency in reaching decisions on rent can put tenants at a significant disadvantage in challenging increases or negotiating a better rent. Examples are also cited of pub companies failing to meet deadlines or to comply with the contractual processes for the termination of tenancies. After more than 10 years of BIS Select Committee inquiries, Part 4 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which I had the pleasure to take through the House, was brought in to address these concerns. During the passage of the Bill, as some will remember, it became clear in November 2014 that Parliament wished to add the market rent only option to the Bill. That is the option to occupy the pub premises free of tie at market rent. The Government accepted that intent in January 2015. At that stage there was no settled policy on the details of how the MRO process would work. These have ended up accounting for more than half the regulations now before your Lordships—a weighty bundle.
Unfortunately, the tight timetable set down by Parliament contributed to some technical drafting errors in the SIs as originally laid. These have now been corrected and the opportunity has also been taken to add some clarifications to the regulations and to improve the mechanism for assessing what constitutes a significant increase in price for the purposes of triggering the right to request a market rate only option. The Government are very keen to ensure that the code now comes into force as soon as possible. Clearly we regret that it was not possible to meet the May deadline for making the regulations and I am afraid that it will not be possible under the Act for them to have retrospective effect.
The SBEE Act requires us to ensure that the Pubs Code is consistent with the principle that tied tenants of the largest pub-owning businesses are no worse off than free-of-tie tenants and that there is fair and lawful dealing between the largest pub-owning businesses and their tied tenants. At the same time, we have sought to ensure that this takes place without placing undue burdens on businesses. I believe that after many discussions, these regulations now successfully achieve the right balance.
Perhaps I may look first at the processes for the market rent only option and the functions conferred on the Pubs Code Adjudicator to deal with disputes about it. Noble Lords will be aware that this has been an area where, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recognised, the Government have had to reach decisions in the light of often widely varying views expressed through the consultation process. We have sought to balance protections for tenants and obligations on pub-owning businesses. Let me give three examples of how I believe that we have achieved this.
First, the draft regulations provide that the right to an MRO option at rent assessment is not dependent on a proposed rent increase from the pub company to the tenant. This reflects constructive feedback both from your Lordships and from the industry itself that the earlier proposal would have had the unintended consequence of preventing significant numbers of tied tenants from receiving an MRO offer. Secondly, we have also listened carefully to both tenants and pub-owning businesses in finalising the drafting of the significant increase in price provisions. We have, for example, guarded against MRO being triggered simply by a tenant changing their product selection. This has been ensured by stipulating that products must be compared only where they are like-for-like products sold in the same units and based on the same amount sold. Thirdly, we have delivered our commitment in the final March package last year for an investment exception, which at that stage was called the investment waiver. This is important because it is vital for the future of pubs and their tenants that pub owners want to invest in them. In doing so we have taken account of the concerns that were raised during the passage of the SBEE Act that this could become an MRO loophole. Therefore the MRO exception is limited to a maximum of seven years and a minimum investment of twice the pub’s annual rent.
The code addresses many other important aspects of the relationship between tied tenants and pub-owning businesses which I would like to draw to the attention of noble Lords. These include the requirement for tenants to receive a parallel tied rent offer to consider alongside the MRO offer and protections for tied tenants whose pub is sold to a non-code pub-owning business. Transparency is essential for tenants and pub owners. Both parties must be fully aware of what is involved and what they are committing to. But transparency must be backed by the enforcement of fair dealing. A tenant who believes that the pub-owning business has breached the code therefore has the right to refer that alleged breach to the independent Pubs Code Adjudicator, who is appointed to enforce code obligations and empowered to award redress. Of course, we have already ensured in the primary legislation that the pub company receives sufficient notice—21 days—to put things right before a tenant may go ahead with the referral; and we are deterring frivolous or vexatious referrals by requiring a £200 fee for each case.
I turn now to the Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016 which are modelled on those for the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which noble Lords will remember. The fees and costs provisions largely mirror the arbitration or mediation arrangements in the existing industry voluntary code. Financial penalties are not an aspect of that voluntary code and may be imposed by the adjudicator after an investigation. This is distinct from the arbitration arrangements where the only financial awards are for redress and costs. The regulations specify a maximum penalty of 1% of a pub-owning business’s annual UK turnover in respect of investigations.
The adjudicator has complete discretion as to whether he imposes a financial penalty and in what amount, up to the maximum stipulated. The nature and effect of the breaches will inform the exercise of that discretion. Accordingly, I expect the maximum to be applied only in extreme cases for very serious breaches of the code. The adjudicator must consult on the criteria that he intends to adopt in deciding the amount of any penalty he may choose to impose.
I make no bones about the fact that the code is 52 pages long and covers a lot of issues. As anyone who has followed its birth and early years must know, tied pub relationships are multifaceted and not always straightforward. The Pubs Code before you, despite its length, is proportionate and balanced in its approach and will lead to greater prosperity for those who work in our great British pubs industry. I commend these draft orders to the Committee.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I want to draw attention to some concerns expressed about the Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016 by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am a member. The concerns are set out in full in the fourth report of the current Session and I shall touch on the most important of them.
As my noble friend said, the regulations would alter the obligations on pub-owning businesses towards the tenants of their tied pubs. Under Section 43 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, the regulations must include provision for a tenant to be offered a market rent-only option. Section 43(6)(c) requires the regulations to provide that option to be offered where there is a significant increase in the price at which a product or service subject to the tie is supplied to the tied pub tenant and where that increase was not reasonably foreseeable when the tenancy was granted.
Regulation 24 among those before us today requires that the market rent-only option be offered where there is a significant increase of that kind irrespective of whether the increase was reasonably foreseeable. Moreover, Regulations 3 to 6 provide that the test of whether an increase in price is significant is to be determined by reference not to the amount by which the particular product or service has increased in price but to the level of increase in price of a category of products or services.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments concluded—the salient paragraphs in the report are 4.9 to 4.17—that the regulations do not comply with the requirements of Section 43 of the 2015 Act in two respects: they do not include the condition of reasonable foreseeability and the test of significant increase is inconsistent with what Section 43 requires. The department has not provided a satisfactory explanation of either of these two divergences from Section 43 and, therefore, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considers that if the regulations are made there is a doubt whether Regulations 3 to 6 and 8 are intra vires. I would be grateful for my noble friend’s comments.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, getting up feels almost like it does at the bell before last orders—I confess that I am insufficiently capable of such a witticism and have to acknowledge my noble friend Lord Beecham for that observation. We welcome the introduction of the Pubs Code etc. Regulations and the Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations.
This has been a very long and drawn-out process, and in fact as I was listening to the Minister I realised that I could mouth half the words of the introduction to her speech because we have been at this for some time. However, I am grateful for all the work that has been done by officials in making sure that we get to this particular place. It has not happened within the timetable that everyone wanted, but it is more important to get the code right than to serve an arbitrary timetable. I will turn to the issues around the timetable in due course.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this surprisingly brief debate—the briefest ever, I think, on the subject of pubs. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for the joke that he passed to his colleague about the bell for last orders. I just hope that this is not my last order in the business brief, given the momentous events of the last few days. I will be very glad to put pubs to bed in this stage of regulation.
I very much concur with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, to see speedy implementation, which is why we are planning to introduce the regulations the day after they are made if noble Lords are happy here; there are debates in the Commons tomorrow and on Monday. Subject to parliamentary approval, we will be making the regulations ahead of the Summer Recess and in a minute I will talk about our plans for the adjudicator.
In passing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for always looking at this from an economic, industry point of view. I actually rather miss my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who usually engages in debate and ensures that we are thinking about the economic side. It is very important that pubs flourish. They are changing and obviously they will have to face a post-Brexit situation. The consumer climate is very important to them. So it is good news for pubs that we now have the certainty of a new Prime Minister, rather than uncertainty dragging on for several weeks.
The noble Lord asked about the review provisions. We will, as I have said already, keep a close eye on the operation of the code to make sure that it is delivering its objectives. There is, as he suggested, a statutory review of the code, which has to take place by March 2019 and every three years thereafter. That is rather more frequent than some of the regulations that we discuss in this House and we will be keeping an eye on the code to ensure it continues to deliver fairness and the other objectives that I set out in my opening remarks. Obviously, the department and, I am sure, the Minister of the day would be involved in any such review.
Turning to the Pubs Code Adjudicator and his role in interpretation, I saw him last week to make sure that plans were in place and that he was getting ahead. I was glad to see that he was because obviously he needs to be ready for day one. He is planning to consult and publish guidance in line with his statutory duties as outlined in Section 61(1) of the SBEE Act in relation to the conduct of investigations and any resulting financial penalties. He will do that by 2 November this year and over time he will consider whether other guidance or interpretive support may be required. Obviously, he intends to work with stakeholders to help determine this.
In relation to the penalties, as I said in my opening remarks, there is flexibility for the adjudicator. It is a high maximum penalty but it is entirely at his discretion. He will consult on his criteria so that stakeholders can inform his thinking.
It was an honour to hear from my noble friend Lord Lexden and I never cease to marvel at the skill and detail that the JCSI lends to this kind of thing—it keeps us honest. If you get one of the reports through the post, you know that it is really well worth a read, including this one. I will try to answer my noble friend’s concerns and if for any reason he is not happy I hope we can discuss the matter further. The reference in the SBEE Act as to whether the increase was reasonably foreseeable does not limit the power the Government have to define the MRO trigger. This was recognised in the JCSI report and parliamentary counsel confirmed this for us. Following consultation in 2015 and 2016, the Government have ensured that the regulations provide for increases that were not reasonably foreseeable, and other significant price increases.
My noble friend’s second point was about the significant increase in the price of a single product category. The regulation provides that the test for the SIIP trigger is an increase in at least one product or service. It is the Government’s view that the test of whether or not an increase is significant should be assessed through a comparison of price changes across a range of relevant products, not just the one.
I believe that the Pubs Code is bringing fairness and transparency to an industry that has been troubled by poor relationships between too many tied tenants and their pub-owning businesses for too many years. It brings statutory rights, protections and responsibilities where the voluntary approach has sadly failed to make sufficient headway. Above all, it brings hope and confidence to a sector very much in need of it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his appreciation of the staff who have been involved in the arduous work on this important reform of pub law. Assuming that Parliament approves our orders, we will be drinking to the pub order next week. I commend these draft orders to the Committee.
Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016.
Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this draft order was laid before this House on 8 June 2016. If approved, it will create the position of mayor for the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority—also known as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority—with the first election to be held in May 2017, and set the first mayoral term for a duration of three years, with the next election in May 2020, with subsequent four-year terms.
The Conservative Party committed in its manifesto to,
“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors”.
To give effect to this commitment, the Government passed the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act earlier this year. As I set out to the House during the passage of that enabling legislation, the Government have introduced clauses to allow directly elected mayors for combined authorities because devolution of the ambition and scale set out in the manifesto requires strong and clear accountability and leadership. It is therefore considered necessary that where major powers and budgets are being devolved, local people know who is responsible for decisions. Mayoral governance offers a proven model for effective local leadership, which has worked around the world.
Turning to the Liverpool city region, this order is a milestone in the implementation of the two devolution deals agreed between the Government and local leaders. It follows the establishment of the combined authority on 1 April 2014, from which time it has been serving the Liverpool city region, bringing together across the area the closely interconnected issues of transport, economic development and regeneration.
On 17 November 2015 the Government and the combined authority announced a devolution agreement which provided an offer of powers and budgets from the Government on the basis that the area will deliver certain reforms and measures, including adopting a directly elected mayor covering the whole combined authority area. This agreement included that the mayor for the Liverpool city region would individually exercise some functions in relation to transport and strategic planning.
The combined authority has taken on responsibility for: devolved funding—£30 million a year over 30 years for the Liverpool city region; control of the devolved 19-plus adult skills funding by 2018-19; joint responsibility with the Government to co-design employment support for harder-to-help claimants; and a devolved approach to business support from 2017, to be developed in partnership with the Government. On 16 March this year, the combined authority and the Government additionally agreed: early adoption of the government pilot for 100% business rate retention in the combined authority’s area, starting in 2017-18; additional new powers over transport; and further commitments for the area and the Government to work together on children’s services, health, housing and justice.
In delivering the full range of commitments in the devolution deal, the Secretary of State intends, subject to statutory requirements and parliamentary approval, to make further orders to implement the deal. Subsequent orders will include the transfer of budgets and powers in planning, transport, education and skills.
On 24 June 2016, the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority published a governance review and scheme, which sets out the constitutional changes to the combined authority and the functions of the mayor as the area assumes control of additional budgets and powers from the Government. The combined authority is currently consulting local citizens and stakeholders on the contents of these documents and will issue a report on its findings to the Secretary of State later this year.
The draft order establishes a mayor for the Liverpool city region and sets the dates of elections and the first and subsequent term lengths. It is laid before Parliament following the statutory process specified in the 2009 Act, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act. As required, all the constituent councils have consented to this order being made and the Government have laid the draft order, having had consideration of the statutory requirements. As required, we are now seeking Parliament’s approval before making the order.
The order is about delivering devolution and empowering local authorities to set their own policy agendas. The order provides enhanced local leadership in the form of a directly elected mayor with a strong democratic mandate and independence from the combined authority. The mayor will work closely with local leaders, who will sit on the combined authority board, and together they will drive forward the economic opportunities presented by devolution, with the mayor acting as chairman of the combined authority and providing a single voice for the area that can be both prominent nationally and help drive the devolution agenda.
As noble Lords may recall, during the passage of the enabling legislation there was debate on the necessity of mayors in devolving powers to local areas. The Government have made clear their stance on the necessity of mayors. However, they are not alone in this belief. Research commissioned by the Centre for Cities in May 2016 found that members of the public across five devolution deal areas supported the notion that directly elected mayors should have greater powers than council leaders.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
It may benefit the Committee if I make the point that the Minister is asking the Committee to consider the Tees Valley order at the same time as the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral order. If the Committee agrees, I will put the question on the second order formally after we have completed the first debate.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As she rightly pointed out, this is one of the stages in the establishment of mayoral combined authorities.
First, will the Minister confirm that, once this order is agreed by Parliament, there will be a mayoral election on 4 May 2017? I ask because, as the Minister herself said, paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that:
“The Government will seek Parliament’s approval later in 2016 to further secondary legislation necessary to devolve the powers and budgets to the Combined Authority, as agreed in devolution deal”.
Can she confirm that there will be a mayoral election even if there is no agreement on the content of the devolution deal? It presupposes, first, that later this year the authorities making up the combined authority will finally agree with the Government and that there will be no changes by the establishment of a new Government, and, secondly, that Parliament itself will agree to the orders. I would like clarification on that.
The Minister will recall that, in our debates during the passage of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, a great deal was said about the scrutiny and audit arrangements. Those grew in importance between Committee and Report and between Report and Third Reading. It was generally agreed that the arrangements initially proposed in the Bill were inadequate and some improvements were made. I draw the Minister’s attention to the report of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, Cities and Local Growth, published on 1 July, just a few days ago. In the summary, on page 3, it states that:
“There has been insufficient consideration by central government of local scrutiny arrangements of accountability to the taxpayer and of the capacity and capability needs of local and central government as a result of devolution”.
I also subscribe to that view. Is it possible for the Government to set out the reply they will make to the Public Accounts Committee alongside the next stage of parliamentary approval of the detailed arrangements of powers and resources for both mayoral combined authorities? Recommendation 8 of the Public Accounts Committee says, very specifically, that:
“Government should set out by November 2016 its plans for how it will ensure that local scrutiny of devolved functions and funding will be both robust and well supported”.
I would like to think that, when we get to the next stage of considering the arrangements for these combined authorities, we will have a response to this very specific point which the committee raised.
The Minister will recall that, during the passage of the Bill, I and my colleagues made a number of comments about the scale of responsibilities for an elected mayor within a mayoral combined authority. It is a big geographical area and it is a wide set of responsibilities. We queried the capacity of an individual person to do so much across all the areas that the Minister has described; in this case, it is transport, strategic planning, adult skills, employment support, business support, a business rate retention pilot, joint working with Her Majesty’s Government on children’s services, health, housing and justice. That is a very wide range of tasks for one person to be formally responsible for, even though the combined authority as a whole will have some shared responsibilities. Is the Minister confident about the structure being set up, not least because of the concerns of the Public Accounts Committee? It has identified a range of issues that in most cases we considered during the passage of the Bill some months ago, and the problems and the questions have not gone away.
I welcome the Tees Valley Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order and I congratulate Tees Valley on getting on with the process of devolving power to its mayoral combined authority, and in particular for overtaking the North East Combined Authority, which seems to have suspended discussions with the Government pending the election of the new Prime Minister. That is now going to be sooner than perhaps the authority had anticipated. I noted in the Minister’s introduction, unless I misheard her, that a number of further orders for areas such as South Yorkshire and the West Midlands are said to be forthcoming, but I do not recall any mention of the North East Combined Authority in that list. Assuming that I heard her correctly, can she clarify what the position is given that the order has been placed before Parliament for consideration? Is it delayed, over what timescale is it delayed, and is there still any potential, given the legal requirements, to hold a mayoral election in May if it is delayed much longer?
I have raised a number of issues for the Minister to respond to. Devolution is a positive thing, but she will understand that throughout this process we have expressed a whole range of doubts about the structures which are being established and the democratic accountability that lies within the process.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
I would like to inform the noble Lord, and possibly the Minister, about the situation with regard to the North East Combined Authority. It was originally thought that we would be taking that either this week or next week, but now it will be taken in September. It is not quite ready, as it happens, so next week would be difficult. My understanding is that it will be taken in September during the two weeks that we are back.
Lord Shipley
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I hope that we will have a chance to consider the plans for the North East Combined Authority in the House of Lords.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I think that devolution is a positive thing. I like the constituent boroughs that are designated in the order—Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral—and I support the Motion before the Grand Committee today.
For 18 years I served in another place as a Member of Parliament for a Liverpool constituency, but before that, from 1972 I served as a member of Liverpool City Council, and from 1973 as a member of the now defunct Merseyside County Council. I have always strongly supported subsidiarity and decentralisation along with the devolution of powers. I believe that robust decision-making done at the closest possible level serves democracy well. Moreover, it helps to address the disconnect that we see between our elected representatives and the communities they are supposed to serve. Noble Lords would expect someone who cut his teeth as a community politician to say that, but the municipalism of Joseph Chamberlain and Disraeli’s dictum that centralisation is the death of democracy illustrate that there is a distinguished and long tradition of men and women who have served and believe in local government, and some of them are present in the Committee today.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I was interested that at the beginning we were talking about Tees Valley, but for the Liverpool city region we talk about the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority. I cast my mind back to the coalition Government, when the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I argued for the Liverpool city region to have that title, as it wanted. The then Secretary of State was adamant that this was not going to be the case. The then Minister said, “What’s in a name? If you want to call yourself the Liverpool city region, feel free to do so, but the official title will be the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority”. Perhaps we could revisit that at some stage.
Lord Storey
Names are important to localities. Names are places.
I want to pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Shipley. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the Public Accounts Committee’s Cities and Local Growth report. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly said, it is really important that we get accountability and scrutiny right. To reiterate the points that have been made, because I think they need underlining, the report says about the current arrangements with the combined authorities:
“We are not confident that existing arrangements for the scrutiny at local level of devolved functions are either robust enough or well supported. Robust and independent scrutiny of the value for money of devolved activities is essential”.
The report also says, on local scrutiny:
“Where powers, responsibilities and funding are devolved from the centre, it is vital that there is adequate local scrutiny of these devolved activities”.
I know that there will be independent scrutiny of the metro mayor, but I cast my mind back to when Liverpool decided to go for an elected mayor. Does the Minister know that the Mayor of Liverpool decided to abolish scrutiny and that, at a stroke, scrutiny was abolished? Before that, scrutiny was carried out by a councillor from a minority party who was on the payroll. Presumably, that member might have been looking over their shoulder and thinking, “Well, I’m on the payroll. If my scrutiny offends, will I still be on it?”.
It is vital that any scrutiny is completely separate and independent: it should not be the preserve or appointment of the metro mayor, and the person doing it should be independently appointed according to the Nolan principles so that they have the freedom to act and to scrutinise. I hope that the Minister will confirm that scrutiny arrangements will be robust. Indeed, this important report says the very same thing about the support needed for scrutiny.
The Minister referred to consultation with residents. Can she tell us how the city region is carrying out such consultation? I am a Liverpool resident and have not at any stage been consulted. I have not seen a website, a leaflet or an advertisement in the local newspapers. I would be interested to know how consultation is taking place.
My party and I have always been in favour of elected mayors, not for districts but for conurbations. The name is not important—what is in a name? It is not about whether it is a leader or a mayor. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly said, it is about the responsibilities that such a person has; it is about their functions; and it is about the finance and the funding that are made available. I hope that we might also look back at the situation we are now left with on Merseyside. In Liverpool, we could have a Lord Mayor of Liverpool, a Mayor of Liverpool and a metro mayor of the city region, which is a bit confusing. Would it not be a good idea to have leaders for all the districts and a metro mayor in their own right?
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, it might surprise some people in the Room that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. I was in local government for 25 years and a council leader before I arrived as an MP in the other place. I am in favour of decentralisation and devolution, but I have three main concerns.
The first is on democracy. It is quite strange that we are imposing a mayoral system on the people of Merseyside without even asking them whether they want one. I would have thought that with the Government’s commitment to localism the very least they should have done is give the people of Merseyside the opportunity to say whether they wanted a mayoral system. Quite frankly, we have gone past that, but I remind the Committee that the proposal does not have consent and people are suspicious about how it will work out. It would have been much better had we sought the agreement of the people of Merseyside before we entered into this arrangement.
The second concern is about accountability. The lessons from Liverpool are that great thought needs to be given to accountability within the new mayoral system. I find it strange that in Liverpool the mayor, who obviously has the powers of the mayor, is also leader of the council and the person who decides who goes on what committee, and I understand that to a great extent he is selecting councillors. That is appalling, quite frankly. To put that level of power in one individual is unacceptable, and I hope that the Government will look at the situation in Liverpool. When they are building a system for mayors in Merseyside and Manchester, they should make sure that proper scrutiny and accountability are built into the system.
I listened carefully to the Mayor of London when he made his last speech in that capacity and said that he believed that the system was open to corruption. He had obviously identified gaps in the system and wanted it to be strengthened. I hope that the Minister can say something about that today but that she will also go away and think about the sorts of powers that individuals will be given. If there is not adequate scrutiny, we will have a corruption problem in time. I hope we will address that.
My final concern is about funding. I think that people are expecting—and the Mayor of Liverpool has made great play of this—extra resources to come to the region if we have a mayoral system. We know that some of the biggest cuts that have taken place in public expenditure have been in Merseyside and Manchester. If the Government want to succeed in regenerating the north-west, and to use the mayoral system in Merseyside and Manchester to achieve that, they will have to provide some extra resources, because quite frankly they will be doomed to fail unless they have adequate resources to deal with the problems of the north/south divide and the infrastructure that needs to go in.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about High Speed 2. I said in the other place when it was announced that I would be more likely to travel in the TARDIS from Manchester than on High Speed 2, because I do not believe it will ever get to Manchester. A lot of credibility needs to be built up by the Government. I hope that they will provide the extra resources that will be needed to make sure that the mayoral system is successful in Manchester and Merseyside. I wish it well and I hope we can address some of the issues I have raised.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we are in the slightly unusual position of having no fewer than seven former council leaders gathered together here, including the noble Baroness the Minister. I do not know what the collective noun for such a group would be. Perhaps I may suggest a redundancy of council leaders, because—let us face it—most of us, or most of our successors, are finding their position extremely limited these days.
We are engaged in something of an experiment. It is an interesting experiment, as most of us have acknowledged, with considerable potential but with certain concerns which have already been voiced both in this debate and on previous occasions. The issues are very broad, but they cannot be addressed simply by the imposition of a mayoral system. Many of us feel that there should have been a local decision to adopt that system. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I were on opposite sides of a referendum in Newcastle for having an elected mayor for the city. His successor was the Liberal Group Leader on Newcastle City Council who I formed an unlikely coalition with and which turned out to be successful in securing a no vote. But we now have a situation where Newcastle, if the North East Combined Authority goes ahead, will have an elected mayor imposed and in the Tees Valley area we already have an elected mayor in Middlesbrough. However, we have an authority which, having had an elected mayor, then decided to get rid of him and the position in Hartlepool, and yet they are going to be faced with that requirement. It is interesting that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the Government what consultation had been carried out about these proposals and the Government replied that Ministers had indicated that the:
“Passage of legislation, is founded on the longstanding tradition of representative democracy in this country. The matters covered in these Orders have been consented to by the democratically elected representatives of the people of Liverpool City Region, and of the Tees Valley”.
Accordingly they said:
“Those giving consent will have done so in the knowledge that they are democratically accountable through the ballot box to the people of Liverpool City Region and of Tees Valley, and we can be confident that they will have engaged with their constituents in such ways as they consider appropriate”.
That is a very high-sounding affirmation of the belief in local democracy. Oddly enough, the principle does not seem to extend to the decisions which councils can take about the services they deliver. They are being constantly eroded. We are now seeing further moves to distance local authorities from the provision of education and we have seen similar moves elsewhere. More particularly, of course, we have the financial position of local authorities, which are rigorously and vigorously constrained in the exercise of their functions. For example, the vaunted democracy about which the Government boast did not extend to allowing councils to increase council tax by more than 2% without a referendum. That was not a decision they were deemed competent to make. We have of course seen similar erosions of responsibility in other areas.
On the financial side in particular there is significant loss of resources to authorities involved in the devolution process. The National Audit Office report sets this out very clearly. We hear much about the additional funding, which in the case of a number of areas will amount to £30 million a year over 30 years, or £900 million, which sounds like a great deal of money. That sum will be paid into the Liverpool City region. A smaller amount, because it is a smaller area, of £15 million a year and therefore £450 million will go into the Tees Valley area. It sounds impressive, but then we must look at what is currently being spent. Total capital spending—this is what the money will be for—in the Liverpool City region now is £312 million a year. In addition, £44 million under the annual local growth fund is payable to the LEP, which is obviously also concerned with that infrastructure. Therefore the total amount in the Liverpool area is something over £350 million, so £30 million distributed between all those authorities amounts to something like 8% of what is currently being spent on capital programmes. The position is similar in Tees Valley where the total capital spend of local authorities and the LEP is just under £190 million. It will get £15 million, which obviously is something like 7.5% of what is currently being spent. The financial investment that is being made and boasted about in connection with this project is minimal.
On business rates, I think the Government are still consulting on what needs to happen with them. It is all very well to say that local authorities will be able to keep business rates, but in both Merseyside and Tees Valley areas—I suspect particularly in those areas—the business rate income will be pretty minimal relative to the population and in comparison with other authorities. Presumably there has to be some kind of mechanism for redistribution. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to indicate how far the talks have progressed, and she may not wish to tell us or not be able to tell us what the outcome will be. However, where are we as regards the timetable for coming out with a clear position on how the business rates will be redistributed, if there is a need for, as surely there has to be, an element of redistribution? As it happens, it appears that in some areas we will go into this new system and committing to it without even knowing what the timetable is for when the business rate agenda will be addressed. Surely that is extremely unsatisfactory.
The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about scrutiny is valid. There has to be local scrutiny and it ought to be built into local arrangements. We provided according to my suggestion for an audit committee under the legislation which would give some measure of independent scrutiny, and those who have been calling both today and hitherto for an effective scrutiny process are obviously right to do so.
But of course there is then the question, given that business rates will be the only locally raised revenue, of what happens to the services not merely of the combined authority but also of the constituent local authorities since revenue support grant will no longer be paid. Surely the two things have to be aligned if local services and the devolved functions are to be delivered adequately. I refer again without making any apologies for doing so to the regret that I and others have voiced about the abolition in the early days of the coalition Government of regional offices of government, never mind the regional development agencies. As the noble Baroness will recall, the abolition of regional government offices changed a system which had worked well in providing a close working relationship between Government departments and local authorities. In each region virtually all the Government departments were represented, engaging with local authorities and operating as a conduit between Whitehall and those areas. Now that we are creating these potentially powerful mayoral authorities, it seems to be even more important that there should be a local dialogue which can facilitate a closer working relationship between central and local government.
I have a final question to raise about the position of police and crime commissioners. The understanding is that it will be possible—indeed, Manchester has already opted for this—to have the police and crime commissioner position combined with that of the elected mayor. The next Prime Minister in her current position, which will last for another 24 hours or thereabouts, was keen to promote the notion that fire authorities should go down the same route as police and crime commissioners. Does the noble Baroness have any thoughts or information about how that process might develop and whether the Government are currently working on proposals which would add fire authorities to the police service? Perhaps we will have to wait to hear what the new Prime Minister says, but is it the Government’s expectation, and possibly their political direction, that the new mayors will have as a matter of course that combined power or even just the police and crime commissioner power? That raises in my mind and I suspect in those of others both here and elsewhere some really strong concerns about the concentration of power in such sensitive areas in what will be effectively a single pair of hands, something that many would consider to be undesirable.
Clearly we want to see the new system being given a chance to work and we want local decision-making to be effective at addressing the different situations that face each group of local authorities, but that cannot happen in my submission without adequate financial resources and without the Government preparing not simply to offload these responsibilities, but actually engaging with what will in effect be two levels of local government to secure the improvements that they talk about wanting to see and which are desperately needed in so many parts of the country.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made a variety of points on the order. Perhaps I may apologise to noble Lords for being late. I was happily having a cup of tea with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I did not hear my phone ringing to say that our business had started. I apologise to noble Lords for being a little late.
I shall start with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He asked if I could confirm the election of a mayor in 2017. Once the order is made, a mayoral election will be held on 4 May 2017 and if further orders are not agreed, the mayor will be elected and he or she will chair the combined authority, but will have no powers to exercise individually. The combined authority will have only its existing functions; that will be the situation if further orders are not agreed from now on in.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Yes. We can argue about more so, but I do not think it is one or the other. We must have both. Practically all noble Lords made the point about overview and scrutiny arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked whether the mayor could possibly abolish them. All combined authorities, including mayoral combined authorities, must have one or more overview and scrutiny committees and an audit committee to hold both the mayor and the authority to account. We will be bringing forward an order for Parliament to consider regarding overview and scrutiny arrangements for combined authorities.
I will outline what the obligations are under the combined authorities. They must establish at least one overview and scrutiny committee. This will be chaired by an independent person or a member of a constituent council who is not of the political party of the constituent councils. Their role will be to review and scrutinise decisions made and action taken by the mayor and the combined authority. An overview and scrutiny committee may require the mayor, the members and officers of the authority to attend and answer questions before it. This requirement must be complied with. They can call in decisions and recommend that they are reconsidered or reviewed, during which time a decision cannot be implemented. Further provisions to strengthen the role of overview and scrutiny committees will be made through secondary legislation and the orders giving effect to devolution deals.
I turn to the audit committee: we have spent quite a lot of time discussing both types of committee during the passage of the Bill. The combined authorities must also establish an audit committee, which must include at least one independent member. It can make reports and recommendations to the combined authority on financial affairs, risk management, internal control, corporate governance arrangements, and the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the use of resources. Further provisions to strengthen the roles of audit committees will be made by order.
Lord Storey
Who will appoint the independent chair from the minor party or parties?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It says that the chair could be an independent person or a member of a constituent council who is not of the political party of the mayor.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am making the assumption that they will be appointed in the usual way that public appointments are made in local authorities, in accordance with Nolan principles.
Lord Storey
Could the Minister write to me about that, and the funding issue?
Lord Shipley
It is a very important issue, because there is a danger that the majority party will, in reality, be responsible for the appointment of the independent chair. We are seeking reassurance that, if the Nolan procedures are to be followed, they require an open procedure, not simply a council or the leaders in a combined authority making a decision on which member of the minority parties is to be appointed as independent chair.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We did discuss this and agreed that that should be the case. It would make a mockery of the process if there was any appearance or evidence of bias of that kind. If it would be helpful, I will write to noble Lords from the Committee to outline the process and will place a copy in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked me how Liverpool is conducting its consultation. It is on the regional combined authority website and is being promoted locally. It started on 24 June this year and the closing date is 5 August, so the noble Lord has time to respond.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked for examples of resources being made available, in this case to Tees Valley. I understand that Tees Valley Combined Authority’s single pot provides an assurance framework for £226 million of flexible Section 31 grant funding with a confirmed five-year profile. He made the point—as he often does—about local authorities having to make ever more efficiency savings and asked how they would have enough capacity to deliver some of the things being devolved down. It is envisaged that local growth will in many ways—particularly if you look at things like the devolution of health and social care—be a big saving to the public purse and ultimately help in local authorities’ budgets. However, these are all things that are being devolved down that local authorities would not have had previously. So I am very confident that local authorities will see themselves in a better, not a worse, position. He also asked about business rates and he is right: we are currently consulting on the future of business rates and we have made it clear that there will continue to be some form of top-up and tariff. However, I think that a date for decision is yet to be determined, but I shall let him know when it is. I am assuming that it will be by the end of this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Watts, asked what the Government are doing to ensure that the mayoral system is not open to corruption, which I think is a very good question in the context of some of the things that we have seen previously in local authorities. Not only will there be rigorous scrutiny arrangements—which never existed in the 1980s—as provided by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, but there will be requirements for transparency; that is, meetings in public, which again did not exist back in the 1980s and were not introduced in local authorities until relatively recently. Moreover, conduct requirements, which we did not have back in the day—things like declarations of interest—will apply to combined authorities. I hope that gives the noble Lord some comfort.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the PCC and fire functions. It is for local areas to propose where they think it would be efficient and effective for the mayor to take on PCC and fire functions. In terms of the new Prime Minister and her previous keenness for fire functions, I really do not know. I have been asked a lot about what the new Prime Minister thinks and I really do not know. I am sure all will be revealed in the next few days.
Tees Valley Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tees Valley Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016.
House of Lords
Crown Dependencies
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the Governments of the Crown dependencies about the dependencies’ relationships with other countries and with the European Union.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks)
My Lords, regular dialogue happens between the UK Government and the Crown dependencies at both ministerial and official level across a range of issues, including Crown dependencies’ interests in relation to the EU and other countries. This has become especially important in the light of the result of the EU referendum, and on 27 June the Prime Minister confirmed that the Crown dependencies will be consulted on any new negotiation with the European Union.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, although the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not in the EU, they benefit from the single market in goods. They also have a pressing need to conclude bilateral investment treaties with a number of third countries. Given the huge task facing UK negotiators, what mechanism will be put in place to ensure that Crown dependency interests are not lost sight of in EU negotiations? In order that third country treaty negotiations do not grind to a halt, will more use be made of letters of entrustment, so that they can get on with the job themselves?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord has had a continued interest in the Crown dependencies: as chair of the Justice Select Committee, he wrote an influential report and a subsequent report in 2014, in which he applauded the response of the UK Government to the challenges that the Crown dependencies threw up. As the Prime Minister said, we are most concerned to ensure that the Crown dependencies’ interests are reflected in any negotiation. We are also anxious to encourage letters of entrustment where appropriate, to ensure that those interests are recognised in all treaties. There was a 2007-08 agreement which paved the way for such arrangements.
Lord Watts (Lab)
What would the effect of our leaving the European Union be on Gibraltar’s borders?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, there will be no immediate change in the way Gibraltar’s people can travel, or how its services can be sold. The Government are most anxious to maintain the Gibraltar-Spain border: it is one of our top priorities. As for the details, I am afraid that, as with so many things in this negotiation, we will have to wait.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I, too, want to ask about Gibraltar. Obviously it is not a Crown dependency, but naturally there is a great deal of concern in Gibraltar, whose inhabitants voted remain, not only about the economy but also that Spain will be emboldened to press its sovereign claim. How will the Government protect the interests of Gibraltar in all those dimensions?
Lord Faulks
As the noble Baroness says, Gibraltar is not a Crown dependency—the subject of this Question. None the less, the Government of Gibraltar have put forward some specific ideas for ensuring that trade will continue between the UK and Gibraltar, and we look on this matter as a priority. We also continue to uphold sovereignty over British Gibraltarian territorial waters by challenging and protesting all incursions, and we are continually monitoring the situation. We will continue to do so, and the long-term aim is to return to the trilateral forum for dialogue between the UK, Spain and Gibraltar.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
As regards the Channel Islands, I declare an interest as chairman of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission. The Minister enjoys a very high reputation in the islands and is known to be a friend of them. I know how much trouble the disagreement caused by Defra over the Guernsey fisheries agreement caused him and the MoJ last year. Putting that to one side and looking ahead to the post-EU world, does he accept that Channel Islands Governments will have the constitutional right to legislate on such matters as fisheries in future, and to take greater control over their international agreements?
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Of course, we do our best to maintain the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the Crown dependencies. I spoke to all the Chief Ministers on the day of the referendum and attended the APPG meeting. We are anxious to ensure that the relationship is secured for the future. Of course, the noble Lord is aware of the fisheries dispute with Guernsey. That is the subject of litigation, so I cannot comment further on it. As I said earlier in answers to questions, we are anxious that there should be an appropriate degree of autonomy, and that each of the Crown dependencies should be able to secure matters that are in their interests. Of course, how matters finally turn out following the conclusion of our negotiations is difficult to predict with exactitude.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, among the first batch of non-member territories expected to receive AIFM passporting towards the end of this year are Guernsey and, I believe, Jersey, as well as Hong Kong and the USA. Does the Minister feel that if that goes ahead it could be an extremely helpful precedent for this country when potentially negotiating passporting?
Lord Faulks
Passporting is extremely important. Negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the EU have not started and we should not assume their outcome. However, we are acutely aware of how important passporting rights for financial services are everywhere.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the House will be reassured by the Government’s solicitous concern for the dependencies but sometimes it seems to be somewhat one-way traffic. We are concerned about their interests but to what extent do they fulfil their obligations to concern themselves with British interests, particularly on the question of successful taxation of multinational global companies, and the whole issue of their taxation regimes in relation to ours?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, in April, the Government secured an agreement with finance centres in the Crown dependencies of Jersey and the Isle of Man—Guernsey is yet to sign—to provide the UK law enforcement and tax authorities with unrestricted and near-real-time access to information on beneficial ownership of companies from a central register. This is part of the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption drive. They are playing their part and it is important that they do so.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have asked repeatedly in this House for a regular air service to start to one of our overseas dependent territories—namely, St Helena—but on each occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has said, “Come and see officials in my office”? I have been in touch with her office and she says that they cannot see me before October. As a distinguished lawyer and well-respected Minister, will the noble Lord use his good offices to find out how I can get an answer?
Lord Faulks
It is very difficult to refuse the noble Lord anything. I will, of course, speak to my ministerial colleague and try to ensure that appropriate meetings take place when they can.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have specific relations with the Irish Republic through our treaties that were developed as part of the peace process in 1998, and that those relationships would need to be dealt with separately, as well as the relationships with the rest of the European Union? Are the Government aware of the significance and sensitivity of these relationships, and that they should be preserved at all costs?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord identifies one of an immensely complicated set of relationships which need to be considered in the renegotiation. I accept that this is a matter that ought to be communicated to those with responsibility for the negotiations.
Wales: Economic Investment Projects
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Government of Wales in relation to the financing of economic investment projects in Wales from 2020 onwards.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)
My Lords, Ministers regularly meet to discuss issues relating to the economy of Wales. The role and ambition of the Welsh Government in economic investment in Wales is clearly important. They are responsible for a significant proportion of capital spending in Wales, with £8.7 billion of capital block grant funding up to 2020-21. Through the Wales Act 2014, they are gaining new tax and borrowing powers that can be used to further increase investment.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, with your indulgence, may I thank people in every party and of no party and in all parts of these islands for the warm support given to Wales in the recent Euro 2016 tournament? This is already bringing an economic spin-off for Wales by way of a surge in tourist inquiries.
As the Government are committed to delivering Brexit, will the Minister confirm that they will also honour the commitments on which the Brexit vote was secured, including the vow that the European structural funds from which Wales is currently benefiting will be fully replaced by UK Treasury funding?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, as a keen football supporter, let me also add my congratulations on the performance of Wales. I look forward to Manchester United signing some of those players. On the specific question from the noble Lord, that is a matter for the next Prime Minister. What has been committed to in the specific deals between this Government and the various places, particularly Cardiff city, will of course be stood behind.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, if I could put a figure on it, £0.5 billion a year of EU investment funds are coming to Wales. Surely the Government will take note of the fact that those who were in favour of Brexit said it was “our” money, and not EU money. Perhaps we can have some of “our” money in the future. Will the Minister guarantee that?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I suspect that this will be a rather repetitious session. It will be a decision for the new Prime Minister. Wales is not the only place in the United Kingdom that is in this position, and there are many others that we have to consider.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will recall that in the last Parliament we legislated for access to infrastructure investment so that projects could have access to the Government’s capacity to borrow at relatively very low rates. Can he tell us to what extent Wales has been able to access that facility for projects in Wales?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the legislation that is currently being discussed in the other place makes provision for the Welsh Government to use income taxes to give themselves a lot more leeway to spend and invest in the way that they see fit.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, one of the major investment projects in Wales is the Swansea lagoon, which is pending and has been delayed on a number of occasions. Can the Minister indicate whether there will be further delays to this valuable project?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I have two quick answers. First, there are many investment projects that have, in principle, been committed to all over the United Kingdom, not just in Wales. Secondly, I am unaware of any specific delay on anything that has been agreed with respect to the Swansea tidal lagoon plant.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recollect that, when the devolution legislation was going through Parliament about 20 years ago, solemn undertakings were given by the Government of the day, with regard to concordances between the Government and the Welsh Assembly, which were to operate in those fields which had not been transferred? Can he tell the House whether those bodies are alive and active, and if so, will they play their full part in preserving the rights and the interests of the land and nation of Wales in this context?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, my simple answer is no, I cannot tell the noble Lord because I am not entirely sure what he is specifically referring to. I also point out—I look forward to discussions with the new Welsh Economy Minister—that the scope for devolution inside Wales greatly depends on decisions for them rather than us here in Whitehall.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the Minister a question to which he can provide an answer because he is not under today’s usual restrictions. In recent years, Wales has benefited significantly from loans at very low cost from the European Investment Bank. Participation in the work of that bank is not necessarily confined to members of the European Union. Can the Minister assure me that he and his colleagues in the Government will strive to ensure that the best possible conditions are achieved so that there is continuity of flow of investment—crucially needed in Wales, as demonstrated in Swansea University—in future years, regardless of our status in relation to the European Union?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for pointing out the specific legal status of the EIB for those unfamiliar with it. It is the case that any change to the EIB’s shareholder structure or lending activity is a decision for member states. It is important that we pursue discussions because, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, lending in the UK right now is at record levels, covering more than 30 different projects.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, leading Brexiteers such as Michael Gove and Chris Grayling made it quite clear that Wales, as others, would benefit from the decision to leave the European Community. Can the Minister assure us that, given that Wales benefited from a surplus of £245 million a year from Europe, the Welsh will not be sold short by future decisions of the Government?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, the third repetition of the day. That specific issue will be a choice for the new Prime Minister. Many other parts of the United Kingdom are facing a similar challenge.
Syrian Refugees
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to fulfil their pledge to accept 20,000 refugees from Syria into the United Kingdom by 2020.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme is on track to deliver the Government’s commitment. The most recent statistics published on 26 May 2016 show that a total of 1,854 people have been resettled in the United Kingdom under the scheme since it began in March 2014.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his disappointing reply. In February, there were 1,194 people under the scheme. The number has risen by only 700. To reach the number of 20,000 by 2020 means that we will have to take 4,000 a year, not 700. How on earth will the Government keep their promise when they are unable even at the beginning to fulfil their pledge?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is important that we understand the facts. The scheme began in March 2014, when it was decided that a number of hundreds of vulnerable Syrians would be resettled here. It was on 1 September 2015 that the Prime Minister determined to increase the number to 20,000, and it is since that date that the numbers have been increasing. As I said, it is anticipated that within the life of this Parliament, which will be until 2020, we will resettle 20,000.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addition to the need for generosity towards Syrian refugees, it is important that we and our existing European partners use our diplomatic strength to help the Syrians and others to reach a solution to this dreadful civil war in the hope that some refugees will start to return to their beloved country?
Lord Keen of Elie
I entirely concur with the observations of the noble Lord. Of course, we are not only making efforts to bring vulnerable refugees into Europe and into the United Kingdom but also expending vast sums—£2.3 billion—to assist those refugees who are determined to remain in the vicinity of their homeland in Syria. We continue with these efforts.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, since the introduction of this scheme, the Chilcot report, which your Lordships’ House will debate this afternoon, has left considerable unease about how we are ever going to reconcile ourselves to the effects of our actions. So will the Minister ask the Prime Minister, in the light of the attitude that has been created to some extent with regard to refugees, whether she would use her first day in office to extend the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme to include a few thousand Iraqis who are currently ineligible merely because they hold the wrong passport, but who have suffered the same injustice as the Syrians at the hands of Daesh?
Lord Keen of Elie
Of course, the observations of the noble Baroness will be noted by the present Prime Minister—and, no doubt, by the future Prime Minister—but I cannot give a further commitment at this time.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the report said that there had been 1,700 people coming into the scheme in 10 months. By my calculation, that means that at current rates of progress, by the end of the five-year period, 10,200 will have been given admittance to the UK. In the light of that arithmetic, can the Minister explain what he means when he says that the programme is on track?
Lord Keen of Elie
Of course, because it is necessary to distinguish between simple arithmetic and administration and policy. We are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that appropriate numbers are brought in. The numbers vary from quarter to quarter, depending on those who are determined by the commissioner to be available for resettlement. The numbers vary.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, at a meeting in your Lordships’ House this morning with the Red Cross and UNICEF we were told that the figure of 10,000 unaccompanied minors who had disappeared in Europe is an underestimate. We were told that there is no system, that it is hit and miss and that many are still falling through the cracks. Will the Minister tell the House how many unaccompanied minors have so far arrived in the United Kingdom under the terms of the Dubs amendment, which was approved by the House of Commons and has now been enacted?
Lord Keen of Elie
At the present time, we are still in negotiations with the Commissioner for Refugees and local authorities in this country to determine the transfer of these children. It is anticipated that the first transfers will take place before the end of the year.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Why are the negotiations on unaccompanied child refugees taking as long as they are? I ask that because the Observer said, on Sunday, that not a single unaccompanied child refugee has been brought into the UK from continental Europe, or even been identified by the British Government, since Mr Cameron promised two months ago that vulnerable minors would be offered sanctuary. The same article said that the Government are struggling to encourage local councils to accept more child refugees. Although they have increased the money they are offering to support child refugees, the funding is guaranteed for only a year. Is that true?
Lord Keen of Elie
On the question of funding, the Government provide funding for the first year directly and fund indirectly thereafter. On the question of bringing children here, it is not the case that we can go out to Europe and kidnap the children. We have to negotiate with the authorities there, with the Commissioner for Refugees and with the local authorities in this country to ensure a sensible and civilised transfer of these children.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, Scotland has been able to accept, I am very proud to say, over a third of the Syrian refugees rehomed here under the resettlement scheme. That has been working very well in Scotland—apart, perhaps, from the need to become familiar with the Scottish midge. But does the Minister agree that this scheme may proceed in a more fruitful manner if there is continued discussion with the devolved legislators? Certainly, in the case of Scotland, I understand that there is a willingness to try to accommodate more of our share of the Syrian refugees, and this could act as a catalyst to help the scheme to work more productively.
Lord Keen of Elie
My noble friend is quite right: some 38% of resettled Syrian refugees have been resettled in Scotland. We are, however, dealing with 71 local authorities which have so far taken resettled refugees and we continue in discussions with all local authorities, in all areas of the United Kingdom, to ensure a sensible and equitable spread of these refugees throughout the country. I have no doubt that if matters can be advanced by discussions with the devolved Administrations, those discussions will take place in addition to the discussions with local authorities.
Universities: Erasmus Programme
Lord Cormack
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the continued participation by British universities in the Erasmus programme.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The referendum result has no immediate effect on those currently participating in or about to embark on Erasmus exchanges. The future of UK access to the Erasmus programme is one of the many issues that will need to be addressed as part of negotiations. The Erasmus national agency, which delivers the programme in the UK, continues to provide practical advice to universities and other participants.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that that is an extremely worrying Answer? There is enormous concern, especially in the Russell Group of universities, and uncertainty. Does she accept that 200,000-plus students and more than 20,000 academic staff have benefited from this scheme up to now? If this is at risk after two years, it will put back education and educational exchange by light-years.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, the referendum result does not affect students studying in the EU, those currently on the programme or those who applied in the 2016 application round. It was important that the Government took immediate steps to confirm that student finance would continue to be available to existing EU students and those starting from this autumn, to ensure that existing and future students know exactly where they stand.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, post-Brexit, will the Government commit either to signing up as a partner country in the Erasmus programme, as Switzerland is, or to putting an equivalent opportunity in place so that graduate employability is not seriously damaged?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I know that the noble Baroness has long supported languages and their importance, and I entirely agree with her. But I am afraid that all I can say at this stage is what I have said, and that any future issues will be addressed as part of negotiations.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Government cannot at this moment make any promises about what will happen in the longer term, but will the Minister take back the message that this House regards this issue as one of extreme importance and that in any negotiations which take place, we hope that those conducting them and her department will take this into account and do their utmost to make sure that these programmes continue at full pace?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I can certainly assure the noble Baroness and the House that we take these matters seriously. My honourable friend the Minister for Universities and Science is in close contact with universities to make sure that their voice is heard. As a Government, we take the importance of foreign languages extremely seriously, which is why compulsory modern languages are part of the EBacc and why it is good news that modern language GSCE numbers have increased by 20% since 2010, while A-level entries have increased by nearly 4% since 2014. We are seeing improvements, which we want to continue, and are well aware of the importance of this issue.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do the Government accept that there is no such thing as EU aid to the United Kingdom because we send it some £20 billion a year gross, of which it sends back around half, or some £10 billion per annum? In other words, for every pound that it sends us we have sent it two. Surely that means that we have plenty in hand to go on funding this sort of programme and other worthy initiatives, if that is what our elected Government want to do?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
What I can say is that EU and international students and academics play an important role in our universities, and our European neighbours are among some of our closest research partners. We want these relationships to continue, and we are doing what we can to give them the confidence we can in the short term. Everything else, I am afraid, is up for negotiation but I certainly reassure the House that we take these issues seriously and want our university sector to remain the world-class, leading international sector that it is.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the four English-speaking countries of the United Kingdom are extremely popular for student exchanges from other parts of Europe? This could be an opportunity for a quick win in negotiations. As she has pointed out, extra students are studying A-level modern languages, yet at the moment if they are going to university in 2019 they are not certain whether they will be able to have such an exchange.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Certainly, I accept the value of foreign exchanges, and students on study years abroad—whether under Erasmus or not—pay only 15% of the tuition fee they would otherwise pay, and are eligible for an additional loan to cover this.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s department will be keeping records of how many universities have already been in touch since the referendum vote expressing their concerns because they have already heard from partner universities under the Erasmus programme. Can she tell us how many universities have been in touch with her department to express their concerns about the future of their funding?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we are in regular contact with the universities. What they are also telling us is that they would welcome the higher education Bill that we are due to bring forward in order to provide a stable framework, and to ensure that our research base and our universities continue to be world class.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we must all hope that the benefits of the Erasmus programme are continued and preserved. Is it not worth bearing in mind that English, and indeed Welsh and Scottish, universities have had very close links with all continental universities for the last 700 years, and there is no reason why the benefits of that should not continue? Is it also worth bearing in mind that the Association of Commonwealth Universities has contact with 530 universities and millions of students across the entire globe, and that this contribution to exchange and the development and interweaving of our higher education with other countries can continue apace and be strengthened further?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I entirely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of all our international relationships, which is why, for instance—particularly at school level—we have been working with exam boards to protect community languages such as Punjabi, Portuguese and Japanese to ensure that schools can choose from a diverse range of high-quality courses. It is also why we have been putting a particular focus on Mandarin, and our ambition is that by 2020, 5,000 pupils will be on track for a high degree of fluency in Mandarin. We are an international-facing country, and we want to make sure all our young people have the opportunity to study whichever languages they like, and to take whichever jobs they like within the world.
Hereditary Peers By-election Announcement3.07 pm
The Clerk of the Parliaments announced the result of the by-election to elect a Cross-Bench hereditary Peer, in the place of Lord Bridges, in accordance with Standing Order 10.
A paper setting out the complete results is available in the Printed Paper Office and online. The successful candidate was the Earl of Cork and Orrery.
Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 and 12 May be approved.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 July.
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Iraq Inquiry
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we meet today, less than a week after its publication, to debate the report of the Iraq inquiry by Sir John Chilcot and his committee. It is a report which has already received extensive tributes as a seminal and extraordinarily impressive document, but it is appropriate that I should begin by expressing the Government’s deep gratitude to Sir John and his team of privy counsellors, including the late Sir Martin Gilbert, for their conscientious, forensic and thorough analysis. As an account of what happened during the years in question, it surely cannot be bettered, and because of, rather than despite, its length, it undoubtedly affords the best possible basis for public debate and reflection.
Indeed, for the long term, that is where the value of this report lies. Stones can be cast in many directions, and have been. That is the painful part and, in the nature of major inquiries, an almost inescapable consequence, but in confronting uncomfortable truths, as we must, I would contend that the more important role for us all, but particularly for government, is also to confront current realities. As a Government, and as Parliament, it behoves us to ask some searching questions arising out of Sir John’s findings, not just about what happened in 2002-03 and subsequently, but also about today. What can we say now, for example, about the process of decision-making in government? What are the differences today in the way that intelligence is gathered, assimilated and presented? How effective are we in equipping our Armed Forces to enable them to undertake the tasks we place upon them? In short, could the same thing happen again?
Happily, we are well placed in this Chamber to examine these and other questions in a frank and informed way. There are many here with very considerable experience of Iraq and other military conflicts. We have those who were members of the Government during the period of the report or who were serving as Members of Parliament as events unfolded and many who, like me, were in this House and remember the events of that time very vividly.
Following the Prime Minister’s Statement last Wednesday, we had a brief opportunity to discuss Sir John’s report, but it is right that we now have a day set aside in this House, and two days in the other place, to discuss it at greater length. The Iraq war set in train events which cost the lives of scores of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of international troops and many of our own brave service men and women, and we owe it to the memory of all those who served, to all those who suffered life-changing injuries and to all those who lost loved ones to do justice to the report’s findings, whether in Parliament during the course of this week or more fully still over the weeks and months ahead as we continue to digest the detailed findings.
In speaking of our service men and women, at all levels, it is right too to remind ourselves that this report is most certainly not an indictment of their performance or their conduct. On the contrary, as Sir John made clear in his statement, our Armed Forces prosecuted a successful military campaign, took Basra, saw the fall of Baghdad in less than a month and helped remove Saddam Hussein, a man who was, let us not forget, a brutal dictator who oppressed and murdered his own people. The service personnel, civilians deployed to Iraq and Iraqis who worked for the UK showed great courage in the face of huge danger. They deserve our lasting gratitude and respect. For all its present troubles, Iraq is now a better, freer and more democratic country than it ever was under Saddam. Our Armed Forces can be proud that they made a difference.
However, their efforts cannot disguise the shortcomings in decision-making and planning surrounding the operation and its aftermath that make Sir John’s report such uncomfortable reading. While it may appear to be restrained, almost quiet, in its approach, its conclusions are stark and devastating. There were too many failures—failures of process, of knowledge and understanding, of decision-making, of strategy, of planning and of preparation. His ultimate conclusion is damning. The Government failed to achieve their stated objectives in Iraq and the UK military role there ended a very long way from success.
There will, therefore, be many lessons to learn. Indeed, on that theme, one of the things that I hope will emerge clearly from this debate is that many lessons have already been addressed. We have not stood still waiting for Chilcot to be published. We have learned lessons from the Butler and Hutton reviews, and in 2010 the Prime Minister established the National Security Council to ensure joined-up strategic decision-making at the top of government. Thanks to the NSC structures, the conflict pool and latterly the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund mechanism, there is a much stronger culture of cross-government working on strategy, policy and delivery issues in fragile and conflict-affected countries. Indeed, we are seen as world leaders in the way that we integrate our work across departments. The NSC is not an ad hoc committee but, rather, a standing committee of the Cabinet with its own secretariat, meeting regularly both inside and outside parliamentary term time and including as members the service and security chiefs and the Attorney-General.
Within the Ministry of Defence, we have gone a long way to addressing the criticisms made in the report relating to equipment. Underpinning those changes, we have corrected failings in the MoD’s finances so that we can better match our strategy and our plans to the level of our resources. This has allowed us to commit to £178 billion of investment over the next 10 years in the right equipment for our Armed Forces. The reforms led by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, have led to a much greater degree of accountability and sense of ownership of the equipment programme within the service commands.
In addition, we have systems in place to enable us to respond swiftly and appropriately to calls from a conflict zone for additional equipment to support and protect our troops on the ground. In Afghanistan, for example, some £5 billion was approved for urgent operational requirements, enabling our personnel to benefit from, for instance, mine detection and counter-IED equipment and protected patrol vehicles. There is now a senior military officer within the Ministry of Defence whose direct responsibility it is to commission and co-ordinate such approvals.
In the context of post-conflict planning, I mention too the work that we have been doing to enable civilians and the military to train, plan and work together routinely. DfID officials attend the MoD’s training courses for senior military personnel, DfID advisers regularly take part in military planning exercises so that development and humanitarian needs are considered as part of the MoD’s planning and decision-making and the MoD, the FCO, DfID and other departments undertake joint assessments of the causes of instability and conflict in our priority countries, which in turn inform the deliberations of the NSC.
In the coming months, government will analyse what more must be done. We are not complacent. In the Ministry of Defence, the Secretary of State has, with the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Permanent Secretary, already established a team to review the findings and set out the changes that must be made. I look forward to the outcome of that work.
For now, I conclude by echoing the words of the Prime Minister when he said there are some lessons we should not draw from Iraq—not least, the notion that intervention is always wrong. The UK and the international community have intervened successfully in the past, such as in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. There have been times when we perhaps should have intervened but did not, or did not do so effectively, such as in Rwanda and Srebrenica. Today we are intervening again to assist coalition efforts in Iraq and Syria against Daesh, and we are surely right to do so. So our challenge, the challenge of the Government and the military in future, is not simply to prevent bad intervention but to ensure better intervention when intervention is needed. With that end in view, I look forward to the debate that lies ahead of us.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, one of the greatest British leaders of all time, writing between the two terrible world wars of the last century, left us this cautionary reminder. Winston Churchill wrote:
“Let us learn our lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on that strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The Statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events”.
That is a fair epitaph for the Iraq war that Sir John Chilcot was asked to investigate, along with telling us what lessons should be learned.
At the outset I pay tribute to Britain’s Armed Forces and their families who loved and sustained them during the conflict, and especially to the 179 of our service personnel and 23 civilians who lost their lives. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. For my part I can only imagine the pain they are enduring even now. We remember, too, those who suffered physical and mental injuries as a result—what a price they have paid for doing their duty.
My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon spoke for many in both Houses when she said in response to last week’s Statement that the decisions about when our Armed Forces are deployed are not theirs. As we faced war in Iraq, for the first time in our history the House of Commons was invited to vote yes or no to military action. The decision was made there. I voted for it. Again, my noble friend spoke for me, and, I am sure, many others, when she said that no MP who voted for action took the decision lightly. In my experience of that time, there was mutual respect for all who took a different view. We cannot and will not forget the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives in the conflict and since.
The Chilcot report has been a long time coming but we must thank Sir John and his team for taking on this mammoth task. Sir John said that the two key questions for the inquiry to consider were whether it was right and necessary to invade Iraq in 2003, and whether the UK could and should have been better prepared. Politicians, commentators and historians will ponder the answers to those two questions for decades to come but for me, and I suspect for many others, the big question to consider now is: what lessons can we learn from the war and from the process of decision-making that led us into it?
I welcomed the Prime Minister’s Statement last week when he said he was taking on board the question of how decision-making across government can be improved. We all know from the report that Britain urged President Bush in 2001 not to take hasty action in Iraq, and we continued beyond that to seek a settlement and work with the UN before finally concluding that war was the only course left. We know that by April 2002 the Joint Intelligence Committee had concluded that Saddam Hussein could not be removed without invasion, and that by then our Government believed that Iraq posed a threat and had to disarm or be disarmed. Sir John concludes that this implied we would use force if Iraq did not comply.
I do not intend to rehearse in detail the conclusions reached by Sir John in his report. His key criticisms are well known and must be addressed. However, I recognise the importance of his criticisms about process and procedure. He also raises questions about proper analysing and decision-making, and about planning and preparation. However, I note that Sir John did not conclude that the Government acted in bad faith. I paraphrase the comment made last Wednesday by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is in his place. He said that the Prime Minister and his colleagues were seeking to serve the national interest. Even though he had opposed the war as an MP, he did not believe the Government were actuated by ignoble motives.
Saddam Hussein was a murderous, evil tyrant, who slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people and caused the deaths of countless others in a war with Iran and through the invasion of Kuwait. Sir John's report makes clear that both we and the Americans had an “ingrained belief” that he had the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons. He had done so in the past and certainly wanted his neighbours and the rest of the world to believe he still had such weapons. We believed it, and this is where the Americans and we stood at the start of the conflict.
Perhaps I may share with the House an American analysis of how the USA saw the conflict. The analysis says that the key assumptions—that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that,
“Iraqi reconstruction would pay for itself, that the majority Shiite population would welcome coalition forces as liberators”,
that Iraqi tribal structures could be ignored, that only a small military footprint was necessary, that large-scale de-Baathification of the country could be carried out without a problem and that there would be,
“a rapid transfer to Iraqi control”,
—all proved wrong.
The distinguished authors of the report write:
“The failure to plan adequately and comprehensively for the postconflict period ushered in a new, dangerous, and intractable phase that saw a rapid descent first into insurgency and then into intense sectarian violence”.
The plain fact is that post-conflict planning in the US was minimal and it was no better here in Britain. That is the key lesson we must learn. But are we learning the lessons?
The Prime Minister stated that he was taking on board the question of how decision-making across government can be improved. The Minister has given us some indications of what the Government have in mind and have already put in train. In paragraph 409, Sir John says that,
“there should have been collective discussion by a cabinet committee or a small group of Ministers on the basis of inter-departmental advice”.
Do the Government accept that and, if they do, can the Minister say how the Government will respond to this aspect of the report? Sir John goes on in paragraph 410 to say that,
“a Cabinet committee or a more structured process might have identified some of the wider implications and risks associated with the deployment of military forces to Iraq”.
Do the Government agree with Sir John on this? Indeed, can the Minister say whether the Government intend to respond to Sir John’s report as a whole, setting out how we might do things better in the future? Having said that, I appreciate that the Minister has started to advise the House on this already.
One further point is that the Department for International Development has a humanitarian unit for failed states to help them rebuild, yet no equivalent exists for post-conflict states to assist in post-conflict planning. I suggest that there is a role for such a unit within the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, we could look at post-conflict planning with our closest ally, the United States.
NATO has held many joint exercises over the last year, but they were all about war fighting. Should we not initiate with equal vigour joint exercises in post-conflict planning? Such exercises would reveal weaknesses in our planning processes, force allies to agree decision-making structures and familiarise individuals with peers in allied nations—particularly the United States—in terms of how we each operate. This would mean that, if it looked as though a post-conflict situation might be emerging, planning could be smoothly and effectively initiated.
The major failure post the Iraq invasion was that no one felt it was their responsibility to take the lead on this. The Iraq conflict has proved divisive and contentious in this country. It has divided families and communities, and we can all understand that. But it must not be allowed to undermine our determination to protect British interests, and our best interests, by making us resolutely opposed to interventions of any sort in the future—a point made, I think, by the Minister.
There will be times ahead when we face a decision about whether to intervene—whether militarily or for humanitarian reasons—in some situation or another. The Iraq conflict has left many painful scars on the body of our country, but we must not—we cannot—turn our back and fail to intervene when it is needed. Let us remember our successful intervention in Sierra Leone and the benefits it brought to that country, but let us not forget that we did not intervene in Bosnia and Rwanda, or the grave consequences that befell those countries as a result. Regardless of the strong views held on all sides about this conflict, let us all agree that there is one thing on which we should be united: following the Iraq war and the publication of the Chilcot report, we should be determined to learn the lessons of the failure of post-conflict management.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the expressions of gratitude to Sir John Chilcot and his committee and with the expressions of sympathy for families who lost loved ones—and let us not forget those who were grievously injured as a result of their service.
The noble Earl said at one stage that Iraq was a better, freer place. I suspect that that judgment might be challenged by some, at least in Iraq, not least following some of the events of the last fortnight or so, when great loss of life has been incurred.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said that there was an atmosphere of mutual respect at the time of the vote. I beg leave to question that judgment. Charles Kennedy was described as being guilty of appeasement. He was told that he was similar to Neville Chamberlain, and a national newspaper printed a photograph of him with the word “Traitor” underneath. There was by no means mutual respect. So the reactions on these Benches to the report from Sir John Chilcot are, as might be imagined, somewhat mixed. But the one thing on which I hope we can all agree is that Charles Kennedy’s principled leadership on this issue has been vindicated, as indeed has the similarly principled stance taken by Robin Cook.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
In the few minutes available, it is not possible to do justice to the herculean efforts of the Chilcot committee. The passages on the lack of preparation for the aftermath of military action and those that deal with the adequacy—or, some might prefer, inadequacy—of the equipment available to the forces make compelling and sombre reading, and there are certainly lessons to be learned from them. But I will concentrate for a few moments on the events leading up to the war and the inevitable consequences of that decision. Indeed, there are lessons to be learned from that also.
Contrary to popular belief, I have never believed that what we were presented with was a false premise—implying that there was some effort at deception—but I have always believed that it was flawed, and the distinction is important. But it is clear that throughout these events Mr Blair thought that it was the right thing to do—and he still does. That was inevitably a moral judgment, but the strength of it gave rise to the error of making the evidence fit the judgment rather than the judgment fit the evidence.
The belief that the United Kingdom should be with the United States “whatever” was a flawed belief. Indeed, some would say that that single word reveals all that lay at the heart of the disastrous decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein. On reflection, there seems to have been a complete misunderstanding of the position of the United States. George W Bush always wanted regime change—it was no secret—but why was that? It was because around him was a cluster of influential neocons who thought that his father had made a fatal error in not instructing American forces to go to Baghdad at the end of the first Gulf War. If anyone doubts the good reasons for that decision, I suggest they read the memoirs of Sir John Major, who sets out with great clarity his support for that decision.
These were the same neocons who wrote to President Clinton telling him he was in breach of his responsibilities as commander-in-chief for not seeking to remove Saddam Hussein. It is true that the Motion passed at the end of the two-day debate in the House of Commons concentrated on weapons of mass destruction as a justification for what was being proposed, but I suggest that by our concurrence with the United States’ military action we inevitably became party to the policy of regime change and the responsibilities that flowed from it.
At the heart of all this was the belief that we had to stay close to the United States to be of influence. We had, we have, and I hope that we will continue to have an intimate and rewarding relationship with the United States, but we cannot allow our foreign policy to be defined by that relationship alone. “My ally right or wrong” is not sustainable.
It is clear that the intelligence assessments were accepted at face value and without demur. They formed the basis of the document of 24 September 2002 but were never revisited after publication, even when Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei were saying something different. Indeed, as Sir John Chilcot records, no one ever considered that Iraq might be telling the truth or that Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei were right.
The really dodgy dossier was not the one of September 2002 but the one produced in the spring of 2003 in advance of the decision-making. It was based on the 10 year-old thesis of an American PhD student—hardly, one might think, a compelling basis for justifying actions of the kind being contemplated. There are questions here. Why was no account taken of Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei? There has been no proper answer to that. Was it because their reports undermined the case for intervention, even if Resolution 1441 allowed it? Was it because they contradicted the assertion that Saddam Hussein’s weapons programmes were “active, detailed and growing”, made by the Prime Minister on 24 September? This was plainly not true but it became, as Sir John Chilcot has recorded, an “ingrained belief” that inevitably polluted all other thinking.
The authority for intervention was said to be derived from Resolution 1441 of the Security Council. But read that resolution: it is a masterpiece of ambiguity, designed to persuade the French, who were wholly opposed to military action, to sign. There is more than a hint of Lewis Carroll: “Words mean what I want them to say”. United Nations-speak for authorisation is the expression “all necessary means”, but Resolution 1441 simply talked about “serious consequences”.
Sir John Chilcot is highly critical of the process by which legal advice was provided. Without going into that in detail, because it is fully recorded, let me put it this way: at the highest the Attorney-General’s final view was little more than lukewarm and,
“on balance, the better view”.
I respectfully suggest that, if we are going to commit thousands of our young men and women to circumstances where their lives may be at risk, we need something a little better than a “better view”.
We know that the Cabinet was not provided with the full, detailed opinions of the Attorney-General. Sir John Chilcot forcefully finds that that was not proper and should not happen again. He says that he had no obligation to take a view on legality, but he has provided all the information necessary to do so. He found that military action was not yet the last resort, that diplomatic options were still available, that there was no imminent threat, that Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei were still able to fulfil their responsibilities, and that there were conflicting views about Resolution 1441. When you add to that Article 2 of the United Nations charter which prohibits regime change, it is a legitimate judgment that this was not a legal war.
No account was taken of Iraq’s recent history: no account of the anger and frustration felt by the Shia majority at their brutal subjugation by the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein; and no account of Iran’s resentment of Saddam Hussein’s 10-year war against it, in the course of which he used chemical weapons. As a result, a vacuum was created and, as a consequence of the failure to have a plan, the Shia population, encouraged by Iran, was emboldened to take revenge against the Sunnis, who, not surprisingly, fought back. We became embroiled in a civil war. The welcome army of liberation became an army of hated occupation.
I began by saying that the prospectus was flawed. The unhappy truth is that the prospectus was flawed not simply in conception but in execution. The lessons to be learned from that are manifold. It will only be a justification of Sir John’s work and that of his committee if we can say with confidence, now and in the future, that these lessons have been properly learned.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is marvellous to see him bringing his wisdom to the deliberations of this House.
I have had plenty of opportunity to comment on the matters covered by the Chilcot report and so today I intend to be brief. Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues have taken a lot of stick over the past few years, so it gives me pleasure—but not surprise—that their report has been welcomed as a thorough and forthright one which has given satisfaction and comfort to relatives of the bereaved. If a quicker report had been required, the terms of reference should have been more limited.
Errors in the assessment and use of intelligence have inevitably received much attention. We need to remember that at the time when the Government produced their intelligence dossier in September 2002, virtually all the intelligence agencies in the world were assessing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was seeking to acquire more. Hans Blix himself believed this when he took his inspectors to Iraq in November 2002. The problem was that this conclusion was based on relatively few sources and on inference, and the sources subsequently turned out to be unreliable.
As Chilcot says, the intelligence was presented with more certainty than was justified. But it was also a mistake to use it as a means of political persuasion. The Government were saying, in effect, “Don’t just believe us: believe the intelligence”. As countless examples from history show, intelligence is not uniquely worthy of belief: it is uniquely worth of scepticism.
However, this should not lead us to the conclusion that intelligence is valueless or stop us investing in it. In today’s world, intelligence is crucial. When we have weapons which can be directed to land on a sixpence, it is all the more important to know which sixpence to direct them towards. We need to learn the lesson that intelligence is a very valuable—indeed, indispensable—aid to political and military judgment, but it is not a determinant.
I have considerable sympathy for Mr Blair in the obloquy which is being poured on him. I have never believed that he lied to the British people, and I accept that he was sincere in believing that military action to remove Saddam Hussein was necessary as a last resort. The trouble was that he got caught in a trap in which a decision on whether or not to join the Americans in military action became unavoidable before other means of containing Saddam had been exhausted.
There is one more thing that I want to say. The Chilcot report paints a picture of a Government which—with great respect to those who served in it—as a collective entity was dysfunctional. The defence and overseas policies never met in the lead-up to the war. Plans were not shared with senior Ministers for fear that they would leak. The full legal reasoning of the Attorney-General was not made available to the Cabinet. Official papers were not circulated.
Proper Cabinet procedures should not be seen as pettifogging, bureaucratic impositions on busy Ministers. They are the means—inherited from successive generations of Ministers and officials—to ensure that the full expertise, experience and resources of government are brought to bear on crucial decisions. That is all the more important when the decisions are about peace and war. With hindsight, the Blair Government’s disregard for the machinery of government looks not like modernisation but like irresponsibility.
I am not so naive as to suppose that the interplay of personalities will not always play a part in politics, as in other human affairs, but one of the lessons of the Chilcot report is that when the great responsibility of governing the country is accepted by Ministers, their main duty is good government of the people, not personal political manoeuvring. If government is allowed to become a “Game of Thrones” it is the interests of the governed that will suffer. That lesson is going to be more important than ever in the difficult challenges that our Government are now facing today.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, it is humbling to follow such a powerful and authoritative voice. I am also grateful to the Minister for the constructive way he introduced this debate and invited us to think about the lessons we can apply now. Sir John Chilcot recommends more thorough analysis before military action and a more collaborative approach to policy-making. I imagine that every one of your Lordships would probably agree that the case is well made, but politicians caught up in oppressive events, a rapidly changing situation and a 24/7 news environment, and with an ally who is losing patience, do not have much time for pondering decisions. Therefore—this echoes many of the remarks of the previous noble Lord—the culture and assumptions that leaders bring to the crisis are hugely significant.
9/11 was a great shock to the West’s confidence. It was very well expressed in Francis Fukuyama’s influential 1992 book, The End of History. The thesis, as your Lordships will remember, is that with the advent of liberal democracy and market economics, the human project had reached its consummation. There were still places in the world awaiting enlightenment but the contours of the future were already clear. This world view fuelled impatience with the kind of historical analysis we heard about from the previous speaker. It fuelled impatience with the history that many thought had come to an end, and it fuelled a confident sense of destiny.
There is no doubt that someone who dwells on history can be somewhat tedious, but at the same time someone with a sense of destiny and no sense of history can be very dangerous. With a faith in the future, religion, in particular in this crisis, was regarded as largely irrelevant and often reduced by western commentators simply to a surrogate for something else—usually economic distress—and it was not analysed with any precision or profundity. There was, and I dare say is, a lack of awareness of the religious dynamics of other regions of the world and this has led to repeated misreadings of events.
As a former co-chair of the Islam and the West symposium established by the World Economic Forum, I know from colleagues in the region of their astonishment at the one-dimensional approach to the Arab spring and the repeated use in news broadcasts in the early days of the Syrian tragedy of the phrase, “Pro-democracy demonstrators”, while ignoring and oversimplifying the complex cultural and religious dynamics. These misreadings obscured, for example, the fact that Saddam Hussein’s regime, utterly odious in so many ways, was actually hostile to Islamism. The JIC, according to Chilcot, correctly reported in November 2001 that practical co-operation between Iraq and al-Qaeda was “unlikely”. Later, in February 2003, the JIC assessment was that the serious al-Qaeda threat,
“would be heightened by military action against Iraq”.
There was confusion between the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Islamist threat, but also a huge confidence, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that our intervention would be welcomed. It was reported to me at the time that a senior American official, challenged about the lack of planning for the aftermath of the war, said, “Once we zap the bad guys, there will be cheering all the way to the ballot box”. It was that kind of confidence that led the Pentagon to set aside the plans the State Department had made for post-conflict reconstruction. One of the report’s most sobering conclusions is that the post-war difficulties were predicted at the time—this was not hindsight—but our military involvement did not enable us to exercise influence on decisions such as the dismantling of the entire Baathist state apparatus.
What are some of the lessons? The tectonic plates of the world are shifting. Unchallengeable western hegemony is passing and a new multipolar world, in which we still have a crucial role, is emerging. It will still be necessary, as previous speakers have said, to be prepared to project our power in conjunction with NATO allies. At the same time, there needs to be less hubris and a greater awareness of different world views, with which we should be in dialogue.
Our work in Iraq is not finished. The Government have acknowledged this through substantial humanitarian support in recent years, but the bulk of humanitarian operations in Iraq have focused on meeting needs in camps in the relatively secure Iraqi Kurdistan area. There are also thousands of displaced persons, many of them from minorities such as the Christians and the Yazidis, who do not feel safe in the camps and who are sheltering in schools, building sites and rented accommodation. Government assistance for organisations working among these neglected and vulnerable people is urgent. The diocese of London, for example, has been working with a Catholic charity, Aid to the Church in Need. It has an extensive local ecumenical and interfaith network and is in touch with some of the most vulnerable people outside the camps. As we consider where we go from here, I hope it might be possible, as part of our recognition of partial responsibility for the post-war state of Iraq, to channel our aid through such grass-roots bodies, as well as through the UN agencies.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the right reverend Prelate, because I think there has been a suggestion that perhaps things have turned out for the better in Iraq since the events of 2003, and he has rightly drawn attention to the absolutely tragic situation that Iraq now faces. Noble Lords may have seen the perceptive article by Jeremy Bowen in the New Statesman, in which he says that Iraq,
“has not had a day of real peace since 2003”.
The pressures that we face, and the damage that has been done, make us absolutely beholden to learn every lesson that we possibly can from this exercise. If I may say so, I have already heard enough speeches in your Lordships’ House today to recognise that this House has a particular contribution to make—probably rather more than the other place, because some of us lived through some of these periods, and we have a duty to bring our experience to bear.
The first lesson that I would like to pick up, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is that if we want to learn lessons from an inquiry like this, it must not take seven years. Noble Lords may have seen the interesting article by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, who criticised the process of “Maxwellisation”. He said that when he conducted the Bloody Sunday inquiry—which, as we know, went on for quite long enough anyway—he had a procedure whereby, if there were criticisms to be made, they were made to the witnesses or to those who came to give evidence in front of them, at the actual inquiry, rather than going through this very laborious Maxwellisation process, which added so much to the time this exercise took.
I would like to take noble Lords back to the start of the problem, and the origin of, “We’re with you for ever”, or, “I will be with you, whatever”. The image in my mind is of the very excellent thing that Tony Blair did when, within 10 days of 9/11, he went to Washington and was present when, 10 days after 9/11, President Bush addressed a joint meeting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. There, in Congress, there was a particular moment when President Bush was trying to restore the morale of the American people, and he said, “At a time of real difficulty and danger, you know who your real friends are”. And he looked up at the gallery and said, “Good to have you here, friend”. Tony Blair stood up, and the whole of the Senate and all the Congressmen turned and gave him a standing ovation. I think that that commitment—“I will be with you, whatever”—really started right there.
My own experience goes back some way, because I was involved in the first Gulf War. I was involved on that last day, when the very successful Left Hook land campaign expelled the Iraqi armed forces from Kuwait. They were fleeing for their lives—I remember Medina Ridge, and it was just a turkey shoot: “Mr President, shall we go on?”. I understand that at a meeting at the White House, after that, there was consideration as to whether they should go on—that is, go on to Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein. The diplomatic advice was, “Well, you could do it. You’ll lose a few votes in the UN, because you’re invading another sovereign country, and it’s not the same as expelling somebody from a country that they shouldn’t be in”. From the military point of view, the advice was, “You could do it, but we may have rather more casualties, because we haven’t yet really faced the full Republican Guard divisions, which are a completely different kettle of fish from some of the less formidable Iraqi forces. But you could do it”.
One voice then said, “Well, you can certainly do it, but there are two questions you need to answer. If you have decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who will you put in his place? The second question is: how long are you prepared to be there?”. What a pity those questions were not asked.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, made an excellent contribution to this debate. I strongly agree that President Bush was not necessarily in the lead on this. My former opposite number, Dick Cheney, was the most powerful vice-president America has had, with his considerable international experience gained before President George W Bush came to office. The Americans also had Donald Rumsfeld. There is no doubt that Secretary Rumsfeld was completely committed to regime change. Some may have heard General Tim Cross on the radio recently saying that Rumsfeld would listen to nobody. He would not listen to the State Department or the US military and he certainly would not listen to the UK. I do not think it is conceited to say that we have some knowledge and experience of Arab countries and the Gulf area. That knowledge and experience go back a long time. Our duty in these situations is not just to be a loyal, supportive friend, but a candid friend. I do not think there is a proper understanding in the Pentagon of the real depth of the problems of the Sunni/Shia issue, Arab/Kurd hostilities and conflicts and the sort of problems that could be unlocked. I say to the right reverend Prelate that when one looks at the situation now and the conflict that has broken out, and one thinks of the situation of the Christians, one has to note that for all the awfulness of Saddam Hussein, his Foreign Minister—Tariq Aziz—was a Christian. How different the situation is now in that regard.
I agree very strongly with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his most interesting contribution as regards the absence of proper Cabinet discussion or of any War Cabinet. I think that the Cabinet Secretary and Sir David Omand, as he was then, were excluded from discussions—the people who could have contributed significantly to the discussions and analysis of some of the intelligence that was coming in. The officials involved in the sofa government activity—David Manning, Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell—were, after all, loyal to the Prime Minister. They had a duty to support him but I do not think they provided the degree of critical approach that was needed at the time. I pay tribute to the speech made by Robin Cook in that fateful debate in the House of Commons. He was the only Minister to ask why there had been no discovery so far of any weapons of mass destruction, and called for more time for inspection. As he said, the Government had tried so hard to get a second resolution. They showed how important it was to get it and they could not then say the fact that they had not got it really did not matter at all. He pointed out that there was no agreement to support us on the part of others. We did not have NATO, the European Union or the Security Council on our side in undertaking these activities.
As regards the failure properly to analyse the intelligence, those of us who have had top secret intelligence files put in front of us know that this information is tremendously seductive. You want to believe it; you think that you are extremely privileged to have access to this information but then you need some wiser old heads around to tell you that there may be a few other considerations that need taking into account. They can ask whether the information has been checked and whether there is corroboration. I certainly found that that was the case in Northern Ireland, where a wonderful new source of intelligence appeared one day, but after a pause of a few months, when one asked what had happened to it, one was told that, for one reason or another, the source had been found to be a complete fraud. However, that sort of challenge and check did not exist in this case.
The tragedy of this sofa government approach, which has been referred to, is that no proper minutes were taken. The fact that they were not taken is as alleged by one official to have been because the people concerned were worried that if they were taken they would be leaked to either Gordon Brown or Clare Short. That shows the tragedy of the dysfunctional nature of that Government and that Cabinet situation.
Those are just a few points drawn from my own experience of these problems with regard to the lessons that have to be learned as we gradually plough our way through the Chilcot report.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, as one would expect, the debate in this House, like the references to Sir John Chilcot’s report last week, has been conducted with thoughtfulness and without emotion. I want to start this afternoon by saying how regrettable it has been that over these last 13 years, the vitriol poured upon individuals, and the disdain with which people have been treated, has led to an atmosphere which makes it extremely difficult to address key issues arising out of Chilcot, and future decisions which will need to be taken by government.
Leading up to, on the day of and immediately after the publication, some of our media, which should know better—our main broadcast media, not just social media or the tabloid press—had already assumed that it would be found that Tony Blair was a liar and had sought to mislead the nation, even though Chilcot found exactly the opposite. The atmosphere created around the publication did not shed a great deal of light on a detailed, thoughtful and extremely valuable report.
I intend to deal very briefly with three key issues: the context and history within which the decision was taken; the information on which it was taken and the structures of government, including the part that I had to play as a member of Cabinet at that time; and the lessons we can learn, now and for the future.
The context has to be seen in the history of the Iraqi nation and, in particular, the leadership, actions and—I have to say—maniacal behaviour of Saddam Hussein. It cannot be swept aside that the Shia majority attempted to rise up at the time of the first Gulf War in 1991. It cannot be swept aside that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Shia Marsh Arabs. It cannot be swept aside—and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned it, but in the opposite context—that Saddam Hussein was prepared to use chemical weapons in the war with Iran. It cannot be swept aside that in 1998 it was clear that the inspectorate had determined that such weapons, and the potential for their use and re-creation, existed.
It cannot be set aside that Resolution 1441—yes, with all its ambiguities—led the world to believe that the United Nations Security Council and all leading intelligence agencies believed that he had either weapons of mass destruction or the ability to reproduce them. If they did not believe that, they should not have put their names to Resolution 1441 on 7 November 2002. It was in that context, with the information that was available at the time, that some of us believed that the actions we were moving to take were justified—albeit extremely painful and very often on a knife edge.
Robin Cook has been referred to in this debate, quite rightly. Robin Cook was a very close friend of mine. I shared many moments with him, not just in Cabinet but in my party’s National Executive Committee. Robin Cook did make many of the points that have been made this afternoon and are reiterated in the Chilcot report. I make this point because you would think, from the way in which these issues have been debated, that somehow everyone was misled and therefore that in 2003 there was no debate that addressed some of the key issues—but there was. People were questioning: asking the right questions. There was a genuine disagreement within Cabinet, within Parliament and within the country about the right steps to take.
You see, no decision is a decision. The difference is that if you do not take a decision, it is unlikely that you will be blamed for the decision you did not take—to paraphrase a Rumsfeld version of how you present the world. In other words, those who take the most difficult decisions and agonise over them should not automatically be felt to be—as I, Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell were described in the Communist Morning Star last weekend—warmongers. We were not.
The information was flawed; we know it was flawed. We had no idea at the time that one of the three key pieces of evidence presented—by “Curveball”—was a complete fraud. In fact, of course, as Chilcot shows so graphically, over the period from December 2001 all the way through to July 2003, four months after the invasion of Iraq, the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, had not revealed to the Prime Minister, never mind to other members of the Cabinet, that those pieces of information based on flawed intelligence were as outwith reality as they really were.
So the context has to be understood, not least in terms of what happened on 11 September 2001, which has been referred to this afternoon, because it did matter when we said, as the noble Lord, Lord King, paraphrased in terms of the welcome of Congress for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that we all believed that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the post-2001 attack.
Information flawed, context understood, structures of government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred—yes, they were flawed. There is no question in my mind but that we could have done a lot better. We could have had more formalised procedures, we could have included a wider group of voices, minds and brains, and I think we learned the lesson. But make no mistake about it, no structure would in any way have set aside the flawed intelligence or changed the human nature of having to make decisions on that intelligence. This decision was not made in a vacuum; people were making decisions on the basis of what they knew at the time.
I do not believe for a minute that what has happened with Syria and the greatest refugee crisis in our history has any roots back to the decision in 2003. Yes, the Arab spring and the uprising of people seeking freedom from tyranny; but we must not place on what happened in the decision of March 2003 other things that have happened since and continually refer back to them as though they were the inevitable arising consequence of decisions taken by Parliament on 18 March 2003.
If I had had the same information again, sitting in the same Cabinet with the same context, I would make the same decision. Those who say they would not need to ask the question: well, what would it have been that changed their mind? Not hindsight but a different form of wisdom and an agreement with those with whom they were genuinely, openly disagreeing at the time—as I was with Robin Cook. That is the context, that is the information, that is the need for better structures and to learn the lessons, but not to continually denigrate those who genuinely took a decision in what they believed to be the best interests not just of the United Kingdom but of the world as a whole.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, my father served on the Western Front in the First World War as a Royal Engineer officer. He was in the Somme valley from 1915 right through and beyond Armistice into 1919, so he was there throughout the build-up and there through the appalling slaughter of the Battle of the Somme, about which we have been thinking in recent days. Unsurprisingly, like many others of those who survived, he never really talked about his experiences on the Western Front and we knew only recently that he was awarded the Croix de Guerre.
His attitude later was undoubtedly reflected by that of many historians that the First World War was a matter of lions led by donkeys. If he were to summarise the Chilcot report, he would say that it was lions misled by political ostriches: politicians deliberately ignoring the facts and rushing into war to avoid them, on both sides of the Atlantic.
I note that last weekend the noble Lord, Lord Prescott —second-in-command in the Blair Government —wrote:
“In 2004, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that as regime change was the prime aim of the Iraq war, it was illegal. With great sadness and anger, I now believe him to be right”.
I salute the noble Lord for that. I would be even more impressed by his candour if he admitted that Charles Kennedy, and Liberal Democrat MPs, of whom I was one, took precisely that same view in March 2003.
I have few regrets from my political life, although I have some. However, I certainly do not regret that vote. Incidentally, those Conservatives who now revisit their enthusiastic support for the invasion on the basis that nobody could reasonably doubt the evidence and rationale that Prime Minister Blair placed before Parliament, seem to forget that Ken Clarke and 14 Conservative Members of Parliament also voted with us in the Division Lobby. They, just as much as Robin Cook, to whom reference has been made by many this afternoon, deserve to be recognised for sticking to their international principles in those difficult circumstances.
As the Chilcot report makes abundantly clear, the acceleration towards invasion was motivated by complicated US and UK government initiatives. In the UN they were having difficulty, and they had further doubts about Saddam’s elusive WMD, because they could not believe that Hans Blix’s investigations were, at that stage, correct. They were worried that their casus belli might be stymied by those doubts.
In the following weeks I had a particular reason for pursuing that aspect of the sorry saga. The first British casualty—the first British fatality—of the invasion was Sergeant Steven Roberts, whose family lived in my North Cornwall constituency. Within days his family had been informed, by letter from an officer in his unit, of the stark details of his death: his malfunctioning weapon; the fatal shot might well have come from a colleague; but, most significantly, he was not wearing appropriate protective armour—enhanced combat body armour, or ECBA. On their behalf, I asked a number of questions of the Ministry of Defence, and I received total brick-wall answers. Meanwhile, we were amazed by a revelation from the National Audit Office, referring to ECBA:
“200,000 sets had been issued since the Kosovo campaign in 1999, greatly exceeding the theoretical requirement, but these seem to have disappeared”.
Even when I secured a meeting with the then Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Geoff Hoon, for Sergeant Roberts’s widow, mother and brother, we got no satisfactory explanations for that extraordinary situation. The nearest we came to understanding was when a senior officer attending our meeting with Mr Hoon claimed that preparations for the invasion had to proceed “with some secrecy”. Paragraphs 811 to 813 of the executive summary of the Chilcot report make specific reference to this.
That is why I need to concentrate on that part of the report. It is clear that, egged on by the US President, who was still bent on misdirected revenge for 9/11, the Prime Minister was desperate not to appear to be preparing for an invasion while still seeking a peaceful outcome via the United Nations in the autumn of 2002. On this point Chilcot is quite explicit: going to war without a majority in the United Nations Security Council,
“undermined the authority of the UN”.
The subsequent board of inquiry report into Sergeant Roberts’s death identified political constraints,
“at the level of the Secretary of State, which held up ordering and deployment of sufficient sets of ECBA to protect all our troops in dangerous positions in Iraq”.
What Sergeant Roberts himself described as a joke was far, far worse: it was the end result of political subterfuge and misjudgment. At the inquest into his death, the coroner said that it was,
“as a result of delay and serious failures in the acquisition and support chain that resulted in a significant shortage within his fighting unit of enhanced combat body armour, none being available for him”,
and concluded that this was “unforgivable and inexcusable”.
Nearly four years after Sergeant Roberts’s death, in January 2007, the then Minister for Defence Procurement admitted in answer to a Parliamentary Question in your Lordships’ House that:
“At that time the United Kingdom was deeply involved in diplomatic activity endeavouring to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq and no decision to commit a UK land force to any potential operation had been taken. The judgment was that to place orders for equipment which would have indicated preparations for the deployment of a large land force would have risked undermining this diplomatic effort”.—[Official Report, 10/1/07; col. WA 90.]
In other words, Sergeant Roberts died because the UK Government spent several months trying to cover up the intentions of the US and UK Governments. I make no apology for emphasising this one very specific aspect of the Chilcot report.
Members of your Lordships’ House will, I think, understand why I feel so passionately that Tony Blair should now admit that his insistence on following President Bush willy-nilly into war was a tragic mistake. As the noble Lord, Lord King, said, that brief sentence:
“I will be with you, whatever”,
had tragic consequences. Of course, Sergeant Roberts’s unnecessary death has been followed by countless other tragedies—for Iraqi civilians as well as allied troops—and Britain’s international reputation is severely tarnished to this day as a direct result.
Perhaps the last word can best come from Charles Kennedy, in that fateful debate on 18 March 2003:
“Although I have never been persuaded of a causal link between the Iraqi regime, al-Qaeda and 11 September, I believe that the impact of war in these circumstances is bound to weaken the international coalition against terrorism itself, and not least in the Muslim world. The big fear that many of us have is that the action will simply breed further generations of suicide bombers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/03; col. 786.]
That is where we are today.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, this long-awaited report has done a thorough and commendable job. I wish to comment on two particular issues: the way the inquiry has sought to apportion responsibility for things that did not go right in the period from 2002 to 2009, and some of the lessons that should be drawn from what happened.
By and large, the report’s criticisms are directed at either Ministers or senior service personnel. I do not intend to attempt to second-guess any of those criticisms, other than to make the perhaps obvious point that what is clear with the benefits of mature reflection and 20/20 hindsight may not have been known to, or so apparent to, those concerned at the time. It is certainly my recollection that the prevailing view at the time, post-conflict, was very much optimistic. One enduring issue—not, it appears, so explicitly dealt with in the inquiry—which I am aware of from my own experience with the first Gulf War in 1991, is how to apportion the responsibility shared between Ministers and the military for shortfalls. For example, there were shortfalls in preparations for operations and their subsequent periods, or in the conduct of operations.
If, for instance, Ministers wish to commit forces to an operation, how far should they or their predecessors in office be held blameworthy because of gaps or shortages in capability recommended by the operational requirement process but judged to be less important or unaffordable at the time? With the timescales for major equipment programmes, it is indeed unlikely that the Ministers involved in procurement decisions will still be in office.
The military can-do reaction to ministerial demands—as commended by Chilcot—is of course laudable, and with £35 billion or so of annual budgets, blunt refusals are unrealistic. But pressures to delay or shorten preparation for deployment times lie uneasily with the reasonable Chilcot view that military timetables should not dictate diplomatic ones. At heart are matters of risk, not just the major risk of a failure of a mission, but also the risk of casualties, and that is never easy to predict in a fight. Another risk, as highlighted in the inquiry, was that the UK feared being excluded from US plans unless they were offering ground forces. Taking such risks, while important to consider, cannot realistically be blamed individually, if they occur. A decision to commit forces beyond planning assumptions sounds unwise, unless national interests are under serious attack, when the decision to fight has to be with what you have, or to surrender. The commitment of forces to an expeditionary operation would seem to lend itself to a judgment about how far, and at what risk, to go. But as in so much else to do with such operations, the unfolding of events and the macrostrategic issues are most likely the dominant drivers, rather than putative risks, in reaching decisions.
The separation of responsibility between Ministers and senior commanders in operations is now also very different in the days of instant communication. I am reminded of an apocryphal story. An admiral at sea in the days of sail, seeking ministerial direction, would hand his quill-written request to the captain of his fastest frigate. Sails set, he would make all speed to bear the message to their Lordships in London, catching a tide up the Thames some three weeks later. Immediately —and to catch the falling tide—he would have their Lordships’ response. This would be with the admiral some six weeks after he had sent it. Today, the commander at sea, or in the field, can of course instantaneously signal the Ministry of Defence. The response will also reach him instantaneously, maybe some six weeks later.
Modern communications though, have also led to the explicit involvement of Ministers in live operations; for instance, giving approval to aerial attacks on a target. The scale and pace of recent operations make such involvement practical, and politically it may be essential for Ministers, who have the responsibility to describe and defend operations in public. Faced with a more aggressive foe, however, leading to the loss of ships or aircraft, such minute-to-minute involvement could become unmanageable. If things do not go as planned, who then is to blame?
Finally, I endorse strongly Chilcot’s views on the importance of news management. In the first Gulf War, when dealing, for example, with the loss of aircraft, comment would be sought almost simultaneously in the 24-hour news cycle from spokesmen in Riyadh, London and maybe Washington. Getting consistency in responses—when the veracity of the original claim had perhaps not been fully established—called for constant interaction and preparation against possible events or calamities. News management—I do not mean that in a pejorative sense—was difficult then. Social media have compounded the difficulties, but the success or failure of public support for an operation may depend on how the facts are reported and commented on. Chilcot is right to give this vital lesson renewed prominence.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, this is a definitive and exceptionally valuable report, even if it has been a long time in gestation. It has not changed the overall view I had already come to about the Iraq war, but I did not expect it to, and I doubt that I am alone in that. What it does so excellently is to tell the factual narrative in compelling detail and draw conclusions which are well supported by the text. It is the very fairness of the judgments made that renders them so cogent. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, rightly remarked, their tone contrasts markedly with the tone of some current comments, which are beneath those who make them.
I cannot claim to have read all 12 volumes, but I have read a couple. Volume 4, which relates to the use of intelligence, is a telling narrative and I want to focus on it for a moment. It tells a sad story of professional error, exaggeration and political manipulation of information which has left a damaging legacy of suspicion and mistrust of the agencies and of government generally which we see played out in many contexts, even more than a decade later. For instance, I see expressions of it in our current debate about the investigatory powers legislation.
The initial intelligence error arose from what the report terms the “ingrained belief” that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction and was still pursuing the goal of obtaining them. Such fragile assumptions—which, as other noble Lords have rightly remarked, were widely, in fact I think universally, shared in the intelligence community—were the starting point for a disastrous chain of events. That demonstrates that even if everybody believes something, it is not necessarily right.
The manipulation occurred as the result of the desire to find intelligence to support policy and to use it to make the public case for intervention. JIC material was embedded in a political document. Moreover, in the search to demonstrate that Iraq represented a direct threat to UK security, unassessed and entirely false intelligence was brought into play. The JIC assessment then became the political benchmark against which Saddam Hussein’s response was judged. An intelligence assessment became a policy document. Saddam Hussein was on to a hiding to nothing because if, as he repeatedly did, he denied possessing weapons of mass destruction, he was seen as being guilty of hiding them. On the other hand, had he acknowledged possession, he would have made the case for military action.
When one reads the story of this episode, one has the feeling that the way intelligence was used did not really matter to many, although not all, of those who were using it because the view was that even if it was subsequently criticised, that criticism would be overwhelmed by the discovery of the hidden WMD stocks: ends justifying means.
So what are the lessons? In the intelligence field, changes have been made in the way intelligence is assessed and in presentation to make clearer to Ministers the level of confidence in any given judgement. Ministers have shown they understand the perils of intelligence misuse in public. The House will recall that during the coalition Government, when it came to whether there should be a military response to Assad’s possession and use of chemical weapons, the Government released an unadorned JIC assessment. It did not make the Government’s case, and if somebody thought it would, they should not have expected it to do so.
We already know that the use of intelligence in court is fraught with difficulty and, although the problems are different, they exist with the use of intelligence in the wider public arena. I reckon it should be the exception. However, in a world of hybrid and cyber warfare, such sources may be uniquely valuable and central to a public understanding of what is happening, so we cannot not rule out the use of intelligence in public entirely. The policy for which they provide evidence has to carry conviction in its own right.
The events recounted in volume 4 of the report would have been much less likely if the centre of Mr Blair’s Government had been operating properly. At this point, I come to the issue of sofa government. The disregard for the conventional institution and processes of government had set in before the intervention in Iraq loomed, but it was greatly accelerated by that intervention. Special advisers must never again be allowed line authority over civil servants or be able to interfere in professional intelligence assessment. Circumstances must not arise in which intelligence from untested sources is handed to Ministers unassessed. Above all, Cabinet government and collective responsibility must function if trust in government is to be maintained.
When I advised David Cameron to set up a national security council, I had in mind three main considerations. The first was the need, for which the then Cabinet committee system did not adequately provide, to bring foreign policy and domestic security together in one place for decision and to increase the Government’s ability to operate across the piece. Secondly, in an era of the increasing importance of intelligence to policy-making, it made sense to create a forum for direct discussion between the agency heads and senior Ministers. The National Security Council now provides this.
My third and overriding consideration was indeed to try to prevent sofa government and instead to provide regular and inescapable time for consideration of the complex threats and challenges to the security of this country that the weekly Cabinet meeting agenda does not in reality provide. I recall my time as Deputy Cabinet Secretary. Foreign affairs came right at the end and tended to be squeezed. No system can be proof against perversion nor, as others have said, against operating on wrong information. I hope that some of the changes that have been made, and to which the Minister has alluded, will prove to have made sofa government less tempting and less likely.
Another part of the design was the proposal to create a fully fledged parliamentary committee to oversee the intelligence agencies. The heads of the agencies, to their credit, supported the need for much more credible accountability. It is certainly arguable that, had the current arrangements existed during Mr Blair’s Administration, some of what we witnessed might not have taken place and the Government as a whole might have been more resilient to American pressure.
However, there is the other side of this issue. It is a point made in the current edition of the Economist, and by a noble Lord earlier, and it is important. We must not allow this episode in our history, or the conclusions we draw from it, to prevent, deter or discourage us from continuing to play an active role in international politics.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)
My Lords, like others I have still not had the opportunity to read the whole report and have relied to a large extent on the executive summary. I suspect that over the coming weeks and months new insights will emerge that will be useful to us all. However, let us try today to draw the right conclusions and lessons from the Chilcot inquiry. That means we should not regurgitate the oft-repeated theories that some will never drop, no matter how many inquiries are held. I have been particularly distressed by some of the media coverage that we saw in the past week, which was deeply inappropriate and irresponsible.
The inquiry was set up to examine what happened in the run-up to, during and after the conflict, and to learn lessons. The report finds, first, that there was no falsification of intelligence. I quote, so that it is clear:
“There is no evidence that intelligence was improperly included in the dossier or that No. 10 improperly influenced the text”.
That comes from paragraphs 533 and 807. It also says:
“The inquiry is not questioning Mr Blair’s belief, which he consistently reiterated in his evidence to the inquiry, or his legitimate role in advocating government policy”.
The reality is:
“The JIC accepted ownership of the dossier and agreed its content”.
Further, members of the then Cabinet and senior parliamentarians across the House of Commons—including the then leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers—had regular briefings on the intelligence available at that time. That the intelligence was wrong is not in doubt. What do not stand up are the stories about political misuse of the intelligence.
Secondly, there was no deception of the Cabinet. The advice of the then Attorney-General to the Cabinet is well known. The majority of the Cabinet took the position that the role of the Attorney-General on 17 March was simply to tell the Cabinet whether there was a legal basis for military action, as it says in paragraph 950. That is what he did, and he was open to questioning on his advice. The report makes it clear that there was no so-called side deal. We should also be clear that the then Attorney-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, made it clear again last week that he believed at the time, and still does, that his legal advice was right.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the processes involved up to and after the military action could not have been much better—that would be foolish. I am simply stating for the record what the report finds in two key areas where mistruths continue to be repeated. Sir John of course makes strong, valid and important criticisms of the process of decision-making. The report understood that the nature of foreign policy requires the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and officials to be negotiating policy almost hour by hour, and that the nature of the so-called sofa government in this period involved what the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, described as “a professional forum” with, broadly,
“the right people in the room”—
that is, Secretaries of State, the Chief of the Defence Staff and, as appropriate, intelligence chiefs, not a cosy cabal. The full Cabinet discussed Iraq many times too, of course.
That said, the report’s view that there should have been a Cabinet committee and should be in future, receiving all appropriate papers and having all decisions properly minuted, is obviously right. Similarly, the view that the Attorney-General’s advice should have been tabled in full is also sensible. My only pushback is this: we must not delude ourselves collectively that better processes, while right, will ever make such decisions easy, or even that different decisions would necessarily get taken. The Prime Minister, in a considered and thoughtful Statement in the other place last week, described the sensible changes that have been introduced, including the introduction of the National Security Council. He was, however, also honest enough to recognise that the changes had not made either decision-making or outcomes in Libya and Syria either easy or necessarily successful. There is not some magic box that can be pulled down from the shelf. In the end, decisions about military interventions made by military leaders are tough. There is no more difficult decision for a Prime Minister to take than the one that commits troops.
The other lesson that I sincerely hope we do not learn collectively is that intervention is too difficult and should just be avoided if at all possible—that we should step back from international involvements and look the other way. We know that there are serious consequences when we do not intervene. Think of the ethnic massacres in Rwanda, where over 1 million people died. Failure to act quickly enough in Bosnia led to more than 100,000 dead and the catastrophes that we know about too well. The humanitarian disaster in Syria has led to many millions of refugees and displaced persons, starvation, deaths and panic throughout Europe about migration. Think too about the positive effects of intervention in Kosovo, without UN authorisation as it would have been vetoed, and in Sierra Leone. Both actions are widely supported, but of course may not have been if the outcomes had been less successful.
It is important to move on from recriminations and learn the right lessons about process and decision- making in government, proper preparations and detailed planning. Do not let us decide that the only way through in future is to avoid our responsibility when we see humanitarian disasters or dictators terrorising their peoples. Intervention is not always wrong, but we have to try to do better.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, it is humbling to take part in such a valuable and thoughtful debate with so many excellent contributions. I believe we owe a debt of gratitude to Sir John Chilcot. This report was never going to be easy or lacking in controversy. We might argue about the remit that he was given but not about the dedication that he has shown.
We are told that the Government of the day acted in good faith, but there were too many acts, there was far too much faith and I find it difficult to accept that there was much good in it. Was the war legal? Sir John was not allowed to say, but others will have a view. Was it effective? Well, the tyranny of one man has been replaced by a terror inflicted by many more across many borders. On the questions of cause and effect, I suppose history will decide. But above all, it is worth asking the simple things: was it just, proper and decent?
My first political memory dates back to 1956. As a young boy, I was captivated by a speech made to a huge crowd in Trafalgar Square by Aneurin Bevan. You can still watch it on YouTube. In his saggy suit and with his wonderful Welsh lyricism, Bevan addressed the Prime Minister of the day about another Middle East war in Suez. He said of the then Government:
“They have besmirched the name of Britain. They have made us ashamed of the things for which formerly we were proud. They have offended against decency”.
Pointing towards Anthony Eden, who was then in Downing Street, he said:
“If he is sincere in what he is saying—and he may be—then he is too stupid to be Prime Minister”,
words that echo even today. All of us, I suppose, bear some responsibility for the events in Iraq—the Labour Government bear responsibility, of course, but we in the Conservative Party did not do our proper job of analytical and responsible opposition. Yet above all it was the responsibility of one man, the then Prime Minister. Clausewitz once said that war is the continuation of policy by other means, but surely war must be a final option, a last resort, not merely a matter of prime ministerial preference. To coin his own phrase, it is right that Tony Blair should feel “the hand of history” on his shoulder.
Chilcot must not be the last word, debated then put away in some dusty drawer. Instead we should use it for a new beginning—but what sort of beginning? First, I have a few questions. Who is to take responsibility for what happened? Someone must, otherwise it might all happen again. We cannot have yet another example of the establishment being above the law and above any form of responsibility. We had enough of that with the bankers. Have we done enough yet to ensure that we do not repeat the errors? Somehow, our systems seemed to fail at every step—in the Cabinet, in the Civil Service, with our Law Officers, in the intelligence services, even in Parliament. How do we balance the right of a Prime Minister to lead and his duty to defend our interests—even to intervene—without once again falling victim to one man’s unwisdom?
Secondly, I can think of no better time than in the wake of Chilcot to undertake a comprehensive reappraisal of our foreign policy: its past effectiveness—particularly since the end of the Cold War—its strategy, its objectives, its implementation and the values that it reflects.
We are a decent and democratic people, so why are we having so much trouble showing it? We were once a beacon of hope in a dark world. Where have we gone wrong? Specifically in the Middle East, in the six decades since Suez, where are the successes to point to? One was the first Gulf War, certainly, which was co-operative and, as the noble Lord, Lord King, said, limited. But what about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and the Arab spring? How good have we been at learning the lessons? Not good enough, I suggest.
Thirdly, I believe that, as an establishment, we owe an apology for our failures in Iraq: to the families of the 179 service men and women who died; to the thousands more who came back home dragging their wounded bodies and wounded minds behind them; to the perhaps 1 million ordinary citizens who marched through the streets without hindsight before the war started, yet who were ignored; and to many others who suffered, like Dr David Kelly. To all of them we should say that we could and should have done better.
Yet it would be a tragedy if we tried to load all the blame on to Mr Blair, finding whatever room there is left between his shoulder blades to stick in another knife, because if that is all we do we will have lost the huge opportunity that Chilcot offers us—to reflect; to analyse the uncomfortable truths, as the noble Earl described them earlier; to revitalise the grounding principles behind our foreign policy; and to ensure that such appalling errors never happen again.
Above all, Chilcot is about responsibility, which can all too easily slip into recrimination. That would be a mistake. Instead of recrimination, I hope that it will be used to meet the need for reconciliation and for renewal of our national purpose. Great countries sometimes make great mistakes. We must learn from them.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I have been very critical of what I have called the scandalous delays in the publication of this report. I was not the only one. The Prime Minister was a prisoner of the mantra that this was an independent inquiry and therefore untouchable. I promised in the debate in October 2015 that, if the committee members turned out to be knights in shining armour and produced an authoritative report, I would withdraw my criticism. I am satisfied, subject to more leisurely reading, that all paths have been followed to the point of exhaustion. The committee deserves our thanks for its masterly analysis.
I intend to concentrate on some of the lessons to be learned. First, the families of those killed and grievously injured did not deserve such a delay in finding out what happened. My sympathies are those of a former Defence Minister and a former young soldier of many years ago.
The second lesson flows from the way the inquiry was set up. I was a member of a Select Committee of this House, under the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that suggested a more permanent machinery in the Cabinet Office to give guidance to Ministers and provide continuity in materials. That was rejected by the coalition Government. It is time to think again.
The third lesson flows from the inquiry’s terms of reference. Respect for good government is undermined if reports do not see the light of day because of their breadth and before issues become dimmer and dimmer in the public memory. I have said previously that Sir John was not given the opportunity to discuss the scope of the inquiry. The Cabinet Office was in such a hurry that he was given only 10 minutes to decide whether to accept the chair. I suspect that Prime Minister Gordon Brown had no more than limited experience of setting up inquiries of this kind, having heard the arguments for choosing tightly drawn terms as opposed to all-encompassing ones. What he had in mind was about a year for the inquiry to report. The Butler inquiry took five months. As a young man, my name was proposed for the Falklands inquiry. I was in busy professional practice at the Bar, and I cleared my desk for the intended six months. I was very relieved when somebody else was preferred.
My fourth point concerns the fact that there was no lawyer on the committee, which shows up a little in the cross-examinations I have seen and read. The Leveson inquiry was a good example of a senior judge taking the chair, although this is not essential. Equally important was the advantage of having as counsel Sir Robert Jay, who could ensure and marshal the evidence, and undoubtedly shortened the proceedings.
I fully understand the concept of the independence of the inquiry, but surely this does not mean a free rein, without any parliamentary consideration when things are going wrong and costs are mounting year by year. There is a mechanism for control under Section 13 of the Inquiries Act 2005. For some reason this path was not chosen and we had an unbridled, non-statutory inquiry. It is the second major inquiry—the Londonderry inquiry being the other—that has grossly exceeded expectations in its length and costs. Have lessons been learned for the current historical sex abuse inquiry under Justice Goddard?
The Attorney-General had the very difficult task of ruling on the legality of the war and gave his honestly held views. I have never commented on the legal position. In my book I advocated that, despite the equivocation of the French, we should have tried for a second resolution. This was not a war of last resort. I do not find the consideration the Cabinet gave to the basis for going to war attractive, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has ruthlessly demolished it for lacking appropriate processes. Mr Blair has accepted responsibility—and rightly—for the way the decisions were taken. The Attorney-General was not asked why he had changed his mind that it would have been safer to obtain a second resolution because of the risk of legal challenge. He was surprised at the lack of interest. He is independent of the Government in this role, but the office is sometimes regarded as the fifth wheel of the coach by his political colleagues.
I was Attorney-General during the Kosovo war. In two war Cabinets I invited myself to speak—this was probably presumptuous. I also put all of my important arguments to No. 10 in writing. We were indeed, and as I had advised, challenged and, with eight other NATO countries, appeared as defendants before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, where I was leading counsel for the United Kingdom. There is always a danger of a challenge, and we were indeed challenged for one long week. I find the attitude of the Cabinet consistent with the Attorney-General’s evidence—it can be nervous of a legal spanner in the works.
Finally, I turn to post-war planning. We could all go into some detail on this issue, but there are more expert minds regarding the appropriate amount of equipment that should have been available. The Americans mainly bear the responsibility for the lack of planning but we share it, too, and are paying the price now.
Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former special adviser to the late Robin Cook when he was Foreign Secretary from 1999 to 2001, and to Jack Straw when he was Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2005. In that year I returned to the UN, where I was director for the Middle East in the Department of Political Affairs in New York. In all three positions I had much to do with Iraq.
Let me record my high regard for the work of Sir John Chilcot and his fellow commissioners, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Usha Prashar. The report is a forensic critique of the Iraq war, probably the most divisive issue in British foreign policy since the Suez war of 1956, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has just referred, and which, of course, brought down the Government of Sir Anthony Eden. But the legacy of the 1956 war, in the region and here at home, was not as profound as that of the Iraq war. Moreover, the UK death toll in the Suez conflict was barely 12% of that during the Iraq war.
In my remarks today I want to focus on the continuing effects of the war, 13 years after the invasion. An early indication and warning of what that invasion was likely to bring was the looting of the fabled treasures of the Baghdad museum in the early days of the 2003 war. The inability, or the unwillingness, of the invading forces to take adequate responsibility for the maintenance of law and order was a foretaste of the occupation to come.
On 2 July 2003, I accompanied Jack Straw on a visit to Baghdad. In addition to meeting with Iraqi politicians, we met with Mr Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, as well as the late Sérgio Vieira de Mello, the United Nations special representative. The two men could not have been more different. Although Mr Bremer had the title of ambassador, he reported not to the State Department but directly and only to Donald Rumsfeld, then the Secretary of Defense. His previous diplomatic experience was limited to postings in Norway and the Netherlands. The contrast with Mr de Mello could not have been more marked. Widely tipped as a future secretary-general, the Brazilian diplomat had served in the Congo, Mozambique and East Timor, as well as in Cambodia and the Balkans, where I worked with him. There was no senior figure in the UN who came close to de Mello in terms of his incomparable experience in conflict and post-conflict situations, as well as in humanitarian affairs.
De Mello hoped that the CPA would move quickly to allow a provisional Iraqi Government—after all, the Security Council Resolution 1483 envisaged the coalition as a temporary authority in Iraq—but he was not able to influence the United States and, as Sir John Chilcot tartly notes, neither was the UK. There was, chillingly, no reporting line from the CPA to the UK. Moreover, the US, as Sir John Chilcot again outlines, refused to accept a memorandum of understanding to establish procedures for working together on occupation issues. The UK’s ability to influence decisions made by the CPA was, Sir John says, not commensurate with its responsibilities as joint occupying power. It was under Bremer’s leadership that de-Baathification became a disaster and fatally wounded the Iraqi state, from which it has still not recovered today.
The subaltern position of the UK did not match the commitment that the Blair Government had made. It meant that from the very beginning the traction that London had on Washington was not adequate to the enormity of the tasks of the occupation.
For all its faults and crushing brutality, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a nation state. It was a bulwark against Iran, with whom it had fought a bitter war. Since the invasion, Iraq has not become again a functioning nation state. We see the position of the Christians in Iraq. At the time of the invasion, their numbers were about 1,700,000. Today they are fewer than 20% of that number. Post-Saddam Governments have been less successful—or, frankly, less willing—in protecting Christians and other minorities from coming under attack.
It is important to look at the conclusions Chilcot outlines regarding post-conflict situations. In paragraph 859 of the executive summary he looks at the fundamental elements of post-conflict situations. The first is,
“the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations”.
The second is,
“a hard-headed assessment of risks”.
The third is realistic objectives and the fourth is the allocation of the necessary resources. In paragraph 860 he says:
“All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role in post-conflict Iraq”.
At the regional level in 2003 the UK, and Tony Blair in person, pushed strongly for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Now, 13 years on, we are no nearer that settlement. Indeed, the Middle East peace process, far from being advanced by the Iraq war, has for several years now barely existed. There have been no meetings between the parties for nearly three years. There was a fragile Middle East peace process in 2003. Now there is none.
Chilcot also shows conclusively that there were no links between the Baathist regime and al-Qaeda. It is, then, one of the cruellest outcomes of the Iraq invasion that since 2003 Iraq has been the source of many of the jihadi threats to the region and to the West itself. Today, Daesh or ISIS is stronger in Iraq than in any other Arab country, including Syria. Mosul, a city larger than Manchester, has been under ISIS occupation for more than two years now. It functions like a state and is an incubator for many of the plots and threats against the West. The situation is so serious that yesterday Ash Carter, the US Defense Secretary, announced that a further 600 US troops were being dispatched to Iraq, bringing the current total there to nearly 5,000. I ask the Minister: what is the UK Government’s view of the threat posed by the ISIS state in Iraq and are we considering further assistance to the Iraq Government?
Finally, I urge the Minister to make sure that the lessons of the Chilcot inquiry and, more importantly, its report, are fully understood and the policy implications absorbed across Whitehall, especially in the FCO, the MoD and DfID.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest to declare because I was a TA officer serving in Kuwait and Iraq in early 2003. I was serving as a G1/G4 ops watchkeeper in HQ DSG, part of 1 (UK) Armoured Division.
Before I was called up on 26 February 2003, I was the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for defence in your Lordships’ House. While I thought the “dodgy dossier” was appropriately named, I honestly had faith in the Prime Minister. I thought that perhaps the officials were telling him that he had to deal with Saddam Hussein then or he would never be able to deal with him. I believed it my duty to believe the Prime Minister on a matter of national security. During the run-up to the operation, Dr El Baradei had more or less told us that there was no nuclear threat from Saddam, and in the HQ and in the theatre we honestly believed that we faced a threat from imminent chemical attack and it was not just some conspiracy in No. 10.
My noble friend Lord King mentioned the Maxwellisation process. It seems to me that Maxwellisation is an invitation to witnesses to be as economical as possible with the quantity of evidence, safe in the knowledge that if the inquiry gets a bit too close they can give further details.
Mr Blair and I had privileged upbringings. We were both privately educated and many of our teachers would have served in the Second World War and had a terrible time. My teachers drummed into me time and again that war is to be avoided at all possible costs. Nevertheless, they also ensured that we knew how to defend our nation, particularly in respect of leadership, so I am not quite sure what went wrong.
There are some good aspects to this. The SDR 1998, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was a particularly good defence review. It recognised that we would be getting into expeditionary warfare. We practised it with Exercise Saif Sareea in Oman in 2001, and we learned a lot of lessons. Some tried to suggest that Labour Ministers deployed UK forces on Op Telic 1 ill trained and inadequately equipped for the military task that had been set for them. They did no such thing. The problems, as we know, were with the legality and the necessity of the operation and with post-conflict planning, but I have no issue at all with the way that Op Telic 1 was conducted. It was a brilliant operation, very rapidly executed.
Initially, up until December 2002, the plan was to deploy through Turkey with a British armoured brigade and two logistic brigades. Then, in December, the plan was changed to go in through the south of Iraq with an armoured brigade, a commando brigade and an air mobile brigade. This was a massive change in plan; nevertheless, we were ready to cross the start line in early March 2003. That was very fast indeed—it gave little time for our opponents to prepare and its speed minimised our casualties. Of course, once a force is deployed, you cannot leave it deployed very long. You have to recognise that your own forces will never be perfectly prepared and the longer you wait, the better prepared your opponents will be. It is not generally recognised that only the US, UK, France and Russia can deploy an armoured formation out of area, away from their own land mass. Other nations simply cannot do it; they lack both the physical and conceptual components to do so.
I want to dispel a few myths. Take the matter of body armour, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. When I mobilised I was issued with brand-new body armour at Chilwell, as were all the other people being mobilised. Yes, there was a shortage of body armour in theatre. Body armour is very heavy and I suspect that what happened was that some enterprising quartermaster put his unit’s body armour in an ISO container in order to allow the troops to carry more of their own gear into theatre, not realising how fast we were going to move. We ended up in the situation that we were short of about 600 sets of body armour in theatre and the logistical system is simply not geared up to deal with that sort of problem. Unfortunately, the fact that we did not have a system of tracking the ISO shipping containers was a problem, but that is not a reason for not deploying. I am very sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the reality is that body armour, no matter how good—unless you cannot pick it up—will not protect a soldier from a burst of fire from a general-purpose machine gun mounted on a vehicle. You simply do not have a snowflake’s chance in a blast furnace.
I can say, years later, that I am ashamed of some of the attacks made by my honourable friends on Labour Ministers. They should have known better. Parliamentarians have to understand that it is impossible to engage in war-fighting operations without taking numerous casualties. I have said before and I will say again that the attention we pay to each casualty is inversely proportionate to the number of casualties we take. Some outside the House think that the MoD, the staff and senior officers have a sort of “Blackadder” attitude to taking casualties. They do not. In every HQ, at every level, every casualty hurts like hell. I know; I have been there.
Now I will say a word about protective ability. In late May 2003 I was running around Basra province in a soft-skin Land Rover. I was heavily armed, with a Browning 9 millimetre pistol, my body armour was somewhere in the back of the Land Rover, and I hoped that my driver had remembered to bring his rifle. We did not need anything more: it was a benign environment. It was only later, when the post-conflict plan was unravelling and we lost the consent of the people, that it became a dangerous environment.
The report observes that MoD staff in the UK were preoccupied with the FRES programme—a new armoured vehicle programme. The danger with buying a large UOR fleet is that you end up with a wide range of flat platforms with different build standards, and no plan for sustaining the fleet in the future. I am sorry to say that that is exactly what we have now—as I am sure Mr Putin’s military advisers are well aware.
The shocking part of the report is not the intelligence failures but the late consideration of the legal issues, the total lack of Cabinet government, and the problem in involving Ministers, such as Defence Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers, at all levels. Finally, I would like to say that the blame does not all lie with Labour Ministers. My noble friend Lord Dobbs touched on the role of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I am not clear, and the report does not cover, what role Her Majesty’s Opposition took in asking the very difficult questions of Ministers. If they had done that, the outcome might have been different.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, the Chilcot report is a devastating record of what Gibbon called “the crimes and follies of mankind”. It does nevertheless suggest some heroes in this dreary saga. We should mention Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the legal adviser to the Foreign Office, who resigned so courageously when it became clear that the attack planned on Iraq was illegal, and insisted that we should keep within international law and the UN charter. Her arguments were never made public.
In Parliament, as we have rightly been told, the Liberal Democrats—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and his colleagues—stood out. Charles Kennedy was a great party leader, who showed great courage. It was the Liberal Democrats’ finest hour, and reminds me of the South African war, when Campbell-Bannerman and Lloyd George condemned the British Government for “methods of barbarism”. In government there was, of course, Robin Cook. Chilcot is a complete vindication of what he said on every aspect—on weapons, on security and on the flouting of the United Nations. He was indeed a great man, and a very considerable loss.
Internationally, we should honour France. What President Chirac and Dominique de Villepin did at the United Nations has been totally vindicated. They pointed out the flaws in the argument, despite all the crude abuse they got from people like Cheney and Rumsfeld. I recall reading what Tony Blair said: “Poor old Jacques. He just doesn’t get it”. But he did get it.
Finally, there were the people of England— 1.5 million of them—who marched through London. My daughter and I were very proud to be with them. They expressed their disgust, many of them people who had never demonstrated about anything before. This was the greatest public display of citizenship since the days of the Chartists. It was visibly democracy on the march.
The key errors were all known at the time, but Chilcot demonstrates them remorselessly and explicitly. There was the misguided reaction of the United States to the horrors of 9/11. The US linked it with Saddam Hussein and his alleged encouragement of al-Qaeda. These beliefs were all untrue. As we have heard, in any case Saddam Hussein ran a secular regime and had nothing to do with 9/11. Nevertheless, the United States immediately began planning reprisals on Baghdad and regime change. The United States actively defied the United Nations, even though it claimed to be its champion. The United Kingdom encouraged this and promised to take part in military action.
There was the extraordinary development of the Anglo-American so-called special relationship. After the secret talks at Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, which were never given much publicity at the time, the British and American Governments discussed pre-emptive strikes in Iraq and the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein, even though their intelligence told them that there was no military threat from him. This country took a completely servile view of the special relationship. I suspect that one factor was that old Labour was so often associated with pacifism and anti-Americanism, and new Labour was going to be different. Well, it certainly was.
The legality of the war is spelled out very fascinatingly. It had to be shown that Iraq was in defiance of Resolution 1441. The person to do that was the Prime Minister, who in effect was advising himself about the legality of an attack on Iraq. The effect was—it is a shame that Chilcot’s team had no lawyers within its ranks—that all the doctrines of a legal war, namely the backing of the United Nations and the doctrines of a just war going back to Grotius or, indeed, in the case of the Church, to Aquinas in the Middle Ages, were set aside.
The military case was equally unacceptable—to quote Chilcot’s wonderful phrase, it was “far from satisfactory” with the failures of MI6; plagiarism; no visible threat from Saddam Hussein; no biological and chemical weapons; no uranium from Niger; no 45-minutes delivery of weapons; and Hans Blix finding absolutely nothing. The evidence was flawed and far more weight was put on it than it could justifiably bear. One should say that Saddam Hussein did have some horrible weapons—anthrax, botulin and West Nile virus. Of course he had them—we gave them to him. He was our honoured partner in the war against Iran. It is sheer hypocrisy that we should suddenly express our horror at this.
Finally, as so many noble Lords with personal knowledge of this situation have said, there was the failure to plan for the aftermath. I remember Lord Bramall, who spoke just after me in the debate in 2003, saying that there was no strategic objective and no plan. I recall Lord Hurd explaining the errors that would result to the whole region from an attack on Iraq, with the dismantling of the Baath regime, ferocious civil war between Shias and Sunnis and a chaotic bloodbath ever since. As the old Roman said, they created a wilderness and they called it peace. As a consequence of this, al-Qaeda became far stronger and the rise of ISIL was encouraged, and 250,000 people lost their lives, along with a significant number of ill-equipped brave British servicemen, as a result of these miscalculations and distortions. And, of course, the threat of terrorism spread from Iraq to the streets of London.
The results of this catastrophe are now all too visible. In Iraq, we have seen the triggering of the refugee crisis, which loomed so large in the campaign over Brexit, and is a source of turbulence in this and other countries. We have seen politicians discredited as crooks and liars—again, we saw that in the Brexit crisis. My own party, of which I have been a member since 1955, has been in disarray ever since. Beginning with the 2005 election, it is now deeply divided over the legacy of Iraq. It is clearly not a party of government; it is difficult to say that it is even a party of opposition.
I once read about the life of Michael Foot, who wrote a famous pamphlet in 1940. This, very oddly, was quoted, and its argument used by George Bush, in a completely ill-informed linking of appeasement in the 1930s and Iraq, and a totally unhistorical parallel was drawn between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. So the evidence was misused, but there is force in the opening words: “Bring forth your guilty men”. Chilcot is the sombre, devastating chronicle of that guilt.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I have had the pleasure of working under the chairmanship of Sir John Chilcot, admittedly on a task less monumental than this one. I was a little surprised at the amount of time the work took, but I am not at all surprised at the thoroughness, care and clear expression of criticism which we find in the Chilcot report. This is very much to his credit and to that of his team.
I voted against the Iraq war, and had clear reasons for doing so. It was illegal under international law. The intelligence, some of which I was familiar with through the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, was in no way conclusive as to the presence of weapons of mass destruction, even if it could have been made to appear consistent with that possibility. There was no plan for the consequences: as Sir John says, the Government had,
“failed to take account of the magnitude of the task of … reconstructing Iraq”.
The Government were also unable to deflect the United States from its own catastrophic plan to dismantle most of the military and administrative infrastructure left from the Saddam regime and the Baath party, without which Iraq, at that stage, was ungovernable, which was the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. My other reason was that there was no need—containment and inspection were still functioning.
I want to turn from those reasons to the intelligence failure. There was an inappropriate use of intelligence to bolster beliefs already held, and to make a public case for war, for which purpose it was surrounded by over-interpretation and spin. There was a fatal and inexcusable absence of challenges in the assessment process, at the level of JIC and below. The most telling example of that is that those in the Defence Intelligence Staff with the expertise to assess whether material from the so-called new source was in any way credible were not given full access, and did not have their written concerns reported to the Joint Intelligence Committee. The Ministry of Defence was so embarrassed by this that it withheld details from the Intelligence and Security Committee even when the Secretary of State and officials were questioned about it. The committee strongly criticised both the Minister and officials for this in its report, and Geoff Hoon subsequently apologised to the House of Commons.
The 2004 report by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his committee, which included Sir John Chilcot as a member, did a lot of the work which was needed in the intelligence area—on the intelligence failure and on its lessons. In this area, there is not a lot the Chilcot report could add to the work done by the noble Lord and his team. I am optimistic that, as a result of the Butler report, challenge processes have been built into intelligence assessment, and the role of the Joint Intelligence Committee is better understood. We now also have the National Security Council.
Incidentally, speaking of challenge, from a personal standpoint I am still puzzled that no one in the entire intelligence community seemed to have considered the possibility that Saddam Hussein thought it was in his interest, in the power rivalries of the Middle East, that other nations should continue to believe that he had or was close to having weapons of mass destruction.
Chilcot’s sections on the conduct of the war and its aftermath pose serious questions for the Ministry of Defence. Why was there inadequate preparation for the known danger of IEDs? Why was there such a failure to provide adequately armoured vehicles and what Chilcot calls an “unacceptable” failure to identify where responsibility for these things lay? My noble friend Lord Tyler reminded us that political obstacles were put in the way of prior preparation, with a resultant cost in human lives. There is surely a lesson there. Churchill went to considerable lengths during the Second World War so that he could continue to make various kinds of preparation while leading the enemy to believe that he was doing something completely different. We ought to know a little from that experience.
Is there a problem with the can-do approach which is in many ways a commendable part of the tradition of our service chiefs? It may get in the way of telling the truth to power if the truth is: “No, we cannot actually do it in this case”—at least, not in the timescale proposed or not in the way suggested. If the truth cannot be told to power, bad decisions will be made. Sometimes, very good motives may cause that to happen. Those are all issues which must now be given serious consideration.
The Chilcot report taken as a whole is a searing criticism of Tony Blair and those across the political spectrum who gave him uncritical support in this matter. It is also a severe criticism of those within the intelligence and policy-making processes of government who allow themselves to be caught up in groupthink without opposing the alternatives. I have believed all along, and Chilcot provides the evidence, that Tony Blair was motivated by a conviction that our central and vital alliance with the United States required us to be alongside it “whatever”. That seems to neglect the fact that in two important conflicts—important to each of our countries respectively—we had considerable differences. I refer to the Vietnam War and the Falklands War. In both cases, we took very different views, but our alliance survived and there was a degree of understanding between our two countries as to how each handled the conflict in which they were involved.
A leader with Tony Blair’s skills, determination and unquenchable self-belief should not have been presiding over a system which offered so little challenge. This sad story, which cost many British lives and is still costing so many Iraqi lives, has done lasting damage to public confidence in politicians and the political process. It has undermined in our country the very democratic institutions which our Armed Forces risk their lives to defend, and we owe them better.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I opposed the Iraq War and in my speech of 26 February 2003, at col. 260 in Hansard, I set out the reasons why, in my judgment, it failed three of the just war criteria for a morally justified military intervention.
However, I begin by saying that I believe the decision to go to war taken by the Prime Minister and Parliament at the time was an honourable one and was honourably made. It was in my view a tragic misjudgment, but it was not criminal. Mr Blair is now being pilloried in the press, but I suspect that if the intervention had turned out to be a long-term success rather than a very short-lived military one, some of those now vilifying him would have been praising him as a successful war leader. Tragically, instead of stability, we have had sectarian strife, massive displacement of people and terrible casualties. It is only fair, however, to note that there was no easy way in which the situation in Iraq was going to be resolved and what is happening in Syria is a literally deadly reminder of what can happen when matters are left just to take their course without an external invasion by major powers.
That said, however, the worst aspect of the Iraqi intervention for me has always been the failure to prepare properly for the aftermath of the military victory, as highlighted so powerfully in the Chilcot report. A Roman emperor on his deathbed was alleged to have given his sons three pieces of advice: “Don’t quarrel among yourselves, pay your soldiers well and despise everyone else”. Leaving aside the last point, the invasion failed dismally on the first two counts. There were entirely contradictory signals coming from those in charge in the United States, not least on the troop levels that would be necessary. Then there was the disastrous decision to let 400,000 Iraqi soldiers loose into the community, many with access to weapons, leaving the country in a state of virtual anarchy. A more properly realistic policy would have been to offer to double the pay of those in the Iraqi Army, leaving the process of de-Baathification to take place over a much longer period.
I would now like to look much more closely at how some of the just war criteria apply in the light of the Chilcot judgments. I do so because of future lessons that might be learned about the application to modern warfare. First, as Chilcot says:
“We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort”.
What is important to spell out for the future, however, is that last resort is very much a matter of judgment and it cannot mean waiting for ever. In fact, a malevolent enemy will use every delaying trick in the book to retain and strengthen their position, with time usually being on their side. In theory, you can always go on negotiating, but that could be fatal. In practice, if an enemy is to be confronted, action has to be taken when it has the maximum chance of success.
For that reason, I am not altogether easy about the phrase in the Chilcot report,
“before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”,
because with Saddam Hussein, there was never going to be a peaceful means of disarming him. Like the intelligence community that advised the Government, I believed it likely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, although they had not been found at the time; and that, in any case, he certainly intended to develop them if he possibly could. Although I believed that to be the case, I still took the view that the less hazardous course in 2003 was to continue the policy of containment with its no-fly zones, which was working very well. I did so in part because I did not believe that at that point there was sufficient significant international consensus for military action. This leads on to the whole question of legality.
Chilcot declined to comment on the legality of the war—wisely, in my view. In fact, there was reputable neutral opinion at the time which said that military intervention was justified under Resolution 1441, even without a second UN resolution. The point I wish to make is that legality may not be enough. The relevant just war criterion here is that there must be proper authority. In the modern world, we rightly look to the Security Council of the UN to provide that authority but, as the late, lamented Sir Michael Quinlan showed so persuasively at the time in his contrast of the intervention in Kosovo with that in Iraq, although the former had no UN resolution to justify it, it had the kind of international consensus which morally authorised it in a way that the Iraq invasion did not. In the case of Iraq, although a case could be made out for its legality, it lacked the authority of a true international consensus. That is the lesson we need to bear in mind for the future. That is why my view then was that we should have continued the successful policy of containment, working towards greater consensus and, as we see in retrospect, much more thorough planning for the period following a military victory.
The other just war criteria that I wish to discuss very briefly is that there must be a reasonable chance of success. This poses a sharp question as to what counts as success. The military campaign was highly successful but, as Chilcot emphasises, the wider goal of a just and ordered Iraq has been for the most part a terrible failure.
However, the question of success goes much further even than that. The Iraq invasion took place in a world in which the main threat—then, as now—was terrorism. The struggle against terrorism is not just a matter of military victories or even achieving ordered government: it is a struggle of hearts and minds against a twisted ideology. This means that every action must be judged as to whether it is going to further or frustrate that goal—that kind of success. An invasion led by a US-led coalition in a deeply suspicious Middle East was problematic from the first in its capacity to arouse and reinforce that ideology—and, as we have seen, to reinforce its strength around the world. This did not rule invasion out but ought to have been much more in the minds of the planners.
There are many lessons to be learnt from what has gone so badly wrong. My concern, then and now, is the application of traditional just war criteria, which I still think are highly relevant to every possible conflict in the modern world. With all due respect to the noble and very scholarly Lord, Lord Morgan, they actually go back to St Augustine. They are highly applicable in the modern world but need to be applied with a proper sensitivity to the conditions of modern warfare, as I have tried to suggest in one or two places.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, along with colleagues who were in Cabinet at the time of the decision in 2003, I take responsibility for my decisions. I have had the sort of upbringing that would never allow me to do anything but take responsibility for them. Of course, I associate myself with the expressions of gratitude to all those who served in Iraq, and especially to the families of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. The parents of one of the victims live in the small town near me in the constituency I represented at the time. They are very proud of their son, and rightly so.
I supported the decision to go to war after considerable discussion with colleagues. Even though at the time I was not in one of the central departments—a department relevant to the war decision and the aftermath of the invasion—we were involved in extensive discussions. It was not just sprung on us at a Cabinet meeting. I, too, had the opportunity to meet the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and I believe that I challenged him, asked serious questions and took some considerable time at the meeting.
It was very clear to me after that meeting, and after discussions with colleagues, that it was not just the British intelligence view that Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction. Most of the other intelligence communities, in countries that had that sort of information, thought that Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction. I had also met, in previous years, a range of Iraqis. I considered the reports of the dictator having already killed many of his own people. I knew that he had used weapons of mass destruction in doing so, and that he was in breach of 17 existing UN resolutions. It was in that context that I took the decision I did, and I concur with the views of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who was much more centrally involved than me but who nevertheless expressed the views that were common around the Cabinet table at the time.
I am very confident that I was not lied to, and that Parliament was not lied to. The report criticises our judgment, and I accept that as their view. I do not believe that it criticises our integrity, or that we did anything other than act in good faith. I saw how hard the Prime Minister tried for a second resolution, partly because he just felt that the Americans should have been putting more effort into making the UN work, but mainly because he saw that it was important for political reasons.
I also saw his determination in getting the Americans to deliver a commitment to a Middle East peace process. My noble friend on the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reminded us of how unsuccessful it was. However, I remind the House that from my very clear knowledge, it was a very important issue for the then Prime Minister, as he has always seen the peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine as a necessary part of a peaceful way forward in the Middle East.
The report, however, makes it clear that serious mistakes were made, and that government and Parliament must learn lessons. That is very important. What is now clear is that Parliament will for ever more be asked to make these decisions. This was, however, the first time that Parliament had been asked for a decision to commit British troops in that way. Difficult as it was, I believe that that was the right call at that time.
There are those who criticise the decision to share intelligence information, and they have done so today. But I suggest that it would have been difficult to give Parliament the opportunity to vote without offering it the view of the intelligence community in some way. Again, we forget just how little parliamentarians had been allowed to see, or hear from, intelligence sources before then.
We are all very good at hindsight. None of us, thank goodness, is furnished with foresight. We do not know what would have happened if there had been no invasion of Iraq or if Saddam Hussein had still been there. The current state of the country and the vicious conflict in neighbouring states is frightening. The real differences between Shia and Sunni are being played out in ways that no one knows how to deal with. I hope that people do not take from this inquiry any belief that we can just ignore what is going on in the world. Many more people have been killed in Syria—in what is a horrendous civil war—and more people have been displaced from there than in the history of the world. This does affect us; it destabilises people in this country. It also destabilises and challenges the democratic values that we proclaim so proudly. What is happening is a challenge to the whole world. I hope that one lesson we learn is that we need to strengthen and reform the United Nations so that it is capable of protecting people from those brutal dictators who terrorise their own populations in the way that Saddam Hussain did.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, I deeply regret my own decision to support the invasion of Iraq in 2003. When I look at Iraq today, the spillover into Syria and the emergence of Daesh, I believe that it is incumbent on us not just to praise the Chilcot report, but to apply the same forensic examination to what we are to do about it that it gave to providing us with the facts.
I say immediately that the decision of the young leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, to oppose the war was an outstanding example of political integrity and courage. The judgment of Robin Cook, when he exercised his right to look at the actual intelligence reports and came out against the war, was also a vindication of his intelligence and his integrity. I would furthermore say that the left and the pacifists, which are essential elements in our political society and have often got wars wrong, got this war correct—and all credit to the present leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, for doing so. I have one measure of pride in all this: that my own daughter and son-in-law marched on the protest.
There is one positive element, which came out from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. Having chaired the JIC extremely skilfully and with a deep knowledge for many years, few are better equipped than her to draw attention to what must be done. That is the National Security Council, which has been established and which the Minister spoke about. I hope that he might deal with this question a little in his closing speech: how can we entrench that mechanism whereby Prime Ministers and politicians have to be involved in direct dialogue with senior defence chiefs, and in a disciplined framework with papers presented to the National Security Council in advance, assessed accurately and concrete, detailed and specific notes taken? None of this was done during the Iraq war, which was exceptional. It was done in the first Gulf War and even in the Suez crisis, when the Cabinet was told about collusion even though the House of Commons was lied to. It was a terrible mistake not to have a serious examination in Parliament of what had gone wrong in Suez; let us not make the same mistake again.
In some parts of this debate, it somehow seems that this is all over. Chilcot made very few actual judgments but presided with great skill over the facts. Here I must say something direct to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, whose speech today we listened to with attention, as always. Not only was he the chairman of the first report on intelligence but, on 22 February 2007, he made a very powerful speech in this House. Listening to it at the time, he made me feel that he too had learned some lessons from his own report. He said:
“But here was the rub: neither the United Kingdom nor the United States had the intelligence that proved conclusively that Iraq had those weapons. The Prime Minister was disingenuous about that. The United Kingdom intelligence community told him on 23 August 2002 that, ‘we ... know little about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons work since late 1988’. The Prime Minister did not tell us that. Indeed, he told Parliament only just over a month later that the picture painted by our intelligence services was ‘extensive, detailed and authoritative’. Those words could simply not have been justified by the material that the intelligence community provided to him”.—[Official Report, 22/2/07; col. 1231.]
I agreed with the noble Lord’s statement when he made it in 2007 and it is a pity that it was not reiterated today.
Let us now go to the question of what to do. It would have been much easier if the former Prime Minister had made an open confession that he had made many mistakes. Unfortunately, on the day of the report, having no doubt had access to it for some time, he produced a written statement of defiance. That defiance—the only word to describe it— cannot be left unchallenged. He said:
“If I was back in the same place with the same information, I would take the same decision”.
If that is left to stand unchallenged, Chilcot will have failed. Let us be quite clear: that statement is unacceptable and it is no honest reading of the Chilcot report. Some people say that there should be no scapegoating. No, there should not, but it is the duty of Parliament, and particularly the House of Commons, to examine this report and make judgments.
The Times editorial “Catalogue of Failure” on 7 July charges that we went to war,
“on the basis of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that remained privy to the prime minister and his closest aides but which he insisted, in private as well as public, was incontrovertible”.
I may say that he did so in private to me, on privy counsellor terms, on 24 July 2002. The editorial goes on to say:
“It was anything but. Still defiant 13 years on, Mr Blair insisted in a written statement that the Chilcot report alleged ‘no falsification or improper use of intelligence’. In fact the report states that the intelligence ‘was not challenged and should have been’. Many will conclude that amounts to improper use”.
I am one who believes that it implies improper use. The question is: what to do?
It is arguable that the statement which the Prime Minister made on 28 July 2002 that he would support President Bush “whatever” is almost an impeachable offence. Certainly, Lord Sanderson made it perfectly clear, in describing what impeachment meant in February 1906—when he was dealing with the question of the military conversations in that year in which the French and British staff forces got together to plan a British expeditionary force, but did not tell the Cabinet for five years—that the terms of an impeachable offence would be,
“to go to war in certain circumstances, and were not to mention this pledge to Parliament, and if at the expiration of some months the country suddenly found itself pledged to war in consequence of this assurance, the case would be one which would justify impeachment”.
I do not believe that impeachment is the right solution to our present problems. I make it quite clear that I do not think you can do that in the 21st century.
We now have a body of civil law to represent a civil society. It is for the courts to decide on that for the families of the soldiers who tragically lost their lives, or those suffering appalling injuries, much of which we still do not really know about. There is the question of bringing Parliament into disrepute. That is why in another place they are perfectly right and proper to examine whether this represents contempt of Parliament; otherwise, what do we do? Do we just leave it? How many people ever knew, years on from the Suez crisis, that we had colluded with the Israelis and the French to occupy the Suez Canal? It is absolutely essential that this much is learned, because I am one who believes that we may have to intervene in the future. I do not want what happened in the aftermath of this war to condemn all military interventions in the future. Let us be courageous enough to face the need to examine this issue in Parliament, in another place if not in this place.
Lord Selsdon (Con)
My Lords, I am very honoured to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Owen, but I operate at a much lower level. I have been interested my whole life in trade and the financing of trade. Reading back from trade, there were the books when we first founded the Council of Trade. For many years I served as chairman of the Committee for Middle East Trade, having taken over from my then noble friend Lord Limerick. It is the link between trade, finance and politics that I find fascinating, particularly at this moment in Iraq and Iran. I wanted to go to Iraq to see how things were, and was told I must have a proper introduction, and the introduction to Iraq was not the Foreign Office, and it was nothing British. I went to Egypt and asked there if there were any relationships. Before I knew it, someone had suggested that if I would like to get in a car with them and drive to the Jordanian border, we would be well received and it would open up for commercial activities. There is an undercurrent of co-operation between these countries, many of which compete with one another, and I got very interested in Iraq.
I went to Iraq one or two times and then met the Trade Minister, Hassan Ali, to ask how we could co-operate. He said it was very simple; they wanted to sell us oil, and I said it was very simple; we might like to acquire oil in order to finance other activities. He said to come and have a look with him in his next-door office. We went through and he said it was a one-way mirror and that I would see in there a negotiation taking place between the Government of France and his own Government on sanction-busting for the acquisition of oils and materials. I realise that we ourselves, as a nation, are a little bit too passive and do not go out to make the necessary suggestions. I went and talked to the Foreign Office, but before that, when I first went to Iraq, I was told not to go near the British embassy, because it was not the right place to go this time. When I went to the Foreign Office, I was then told that if I was going to Iraq, what I must have is a strange instrument that I had never heard of—a permission to speak—and that without a permission to speak, you would be breaking sanctions or rules of that sort. I did a little bit more research and realised, to my surprise, the enormous productive capability that Iraq had, and wondered what we should do on this front. The Minister then said he would accept my invitation to come on a trade visit to the United Kingdom, provided there was going to be some trade. We found, in our discussions over here, that the historic purchasing of oil and natural resources from Iraq was far greater than anyone had realised and that at one time, we had been by far their biggest customer. I asked the Foreign Office again whether it would be a good idea if we could enter into, or find, some long-term agreement with Iraq, where we could help in the rebuilding of its infrastructure, and it in turn could provide us with a long secure supply of oil and other materials at a reasonable fixed price. This came to the point; this was felt perfectly reasonable, but there was an anxiety about whether they could trust us in the continuity of our relationship. As I looked once more at what the French were doing, I found it rather concerning.
When I went to Iraq again, I was told to please not go near the British embassy. I wondered why this was the case, because there was some concern that there might be a political fix of some form or other. I was told to go and see Iraqi Ministers, and to go around Baghdad. I had not realised the quality or quantity of production of oil that could be possible with our help, and we started to discuss the concept of a major offtake agreement, which would finance all the development. One looks at Iraq as a potential partner in trade and in finance, and I discussed whether it had the capability—which it had—whether it had the willingness and when the Minister of Trade came to England, there was no doubt that it was prepared to do it. But I was not sure what to do next, because when I went along, this business of a permission to speak came up. I then discussed with those out there what was needed by Iraq at that time, and they came up with a request for healthcare and medical products. I said that was fine, to let me know what they wanted and I would see if we could go and get it. When I came to England, I was then told that this was not possible unless there was a permission to speak. I had never heard of a permission to speak before, but I was given a permission to speak and then went out—when I was there again—and found that I could speak with them.
When this came further, I thought it might be reasonable to see the Chilcot team. It was suggested that if I provided the information on Iraq and things, that might be helpful on other issues. I was told that this was totally unimportant; that trade was not the principal thing at all, and felt that there was nothing I could do to help. In this strange grouping of people in the energy business, they all know one another and I took a flyer and said that if we can get Iraqi oil production up with an offtake agreement, we can get all the cash flow necessary to finance goodness knows what. This is where I started from, and then I found at the same time, looking at Iran—only across the water—that those two countries together had such a productive level that it would be quite a remarkable achievement. Trade, politics and finance are the triumvirate that you do. I am not sure what we do next on this front, but I would like to feel that we were looking at the potential development of Iraq—willingly in full co-operation—which could regenerate the whole country and provide all the resources necessary.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon (Lab)
My Lords, I intend to concentrate on a matter that has been referred to by other noble Lords, which is the so-called special relationship with the United States, and the seductive assumption that we all share the same values. It was the perceived need to preserve the special relationship that in my view was an important element in leading to our disastrous involvement in the invasion of Iraq.
I took part in the House of Lords debate 12 months before the invasion, when almost all noble Lords spoke against the folly of this tragic venture and presaged the consequences that have been detailed in the Chilcot report. I was also a member of the House of Lords Select Committee, chaired so expertly by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that visited Washington two months before the invasion. We were horrified first by the gung-ho attitude of the Pentagon; secondly by the total lack of planning for the aftermath; and thirdly by the attitude of the Heritage Foundation, which accused us of cowardice and of having no experience of terrorism, and said they would be giving democracy to Iraq.
The idea that we have a special relationship with that great country the United States is very seductive but dangerous. We do of course share what appears to be a common language, we have been in a defensive alliance—NATO—with the United States since the Second World War, and we have important trading relationships. However, our values, like those of most of our European colleagues, favour dialogue and soft power, whereas the United States has favoured military force as the primary and universal solution to most international problems. This has implications now for the functioning of NATO.
I have now monitored more than 20 elections in the republics that were once part of the Soviet Union, in company with parliamentarians from across Europe. The countries that I have visited include Russia, several times, the Caucasus and Ukraine, which I have now been to nine times. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO—which had been a very effective defensive alliance during the Cold War—sought a new role. Driven, I believe, largely by the Americans, NATO began to adopt a more expansionary stance, not only taking in the Baltic states and Poland, but also putting out encouraging feelers to Georgia and Ukraine. These were needlessly provocative of Russia. The consequence was that the naive President of Georgia, Saakashvili—who was a New York-educated lawyer—was led to believe that NATO would support him against Russia over the secession of South Ossetia.
When I was in Ukraine two years ago, every politician who spoke to us said that the policy of their party was to join NATO: a complete fantasy, of course. More realistically perhaps, they also wanted to join the EU. It continues to be worrying that both Georgia and Ukraine have been having military exercises recently, apparently encouraged by NATO. However, it is more encouraging that at the NATO summit last week in Warsaw, there was talk about constructive dialogue with Russia, and the rhetoric on both sides has cooled both there and at last week’s meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Tbilisi, which I attended.
The outcome of the American presidential elections will be critical for our relationship with the United States. If—disastrously—they elect Donald Trump, I hope we will remember that our roots lie in Europe, and that we have more in common with our European neighbours than with the great country across the Atlantic. In this tragically post-Brexit era, and with our detachment from Europe, we must avoid romantic illusions about our closeness to the United States.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to express my respect for the work of Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues in the production of this extremely serious and important report. The remarks I will make are different in tone from any of the other remarks that have been made in the House this afternoon because I intend to concentrate simply on the domestic context of the Chilcot report.
It seems only yesterday that we were widely assured by the media that Sir John was a man with no conscience, that he was another empty Whitehall suit, that we could be reasonably assured that the report would be yet another cover-up, and so on. It has most certainly not been so. Everyone now accepts that to be the case. There was no reason ever to think that it might be so. I shall make the obvious observation that at the time he was appointed Sir John Chilcot was the chair of the advisory committee of the Centre for Contemporary British History. The Centre for Contemporary British History has only two purposes: first, to assert the importance of what we can learn from contemporary history for policy-making, and, secondly, to assert the importance of the public accountability of government and officials. Nobody would devote their time to that job if they were the sort of person who believed that it is better to sweep things under the carpet. It is such an obvious fact in his curriculum vitae, yet it did not seem to occur to anybody over the past year or two in their discussion in the lead-up to this report.
The second obvious thing about Sir John’s career is that he was Permanent Under-Secretary in Northern Ireland between 1990 and 1997 and played a major role, working first for John Major and then for Tony Blair, in bringing about the success of the peace process based on historic compromise. In those seven years, Sir John was confronted by heart-rending, dreadful moments in the history of Northern Ireland. Those who heard him speak at funerals et cetera had no reason to believe anything other than that he was a man who had a serious heart and a serious moral centre. Quite why these perfectly obvious stand-out features of his career have somehow disappeared in the past three or four years from contemporary discussion in the media of this report and its evolution is quite beyond me. I am very happy that at this moment we can say that it is perfectly clear that Sir John Chilcot was determined to bring about a report characterised by honesty, clarity and serious research.
I am a little uneasy about one question with respect to the reputation of the former Prime Minister Mr Blair. More than 700 British soldiers died in Northern Ireland. He played a major role in bringing that conflict to an end. Some of those currently on the left of the Labour Party—now at the apex of the Labour Party—are the most bitter in their criticisms of him and of the errors clearly made that are located in the Chilcot report. Some of those people were bitter opponents of the work that he did and disagreed fundamentally with his attempt to bring about an historic compromise in Northern Ireland. It is worth mentioning it at this difficult moment to put that point into the balance.
This report is excellent but it will, in certain respects at least, be challenged over time in certain areas. This is inevitable. I was the historical adviser on the Bloody Sunday tribunal, which was the last great report of this kind. There are now articles written in books, serious commentaries and new documents coming to light, even now, after all the work and all the time, which raise reasonable doubts about certain arguments of the Bloody Sunday tribunal. There is nothing that comes close to breaking the fundamental structure of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, but when it comes to significant parts about the role of x or y you would have to say that there may be another way of looking at it. This must inevitably be the case with parts of this report. More documents will come out in America and so on. I simply make the point that what is said this afternoon cannot be absolutely the last word. It is most unlikely that the fundamental arguments will change, but it cannot be absolutely the last word on all the issues addressed.
I took great comfort from what both Front Benches said at the beginning of the debate. We cannot give up on the idea that at some stage this country may again be called to make an international humanitarian intervention, and it would be disastrous if we interpreted the Chilcot report as saying that under no circumstances can we ever respond again because in this case things went so badly wrong. This problem has been with us for a long time. In 1859, in his A Few Words on Non-Intervention, John Stuart Mill wrote that it was time that,
“some rule or criterion whereby the justifiableness of intervening in the affairs of other countries, and (what is sometimes fully as questionable) the justifiableness of refraining from intervention, may be brought to a definite and rational test”.
We have been assured that with the national security and other new arrangements in place the context for that definite and rational test is probably wiser and better than it has ever been, but we cannot allow this report to send out the message that under no circumstances will the United Kingdom be available for humanitarian intervention, even though we have had a very sharp lesson in its risks.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the words of condolence from both Front Benches to the families who lost loved ones in the second Gulf War. I can say that because I held a letter from my son in the first Gulf War which, thankfully, did not have to be opened as he came home safely. Nevertheless, I am quite clear: I supported the action that was taken in going to war against Iraq. I did it because of the environment at the time. We forget too easily what the environment was: 9/11, other atrocities against the United States, considerable evidence of chemical warfare and of provisions for chemical warfare and the evidence that was given to Parliament.
There is no way that Tony Blair is a war criminal or that he is guilty of war crimes. The action he took as Prime Minister was taken in the interests of our country. He was the democratically elected leader of our country, not a dictator. This maxim about democratically elected leaders must apply all over the world as far as leadership is concerned.
Others have commented on military equipment. Whatever one says, it was an absolute shambles and a total disgrace. Post-war planning was poor. Post-Brexit planning is poor. That lies with the Prime Minister of the day and his Cabinet.
Have we learned the lessons, or have we had to wait for Chilcot to learn them? As far as I can see, we have not. Why did we go into Libya? It is not at all clear to me. Why did we try to force democracy on Egypt? We must have known that the Muslim Brotherhood had been trying since 1921 to get “democratically elected”. We supported elections there and what happened? It got elected, and then we discovered that it is almost as bad as Daesh, and the army in Egypt moved in again. Why did we not think twice about Syria? Why did those of us who know a little about that part of the world not realise that it is the fourth Sunni/Shia war? The only thing that is slightly different is that there are far more western-educated people on one side. That war had no real implications for the West. Why did we not check who the people supporting the new democracy in Syria were? Surely we should have been able to discover that the vast majority of them are jihadists.
I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to get a proper communications strategy and action plan geared solely against Daesh and to work with Assad to implement it. If that does not happen, we shall once again be in terrible turmoil.
Action Aid and Christian Aid are right to raise the problem of the 3 million people—at least 3 million refugees, poor souls—with nowhere to live and no livelihood, wondering day after day what is going to happen to them. Have we in the West really got an action plan to deal with that? If we have, I hope that somebody is going to deploy it so that we can discuss it.
This may surprise most though not all of your Lordships but I need to relate Chilcot to the situation in Sri Lanka today. A press release on 7 June from our High Commission in Colombo after the visit of no less a person than the head of the British Diplomatic Service, Sir Simon McDonald, concludes:
“The UK will continue its programme of support for Sri Lanka to help the Government fulfil its goals on reconciliation, human rights and strengthening democracy”.
That is fine, but there is a parallel with Iraq where the UK was, in effect, tackling terrorism in the form of weapons of mass destruction. A battle is undertaken. Here I refer to page 181 of volume 12 of the report under the heading “Battle Damage Assessment”:
“Section 6.2 describes the main principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the Law of Armed Conflict … or the Law of War, how they were disseminated to those engaged in military action, and how they were reflected in the UK’s Targeting Directive and Rules of Engagement. The key elements of IHL which apply to targeting of military objectives during a conflict are set out in the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions”,
and then it lists the four main principles.
The Chilcot inquiry’s assessment was undertaken by British judges and members of the Privy Council. No foreign judges were called in to do this assessment. We see how well it has been done. In Sri Lanka, there was a war against the terrorists, the Tamil Tigers. However, instead of its being assessed against the Geneva convention, to which I have just referred, the UK and US Governments have endorsed investigation by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights with the addition of foreign judges. This is wrong and misconceived. After all, there is a reasonable number of fair-minded judges across the ethnic groups who could undertake the task of judging what happened against the principles of the Geneva convention.
If the UK Government really want to help, they should release the full text of the dispatches of our military attaché there during the war, Lieutenant-Colonel Gash, containing his independent observations. The Ministers here will know that for two years I have been trying to obtain these under the Freedom of Information Act. However, so far I have received some 30 pages of those dispatches, provided reluctantly, some very heavily redacted. As I go to the next stage of the tribunal, I find the Foreign Office hiding behind policy that releasing these dispatches might undermine relationships with other countries such as Saudi Arabia, which is hardly a democracy.
I ask the Foreign Office to reflect carefully on the full implications of Chilcot, namely that we should treat each situation separately and recognise that the truth will get out. It is better to publish evidence that is available than to hide it. If in future we as a country follow that in any engagements that we may have, we shall be a country that can be proud of what we achieve democratically.
Parliament owes a huge debt to Chilcot for what he has done. It must be for Parliament to decide how to take it forward.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I shall concentrate on what one might call the fiasco of the intelligence being over-egged. The Chilcot report is very thorough. In a sense, the Government come out with a clean sheet for honest dealing. With regard to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, there is no finding that the legal controversy was hidden from Cabinet. Indeed paragraph 953 of vol. 5 of the report clearly states that:
“Cabinet was not misled on 17 March and the exchange of letters between the Attorney General’s office and No. 10 on 14 and 15 March did not constitute, as suggested to the Inquiry by Ms Short, a ‘side deal’”.
However, in the whole network, something did go badly wrong somewhere in the area of MI6 or GCHQ.
I have noticed today an interesting theme. Many questions that are answerable have been answered but I do not think that anyone has answered a couple of questions that, at the moment, are unanswerable.
One of the problems concerns the relationship between what we as parliamentarians know and parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence services, in which the noble Lord, Lord King, has been heavily involved. This led to something that was unsatisfactory. Dr Hans Blix, the distinguished former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, has on several occasions said that he was not satisfied with the quality of the information given to him by the British Government. Is that partly because the British Government were not satisfied with the sort of intelligence that they were getting?
Pages 64 and 65 of vol. 3 of the report record:
“Sir Jeremy Greenstock also reported that Dr ElBaradei had appealed to Member States to offer whatever information they had to assist UNMOVIC and the IAEA in reaching credible conclusions on Iraq’s weapons programmes …
Mr Campbell recorded that Mr Blair was ‘worried about Blix’s comments that we had not been helping enough with the intelligence’. Mr William Ehrman, FCO Director General of Defence and Intelligence, advised Mr Straw’s Private Secretary on 19 December”—
I think that that is 2002—
“that the UK was passing intelligence to UNMOVIC but ‘We had not found a silver bullet yet’”.
Will the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, when he replies, address the transparency of the work of parliamentary scrutiny committees on the relations between the Cabinet and the intelligence services?
I think that we are saying that what went wrong was not really the way in which people dealt with the intelligence. What went wrong was that the intelligence was faulty. Intelligence cannot always be right, but the fact is that no one seems to have drilled down satisfactorily into what seems to be the highly critical question of the quality of the intelligence. I thought that last week’s government Statement could have said more about that.
The concern about the intelligence services is not only that ordinary mortals cannot be given all the state secrets but that you do not need to be a fan of all the novels by John Le Carré, such as The Night Manager, to know that there are interests within the security services in terms of their own turf. We saw, as we have seen in other fields as well, reluctance to let someone as distinguished as the United Nations weapons inspector have all the information that we had. Why not give him the opportunity to cross-question the suppliers of the information if in his judgment he thought the information did not prove that there were weapons of mass destruction? If the intelligence services are saying, “Yes, it did prove that”, we need a much clearer process regarding why they were not confronted very explicitly in the course of the end of 2002 and the first part of 2003.
That means that people like the Attorney-General are in a very difficult position because they have to go on the conclusion of a Government on the basis of information that is given to them by the security services. This is a point that I have not heard elaborated on sufficiently in the debate so far. Right from the start, there was dubiety about this whole question. This is not hindsight. I asked a question on 8 January 2003:
“My Lords, given press reports that some circles in Washington are sedulously denigrating the work of Hans Blix, can my noble friend the Minister assure us that there is no question of a casus belli being constructed from information that has not been corroborated by Hans Blix, simply on the grounds that it has not been passed to him?”—
let alone him being able to scrutinise it. The Minister of State said:
“My Lords, there have been voices in the background criticising Dr Blix since before he got to Iraq in the first place. I repeat to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government has the utmost confidence in Dr Blix and in Dr El Baradei. There will be a discussion on the Iraqi declaration made on 8th September … at the UNSC tomorrow, 9th January. That will be an opportunity for Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei to give an update on their work, and I suggest that that will be an opportunity for any of the worries that the noble Lord mentioned to be aired in the most suitable place—the Security Council”.—[Official Report, 8/1/03; cols. 1015-16.]
Well, not quite.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the decision to go to war in Iraq is not history; it is the here and now. I have to reject the assertion made today by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that the conflict between Sunni and Shia that is ravaging Iraq and Syria has nothing at all to do with the decision of the Blair Government to join with the USA in the invasion of Iraq. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan, pointed out, since that invasion Iraq has never become a functioning state.
Chilcot throws light on matters of which we knew nothing in late 2002 and 2003. I will focus on legality. On 4 January 2003, Mr Blair had concluded that the “likelihood was war” and, if conflict could not be avoided, the right thing to do was fully to support the US. On 14 January, the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, gave draft advice that Resolution 1441 would not by itself authorise the use of military force. Indeed, the purpose of that resolution was to set up an enhanced inspection regime under Dr Blix with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by Resolution 687. There was nothing in it to authorise war.
On 27 February the Attorney-General told No. 10 officials that the safest legal course for future military action would be to secure a further Security Council resolution. However, he had reached the view that a “reasonable case” could be made that Resolution 1441 was,
“capable of reviving the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 (1990) without a further resolution, if there were strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441”.
He advised that to avoid undermining the case for reliance on Resolution 1441, it would be important to avoid giving any impression that the UK believed that a second resolution was legally required. That was the get-out clause.
Germany, Russia and France stated on 5 March that they would not let a resolution pass that authorised the use of force. It was Mr Straw who suggested on 11 March that the UK should adopt the strategy floated by the Attorney-General as a “reasonable case”, his alternative approach.
The critical letter from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister on 14 March passed the parcel: it placed the issue of legality foursquare in the hands of the Prime Minister. Mr Blair was advised that an essential ingredient of the legal basis was that he himself should be satisfied of the fact that Iraq was in breach of Resolution 1441. To no surprise, Mr Blair simply announced that Iraq was, and remained, in breach, a point strongly made by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. Was that honourable, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, would suggest? I do not think so. No record was kept of that decision, and Chilcot says that,
“the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear”.
They are unclear because there was no evidential basis for that assertion by Mr Blair, as any lawyer would know, and there lies the essence of Mr Blair’s culpability.
On 17 March, three days before the invasion of Iraq began, my noble friend Lord Goodhart initiated a debate on the legality of going to war—it was thought that we would make one last attempt. He said that the Attorney-General’s opinion reached,
“a highly questionable conclusion, which is based on a dubious interpretation of deliberately ambiguous wording … The idea that vague and ambiguous words in those resolutions can be read as implying a delegation”,
to take decisions on the use of military force from the United Nations,
“to the United States, with or without the United Kingdom”—
as the Attorney-General had argued—
“verges on the absurd … The Government should face up to the fact that what we are about to do is not lawful. They will have to bear the consequences of that, and so will we”.—[Official Report, 17/3/03; cols. 70-72.]
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said that opposition to the invasion was treated with respect. I remind him that a Member of this House described my noble friend’s argument as “bizarre”. Noble Lords from the Labour Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Brennan, both of whom were distinguished lawyers—were in support. I said that it was for the Security Council to decide whether and to what extent Iraq was in breach of its obligations and to determine what the appropriate action was. I said:
“The United Kingdom may, by promoting a resolution in cahoots with the United States and Spain, act as prosecutor, but it has to persuade the jury of world opinion, represented by the Security Council, that there has been a material breach of Resolution 1441 which is punishable only by recourse to war. Neither the United Kingdom nor the United States is entitled to enforce the ‘will’ of the Security Council”—[Official Report, 17/3/03; col. 79]—
when it has not been expressed.
Three days later, the invasion began and the United Kingdom became embroiled in an illegal war of aggression. The International Criminal Court now has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. It was defined in 2010 by the state parties as,
“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations”.
I consider that the invasion of Iraq without the consent of the United Nations was a manifest violation of its charter. Mr Blair has a case to answer and, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, pointed out, his reaction is simply defiance.
The International Criminal Court postponed the exercise of its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until 2017 and it will not be retrospective—so what can one do about instituting a war of aggression? There are calls for Mr Blair to be brought before Parliament for contempt of Parliament on the grounds of his misleading the House of Commons. Such an offence has a long and ancient history in law, and it is not obsolete. It was used in Canada as recently as March 2011; as a result, the then Canadian Government fell and there was a general election. I support those who seek to move in that direction—as, judging by his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, clearly does, supported, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Bew.
For the moment, Mr Blair faces the court of public opinion. Chilcot supplies the evidence which convicts both him and those who surrounded him in making that fatal decision.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I wish to deal with a further casualty of the war. I was a BBC governor in 2003, when the infamous Gilligan broadcast took place at 6.07 am on 29 May. In it, he claimed that, on the orders of Downing Street, the intelligence dossier was “sexed up”—a phrase which quickly entered the English language lexicon—and this led to complaints from Mr Alastair Campbell on behalf on the Government. Later that day, Mr Gilligan returned to the radio to say that the evidence was not sufficiently corroborated and may be wrong. Other reporters and the press also put it out that the emphasis on the 45-minute assessment went too far, but it was to be Mr Gilligan at the centre of the row.
I say Mr Campbell made a complaint, but it was more like a tsunami of vengeance. Had the BBC treated it like any other complaint from a member of the public, history might have been different. But Mr Campbell did not accept this course of action. He asked for an apology. He later accused the BBC of having an anti-war agenda and alleged that the BBC had tried to prove that the Prime Minister had led the country to war on a false basis. This became a story about the responsibility of journalists to report their concerns, the responsibility of their overseers to the public, and the importance of the freedom to broadcast. It is also about the essential value of investigative journalism. The approach taken to the governors’ investigation of the Gilligan broadcast by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in his subsequent inquiry—that they should have checked the accuracy of the broadcast—would kill off investigative journalism.
What unfolded thereafter revealed the Government’s determination to “get” the BBC as punishment for allowing a reporter to cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence that took the country into war. The Government nearly brought the BBC to its knees. We know now from the Chilcot inquiry that the dossier was not sexed up. On the contrary, we now know that it was limp evidence, unable to sustain the real justification for going to war. The implication of the words “sexed up” was wrong but, in retrospect, this was an issue peripheral to the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction.
In his report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, condemned Gilligan and the BBC management. But in retrospect, they were right and he was not. Gilligan was right to report suspicion that the push for war was overdone. The events led indirectly to the suicide of Dr David Kelly, the resignation of Gavyn Davies, chair of the BBC and the resignation of Greg Dyke, a much loved and successful director-general, whose departure is still mourned. I was one of the governors who did not want to accept his resignation. Andrew Gilligan had to leave the BBC.
The ferocious attack by the Government in this case has left me with an abiding suspicion of the good intentions of the Government—any Government—when it comes to the independence of BBC reporting: a lesson we all need to remember as we renew another charter. It would be good to hear some expressions of regret for the damage done to the careers of some good men and for the attitude taken to whistleblowing.
This episode shows clearly the value of having a completely independent BBC board, consisting of people able to stand up to the Government. Editorial processes should be protected by the trustees from political bullying—a lesson for the future. The governors of the time, rightly, could do no more than check that the proper editorial processes had been followed. It was not for them—for us—to tell the journalist to back down when the Government were angered.
It is generally agreed that the inquiry was worth waiting for. I pay tribute to the late Sir Martin Gilbert, a panel member, who was taken seriously ill in April 2012 and died in February 2015. The biographer of Churchill, he was one of the pre-eminent historians working in the 20th century, who left behind imperishable works. He was a supremely gifted academic scholar, with meticulous attention to detail, and I would be surprised if the progress of the inquiry was not affected by his death and the loss of his special talents.
At his memorial service, the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said that Martin Gilbert was on course to be a Member of this House. His death was a great loss to the inquiry and, potentially, to this House.
Lord Lyell (Con)
My Lords, to rise at number 30 in the “batting list” of today’s debate, and on this subject, is no mean privilege for a Back-Bencher who has very little experience of the diplomatic world, let alone of the military world. I do it with one humble thought. From 1957 to 1959, I was a young soldier. I am 77 now, so anybody younger than me would not have been a conscript. I was—full time, for two years, in the Scots Guards. I was following in the footsteps of other members of my family, one of whom was a politician: a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Prime Minister, no less. He was a Member of Parliament. He went to fight in the First World War, where he was wounded, and he was among the 40 million victims of Spanish flu. My grandfather is buried in Arlington.
My father—my noble and gallant father—also went to fight. He was not a Member of your Lordships’ House but he went to war with the Scots Guards. When I was four years old he was killed. The Front Bench may say that I am out of order in referring to him as “noble and gallant” but, if your Lordships have a look at a book at the end of the corridor, they will see that I can refer to him in that way, and I do so today. That is one reason that I am in your Lordships’ House—I am a hereditary Peer.
I have had very many interests spread over 50 years and more. I think that it was 54 or 55 years ago that I was a fresh Back-Bencher, sitting right where I am now. Back then, the Leader of the House had to intervene when a Minister referred to another Peer as being somewhat out of order and there was a bit of a hubbub. Over the years, I have taken part in the activities of your Lordships’ House and today’s debate is one of the more notable occasions in my career here.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs, who, alas, is not in his place, referred to 1956, which was 60 years ago. It was a very wet summer. It was a time of great triumph for English cricketers, who beat the Australians handsomely. But in July the Suez problem happened. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Dobbs and many other speakers, notably the noble Lord, Lord Owen, about whom I hope to make one or two complimentary remarks. In 1958, when I was a young soldier, we worked at Windsor. We wore bearskins and tunics, and it is the only place outside London where proper tunics are worn. There was also a proper band. Quite suddenly, on 14 July 1958, there was a Nasserite putsch in Iraq and the king was assassinated. Nuri al-Said, the Prime Minister, who was a good friend of this country, was also murdered. There was a period of considerable instability in both diplomatic and military terms. One should remember that this was just two years after President Nasser seized the Suez Canal, which rocked the boat considerably both here and elsewhere in the world.
In 1958, as a young soldier and a platoon commander, I was addressed by the father of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. Every member of the battalion was told, “You are going on active service”. They were hideous words. When that order is issued to soldiers or other members of the Armed Forces, they are definitely threatened with the front line. It is no idle threat: punishments might rain down on you if you do not perform to your best. However, I survived that and went on.
I remember walking through Parliament Square on 3 or 4 April 1982 to come to your Lordships’ House on a Saturday morning to hear of the invasion of the Falklands. I remember Lord Carrington—not his namesake, my noble friend Lord Carrington, who is here today, but the other Lord Carrington—at the Dispatch Box. His knuckles were quite white because he and others realised that we were threatening to send men and women to war. Decisions were being taken in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere, including in Downing Street, on the basis of everything that we have seen in the Chilcot report. It was the same style and the same system, although Chilcot took much longer. So I have seen that, and it made a deep imprint on my mind.
The subject of today’s debate is the Chilcot inquiry and I will look briefly at three or four paragraphs of the report. Paragraph 16 says that the timing of any action was entirely a matter for the United States. That is fair enough. But I recall reading in a notable newspaper—which perhaps I am not allowed to advertise; it is a coloured one—about a young reporter who, in the first fortnight of March 2002, happened to be at a high-level, although not totally secret, briefing in the White House in the presence of high-up people in security and in the military. He and they obviously knew the rules. The President happened to put his head into the room and said, “Good to see you all”. The President was told, “We are discussing what action might be taken in Iraq”. I repeat: this was early March 2002. The President said, “Yes, just you watch”. He mentioned—I think—14 March. They scratched their heads and someone said, “Mr President, I understand that in military terms the full moon is very useful for invading, but the full moon is on the 16th”. He said, “No, 14 March—next year”. So no one can tell me that this was not planned a fairly long time in advance by the United States military.
Paragraph 74 of the Chilcot report points out that, among the grounds for going to war, regime change in Iraq would have been unlawful. I shall definitely have to leave that to the lawyers. However, as somebody who has spent more than 40 years with your Lordships’ defence group visiting men and women, mainly in the Army but in all three services, and seeing their kit and equipment, the most important paragraphs for me begin with paragraph 797. Sir John uses some fairly strong language. He says that there was a very serious breach between the objectives and the available resources and materials. In paragraph 821 he goes on to say that the lack of equipment for the protected patrol vehicles and the helicopters, and the associated errors, should not have been tolerated. Other strong language is used elsewhere in the report.
I think that Sir John did a particularly good job, as I believe that your Lordships will agree. The speech earlier today of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, will live in my memory and, I suspect, in the memory of many of us. It was one of the top half-dozen speeches that I have heard during my career in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate and I want to make two personal observations about certain contributions. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Owen—I had the stimulating experience of working as his Minister of State at the Foreign Office in the 1970s—how interesting it was to hear his description of how he has changed his position. I also want to put very firmly on the record how outstanding the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was. Although it may not have been comfortable for everybody to listen to, it was a speech that we would be very foolish not to take extremely seriously.
Sir John Chilcot has, rightly, produced a report that has proved to be very important to the families of the bereaved, and indeed to those who, with awful wounds, continue to fight to make a life for themselves in the aftermath of the war. It has brought all kinds of comfort and encouragement. We cannot say often enough how much we owe those people. They are the responsibility of all of us in Parliament and we must never forget that. However, I am glad that the Chilcot report has also drawn attention to the number of casualties in Iraq, because they too are our responsibility in this House, and we cannot escape that. That is why this kind of analysis is so important.
There has been an argument about whether the war was legal or illegal. What is absolutely clear from the report is that it far from lacked the moral and legal authority it should have had. We cannot have it both ways: if we want to be a principal player in international affairs, the UN is obviously going to be crucial, and as we like to emphasise the importance of our role on the Security Council it is doubly important to take it seriously. But it is absolutely clear, on any reading, that the UN was not taken as profoundly seriously as it should have been and was seen as an inconvenience which had to be handled.
I also like the way the report has brought out illustrations of the challenges that were clear for all prepared to face up to them. There was, of course, the forensic challenging of Robin Cook; that existed in the party’s own ranks, but there was more than that. I was very troubled, and said so at the time, about the rubbishing of Dr Blix, an honourable, committed and fine international civil servant who was doing an outstanding job—as was totally proved in the aftermath. Part of the reason that I so much appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is that I was also uncomfortable that we were rubbishing the French. I hold no brief for the French Government of the time but I thought their position was abundantly clear. They wanted to let the inspectors finish their job and bring the results of that work to the Security Council and for it to decide in light of that.
It was not only Dr Blix and his team saying that the evidence was not there; Mohamed El Baradei from UNMOVIC also could not see it. Again, he was derided; he has been totally vindicated. Within our own Government, there was a courageous woman in the legal department of the Foreign Office who took the situation so seriously that she did the honourable thing and resigned—that was something to be taken pretty seriously.
Something that particularly troubled me at the time was a result of approaching Geoff Hoon at a meeting. I asked whether we were getting into a situation that we would not be able to pull out from because of the vast deployment of apparatus which was a wasting asset because time was not on our side and we would have to use it. He said to me—I do not mind repeating it in the House—“Oh, Frank, come off it, we can stop the operation as easily as go forward with it”. I went away from that deeply disturbed.
The counterproductivity of the war was never taken as seriously as it should have been. There was an easy phrase: “collateral damage”. But each person killed was a real person with a real family and real connections, and quite apart from the suffering and agony caused by that, for which we should be concerned, there was its political impact. When an American general actually said, “We don’t do body counts”, I thought that what we were doing was so counterproductive it was not true.
On the special relationship, I will say only the following. I worked for some years as a member of Harold Wilson’s team as one of his Parliamentary Private Secretaries. We have only to look to his resolute refusal to be drawn in to military action in the Vietnam War to see that doing so did not in any way damage the special relationship. I also think of when I was serving with my then boss, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and a quite senior American diplomat I knew came to see me at the Foreign Office, asking for a private conversation. In that conversation he was very candid. He said, “Frank, you people should know that in a way many of us in the States respect the French more than you because even though they are difficult they have views and positions. But you are always moving so fast to be more American than the Americans that you are actually shutting down arguments and analyses within our Administration. It’s not helpful”.
In the end, this is about people: it is about judgment, character and what strong leadership is and is not. It is about recognising that strong leadership is that which can work well in a collegiate setting—primus inter pares—and can take other people’s views seriously. It is about not always looking for supporting evidence for your prejudices but looking to challenges and meeting those as well as any other part of your responsibility.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, I am no expert on defence or foreign affairs but the invasion of Iraq has had so many consequences and raised so many issues that I feel I must get a few things off my chest and into Hansard.
I well remember a meeting of our weekly parliamentary party in the Commons to discuss whether or not we would support the call for the invasion of Iraq. Conditions in Iraq at that time were pretty bad because sanctions had been used by Saddam Hussein to half-starve his people and limit what had been good medical services. That was all blamed on the West, of course. There was enough from the amount of oil he was allowed to sell to get by but his people did not get that benefit.
As international development spokesperson at the time, I was very concerned that going to war in Iraq would make the humanitarian situation far worse. I went to the Library and asked for the latest publication on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction, known ever since as the dodgy dossier. Some of my colleagues may remember me coming back from the Library and waving it about, saying that it looked a bit like a student’s A-level dissertation and did not contain much evidence. That was actually not far from the truth because, as my noble friend Lord Campbell reminded us, it was in fact taken from the thesis of a PhD student from somewhere in California. Our instincts were right. It was not impressive or convincing and I am proud to remember that my party, led by Charles Kennedy—against the jeers and mockery of a lot of people in other parties—opposed military action at that time. We wanted to see a second UN resolution and Hans Blix and his team given time to finish their work. Those were heady days and I am proud to remember them.
What struck me when reading the summary of the report, and even more so the Prime Minister’s Statement this week, was the frequent use of the words “belief” and “believed”. They were constantly recurring: in only two pages of the Statement, they were mentioned five times. Tony Blair “believed” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to us as well as the wider Middle East, but would a surgeon operate on a patient who he “believed” had a cancerous tumour? No, of course he would not. He would weigh up the facts revealed by investigations and conclude that surgery was necessary. I am glad that Tony Blair was never a surgeon. He went to war because of his beliefs, and I find that very chilling.
I also pay tribute to those people who constantly warned that no plans had been made for the aftermath once Saddam Hussein was defeated. It seems a common problem nowadays. What do you do? “Lessons will be learned”, they say. How many times have I heard “Lessons will be learned” in this Chamber today? Are they ever learned? Do our children ever learn from the lessons we learned? No, we have to learn for ourselves. I despair of the phrase “Lessons will be learned” because I do not think that they are.
We have heard tributes to Robin Cook, who was honest, extremely honourable and resigned from the Government at the time. I also pay tribute to Clare Short, who warned consistently of lack of planning and eventually resigned at the end of that period. In particular, I would like to mention Caroline Spelman MP, who was the shadow Secretary of State for International Development and had several meetings with us on the international development teams. She asked many times of the Government where the plan was for the reconstruction of Iraq, and who was going to take charge when it was over. Answer came there none. Those people should be remembered.
During the discussions with the then President of the United States, and in return for supporting his invasion of Iraq in the absence of a second resolution, Tony Blair asked that we would make progress on the Israel/Palestine peace process, which had been “quiescent”, to use the term of the Chilcot report and as Tony Blair described it, since the Oslo accord in 1993. That word is a sick joke if you are a Palestinian—nothing was ever quiescent.
Much has been said about the invasion of Iraq leading to the rise of Islamic fundamentalists and the so-called Islamic State or Daesh—I call them barbarians still. Anyone who has travelled in the Middle East knows that the causes lie much deeper and longer ago. The justified angst of the Arabs started after the First World War with the Sykes-Picot agreement. A major cause of this angst continuing is the increasingly appalling policies and brutality of the Israeli Government and the lack of any solution to that problem. Israel is allowed to break international law and the Geneva Convention with impunity. Together with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the other Gulf states, they abuse the human rights of people in their countries. If we in the West could stop this totally hypocritical foreign policy and treat all nations equally and fairly according to international law, we maybe would have more peace in the world.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, as has been said, the Chilcot report is a dispiriting document. It is a sad catalogue of failure and incompetence. However, we need to move forward. Certainly there are lessons to be learned. I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, in her pessimism, I fear: I hope lessons will be learned but I am not confident that they will be.
Your Lordships, as keen students of history, will know that the mixture of political and Civil Service hubris and military overconfidence has not been confined to the Iraq war. It has characterised many British military engagements over the centuries, the Boer War, at the zenith of the British Empire, being a classic example. However, I do not want to speak about what went wrong. I want to look at the problems that our invasion of Iraq has created in the Middle East and what, if anything, we can do to help the region back on to an even keel.
I spend a great part of my life involved in the Middle East, as recorded in the Register of Lords’ Interests. For more than 30 years I have studied Islamic banking and finance and, indeed, at times earned my living as a Sharia-compliant banker. Over the years this has brought me into contact with many devout Muslims from all walks of life—rich, poor, traditional and western-educated. If there is one lesson I hope we can learn from the Chilcot report it is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, said on Wednesday last week,
“these Middle Eastern societies are extremely complex”.—[Official Report, 6/7/16; col. 2031.]
I would add that the variations in the Islamic religion are also much more complex than we often suppose. The conflicts in the region are not just between the Sunnis and the Shias, serious as those are. They have an overlay of historic disputes and enmities quite divorced from religion. Some are tribal—the historic differences between the Bedouin and the coastal Arab are far from forgotten. Some are interfamily, some are based on disputes over land, some are legacies of the Ottoman Empire, some inevitably go back to the League of Nations mandates given to us and the French, and few Gulf Arabs ever forget that Shia Iranians are not Shia Arabs.
If there is one message from all this, it is that we do not and cannot know what we are doing if we interfere in the politics of the region. Still less can we understand and anticipate the consequences of sending in troops.
That is not to say that we cannot be involved. We have very strong interests in the Arab world, but to think that we can tell Arabs and Arab nations how to resolve their conflicts, let alone impose a resolution on them, is deluding ourselves. As in Iraq, it leads to unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences, most of them very bloody. What we can do is to help our friends, of whom we have many in the region, to find their own solutions and to support them in implementing these solutions.
Western Christian nations interfering militarily in Muslim Arab conflicts cannot bring peace. Quite apart from our inability to understand the undercurrents of the conflict, a sure way of creating a temporary unity among the warring Arab parties is to give them a common enemy of a Christian soldier to fight. I would go further. If the Christian soldiers are replaced by Muslim soldiers that would be little better unless they are Arab Muslims.
I am not a Muslim but, as I have said, I have studied the religion for as long as I have been involved in Islamic finance and economics. Islam is a great, peaceful religion, quite as devoted to the values of human life, co-operation and love which many of us hold dear in Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. Many Muslims see no conflict between their religion and modern western life. However, other devout Muslims are torn between the modern world and the teachings of the Koran as interpreted by fundamentalist scholars. It would be a mistake to think that this is confined to the extreme fringes such as Daesh/ISIL. Many devout, kindly, deeply religious Arabs are at best ambivalent about their reaction to the acts of terrorism on western nations. Until we grapple with this and change these attitudes we will not be able to help in pacifying the Middle East.
Possibly, hope lies in that there are many Islamic scholars who wrestle with this challenge on a daily basis, seeking to provide guidance to the faithful in reconciling modern life with the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith. While non-Muslims cannot advise followers of Islam how to come terms with the modern world—or perhaps, more specifically, the western world—and the place of their great religion within it, we can encourage those who seek to do so.
We have a large Muslim population in the United Kingdom. We do a lot to support the study of the Koran and the Hadith in our universities and we have many distinguished Muslims in public life. However, we could do more. It is in helping an understanding of Islam, and by materially assisting those religious leaders who seek to find solutions to this problem, that lies our best hope of helping the forces of peace to prevail in the Middle East. Sending in the troops is never the solution.
Lord Soley (Lab)
It is appropriate that we are having this debate today when a book of remembrance has been opened in the cloisters of the House of Commons in memory of more than 8,000 Muslim boys and men who were slaughtered at Srebrenica. If people go and sign that book, as I hope to do and I hope others will do, we should think of two things. The first is that not intervening costs lives too. That point has been made by other noble Lords today. Secondly, and very importantly, it was at that time that some of the Muslim community began to fight because they believed that Christian Europeans would not intervene to defend Muslims. It may be forgotten now but we had to take military action not only against the Serbs but against some of those groups. The idea that the terrorism of today has evolved just in recent years is wrong. It has a much longer history.
I think that the report is very good and I have a lot of time for it. Some of the people who think that Tony Blair has not taken the criticism ought to read again in full his statement in relation to the report, and some of the newspapers criticising him might feel a bit guilty given what they were saying at the time. There are terrible double standards. One thing was always clear to me: Tony Blair was not lying. He believed it very strongly. One of the absurdities of the argument about him lying is why on earth would any Prime Minister take a country to war on a lie that they knew would be found out to be a lie within a matter of weeks or months after the end of the war? It was always just a political gesture to say he was a liar. Sadly, one of the responses to this report, particularly in some aspects of the media, has been vindictive and to simply look at him as a scapegoat. I was at a party in Inverness this weekend just gone and seven people came up to me separately and without me asking for it—I was not speaking on the issue or anything—and said that they thought that the response to Tony Blair was vindictive and one person said it was just trying to have him as a scapegoat for all the problems. There are a lot of lessons in this report. Tony Blair quite rightly has to take responsibility and we all have to learn from it.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that he had never liked sofa government and I have no doubt that every time he thinks about that he puts his head in his hands. However, government is at times dysfunctional—if you look at the run-up to Brexit and immediately after the Brexit vote, by God it was dysfunctional. The dysfunctionality on the Iraq issue was that of the US Government. Tony Blair did have a lot of influence with George Bush but two people had far more influence than he did. One was Donald Rumsfeld and the other was Vice-President Cheney. Every time Tony Blair tried to get movement, Cheney and Rumsfeld went in and said, “Don’t bother with the UN. Don’t bother with it with any of these other matters”.
Again, we have to be honest. My noble friend Lord Judd is a great supporter of the United Nations. So am I, but let us recognise that the Security Council is also dysfunctional. It will not normally support intervention because Russia and China do not believe in regime change. So we all have to support these despotic dictators being kept in power. That is what is happening now with Syria. Assad is still in power because Russia wants to keep him in power. We have to recognise that this report needs to be taken in context and not rush out and condemn Tony Blair or anybody else such as the security services or the military team. We have to learn the lessons but not kid ourselves that somehow or other we can just make this right by using them as scapegoats or by being vindictive like some people. The painful reality is—and it has troubled me for years—that we do not know how to intervene successfully and maintain the peace afterwards. We did it well after the Second World War: we policed Japanese and German areas with German and Japanese troops supervised by British NCOs and officers.
My heart sank after Colin Powell was removed because he knew that we would have to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq to police it. He was manoeuvred out by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld really did believe in the most naive way possible that if you got rid of Saddam Hussein the people of Iraq would embrace democracy. It was a lovely idea but not true. Some people have said that there was no attempt at a post-conflict effort at all. There was, actually. There were talks at Wilton Park which this Government and previous Governments know about. They were not very successful, not least because when Colin Powell went the whole lot was brought virtually to an end.
When I was the MP for both Hammersmith and Ealing I had a lot of Arab constituents. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right that among those were Iranians, who are not Arabs, and also of course the Kurds. The Kurds were absolutely in favour of intervention. They would come to me and say, “Please do not back down this time as you did in the last Gulf War”. The Iranians—or the Shia, if you like—were more in favour than against, but they were much more wobbly. The Sunnis and others, particularly the Palestinians, were strongly against. The whole of that region was divided about intervention. The horrors that the Kurds, in particular, had suffered from both chemical weapon attacks and conventional attacks were awful. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, we have to remember that real people get hurt.
Time and again in my advice surgery I saw people from all these brutal dictatorships, starting with the Iranian one in 1979, and I was shown their injuries, and I said there was nothing we could do. Actually the world could do something but because of the dysfunctionality of the United Nations, we do not and we cannot. That is the major message, and it is not new. In the 19th century, after we made the slave trade unlawful, we used the Royal Navy to intervene and stop it. All the correspondence in the newspapers at the time was for or against intervention. It is fascinating that those against were using the same arguments as they use now, such as that it will make matters worse and, “Oh, look, the slaves are being thrown overboard because the British ships are chasing them”. We persevered with that intervention.
One of the things that troubles me most—and I will finish on this—is that as a result of the way things went wrong because of our failure to do the post-conflict bit well in Iraq, there is a danger that we will not intervene again. We will lose confidence in ourselves. If the West loses confidence in the idea of the rule of law and the idea of democracy and is not prepared to fight for them, and if it is not prepared to make sure that other people have the opportunity of enjoying the peace that those bring, then, frankly, the wider world is in trouble.
We need to get our confidence back and start to understand that everything that is happening in the Middle East now is not our fault, but nor is it all down to Iraq. There was a peaceful period when people in the area had a choice and could have chosen ways that did not lead to the present problems. The Arab spring—perhaps misnamed now but nevertheless very important —was another trigger in all of this and it was not caused by us. Finally, remember that in Libya Gaddafi gave up his nuclear process and his chemical weapons because of what we did in Iraq. It went wrong after that, not because of Iraq but because of what happened in Tunisia. Please let us make this a debate much more about the problems of how and when we intervene and what resources we put into it. That is the message for the future and we had better get it right.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Soley, who spoke, as so often, abundant good sense. The Chilcot report is entirely persuasive about the failure to plan adequately for the aftermath of invasion, as so many of your Lordships have said. Neither the US, the UN nor the UK rose to the challenge. We shall never know what would have happened if we had—or, incidentally, if there had been no invasion at all. We do know that the outcome of invasion was utterly tragic for the people of Iraq, for our and our allies’ brave soldiers who lost their lives or suffered grave injuries, and for the families who stood behind them.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya have all given us terrible lessons in the limitations and unpredictability of intervening in complex societies. Nor can we be proud of what the inquiry uncovered about the UK’s ability to match our security ambition to our military means and to equip our armed forces appropriately. All these lapses merit the censure they have attracted. I am far less persuaded, however, by the inquiry’s assessment of the circumstances surrounding the decision to go to war, where I fear it takes the wisdom of hindsight a little too far. Saddam Hussein is one of history’s greatest villains: he invaded one neighbour and waged a prolonged and costly war on another. He was cruel and despotic, he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and conspired to acquire a nuclear capability. 9/11 demonstrated the ambition, imagination and ruthlessness of modern terrorism and had traumatised our oldest ally. It was not only reasonable but right that the US and the UK should consider the risk—not the likelihood, but the risk—of horrendous weapons falling into terrorist hands.
It was truly salutary to learn that Saddam had indeed eliminated WMDs, but I think it was unfair to condemn those who, given Saddam’s villainous record, had every reason to suspect that he had maintained a WMD capability and who believed intelligence that confirmed that suspicion, false though that turned out to be. Nor do I think the inquiry provides a rich enough context to Prime Minister Blair’s handling of relations with President Bush. Let us recall another intervention to overturn a truly wicked despot. If the US had not intervened in World War II, the consequences would have been incalculable. If the Germans had won on the Eastern front, they would surely have later invaded the UK, and we might now be living in a Nazi Europe. Alternatively, if the Soviets had won, the House of Lords might now be a Praesidium. Our debt to the US is incalculable. America lost lives and paid an enormous economic cost to save us and others from Hitler, so Tony Blair was entirely right to offer strong moral support to the US after 9/11—that was what was meant by, “whatever”.
I am the first to welcome the process reforms in the intelligence agencies prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the reforms in the Cabinet Office machinery introduced by David Cameron. I accept, without demur, the inquiry’s findings about the evaluation of intelligence. But due process should not remove the need for Prime Ministers to manage our key relationships and to make judgments about our long-term national interest in the round, weighing every factor. I do not doubt for one moment that Tony Blair made those judgments in good faith. I worked in No. 10 for six years as Prime Minister Blair’s strategy adviser—albeit only on domestic policy, so I was not involved at all in the matters before us. When you work closely with someone over time, you learn their true character. The label “sofa government” is a caricature, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Armstrong, all made abundantly clear earlier in the debate. For my part, over and again I found Prime Minister Blair addressing issues seriously and diligently, trying to bottom out any problem of substance that confronted him.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, who is not in his place, reminded us earlier of the impact of those abilities on Northern Ireland. Tony Blair was gifted and hard-working. He encouraged, and listened keenly to, a wide range of views, in my direct experience. In all his dealings I found him open, honest and straightforward—not qualities I always experienced elsewhere in government. The disastrous outcome in Iraq will weigh heavily on a good man, but no one can fairly suggest that he did not set out with the best of intentions towards both our allies and the people of Iraq, and towards safeguarding what he saw as the UK’s national interest.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Birt, but I part company with him when he says that the Chilcot report “takes the wisdom of hindsight a little too far”. I agree with him that it is an impressive report but what I find particularly striking from Sir John Chilcot’s statement on 6 July was his consistent stress on the importance of his main objective of identifying lessons for the future, so if the noble Lord will forgive me, I want now to concentrate on one of those recommendations:
“The need to ensure that both the civilian and military arms of Government are properly equipped for their tasks”.
There is much-needed emphasis on the wisdom of foresight. I am reminded of a famous phrase from when I was a student, in 1962, which everyone knows off by heart. I declare my interests as recorded in the register, including being a student at the time. I heard the former US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, say, on 5 December 1962, and he caused a considerable furore with this comment:
“Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role”.
We are still struggling to identify that role, and that very struggle lies at the heart of today’s debate and of so many other debates going on at the present time. It is also a struggle that has generated an existential crisis within our armed services.
In the Clinton-Blair years, the concept was born of the United States, the one great superpower, reinventing itself as a world policeman, supported, if one could be conjured up, by a “coalition of the willing”. Compared with the supine failure of the United Nations in Srebrenica in the summer of 1995, of which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has just reminded us, that decisive, US-led NATO intervention in the Kosovo war seemed to mark an entirely new development. No longer was narrow, national self-interest alone the decisive factor in going to war. Sometimes, all that was required was a humanitarian impulse to curb the suffering of civilians, even in,
“a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing”.
This world policeman role has continued to this day, but I agree with noble Lords that by far the most foolish and counterproductive instance of it has now been seen to be the decision to support a military intervention in Iraq. The effect on Iraq itself is now well known, and our hearts go out to the victims of the continuing terror campaign that afflicts the people of that land. What also concerns me, however, is the effect of this new philosophy on our Armed Forces.
Our armed services are indeed our pride and joy, but they are trained—brilliantly trained—for combat, not for police duties. During that early phase of the occupation of Iraq, before the Sunni uprising began, we heard reports of how our troops were winning the hearts and the respect of areas of Iraq where they were in charge, and we felt proud. Were we not, perhaps, using our troops as policemen, not soldiers? But they were playing the part of “nice cop” to perfection. Our troops wore caps; the Americans wore helmets. But it did not last long.
I have had the privilege of attending so-called war Cabinets in the past. Particularly memorable was being in the margins of the meetings that Margaret Thatcher convened during the Falklands conflict. I remember clearly how the Chiefs of Staff would come and give their military advice, then there would be a debate among Ministers, and then a political decision would be taken. It was a clear and logical process. So long as the information is openly and honestly shared, it is a good process. When information is deliberately withheld—the existence of the Sèvres protocol in 1956, for instance—it comes to grief. But otherwise, the separation of the question of what is militarily feasible from the question of what is politically desirable is a very good one.
Unfortunately, as Sir John Chilcot’s report reveals, in the case of the Iraq war that straightforward honest logical process was smudged by the meddling of press secretaries and diplomats of a worryingly political hue, and by the spin, spin, spin of the Whitehall machine. That is not a recipe for good decision-making. The armed services—the poor bloody infantry, to coin a phrase—then got caught in the crossfire, literally as well as figuratively. Our armed services are rightly regarded as the best in the world. Not only should we allow them to do their job, but we should respect their expertise before, during and after any debate and decision about whether to go to war. This clearly did not happen in 2003, and the disastrous consequences speak all too eloquently for themselves.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, at last—at long, long last—Chilcot has reported, and it makes bleak reading. I had a ringside seat at the events described, but was never in the position of taking decisions. I am comforted by the fact that neither were members of the inquiry. Although I accept that their conclusions are broadly justified, their judgments are not infallible, and need rigorous questioning.
From 1997 to 2005 I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee. Once or twice a year over that period we visited Washington and New York, where we met many of the key players in the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense and the CIA, and, of course, our excellent then ambassador in New York, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. In London, after I had argued for containment, the Prime Minister invited me to meet him one to one at No. 10, and thereafter arranged for me to meet Sir John Scarlett, who had briefed him, in both September 2002 and February 2003.
I shall now make some reflections, matching my own experiences with the conclusions of the report. Yes, in 2003 I voted for the war. Would I have done so now, in the light of current knowledge? No. Would I have voted yes, knowing only what I did in 2003? Yes. Why? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It gives 20:20 vision. Of course, Chilcot had access to contemporaneous documents, but the memories of participants have been coloured by the consequences, and the confident tone of many of the report’s conclusions was matched only by the vaulting confidence of the Prime Minister and his senior advisers, cheered on by the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express.
We now know that the consequences were overwhelmingly negative. But what would have happened if we had not intervened? Almost certainly Saddam Hussein, or one of his nasty sons, would be ruling Iraq and threatening the region. As the ISG reported in the following year, he might have had to be tackled later, as he would have had the intent and then the capability of acquiring WMD. Increased oil resources would have allowed him to buy kit from AQ Khan, or from North Korea, the arch-proliferator.
Questions remain. Is there sufficient contextual analysis in the report? Did its authors seek to put themselves in the shoes of policymakers at the time? Remember that there was enormous frustration at the dissembling and obstruction by Saddam Hussein. Remember, too, that there was a realisation that sanctions were fraying fast and containment increasingly less credible. Remember also the post-9/11 atmosphere of the terrorist threat.
The Prime Minister made a strategic judgment to stand alongside the US to influence it—a judgment that was only partially realised, but which was at least honest. When briefed by the Prime Minister, I was surprised by an almost starry-eyed admiration for President Bush. When I was briefed by Sir John Scarlett he told me, essentially, what was relayed in the much-criticised dossier of September 2002, drafted by the JIC.
Thus the Prime Minister accepted the advice of our intelligence chiefs. They were wrong, but he honestly conveyed their advice—intelligence that was also accepted by France and Germany, and by our own military. I believe—if my memory is correct—that our soldiers were offered anti-CW kit at the time. Even Saddam Hussein may have believed that he still had WMD. It is difficult for politicians to disregard the advice of intelligence experts, but there should have been more rigorous and sceptical questioning. The establishment of the new security adviser to the Prime Minister should help.
There was a lack of HUMINT, and our sources—such as the Iraqi exile in the US, Chalabi, other exiles, and the BW fraudster—were certainly very suspect and had their own agendas. The report might have covered the position in Washington more thoroughly. I met Richard Perle, the grey eminence of the neocons, on several occasions. He spoke enthusiastically of the likely welcome of liberating forces in Baghdad and the promised democratic renaissance in the Middle East—unaware of the sort of complexities that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has mentioned. Colin Powell was angered by the briefing behind his speech to the UN. Richard Armitage, his No. 2, spoke to us of the military expertise at the top of the State Department compared with the comparative weakness at the top of the DOD, led by the management experts Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
The inquiry concluded that the post-conflict plan was “wholly insufficient”, but probably failed adequately to reflect the fact that it was not us but the Department of Defense that was in the driving seat—overriding the advice and the plans of the State Department. In retrospect, perhaps, the failure of the Prime Minister was not to make his support more conditional. In Baghdad, visiting the CPA, I saw that the operatives under Bremer were overwhelmingly American. I also visited our rather isolated outpost in Basra. We had little or no influence over the twin disastrous decisions on de-Baathification and the disbandment of the army. Colin Powell—perhaps after visiting a supermarket—said, “If you break it, you own it”, and liberation soon morphed into occupation and intolerant Shia domination under al-Maliki.
My conclusion is this. I confess I have changed my mind following the publication of the report. I had assumed that the delay, and the likely pulling of punches in the report, would lead to great anger among the families of the victims and that, 13 years after the events described, it was likely to be viewed as a historical document, mainly of interest to academic researchers into the processes of British government. It is not holy writ; its own judgments need to be questioned, yet overall it is a massive contribution to our understanding of the events leading to the Iraq war and, of course, the processes of government, and a salutary highlighting of what went wrong and the lessons to be learned. If interventions are contemplated, they should take place only according to just war principles and if the objectives are clear, and after thorough preparation, risk analysis and the provision of sufficient resources. All were lacking in the case of Iraq. Perhaps the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—should not have on his desk the phrase, “The buck stops here”, but rather the Cromwellian words, “Think, ye may be mistaken”.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, having looked again at my interventions in the House on 24 September 2002 and 18 March 2003, warning, as many noble Lords did, against the military invasion of Iraq, I shall resist the temptation to claim the obvious. Sadly, there is no sign in the Chilcot report that any of the powerful interventions in this House—many of them spoken with much greater authority than mine, and some of which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan—were ever brought to the attention of the Prime Minister at that time.
Two of the conclusions of the Chilcot inquiry were, first, the failure to use the machinery of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee to consider the case for going to war—a criticism already emphasised in the Franks report on the Falklands War some 22 years earlier. The second concerns the conflict between the Government’s decision to remove Saddam Hussein—if only as a means of disarming Iraq—and the repeated assurance which I and others received, in reply to our questions in this House, that regime change was no part of the Government’s policy. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary was specifically on record as saying that we should not be in the business of changing other people’s Governments.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, referred to lessons for the future. I would like to ask a few questions about lessons for the present. In the light of the inquiry’s criticisms, I ask the Minister two questions. First, how often has our policy towards Syria been discussed in the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee, or is it now the National Security Council? Secondly, what is now the Government’s stated policy towards regime change?
In the light of the likely consequences of changing the Syrian regime, can the Minister assure the House that we are no longer giving active support, let alone supplying weapons—most of which fall into the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra or Daesh—to the so-called moderate rebels who are trying to remove President Assad from power? It appears that President Obama is still under strong pressure in Washington, receiving an appeal from 51 so-called “Syrian experts” to launch a full-scale military attack against the Syrian regime, but has so far withstood the pressure. There are also voices in the press here that the House of Commons was wrong to refuse an attack to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons, a refusal echoed in what was virtually a 10:1 view in this House on 29 August three years ago.
Can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government are no longer actively trying to remove President Assad and his regime? Have they listened to the repeated warnings in this House of the likely alternative? And if President Obama should be persuaded to change his view, can the Minister assure us that the Government have learned at least one of the lessons of Chilcot—namely, that in following United States policies, we need to examine very closely not only its motives, but also the likely consequences of its policies?
Finally, the report reminds us that Mr Blair concluded the Cabinet meeting on 7 March 2002 by saying that it was,
“critically important to reinvigorate the Middle East Peace Process”.
Here we are, more than 14 years later, with the combined efforts of Secretary Kerry and his predecessors, and of Mr Blair himself, as the quartet’s representative, having achieved absolutely nothing in persuading the Israeli Government under Mr Netanyahu either to enter into meaningful discussions with the Palestinian leadership, or to reverse his illegal settlement policies on the West Bank and in east Jerusalem.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, speaking towards the end of this debate, and finding myself squeezed between two of the most highly regarded and admired Mandarins of the Foreign Office, I feel rather like orange juice, if I can put it that way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the fact that during the second Iraq war I was chairman of Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee, which dealt with defence and foreign affairs. A few weeks before the war, we were in Washington. As a consequence of what we saw and heard, I returned and spoke in the same debate on 18 March 2003 to which the noble Lord, Lord Wright, has just referred. In that speech I dissociated myself from the Labour Government, my own Front Bench and from the United States’s plans for war. We had no vote but, if we had had one, I would have voted against the war. Looking back on it, then and now, I had, among many reservations, particular reservations about WMDs, the intelligence, the legality and the United States’s new arrogance which I noticed at that time, although I had no reason then to doubt the intelligence that we were getting. Like most people, there was no reason to do that.
However, tonight I want to concentrate especially on what I regard as the wicked lack of preparation for the post-military phase. It is a separate chapter, reflecting an astonishing lack of planning by all concerned, together with what seems to me an apparent lack of interest in preparing for that phase. It reflects a period of political leadership which I think marks the lowest point in competence in both the United States and the United Kingdom that I have ever lived through. In the United States, George W Bush, who I believe one can argue is the worst United States president in my lifetime, left two unwinnable wars and a major financial crisis behind him. In the United Kingdom, we had a Government led by a Prime Minister who allowed himself to be led by the United States into supporting its policies like a pet sheep, and who, having agreed to go to war, consistently failed to plan for the post-military phase. I may say that my own party at that time had the most unconvincing leadership I have ever known in my lifetime.
I draw attention to a few of the facts which come out of the Chilcot report which demonstrate that crucial lack of planning for the post-military phase, which, of course, has led to the current chaos. I give a few examples from either the main report or the summary.
As early as 9 September 2002, Mr Hoon went to meet Secretary Rumsfeld in Washington, armed with a departmental briefing on the post-conflict phase. Chilcot tells us there is “no indication” that he raised it at all.
A little later, on 17 January, Mr Straw sent a paper to the Prime Minister about the aftermath of the military phase. Chilcot says:
“Mr Straw did not give due consideration to what might constitute a satisfactory plan for the UK and whether UK participation in military action should be conditional on such a plan”.
Following that report—it is all connected—Sir David Manning is quoted as saying to the Prime Minister:
“I don’t think they affect your decision in principle”,
to which the Prime Minister replied, “Agreed”.
Moving into 2003, I was again struck to read the quote from the memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. He says that in January 2003, he asked Mr Blair,
“‘What happens after you’ve won? … You can go in there, you can take out Saddam but what do you do with Iraq? You’re going to have a country on your hands. I don’t know what your plan is. I don’t know how you are going to do it. Who is going to run the place?’ Tony replied: ‘That’s the Americans’ responsibility. It’s down to the Americans’”.
Moving on to 19 February, Chilcot says:
“There is no indication that, when Mr Blair discussed Iraq with President Bush on 19 February, he raised either post-conflict planning or the post-conflict role of the UN”.
These are damning comments on the preparation for that war, and are, if I may say so, exactly the things that bothered me so much and which caused me to dissociate myself from the mood at that time.
Moving on to 6 March, Chilcot says:
“On 6 March, Mr Blair chaired the first”—
mind that, the first—
“Ministerial meeting convened solely to address humanitarian and other post-conflict issues”.
He goes on, in Paragraph 781, to say, “No decision was taken”.
In the same Cabinet meeting, on 6 March, it says in the Chilcot report:
“For the first time, Mr Blair requested a consolidated UK plan for post-conflict Iraq, including the key decisions for Ministers to take”.
That is on 6 March, days before the war began. On 21 March, shortly after the debate in this House, Chilcot says:
“The Inquiry has seen no evidence that a cross-government humanitarian plan for Iraq was ever produced”.
Moving on to 12 March, the report says:
“The draft objectives and guiding principles for post-conflict Iraq were resubmitted to Mr Blair for approval on 12 March. No decision was taken and there is no indication that Mr Blair discussed the objectives and principles with Ministers. In the absence of a decision from Mr Blair, post-conflict planners remained without clear Ministerial guidance on the nature and extent of the UK’s post-conflict commitment”.
These are, quite honestly, dreadful indictments of what happened at that time. You may say, “This was all the British side of things”, but, to be truthful, the Americans were no better. In the report, on 18 March, when Major General Cross came through to London on his way to the region, he is quoted in Paragraph 1075 as saying:
“I was as honest about the position as I could be, essentially briefing that I did not believe post-war planning was anywhere near ready. I told him that there was no clarity on what was going to be needed after the military phase of the operation, nor who would provide it. Although I was confident that we would secure a military victory I offered my view that we should not begin that campaign until we had a … more coherent post-war plan”.
The Americans are equally culpable on this. In the speech—I am sorry I am taking so long—that I made on 18 March, I made the point when I said:
“When we were in Washington”,
with that committee,
“several people admitted that too little thought has been given, and too late, to what will happen afterwards”.—[Official Report, 18/3/03; col. 171.]
On 23 February, there had been an article in the New York Times regarding the Bush Administration’s new office of post-war planning, which held a secret session,
“to assess the government’s plans for securing and rebuilding Iraq if Saddam is overthrown”.
This last paragraph is, I think, crucial. I reminded the House at that time that the,
“office will be directed by”,
General Garner. That was only a few weeks before the conflict started. The post had already been refused by Dr David Kay,
“a former chief nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, who had considered taking it. He was quoted as complaining that promoting democracy had too little priority in the new office and that the mission itself was under-financed and poorly staffed”.—[Official Report, 18/3/03; col. 171.]
The American approach to the post-military phase is lamentable.
It is a sorry and outrageous story of political leaders ignoring advice and pressing ahead with foolish and ill-prepared military adventures. They were consistently warned, on both sides of the Atlantic. Now we are harvesting the whirlwind. Is Iraq a better place? I have to say to my noble friend who opened the debate that a number of us in this corner of the Chamber rather raised our eyebrows when we heard him say that it is a better place. There is chaos in Iraq and in the region, and terrorism is rampant. What should our lessons be? Our lesson is a simple one—political leaders should not take on these sorts of adventures purely on their own. They must do so in an infinitely more democratic way in the future.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, it is always a challenge to follow the trenchant words of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.
I strongly supported the setting up of the inquiry into Iraq, as I thought it important to learn the lessons for British involvement in future conflicts. I said in the past in your Lordships’ House that I regretted that the report had not been published much earlier. Having now read it—or much of it—and seen the responses to it, I think it was right for the inquiry to take the time needed for a full and proper investigation.
I want to focus on three issues. First, the inquiry is critical of the Government and, among others, of the Foreign Office, for the degree of preparation for the aftermath of conflict. As Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office at the time, I accept that criticism. As I said when I gave evidence to the inquiry, we could and should have carried out a more thorough assessment ourselves of the possible consequences of the invasion than we did. We should not have relied as heavily as we did on our ability to persuade the Americans, as leaders of the coalition, to do the preparation themselves.
But we must be realistic about this. The Chilcot report itself says that,
“better planning and preparation for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would not necessarily have prevented the events that unfolded in Iraq between 2003 and 2009”.
As the Prime Minister said in the Commons last week:
“We should not be naive to think that just because we have the best prepared plans, in the real world things cannot go wrong”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/16; col. 888.]
In the real world, things do go wrong—as they did in Iraq and as they did in Libya.
That leads on to my second point. Many have said in this debate that it would be wrong to conclude from the conflict in Iraq that Britain should never again get involved in conflicts abroad. Of course this is right. We can all think of successful British involvement in conflicts—in Sierra Leone and in Kosovo. There are conflicts in which we should have intervened but did not, such as Rwanda or Bosnia. But there are also conflicts in which, with hindsight, British intervention looks either wrong, such as Iraq, or at least questionable, such as Libya and, perhaps, Afghanistan.
The difficult question is: when is intervention justified? In my view, there needs to be, first, agreement that all diplomatic avenues are effectively closed—although, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, that may be a matter of judgment. Secondly, there needs to be a convincing argument that intervention will leave things better than if there is no intervention: that intervention will succeed—which, as I said, was not the case in Iraq nor, as I argued at the time, when the Government sought authority for a bombing campaign in Syria in 2013. Thirdly, there needs to be unambiguous UN Security Council authority: or, if that is impossible—I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said about the difficulties of getting it—there needs to be a powerful humanitarian justification, as in Kosovo. Finally, Britain needs to be acting as part of a strong international coalition, such as a NATO intervention—again, as in Kosovo.
Decisions to intervene are never easy, but I believe that criteria such as these can provide a necessary and coherent justification for intervention and avoid the easy but naive conclusion that intervention that succeeds is always right and intervention that fails is always wrong.
My last point is in some ways the most important, at least for me. Much has rightly been said about the bravery of our soldiers in Iraq. Less has been said about the courage and professionalism of the many members of the civil and diplomatic services, men and women from many departments, who volunteered for service in Iraq out of a commitment to help rebuild the country. In early 2004, I visited them in Basra and Baghdad, where many British civil servants lived in containers on the ground floor of a concrete multi-storey car park. I witnessed the good humour, professionalism and bravery with which they worked every day in the most difficult and often dangerous circumstances. They, too, deserve our gratitude.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to wind up for these Benches after such an extraordinary and wide-ranging debate. The invasion of Iraq, what preceded it and what has followed has had a seismic effect on global politics, not just British politics. Our first thoughts must be for those who lost their lives or were wounded as a result of this conflict, whether from the United Kingdom or in Iraq. Their loss must be compounded by the question mark over the legality and effectiveness of this war.
Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to Sir John Chilcot and other members of his group, including the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who spent so many years of their lives analysing this material—a forensic critique, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly described it. I know that people got impatient, but Chilcot and his colleagues have not pulled their punches, even if few of their conclusions come as a surprise.
Andrew Rawnsley, writing in the Observer on Sunday and seeking to understand why all the main political parties, the vast range of experts and others were not heeded on Brexit, points to the effect of the Iraq invasion as underpinning the lack of trust in politics today. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in his coruscating critique, took the same view.
As I went back to my documents of the time, I found that no one could say the Government were not warned again and again. I read the letters from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, whose outstanding speech today laid out the lessons from Chilcot, and those from Lady Williams of Crosby. There are the reports, the legal advice and the academic and policy analysis. I recall the wise advice of my much missed friend and noble Lord, Air Marshal Tim Garden, with his deep experience both of the military and of global strategy as former director of Chatham House, warning against invading Iraq. It owed much to him that we Lib Dems were the only party to stand against the invasion of Iraq. My party had much opprobrium heaped on it, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Morgan and Lord Owen, for their wonderful tributes to my late colleague Charles Kennedy for his courage and integrity.
Chilcot points to the failings of the intelligence community, a point to which my noble friend and other noble Lords referred, and to the failure in legal advice, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and other noble Lords. The Chilcot report makes clear the failure to secure an authorising resolution from the UN and,
“the lack of adequate preparation for the post-conflict period and the consequent struggle to cope with the deteriorating security situation in Iraq after the invasion”.
The war left a vacuum—as we have heard, particularly in the powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan—but there has also been the chilling effect of the very involvement in international matters, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has just referred: the reluctance to assist and the reluctance to stay the course, which have their effects now across the Middle East and far wider, as noble Lords have made plain. There is—or should be—a difference between intervening in humanitarian disasters, such as the genocide in Rwanda, or Kosovo, and the regime change sought by the Americans.
One striking thing is that the warnings at the time were loud and clear. I had the privilege of being in this House when these matters were debated, and I vividly recall the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wright, with all his wisdom, and so many other noble Lords here. On my computer is my own speech on the lack of planning for reconstruction. It is difficult, therefore, to have patience with those who say that they did not know. I see a major parallel here with our Brexit situation. The warnings about Brexit were and are loud and clear. Must we be taken down this road because of distrust in politics and experts, and then make more mistakes with our eyes wide open?
The Chilcot report concludes that the influence of the UK and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on the US was grossly overestimated. The Bush Administration sought regime change. We, theoretically, were seeking to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. The Americans dictated the timetable, regardless of the pleas all around that the weapons inspectors should be given more time, and that the UN should resolve to take action if need be. My noble friend Lord Tyler made very clear the result of concealing the ultimate purpose here, and hence the inadequate military preparation, in the terrible effects on his constituent and others.
It is also abundantly clear how challenging nation building is. What comes across from the Chilcot report is the failure to plan or prepare even for known risks. It concludes that what was required was to restore infrastructure, to be able to administer a state and provide security. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave a devastating critique of the descent of Iraq as a nation state into a non-functioning country. Daesh, it points out, is stronger there than anywhere else. Chilcot says:
“Despite being aware of the shortcomings of the US plan, strong US resistance to a leading role for the UN, indications that the UN did not want the administration of Iraq”.
It goes on to say:
“At no stage do the UK Government consider other policy options, including the possibility of participation in military action conditional on a satisfactory plan for the post-conflict period”.
Chilcot notes that the FCO was not equipped for nation building, and DfID’s focus on poverty reduction instilled a reluctance to engage in anything other than immediate humanitarian response to conflict. We hear of looting, security vacuums and the impact on Afghanistan in terms of resources and attention, which noble Lords here warned of at the time, not least my noble friend Lady Tonge—hence the conclusion of “strategic failure”. Chilcot speaks of the development of widespread sectarian conflict, the victory of terrorist groups, the collapse of the democratic process, the division of Iraq and the damage to the UK’s political and military reputation. Looking at the situation now, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London I point to the—at least—10 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. Iraq itself is hosting 250,000 refugees from Syria.
This has been a deeply troubling debate about a deeply troubling period in our history, which has not yet fully played out and where we cannot see the lines of future resolutions. Some of the contributions here do not perhaps yet heed what Chilcot has said. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said about his deep regret about his own support for the war, pointing to what others should also recognise. I am very glad that Sir John Chilcot and his team have undertaken this extraordinary analysis. It is surely vitally important that we all learn the lessons that they rightly draw out.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, like all noble Lords in this debate, I pay tribute to Britain’s Armed Forces, and also to those who serve in a civilian capacity. We can all be very proud of the work that they do and the high standards that they maintain. As my noble friend Lord Touhig said at the beginning of this debate, what must be uppermost in our minds is the 179 servicemen and 23 civilians who lost their lives in the war, and our thoughts are with them and their families. Nor must we forget those who suffered physical and mental injuries as a result of their duty. We will not forget either the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives in the conflict and since.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said, for a lot of people the report of Sir John Chilcot will not have changed their view on the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war—apart perhaps from my noble friend Lord Anderson. The biggest demonstration that the country had seen for a century reflected the strength of feeling at the time. It divided political parties and families, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and many friends. I suspect that, if anything, views have hardened since then. Although Sir John did not say so in so many words, it was clear from his presentation after the report’s publication that he believed that the Iraq war was a big mistake. He set out many reasons why he believed so. He has made strong criticisms about process and procedure in analysis and decision-making, planning and preparation, and, of course, as many noble Lords have said, our relationship with the United States. After seven years, 2.5 million words and more than 150 witnesses, the report neither made the case for non-interventionist policy in the future nor concluded that anyone acted in bad faith. Sir John accepts that, ultimately, leaders have to make decisions—especially the tough ones, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett so eloquently said.
The questions for the inquiry were whether it was right and necessary to invade Iraq in March 2003 and whether the UK could and should have been better prepared for what followed. Sir John and his panel concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been fully exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort. On that first question, one area of criticism relates to the process surrounding the Attorney-General’s advice and the role of the United Nations. I am an incredibly strong supporter of the United Nations and its vital role in bringing all communities together, but our tendency is to see the UN as a quasi-judicial forum, able to adjudicate on difficult and complex issues. In reality, it is a collection of all the countries of the world, with all their competing visions and interests. As we have experienced with events in Syria, Putin’s Russia, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, ensures that it is rarely a body within which full international agreement can be reached.
We have also heard in this debate the expression of concern, which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to, that the Cabinet Ministers did not grill the Attorney-General directly on his advice when they had the chance. Despite what I read in the Daily Mirror, I also read the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, to Chilcot. In July 2010 he said:
“Look, this was not as if somehow he just comes out and gives a view. There was a great public debate with all the academics in the world giving different views as to whether it was legal or not … We as politicians read that and understand there is a difficulty”.
It is not as if people understand things in isolation; that is particularly true of politicians.
There has been much focus on the three words in the report “far from satisfactory”. Although I was not in this House, and certainly not participating in Parliament, I have had the opportunity to speak to my noble friends and in particular to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney-General. Those words, “far from satisfactory”, are not about the legal advice itself but about,
“the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action”.
There is no finding that the legal advice was wrong, and no court has said that it was in the 13 years since the conflict. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith has said publicly that he believed then, and still believes, that the legal advice that he gave was right. As my noble friend Lord Lea reminded us, there is no finding that the legal controversy was hidden from the Cabinet.
What we have heard throughout today’s debate, and certainly in reading the summary report, is that the main criticism is about the process in government—a theme running through the report—and about Tony Blair’s method of running government. This is a criticism that Tony Blair himself has said he is responsible for. His public statement reads:
“However, I accept that the report makes serious criticisms of the way decisions were taken. Again I accept full responsibility for those points of criticism including where I do not agree fully with them”.
One point raised in the report is that my noble and learned friend said—as he, as former Attorney-General, responded to me—that he did not change his opinion but his opinion was developed. I understand that point. He is a man of integrity and, certainly, Sir John Chilcot did not challenge that. Despite examining every scrap of paper in the Attorney-General’s office and in No. 10 Downing Street, including all the diaries and meetings, and despite all the accusations flying around, they found nothing: no finding of any fixing of the legal advice and no email chain from No. 10 suggesting changes to that advice.
I turn to the fundamental point that this debate is about: learning the lessons. On the question of how decision-making across government can be improved, I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the establishment of the National Security Council, which can regularly inform not only Members, politicians and Ministers, but cross-security agencies, which these days is vital. Tomorrow night, however, we will have a new Government. Despite what the current Prime Minister has said, I would appreciate hearing from the Minister what the new Government’s plans are for assessing the full implications of Sir John Chilcot’s report as a whole, whether they will be setting out the general improvement in decision-making, and when this might be achieved by.
In his opening statement, my noble friend referred to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon that an ad hoc Cabinet committee be established in these circumstances. I, too, would appreciate the Minister’s saying whether he thinks that is worth consideration.
Sir John also concluded that, despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated; the planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.
I, too, would like to refer to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The response was absolutely shocking—one could say minimal—but, in the light of the noble Lord’s contribution, it was worse than minimal, and in some respects completely counterproductive. It was, in a way, asserting a macho power of America—to be seen to be in control—which ultimately led to anarchy. Of course, our contribution was no better—and I accept the points noble Lords have made in this debate—but that is the key lesson for us to learn. Our response cannot be simply humanitarian; it also has to look to our alliances, including NATO. My noble friend referred to NATO’s possibly undertaking joint exercises so that all nations in the alliance are better prepared for post-conflict planning. I certainly look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this.
I also welcome what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his opening remarks about cross-departmental work. As shadow spokesperson for foreign affairs and international development, my view is that, wherever we are involved in conflict resolution, it is fundamental that we are also involved in building sustainable states and ensuring development, which is key to avoiding future conflict.
While we contemplate where we went wrong and learn the lessons for the future, we must not ignore the present, as the right reverend Prelate said. The protection of civilians and respect for their rights in accordance with international law must be maintained by all actors in the conflict and by all agencies. Will the Minister say what diplomatic processes the Government are engaged in to support the Iraqi Government in building an inclusive state? For me, human rights are fundamental, and an attack on human rights is a justification for intervention. We are seeing attacks on not only the rights of women and children but on religious freedom and on other minorities. I am incredibly proud to be a supporter of the Iraqi lesbian and gay movement, which is in a very fragile position but is at least being supported by this Government, which I very much welcome. We need to ensure that the Government continue to provide financial support not just on the basis of need or status, and not linked to political objectives. We need to focus on that humanitarian response. As the right reverend Prelate said, we need to encourage others to give as well. We must lead by example.
This has been an incredibly important and moving debate. I have no doubt that the work of Sir John Chilcot, which I, too, praise, will continue to play a part in the continuing debate and in the lessons we learn. Even though the debate has been lengthy, it has not covered all the issues. One thing we have learned is that there were no lies or deceit and no secret deal with Bush. There was a messy process surrounding the legal advice and the role of the United Nations, and mistakes were made in intelligence, but there was no improper interference. There was bad planning for the aftermath and many mistakes and shortcomings, alongside some successes.
I conclude by echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said: if we are to make progress, it cannot be about recriminations. It has to be about reconciliation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent, if sobering, debate and I thank all those who have spoken. Once again the House has shown its wealth of experience and expertise. I fear I will struggle to do justice to many of the eloquent speeches we have heard, but I will try.
I start, as so many noble Lords started, by expressing my condolences and sympathy to those who lost loved ones in Iraq and to those who still bear the scars of the conflict today. Whatever our views on the conflict, we can surely all agree on one thing: the bravery and courage of British service men and women in Iraq was exemplary. They did their duty and, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, their record is not the slightest bit stained by the issues that the report highlights. We all owe it to those who served, died or were wounded in Iraq, be they servicemen or civilians, British, Iraqi or any other nationality—as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said—to learn the lessons from this conflict.
In response to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, just made, I can say that the National Security Adviser is undertaking a process to learn lessons. The new Prime Minister will want to decide if she wants a formal response and what form that response would take. At this point, I cannot go beyond that.
It has taken years for the inquiry to complete its work. We need to learn the lessons from that process itself, including on its remit, the process of Maxwellisation and the machinery that supported it, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord King and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. There can be little doubt that the report is forensic, it is balanced and, above all, it has avoided any sense of a whitewash. For that, we should all be thankful to Sir John and the other members of the inquiry including the late Sir Martin Gilbert.
The inquiry concluded that mistakes and failings were made that could have been avoided at the time, for which hindsight is no defence. Some of these mistakes could, possibly, be seen as matters of judgment. Those in office at the time will need to account for their actions. I am not going to comment on any of the criticisms directed at individuals in the report. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded us and as said by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, we must temper our criticism by bearing in mind that Ministers were seeking to serve the national interest and were not driven by ignoble motives. However, as a number of your Lordships have said, many other mistakes were clearly failings of the machinery of government, or a breakdown in the ethos of government, where due process was not observed or did not exist and where decisions were made without the opportunity to debate, formally and privately, the evidence to support a course of action or the evidence on which an approach was based.
My brief experience of government has taught me that while the processes and ethos of government—the committees, minutes, impartial advice, collective responsibility, all these things—may not set the pulse racing, they are the rock on which good governance rests, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. These processes are more important than ever in our 24/7 world, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred. Politicians, whatever their party, must maintain this critical hidden wiring of our constitution. As the late, great Sir Michael Quinlan put it:
“Governing parties are more than just tenants of the constitutional structure; they have a right … to modify it … but they remain less than owners; they are more like trustees, with an obligation to maintain the structure and hand it on to successors in good working order”.
We shall never perfect the system of government. I am certainly not claiming that it has been perfected by the Conservatives. However, this report is a salutary tale of what happens when some of the basic concepts and processes that underpin collective responsibility are ignored and when not enough opportunity is given to challenge and to debate a policy or approach.
Lurking beneath so much of what has been said in the last few hours is a simple, big question to which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, so eloquently alluded. It is this: what has been done to learn the lessons from Iraq, to ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes? I do not quite share the pessimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, that we never learn the lessons of our mistakes. We must surely try to learn, and we are trying to do so.
Before I talk about specific changes that we have made to the machinery of government, I have a word to say about culture. We all know that the machinery of an organisation might be perfect on paper, but if the culture—that is, how people behave, the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred—is wrong, the machinery and all the those pretty organigrams with which one is presented are not worth a jot, a point well made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, good processes do not guarantee good decisions. Nor do they guarantee good behaviour. We need a culture of government where politicians and, crucially, civil servants and service personnel can challenge consensus. In the old adage, Ministers and advisers need to be able to speak the truth unto power and have the confidence and ability to challenge those above them without any qualm.
While preparing for the debate today, I came across something my grandfather said when he was head of the Civil Service back in the 1940s. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for quoting this; I do so merely because he put it much better than I ever could. He said:
“The whole training you have in the Civil Service leads you, when you tackle a problem, first of all to direct yourself to getting the facts: you are given a statement and you say, ‘Is this really so, why is it so, and what evidence does it rest upon?’; and you check it and counter-check it and you say, ‘I wonder whether this is really true, let us ask somebody who has got a different angle of approach to it’; and then you look to see what the different consequences of it are; and finally you are in a position to put something up to your Minister which is really pretty hard boiled as far as the facts and probable consequences are concerned”.
I would argue, although of course I am biased on this point, that that is the culture we want. We need advisers to present Ministers with hard-boiled facts and arguments, however unpalatable they might be. And it is not enough simply for us politicians to utter such words; it falls to politicians to create an environment in which such a culture can thrive, in which those politicians welcome challenge and provoke it themselves. That requires a framework that encourages debate and deliberation.
That brings me back to the machinery of government. At the core of the Government’s response is of course the National Security Council, a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the Prime Minister. As my noble friend Lord Howe said, it is a formal, dedicated structure for collective strategic leadership on national security and crisis situations, providing an opportunity not simply to share and assess information but to challenge policy and ideas. A number of your Lordships have referred to the NSC, and I would make one big point, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about process. There are regular meetings of all key departments and agencies; experts who are empowered to give their advice; minuted conclusions; and a National Security Adviser, with a strong team, who is responsible for ensuring that decisions are implemented and relevant departments are briefed. Those simple but critical aspects help to address many of the basic failings that the inquiry identified in the machinery of government and, specifically, address many of the failings identified by the report regarding the assessment of the legality of any proposed action, the intelligence on which decisions are made and the Government’s preparedness for action. Entrenching these processes is one—admittedly, just one—way of avoiding the mistakes set out in the report.
I shall say a brief word about each of them. First, on legal advice, as the report says, the Government of the day decided that there was a legal basis for UK participation in the war. The inquiry did not take a view on whether the war was unlawful and I am not going to revisit that issue. However, as has been remarked, the report stated that the legal process was “far from satisfactory”, a point mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell, Lord Morgan and Lord Thomas of Gresford. Again, the NSC has helped us to rectify that. Since its creation, between 2010 and 2015 the Attorney-General was invited to attend NSC meetings when decisions on conflict intervention were under consideration. From 2016 the Attorney-General has become an NSC member in his own right and is therefore privy to all NSC discussions relating to conflict as well as other national security issues.
Next I shall consider the assessment of intelligence. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who speaks with great experience on these issues, said, despite the criticisms of the intelligence services in the report it is always important to remember that intelligence, if used properly, is a vital tool. We see examples throughout history, such as the use of Ultra to break the German Enigma codes in World War II or, more recently, in the field of counterterrorism both in Northern Ireland and against Islamist extremism. The UK faces constantly evolving threats, and the work of the intelligence and security services remains critical to our national security.
That said, when assessing intelligence we must not succumb to groupthink, to which my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke very eloquently about this. The review in 2004 by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, led to a systematic overhaul of the UK’s intelligence machinery. Today, although we are not complacent, there are more robust measures in place to ensure that intelligence is used appropriately and is challenged in the right way. There is now strong, independent oversight of the intelligence community. For example, the post of professional head of intelligence analysis was established to advise on gaps and duplication in analyst training and on the development of analytical methodology across the intelligence community. Crucially, the JIC chairman is appointed in accordance with the criteria of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the chair should be,
“someone with experience of dealing with Ministers in a very senior role, and who is demonstrably beyond influence”.
On top of this, the Secret Intelligence Service has appointed a senior officer to validate and oversee the quality of human intelligence sources. Furthermore, at the beginning of every NSC meeting, the JIC chairman provides JIC assessments so that the NSC knows the basis of the intelligence we have at our disposal. Clearly, we will reflect on the Chilcot recommendations very carefully and identify areas where we can go even further. Some new proposals are already under way—for example the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will introduce an even more robust safeguards regime for the intelligence community.
However, critical to assessing options for action and responding to challenges is the preparedness of our Armed Forces. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, brought out well the way in which technical advances and the constant demands of the news cycle make the responsibilities of the commander ever more complex. Today more than ever, our Armed Forces and those commanders need to be properly funded, and to have a robust means of planning and the right equipment.
First, on funding, it is worth noting, as my noble friend Lord Attlee said, that the report found the Government’s decision to take part in military action against Iraq was not affected by consideration of the potential financial costs to the UK—either of the invasion, or the post-conflict period—and that the arrangements for funding urgent operational requirements and other military costs worked as intended and did not constrain the UK’s military ability to conduct operations in Iraq. However, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, the coalition Government addressed the £38 billion funding shortfall in 2010 and this Government have committed to meeting the NATO pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defence every year this decade.
Next, I turn to the subject of equipment, which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and my noble friend Lord Attlee also spoke about. While I do not wish to sound complacent on this point either, progress has been made to address some of the failings that have been recognised. Since 2010, the MoD has implemented fundamental reforms to its structure and management, thanks in large part to my noble friend Lord Levene’s defence reform review. It is now a simpler and more cost-effective organisation but, crucially, one where the focus is now unremittingly on military capability. The MoD has strengthened the urgent operational requirements process to better meet specific operational needs. Where commanders on the ground identify an issue, it can address any equipment issue quickly and effectively.
I turn now to stabilisation and post-conflict work. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last week, fighting a war can sometimes be easier than building peace. Again, there are important lessons to be learned about what went wrong in Iraq, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and my noble friend Lord Jopling said. The report highlighted the need not simply for better and timely planning across government, but for a means to assess progress and adapt plans in the face of unexpected challenges.
With that in mind, we have now brought the stabilisation unit under the National Security Council. It produces joint assessments of conflict and security to inform NSC strategies as well as departmental and cross-government programmes, so we are better equipped to plan for post-conflict situations. Part of that, as my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham said, is understanding the complexity of other cultures, especially across the Middle East. On top of that, last year we created a dedicated Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. With £1 billion a year, it can support the national security strategy and individual departments’ needs. Furthermore, civilians in the military now routinely train, plan and work together. DfID officials now attend MoD training courses for senior military personnel and its advisers participate in military planning exercises.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, made an interesting point about how we might conduct post-conflict planning with other nations and bodies—a point I am sure my noble friend will mull over. As for our support in Iraq today, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked about support for charities on the ground. The UK is funding local Iraqi NGOs via the Iraq Humanitarian Pooled Fund to support those in need, including refugees from Fallujah. Through the CSSF we are contributing £6 million to help the Iraqi Government to stabilise areas liberated from Daesh. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, Daesh is now on the back foot, having lost about 45% of the Iraqi territory it once held. On top of the support that I have mentioned, the Government are making a significant contribution to the $3.6 billion economic support package announced at the G7 summit in Japan.
I should like to write to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on the questions that he raised about Syria. However, I can say that the transition to a more inclusive political system has remained the UK’s primary objective. The UK has supported civilian operational government structures in liberated areas of Syria, providing real alternatives to Assad and helping the conditions for political transition.
I am very conscious that one cannot do justice to a report of this size, nor the contributions made in today’s debate, in a few short minutes. Although we have made progress in addressing some of the failings identified by Sir John, that process must not stop. There is always more that we can do to improve how decisions are made and implemented. Complacency is the enemy of good government.
More than that, we owe it to those who put themselves in harm’s way in order to protect us and stand up for the values we cherish never to stop asking: how can we do things better? Change we have and change we must, but we should desist at all costs from drawing the wrong conclusions from what the inquiry found. As many of your Lordships have said, the decision to go to war in Iraq shook people’s trust in politicians to its core. The bloodshed and chaos that followed led people to question our nation’s role in the world.
We should not forget that those who serve as politicians and civil servants and in our Armed Forces are, in all but a minority of cases, motivated by a simple desire to serve our country and help to improve the lot of others. Today more than ever, if we are to improve our lot, we must continue to play our part in world affairs. As a number of your Lordships, such as the noble Lords, Lord Soley and Lord Jay, said, not intervening can have serious and disastrous consequences. Learning the lessons from Iraq does not mean pulling up the drawbridge—quite the reverse. We must engage, make our voice heard and continue to do our bit.