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, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
I am in regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Education on all aspects of policy relating to international students. We will shortly be launching a consultation on changes to the non-EU work and study migration routes. I encourage all interested parties to participate.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Government have previously suggested that tens of thousands of international students break the terms of their visa by overstaying. We also know, however, that international students contribute almost £11 billion to the UK economy and that about 30% of university revenues come from non-EU international students. Analysis conducted by the Home Secretary’s own Department shows that only 1% of international students break the terms of their visa arrangements. Will she confirm that the figure is 1% and, if so, what steps will she take to encourage more international students who are a benefit to our economy and our universities, particularly in places such as the north-east of England?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman is right. Student immigration plays an important role in supporting our world-class university system, which is a great part of the British economy in terms of exports. He refers to some very encouraging work from my Department about getting a more precise hold on the number of those who overstay. That work is at an early stage, so I would not put too much weight on it yet. We are, however, watching it carefully and hope it will be able to give us more confidence in the numbers of students who leave as well as arrive.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is it not the case that post-Brexit we can design a student visa system that will attract the best and brightest from around the world, both within and outside the EU, while at the same time regularising the treatment of English students and EU students in Scotland, which is presently different?
Amber Rudd
I can reassure my hon. Friend that our policy will remain as it is, both post-Brexit and pre-Brexit. It is to encourage the brightest and the best to come to this country, where they contribute to our economy and cultural life.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Barely a fortnight ago, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that policy should be guided by public opinion in regards to the treatment of international students and the visa system. Does the Home Secretary agree with the Chancellor? If so, will she finally let common sense and public opinion prevail by removing international students from the net migration cap, which is what the Chancellor seemed to suggest?
Amber Rudd
I certainly agree with the Chancellor that international students make an incredibly important contribution to our economy and our cultural life. On whether international students should be a part of the immigration statistics, they are part of the Office for National Statistics’ stated statistics and it is not for me to change that arrangement.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
In my experience, some time ago when I was doing another job, I found that when I was setting up broadcasting stations, whether in New York city or Gaberone, Botswana, it often helped if I was dealing with people who had been educated in Britain. I therefore certainly agree with the thrust of the question from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). Is not the point that we, the United Kingdom, should decide who should come here, not Brussels? That will be the case after Brexit.
Amber Rudd
I agree with my hon. Friend that every student who has studied here can become an important ambassador for this country internationally. That is an incredibly important part of the soft power of this country, extending our influence. I would say to my hon. Friend, however, that international students are welcome now and we want to continue to attract the best and the brightest. We will continue to do so after we leave the European Union.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Scottish business, the trade unions, the education sector and every political party in the Scottish Parliament, including the Conservative and Unionist party, agree that Scotland needs a return of the post-study route to allow talented students to remain and contribute to the Scottish economy. Similar views are shared by the all-party group on migration, the Home Affairs Committee, the Scottish Affairs Committee, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee and the Cole Commission on UK exports. Can the Home Secretary explain which organisations advised against the return of the scheme? Indeed, were there any at all who gave such advice?
Amber Rudd
We think we have the right balance on welcoming the brightest and the best students to this country, and allowing them to stay where they can get a graduate-level job. We have to ensure that the system is fair in attracting people to our best universities and does not allow people to overstay where they do not have graduate-level jobs. If the hon. and learned Lady will indulge me, I will write to her regarding the particular question on what advice we have received.
Joanna Cherry
I would be interested to know what advice was received, but the truth of the matter is that, when compared with countries such as Canada and New Zealand, what the UK Government are offering students in Scotland is pathetic. Is not the real reason why the Home Office is picking on our universities in Scotland a result of the Prime Minister’s blinkered pursuit of her unrealistic net migration target? Is it not time to remove students from that target and recognise that one-size-fits-all immigration policies are neither necessary nor desirable for Scotland, nor indeed for the rest of the UK?
Amber Rudd
I do not share the hon. Lady’s view. I think our figures are pretty clear. When we talk about net immigration figures, we know that they take account of students coming in and students going out. We have the right way of measuring the number of students who come in, and I do not think it inhibits our appeal to international students, because the fact is that they do want to study here in the UK. We have two of the top 10 universities in the world—and long may that continue.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
The Home Secretary is aware that international students contribute over £7 billion to the UK economy and receive 60% approval ratings in the polls, too. Given those figures, is it not clear that in a post-Brexit world, we should split up the immigration figures better to communicate with the public what UK immigration looks like? Will she agree to meet me and colleagues to discuss this issue?
Amber Rudd
I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend. There has been a lot of airing of this particular issue about the breakdown of the immigration figures, but I think there is a reasonable amount of clarity about which part of them are students and which part are not.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Members of all parties agree that international students coming here to study is a good thing. Therefore, will the Home Secretary say something about how welcome they feel when hate crimes against black, Asian and minority ethnic people went up 41% in the month after Brexit? Many people over here as students report that when they are seen on the streets of our country, they are being told to go home. Should we not make our country more welcoming and deal with this post-Brexit problem?
Amber Rudd
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope she will join me in spreading the word that international students are welcome here. There should be no hate crime here, which is why I launched my hate crime action plan at the end of July. I can give her some reassurance that the unpleasant and unwelcome spike in hate crime in August has now fallen off.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
To return to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), we know that international students contribute £7 billion to export earnings, support 137,000 jobs across all regions of the UK and help to make us a world leader in the international knowledge economy, so does the right hon. Lady accept that we are not persuaded by her arguments not to remove international students from migrant totals, and will she undertake to look at the issue again?
Amber Rudd
I think that the hon. Lady and I are in danger of violently agreeing on the benefit of international students to the economy and to this country in general. However, I think she is tilting at the wrong windmill here by focusing on whether international students are part of the immigration figures or not. As I explained earlier, this is a net figure, so it takes account of the people who come and the people who go. The hon. Lady may be exaggerating the impact that she would expect from the removal of international students from the figures.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
Following the request of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign for an inquiry or independent review into the events that occurred at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984, I have today issued a written statement, setting out my decision. I have concluded that there is no case for either a statutory inquiry or an independent review.
Christian Matheson
This is an astonishing and, frankly, shameful decision by the Government. They have led those families up the garden path for the last two years. Does the Home Secretary not understand that the disinfecting light of a public inquiry is the only thing that will give those communities and those families the confidence they need in the South Yorkshire police force?
Amber Rudd
I urge the hon. Gentleman not to leap to anger quite so quickly. This Government have taken the time and looked at the documents. I have been in post for three months, and I have met the families and the campaigning MPs. The fact that I have reached a different decision from the one that the hon. Gentleman wanted does not mean that it is in any way dishonourable. This was a difficult decision to make. I have made it in consideration of all the facts, and I believe that it is the right one.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Once again, the name “South Yorkshire police” besmirches the brave officers on the front line. I have raised this issue in the House on several occasions, and I raise it again now. Will my right hon. Friend, along with my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, meet me to have a serious discussion about whether South Yorkshire police and West Yorkshire police can be merged to become Yorkshire police, so that the name “South Yorkshire police” does not do an injustice to the officers who are bravely putting their lives on the line every day?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before, and I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister will indeed meet him to discuss it. South Yorkshire police is under new leadership, and I am hopeful that it can make good progress. My right hon. Friend spoke to the police and crime commissioner today to explain the decision that the Government have reached.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary aware that her predecessor made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) some months ago that there would be an inquiry into Orgreave? This decision is not really any different from the one that we suspected beforehand. Why have the Government—and it appears to be the Government—now made a decision that is contrary to the one that the previous Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, announced in response to a question from my right hon. Friend several months ago?
Amber Rudd
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have taken this matter very seriously. I have spoken to the former Home Secretary about the decision, and I have ensured that all matters and papers have been carefully considered. We have taken our time to arrive at this decision. No commitment was made before; there was only a willingness to look at all the evidence—and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there was no such willingness on the part of the Labour Government—in order to ensure that the right decision was made after all the information had been absorbed.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. While public inquiries can be successful in some instances, too often they cost huge amounts of money, take many years to complete, and do not even answer the question that has been asked.
Amber Rudd
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. In a way, the easier political decision would have been for the Government to agree to an inquiry, but I cannot see that that would be in the public interest, given the substantial policing changes that have taken place since 1984.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Given that the Independent Police Complaints Commission found evidence of perjury and perversion of the course of justice, and given that in the last month new evidence of orchestrated violence and the mass manufacture of police statements has emerged from former police officers who were at Orgreave, are we not right to conclude that the establishment stitch-up that the Home Secretary has announced today is nothing more than a nakedly political act?
Amber Rudd
No. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. He chooses to politicise the issue when there are no politics here. As he knows, I had a meeting with the campaign group, and we had a frank exchange of information. The fact that he disagrees with the decision I have made does not mean that it is the wrong decision. I have made it honestly, and it is based on the evidence.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If the Government have decided against a public inquiry, I wonder whether the House will have the courage to establish a Select Committee inquiry. I understand why the Government are dubious about setting up another public inquiry, involving wall-to-wall lawyers, costing tens of millions of pounds, and taking years. However, if the Government could free up an ad hoc Select Committee, as can be done under the Osmotherly rules when there is a head of steam behind an issue—a proper Select Committee, led by a senior Member of Parliament and able to interview all witnesses about matters including advice to Ministers—we could deal with issues of this kind much more cheaply than a public inquiry.
Amber Rudd
That is a very interesting suggestion. I believe that such a set-up would be a matter for the House, but I am sure that other Select Committees have heard my hon. Friend’s suggestion, and they may indeed take up the opportunity themselves.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
There will be huge concern across south Yorkshire and further afield at the Home Secretary’s decision. May I therefore ask her specifically if she will meet with the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign to discuss this matter further?
Amber Rudd
I spoke to the head of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign this morning, and I am not surprised that she was very disappointed. I set out my reasons and I have written her and the campaign group a six-page letter. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that they be given a chance to digest its contents before we set up any meeting.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I do not think the Home Secretary fully understands how disappointed and let down the Orgreave families and campaigners will be by her decision. A six-page letter does not compensate for the violence and injustice that occurred at Orgreave so many years ago. We know the South Yorkshire police lied about what happened at Hillsborough, yet only five years earlier the same South Yorkshire police, including many of the same commanders, behaved in a very similar way at Orgreave. The Orgreave families and campaigners need the same justice as Hillsborough had; they need the same type of independent inquiry to establish the truth.
Amber Rudd
I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that the Hillsborough situation was quite different from Orgreave; 96 people died at Hillsborough and it was right that we had an inquiry that analysed exactly what happened on the day. In this situation at Orgreave there were no miscarriages of justice, there were no deaths—[Interruption.] There were no convictions, the hon. Lady should be aware. Therefore Orgreave does not merit the same status as that needed for a public inquiry, which was required for Hillsborough.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
As the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made clear, law enforcement co-operation with our European partners will continue after the UK leaves the EU. We will do what is necessary to keep our people safe. At the Home Office we are exploring all options for co-operation once the UK has left the EU, but it is currently too early to speculate on what future arrangements may look like.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I press him? Have the Government decided whether they will seek to retain the European arrest warrant after we leave the EU, and has the Home Secretary had some stern words with the Brexit Secretary, who voted against it only two years ago? Also, have the Government decided to sign up to the new Europol regulations, and if not, when are they going to do so? If they miss the January deadline for that, there could be some severe implications for our membership; what would they be?
Brandon Lewis
The decision on whether we opt into the further Europol regulations will be announced to Parliament shortly. We will take that decision very soon; we are giving good consideration to where we are on that and will make an announcement to Parliament in due course.
The hon. Lady is right that the European arrest warrant provides a basis for a swift, and indeed cost-effective, extradition process across member states, but I will not presume what may or may not be in an agreement. We are in the early days of negotiations and will be going through that over the Brexit period.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
While some seem to want to water down the referendum result and drag us back into the EU, if not necessarily by name, does the Minister agree that co-operation on security, and particularly cross-border security, is important, and that when we take back control we must ensure that we keep that very important co-operation that keeps us safe and secure?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our co-operation and membership of Europol will obviously continue in full with us as a full and strong contributing member of Europol, which of course predates the European institutions. We have been very clear that our co-operation with member states, and our determination to ensure the security and protection of the people of this country, will continue when we are no longer a member of the EU.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
After the Paris Metro bombing in 1995 it took 10 years to extradite Rachid Ramda from the UK, but after the London tube bombings in 2005 it took just 56 days to extradite Hussain Osman from Italy to the UK. The difference in time in bringing murderous terrorists to justice was a result of the European arrest warrant. I cannot believe that the Minister will not guarantee that, however Brexit is negotiated by this Government, there is no question whatsoever of our ending our commitment to the European arrest warrant. Can he please guarantee to the House today that the European arrest warrant will continue?
Brandon Lewis
I thank the hon. Lady for trying to tempt me into pre-judging what other EU member states may decide to agree to as part of the negotiations. We will be negotiating and I can guarantee that we will continue to put the security and protection of the people of this country absolutely first and foremost.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
This Government are going further than any before to protect individuals and communities from fraud. We have established a new programme through the Joint Fraud Taskforce to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected. Individuals should also be supported to protect themselves. Many cyber-attacks could be defeated by simple best practice.
Huw Merriman
As the Home Secretary will be well aware, economic crime in Sussex disproportionately targets the elderly. My constituency has one of the highest dementia rates in the UK. If the number of pubs and bars can influence the police funding formula, could Ministers consider using dementia rates in the same way?
Amber Rudd
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. In fact, our constituencies share the same county of East Sussex—the county with the third highest number of over-80s—so I am familiar with the problem that he highlights. We are redoing the police funding formula and I will take his suggestion as part of the consultation.
Craig Williams
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns raised by my constituents in Cardiff about criminal activity within the financial system. With the Criminal Finances Bill going through the House, will my right hon. Friend update us on how we are cracking down on these criminals?
Amber Rudd
The UK is indeed one of the best places to do business, but the proceeds of organised crime and overseas corruption have for too long been able to move through the UK with considerable impunity. Significantly, the Bill will introduce new offences and measures to allow us to go after the money, the middlemen and the crime barons themselves.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The Joint Fraud Taskforce is focusing on helping individuals to spot such attempts by fraudsters. The new “Take Five” nationwide fraud prevention campaign, which encourages people to take five minutes to consider the motives behind a cold call, will help people not to be tricked in that way. I will certainly look at his suggestion.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
The Government’s response includes law enforcement agencies taking action against online offenders, developing new capabilities to find and safeguard victims and working with the internet industry to remove illegal images. We have led the global response to online child sex exploitation through the WePROTECT Global Alliance, working with countries, companies and civil society organisations to develop a co-ordinated response.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the Minister for that answer. How are the Government supporting a multi-agency approach to assist local authorities in tackling child exploitation issues?
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The child sexual exploitation response unit will ensure that local authorities with concerns about CSE can draw upon the support of specialist professionals. The unit will be supported by a soon to be launched centre of expertise run by Barnado’s, which will bring together best practice. Finally, a new system of multi-agency inspections is being delivered, the first of which focused on children at risk of CSE.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
We are taking robust action to tackle online radicalisation and to counter the poisonous ideology promoted by extremists. In 2010, the Home Office and police set up the Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit to tackle and disrupt terrorism-related material. The Government are also supporting community-based initiatives that challenge extremists’ core communications and provide credible counter-narratives.
Nigel Huddleston
Will the Minister tell the House how much online material has been removed as part of this initiative?
Mr Wallace
Since February 2010, internet companies have removed 220,000 pieces of terrorism-related material following referrals from the CTRU.
James Berry
The Select Committee on Home Affairs has issued two reports calling on Twitter and Facebook to take much tougher action on extremist material, much of which breaches their own terms of use. Does the Minister agree that social media companies should do much more to prevent and remove this material voluntarily, without the need for a request from police officers, which is at the taxpayer’s expense?
Mr Wallace
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Although the industry has taken some positive steps to address the issue, the internet is still being used to recruit, radicalise, incite and inspire. The CTRU’s relationship with the industry continues to be successful, but we would like internet companies to be more proactive and take more of a lead in tackling the global threat.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Some 12 months ago, Zack Davies was sentenced to life imprisonment following his attempt to behead an Asian citizen in a random attack in a Tesco supermarket in Mold, in my constituency. He was radicalised on the internet by neo-Nazi and Hitler-worshipping material. Will the Minister focus on that issue as well as on Islamist terrorism?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman is right; interestingly, the Prevent strategy is seeing a growth in far-right referrals. In some areas of the country, these Prevent referrals outnumber those about the other parts we are worried out.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
In what many see as a blow to the Government’s Prevent scheme, the Muslim Council of Britain has announced that it will be setting up its own anti-radicalisation programme. The Home Secretary appears to be losing the confidence of Muslims, so what does she intend to do to reverse that loss of trust?
Mr Wallace
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but she is, of course, wrong. The Prevent programme set up by her Government in 2003 has had considerable successes throughout the communities. We should reflect on the fact that Prevent is about safeguarding vulnerable people from being exploited and saving many people’s lives, across the country and abroad. Repeating the echo chamber of people saying that this is about targeting one group or the other is a fallacy.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The latest figures show that our reforms to cut abuse across non-EU visa routes and our toughened welfare provisions are working, but there is no doubt that there is more to do. As we conduct our negotiations to leave the EU, it will be a priority to retain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe.
Mr Nuttall
Given that there is still some way to go, how confident is the Minister that the measures taken by the Government will result in our meeting the target of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands? Does he agree that ending the free movement of people principle imposed on us by the EU is essential if we are to stand any chance of meeting that target?
Mr Goodwill
There is no doubt that this is a challenging target, but I love a challenge. We are committed to bringing net migration down to the tens of thousands, and we have already taken significant steps to control immigration. The UK’s departure from the EU will give us control over EU migration, and we will shortly be publishing a consultation document on further changes to the non-EU work and study routes.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
A constituent of mine is awaiting an appeal in respect of a spouse visa application. Correspondence from the tribunals service stated that the process would take 15 weeks, but we have now been informed that it could take up to 18 months. Why are appeals taking so long? Why does the information given to applicants not reflect these delays? The lack of clarity is causing undue stress to applicants and their loved ones.
Mr Goodwill
Although I cannot comment on an individual case, I hope that the hon. Lady will give me the details. It is, however, absolutely right that we took measures to stamp out sham marriages and other routes whereby people can use marriage as a way of getting fraudulent entry to the UK. That does mean that some of the hoops people have to jump through can be slightly smaller than before.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Many of my constituents would like illegal immigration stamped out, as well as there to be monitoring of how much migration there is. I was pleased to hear on the weekend reports of a Jetstream 41 turboprop plane being brought in to help control our borders. Will the Minister tell the House a little more about what he is hoping to achieve with that?
Mr Goodwill
We are determined to prevent illegal migration, from whatever route it comes. That can be through people getting on vehicles coming through the channel crossings, or through general aviation or general maritime routes. We are determined to clamp down on all of those.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The policy to limit migration is at odds with the promise that we heard in the referendum campaign from the Secretary of State for International Development. She said that if we voted to leave, chefs from the sub-continent could have their visa restrictions relaxed to avoid a curry crisis. Was that pledge of the same value as the one that we saw on the side of a bus promising money for the NHS—meaning that it will never happen—or will the Government address the skills shortage in our economy rather than aping the UK Independence party?
Mr Goodwill
I will certainly take no lessons from Labour, as it was the party that allowed people to come in from outside the EU with no skills at all. Indeed, search parties were sent out to encourage mass migration. I lay down a challenge to the restaurateurs in our country to train our own people, because we have tremendously talented people in the UK who would love to train and work in that environment. We do not always need to bring people across from the sub-continent.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
The Government have introduced a range of new offences, including the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour. Victims who experience behaviour that stops short of serious physical violence but that amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse can now bring their perpetrators to justice. Every police force has published domestic abuse action plans, and new guidance and training has been introduced by the College of Policing.
Mike Freer
I thank the Minister for her answer, but in same-sex relationships and in orthodox religious communities domestic violence is often under-reported. What more can be done to train police officers to support victims and encourage them to come forward?
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend is quite right that domestic abuse can take many forms and affect all groups in society. New police domestic abuse guidance explicitly captures the fact that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people may be abused by their partners in specific ways that are connected to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Home Office is also funding the charity Galop to run a dedicated national helpline to provide emotional and practical support for LGBT people experiencing domestic abuse.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
New reports suggest that nurses are three times more likely to be victims of domestic abuse than the general population. Will the Minister undertake to speak to colleagues in the Department of Health about what the NHS, as an employer, may need to do to support this group?
Sarah Newton
The Government have an absolute zero-tolerance policy for any sort of domestic abuse or violence. I will certainly take up the hon. Lady’s recommendation of speaking to my colleagues in the Department of Health to see what more we can do to prevent this awful crime from happening to our much-appreciated nurses.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The Government have been clear that they want to protect the status of EU nationals already living here. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible are if British citizens’ rights in European member states were not protected in return.
Steve McCabe
My question was what estimate the Secretary of State had made of the numbers, because on 10 October her colleague the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that by the time we leave, five out of six migrants will have, or be entitled to, indefinite leave to remain. That is 2.5 million people. Is that the policy of the Government?
Amber Rudd
I saw those reports. They were based on existing public research, which estimates that around 80% of EU migrants already here will have been resident in the UK for up to five years by the start of 2019. However, it is too simplistic and too early to reach definitive conclusions about what the outcome will be when we do leave.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
There are EU nationals who are working, contributing and paying tax and who have children at school in every parliamentary constituency in the UK. If it is not cynical using them as a bargaining chip, why on earth will she not finally do the right thing and announce that they will be allowed to stay in this country?
Amber Rudd
In answer to an earlier question, the Prime Minister has already said that that is the intention. It is only to ensure that there is a reciprocal arrangement that we have held back from giving that final commitment, which we sincerely hope will be made.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Where clear and credible documentary evidence of age is not available, criteria including physical appearance and demeanour are used as part of the interview process to assess whether a person is under 18. That can be followed, where necessary, by a local authority assessment in line with case law and approved by two social workers.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Does the Minister agree that this country has always been very compassionate and understanding towards children fleeing persecution? Does he also agree, however, that every young adult over 18 whom we admit means one fewer child in desperate need being allowed in, and that we could extend checks to social media and university records, for example, to ensure that our generosity is not abused?
Mr Speaker
Or that my generosity is not abused by a Member asking two questions, rather than one. It seems a bit rum.
Mr Goodwill
It is essential that a safe, lawful and efficient process to transfer eligible children is in place, but we must also ensure that the right safeguarding and security checks are carried out. Our focus remains to ensure that the minors who are eligible to come here arrive safely. This must be done through a proper process, with the agreement of the French in the case of the Calais children. The French have agreed to support the children in safe places in France while we carry out essential checks.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The charities working with the children in Calais are reporting, first, that the UK assessment and transfer process has paused and, secondly, that there are 1,500 children and teenagers being held in the container camp, without proper water or food and without enough adults, social workers or youth workers to look after them and to prevent tensions and violence from rising. Will the Minister look into this urgently and make sure that the UK transfer system is restarted very quickly, and that the French urgently provide proper protection and support for these very vulnerable young people?
Mr Goodwill
I echo the points that the right hon. Lady makes. These are exactly the representations that I have received from many NGOs which are working very hard to assist us, and our own people are on the ground to ensure that that is done. It is very important indeed that, as we continue to process those children who are eligible to come here, that is done safely, and the French are determined to help us with that.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
On the subject of refugees, may we focus on the real issue of the safety of children? As children are being transferred from the containers to specialist centres across France, can the Minister confirm that Dubs and Dublin children have all been identified, that they will be transferred as soon as possible to the UK, and that they will be kept safe under the close supervision of NGOs and Home Office officials?
Mr Goodwill
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are working hard to identify children who would qualify under Dubs and Dublin. It is very important indeed that we ensure that the most vulnerable, particularly the children under 13 and those who may be vulnerable to sexual exploitation, are prioritised under the Dubs amendment procedure.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Bashir Naderi, who is 19, was trafficked to the UK at the age of 10 from Afghanistan after his father was murdered by the Taliban. I understand that this afternoon he was on his way to Gatwick to be removed from the country but that that has now been stopped. Will the Home Secretary accept my plea and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), whose constituent Bashir is, to intervene urgently to stop this removal?
Mr Goodwill
Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases, I am aware of this case. It is on my desk at present.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary and the Minister for their dedication to the issue in recent weeks. I understand that children are now being moved from the containers to resettlement camps around France. When might we see all the Dublin and Dubs children being extracted from there and brought here?
Mr Goodwill
We are assisting with that transfer process, and once those children are in a place of safety away from the people traffickers who would seek to exploit them, we will be able to carry out that work in a more methodical way. We hope to have the process completed within weeks.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), we know that there are currently 30 young girls, some as young as under 12, in the container camp in Calais. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office staff left the site on Saturday? If so, when will they go back and restart the rescue of those children and their transfer to the UK?
Mr Goodwill
We must remember at all times that the camp is in France. We must work closely with our colleagues in the French authorities to ensure that children are removed from the container camp and taken to a place of safety where they can be processed in a more orderly way.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Although the House is raising so many genuinely felt concerns about the children in Calais, may I remind the Minister that by far and away the largest crisis involving children in the world at present is that in and around Syria?
Mr Goodwill
Which is precisely why the Government are determined to relocate 20,000 of the most vulnerable people from the camps in Syria and 3,000 vulnerable children from the region, which removes the pull factor that, of course, has meant that so many people have taken that hazardous journey across the Mediterranean or the Aegean.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Instead of treating refugees as if they were broken-mouthed ewes, surely we should be working with the authorities and the Government in France to ensure that we never again see the shambolic and shameful treatment that we saw last week.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I reassure the Minister that the Opposition do know that the camp is in France, but we are weary of French and British officials trying to pass the buck, even at this late stage, when desperate children’s lives are at stake. We know that there are more than 1,000 young people in the container compound at Calais without proper supervision and the help that they need. The Minister says that the assessment and transfer process has paused. Can he share with the House when it will begin again?
Mr Goodwill
The transfer process has been paused at the request of the French so that the relocation can take place and the children are not in the container camp, which so many people are critical of. We continue to work closely with our French colleagues to actually resolve this situation.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
Recovery from drug misuse remains at the heart of our approach. More people are recovering from their dependency now than in 2010, and the number of heroin and crack cocaine users in England has continued to fall, with the number going below 300,000 for the first time since 2011. We are developing a new drugs strategy with other Government Departments and key partners, which will be published soon.
John Mann
With most drug services having been privatised across England in the past three years, the figures that the Minister has just quoted are fake, aren’t they? They are fake figures. Outcomes are no longer being measured on a health basis, are they? Will the Minister tell us what the outcomes currently are when it comes to heroin treatment?
Sarah Newton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question—[Laughter.] Decisions about services and how they are commissioned are made locally, as he well knows. The figures are far from fake; they are independently reported. I would think that he, as a local MP, would actually be praising his local services, because the latest data I have show that people have quick referrals to their service—96% of people who need access to treatment are receiving it within three days. In fact, his local area has a really good track record of engaging with people, and making sure they do not drop out of treatment and get good results from treatment programmes.
Mr Speaker
I must say to the Minister, who is a very forgiving soul, that gratitude to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is not always a commodity in plentiful supply.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
A judge must consider various statutory bars to extradition. It must be refused if a judge finds that it would be incompatible with a person’s human rights or an individual’s physical or mental condition, meaning that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister knows that the law has changed and the Home Secretary can no longer intervene in these cases. When young people are on the autism spectrum or suffering from mental health challenges, can we make sure that court officials, especially judges, understand their circumstances and challenges better? I am referring particularly to the case of Lauri Love.
Brandon Lewis
Without commenting on that particular case, which is before me at the moment—I will be making a decision by mid-November—the hon. Gentleman is right that those are the kinds of things that judges need to look at. They are the things that the judicial system does look at, and that is one of things that has come out of the change that was made when Parliament voted on this not that long ago.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 gave law enforcement agencies new powers, which must now lead to results. Progress is being made, but there is still much more to do. That was why on Anti-slavery Day last week, I announced an £8.5 million fund to transform our domestic police response. That will include funding for more than 50 additional analysts, specialists and investigators. Last week at the Vatican, I announced the £11 million modern slavery innovation fund, which forms part of the £33 million that we have dedicated to overseas aid. The fund will support, trial and test innovative ways of tackling modern slavery. These funds reflect the Government’s commitment to apprehend the perpetrators and protect the victims of these terrible crimes. I look forward to the first meeting of the prime ministerial modern slavery taskforce this week.
Alberto Costa
Leicestershire County Council is looking at how it can support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to Leicestershire County Council about providing full reimbursements of costs incurred under the national transfer scheme?
Amber Rudd
I pay tribute to Leicestershire County Council and all the local authorities that have stepped up and accepted unaccompanied children under the national transfer scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to funding local authorities for the care of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. In July we significantly increased the rates by up to 33%. We will keep these arrangements under review.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
We are experiencing a cut of over 30% to fire and rescue services funding, with 10,000 jobs lost. Rescues are at an all-time high, with firefighters carrying out, on average, more than 100 rescues per day. Speed is essential when responding, but with fewer firefighters and fewer fire stations, the possibility of a slow response could mean the loss of life. Will the Minister acknowledge that now is the time to invest in the fire and rescue services and stop the reckless cuts—to prioritise saving lives, not saving money?
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I also take this opportunity to express my sympathy to all those affected by the recent devastating fires in Exeter, Birmingham, Doncaster and Cheshire, and to thank the firefighters for their efforts. They do save lives every day, as she outlined.
The hon. Lady should bear in mind that authorities still have more that they can do to reduce costs, as they say themselves. Over the past few weeks I have been talking at many conferences at which people have recognised the need to improve procurement and work collaboratively. She should also bear in mind that, since 2010, fire authorities’ non-ring-fenced reserves have managed to rise by 150%. There is still money so that we can ensure that authorities find future efficiencies.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this really important subject. It is absolutely crucial that we support our farmers to ensure that the UK maintains a thriving farming industry. I welcome the Dyfed-Powys rural policing strategy, which sets out the force’s commitment to work with the wider rural community and other agencies to prevent crime and enforce the law. The modern crime prevention strategy published by the Government in March supports this approach.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Amber Rudd
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have set out what we knew at the time and its relevance. It is really important that this inquiry continues. The hon. Lady asks questions that are for the head of the independent inquiry. It is essential for the authenticity of this inquiry that it is held independently. It is not run by the Home Office, and that is an essential part of its integrity. I urge her to stop knocking the inquiry and start getting behind it.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is right that we are delivering on our manifesto pledge by allowing, through the Policing and Crime Bill, police and crime commissioners to take on the governance of fire authorities. There is also a statutory duty to collaborate, which applies to all the services that work together. It is important that our police and fire services work closely together, and I know that those in Essex are keen to be at the forefront of that work.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady raises a point that is an aspect of our annual funding formula. This year’s decision will take place after the autumn statement and the House will vote on it in February. We have also delivered our manifesto pledge by announcing that we will review the police funding formula. I have written to, and am engaging with, all chief constables and, indeed, police and crime commissioners across the country.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, about which both the Home Secretary and I feel very strongly. We had an Adjournment debate about the issue the week before last. It is important that people acknowledge that police officers should be respected. They police by consent, which is unique to our country; we should be proud of that. My hon. Friend is right that sentencing should reflect the crime. I am in discussions with colleagues in other Departments, including on whether we prosecute for a criminal offence or under police Acts. There are some issues that we need to look at, but it is right that police officers should feel that they are respected and safe in their job.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Pre-departure detention is always the last resort and we aim to minimise the number of those kept in detention. The new facility at Glasgow airport will facilitate the closure of Dungavel and will be a more purpose-built facility.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Mr Goodwill
As the Prime Minister has said, we wish to protect the status of EU citizens working here. At the same time, of course, we expect the status of British citizens living and working elsewhere to be respected as well.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Ten days ago, Allan Richards was convicted in Birmingham of the most horrific catalogue of offences against children, some as young as eight. I congratulate West Midlands police on the forensic investigation that brought him to justice, but he was a serving police officer for more than 30 years. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the inquiry into what happened will be independent, that whistleblowers will be given protection and that, if other agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, made mistakes, they will form part of the investigation?
Brandon Lewis
The Independent Police Complaints Commission will take on this hugely important case which, by definition, will be an independent investigation. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Policing and Crime Bill will go further by giving even more protection to whistleblowers and more powers to the IPCC to take on and lead such cases without the need for the involvement of, or a recommendation from, the police in the first place. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with more detail.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Amber Rudd
Since the removals from the camps started—they have largely been completed—there has already been a tremendous reduction in the number of clandestines and illegal refugees trying to get across to the UK. We hope that, working closely with the French, we will be able to continue to ensure that my hon. Friend’s constituents, as well as everyone else’s, feel better protected.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that she is publishing new guidance on immigration and asylum claims from Eritrea today? In future, will the Home Office listen to concerns raised in the House about human rights abuses in countries of origin, rather than being forced into policy change by the immigration tribunal?
Mr Goodwill
It is certainly important that with Eritrea, as with other countries, we act on the best possible information. Although Home Office officials have been in country and we consider reports produced by other EU countries, we are looking at the results of the tribunal with interest.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I am, like many of my Staffordshire colleagues and the Staffordshire police and crime commissioner, incredibly concerned about the business case for Staffordshire fire and rescue service’s proposed life skills centre. Will my hon. Friend the Fire Minister meet me and my Staffordshire colleagues to discuss and review the business case to assess whether it offers value for money?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend has raised this case with me. I know that she feels strongly about it, as do colleagues around Staffordshire. I will happily meet her and Staffordshire colleagues to look at the matter. I have also asked the police and crime commissioner, and indeed the chief fire officer and representatives from the fire authority, to talk to us about this process and exactly how they are delivering on it.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary said earlier that the lack of any miscarriages of justice was one of the reasons why she would not instigate an inquiry into Orgreave. She will be aware, of course, that 95 miners were charged, and that many were remanded in custody and went through difficult trials based on charges and evidence that later collapsed. Will she reconsider what she has said about injustice and, given her predecessor’s record of a whole series of inquiries and reviews in cases where injustice was suspected, will the Home Secretary think again about her decision?
Amber Rudd
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. This Government’s record on inquiries is strong. We have not been shy about setting them up when they are needed. This was not an easy decision, and the fact that I made a decision that she and her colleagues do not approve of does not mean that I did not take incredibly seriously the matter or the meeting that I had with the families. When I weighed this up using a true public interest test, it did not meet that test. I urge the right hon. Lady and her colleagues to read the written ministerial statement that I have made today.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Two of my constituents have been defrauded of in excess of £60,000, and their cases are not helped by the lack of co-ordination between Action Fraud and the local force. They are unable to get updates on the investigation. What can be done to improve that co-ordination?
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
Following my hon. Friend’s contribution at the previous Home Office questions, I will be visiting Action Fraud to take up his specific case, and more generally to discuss how Action Fraud deals with constituents and inquiries from Members, to make sure that the service is improved.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s decision is a slap in the face of the campaigners, the victims and their families, some of whom have lost their lives in the wait for justice. It is not just Labour Members who disagree with the decision; the police and crime commissioner, South Yorkshire’s chief constable and the Independent Police Complaints Commission all said that there was evidence to support a public inquiry. Will the Home Secretary ensure that all material pertaining to Orgreave is released, and at the very least the operational order of the day, which has never been made available to the IPCC?
Amber Rudd
The Policing Minister has spoken to the police and crime commissioner, who has agreed that he will work with South Yorkshire police to make sure that information that the hon. Lady requires is released. I repeat what I said earlier: I made this decision, and the Government made this decision, thoughtfully, having assessed carefully what the facts were and thinking about the families involved. The fact that we arrived at a different decision from hers does not make it wrong.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to come to Middlemoor, the home of Devon and Cornwall police, and also to Clyst St George, the home of Devon and Somerset fire and rescue service, to thank them for their quite extraordinary work over the weekend in Cathedral Close in Exeter at an incident that saw the loss of England’s oldest hotel, the Royal Clarence?
Amber Rudd
We all saw over the weekend the dreadful scenes in Exeter. I would be delighted to come with my right hon. Friend to thank the police and the fire and rescue teams who did fantastic work dealing with such a difficult situation.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Just recently, two very brilliant human rights campaigners in Zimbabwe were refused visas to come to this country to speak not just in this House but elsewhere, despite the support of our ambassador in Harare. Will the Minister for Immigration please look into what is going on there? Quite honestly, we are letting in people who have done dreadful things, yet two decent, law-abiding, respectable, hard-working people—one of them has been given asylum in America—have been refused entry.
Mr Goodwill
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady in person to discuss this issue. I am aware of a number of cases involving Zimbabwe that we have under review.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
As part of a comprehensive strategy to improve the resilience of our fire and rescue services, it is necessary to take all reasonable steps to stop fires from starting in the first place. Will my right hon. Friend therefore liaise with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that the long-awaited review of building regulations takes place, and that our strategy on the installation of fire sprinklers is brought into line with those of other countries?
Brandon Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. I will make sure that my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government hear what he says. There are suppression products other than sprinklers that builders can use, but we are keen to make sure that homes continue to be safe. That is one reason why the number of fires is now, fortunately, pretty much at a historically low level.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
May I take the Home Secretary back to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson)? She said that people should not “leap to anger”, but I can tell her that people have been angry about Orgreave for 30 years. Specifically, Margaret Aspinall has said:
“We will never have the full truth about Hillsborough until we have the full truth about Orgreave.”
Will the Home Secretary agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who asked for full disclosure, and will she please, because this is never going away, just think again?
Amber Rudd
I do not agree that there is an equality of seriousness between Hillsborough and Orgreave. Ninety-six people died at Hillsborough: it is a different situation. Two Hillsborough criminal investigations are going on now, and they have access to the Orgreave material. There will be no change in that respect.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must move on.
COMMITTEES
Mr Speaker
We now come to motions 5 and 6, which relate to new Committees of the House. I suggest that they be taken together.
Ordered,
Exiting the European Union
That Alistair Burt, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Maria Caulfield, Joanna Cherry, Jonathan Edwards, Michael Gove, Peter Grant, Andrea Jenkyns, Jeremy Lefroy, Mr Peter Lilley, Karl MᶜCartney, Mr Pat McFadden, Craig Mackinlay, Seema Malhotra, Dominic Raab, Emma Reynolds, Stephen Timms, Mr John Whittingdale and Sammy Wilson be members of the Exiting the European Union Committee.
International Trade
That Liam Byrne, James Cleverly, Mr Nigel Evans, Marcus Fysh, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Sir Edward Leigh, Chris Leslie, Shabana Mahmood, Toby Perkins and Sir Desmond Swayne be members of the International Trade Committee.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Mr Speaker
We now come to motions 7 to 25. I understand that there is a wish to take motion 18 on the Justice Committee separately. With the leave of the House, we will therefore take motions 7 to 17 together.
Backbench Business
Ordered,
That Wendy Morton be discharged from the Backbench Business Committee and Dr Poulter be added.
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
That Paul Blomfield and Jonathan Reynolds be discharged from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and Albert Owen and Anna Turley be added.
Communities and Local Government
That Liz Kendall and Jim McMahon be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Rushanara Ali and Melanie Onn be added.
Defence
That Richard Benyon be discharged from the Defence Committee and Jack Lopresti be added.
Education
That Stephen Timms be discharged from the Education Committee and Lilian Greenwood be added.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
That Valerie Vaz be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Kerry McCarthy be added.
Environmental Audit
That Jo Churchill and Rebecca Pow be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Glyn Davies and Matthew Offord be added.
Foreign Affairs
That Yasmin Qureshi be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Ian Murray be added.
Health
That Julie Cooper, Andrew Percy, Emma Reynolds and Paula Sherriff be discharged from the Health Committee and Heidi Alexander, Luciana Berger, Rosie Cooper and Andrew Selous be added.
Home Affairs
That Victoria Atkins be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Byron Davies be added.
International Development
That Mrs Helen Grant be discharged from the International Development Committee and Paul Scully be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
NHS Funding
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on NHS funding.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Compared with five years ago, the NHS is responsible for 1 million more over-75s. In five years’ time, there will be another 1 million over-75s. Our determination is to look after each and every NHS patient with the highest standards of safety and care, but there is no question but that the pressures of an ageing population make this uniquely challenging.
I welcome the chance to remind the House of this Government’s repeated commitment to supporting our NHS. The NHS budget has increased in real terms every year since 2010. NHS spending has increased as a proportion of total Government spending every year since 2010, and is 10.1% higher per head in real terms than when we came to office. The OECD says that our spending is 10% higher than the OECD average for developed countries. At 9.9% of GDP, it is about the same as that in other western European countries, for which the average is 9.8%.
Given the particularly challenging current circumstances, in 2014 the NHS stepped back and for the first time put together its own plan for the future. It was an excellent plan, based on the principle that because prevention is better than cure, we need to be much better at looking after people closer to or in their homes, instead of waiting until they need expensive hospital treatment. The plan asked for a minimum increase of £8 billion in NHS funding over five years. It asked for this to be front-loaded to allow the NHS to invest in new models of care up front.
Following last year’s spending review, I can confirm to the House that the NHS will in fact receive an increase of £10 billion in real terms over the six years since the “Five Year Forward View” was published. In cash terms, that will see the NHS budget increase from £98.1 billion in 2014-15 to £119.9 billion in 2020-21. That rise is highly significant at a time when public finances are severely constrained by the deficit that this Government regrettably inherited. Because the NHS’s particular priority was to front-load the settlement, £6 billion of the £10 billion increase comes before the end of the first two years of the spending review, including a £3.8 billion real-terms increase this year alone. That £3.8 billion represents a 52% larger increase in just one year than the Labour party was promising over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Jonathan Ashworth
This morning the Chair of the Health Committee and her colleagues on that Committee said that the Government’s NHS spending claims were “inaccurate” and “false”. The Opposition agree with that analysis. Ministers—and the Secretary of State has just done this again—tell us that they are investing £10 billion more in the NHS, but it has now been confirmed that that figure is
“not only incorrect but risks giving a false impression that the NHS is awash with cash.”
Is not the reality that the Government have cut adult social care, the public health budget and the NHS capital budget? Now we learn that the average amount we spend on healthcare for each person in this country will fall in 2018-19. Does that not raise serious questions about the claims that Ministers, and, indeed, Prime Ministers, have been making from that Dispatch Box? In fact, the only way the Government’s figures could be further discredited is if the Secretary of State slapped them on the side of a bus and got the Foreign Secretary to drive it.
Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government have not actually given the NHS the money it needed? Will he give us an accurate account of spending plans for the NHS? Will he tell us when the Chancellor is going to respond to the Health Committee’s letter, and what representations he himself is making to the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement?
We have also learned today from Health Service Journal that one in three local areas intend to close or downgrade A&E departments within 18 months, one in five expect to close consultant-led maternity services, and more than half plan to close or downgrade community hospitals. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether those reports are accurate? How many A&E departments, maternity units and community hospitals does the Secretary of State expect to close or be downgraded within the next year and a half? Our constituents want those answers.
Before the last election, the Secretary of State told us he was “confident” about delivering the money the NHS needed. Today that confidence has been exposed as utterly misplaced. Tory promises are completely in tatters. Rather than defending the Prime Minister’s spin on the £10 billion figure, why does the Secretary of State not stand up for patients and staff, and deliver the funding that the NHS and our social care sector desperately need?
Mr Hunt
I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his first urgent question in his new role. As I am a relative old timer in my role, I hope he will not mind me reminding him of some of the facts about health spending.
First, the hon. Gentleman said that the Government did not give the NHS what it asked for. Let me remind him that Simon Stevens, a former Labour special adviser—I know for new Labour, but he was none the less a Labour special adviser—said at the time of the spending review settlement last year that
“our case for the NHS has been heard and actively supported”
and that the settlement
“is a clear and highly welcome acceptance of our argument for frontloaded NHS investment. It will…kick start the NHS Five Year Forward View’s fundamental redesign of care.”
I will tell the hon. Gentleman who did not give the NHS what it asked for: the Labour party. At the last election, it refused to support the NHS—[Interruption.] I know this is uncomfortable for the new shadow Health Secretary, but the reality is that the party on whose platform he stood refused to support the NHS’s own plan for the future. As his question was about money, I will add that the Labour party also refused to fund it. The NHS wanted £8 billion; Labour’s promise was for additional funding of £2.5 billion—not £6 billion or £4 billion, but £2.5 billion, or less than one third of what the NHS said it needed. Even if we accept the numbers of the Chair of the Select Committee—and, as I will go on to explain, I do not—Labour was pledging over the course of the Parliament only around half of what this Government have delivered in the first year of the spending review.
The hon. Gentleman used other choice words, one of which was “spin”. I will tell him what creates the most misleading impression: a Labour party claiming to want more funding for the NHS when, in the areas where they run it, the opposite has happened. Indeed, in the first four years of the last Parliament, Labour cut NHS funding in Wales when it went up in England—[Interruption.] Yes, it did. Those are the official figures. That is in a context in which the Barnett formula gives the Government in Wales more than £700 more per head to spend on public services, so there is more money in the pot.
The hon. Gentleman talked about social care. May I remind him of what the shadow Chancellor at the time of the last election—Ed Balls, who is now sadly no longer of this parish—said? During the election campaign, he said of funding for local councils “not a penny more”. We are giving local councils £3.5 billion more during the course of this Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman talked about other cuts that he alleges will happen in A&E departments and other hospital services. I simply say to him that we have to make efficiency savings. I do not believe they will be on the scale he talked about, but how much worse would they have to be if the NHS got a third of the money it currently gets?
If the hon. Gentleman and his party think the NHS is underfunded, they need to accept that the policies that they advocated in the past two elections were wrong —they advocated spending less than the Conservatives. Until they are serious about changing their policy, no one will be serious about listening to their criticisms.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I agree with the Secretary of State that prevention is better than cure, but he will know that achieving the aims of the five year forward view was dependent on a radical upgrade in public health and prevention. He will know that it was also dependent on adequate funding for adult social care. In addition, there are continuing raids on the NHS capital budget, and we need to put in place the kind of transformation that he and our sustainability and transformation partnerships wish to achieve.
Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that he recognises the serious crisis in social care and the effect it is having on the NHS, and the effect that taking money from public health budgets is having? Although I accept that he does not agree with the Health Committee’s appraisal of the £10 billion figure, I am afraid I stick by those figures.
Mr Hunt
I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend. I respect her passion for the NHS, her knowledge of it and her background in it, so I will always listen carefully to anything she says. I hope she will understand that just as she speaks plainly today, I need to speak plainly back and say that I do not agree with the letter she wrote today, and I am afraid I do think that her calculations are wrong.
The use of the £10 billion figure was not, as she said in her letter, incorrect. The Government have never claimed that there was an extra £10 billion increase in the Department of Health budget. Indeed, the basis of that number has not even come from the Government; it has come from NHS England and its calculations as to what it needs to implement the forward view. As I told the Select Committee, I have always accepted that painful and difficult economies in central budgets will be needed to fund that plan. What NHS England asked for was money to implement the forward view. It asked for £8 billion over five years; in fact, it got £10 billion over six years, or £9 billion over five years—whichever one we take, it is either £1 billion or £2 billion more than the minimum it said it needed.
I think my hon. Friend quoted Simon Stevens as saying that NHS England had not got what it asked for. He was talking not about the request in the forward view, but in terms of the negotiations over the profile of the funding we have with the Treasury. The reason that the funding increases are so small in the second and third year of the Parliament is precisely that we listened to him when he said that he wanted the amount to be front- loaded. That is why we put £6 billion of the £10 billion up front in the first two years of the programme.
I fully accept that what happens in the social care system and in public health have a big impact on the NHS, but on social care we have introduced a precept for local authorities combined with an increase in the better care fund—[Interruption.] This is a precept, which 144 of 152 local authorities are taking advantage of. That means that a great number of them are increasing spending on social care. It will come on top of the deeper, faster integration of the health and social care systems that we know needs to happen.
On public health, I accept that difficult economies need to be made, but it is not just about public spending. This Government have a proud record of banning the display sale of tobacco, introducing standardised packaging for tobacco, introducing a sugary drinks tax and putting more money into school sports. There are lots of things that we can do on public health that make a big difference.
On capital, I agree with my hon. Friend about the pressure on the capital budget, but hospitals have a big opportunity to make use of the land they sit on, which they often do not use to its fullest extent, as a way to bridge that difficult gap.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
With some 80% of trusts in deficit and only 4% meeting accident and emergency targets, I am grateful to the Health Committee for flagging up the dire financial state of the NHS in England, as evidenced by its letter to the Chancellor. We learn from that document that the £10 billion figure is a bit of a fallacy. In Scotland, the SNP Government are committed to investing an additional £2 billion by 2021, but any reduction in new money for the NHS from the UK Government would have an impact on Barnett consequentials. Given that the UK Government have already slashed Scotland’s budget by 10% between 2010 and 2020, they need to be honest and transparent about what that reduction will mean for Scotland’s funding. With the Department of Health having accidentally not adjusted its books for an extra £417 million from national insurance contributions, and having broken its control total by £207 million, will the devolved Governments get any share of that additional £624 million?
Mr Hunt
Many people in Scotland will be somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s comments, because in the last Parliament spending on the NHS in England went up by 4%, whereas in Scotland it fell by 1%. The IFS confirmed that at the time of the independence referendum, saying:
“It seems that historically, at least, Scottish Governments in Holyrood have placed less priority on funding the NHS in Scotland…than governments in Westminster have for England”.
In this Parliament, the hon. Gentleman’s party has already lost a vote on NHS cuts in the Scottish Parliament and been criticised by Audit Scotland for its performance. When the SNP has the courage to increase NHS spending in Scotland by the amount we are increasing it in England, we will listen, but until then it should concentrate on looking after Scottish NHS patients in Scotland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Understandably, there is extensive interest in this subject. Accommodating anywhere near the number of would-be contributors will require brevity, to be exemplified—I hope and if he is true to form—by Mr Philip Hollobone.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
People in Kettering appreciate plain speaking. Can the Health Secretary tell the House what the NHS budget was in 2014-15, what it will be in 2020-21 and what the difference is between the two numbers?
Mr Hunt
I want to get the exact figures in order to live up to my hon. Friend’s reputation for plain speaking, which is second to none. The NHS budget in 2014-15 will be £98.1 billion and in 2021 it will go up to £119.9 billion. In real terms, that is a £10 billion increase.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
Is there not an urgent need to be straight with the British public about the resources we will need to maintain both the NHS and the care system, and to confront the fact that we will all have to pay a bit more to ensure that our loved ones get care when they need it?
Mr Hunt
When the right hon. Gentleman and I worked in government, we both campaigned hard on many occasions for more funding for the NHS, including mental health—a particular priority for both of us. The answer to his question is yes, and that is why we are putting in more money in this Parliament. My own view is that in future Parliaments we will need to continue to increase the amount of funding going in to the NHS. The only point I would make is that what funds the NHS is a strong economy, so we have to make sure that increases in NHS funding are sustainable and compatible with a strong economy. That is something that this Conservative Government have a very good track record of delivering.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The plans to achieve savings from community pharmacies are causing a great deal of concern in my constituency. The patients group at the John Hampden surgery and residents in and around Prestwood believe that the plans may result in the closure of our excellent rural pharmacy in Prestwood. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to my constituents today that no pharmacies will close that are more than a mile from any other pharmacy? Will he make sure that he takes into account the implications for GPs’ workloads when looking at pharmacies?
Mr Hunt
First, the people of Prestwood are lucky to have such an assiduous MP to campaign for their interests in Parliament today; indeed, my right hon. Friend always does so. I can give her that reassurance, because in the package of efficiencies we set out—it is right that we ask pharmacies to make efficiencies in the way they are run, just as we are asking the rest of the NHS to make efficiencies in the way it is run—we are protecting all pharmacies that are a mile or more from any other pharmacy. In that sense, we are absolutely determined to protect provision for her constituents and all our constituents who depend on rural pharmacies.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
If the Government had stood by their word and invested the promised £10 billion in the NHS, does the Secretary of State agree that the downgrade of Dewsbury A&E might not have been necessary?
Mr Hunt
First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to her place in this House? I am sure that she will make an extremely important contribution. Yes, she is filling very big boots, but, if I may say so, she has made a very good start.
On what happens with A&E departments, changes in the pattern of the services we provide have been a feature, both when the hon. Lady’s party has been in power and when my party has been in power, because the needs of the people who use the NHS also change. We therefore need to strike the right balance between reassuring people that services are provided near where they live, while ensuring that they receive the right care when they get there. For strokes, that does not always mean going to the nearest hospital, but somewhere with 24/7 stroke care and the greatest chance of saving the patient’s life. If the hon. Lady has concerns about Dewsbury hospital, I am very happy to talk to her further.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
At a time when every Department, with the exception of the Department for International Development, has to reduce public expenditure, it seems a remarkable feat of political skill to have secured an increase for the NHS bigger than either the Home Office budget or that of the Ministry of Justice. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether there are parts of the United Kingdom where health expenditure is not rising as fast as in England? If there are, which political parties are in charge there?
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend, whose passion and commitment to higher standards for the constituents he serves have inspired me in this job, just as I know they have inspired many others in the education field. There are indeed parts of the United Kingdom that allow us to make a very good comparison of the commitment to and funding of the NHS. In Wales, funding went down in the first four years of the previous Parliament. In Scotland, funding went down over the course of that Parliament. Both the Scottish National party and the Labour party like to talk about the NHS, but when it comes to writing the cheques, they are nowhere to be seen.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that every A&E department in north-east London, with a rapidly rising population, will remain open for the rest of this Parliament? If he cannot guarantee that, how many will close and which ones? What is his hit list?
Mr Hunt
What I can guarantee is that the decisions about the future of A&E departments will be taken locally by clinicians who have the best interests of their patients at heart. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would be able to agree that these decisions are not best taken by Secretaries of State. It is much better that they are taken by people who do not have any party political axe to grind. Any decision to change service provision at an A&E has the opportunity, if it is so wished, to be reviewed by the Secretary of State when it goes through an independent process. That is exactly what would happen in north-east London, were the local community to wish it.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Under the previous Labour Government, Burnley general hospital lost its A&E department and a number of key services. Under the coalition Government, a new £9 million urgent care centre opened and just last week the trust submitted plans for a £15 million development of the hospital. Does that not perfectly demonstrate the unprecedented investment in the NHS since Labour left government?
Mr Hunt
It absolutely does. I much enjoyed visiting with my hon. Friend some health facilities in his constituency during the general election campaign. The difference between Conservative Members and Labour Members is that we recognise that every penny of the NHS budget has to come from a strong economy. We know that if we take that for granted, we end up having to cut the NHS budget, which is what has happened in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and many other countries that have lost control of their national finances. That is something that Labour Members would do well to remember.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Government have been well and truly found out on this issue. Rather than quote selectively from Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, will the Secretary of State confirm that among the conditions that Mr Stevens put down to the Government as part of the five-year review was an increase in public health spending, not a 20% cut, and a policy of maintaining spending on social care? Will he also confirm—he was there in Simon Stevens’ presence before the Select Committee—that Mr Stevens made it quite clear that those conditions and others had not been met?
Mr Hunt
Actually, what Mr Stevens said—I was there—was that social care and, indeed, public health provision needed to be maintained. We are increasing the social care budget by £3.5 billion over this Parliament. Although I accept that difficult cuts are being made to the public health budget, we are doing other things that do not cost money to make sure that we continue to improve this country’s excellent record on public health.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
We all want a well-funded NHS. I congratulate the Secretary of State on making sure that we now have record spending in England. Last night, the A&E department of the Queen’s medical centre was tweeting that it effectively could not cope. We all of course congratulate and thank the hard-working staff in A&E, but the problem was demand. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NHS can do much more to improve the way it signposts people? It was urging people to go to the urgent care centre, which does stitching and mends broken bones, all of which was news for many people in Greater Nottingham.
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That, of course, is why all parts of the NHS in England are embarking on the sustainability and transformation programme, which is designed to do precisely what my right hon. Friend says—to find smart ways to reduce demand. That will include, for example, better use of pharmacies, better use of GPs, more mental health provision—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting, but why were they not prepared to put the money into the NHS to help us implement these plans? There would be no sustainability and transformation plans on the thin gruel that they promised for the NHS at the last election.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I was always against the private finance initiative. This Government have set up a £1.5 billion bail-out fund for PFI. I put it to the Secretary of State that that is to rewarding past profligacy and penalising frugal trusts such as the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. When will the Secretary of State redress this imbalance, stop rewarding profligacy and reward frugality?
Mr Hunt
I am getting more and more impressed with the hon. Gentleman’s questions. Last time, he accused me of being a Corbynista, and today he is criticising me for profligacy, when the general tone of most Members seems to be that we are being rather too parsimonious with the NHS. I completely agree with him that private finance initiatives were an utter disgrace, leaving the NHS with over £70 billion-worth of debt by 2010. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a strong correlation between shiny new buildings and good care for patients, as can be seen in a number of Care Quality Commission reports. We are doing everything we can to unwind that very difficult problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We require pithiness personified. I think that calls for Sir Desmond Swayne.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How much more would the Secretary of State have had to spend per year by 2021 if the Chancellor had taken the Labour party’s advice?
Mr Hunt
If the Chancellor had taken the Labour party’s advice, the NHS would have had £5.5 billion less to spend every single year. I just ask Members who are worried about their A&E departments, worried about mental health and worried about GP provision on which of those services the axe would have had to fall if we had followed Labour’s spending plans?
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Since the 2010 general election, we have lost over 1,500 mental health beds, there are 5,000 fewer mental health nurses and over 400 fewer doctors working in mental health. The pledge that the Secretary of State made at that Dispatch Box on 9 December—that every clinical commissioning group would increase its spend on mental health—lies in tatters. When will this Government’s rhetoric on equality for mental health be matched with adequate resources?
Mr Hunt
I will tell the hon. Lady when that rhetoric became reality. We now have the highest dementia diagnosis rates in the world, according to some estimates. We are treating three quarters of a million more people with talking therapies every year than we were in 2010. Every single day, we are treating 1,400 more mental health patients. By the end of this Parliament, because of our spending plans, we will be spending £1 billion more on mental health every single year, treating 1 million more people. I think that that is pretty good.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Is not one way to help the NHS to deal with its financial pressures by focusing on improving quality and using proper data? Professor Tim Briggs’s report, “Getting it Right First Time” is already improving patient outcomes and saving the NHS money.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing Professor Briggs to meet me. He is an extremely inspiring man. He has established that every time someone has an infection during an orthopaedic operation, it costs the NHS £100,000 to put it right, but that is happening 0.5% of the time in the case of some surgeons and 4% of the time in the case of others. Dealing with variation of that kind is a way not just to reduce costs, but to avoid enormous human heartache.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
NHS managers in Greater Manchester have made it clear that the pressures on the NHS are a function of pressures on the social care system and that costs are rising because of increases in the national living wage and the need to fund overnight cover. What is the Secretary of State doing to address those financial pressures on social care, given that the precept does no more than scratch the surface?
Mr Hunt
I agree that there are real pressures, although I should add that many Members were worried about some of the poor working conditions of people in the social care system and that 900,000 people on low pay in the system will benefit from the introduction of the national living wage. However, I agree that leaving people parked in hospitals when they should be being looked after in the community is financial nonsense. What is happening in Greater Manchester is one of the most impressive examples of health and social care integration in the country, and that must be the long- term answer.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I am very proud of the Government’s funding record, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also crucial to make the right strategic decisions? For example, it was a Conservative-led Government with a Conservative Health Secretary who delivered the urgent care centre in Corby, which has transformed health opportunities in our area and taken pressure off our A&E.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Representatives of the Department of Health and NHS England have appeared before the Public Accounts Committee eight times so far this year. We have taken a detailed look at the Department’s accounts, following the Comptroller and Auditor General’s unprecedented explanatory note, and I am glad that the Health Committee has said that it will examine the issue further.
The Secretary of State said that prevention was better than cure. The “General Practice Forward View” refers to a £2.4 billion increase in investment by 2020. Can the Secretary of State assure us that that crucial investment in primary care will be protected and not used to plug hospital deficits?
Mr Hunt
It is a vitally important investment. The first speech that I made as Health Secretary after the last election was made to GPs, and I said then that we wanted to deliver an extra 5,000 doctors working in general practice. It is vital that we eliminate hospital deficits, but we are making good progress in doing so.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to funding the forward view, the treatment of patients in their homes is not principally about cost-cutting but is part of a radical change in health provision for the future on which clinicians agree?
Mr Hunt
Absolutely. The simple principle for those of us who are not doctors is that it is much cheaper to nip illnesses in the bud than to wait until they progress. Treating someone at stage 1 or 2 of cancer is not only cheaper for the NHS, but much more likely to lead to a full cure. That is the whole foundation of the strategic change that we are making in the NHS.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
My constituents who are watching these exchanges will think that the Secretary of State is living in a parallel universe. The sustainability and transformation programme in Merseyside is reputed to be tackling a £1 billion deficit. The way in which it has decided to tackle it in Wirral, in my area, is to draw up plans to close Clatterbridge, our cancer hospital, to close Arrowe Park, our acute hospital, to close the Countess of Chester hospital, and to create some new hospital in Ellesmere Port at some time in the future. No one believes the blather from this Secretary of State.
Mr Hunt
I do not recognise the plans the hon. Lady is talking about, but I say to her that we do need to change our service provision; we are dealing with many more older people, and her constituents need better care at home and in the community than they are currently getting. Any big changes will be subject to a proper consultation, and would indeed go before the Independent Reconfiguration Panel and if necessary end up on my desk. I also say to the hon. Lady that setting her face against all changes may be—
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that patients get better in a cosy environment in community hospitals, and can he give me an assurance that he will love and maintain them for as long as he is in post?
Mr Hunt
I am sure that no one could do a better job of loving and maintaining community hospitals than my hon. Friend. Community hospitals have an important role to play. I have three excellent ones in my constituency. At best, they represent the change we need to see in the NHS, which is personalised care closer to home, but that does also mean that they sometimes need to change the way they deliver services within a building even if the NHS logo remains firmly on the outside of that building.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I was proud to sign the cross-party letter to the Chancellor on NHS funding, in which we quote the Care Quality Commission saying that
“adult social care…is approaching a tipping point”
and that is having an impact on those who rely on it and on “the performance” of the NHS. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this Government’s cutting social care funding by over a third was a false economy, that there will still be a gap in social care funding even if all councils took up the precept and that, for as long as we have that, we will have hospital deficits and delays?
Mr Hunt
I do recognise the pressures in the social care system, but, in an era of very constrained national finances, funding for the social care system is going up by £3.5 billion a year by the end of this Parliament, which is a significant and important rise. I say to the hon. Lady that it is this Government who have set the CQC free to tell us the honest truth about the quality of care in our hospitals, GP surgeries and social care system, and it is because of that that we are able to have the kinds of questions and answers we are having today.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
This Government have shown their commitment to the NHS, promising and delivering increases in funding, unlike the Opposition parties. My right hon. Friend recognises the connections between health and social care and is driving the integration of those two areas. May I urge him to continue looking at both the funding and performance of health and social care in the round?
Mr Hunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent question. I absolutely agree with her, as someone who worked in healthcare before she came to this House, that it is vital to nurture the links between the health and social care systems if we are to deal with some of the issues that concern Members on both sides of the House. There are some very good examples of where this is working well, but it is not happening in as many places as it needs to, and we all must focus on that.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State was in Cambridge on Friday. Did he have an opportunity to notice that at Addenbrooke’s, the hospital that serves Cambridge, the number of over-85s coming into A&E has risen by almost 12% year on year, and on Friday there were 100 over-85s in that hospital who should have been out in the community? Does he agree that that is proof perfect of the failure of this Government’s policies on social care, which are the root cause of the problems in our NHS?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is looking at the record of this Government: we have 1,200 more doctors in our A&E departments, who are treating within four hours 2,500 more people every single day. We are also putting more money into the NHS and into the social care system. Addenbrooke’s is a hospital under great pressure, but it is determined to co me out of special measures and do its best for patients, and I salute all the staff, whom I much enjoyed meeting there on Friday. The one thing they would not want is the NHS budget to be cut from current levels.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that over 50% of the deficit at my local trust, Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and 25% of all its annual revenue goes on paying off its PFI premium. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to look again at my trust and others? Will he also remind the House which party left that toxic legacy for my constituents?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to remind the House, as my hon. Friend requests, that we inherited this situation from the Labour party in 2010. Despite that toxic legacy, the people working in the Sherwood Forest hospitals have done an incredible job of turning the trust around since it was put into special measures a few years ago. I commend them on their progress, which I hope will bear fruit and allow the trust to come out of special measures soon.
Mr Speaker
I would like to conclude these exchanges by 4.30 pm because there is other pressing business. If people take a long time, they are preventing their colleagues from contributing. I am sorry, but it is as simple as that.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State believe that there is a need for additional funding for adult social care over and above that which has been already allocated?
Mr Hunt
We are putting extra money into adult social care, and local authorities have the ability to increase their funding to adult social care through the new precept. In an ideal world, everyone would like more money to go into the NHS and social care system, but Government Members know that those systems are powered by a strong economy and that we can increase our budget only at a rate that the economy can afford. The past six years show that if we take care of the economy, we can increase the NHS and social care budget, and that is what we are doing.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Is it not the case that there will never be enough money to go into the NHS? Does the Secretary of State, like me, find the sanctimonious finger-wagging from the Opposition Front-Bench team utterly nauseating given that Carwyn Jones in Wales said that the Labour Government there would make an 8% cut to the NHS in Wales? That is the legacy of Labour.
Mr Hunt
That is absolutely the point. In Wales, people wait twice as long to have a hip replaced and the figure on A&E is about 10% lower than in England. The consequences for patients in Wales are horrific. That is why everyone watching today’s exchanges will take them with a big pinch of salt.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Health Committee has been quite clear that of the actual £4.5 billion being spent by the Government on increased funds—not the £8 billion or the £10 billion mentioned by the Secretary of State— £3.5 billion comes from cuts to public health and to education and training. The Secretary of State can come to the Dispatch Box and twist it all he likes, but he has been found out. Every health sector worker in this country has his number and knows him to a tee—we know exactly what he is doing.
Mr Hunt
I just do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I stand by the numbers. I am afraid that, on this occasion, the Health Committee got its numbers wrong. The figure of £10 billion did not come from the Government; it was a figure that the NHS said that it needed. In fact, it needed less than £10 billion and we are delivering more than was asked for—something that the Labour party was not prepared to do.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Secretary of State has taken an interest in the rurality and sparsity that hospitals in Lincolnshire wrestle with. Will he confirm that it is because this Government are spending half a trillion pounds on the NHS over the course of this Parliament that workers and patients at Pilgrim hospital, for example, can be confident about the hospital’s future?
Mr Hunt
All NHS facilities in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country can be confident that the NHS has a bright future. In fact, if we are to deliver the NHS plan, more rural and remote places are precisely where we must pay most attention to keeping people healthy and well in their homes. That is why not only community hospitals, but GP surgeries and all the places upon which rural communities depend are a vital part of the NHS’s future.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
I wrote to the Secretary of State over the summer because trollies were bumper to bumper in the corridors of Royal Stoke University hospital. This was not mid-winter but high summer. Since then, there have been more hospital bed closures in cottage hospitals, so I repeat my invitation and ask the Secretary of State to come to Stoke-on-Trent and see for himself the crisis in the funding settlement, which is hitting some of those with the most chronic health conditions.
Mr Hunt
I am happy to visit the hon. Gentleman’s local hospital, as I have been concerned about it for some time. I know that things have been particularly challenging there in the wake of what happened in neighbouring Mid Staffs, which has created its own pressures on the hospital. I also know that its staff work extremely hard in very challenging circumstances, so, yes, I will visit that hospital.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that achieving improvements in public health comes down not simply to the amount of money spent by the Government on it, but to a range of factors, including how it is spent, regulation, education and individuals’ choices?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely agree with that. This House should be very proud of the fact that, according to the UN, when it comes to public health this is the fifth healthiest country on the planet—after Iceland, Andorra, Singapore and Sweden, if my memory serves me correctly. That is a record we want to continue.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
A lot of figures have been bandied about today. For the record, when Labour inherited office in 1997 the amount spent on the NHS was £33 billion, whereas by the time we left office in 2010, 13 years later, the figure had gone up to £100 billion. It is an easy figure to calculate: three times more in real terms. We can contrast that with this Secretary of State for Health, who is coming here today fiddling figures and shutting Bolsover hospital.
Mr Hunt
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he thinks his party was so right to increase funding during Labour’s time in office—and I think it was right—he should support the Conservative party when it is increasing NHS funding by three times more than his party is promising.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is clear to me that the NHS cannot rely solely on the Government to achieve financial sustainability; nor should it be used by some as a political football. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a responsibility on all NHS stakeholders to work together to cut waste where it exists, and towards a long-term sustainable social care programme?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, which is why we need to make difficult efficiency savings—around £22 billion during this Parliament. We made about £18 billion to £19 billion-worth of savings in the previous Parliament, so I think it is doable. It will not be easy, but she is right in what she says.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
If things are as rosy as the Secretary of State is making out, why is the London Borough of Redbridge, where I am an elected Member, suffering from public health cuts and, even while charging the social care precept, is still barely able to cover the costs of wage increases, let alone improve the service? He should have been lobbying the Chief Secretary this afternoon, not painting this ridiculously unjustifiable rosy picture.
Mr Hunt
I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening to my statement, which said clearly that the NHS is under unbelievable pressure. It does not really work for the Labour party to campaign for increases in the minimum wage, which we read about today, and then to criticise the increasing costs in the adult social care system caused by the national living wage that was introduced by this Government.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State look at splitting the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, so that the disastrous PFI deal at Halifax, where we will pay £700 million for a hospital that cost £64 million, will stop dictating the closure and downgrading of services at Huddersfield?
Mr Hunt
I salute my hon. Friend for the campaign he is leading at the moment, standing up for his constituents. He is right to point to PFI as one of the principal causes, and we now have to find a way to deal with that issue in a way that improves and does not detract from the quality of care offered to the people he represents.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
According to Sir Richard Sykes, the chair of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, “the problem is funding”, we are “killing” NHS staff by making them work 18 hours a day, and it is not in a position to close any more accident and emergency facilities in north-west London because there is not the capacity to do so. How is the NHS in north-west London supposed to save £1.3 billion over the next four years, as its sustainability and transformation plan proposes?
Andy Slaughter
Give a serious answer to a serious question—you’re a buffoon! [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not hear the offending term, but if it has been reported to me accurately, and the Clerks are invariably accurate in these matters, it seems to me to be a matter of taste, rather than of order.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is regrettable that the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), has led this attack on a Government who are doing so much. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what more is being done to recoup the money that should have been clawed back from those who had health insurance and who should not have used our system?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to point out that problem. For years, under the previous Government, there was a total resistance anywhere in the NHS to ensuring that the only people who received care free at the point of use were people paying for the NHS through the taxes that they or their families pay. That is something to which we will put a stop. There is much more work to be done. We have the second biggest aid budget in the world. That is the way that we help developing countries, but we cannot have an international health service.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
NHS trusts’ deficits are now the worst that they have ever been, with 85% of acute hospitals unable to balance their books. That situation will be made even worse as the falling value of the pound raises the cost of imported medicines and equipment. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the extra funding needed to protect the NHS from the devaluation of sterling following the Brexit vote? What will he do to support trusts, such as Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, which are already in deficit?
Mr Hunt
There are indeed a number of cost pressures in the NHS, but the NHS also has the advantage of being the single largest purchaser of healthcare products—equipment and medicine—in the world, and therefore we have huge scope to get better prices for those things than we currently get. We are supporting hospitals such as the one in the hon. Lady’s constituency by centralising procurement and bearing down on the cost of agency staff and locum staff. Given that pay accounts for more than 70% of the typical hospital trust, that will help.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Labour in my home area of Wales has cut the NHS by 8%. Can my right hon. Friend confirm to this House that he will never follow its example?
Mr Hunt
It is not just the money that Labour has cut. It has refused to set up an independent inspectorate of hospitals such as we did in England, which is the sure way of knowing that we never have a repeat of what happened at Mid Staffs. I urge the Welsh Government to think again about their approach to that.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Darlington’s A&E is among the one in three earmarked for closure or downgrading. In his opening response to what is an urgent question, not a statement, the Secretary of State said that he did not accept that figure of one in three. How many A&Es will be downgraded, or does he not know?
Mr Hunt
Those plans come up from local areas. The NHS is not projecting that we will have significant reductions in the need for emergency care over the next few years. What matters is that we make sure that, yes, people can get to an A&E near them, but that when they get there, they get the right expert care, and that is what local areas are working on.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In my constituency, a nurse-led practitioner service has been closed because of a lack of resources. Similarly, stroke rehab has been cut because of a lack of resources. Our A&Es are not meeting waiting times, and are now under threat because their orthopaedic services have been privatised and handed out to Circle, which may not contract back to their local healthcare trust, thereby undermining the capacity to maintain those A&Es. Does the Secretary of State accept responsibility for any of that?
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I am particularly concerned that the Government are cutting supply in public health to create demand for a private healthcare market, which means that, like the United States, we will have a two-tier system. I was very concerned by the vague response that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). Will he guarantee this afternoon that there will be no closures of Arrowe Park hospital, Clatterbridge hospital or the Countess of Chester?
Mr Hunt
With respect to local service provision, these things are decided locally. If the hon. Lady wants to dig up the old chestnut about the privatisation of the NHS, let me say that the outsourcing of services to the private sector increased much faster under her Government than under this Government. If we did have those malign motives for the NHS, increasing its budget by £10 billion over the course of this Parliament and increasing doctor training by one of the biggest increases in its history would be a strange way of going about it.
Improving Lives: Work, Health and Disability Green Paper
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Green Paper being published today by my Department, together with the Department of Health.
This Government are determined to build a country that works for everyone. That means an economy that serves the interests of ordinary, working people; it means a society where everyone has an opportunity to go as far as their talents can take them, regardless of their background. As part of that, it means creating a country where a disability does not dictate the path that a person is able to take in life.
Under successive Governments, we have made good progress in improving the lives of disabled people. Laws have been changed, old attitudes have been challenged, and understanding has improved. More disabled people are in work—half a million more than just three years ago. That is encouraging, but we need to build on that progress and do more to help disabled people reach their full potential.
It is clear that for many disabled people, the barriers to entering work are still too high, and that people in work who get ill too often fall out of work, lose contact, lose confidence and do not return to work. The impact extends far beyond the individual. Families suffer, the health service faces extra strain, and employers lose valuable skills, but most of all, it is a human tragedy. Potential is left unfulfilled. Lives are lessened. Of course, the health and welfare systems must support those who will never be able to work. It should offer the opportunity of work to all those who can, provide help for those who could, and care for those who cannot. It is the help for those who could that, through this Green Paper, we will transform—first, within the welfare system.
In 2010, we inherited a broken system, where there were too few incentives to move from welfare to work, and one where too many of our fellow citizens were simply taken off the books and forgotten about. Since then, we have brought control and the right values back to the system. I want to recognise my predecessors, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) for his passion and conviction over the past six years, to make that a reality. Through reforms such as universal credit, we have ensured that work always pays, while ensuring a strong safety net for those who cannot work.
Spending on disabled people will be higher every year of this Parliament than it was in 2010, but we need to continue to review and reform the system based on what we know works. One of those areas is the level of personalised and tailored support that someone gets when they fall out of work. In the past 12 months, half of the people who attended a work capability assessment were deemed too ill to work, or even prepare for work, at that time. They then routinely receive no employment support at all. It is not surprising, then, that each month only 1% of people eligible for employment and support allowance after an assessment leave. For a benefit that was meant to help people back into work, the statistics show that it is not living up to that original aim, so we will build on the success of universal credit and provide more personalised employment support by consulting on further reform of the work capability assessment.
We will also introduce a new personal support package for disabled people, providing better tailored support, including a new health and work conversation between someone on ESA and their work coach, focusing on what they can do, rather than on what they cannot do. We will recruit around 200 community partners into jobcentres, to bring in expertise from the voluntary sector, and we will give young people with limited capability for work the opportunity to get valuable work experience with employers. These are practical steps and support that the welfare system will provide for disabled people.
This Green Paper marks a new era in joint working between the welfare and health systems—between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health. Recognising that work and meaningful activity can promote good health, we will work with Health Education England, Public Health England and others to make the benefits of work an ingrained part of the training and health workforce approach. We will review statutory sick pay and GP fit notes to support workers back into their jobs faster and for longer. It is also about transforming the way services join up. We will be consulting on how best to do this, as well as boosting existing joint services—for example, we are more than doubling the number of employment advisers placed in talking therapies services. It is right that we focus on such services, as mental health conditions, together with musculoskeletal conditions, are behind many people falling out of work.
This is not a challenge for Government alone so, finally, I want to turn to the role of employers. Employers have so much potential power to bring about change, not just in their recruitment strategies, but in how they support their employees. We need all businesses—small or large; local, national or global—to use that power to deliver change. The fact is that, as well as being good for health, it makes good business sense; sick pay for workers who get ill costs business £9 billion a year.
Businesses are leaders in innovation and transformation. We need to harness that positive power of business to promote disability awareness, so we will create a “Disability Confident” business leaders group to increase employer engagement in looking after the health and wellbeing of their employees, and opening up opportunities to them. Now is the moment for every business to take a proper look at the relationship between work and health, and what that means for their business and productivity.
Over the coming months, we will be talking to disabled people and those who have health conditions. We will be talking to carers, families, professionals and a range of organisations that are so important to getting this right and, like us, want further change. Together, through this Green Paper, and building on our work since 2010, we intend to deliver just that—to improve the way the welfare system responds to real people with health conditions; to see employers stepping up and play their part; to see work as a health outcome; and to see a culture of high ambition and high expectations for the disabled people of this country, because they deserve it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and advance notice of it. This is again kicking into the long grass the issue of support for disabled people and halving the disability employment gap. He is the third Secretary of State who has promised a plan, yet we have just talk, no action.
During his announcement today, the Secretary of State claimed he was confronting negative “attitudes, prejudices and misunderstandings”. The audacity of the statement is offensive. The Government have been more responsible than anyone for the negative attitude towards disabled people, with their shirkers grand narrative. Only this morning, the Secretary of State himself described disabled people as
“sitting at home living on benefits”.
The consultation itself demonstrates that the Government fail to understand the reality of many disabled people’s lives and the real anxiety those people feel about the coded messages in the consultation, yet further cuts are on the way.
I must challenge the Secretary of State for suggesting that the so-called reforms to social security have helped to make work pay. These claims are derisory. All the evidence shows not only that the introduction of universal credit has been an unmitigated disaster—with seven delays to date, the Major Projects Authority and the National Audit Office expressing concerns regarding the scheme’s governance, and the additional £3 billion the taxpayer is having to pay—but that cuts to work allowances signally fail to make UC help to make work pay. The Resolution Foundation has shown that, on average, 2.5 million working families will be over £2,000 a year worse off, so will the Secretary of State commit to reversing cuts to work allowances and universal credit?
On the Green Paper, if the Secretary of State is committed to helping disabled people into work, why has he cut employment support for disabled people from £700 million to £130 million? Will he commit to providing Access to Work support to more than the 36,500 disabled people who received it last year? Given that 1.3 million disabled people are fit and able to work, that is obviously a tiny proportion.
The Secretary of State referred to a review of statutory sick pay. Can he confirm that it is not a vehicle for further cuts to sick pay? Will he commit to maintaining levels of statutory sick pay, both now and in the future? On the plans to broaden the number of professionals who can provide a fit note—notes currently can be provided only by a general practitioner—will these people be appropriately trained clinicians? Given the Government’s use of so-called healthcare professionals under the work capability assessment, we know that weakening the role of the medical profession in assessment processes is an underhand tactic to force people into work before they are ready.
On changes to the WCA itself, why will the Secretary of State not commit to scrapping this discredited process completely, as I have? As it stands, this dehumanising system does great harm and is nothing more than a vehicle for getting people off flow. Will the Secretary of State explain why only employment and support allowance is included in the statement? What are his intentions for the personal independence payment? How much funding is meant to underpin the health and work programme? Will he commit to reversing the cuts in support for the ESA work-related activity group, as those cuts will do untold harm? Does he accept his own data showing that people on ESA are more likely to die than the population at large, and that some sick and disabled people will never be able to work? As a civilised society, we must ensure that these people are adequately supported and not plunged into poverty, left destitute, or worse.
Damian Green
I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s tone because she seems to be completely out of touch with those who represent disabled people. Let me read her the words of the chief executive of Scope, Mark Atkinson, who said today:
“Disabled people are twice as likely as the general public to be unemployed. It is right that the Government has recognised this is an injustice that needs to be tackled. We welcome
the Green Paper’s
“publication, which recognises the need for real change and sets out some bold ideas for reform.”
Dr Liam O’Toole of Arthritis Research UK said:
“Today’s Green Paper offers a vital opportunity to better understand and then meet the needs of people with arthritis.”
The Work Foundation said:
“We have consistently advocated that good work and the benefits it brings to individuals, employers and society at large should be recognised as a positive outcome from a health perspective.”
I am afraid that her carping is out of touch with the sector comprising those who most represent disabled people.
Let me deal with some of the detail. The hon. Lady repeated her promise to scrap any kind of assessment system at all for people getting benefits. Let me quote one of my predecessors who, when the work capability assessment was introduced, said, “We want to have a system where virtually everyone who is getting benefits is doing something to prepare for a return to work. The benefits system is not there for people to stay on benefits but to help them get back to work.” I completely agree with that. It was said by Labour Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell in 2008 when introducing the WCA. I am afraid that, again, the hon. Lady is out of touch.
The hon. Lady said a lot about universal credit and described it as a failure. Let me give her the facts about universal credit. Under universal credit, people spend about 50% more time looking for work and move into work faster. For every 100 people who found work under the old jobseeker’s allowance system, 113 universal credit claimants have moved into a job. They are more likely to be looking to increase their hours—86% on universal credit compared with 38% on jobseeker’s allowance. They are more likely to be looking to increase their earnings—77% on universal credit compared with 51% on JSA. [Interruption.] I am afraid that despite all the shouting from a sedentary position, the hon. Lady is simply wrong about the effect of universal credit.
The hon. Lady asked me to make some commitments about Access to Work. Real-terms increases in funding under Access to Work will support an additional 25,000 people each year by 2021. Last year, more than 36,000 people were helped to take up or remain in employment, including 2,800 young people. Access to Work is doing very well for tens of thousands of people with disabilities.
The hon. Lady would also, I hope, welcome our personal support package, which includes the recruitment of about 200 community partners into Jobcentre Plus to bring in expertise from the voluntary sector. One of the key things about this Green Paper is that we will work closely with the voluntary sector and use its expertise to help people with a disability.
The hon. Lady talks about forcing people into work. I hope that underneath some of her rhetoric she recognises the fact—this is now recognised increasingly by medical practitioners and clinicians—that a good job is good for people’s health. Talking about forcing people into work demonstrates the wrong, old-fashioned mindset, and I genuinely hope she has moved on from that.
The hon. Lady asked about statutory sick pay. I assure her that there is nothing in this Green Paper about cutting statutory sick pay. We want to make it easier for people to move back into work, perhaps gradually, meaning that they take a few hours’ work in the early days and months of their getting back into work. The purpose of the useful changes to the fit note, which is given by a properly qualified medical practitioner, is so that the process does not simply write someone off work, but guides them into a system that will help them to get back to work, because in the long run that is the best way to improve their lives, which is what the Green Paper is about.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I unreservedly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which builds on and elaborates previous work? I hope, however, that he will consider two issues during the Green Paper consultation. One of the greatest difficulties with the employment and support allowance is the binary choice that lies at the heart of its design, whereby it is deemed either that someone is too sick to work, or that they should work. We know that conditions can vary in many cases. Given that universal credit is now being rolled out, with this system forming part of that, would it be feasible to move away from that binary choice so that someone who moves into work can have that extra allowance before it tapers away? Given that universal credit is critical to this, will he look again at work allowances, particularly for those with limited capability for work, because they need to be increased to their original levels?
Damian Green
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. He is right about the binary choice that has obtained up to now under ESA and the fact that under the universal credit system, which he introduced, we have the capacity in the welfare system to make our approach much more flexible. That is precisely what the changes to the work capability assessment are designed to achieve—so that people are not simply put in one group or another and then left there. The much more personalised approach will mean that everyone should benefit from the assessment. We will be able to separate out the level of benefit that people should get from the level of support that they need to make the best of their lives. On the question of reversing previous changes in allowances, we have no plans to do so.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement? I am glad that, at last, this long-awaited Green Paper will be published. I broadly welcome the Government’s commitment to reform, to more personalised support, and to consulting widely with disabled people, carers and those who represent them.
We will work constructively with all parties to deliver real progress for disabled people, but we need actions, not just words. The truth is that the burden of austerity that has fallen on sick and disabled people in recent years has caused severe hardship and pushed many people further away from the workplace. Sick and disabled people have been disproportionately sanctioned in the benefits system and disproportionately hit by the bedroom tax. The raising of the bar on personal independence payments has resulted in thousands of sick and disabled people losing their Motability vehicles, which in many cases are their only means of getting to and from work. From next April, sick and disabled people with long-term conditions will be deterred from going back to work, because if they do, but then have a relapse and need to go back on ESA, they will find their income cut by £30 a week. Far too many people who are manifestly too sick to work are still being found fit for work.
Earlier this year, the Government cut the budget for their Work programme from £2 billion to £130 million. Given its performance, I understand why they did that, but we know from more successful schemes to support disabled people into work such as Access to Work, and from voluntary sector initiatives such as the Moving On programme of Action on Hearing Loss, that tailored, personalised support does not come cheap. What additional budget does the Secretary of State envisage will be attached to the Government’s proposals? What discussions has he had with the Treasury ahead of the autumn statement, and will there be Barnett consequentials for Scotland?
I also want to ask the Secretary of State about support for employers. To date, efforts have focused on improving employers’ confidence, which is fine as far as it goes, but that can be fairly nebulous if there are no practical resources to back it up. Employers need concrete support to make this work. Will resources be attached to the rhetoric this time around? Finally, may I plead with the Secretary of State to hold off the impending cuts to the ESA WRAG until such time as the Government have got this right?
Damian Green
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her general welcome for the appearance of the Green Paper and her commitment to work constructively on it. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work was in Scotland last week discussing with counterparts what needs to be done. As the hon. Lady might know, I will be there later this week to talk to the Social Security Committee.
The hon. Lady makes a point about resources, and I am able to tell her that there will be additional support for new claimants with limited capability for work. That will be £60 million next year, with the figure rising to £100 million a year by 2020. There will be new money for the third sector—something like £15 million by Christmas this year.
The hon. Lady made a very good point about employers. I agree that we need more than rhetoric, which is why we will be rolling out a small employer offer to support the creation of more job opportunities for disabled people. It will provide support for employers and enable them to apply for a payment of £500 after three months’ employment so that they can provide ongoing support. That kind of practical help, particularly for small businesses, will transform the situation for many people. We know that small businesses are the biggest creators of jobs in this country. We absolutely want them to use the great talent pool of people with disabilities, whose levels of employment are much less than those of people without disabilities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Given extensive interest and the pressure on time, I am looking for single, short supplementary questions without preamble, and, of course, for pithy replies from the Secretary of State.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is exactly right to take on this challenge. Does he agree that one of the keys to success in ending the enormous waste of human potential is, for the very first time, to get health services and his Department working together effectively at a community level to ensure that people on long-term sickness benefits get meaningful employment support and effective health intervention? At the moment, the system too often provides neither.
Damian Green
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, who did good work on the subject during his time in this job. He will see from the Green Paper that we will be carrying out large-scale consultations on precisely the issue that he raises. In specific areas, it is important that we get right the way in which the health system and the welfare system work together. The situation might well be different in various parts of the country, so we will be holding geographically based large-scale trials.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
As a former Minister for disabled people, I welcome the Secretary of State’s intention as stated in the Green Paper. Does he agree that the extra-costs benefits are tremendously important in helping people to work? Under PIP, hundreds of people a week are losing their access to Motability cars. Does he realise how important it is for those people to have their car to get to work, and what is he going to do to stop people losing their right to mobility?
Damian Green
Of course, PIP is not a work-related benefit, as the hon. Lady knows. It is a benefit that is designed to meet the extra costs of those who have a disability, and it is sensible that people go through the appropriate assessment for it. As I have said, I completely agree that it is important to ensure that people have access to work, and that is why we are so keen on the Access to Work programme. There will be different ways for people to access work. As I have explained, the real-terms funding for the programme will increase through to 2021. I agree with her that this is an important issue, and we are doing something about it.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the revised system ensure that if somebody is found fit for work on the basis of receiving a particular level of support, the need for that support will be passed on through the system and that support will be made available?
Damian Green
Yes, that is exactly at the heart of what we are trying to do, because there have been too many gaps in the system. Health Ministers and I agree that we must get the systems working together much better so that individuals find the journey much more seamless than they ever have.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Could the Secretary of State consider more carefully the role of GPs? With the work capability assessment, untrained people are sometimes overriding the advice of GPs. We do not want to see that with ESA regarding fit notes.
Damian Green
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. GPs will play a significant role in the system, and we want the role they play to be as constructive as possible. We have looked at ways of changing the system so that GPs can be involved earlier. The reason for the consultation on the changes to the fit note is precisely to find a way of making the fit note help the person concerned back into work without adding to the burden on GPs. We want everyone involved in the system to feel they are playing a part in helping someone to get back into work.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I too extend a warm welcome to the Green Paper. Within the next hour, we will launch, with the National Autistic Society, a report entitled “The autism employment gap”, which shows that only 16% of people on the autism spectrum are in full-time employment. That gap is bigger than the disability employment gap. I welcome the personalised support to which my right hon. Friend has referred. Will he say more about how he will tailor it to meet the individual needs of autistic people in particular?
Damian Green
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I congratulate her on all the work she has done over many years in Parliament for those on the autism spectrum. I am pleased to tell her that we will have 1,100 specialists in autism services in Jobcentre Plus premises. She is quite right that we should never assume that disabled people are in any way homogenous: people have different needs and different requirements. She will know better than anyone that the needs of those on the autism spectrum are specific, and that they therefore need to be dealt with in a personal and specific way.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On the disabled, may I tell the Secretary of State that at my surgery on Saturday I saw a man—he will be 59 in two weeks’ time, and walks with tremendous difficulty on two crutches—who has had his employment and support allowance removed and who, during the time I was speaking to him, broke down in great distress? What sort of situation are we in when a law-abiding person of his age and suffering from disablement goes to his Member of Parliament in such a state of distress that he starts crying? I consider that a shameful situation. The Secretary of State should be aware that it is just one of many, many cases throughout the country. I will certainly write to his Department. With what result, we shall see.
Damian Green
Obviously, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to us about his constituent he should please do so, because we do not want any wrong decisions to be taken. I will happily look at the individual case, although he will recognise that I cannot possibly comment on it at the moment. The one point on which I would take issue with him is when he says that this is the tip of an iceberg. Actually, the number of successful appeals against ESA judgments has fallen very significantly, from 14% to 5% in recent months, so the figures suggest that the system is getting better at making such judgments.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Those with mental health conditions often require specialist support. What will the Green Paper do for people who suffer from mental health conditions?
Damian Green
It is particularly those with mental health conditions who will be helped by the Green Paper, with the more tailored and personalised support. Very often, people with mental health conditions have conditions that come and go, so they may work full time some of the time, part time some of the time and not at all at other times. The changes to benefits—particularly, perhaps, those to statutory sick pay—will make it much easier for such people to stay in touch with work, perhaps working part time for a period. All the evidence suggests that people with mental health conditions are disadvantaged if they are completely detached from the world of work, because their depression may get worse.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I really welcome the Green Paper’s suggestion about the personal support package. It should be a significant improvement on the disastrous Work programme, which was a total failure for disabled people. Will the Secretary of State confirm that providers of such support will be adequately rewarded and incentivised to provide good enough support, because that was the difficulty with the Work programme?
Damian Green
Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her supportive words. I hope she will see the personal support package make a difference. I have already mentioned the 200 community partners that will come in, so we will engage the third sector very actively in this process. We will also extend the journey to employment job clubs to 71 Jobcentre Plus areas—those with the highest number of people receiving ESA—so we are trying new ideas in the areas where we think they will particularly make a difference.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to utilise the talent and enrich the lives of those with disabilities and ongoing health issues, including mental health issues, we need to make further improvements to reduce bureaucracy and personalise employment support for individual needs?
Damian Green
I do. On a day-to-day basis in our constituency work we will all have seen people who are frustrated by the bureaucracy. When my hon. Friend and other Members read the Green Paper they will see an emphasis on making the systems more human and more personal, so that people do not feel that they are being ground down by a very difficult bureaucracy. Bureaucracy always takes a long time to change, but we absolutely want to change it.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
It is true that the Work programme has been hopeless for people claiming employment and support allowance, with a pitifully small number of people getting into jobs, as the Secretary of State acknowledged in his statement. By how much does he expect the proposals to increase the proportion of ESA claimants getting into work, and how long will it take to halve the disability employment gap?
Damian Green
It would be premature of me to try to set targets on either of those. The sensible thing is to take practical steps. For example, we are more than doubling the number of disability employment advisers to help with specialist and local expertise for disabled people. Along with everything else I have announced, that will be a significant step forward in halving the disability employment gap. Of course, doing so depends on both ends of it, as the halving of the gap will depend on what the total employment level is, and we are in good shape on that, as 80% of working-age people who do not have a disability are in work. But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, only 48% of those with a disability are in work. I want to make steady progress towards halving the gap, but it may take some time.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with business to help people who can only work flexibly and at variable times but do not want to let their employers down?
Damian Green
Very many—I have spoken to a number of private sector employers who are leading the way in providing the equipment needed. But what happens in the public sector is to some extent more under the Government’s control, so I hope that by the end of this year every Whitehall Department will be signed up as a Disability Confident employer and that in the course of 2017 the rest of the public sector will have followed. The public sector is a very large-scale employer so that will be very helpful.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I broadly welcome the thrust of the Green Paper, but I suggest that there are two things the Secretary of State could do for people with mental health conditions now. One is to ensure that assessors undertaking work capability tests are properly qualified. Secondly, can we stop the small number of people with long-term, enduring mental health conditions, who are never going to work, going round this merry-go-round, which is not good for them or for the taxpayer?
Damian Green
I am grateful for the expertise the hon. Gentleman brings to this. I will take both his points on board. In fact, on his second point, he may have seen that I have already announced that we are going to stop retesting those with a condition that already means that they cannot work and that will only stay the same or get worse. That seems to me a piece of pointless and fundamentally heartless bureaucracy that we can happily get rid of.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I encourage the Secretary of State to apply his very human and welcome fresh pair of eyes to the whole system. Damage will be done to his very good intentions if he proceeds with the cuts to universal credit work allowances and the ESA WRAG. I urge him to personally understand the risks in proceeding with both of those cuts.
Damian Green
As my hon. Friend knows, we have had private discussions on this point, and I have heard her discuss it on a number of public platforms as well. I can only repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith): although we are not looking for new cuts in the welfare budget or welfare benefits, we have no plans to reverse anything that has already been legislated for.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I welcome the Green Paper in the broadest sense if we can have a dialogue about improving the lives of disabled people, but the point has just been made that we need to ensure that the funding is on the table to protect people going back into work and those who need support. Perhaps two words are missing from the document and the Minister’s statement: “compassion” and “dignity”. Let us hope we get them in the Government’s response.
Damian Green
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and am grateful for his general support. I absolutely agree that the system should show compassion at all times, and that those who deal with the system should feel that they are being dealt with with dignity, and that it is being preserved. We are at one on that.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I very much welcome today’s announcement. The chief executive of Scope, Mark Atkinson, rightly highlights that the assessment should be the first step for support. Therefore, will the Secretary of State set out how stakeholders and charities can not only shape future policy but help to deliver the expert tailored employment support so needed?
Damian Green
I am grateful for the support from my hon. Friend, who did excellent work when he was the Minister for Disabled People. I am happy to reassure him that there will be localised services, with facilitated pacts done at a local level so that in each individual jobcentre and area the appropriate type of support will be available after an assessment has been made.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I welcome the assurances given by the Secretary of State on statutory sick pay, but does he realise that millions of people in this country are in work but do not qualify for it because they are classed as self-employed? As part of this process, will he agree to consider implementing the relevant recommendations of the Deane review of self-employment?
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman is right that there are increasing numbers of self-employed people, and we want to ensure that they are treated as fairly as everyone else. Indeed, one of the successes of recent years is the new enterprise allowance, which has allowed nearly 20,000 disabled people to start up businesses. That is about one in five of business start-ups, so it is a significant part of the system, and it means that we are very alive to the needs of self-employed people.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the announcement of the Green Paper, but will he reassure me that he will also look at making further improvements to the work capability assessment to make it as smooth as possible for claimants, because that will make a big difference?
Damian Green
We have had five different reviews of the work capability assessment in the past six years, and the ideas I am bringing forward today are the latest response. There is no system so good that it cannot be improved, and I would welcome my hon. Friend’s input to make the system even better in future.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Government’s target of halving the disability employment gap is very welcome. The Green Paper offers £115 million in funding for a new model of employment support. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that figure represents less than 5% of the total cut that disabled people have experienced in disability living allowance and employment and support allowance?
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman is slightly confusing apples and pears. This is a support programme to get people with a disability back into work. The best route out of poverty for people with a disability, as it is generally, is to have a job. As a society, we have been much less good at allowing and encouraging people with a disability back into work than we have for the general population. The Green Paper is intended to address that problem.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents in Kettering want to know whether the Secretary of State thinks that the film “I, Daniel Blake” is an accurate portrayal of the benefits system. If it is, do the changes he has announced in the Green Paper address the problems raised? If it is not, what are the inaccuracies?
Damian Green
I have not seen the film yet but have seen quite a lot of trailers. [Interruption.] I would point out to my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady on the Opposition Bench who is chuntering from a sedentary position that it is a work of fiction and not a documentary. It bears no relation to the modern benefits system. As I understand it, it is monstrously unfair to jobcentre staff, who are hugely conscientious people doing a job, sometimes in difficult conditions, and doing it very well indeed.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State believes that the disability appeals system is improving, will he explain why he is investing a further £22 million in recruiting more staff to assist the Department for Work and Pensions in defeating more personal independence payment and work capability assessment claims?
Damian Green
Because I always seek to improve systems. Even though the appeals system does appear to be producing better results, no system is so good that it cannot be improved, as I said a moment ago.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the Green Paper’s direction of travel. Will its additional, personalised and tailored support for disabled people reach them by April, when they will lose the WRAG payments—which was a condition of support for the ESA cuts for many of my hon. Friends?
Damian Green
I know that my hon. Friend has a deep interest in this area, and, when he reads the Green Paper in full, he will find that there are many measures we can take immediately so that help will flow through in the coming months to many people who have a disability but also have the burning desire to get back into work.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The manifesto of the Secretary of State’s party set out an aim of halving the disability employment gap, but the Government now appear to have watered down that commitment to merely making progress. In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Secretary of State rejected targets, but without setting out milestones and monitoring progress towards them, how will he judge the success of his Government’s actions?
Damian Green
I did not water down the commitment. The original commitment in the manifesto did not have an end date, so I am merely repeating the manifesto commitment. We will publicise all the relevant information so that the House and the public will know the progress we are making. There has been progress in the past few years. The percentage of disabled people employed has gone up in recent years, but I intend to improve on that progress in future.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has had to say this afternoon, especially in relation to greater support for those with mental health conditions. What steps does he plan to take to make sure that we engage properly with people affected by such conditions and the organisations that represent them to ensure that we get this right?
Damian Green
As I have said, we are doing large-scale, localised consultations, and that is the way to do it. There is a huge network of 750 jobcentres around the country, so the DWP has the power to get into local areas and know what local conditions are. That is by far the most powerful tool we have to make sure that the services we offer can be appropriately sensitive in every local area.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Despite some changes, the work capability assessment system is fundamentally flawed. Surely reform must ensure that, as well as the system judging whether people are fit for a job, the jobs are available for them. Will the Secretary of State look at whether a new assessment can include the jobs available in a local area as well as the claimant’s condition?
Damian Green
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that more jobs are available and being taken in our economy than ever before. General levels of unemployment are very low—4.9% is a rate that would have been unimaginable in previous eras, so we should be proud of that. The key is to make sure that those jobs—I agree with him on this point—can be matched to those who may have a disability or long-term health condition so that they can take advantage of the vibrant jobs market we currently have.
Nissan: Sunderland
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Nissan in Sunderland. Last Thursday, 27 October, the Nissan Motor Company Ltd announced that, following a meeting of its executive committee, both the next Qashqai and X-Trail models will be produced at its Sunderland plant. The plant will be expanded through new investment to be a super-plant, manufacturing more than 600,000 cars a year. Some 80% of the plant’s output is exported to more than 130 international markets.
The decision is a massive win for the 7,000 direct employees and 35,000 total British employees in the plant and the supply chain. It is a stunning tribute to the local workforce, which has made the Sunderland plant, in the words of the chief executive of Nissan, “a globally competitive powerhouse”. We are immensely proud of it and proud of them. Of course, the decision is great news for the people of the north-east more widely, for our world-class automotive sector and for the whole British economy. This is but the latest in a series of exciting investments in the United Kingdom, which is proving to the world that we are open for business. Indeed, it is hard to think of more unambiguously good news.
My colleagues in the Government and I have been vigorous in ensuring that the Nissan board had no doubts about the importance of this plant and this industry to the British people. Through the many conversations I and my colleagues had both here and in Japan, it became clear that four reassurances were important to securing the investment for Britain. Three were about the automotive sector generally and one was about Brexit.
The first was that we would continue our successful and long-standing programme of support for the competitiveness of the automotive sector, including Nissan. This support is available to firms for skills and training the local workforce, research and development, and innovation, in line with EU and UK Government rules. Since 2010, the Government have invested £400 million in the UK automotive sector in this way. We will continue to invest hundreds of millions more over the coming years. All proposals from any company must be underpinned by strong business cases and tested against published eligibility criteria. All proposals are also subject to rigorous external scrutiny by the independent Industrial Development Advisory Board and are reported on to Parliament.
The second was that we would continue our work with the automotive sector, including Nissan at Sunderland, to ensure that more of the supply chain can locate in the UK and in close proximity to major manufacturing sites. In a previous post, I established the local growth deals and city deals, which, working with local enterprise partnerships, have provided a way in which local councils, businesses and the Government can upgrade sites, especially those brought into use from dereliction, and provide the infrastructure for the small and medium-sized businesses that can supply these major companies. I can confirm that this programme will continue, and with vigour.
The third that was we would maintain a strong commitment to research and development, in particular the take-up of ultra-low emission vehicles. The opportunities presented by bringing the Department of Energy and Climate Change together with the Business Department make us ideally placed to build on Britain’s strengths in low-carbon energy, the automotive sector, science, research and many other areas.
The fourth was that in our negotiations to leave the EU, we will emphasise the very strong common ground, especially in the automotive sector, that exists between ourselves and other EU member states in ensuring that trade between us can be free and unencumbered by impediments. A good deal for the UK can also be a good deal for other member states, and that is how we will approach the negotiations. Whatever the outcome, we are determined to ensure that the UK continues to be one of the most competitive locations in the world for automotive and other advanced manufacturing.
Last Thursday was a great day for Sunderland and for Britain, but the best is yet to come. Over 30 years, Nissan has invested more than £3.7 billion in our country and has created excellent jobs for a whole generation of world-beating British workers. Last week’s announcement means that a new generation of apprentices, technicians, engineers, managers and many other working men and women can look forward to careers filled with opportunity and success. This Government will always back them to the hilt. I commend this statement and Nissan’s welcome decision to this House.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to our repeated requests for clarification on the events of the past few days. I join him in warmly welcoming Nissan’s decision to keep production in the UK. It is fantastic news for Nissan’s 7,000 employees and the 38,000-plus employees who rely on its supply chain. It is fantastic news for Sunderland, and it is fantastic news for the whole country. It is a testament to the skill, productivity and ability of the workforce and management that Nissan has such confidence in its Sunderland operation.
Without detracting from that, we still have some concerns. The right hon. Gentleman has denied giving Nissan special treatment, but he has refused to be transparent about what he has offered to it. As our most productive car factory, Nissan’s Sunderland plant epitomises the strengths of the UK’s automotive industry. He knows that we simply could not afford to lose it. That is why, despite the assurances that he has given now and in his tantalising television appearances over the weekend, the nagging question remains: are we really to believe that Nissan is risking millions of pounds of investment and the success of its newest models on the basis of the Government’s good intentions alone? If that is the case, why have they kept their good intentions to themselves?
The overwhelming impression until now has been that the Government have no strategy for Brexit. Are we expected to believe that the Government now have not only a strategy, but a strategy so convincing that they have persuaded Nissan to stay without the need for any special guarantees? If so, why will they not tell us what it is? We are told in the media—the media is where most of last week’s revelations transpired—that the Government gave a commitment to Nissan that Britain would be as attractive after Brexit as it is today.
It would seem that the Secretary of State has discovered the Brexit equivalent of the Philosopher’s stone: tariff-free market access with no concessions, readily agreed by all 27 EU countries, including Wallonia. Surely, that is a feat worth sharing. So can he tell us whether he is committing to full single market access or to a customs union or to something else entirely—or do the Government simply not know? We all want all car manufacturers to keep their production in the UK—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. So why are they not privy to the same assurances as Nissan, and what about the many other businesses up and down the country—businesses that, like Nissan, are currently deciding whether to continue investing in the UK? Surely, they, too, should be told.
I have acknowledged that the automotive sector is hugely important to our economy, but it is not our only strategically important industry. Where were the Government during the crisis in the steel industry? They were blocking the EU from taking action against Chinese steel dumping—that is where they were. What are the Government doing for the aerospace industry, or for pharmaceuticals, and what about the service sector, which accounts for more than three quarters of our economy?
It seems that the Government are giving private reassurances to particular companies, while leaving the majority of businesses, the public and their elected representatives in the dark about their intentions. Piecemeal, back-room deals will not provide the active industrial strategy that Labour has long advocated and to which the Government now claim to be signed up. We Labour Members want the economy firing on all cylinders, not spluttering along on one or two.
As we embark on Brexit, Britain needs a Government who are visionary, not reactive, and strategic, not shambolic. As a start, we need a Government who are transparent and accountable, instead of secretive. Why not start now? If the right hon. Gentleman did not offer Nissan a sweetener, what has he got to hide? Show us the letter. If the assurances he gave to Nissan apply to all the automotive sector, surely all that sector should be given them? Show us the letter. If, contrary to appearances, the Government do have a strategy for Brexit, why will they not tell us what it is? Show us the letter!
Greg Clark
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, but if that is the kind of spluttering old banger of an approach to these issues, I think he should upgrade to a new model. I would recommend a Qashqai; they are very good cars. I find it surprising that, in response to an announcement that has thrilled Sunderland and the north-east and provided a big boost to the economy, the Labour party’s demeanour is so miserable. Is it beyond the hon. Gentleman to put party politics aside and just celebrate and congratulate everyone involved on a success that is in all our interests?
I seriously ask the hon. Gentleman to weigh this issue up carefully. When I met Nissan, one thing it commented on was the continuity over 30 years of a very successful participation in the UK economy, with cross-party support and consensus over the Sunderland plant—reflected in what both Conservative and Labour Governments have done. It would be to take a wrong turn if the Labour party lurched away from the bipartisanship that has been so successful there.
As for the conversations that we had, one of the things that I have learnt over the years is the importance of getting to know, over time, the companies that are in this country and those that invest in it, and understanding what their investment decisions will be based on. We have taken the opportunity to do that, and the four reassurances that I was able to give Nissan and that have resulted in this investment reflected what Nissan had said to me.
I said that I would aim for the best possible ability to trade with other European Union countries. I said that I would pursue the negotiations in a positive and constructive spirit, mindful of the substantial common ground that exists between us. I said that whatever happened, we were determined to keep Britain’s world-beating motor industry competitive. Do Labour Members share those intentions? If they do, why on earth do they think that I would play games with the livelihoods of 35,000 working people in this country, the pride of the world in their industry, by not stating them clearly and transparently to Nissan? I welcome the decision that Nissan has made.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would publish the correspondence. I have set out the information that I gave to Nissan. My responsibility, on behalf of the Government, is to encourage and attract investment in this country. When companies of all types and in all sectors share with me investment plans that would be of interest to their prospective competitors, it is important for them to be assured that those plans will not be disclosed to their competitors to their disadvantage. My objective is to obtain the investment, but I shall be happy to answer questions about every aspect of it, today and when I appear before the Select Committee—which I intend to do, at the Committee’s invitation.
The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member, and I hope that he will have a distinguished tenure here, but Members in all parts of the House—from Newcastle to Newquay, from Liverpool to Lowestoft—will know that whenever I work to attract success to our regions, towns, cities and counties, I do so on a cross-party basis. Party politics never feature in the way I work. I hope that, in future, we shall be able to work together on such common interests.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is much interest in this subject, and I want to accommodate it. Single, short supplementary questions—preferably a single sentence without preamble—and the Secretary of State’s customarily pithy replies are required.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his announcement, which is clearly very good news for Sunderland, but I think that he will understand Parliament’s desire to understand the terms on which these and other negotiations are conducted. May I ask whether he has discussed this matter with the International Trade Secretary, and whether he will be in the driving seat of future trade negotiations? We all think that he is rather good at it.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s compliments. As she knows, we have a Cabinet Committee on Brexit, on which I serve alongside my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his statement, although I think he may have said a little bit more to the BBC yesterday than he has to the House today. I hope that he is not joining the ever-growing list of Secretaries of State who have been slapped down by the Prime Minister for expressing their personal opinions.
I think it important that action has been taken to protect parts of the economy from the potential negative impacts of Brexit. It may constitute more than just a quarter of the issues that were on Nissan’s agenda, but that is for the Secretary of State to answer. He said to the BBC yesterday that
“our objective would be to…have continued access…without tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments”.
That has not been said today, but I think that it is correct. If that objective is not realised, however, what will be the cost to the taxpayer of a deal with Nissan? How much will it cost to make good those tariffs should they be imposed? That is the key question.
SNP Members will welcome the fact that an area of the country that voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union has been given a special deal, and we look forward with gusto to the deal that will be given to Scotland in recognition of the fact that we voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. The Government are giving a flexible Brexit to the City of London and the north-east of England; I hope the Secretary of State will bring forward a flexible Brexit to protect Scotland’s economy and the 80,000 jobs that rely on our access to the single market.
The Secretary of State must recognise that the game here is a bit of a bogey: “Brexit means Brexit” will not cut it while he is going behind closed doors cutting deals with others without making this House or the public aware of what they are. While Nissan received a letter of comfort, the devolved Administrations got a hotline—a hotline that is so hot to handle that it does not get answered for 36 hours.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman started well, Mr Speaker, although I certainly have not been slapped down, up, sideways or any other way by the Prime Minister, I am pleased to say.
The approach I have set out to the House and stated previously simply reflects what I would have thought is common sense: in an area—we have been talking about the automotive sector—in which there are substantial exports that come from Britain to the EU and from the EU to this country and components go backwards and forwards, there is a clear common interest in having arrangements that are free of tariffs and the bureaucratic impediments I mentioned. So it seems to me that when we embark on any negotiation, it is about finding the common ground and having a positive volition so to do. That is what I set out and that is what I described to Nissan, and indeed would do to any other manufacturer. It is on that basis, along with the other points I have made, that Nissan felt able to make this fantastic investment not only in the north-east, but in the United Kingdom.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Prime Minister surely has not slapped down my right hon. Friend, but has slapped him on the back as a gesture of congratulations on a remarkable deal. I ask my right hon. Friend to come clean on one other issue he left off his list, which I am sure he mentioned to Nissan, however. He will have reminded Nissan that the UK outside the EU will be able to set its own new trade deals—and guess which car manufacturers will benefit from free trade deals with the rest of world.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s endorsement. As the Prime Minister said, we are going to make a success of Brexit, and we want every sector of our economy, including the automotive sector, not to be disadvantaged by Brexit, but to reap the benefits and be more competitive in the future.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I commend the Government and the Secretary of State on this piece of great news; it is a welcome example of targeted Government commitment to a successful company in a strategically vital sector in the most important region on earth. However, will the same sort of targeted investment be available to other firms and sectors? If so, how will these be selected in the context of a proper industrial strategy, and will such companies and sectors be given similar reassurance and support to that provided to Nissan?
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the generous compliment the Chairman of the Select Committee pays me. I am certainly not going to disagree with him on what he said about the north-east, but I should say that Kent ranks equally. I am looking forward to coming before his Select Committee, not only to answer questions but to talk about the industrial strategy. The approach I not just intend to take but am already taking is to take time to meet the firms in our economy and understand the different needs of different sectors, so that we can be informed by them as we form our negotiating mandate. Those needs will obviously be different from sector to sector, and my commitment, which we will share when we meet in his Committee, is through our industrial strategy to make sure that we have confidence both for individual sectors and for individual places, because there is a very interesting confluence there. Investment in Nissan is good for the sector and good for Sunderland and the north-east.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
I should declare an interest as a driver—albeit not a very good one—of a Nissan Qashqai. For years, we have had calls from across the House for an activist, interventionist Business Secretary who is prepared to do everything possible in order to secure jobs for working-class people in disadvantaged parts of the country. Now we have one, can my right hon. Friend explain why Opposition Members will not take yes for an answer? Was Oscar Wilde not right that there is only one thing worse than not getting one’s heart’s desire and that is getting it?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State has no responsibility either for Opposition policy or for Oscar Wilde—although we always enjoy the poetic licence of the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement, but I want to ask the Secretary of State about the duties and rights of this House. Last Monday, the Prime Minister told the House that
“the Government must not show their hand in detail” —[Official Report, 24 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 27.]
to Parliament in advance of the Brexit negotiations. At the very same time, however, we now know that the Secretary of State was telling Nissan the Government’s detailed negotiating stance for the automotive sector, including that there would be tariff-free trade and no bureaucratic impediments. Will the Secretary of State explain how those two positions are consistent?
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high personal regard, exemplifies what my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was saying: he looks so glum at this news. What I set out to the House, to Nissan and to any firm that is in this country is what my colleagues have said repeatedly: there is a great common interest among other European Union nations and ourselves in having a deal following the negotiations that maximises the benefit to both sides. That seems so obvious that it is hardly worthy emphasising. That is the demeanour with which we will approach the negotiations. It is the approach that I have always taken in negotiations, and it seems as though that is something that people are glad to hear.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on providing a great deal for the north-east. His clarification that the Government wanted continued access to the single market without bureaucratic impediments is a significant extension and exposure of the Government’s negotiating position. Does the Secretary of State agree that the rules of origin that the UK would face outside the customs union would certainly constitute bureaucratic impediments?
Greg Clark
This goes beyond any discussions that I have had with any company here. Why would we not aim to avoid bureaucratic impediments as a matter of negotiation? That seems to be common sense and that is what I set out.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We all welcome the Nissan announcement, but Nissan is only one company that is making decisions now about its future investment in the United Kingdom. Given the persuasive reassurance that the right hon. Gentleman was able to offer the company, can he tell the House whether his offer of tariff-free access to the European market will be available to all other parts of our manufacturing sector? If I heard him right, he indicated a moment ago that the Government might take a different approach for different sectors. If that means that some might not benefit from tariff-free access, they would like to know pretty quickly.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman is wise enough to know that it is not in my gift to offer tariff-free access to the single market. I was describing what would be a positive outcome from the negotiations, which therefore relates to the demeanour that we should take in those negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) paid me a personal compliment, but my team shares my vigour in talking to companies up and down the land to ensure that we understand what is important to them and to inform our negotiations. That seems an eminently sensible thing to do.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on securing this fantastic new deal with Nissan, which will benefit not only the good people of the north-east. Thanks to the supply chain, the benefits will extend throughout the whole country, helping many tens of thousands of people and their families.
I met a constituent on Saturday who runs a small IT business employing 14 people and he, too, wants certainty on tariffs. He told me that if tariffs are imposed on his business, he will have to get rid of it, meaning that 14 people will lose their jobs. Big companies, small companies and huge companies from all sectors need certainty. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that this House has a debate and a vote on the underlying principles of our negotiations as we leave the EU in order to give the Government a true mandate?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what she said. When she was a Minister in my Department —or its predecessor—she was vigorous in engaging with businesses and understanding what they need. I regularly meet small businesses and their representative organisations, having done so many times since my appointment. She rightly says that it is important that their views help shape our negotiating mandate. On the debates in this House, the Prime Minister and my Cabinet colleagues have said repeatedly that there will be many occasions to debate and have these things scrutinised in this House.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and the kind words about my home city of Sunderland from somebody from Middlesbrough. There was palpable relief in Sunderland on Thursday at the announcement, but concerns remain about the supply chain, because if there is an automotive sectoral deal, these firms will not necessarily be included, as they supply other types of industry. There are also concerns about the wider manufacturing base in the north-east as we move forward with the Brexit negotiations.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she says. Middlesbrough has been doing a bit better in football terms than Sunderland this season, so it deserves a break when it comes to Nissan. The supply chain is incredibly important, and across the automotive sector, whether in the north-east or the west midlands or other parts of the country, there are businesses that are currently overseas that could locate close to the main plants. If sites can be remediated where, for example, they require better road access, it is in everyone’s interest if we work on that together. That was part of the discussions, and will particularly benefit the supply chain.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on the announcement. Will he assure the House that he will not jeopardise future fantastic announcements by revealing too much confidential information from discussions between him and the other parties?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am happy to answer any questions that the House has, and I am looking forward to appearing before the Select Committee. I have been pretty candid, describing each of the four aspects of the reassurances that I was able to give, but if companies that are considering an investment here describe commercial plans that they may not want to fall into the hands of their competitors, it is reasonable that they should have that confidence when dealing with the UK Government.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
As a fellow north-easterner, I am sure the Secretary of State will know that Thursday’s news buoyed not only Sunderland, but the wider north-east. Even I got a little teary-eyed at the plant on Thursday evening, knowing that the announcement had secured the livelihoods and future aspirations of so many families, who were all that night breathing a sigh of relief. The details of the letter are important, but may I, as the local MP for the plant, and on behalf of the workforce of almost 46,000 people across the UK, whose jobs are now more secure, just say thank you?
Greg Clark
I am touched by the hon. Lady’s statement; it is very kind and very good of her. When we were having these discussions, I always had in mind the fact that this is not a theoretical investment, and that we are talking about real people who work hard and do brilliant work. They are the best regarded in the world in the international system; they are the most productive in the world and go to Japan to help train some of the auto workers there. I am proud of that, as is she; the whole House should be proud of the workforce there.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend. How can his reassurance to Nissan that there will be continued access to the European market without bureaucratic impediment be assured if Britain is outside the customs union?
Greg Clark
As I have said to other hon. Members, what I was able to say is how we would go into a negotiation, which seems to me to be to find common ground. We certainly did not get into any discussions of particular models, as my right hon. Friend would expect. One can overcomplicate these things; to be clear about one’s intention to find common ground and to pursue discussions in a rational and civilised way is not a bad thing to be able to convey.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome Nissan’s decision, which will protect thousands of jobs and many of the people whom I represent. May I press the Secretary of State again on the issue of the supply chain? He has talked about the supply chain of the future, but what more can he say by way of reassurance both to the existing supply chain and to the wider manufacturing sector in the region that he will do everything in his power to protect their interests and the medium-sized businesses that serve it?
Greg Clark
I certainly will do everything in my power. I look forward when I next visit Sunderland to meeting the existing supply chain. The hon. Lady will know that we have already done quite a lot in that regard. I helped to negotiate the Sunderland city deal and to establish the advanced manufacturing park near the Nissan site, precisely to provide better facilities. She will know about the new bridge for which we secured funding to assist with that. I know very well the importance of not just the major sites, vital though they are, but of the whole ecology of business around them. That is one reason why this investment is so important. Important though Nissan is, the investment gives another big boost to the existing supply chain and to those competitors that will join it in the future.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
This great news continues the work of this Government to rebalance our economy. It also provides an incentive to continue to improve skills and to encourage innovation. Does the Secretary of State agree that our catapult centres, including the Manufacturing Technology Centre in my constituency, have a big part to play in that role?
Greg Clark
I do indeed. One of the enticing things that we can offer companies looking to locate here is the excellence of our research and our science, whether it is in universities or, increasingly, in institutions such as catapults that help translate those skills into the wider market. Through our industrial strategy, we want to increase the focus on this very important area of strength, so that other firms can invest and see Britain as the go-to place for advanced manufacturing and for other sectors, too.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
The news about Nissan in the north-east is brilliant, but there are other strategic industries in the north-east of England. I include Hitachi Rail Europe in my constituency, which opened a £90 million factory last year, employing almost 1,000 people and hundreds more in the supply chain. Hitachi Rail Europe is here for the long term to have access to the European market. At the moment, it is building the Intercity Express Programme. Building the machines will take about three years, so it is here for the long term. In the spirit of this cross-party approach that the Secretary of State say he wants to take, will he meet me to see what we can do to ensure that the Japanese company will continue to invest in the north-east?
Greg Clark
I will indeed. In fact, I am meeting Hitachi tomorrow, and have the privilege of presenting an award at Asia House in commemoration of the very long and positive association that we have had with it. On one of my previous visits to Japan in this role, I had the great pleasure of meeting many of the Hitachi directors and seeing their innovation and their continued commitment to this country—very important.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The desperate search for a commercial bung in this announcement by some Members of the Opposition is, frankly, insulting to Britain, Japan, Nissan and Sunderland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than talking the country down, we should be celebrating the recent inward investment successes, not least from the far east, which demonstrate that the Government are living up to their commitment to making a success of Brexit?
Greg Clark
As I said earlier, it is unambiguously good news, and I hope that the whole House will welcome it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Many people in my North Durham constituency work at Nissan, so I warmly welcome the news and thank the Minister for his involvement. If he has done a special deal for Nissan, good. I just look forward to many more for the north-east companies that rely on exports.
Greg Clark
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. I do believe in being active and vigorous and in meeting companies and understanding the challenges that they face; I make no apology for that. My whole ministerial team will be active in securing investments for this country.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
This fantastic news makes us proud of British industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many factors make this country attractive to companies such as Nissan? A key one is our competitive rate of corporation tax. Will he ensure that in the coming autumn statement, our rate not only stays competitive, but perhaps gets even more competitive?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend needs to direct that request to the Chancellor—I will pass it on when I see my right hon. Friend in Cabinet tomorrow—but he is right to remind the House that there is a range of attributes and strengths that makes this country attractive to overseas and domestic investors. It is important that, across the whole range, we get them right.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. The news is extremely important to the north-east economy, including companies such as Nifco and Teesport in the Teesside area. Nissan is a massive buyer of strip steel in the United Kingdom. Earlier this year after the steel crisis, Nissan was hunting around for new suppliers, usually in the European Union, for that chain. We have had a disastrous experience in the north-east prior to this announcement, which stands in contrast to the SSI Redcar situation that has happened on this Government’s watch. Although it has taken six years for the Government to understand what new Labour-style industrial activism is, I very much welcome that and the statement today.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the backhanded compliment. I am not sure that I would agree that this is new Labour-style industrial activism. The hon. Gentleman will know that it was a Conservative Government 30 years ago who secured Nissan for the UK, and I am proud that it is a Conservative Government who have secured its future in Britain.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the announcement. Does he agree that the commitment from Nissan is good news not only for the north-east and Nissan’s direct employees, but for the supply chain companies and their employees across the country, such as those who work at Gestamp Tallent, which has a manufacturing plant in Cannock?
Greg Clark
I certainly do, and my hon. Friend is right to point out the wave of benefits across the economy, one example of which was given by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). The consequences of such positive news extend to other important sectors. That is why it is important that we should be active and vigorous in attracting these investments.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
This is an extremely welcome announcement, but there is a worry that it could be an isolated deal, rather than a clear strategy for the regions. When the situation is contrasted with the redundancies announced by DB Cargo UK in Doncaster, with Brexit being cited as one of the reasons, does it not point to why it is so important for the Government to conduct regional impact assessments of Brexit, and to publish them to demonstrate that there is a clearly though out strategy that will reflect the needs of regions, as well as sectors?
Greg Clark
It is nice to hear the right hon. Lady being able to speak from the Back Benches; she does so compellingly. As colleagues who know my interests in these matters would expect me to say, I believe that our regions, towns, cities and counties have an important role to play in our industrial strategy. I do not know whether she has been elected to the new Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, but I am sure she will be able to attend its sittings, because I hope that we will be discussing precisely this during the next few weeks.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is Offshore Wind Week, so will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming this fantastic news for Nissan and confirm that it will play a key role in a low-carbon future for British industry?
Greg Clark
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned that. One of the great opportunities in industrial strategy is to combine our world leadership in offshore wind renewable energy with our commanding position in the automotive sector, and to bring them together so that when it comes to electrical vehicles and battery storage, we can lead the world, which is what we intend to do.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State deserves credit for a significant and substantial achievement, but special deals for the car industry or the financial services sector offer little comfort to the thousands of small businesses the length and breadth of this country—which, incidentally, goes north of Newcastle—that depend on exports for their livelihood. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that these small businesses, which are the lifeblood of so many of our communities, get the same access to him and his Department as has clearly been given to the big boys in the multinationals?
Greg Clark
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman asks that question because one of my first visits as Secretary of State was to Aberdeen, where I had a very successful and important meeting with its chamber of commerce. Small businesses in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire were talking about what they wanted to achieve from the Brexit negotiations. I think that I am the first Secretary of State in the Department to have appointed Ministers with regional and national responsibilities in relation to the devolved Administrations, which reflects the importance of building small businesses and every part of the United Kingdom into the industrial strategy.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I welcome this positive and proactive approach. Has the Secretary of State had a chance to meet Honda to discuss future opportunities?
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I am glad that Nissan is continuing to invest in the north-east. Can the Minister give me in Liverpool some comfort—I would accept a letter—that I can pass on to Jaguar Land Rover, Getrag and the other automotive supply chain industries in my constituency to assure them that they will be treated in exactly the same way?
Greg Clark
I have been clear about maintaining the competitiveness of the automotive sector. The hon. Lady mentions some companies, and I am meeting Jaguar Land Rover again shortly—I meet it regularly. It is part of the development of our industrial strategy, and it is important that it should be. These are the companies, with their supply chain, that are succeeding and have contributed to our national success. We will work with them to build on that success and achieve even greater success in future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what is undoubtedly a huge personal achievement, and the people of the north-east on creating in the Sunderland plant a globally competitive powerhouse. Is not this deal a signal to those remainers who have become remoaners that they should recalibrate their doom and gloom and become far more optimistic about the future of this country outside the European Union?
Greg Clark
This is a day for celebration rather than debating such issues. We should all celebrate this big success, which shows that Britain is and can be competitive, and that some of the world’s biggest companies are backing us very vigorously.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State obviously said the right thing to Nissan. He knows that there are many manufacturing industries with international supply chains, such as Glaxo in my constituency, so when he is sitting in the Brexit Cabinet Sub-Committee, will he impress on his colleagues the value of staying in the customs union?
Greg Clark
The approach that I have set out across our economy is to meet those businesses that are part of my responsibility and to have sensible discussions so that I understand from them what they need. That informs our negotiating mandate. That is my commitment to all the businesses—large and small—that I meet.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
This announcement clearly shows the world that Britain is open for business. I hope that our supply chains will get a boost from this too, particularly UK steel. Will my right hon. Friend say a little about the wider involvement of the UK automobile sector in the forthcoming industrial strategy and how the announcement fits into that?
Greg Clark
I certainly will. With any industrial strategy, we should build on our strengths and not be complacent, but recognise that in order to continue to be strong, we need to look at the underlying conditions for promoting that. The presence of a vigorous supply chain is important for the automotive sector. It is important to be at the cutting edge of research and development, and to have skills in the workforce on which expanding companies can count in order to fulfil their order books. Those are all important enabling conditions, and the Government have a role to play by working with companies to make sure that they are all met.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the arrangement with Nissan is a one-off or part of a wider strategy to protect the economy from the impact of Brexit? If it is part of a wider strategy, what other businesses and organisations has he spoken to over the past few months on similar terms?
Greg Clark
It is certainly part of a strategy: it is part of our industrial strategy to make sure that Britain is competitive in the future, as it is now and it has been in the past. We are taking a strategic approach. As the hon. Lady might imagine, I meet businesses large and small almost every day of the week, and in all the conversations I have, we discuss what is important, what challenges they face and what their strategic ambition is, so that I can be informed about that.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Nissan decision and congratulate the Secretary of State on his role in securing it. I especially welcome his comments about research and development, and innovation. Given that the developing industry-university collaboration is crucial to that, as is the role of foreign students and researchers, what assurances did he give the industry that the Government will reverse the drop we have seen in the numbers applying?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that my discussions went broader than they did, but with everything I have said about research and development, our universities are key to that. As a former universities Minister, and now once again with responsibility for science, I will do everything I can to promote our research excellence and make sure it continues.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Universities in Scotland have warned of an exodus of talent if we do not have a long-term plan for EU nationals. What confirmation can the Secretary of State give that EU nationals will have a long-term future in this country?
Greg Clark
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be lots of opportunities to discuss other aspects of the negotiations we will have—I think there is even a debate next week on these matters.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I also welcome the announcement by Nissan and acknowledge the work of the Government, Unite the union, and others who were involved in this decision. One of the reassurances the Secretary of State mentioned related to support for the skills and training of the local workforce and for research. Does he expect any cuts in research and development and skills support from the EU to UK regions and businesses? What reassurances has he given that could also be applied to other sectors and regions to assure them that they will not lose out?
Greg Clark
As the hon. Lady knows, the Chancellor has already made a commitment to continue that European funding that has already been committed to but, of course, much of the support that we have given to training and skills development in the automotive sector is from our own resources, and one of the things that I was able to say was that we regard that as important and continuing.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
We know that there are attempts to do a deal for the City of London and we now know there is a deal for Nissan. At the same time, however, the Fraser of Allander Institute tells us there is a threat to 80,000 jobs in Scotland. Why is it that, when our First Minister comes down here, she is shown the door? There is a deal for Nissan, but there is no deal for Scotland from this Government.
Greg Clark
I have had the pleasure of meeting the First Minister at least twice since I took up this job. What I have said to her, personally and directly, is that, as we develop our industrial strategy, Scotland will have a big place in that. Of course it is important that all parts of the United Kingdom need to benefit from our industrial success in the future. The hon. Gentleman may know that, in terms of the city deals that have been negotiated between the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the various councils, we have, and I personally have—I think he would acknowledge this—a track record in making those discussions work.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I certainly welcome the news, and I am sure that the thousands of people who work at the Vauxhall car plant in my constituency would be equally delighted if a similar announcement could be made in due course. When the Secretary of State addressed the Chamber, he referred to different strategies for different industries, but does he also accept that, within the UK automotive sector, there are different challenges from plant to plant, and that a more specific approach may be needed from time to time? Will he agree to engage in an intimate dialogue with General Motors, as he has with Nissan?
Greg Clark
I am not sure I would describe the dialogue as intimate, but it was constructive at any rate. Of course I make that commitment to the hon. Gentleman.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Around 200,000 jobs in Wales are reportedly sustained by single market membership. With the UK Government so far picking the automotive and the financial sectors as their Brexit winners, how many of the aforementioned 200,000 Welsh jobs does the Secretary of State think will ultimately be safe after Brexit?
Greg Clark
We are at a point where we have not begun the negotiations with the European Union, much less concluded them, but the demeanour I think we should take is one of looking positively to find common ground and interests. That, always and everywhere, is the basis of a good deal—identifying that common ground and, through civility and patience, establishing relationships that can lead people to conclude something that is in their mutual interest. That seems to be a good way to approach these discussions.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
The Secretary of State said that employees of Nissan could look forward to careers filled with opportunity and success, yet millions of young people throughout the UK are looking at futures with significantly reduced opportunities as a result of Brexit. What reassurance can the Government give to young people about what they will do to protect those people’s futures?
Greg Clark
We have been discussing a fantastic new investment that not only will safeguard jobs in Nissan and across the country, through the supply chain, but will, no doubt—especially with more of the supply chain coming to locate in the United Kingdom—create new opportunities. Those opportunities will be for young people right across the country. There will be apprenticeships, traineeships and careers available that would not have happened if we had not secured this investment, so the hon. Gentleman should welcome it.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Nissan’s decision is brilliant news not only for the north-east, but for the whole UK. May I suggest to the Secretary of State that the exchange rate is a major and crucial factor in Britain’s competitiveness, and that maintaining an appropriate exchange rate is fundamental to future manufacturing success and investment? Will the Government be taking steps to make sure that the welcome depreciation of sterling since 23 June is maintained?
Greg Clark
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not targeted an exchange rate for some time. That policy is, first, not my remit and, secondly, not the way we approach the economy. However, it is true that there are many contributors to the competitiveness of the economy. What I need to do, and what I will do, is to take those things over which I do have influence and make them work for Britain.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Nissan announcement is not, of course, the only announcement of a good investment decision in the UK since the referendum. From GlaxoSmithKline to McDonald’s, thousands of jobs have been created, despite the predictions of the doom-mongers on the referendum deniers’ side. The Minister has indicated that he will take a sector-by-sector approach. Does he also reckon that there needs to be a region-by-region approach, and what plans does he have to meet the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland to discuss the problems there?
Greg Clark
I have already met the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland and had a very constructive discussion with him. I had that discussion to invite him to help us as we develop our industrial strategy so that it includes an appreciation of the different needs of different places to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I welcome the news that so many jobs in Sunderland will be protected from the consequences of Brexit but, as an Edinburgh MP, it is Edinburgh jobs that I have to think about. Many thousands of my constituents are employed directly or indirectly in Edinburgh’s financial sector, and Edinburgh’s economy is more reliant on financial services than that of any other city in the UK, including London. These people are worried about the consequences of losing their EU passport. Will the Minister give me a guarantee that he will advocate a special deal for Edinburgh in Cabinet?
Greg Clark
Of course financial services are of huge importance to our economy—to the UK economy and to the economy in Edinburgh. We need to make sure that, in all areas, we get the best possible deal by finding areas of common ground and negotiating constructively, through relationships that we have built up with our counterparts in the European Union, during the months and years ahead. That is the approach that we will take, and it is the approach that is most likely to succeed.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
On Friday, I am due to visit the Ford engine plant in my constituency, along with my local Assembly Member, Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of Wales. Can we be assured that we will be talking to Ford on the same lines as have been very successfully negotiated in relation to Nissan, and that the 2,000 jobs at the Ford plant and in the wider economy will also be secure following today’s statement?
Greg Clark
I do not know what the hon. Lady is going to say to Ford, but I hope that she will reinforce the messages that I have given in saying that the Government want to maintain the competitiveness of the whole automotive sector. We want to build on the strengths that it has in every part of the United Kingdom, including in her constituency, so that it can prosper in the future. I hope that that will be welcomed.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
As a former Labour Minister with responsibility for the automotive sector, I welcomed the investment by Nissan for the manufacture of the electric Leaf vehicle in Sunderland, although I did not give a statement from the Dispatch Box at the time because that was probably less of a surprise. How will the Secretary of State secure attendance in the emissions regulation discussions that are so vital to the low-carbon future of the UK automotive sector?
Greg Clark
They are indeed vital, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman makes that point. One of the advantages of having responsibilities for energy and climate change within the business and industrial strategy set of responsibilities is that these conversations can be joined up. The Minister for Climate Change and Industry and I share an interest in making sure that we maintain our leadership in green technology to the great advantage of our industrial future.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
How many of these unique, one-off, special, individual deals will have to be negotiated before the Brexit process is complete, and how many will it take before the Government realise that the better option for everyone would be to live up to their manifesto promise and keep us in the single market?
Greg Clark
It was not clear from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks whether he welcomes this deal, which has been a good conclusion to our discussions with Nissan. I would say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if we all approach the prospect of investment—either by domestic companies or overseas investors—positively, try to understand what companies need, and make sure that the economy provides the backdrop, whether in skills, infrastructure or research and development, to keep us competitive, we can all prosper together.
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]
Monday 31st October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 View all Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 65KB) - (2 Sep 2016)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to introduce this Bill to the House. We have waited a long time to be able to ratify the 1954 Hague convention and accede to its two protocols. The need for this Bill is paramount. In recent months, we have seen the wanton destruction of cultural heritage in the middle east and north Africa. These tragic events are a reminder of how vital it is that the UK ratifies this convention and makes a strong statement about the importance we place on protecting cultural heritage. We fully endorse the steps taken at the International Criminal Court to prosecute war crimes relating to cultural destruction in Mali.
Heritage, monuments and cultural artefacts are part of what makes a country great, educating and inspiring people, and bringing them together as a nation. Sir Peter Luff, chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund, was once told, “History is what you learn about in schools; heritage is about who you are and where you come from”. We are lucky to have a highly professional and dedicated heritage and museum sector that works extremely hard to preserve our heritage and bring the story of our history to life. This work helps attract visitors to our shores too. We also have a duty to help protect the culture and heritage of other countries, for they are part of our shared inheritance as human beings.
Many in this House have called on successive Governments to pass this legislation since a commitment to do so was first made in 2004. I would like to make special mention of my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for their passionate advocacy. This Bill has already been subject to comprehensive pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill published in 2008 was expertly scrutinised by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am delighted that the Secretary of State is introducing this Bill today. Her points about destruction will have been brought home to everybody when Palmyra was destroyed very recently. Can she assure the House that after the 62 years we have waited since we signed the treaty, there will not be another 62 years until the Government bring it into effect?
Karen Bradley
I hope that we will get through this evening’s proceedings and the Committee stage with great speed, and that we will therefore have Royal Assent very shortly.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee heard evidence from a variety of experts and stakeholders. The Committee warmly welcomed the Bill, and we carefully considered the recommendations made in its report.
The Bill is part of a wide package of measures that this Government have brought in to protect cultural heritage and become an international leader in this field. Earlier this year, we launched a cultural protection fund that is being administered by the British Council. Over the next four years, organisations will be encouraged to apply to this £30 million fund to support projects that will foster, safeguard and protect cultural heritage, particularly in global conflict zones.
In early 2014, the Army established a joint military cultural property protection working group that has been examining all issues concerning military cultural property protection. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed that the armed forces would establish a military cultural property protection unit. The Ministry of Defence is considering what this unit might look like, taking into account international best practice. As the convention is likely to become an international treaty obligation by early 2017, the MOD anticipates that the recruitment of specialist Army reserves will start in the near future.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. Six years has been a long wait, but it has been well worth it, and we have now got there. Is it not ironic that part of the topicality of this Bill, and the reason for people’s enthusiasm for it, comes from seeing the horrors of Daesh in Syria and elsewhere, yet it does not fully cover the activities of Daesh because it covers only unlawfully exported cultural property from occupied territories? Without being too greedy, are the Government supportive of looking at future conventions to try to make sure that Daesh comes within the provisions, although the Iraqi and Syrian sanction orders cover the gap?
Karen Bradley
I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in campaigning on this issue. He rightly identifies the fact that sanctions regimes are in place regarding the Iraqi and Syrian conflicts, and touches on the question of Daesh’s standing in international legal circles. We must take great care that we do not deal with one wrong by creating more wrongs elsewhere, but I am happy to write to him about the specifics of the issue.
The convention was prompted by the widespread destruction and looting of cultural property in the second world war. It defines cultural property as movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments, works of art, or buildings whose main purpose is to contain such cultural property. The definition is broad and the list of examples is not exhaustive. As well as traditional works of art, the definition could also include, as was made clear during discussions in the other place, modern or digital types of cultural property such as very rare or unique film or recorded music.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
On cultural property, I know that the Bill does not cover this issue, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have a discussion about religious and ethnic culture, including languages, poetry and other forms of art and heritage that have for so long been ignored but that are now being destroyed in Iraq? The Mandaeans in northern Iraq and the Yazidis in eastern Syria are struggling to keep any form of culture at all.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but he will accept that it is beyond the convention and, therefore, the Bill.
The first protocol requires parties to seize cultural property that has been illegally exported from an occupied territory and to return it at the end of hostilities. The second protocol sets out violations that are to be made criminal offences and provides an enhanced protection regime for cultural property.
The UK signed the convention in 1954, but decided not to ratify because its terminology was considered to be insufficiently clear and it did not provide an effective regime for the protection of cultural property. The 1999 second protocol removed those concerns, and in 2004 the Government of the day announced their intention to ratify.
The ways in which we will implement the specific obligations of the convention and its protocols generated a great deal of interest in the other place. We have been looking carefully at implementation, particularly considering what categories of cultural property should be afforded general protection under the convention in the UK.
A previous Administration undertook a consultation on implementation of the convention and its protocols in 2005. Although the majority of the findings set out in the 2006 response to the consultation remain relevant, we will also hold discussions with key stakeholders, including from the devolved Administrations and from agencies, to ensure that those conclusions are up to date.
The Bill will introduce the domestic legislation necessary for the UK to meet the obligations contained in the convention and its two protocols. Part 2 makes it an offence to commit a serious violation of the second protocol to the convention either in the UK or abroad. The Bill also makes provision to ensure that ancillary offences committed abroad can be prosecuted and that commanders and superiors can be held responsible in appropriate circumstances.
Following debate in the other place, we made a minor and technical change to ensure that the Bill’s provisions relating to ancillary offences have the intended effect in Scotland. That amendment was tabled by the Government following consultation with the Crown Office and the Scottish Government.
We have also changed the headings of part 2 and clause 3 by replacing the word “breach” with “violation”. Concern was expressed in the other place that there was a lack of consistency between the language of the Bill and the second protocol, and we made that change to address that. I am grateful to Professor Roger O’Keefe of University College London for his work on that particular point and on the Bill as a whole. I appreciate all the advice and feedback that we have received from experts in the field, which has been invaluable in shaping the Bill.
The maximum penalty for those offences is 30 years. It is important to emphasise that that is a maximum penalty, and it will be for the courts to decide the appropriate penalty in any particular case. It is critical that the penalty reflects the seriousness of the violations of the second protocol and that it is consistent with other penalties for related offences.
Part 3 recognises in UK law the blue shield—the distinctive blue and white emblem created by the convention, which is viewed by many as the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross. The emblem will be used to identify cultural property that is protected under the convention, as well as the people tasked with protecting it. The blue shield will be protected from misuse by making its unauthorised use an offence.
Part 4 implements measures to deal with cultural property that has been unlawfully exported from occupied territory.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Clause 17 states:
“It is an offence for a person to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property, knowing or having reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported.”
There could be an unreasonable reason. Will the Government be open to suggestions to improve the Bill so that people are not unwittingly caught by the law?
Karen Bradley
That concern has been raised with me outside this place by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the previous Secretary of State, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). The issue was not raised substantively in the other place but I understand that there are concerns, so the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), and I will meet concerned parliamentarians, with officials, to make sure that we have comfort in this regard. It is important that we are clear that the Bill will not hamper the way in which the art market operates.
It is important to note that part 4 applies only to cultural property that has been unlawfully exported from an occupied territory after 1956, when the convention and first protocol came into force. Clause 17, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has mentioned, creates a new offence of dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property. That offence applies only to unlawfully exported cultural property that is imported into the UK after the commencement of the Bill, which ensures that the Bill will have no retrospective application.
Scrupulous dealers have no reason to fear prosecution or increased business costs under the Bill.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept, though, that, regardless of whether an item is legal or not, if a country falls into a war situation, suspicion will fall on every item of property that would previously have been dealt with perfectly legally?
Karen Bradley
I do not think that that will happen, and it is certainly not the Bill’s intention, but I am happy, together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to speak to colleagues and to spend time with officials to make sure that we are all satisfied. We all want The Hague convention to be brought into UK law—62 years is too long. We want to get on with it, but also to make sure that we do so in a way that satisfies parliamentarians and means they are happy that it will deliver the desired effect.
Although dealers will need to satisfy themselves through due diligence that there is no reasonable cause to suspect that objects presented for sale have been unlawfully exported from an occupied territory, existing codes of conduct already oblige dealers not to import, export or transfer the ownership of objects where they have reasonable cause to believe that the object has been exported in violation of another country’s laws. Dealers will not be required to carry out any further due diligence beyond that which they should already be conducting. In order to commit an offence, a dealer must deal in an object knowing, or having reason to suspect, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has pointed out, that it has been unlawfully exported. If a dealer takes temporary possession of an object for the purposes of carrying out due diligence or providing valuations, they will not be dealing in that object, because they will not be acquiring the object.
The rest of part 4 outlines the circumstances in which unlawfully exported cultural property would be liable to forfeiture, and creates the necessary new powers of entry, search, seizure and forfeiture. Part 5 provides immunity from seizure or forfeiture for cultural property that is being transported to the UK, or through the UK to another destination, for safekeeping during an armed conflict.
Finally, part 6 ensures that if an offence under the Bill is committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of a company or Scottish partnership—for example, directors of private military contractors—that officer will be guilty of an offence, as well as the company or partnership.
There is already a legal framework in place that is designed to tackle the illicit trade in cultural property. The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, the Theft Act 1968 and the Syria and Iraq sanctions orders enable the UK to take action where authorities suspect that individuals might be engaged in illicit trade. The Bill helps to strengthen that framework in relation to cultural property that has been taken illegally from occupied territories.
In addition to enabling prosecution, the existing legislation also has an important deterrent effect, sending out the message that the UK will not tolerate any illicit trade in cultural property. As well as providing teeth that can be used when required, the Bill will strengthen that deterrent effect.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that I greatly support this Bill. She is talking about enforcement and greater teeth for the legislation. Why does she think there has been only one prosecution in this country since the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003? Should we not have done better by now?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend helps to make the point about the deterrent effect of the legislation. It is deterring dealers from taking cultural property that has been stolen from occupied territory. Clearly, law enforcement and others need to understand the legislation, the offences and the action that can be taken in order that prosecutions can be brought if there is evidence that a crime has been committed.
On passing the Bill, the UK will be the first permanent member of the UN Security Council to become a party to the convention and its two protocols. Given with the other initiatives we have set in motion in this area, we will have ensured, in the strongest terms possible, that the UK will be a champion for cultural protection in times of peace and war alike. I commend the Bill to the House.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading, and I thank the Secretary of State for her introduction. As she said, the Bill has been a long time coming, as it will enable the 1954 Hague convention to be ratified. It has taken only 62 years. Back in 1954, Winston Churchill was Conservative Prime Minister; Gaitskell, I think—my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will correct me if I am wrong—was leader of the Labour party; and the Liberals had only six seats in Parliament, so some things do not change too much even over 62 years.
The destruction and theft of cultural heritage goes back long before 1954 and even before the second world war, the events of which triggered the Hague convention in the first place. Hon. Members will remember that in 1700 BC the Assyrians invaded Mesopotamia—now called Ramadi and Falluja in Iraq—stole the stone gods of the Arab tribes and took them back to Nineveh to force the Arabs to negotiate to get their gods back. It is a sad fact that the treatment of cultural artefacts in exactly those locations has progressed so little in the intervening 3,500 years. Indeed, it is worse now because of the destructive potential of modern weapons of war.
The previous Labour Government, as the Secretary of State pointed out, put the ratification of the Hague convention on the political agenda in 2004 and published a draft Bill in 2008, which was scrutinised by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Unfortunately, the Bill ran out of time, but we are pleased to see that the Government agree on the importance of protecting cultural property and of making that priority known to the international community by introducing the Bill. We hope that the principles of mutual respect and co-operation will permeate all Government policies from now on.
Cultural property is targeted because it matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is in her place, campaigned effectively—as did other hon. Members whom the Secretary of State mentioned—for the Government to introduce the Bill. As my hon. Friend has written,
“art, statues, architecture—these aren’t societies’ frills, but a fundamental part of the fabric.”
She is not alone in that belief. It is shared even by those whose first priorities might lie, correctly, elsewhere. Michael Meyer, head of international law at the Red Cross, has said:
“Why is the Red Cross worried about buildings and books when human lives are usually our focus? I will always argue that a human life is more valuable than a cultural object. But culture is essential to one’s identity. It’s an important factor for communities and nations.”
Karen Bradley
I want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). I failed to do so in my opening remarks, and I wanted to get that on the record.
Kevin Brennan
I thank the Secretary of State for doing so. It is characteristically generous of her, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House are grateful.
The Hague convention is based on the consensus that cultural property, moveable and immoveable, is central to identity. Such items embody a society’s past and encapsulate its ideas and often its ideals. Because of the consensus on the importance of cultural property, attacks on it in recent armed conflicts have drawn the attention of the international media. Daesh’s destruction of Palmyra and al-Qaeda’s demolition of mosques and mausoleums in Timbuktu have, quite rightly, sparked international outrage. For those who live in areas of armed conflict, the destruction of cultural property adds another layer of pain to the process of recovery in terms of both money and morale. Cultural property is a precious resource. When conflicts are over, monuments and their equivalents are key to kick-starting tourist-related industries, so cultural property can be crucial to economic regeneration.
Tom Tugendhat
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although Daesh brutality is obvious in places such as Palmyra, a more common example might be the golden mosque in Samarra, or the ethnic cleansing and the destruction of churches in places such as Mosul? Does he agree that cultural destruction often goes in hand with forms of ethnic cleansing, whether religious or sectarian?
Kevin Brennan
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Palmyra was visited each year prior to 2011 by 150,000 tourists, and a UNESCO mission to the site in April this year found that the triumphal arch and the temple of Bel had been smashed to smithereens. In such circumstances, preserving and sometimes restoring as much as possible of these ancient structures is crucial to rebuilding. The Bill aims to provide the ways and means to allow states to do so.
In that respect, the offences and subsequent sanctions created by the Bill for damaging cultural property are particularly welcome, as is the introduction of immunity from seizure for cultural property that is being moved to or through the United Kingdom from an area of armed conflict for safekeeping. It is important to note that the UK armed forces already abide by the terms in the Bill and respect cultural property during conflict. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill shows that their behaviour would need to change very little as a result of the introduction of the Bill. However, ratifying the 1954 convention would send a clear signal to the international community of what we already know at home: that the preservation of cultural property is a priority for the United Kingdom.
As I have mentioned, there are consequences for morale as well as for money when monuments are destroyed and when stone is turned to sand. When it comes to art and architecture, we expect continuity and longevity—a bridge between what was and what will be. Hon. Members will be familiar with the words of John Keats, who wrote about a Grecian urn:
“When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man”.
Just as preserving culture is about projecting pride and history, so the destruction of cultural property is bound up in power and subjugation. Hon. Members might have seen an interview that was given to the BBC by Mirza Hussain last year. In 2001, when he was 26, the Taliban took over his city in Afghanistan and ordered him to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan. The Buddhas were up to 55 metres tall and were carved into a cliff face in the sixth century, but the Taliban believed that they were idols.
Among a group of prisoners, Mirza was fed very little, left freezing cold at night and saw his fellow prisoner shot. He was then forced to detonate trucks of dynamite below the Buddhas, and when that did not work, two or three explosions were carried out every day until the Buddhas were destroyed. He said:
“We drilled holes into the statue to plant the dynamite. We didn’t have proper tools. The whole process took 25 days.”
He went on to say:
“I regretted it at that time, I regret it now and I will always regret it. But I could not resist, I didn’t have a choice because they would have killed me.”
I am sure that that will bring to hon. Members’ minds the tragic death of Khaled al-Asaad, the archaeologist who had worked at Palmyra for 40 years and was brutally murdered by Daesh in August last year at the age of 82 for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of Palmyra’s treasures.
That leads me to one of the central concerns about the Bill. We will support it on Second Reading tonight and throughout its later stages. However, although the Bill has been brought forward in the context of the aftermath of the destruction of cultural treasures in recent conflicts, it does not, as I understand it, cover the actions I have described because they were carried out by occupying forces that are not recognised states. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the Bill will not necessarily prevent extremists from intimidating people into complying. In her response to the debate, will she tell us whether that comes within the Bill’s scope or powers?
Tim Loughton
I am genuinely impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of Mesopotamian and other archaeology. Indeed, his own party’s Ed stone at the last election could be seen as an homage to the stele of Hammurabi, the great lawgiver of Mesopotamia in the 18th century BC. I want to query his last point, because it may well take another change to the UNESCO convention to take into account the modern phenomena of ISIL and other terrorist groups. Would he support our negotiating internationally to try to get the law brought up to date?
Kevin Brennan
I am sure that the whole House would welcome any measures that were negotiated internationally to cover these horrific crimes. In speaking for the Opposition, I am sure that we would support the Government should they seek to negotiate further international agreements to that effect.
I am conscious of the fact that the Bill will bring the 1954 convention into UK law, as well as give effect to the 1954 and 1998 protocols. In that sense, it is limited in its scope. It is important to point out on Second Reading that, although we all understand the context in which the issue has become more and more pressing in recent years, particularly in relation to what has been going on in modern Iraq—ancient Mesopotamia—and modern Syria, the Bill cannot deal with the perpetrators of such crimes. We may be able to deal with such crimes in other ways. For example, if UK citizens engaged in this activity went to fight on the side of Daesh in Syria, they might well be caught—I am sure that they would be—by other aspects of UK law, but that does not mean that the penalties available would be the same as those available under the convention in the Bill, including the possibility of a 30-year jail sentence for any breaches.
Chris Bryant
We have focused on trying to stop further outrages. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Museum plays an absolutely vital role—not only in this country, but in modern Iraq and Syria—in trying to protect many Mesopotamian antiquities? Indeed, the British Museum was in closer contact than anybody else with those who were summarily executed.
While we are being nice to Government Members, will my hon. Friend congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on the fact that, from the moment he arrived in the House, he has pursued this issue?
Kevin Brennan
It would my pleasure to do so, and it is always nice, as well, to hear my hon. Friend being nice to Government Members.
As I have said, the Bill has been introduced in the context of such events, but it is important to note what it will and will not do. It will not necessarily prevent extremists from intimidating people into complying in the way that Mirza was intimidated into doing in Afghanistan. However, we welcome the ratification of the 1954 convention. It is part of an international project to ensure that we are not faced with gaping craters where great statues once stood. When she sums up, will the Minister be absolutely clear about what the Bill does and does not cover, so that there can be no doubt?
My hon. Friend mentioned the British Museum, which is a wonderful institution. If we are candid, however, we should recognise that our own hands are not necessarily entirely historically clean in relation to the removal of cultural property. That occurred in Britain’s colonial history, and it was used to build British wealth and power at the direct expense of colonised nations. Recent speculation concerning the repatriation of the Parthenon marbles to Greece, as well as campaigns to return the Koh-i-noor diamond to India and the Benin bronze cockerel to Nigeria, shows that the removal of cultural property reverberates through the centuries. I notice that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is shaking his head.
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman is revisiting an old canard. Will he not just acknowledge that, for example, the Elgin marbles would not exist had they not been saved by the people who endowed the British Museum? The British Museum is a world museum. It is visited by 7 million people, which is substantially more than the number who visit the Parthenon in Athens. These treasures of the world can be seen in the best possible context, rather than decontextualised and open only to the few who would have to pay an admission fee elsewhere.
Kevin Brennan
I will not get into a lengthy debate about the wheres and the what happens.
Kevin Brennan
I have spent my whole life starting fights and then running away from them. That is what happens when you are quite small.
Occasionally, when we get on our high horse about these things, we should remember that there have been times during the course of history when we have removed cultural property from others during warfare and, indeed, when we have destroyed cultural property. The convention applies only to events after 1954, so we fortunately do not have to revisit all those times in too much detail; otherwise, before we knew it, we would have SNP Members going on about the Stone of Scone.
Kevin Brennan
I think the hon. Gentleman is going to mention that in his speech.
In that light, the particular attention paid in part 4 of the Bill to the export of property from occupied territory is especially important. With Britain’s history in mind, the ratification of the first protocol could be said to indicate that we have at least learned something from any past transgressions and that the UK is committed to supporting other states in avoiding that sort of event.
I understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that no one has ever been charged with the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. That brings me to some of the technical concerns about the Bill. Will the Minister say how, if at all, The Hague convention would apply to the conflict in Afghanistan and other such recent conflicts? Likewise, there are concerns that a convention written in the 1950s, of which the most recent component—the second protocol—was drawn up in the relatively early years of the internet, will not sufficiently protect cultural property in digital form. We have come a long way from the days of Keats’ Grecian urn. The success of the landmark legal case against Uber on Friday is part of an ongoing effort to bring legislation up to date in relation to digital advancements, and the Government must bear that in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and I have been busy working away in Committee on the Digital Economy Bill, which is meant to update legislation to reflect the digital revolution.
Lord Stevenson raised that issue during this Bill’s Committee stage in the Lords in relation to how cultural property is defined, and he received assurances from the Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, that the wording was “flexible enough” to encompass technological advancements. If the Minister is willing to do so in her summing up, will she reinforce that reassurance that digital formats will equally be protected and included in the Bill’s definition of cultural property? As the convention dates from 1954, some of the definitions may seem slightly arcane, but some of the finest cultural objects in this country are things such as the archive of the British Film Institute—I have visited it—which can only be described as an absolute treasure trove of this country’s culture. Confirmation from the Government that such cultural artefacts are covered by the Bill, in bringing the convention into UK law, would be very helpful.
I want to ask one or two questions about how joined-up the thinking is. During the Second Reading debate in the Lords, Lord Redesdale mentioned the Ministry of Defence’s plans to create a squad of monuments men—and, presumably, women as well—whose focus would be to safeguard cultural property during armed conflicts. As I understand it, they would be soldiers with archaeology qualifications and the like. Meanwhile, the Department for Education has been campaigning against so-called soft subjects, leading to exam boards ending archaeology, art history and classical civilisation A-levels. The AQA explained its decision to cut A-level archaeology as follows:
“Our number one priority is making sure every student gets the result they deserve…the complex and specialist nature of the exams creates too many risks on that front”—
I am not sure how not offering an exam in a subject will make it any less specialist than it already is. On history of art, the AQA stated that the decision had nothing to do with the importance of the subject and
“won’t stop students going on to do a degree in it”.
That logic seems flawed to me. But it does not make a pretty picture overall, let alone a masterpiece, to have the Ministry of Defence wanting more soldiers with knowledge of art history and archaeology and the Department for Education cutting those same subjects from our classrooms, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is ratifying conventions and proclaiming that a national priority.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is making a very fine speech, but had he spent any time in an officers’ mess, he would realise that art history surrounds people, archaeology is what they are equipped with and history of culture is often what they are eating. I do not feel that there is a need for much more qualification than that.
Kevin Brennan
I have spent a lot less time in officers’ messes than the hon. Gentleman, but I have spent a lot of time in the classroom as a teacher. The loss of those subjects undermines the Government’s stated aims. I will make this next point very carefully, but it seems to me that it should not only be those who have had access to those subjects through private education, who may well form a disproportionate number of officers in the armed forces—[Interruption.] I will allow the hon. Gentleman to correct me that score, but it should not be only those people who qualify for these jobs in the monuments squad that the MOD says is necessary and wants to recruit. Will the Minister therefore indicate which policy is the outlier? I am sure that she will produce a very creative argument to explain everything to the House.
I have outlined some of the issues that need to be clarified, but we support the principles behind the Bill because they firmly chime with our own. At the core of the convention is the belief that we must co-operate to promote human wellbeing. The 1954 convention states that
“damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world”.
The Labour party has championed those beliefs throughout our history—that everyone is entitled to their culture and heritage and their right to express it, that the success of one is tied to that of all society and that we must work in solidarity with each other because we are all the better for it when we do so.
Given the unfortunate and occasionally ugly tone of political discourse in recent times, the Bill is a welcome reminder of internationalist values and shared civilisation and culture. We have had an increase in attacks since the Brexit vote. In that context, the Bill recognises the importance of preserving our collective past and cultures and the fact that that is now more important than ever, whatever someone’s heritage and background.
The Bill is a signal to the international community not just of our national priorities but of the UK’s remaining willingness to co-operate on an international scale and a recognition that we can often enact change better together. It gives welcome hope that, although occasionally some Government rhetoric may shrink towards little England, Britain still has great aspirations to play a leading role in a rules-based world. The Bill may not be controversial, but it is a small beacon showing that the Government recognise that division is not the way forward, that we have more to gain through co-operation internationally and that we should extend to Syrian people fleeing conflict and seeking refuge the same respect that we give to their ancient architecture and monuments. We will not oppose the Bill; rather we hope the principles behind it will permeate through the Government’s principles.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I am delighted to welcome the Bill’s Second Reading. As has been pointed out, this is a Bill we have welcomed in the past; indeed, I chaired the Select Committee that considered the draft Bill in 2008, when we subjected it to pre-legislative scrutiny. At the time, we very much welcomed the Government’s intention to introduce it. We pointed out that then it was 55 years since the adoption of The Hague convention and that 118 countries had already signed it. Another eight years have passed since then, and I am proud that the Bill should finally go on to the statute book under a Conservative Government in their second Session in office.
When we took evidence, it was pointed out to us that there had been some examples of damage to heritage assets during the course of the Iraq war, particularly some in the city of Babel, that may have been caused by coalition forces. Although that was obviously not deliberate, it highlighted the importance of stressing the need to protect cultural assets.
Chris Bryant
I have a specific question on cluster munitions. The right hon. Gentleman just used the words “not deliberate” in reference to the fact that often some cultural objects are destroyed in war. Cluster munitions can be so indiscriminate and they spread across a wide area, and so their use is one reason why cultural objects are often destroyed. Is it not incumbent on us now as a country, having given up cluster munitions ourselves, to try to persuade all our allies to do the same?
Mr Whittingdale
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point. All signatories to the convention should certainly do their utmost to prevent damage to cultural assets and assets that have been identified as culturally important. I would therefore expect our allies who are signatories to adopt that approach as much as we do.
As has already been raised, however, there is a huge gulf between what may have happened as a result of actions by forces in the Iraq war and what we have seen being carried out by Daesh in Syria in recent years, in Palmyra in particular but in other places as well. The first priority has to be the humanitarian crisis and preventing loss of life, but the destruction of cultural assets is hugely damaging. As has been said, they are part of the history and national identity of a people. They are also, potentially, part of their salvation, for when conflict comes to an end cultural assets can represent economic assets from which one can rebuild an economy by attracting people to visit.
Cultural assets are also part of the world’s heritage, and we all have a duty to do our utmost to safeguard that heritage. For that reason, I was delighted when the Government established the cultural protection fund, worth £30 million, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), Chancellor of the Exchequer when the fund was established, and the Education Secretary, who was then Secretary of State for International Development, for their part in agreeing to that, as a large part of the fund can be classified as international aid. I also pay tribute to Neil MacGregor—he has already been mentioned—who was the driving force for the establishment of the fund. He and I launched it together, and, as the director of the British Museum at the time, he took responsibility for the first phase, a £3 million fund administered by the British Museum to send archaeologists into Iraq to advise and help in restoration where damage had taken place.
I was also immensely privileged to meet Dr Maamoun Abdulkarim, who is director-general of antiquities in Syria. He was the boss of Khaled al-Asaad, whom the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned. Dr Abdulkarim described the courage shown by his colleague, who did not wish to divulge where very valuable artefacts had been concealed and as a result was beheaded by Daesh.
The question of whether Daesh comes under the definition of occupying forces has already been raised. Even if it did, one has to admit that it seems unlikely that the passage of an Act will prevent it from carrying out such horrific atrocities. But it will send a very important signal. It will also have an effect on our own forces.
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Although I appreciate his point that the Bill is unlikely to dissuade Daesh from its actions, it may affect its ability to support itself financially, because one of the ways in which it currently fills its coffers is by selling looted artefacts.
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Most of the attention has been on wilful destruction, but he is absolutely right that the trade provides finance to Daesh. We must do everything we can to stamp that out, which is why I support the principle that it should be unlawful to deal in illegally exported cultural property.
I pay tribute to the efforts already made by the Ministry of Defence and commanders in the field to abide by the terms of the convention, even when it was not ratified. When the Committee took evidence from the MOD, it said it would review and strengthen the commitment it had already given that training should take account of the absolute priority of abiding by the requirements of the convention.
The Committee heard concern about one aspect of the Bill: the offence of dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property. The first concern was about the definition of occupied territories. At the time, we were told that it was a very narrow definition, or that only a narrow group of countries or territories could be considered to be occupied. In 2008, the regulatory impact assessment identified the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and the west bank. Unfortunately since that time, the list of occupied countries has grown—I draw attention to Crimea. For the purposes of certainty for those dealing in cultural objects, it would help if we clarified exactly which territories we consider to be occupied.
The more serious concern related to clause 17, which makes it an offence
“to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property, knowing or having reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported.”
As has been pointed out by the legal advisers, there is a huge difference between “having reason to suspect” and “to suspect”, which is causing concern. If the definition of the offence covers “reason to suspect”, it gets into mens rea, as I understand lawyers call it. I will leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) to say more on that subject with considerably greater expertise.
The issue was flagged up for the Committee when we looked at the Bill eight years ago, which is why we suggested a clearer requirement of dishonesty. That is what currently applies in the Theft Act 1968, which carries a penalty of seven years, and in the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, which also carries a penalty of seven years. The Bill introduces a penalty of seven years, and therefore it seems reasonable to ask that the same threshold should be required. I am delighted to hear from the Secretary of State that she is aware of that concern and will have further discussions.
Kevin Brennan
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Is he aware how many people have been convicted under the 2003 Act? My understanding is that the number is very low, and perhaps even zero.
Mr Whittingdale
That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) earlier. The fact that there have been no convictions does not necessarily imply that the Act is not working—it is important to have it on the statute book. I do not believe that this country is full of dodgy art dealers who wilfully ignore the law and deal in plainly illegally exported objects.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
Nor should we go around lowering the threshold in order to scoop up innocent people.
Mr Whittingdale
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a perfectly valid point and I agree with him. The art market is determined and supports the Bill. The last thing it wants is for this country to become a place where people can deal in unlawfully exported objects. It is worth bearing in mind that the market is hugely competitive and the third biggest in the world—it was worth something like £9 billion in sales in 2014. I would not like to see it inadvertently put at a disadvantage compared with other markets around the globe. I hope the Government bear that in mind. As I have said, I very much welcome their commitment.
Mr Whittingdale
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have finished my speech.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Scottish National party Members and the Scottish Government very much welcome the Bill and the purpose it serves. The Government can be assured of our support in getting this much needed legislation through Parliament so that we put in place the necessary domestic legislation to enable the UK to ratify The Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, and to accede to both the 1954 and the 1999 protocols.
I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) that a 1954 convention that was last updated in 1999 may lack understanding of what is required in the 21st century, particularly the need to deal with the role of non-state actors in modern conflict in the destruction of cultural heritage. With that caveat, SNP Members are firmly of the opinion that, no matter where it is located in the world, we all benefit from a rich and diverse historical and cultural heritage, and that every effort must be made to protect it in a time of war—and, indeed, at all times. Although there has been widespread parliamentary support for that, going back many years, time has never been found—for whatever reason—to introduce primary legislation to ensure that the UK can fully meet its obligations as set out in the convention and subsequent protocols. Many hon. Members have said that the Bill has been a long time coming—it has been 62 years—and I fear that, had it been delayed any longer, it would be almost as old as some of the artefacts it is designed to protect.
We welcome the fact that that wrong is about to be put right, and that very soon the United Kingdom will join many other nations in tightening up its domestic law on the protection of cultural property in a time of conflict. I happily acknowledge that, despite the Government not ratifying the convention, UK armed forces fully comply with it during military operations, and recognise the blue shield—the emblem that identifies cultural property protected under the convention and protocols. In ratifying the convention and protocol, the UK will formalise the responsibility of its troops when they are operating in armed conflict overseas.
In 2008, when the subject was last debated in Parliament, one of the main concerns was whether such a Bill would constrain our troops on military operations by limiting their freedom to protect themselves should they come under fire from opposing forces based in a museum or holy place of worship. Back then, the Ministry of Defence appeared to be confident that the passage of the Bill would not be problematic. I was pleased when the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), repeated last year that the cultural property convention is upheld across the armed forces. We know that they currently act within the spirit of the convention and are fully compliant with their own statute. Given that the Ministry of Defence was so relaxed about the consequences of ratifying the convention—the ’54 protocol and the ’99 protocol—last year, I trust that nothing has happened to change its view.
If anything, that view should have hardened as the stories and images of the wanton destruction by Daesh of some of the world’s greatest and most important heritage sites in Iraq, Libya and Syria have become widespread. The destruction of temples, churches and mosques, as well as the ancient cities of Palmyra and Nimrud, can be seen only as deliberate and calculated attempts to erase our collective human experience. They were unspeakable and barbaric attacks on thousands of years of human progress and civilisation.
UNESCO director-general Irina Bokova was right when she branded the activities of Daesh as
“a form of cultural cleansing”.
What Daesh is doing, in willfully desecrating and pillaging the artefacts in those sites, is a shameful and inexcusable crime against all of humanity. But let us be clear, not everything that Daesh is doing can be dismissed as simply malicious vandalism or an attempt to eradicate all traces of a pre-Islamic civilisation, as there is irrefutable evidence that when Daesh seizes a new city, one of its first acts is to plunder the museums and cultural sites for artefacts to raise much needed cash. Its looting of priceless artefacts is done for profit, and the flood of stolen antiquities being smuggled into the open arms of collectors across Europe and America shames us all.
Michael Danti, a Boston University archaeologist who advises the US State Department on smuggled antiquities, said last year,
“What started as opportunistic theft by some has turned into an organized transnational business that is helping fund terror”.
Irreplaceable artefacts are being stolen from an already beleaguered people and are being sold on the black market to an unscrupulous but fabulously wealthy elite, whose money is funding Daesh’s murderous campaign.
I am delighted that the Bill will make it a criminal offence to deal in cultural property that has been illegally exported from a territory that has been occupied during an armed conflict. Such a measure is long overdue and very welcome. We urge the UK Government actively and vigorously to implement the measures outlined in the second protocol of 1999 and bring to justice those individuals who engage in and profit from the illegal and totally immoral trade in stolen ancient artefacts.
As the respected Lebanese-French archaeologist Joanne Farchakh told Robert Fisk of The Independent last year, antiquities from Palmyra are already on sale here in London. She explained that Daesh sells the statues, stone faces and frescoes to the international dealers. Daesh takes the money, hands over the relics and blows up the temples and buildings they come from to conceal the evidence of what has been looted and, presumably, to help to protect the identities of its paymasters—the dealers and collectors across Europe and America.
France Desmarais, the director of programmes and partnerships at the International Council of Museums, has described what has happened in the middle east as the largest scale mass destruction of cultural heritage since the second world war. That has to stop, and hopefully the Bill, by creating a new offence for a person to deal in cultural property, knowing or having reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported from occupied territory, will go some way to stopping it. We welcome that. The purchase of plundered antiquities in such circumstances is deeply immoral on so many levels, and if the Bill can stop the trade and bring those guilty of dealing in looted artefacts to justice, it will have served much of its purpose.
A people’s cultural heritage is a crucial part of who they are and what they were in the past. For almost all communities, anywhere in the world, it is a symbol whose importance cannot be overstated. What also cannot be overstated is the social and economic importance that that cultural heritage will have in helping Syria, Iraq, Libya and others to begin to recover, once Daesh is defeated. I sincerely hope that the Bill will ensure that, post conflict, plans are in place to repair as much of the damage that has been done to the cultural heritage of communities as possible. It is incumbent on us, and the rest of the world, too, to help them to regain those important and socially valuable, tangible reminders of their cultural identity, around which they can repair in peaceful times.
While The Hague convention is specific to times of armed conflict, the work of protecting cultural heritage must also continue in peacetime. In the spirit of the convention, we urge the Government to take this opportunity to return the Parthenon marbles—the Elgin marbles—to Greece where they belong. The passing of the Bill and the ratification of the protocols give the Government an excellent opportunity to lead by example and celebrate the ratification of the convention with a highly appropriate and long overdue gesture.
Finally, let me reiterate the position of the Scottish Government. It is for the UK Government to accede to an international instrument such as The Hague convention and it is important that the same or similar standards are applied across the UK. The UK Government’s Bill contains all the provisions that are necessary to enable implementation of the convention in the UK, while making appropriate provision for Scotland. It is the view of SNP Members and the Scottish Government that it is in the interests of the Scottish people and good governance that the provisions outlined within the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament, and we will support its passage through this place.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. As I have mentioned, I may not be able to observe all our conventions, as I will shortly host an event for the Holocaust Educational Trust. That may be pertinent, as it is worth reminding the House that the UK has been in advance of many other nations in dealing with spoliation—the unlawful taking of goods from the Jewish community during the second world war. That issue has been handled well in this country, which bodes well for how we will handle aspects of The Hague convention in the future.
One waits six years for a DCMS Bill and then, like buses, two come along at once. I am pleased that I have been able to speak in debates on the Digital Economy Bill and this Bill. I wanted this Bill for a long time as Minister. When I was an Opposition spokesman, I remember looking forward to its introduction by the Labour Government, but it fell by the wayside as the election approached. I argued vociferously for six years for the Bill, but for some reason the Government’s business managers did not see its importance. I am glad that, under the new Government, they do understand how important it is. Many officials have brought it to fruition, but I wish to mention Hillary Bauer, who originally brought the Bill forward. So long has the process been that she has now retired. Of all hon. Members who have an interest, I wish to pick out in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who has been vociferous about cultural protection. He has engaged with me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) about the issue.
I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to three issues for when she sums up. Having watched the video of her playing keepy-uppy last week, I know that her summing up will be something to behold. First, I hope that she will make it clear that our own troops will not be at risk under the convention. The convention and the Bill make it clear that it is the intentional destruction of cultural property that comes within their scope—something that our British troops could never be accused of doing. They already act within the terms of the convention, and indeed it is wonderful to hear that the Ministry of Defence is working with DCMS to set up a 21st-century version of the monuments men, made up of people from the Army reserves. I would welcome any information the Minister has on progress regarding that point.
Secondly, on the vexed question of clause 17, my understanding is that the convention has been in place in Germany for the past 10 years and I know of no cases in which art dealers have unwittingly been brought within its scope. The legislation is clear: there must be some degree of suspicion on the part of any dealer before they could possibly be brought within scope. Given the noble profession of art and antiquities dealers in this country, any dealer who had a suspicion that something had been looted or trafficked would immediately alert the authorities, so dealers have nothing to fear from the Bill.
My third point is about the cultural protection fund, which is close to my heart and something for which I campaigned as a Minister—wholly unsuccessfully—on the back of Neil MacGregor, the then director of the British Museum. He said to me early in my time as a Minister that the museum, and many of our other national museums, do extraordinary work in many jurisdictions to support the work of archaeologists and the preservation of antiquities. My campaign was unsuccessful until my hon. Friend the Member for Newark raised the issue. I think the situation in Palmyra also changed the Chancellor’s mind.
I am glad that the Department for International Development has, I gather, stumped up most of the money for the cultural protection fund. It is deeply frustrating that the terms under which DFID operates—the alleviation of poverty—seem to preclude it from helping out in these areas. The fact remains that our national museums do this work all over the world, and it seems to me wholly legitimate that international development funds should supporting the skilling up of people in developing countries in archaeological expertise, as well as the preservation of their culture. We should, without doubt, support that.
I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to take the cultural protection fund as a starting point for the UK to become an international centre for the preservation of antiquities and the skilling up of archaeological schools around the world. Members in the other place have suggested that we could become a repository—a digital archive—for some of the great treasures around the world, as well as the centre for the blue shields. I urge the Secretary of State to take that up.
Finally, I cannot resist the bait from the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). He talks about the Elgin marbles. I am afraid he does this great convention and the Bill a disservice by bringing up the Elgin marbles. They were, of course, purchased legitimately in the 19th century. Not only that, they have been preserved to the very highest standards possible in the greatest museum in the world which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, is a world museum that is open to all, free of charge. The Elgin marbles are seen in pristine condition by millions of people. Indeed, they were recently loaned to Russia for even more people to see, which goes to show that the British Museum preserves the Elgin marbles not for any national self-interest, but for the world.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the former Minister. I am sure he recalls the many occasions I asked him about this very issue. He did tell me, in answer to a written question, that he intended to legislate as soon as possible, so he will be pleased that this day has now come. The Bill is very important not only for this country but for the protection of cultural property worldwide. We need to play our part to safeguard the centuries-old cultural and religious heritage of the world.
The UK is the only member of the UN Security Council that has not yet ratified the convention. The Bill seeks to change that. Ratification would be an important step towards the UK becoming the first permanent member of the UN Security Council to have ratified both the convention and its protocols. I am very pleased about that.
I am aware that the Opposition, when in government, published the draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill in 2008. Many of us regretted that that Bill was not passed then. As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), said, the Labour Government simply ran out of time, and I am pleased that Labour supports this Bill. Back in January, I called on the Leader of the House to bring forward the Bill in the Queen’s Speech and I am pleased the Government have chosen to do so.
The destruction of cultural capital is a powerful propaganda tool and is part of a long history of demoralising communities. The Opposition spokesman mentioned the Nineveh period, but I have to say that in this country the Vikings started it. Recently, in Syria, we have seen the continued destruction of places such as Palmyra. Indeed, the Bill has been introduced as a result of that continuing catastrophe. It is, however, not the first catastrophe to have taken place.
The Government say that the Bill will ensure that the UK can act, and be seen to act, legitimately according to international law in response to such crises. Baroness Neville-Rolfe said in the other place that the Bill will mean that a UK national who is fighting with Daesh in Syria can be prosecuted in relation to
“theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property”.
I do not quite share her confidence. I recently wrote to the Home Office to ask how many UK nationals had travelled overseas to engage in terrorist activity and had subsequently returned to the United Kingdom. In response I was told that
“around 850 linked individuals have travelled to engage in the conflict since it began, and just under half of those have returned.”
I went on to ask how many people had been charged with terrorism offences committed overseas on their return to the UK in each of the last three years, and was told:
“The number of individuals suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism or criminal matters who are arrested and then formally charged is recorded and collated in the Home Office Quarterly Statistical Bulletin which was last published on 22 September 2016. These statistics do not disaggregate arrests, charges and convictions relating exclusively to overseas returnees.”
So the answer is that the Home Office does not know. I am not sure how it would be possible to identify a UK national fighting with Daesh in Syria and prosecute them in relation to
“theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property”
when the police are not able to prosecute jihadis returning from Syria.
The Bill is particularly important to me because it is very important to a large number of my constituents. Cyprus has witnessed its cultural and religious heritage fall prey to the policy of pillage, destruction and desecration instituted after the illegal invasion of the island in 1974, and during the subsequent and continuing occupation. Churches, chapels, monasteries, archaeological sites, libraries, museums and private collections of religious art and antiquities in the occupied areas of Cyprus have been systematically looted. The art treasure market of the entire world has for years been flooded with Cypriot antiquities from the occupied part of Cyprus. Sculptures, ceramics, figurines, statuettes, tools, weapons, frescoes, religious paintings and other works of art from Cyprus are routinely found at auction houses around the world, in particular here in London. I sought to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) to gently remind him that London is not only a centre of antiquities; it is likely to be a significant place for illegal antiquities, too. Research undertaken by The Guardian found the illegal market to be flooded with antiquities, and there are various reasons why the Government have not been able to stop it.
Since the 1974 invasion of Cyprus, 77 churches have been converted into mosques after being stripped of all icons and church furnishings. The others have been pillaged, destroyed, used as stables, warehouses, garages, arsenals, mortuaries, hotels, art galleries and night clubs or simply abandoned to their fate. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I know this very well, having visited many of these locations. That number, however, does not include 50 sacred buildings whose condition is still not known because they are located in zones under direct military control, and others that have been demolished. Numerous archaeological sites in the area have not escaped theft and despoliation either.
Other reasons for alarm are the removal and selling of mosaics, frescoes and thousands of icons, which are now practically lost in the international market of smuggled art works. This phenomenon is unfortunately common to many areas of the middle east, as they experience war and conflict. One of the more clamorous examples is the church of Panagia Kanakaria, which held a work of art of inestimable value. Its apsidal mosaic from the Justinian period was one of the few images in the eastern Mediterranean that had survived the fury of the iconoclasts. In 1979, it was removed, stolen and broken up. It represented Christ in the arms of the Virgin seated on a throne, surrounded by the archangels Michael and Gabriel and thirteen medallions with the faces of Christ and the apostles. Four pieces re-emerged in Europe in 1988. A Turkish art dealer, Aydin Dikmen, offered them to the American antique dealer Peggy Goldberg, who in turn offered them to the Paul Getty Museum in Malibu. The museum was savvy enough to realise there was something wrong and went to the American authorities. I am pleased to say that these pieces have now been returned and can be seen in the Byzantium museum in Nicosia, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and I have also visited. That is just one example of destruction and illegal sale. At this point, I would like to congratulate my constituent Dortos Partasides on his work documenting churches on the island. His invaluable work documents the destruction that has occurred over many years.
Returning to the Bill, London is one of the world’s largest antiquities markets and is considered a natural destination for looted goods. There have been UNESCO conventions on antiquities since 1970. At the beginning of the year, the UN Security Council banned trade in artefacts illegally removed from Syria since 2011 and from Iraq since 1990 in an effort to stop the funding of terrorism groups. Enforcement in countries such as Syria is near impossible for obvious reasons, but in the destination countries, including the United Kingdom, it is up to law enforcers to establish when those objects left conflict zones.
Just as I am concerned about the prosecution of theft and vandalism of cultural artefacts, I am concerned about how the Government intend to legislate on what constitutes “an illegal antiquity”. A common practice by smugglers is to claim that an antiquity has been in their family for a long time, and so it could not have been smuggled. They also sometimes say, “I bought it at auction, and there is no paper trail.” Or they could say it came from a private collection in Jordan or Lebanon a couple of years ago. How do the Government propose to prove that any of these treasures were smuggled out during a conflict?
That said, I support the Bill, which will greatly assist in not only tackling further looting, but ensuring that stolen property such as that stolen from Cyprus will be returned to its legal and rightful owners, because it will make it an offence to deal with cultural property that has been illegally exported from territory occupied during an armed conflict and it will provide powers for the forfeiture or seizure of such cultural property.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Speaking as co-chair of the all-party group for the protection of cultural heritage, it is a pleasure to support the Bill. One of the main reasons for establishing the APPG was to support the ratification of The Hague convention and it is great to see the aim fulfilled in the passage of the Bill.
We MPs are probably creating an impression that seems far removed from watching a Formula 1 grand prix, but I would like to draw an analogy. We can share the same enthusiasm as is expressed in Mexico City when the grand prix takes place. Until this Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill is enacted, the UK is, let us say, at the back of the international grid. That is significant; that is what this is about. We are at the back of 127 countries that have already ratified The Hague convention. We are catching up with those already on the grid that have got away in the race, to ensure that we fulfil our international obligations.
We can recognise through domestic legislation, through our compliance with European legislation, through sanctions and through other legal forms that we have played our part in seeking to hold to account those who are illegally trading in arts and antiquities, but while we were out there seeking to take a lead, just as we did with the cultural protection fund, it was somewhat embarrassing that we were not ratifying The Hague convention. We had taken an international lead in this area in many circles, but we are now playing catch-up in this particular respect. Now we are on the grid, showing that we mean business.
We were at the back of the grid regarding the permanent UN Security Council members. That is particularly significant because the Government have in the past flirted with ratification. I would like to pay tribute to Members who have expressed cross-party concern which has helped to ensure that we have got where we are today. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who got behind the wheel. He was there as poacher turned gamekeeper, scrutinising legislation and seeking to bring it to fruition. He responded to calls from across the House. From my limited experience as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in various Departments, I know how difficult it is to make progress in managing the business and get a Bill into a legislative programme in a second Session of Parliament. That is why we must pay my right hon. Friend a particular personal tribute for bringing us up to speed.
Over the passage of time, we benefit not only from the ratification of The Hague convention, but from inclusion of the first and second protocols. That has helped us to get into pole position on the grid with other Security Council members. I hope that speedy passage of the Bill will mean that we get there first—although 60 other countries have got there before us! Still, among the permanent members we will get there first, which is important.
I am not an expert in many things, including arts and antiquities, archaeology or history, but I have developed a particular interest in cultural property and heritage, as I have seen and started to understand the impact of the destruction of such cultural property—yes, in relation to recent scenes in Syria and Iraq, but also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) said, what has happened in northern Cyprus. When we visited northern Cyprus, we saw that appalling acts of desecration and pillaging had taken place and not been properly taken account of. Given that it is an occupied territory, we should try to ensure that that happens if any objects come into this country’s jurisdiction.
I am concerned, as doubtless we all are, about human dignity. That is what gets my passions and convictions going. It is important to see the appropriate link between the trafficking of human beings and the trafficking of cultural property. There is the same disregard for people, for their faith, for their community and for their identity. Indeed, there is a cross-over from funds from trafficking providing further resources for exploitation—whether it be of property or of human beings. It is therefore appropriate that the Secretary of State introduced the Bill today, given that she guided the Modern Slavery Act 2015 through the House so well. She will fully appreciate the connections that I mention and the concern for human dignity.
As museums and other such places see architectural monuments, works of art and manuscripts mainly as aesthetically significant and pleasing, it is important to realise, as already mentioned, that the destruction and looting of these items is an offence to human dignity. The culturally unique way in which communities relate to their property demonstrates that a property can be much more than an isolated monument or piece of art. It can be very much part of a cultural narrative, authored by the people who live among that cultural heritage. This is what makes the whole issue of cultural property a wider project of concern for us all, particularly when we see the ravages of destruction. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon quite rightly said, within the ravages, the debris and the ruins, we must look at the hope and opportunity of restoration. That is why the cultural protection fund is so important. That is why within the second protocol, although the voluntary fund administered by UNESCO takes some hits from different commentators, it still plays an important role. The funds going into it are important for the future, so we should contribute.
I must pay tribute to Tasoula Hadjitofi. I got to know her through her concerns about her home in Famagusta, which is still frozen in time. With all the pillaging that has gone on, it is as though her whole identity has been frozen. Through the “Walk of Truth”, she looks at areas of conflict and sees examples of property being pillaged and destroyed, but she tries to view what has happened as a means of bringing the communities together. She provides routes to reconciliation, which is something that we should commend.
I welcome the fact that at last the UK will be able proudly to bear its international duty to protect. My interest, as already alluded to, is a constituency interest. A considerable number of Cypriots live here in the UK, who have seen for themselves wanton destruction and pillaging of their heritage. That is why it is so important that we join together and make sure that this long-fought battle to ratify The Hague convention comes to fruition. We look forward to the unification of Cyprus in the long term, but in the meantime, we must make sure that people are held to account when they seek to profit from the proceeds of crimes of destruction.
Let me touch on the Bill’s wording, which has been a matter of concern to the Association of Art & Antique Dealers and others. Clause 17 in part 4 needs careful attention, and we will no doubt hear more from Members about it. It is worth noting that the National Police Chiefs Council lead for heritage and cultural property crime, who should be commended and for whom resources for the enforcement effort are important, said that given that dealers in cultural property are expected to conduct due diligence checks, they would be unlikely to fall foul of the objective test of “reason to suspect”. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport impact assessment is in agreement with that, which is perhaps not surprising.
We could also look at precedents. Section 338 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is relevant, and honest dealers have been able to rely on the same form of words: “reason to suspect”. It is not dissimilar to the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, which makes reference to the terms “knowing or believing”. It is similar, too, to the sanctions order referenced in respect of Daesh, both the Iraq sanctions order and the Syrian sanctions order, while there is also the example of article 11c in the EU Council regulations. Again, the language is similar, mentioning “reasonable grounds to suspect”, so there is parity with the Bill.
Other countries have enacted the ratification of The Hague convention in their own domestic law, and the wording of section 17 of New Zealand’s Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Act 2012 in respect of reasons to suspect someone of committing an offence is similar to the wording of clause 17 of the Bill. That is worth pursuing in Committee.
As has been pointed out, the Bill has limitations. For instance, it does not cover the international law definitions in relation to Daesh, because we do not recognise Daesh as a state. I appreciate that, and I appreciate that the gaps are filled by the sanctions orders and other legislation, but now that we are up to speed and in pole position in relation to the first and second protocols, I urge the Government to ensure that we work collaboratively, on a cross-party basis, to create a third protocol to deal with the activities of Daesh.
I pay tribute to the cultural protection fund, and look forward to seeing it do good work in the coming weeks, months and years. I also pay tribute to the work of Lieutenant Colonel Tim Purbrick, who has set up a property protection working group of so-called monuments men. He is doing fine work, and we must ensure that the Ministry of Defence gives his group all the support that it needs.
I could go on, Mr Speaker. I have a long night’s sleepout waiting for me at Lords cricket ground in support of the good work of the homelessness charity DePaul UK. However, I recognise that other Members probably do not want such a long night, and would prefer me to cut my speech short. Let me end by saying that I strongly support the Bill. We have waited a long time for it, but better late than never. It is certainly worth it, because it protects not only property but human dignity.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
As such a lowly Member, I was not expecting to be called at this point, so thank you for doing so, Mr Speaker.
I warmly welcome the Bill. Eighteen months ago, a select band of us—a happy few—engaged in a Backbench Business debate. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made a particularly notable speech, which led to his being described as the Gertrude Bell of the House of Commons. I felt like a pupil sitting at the feet of the professor; the House may have the same experience later this evening.
During that debate, we called for three things. First, we asked that a great wrong be righted and that, after all these years, The Hague convention be brought into our law. Secondly, we asked for something to be done to enable us to make a practical contribution to staving off extremism in the middle east and to build capacity among those who were on the front line of protecting culture. We built on the idea of many others before us of creating a national cultural protection fund. Thirdly—this was equally important—we asked the Government to escalate the issue of cultural protection, tackling the illicit trade in antiquities and, more generally, to take seriously Britain’s role as a world leader in cultural diplomacy. That would of course include cultural protection, which is currently centre stage.
It is greatly to the Government’s credit that they listened, and just 18 months later, they have acted on each of those concerns in a way that no previous Government have done. I thank the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who pushed these measures through when they were in office. I thank cross-party colleagues such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—continuing our earlier bromance—and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, as well as, of course, the current Secretary of State and Ministers.
I am grateful to persistent and eloquent supporters outside Parliament. The most notable, in my view, was the former director of the British Museum, Neil MacGregor, who was a superb supporter on all three of the fronts that I mentioned earlier. Indeed, he was the instigator of many initiatives.
When we first raised these issues two years ago, the legitimate retort from many, especially in the media, was to ask why we should be interested in the destruction of mosques, libraries, souks and documents, when the real tragedy in places such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen was an unimaginable human tragedy: the murders, the rapes, the starvation, the displacement and the ethnic cleansing. One answer, of course, was that the scale of the destruction in recent years was so great. It was the greatest in any era since the end of the second world war, and some of the greatest sites of our shared civilisation were affected: Aleppo, Mosul, Nineveh and Palmyra. We were facing one enemy, Daesh, that was doing more to destroy the world’s cultural heritage than any other group since the end of the second world war, if not before.
The destruction that we saw 18 months or two years ago has continued, if not escalated. Only last week, we were discussing the conflict in Yemen, and a corollary of that has been the destruction of much of the great city of Sana’a, with its wonderful tower houses, any one of which would be considered one of the great monuments of other parts of the Gulf.
The second answer to that question—which is, perhaps, more important to me and which is relevant to what we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)—is that there was a human dimension. That was brought home to me earlier this year when Nadia Murad, whom many Members will remember, came to Parliament on a couple of occasions to speak to us. When I talked to her afterwards, she surprised me, given all that she had been through—she had been raped and beaten, and her family members had been killed in front of her—by emphasising the destruction of the culture of the Yazidis as much as her own physical and mental torture. That, she said, was because she felt that there was a wider attempt to rob future generations of any connection with their past and that extremists were trying to impose their own contorted views on her and her people and eradicate their ancient culture.
We should bear in mind that some of the people who have been on the frontline of protecting our culture have faced a very great penalty for that in recent years. We have already heard about Professor al-Asaad, the wonderful creator and director at Palmyra, who lost his life while trying to defend treasures there. I have been told other stories over the last few years, and one in particular stuck with me. It concerned a guard who used to take money and open the gates at Nineveh and whom members of the British Museum had known for many years. He was a wonderful elderly gentleman who refused Daesh entry and was subsequently executed. To compound the tragedy, every male who attended his funeral service a few days later disappeared and was executed, including all the known staff of that wonderful site.
There are countless other stories. Only recently, when I had the pleasure of bringing to Parliament the first archaeologists and curators who had come here from Iraq, thanks to the cultural protection fund, and who were later given some press attention in The Times and The Daily Telegraph, they had to remain anonymous owing to the grave risk that, even when they returned to fairly safe parts of Iraq, extremists would target them because of the work that they were doing.
The last reason why I felt that this was important then—I think that it remains so today—was not just the destruction, but what was happening to the material that was being systematically looted and stolen. This is a revenue stream for Daesh, the Assad regime and others. As Neil MacGregor so eloquently put it, sculptures were being turned into tanks, which should worry us all. The channels used by that trade are at times very dark and very dangerous. As we have already heard this evening, they are interwoven with the drugs trade, the arms trade and human trafficking. The lines established in Iraq, from which much of the material is moved, were established by Saddam Hussein and his regime. Action here matters to us all, whether or not we care about the cultural aspects, because it is part of tackling extremism and part of tackling serious organised crime and the funding of terrorism.
While this cultural barbarism at times appears utterly hopeless, and we have to temper our remarks about what we can possibly achieve, I always believed, as did many others, that it was possible to do something and that we could make a modest national contribution while also, as part of that process, enhancing our reputation as a country in the region and around the world. That is what this Bill really does, and we have to see it in tandem with the cultural protection fund, which is an important aspect of our cultural diplomacy. It gives us above all a firmer foundation on which to speak on these issues of cultural diplomacy and protection. It makes practical contributions to those on the frontline who are already appreciating it thanks to the £3 million we have already given to the British Museum, with more on the way. Lastly, it helps to tackle the illicit trade through the offences in the Bill and in other ways, on each of which I shall say a few words.
This is not a panacea, of course, and it does not apply to some of the crimes happening in Syria and Iraq today, but it is very symbolic, not least because it rights an historical wrong that was a drag on our international reputation. The leading experts in this field, such as Neil MacGregor, who are really diplomats and ambassadors for Britain in the cultural sphere, felt it was a shame and a stain on the UK’s reputation that we had never done this. So purely by doing it we enhance our reputation in the world. That enables us to play a stronger role in cultural diplomacy, which has all manner of benefits in trade and in establishing cultural links with other countries —as we have seen with the British Museum, working with the British Council, lending art and artefacts to Iran and Russia in the past and doing things Governments struggle to do. I hope the UK will do more on this in a way we simply have not done in the past, along with other countries, including France, with a proper network of cultural attachés and Government links. People including John Kerry and François Hollande have made major speeches on this. I hope that we will seize on that and see this as the beginning of the UK adding another weapon in our arsenal of diplomacy around the world.
The cultural protection fund is a huge step forward. It is the first major fund of its kind. François Hollande has copied us and has supposedly created a €100-million fund, which is about to be launched. I am pleased we were in the vanguard of doing this and would like us to do more.
I am very pleased that what we have done was able to be ODAed because that makes a difference; it recognises that this is not just about art and architecture, but about economic regeneration post-conflict and healing the wounds of conflicts and bringing cultures together. We must view this as just the beginning, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) said; I would like us to see it as seed capital for us to be bolder and for this to turn into a major lasting national achievement.
Most of the Bill is about the illicit trade, and we must shrink the demand for these works in the world today. Contrary to some of the remarks made in passing this evening, the UK is very good in this regard. We are not the epicentre of the illicit trade in art and antiquities; that is to be found in the Gulf states, in China, in Russia and in other parts of the world. The UK is actually at the forefront of having responsible dealers and major auction houses who care about their reputations, but that is all the more reason for us to do this and lead the world in enforcement.
I want to say a few words about the offence of dealing unlawfully in exported property. We must tackle this issue, and I would like to think that the Minister would give this further thought on Report. This matters because, if we want to shrink the illicit market, we have to defend the legitimate market. The great auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s actually have very little interest in maintaining their antiquities departments; antiquities account for 1% or less of the turnover of such auction houses. It would be very easy for them and for experienced legitimate dealers to walk away from this trade, and that would matter because it would push more objects on to the black market and on to smaller auction houses that lack the compliance and legal and regulatory structures to do due diligence properly, and it would push out good dealers and give trade to those we are more concerned about.
Essentially, there is no right or wrong answer when doing due diligence. The way an auction house assesses property is by making a judgment. A whole range of material comes forward for any piece being sold in antiquities sales. Some will come from blogs that are emerging; others from states such as Egypt that automatically challenge the sale of every piece being sold in the UK. An experienced professional—whether a dealer, a specialist in an auction house or someone in an auction house legal department—has to weigh up the factors and make a judgment. I would not want this Bill to criminalise people who ultimately make honest mistakes. That would set us back in our task of shrinking the illicit market and empowering the people at the forefront of getting this right. The Minister kindly reassured me in a letter she sent to Lord Judge that answers some of these points, but I would like this to be further considered on Report. It is extremely important that the due diligence being carried out is proportionate and does not dissuade legitimate businesses from participating in the market.
We have heard from other Members that no law is worth legislating for if it is not properly enforced. Sadly, enforcement in this area is very poor. The Met police have a small art and antiques squad. At different times, it has had between one and three members, and at present has, I think, one and a half people. They are excellent individuals; I have met some of them and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and others know some of them, and I do not want to criticise their professionalism, but they are very constrained. This has been viewed as a sort of Lovejoy area of the criminal market that does not really matter; it is considered to involve harmless rogues in a barn in Suffolk. However, this is serious crime that is linked to human trafficking, the drugs trade and the funding of terror, and the policing needs to match that. I hope the good intentions set out in this Bill will lead to a prod to the Met police and others to beef up their policing as soon as possible, or else our efforts in this Bill will ultimately be in vain.
I welcome the Bill and am grateful to the Government for doing this. It is to their huge credit that we have finally done this. In debates such as that last week on the conflict in Yemen, we hear of cities of enormous value such as Sana’a being destroyed and of cultures under threat, and we realise why this matters. It matters because it is about protecting our shared international heritage and ensuring extremists never win.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a pleasure to talk on this subject, and on this Bill which, as have heard, has been a long time coming. It is of great cultural and symbolic significance. I know the debates in another place have been conducted in a constructive bipartisan spirit, and it is nice to see this debate conducted in the same vein. I am delighted that the Government have found parliamentary time for this type of measure, which has not been achieved in the past. It shows a welcome recognition of the significance and symbolic power of the measures in the Bill.
As the Government have rightly been at pains to point out, it is important to say that although the UK has so far failed to sign up to The Hague convention or the 1954 or 1999 protocols, our armed forces already act absolutely as if they were bound by them; in fact The Hague convention and its protocols form a framework today for both training and armed conflict.
The establishment of the £30 million cultural protection fund, our sponsoring of UN resolution 2199 designed to stop Daesh from transforming cultural destruction into financial profit, and the work of the joint military cultural protection working group all bear witness to the UK’s ongoing commitment to protecting cultural property in spheres of conflict. It is worth emphasising that the successful passage of this Bill would make the UK the first permanent member of the UN Security Council to ratify the convention and accede to both its protocols, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) pointed out. As the House has heard, that has been in the offing for more than 10 years, so it is perhaps a good time to recognise the work of those who prepared the original draft Bill, which bears a striking similarity to the one we are considering today.
As I said, this is a timely moment to be passing such legislation. We recently saw the first person be charged by the International Criminal Court for damaging mankind’s cultural heritage in Timbuktu. Our minds are also concentrated by Daesh’s appalling targeted destruction of cultural sites in north Africa and the middle east, including St Elijah’s monastery, historic libraries and pretty much any other representational art that it comes across.
To talk about the importance of cultural property in conflict is obviously not to undermine in any way the essential truth that the preservation of human life will and should always be the prime motivating factor in the conduct of military operations. That truth is enshrined in the doctrine of military necessity that formed a vital part of the original convention and is strengthened in the second protocol, which we will also be approving should we pass the Bill. The Bill will make a strong statement about the UK’s commitment to the future at a time when such protection is more necessary than ever.
Finally, the Bill, and the convention it ratifies, deals largely with state-to-state conflict. In offering my support, I would be grateful to hear more from the Minister about how the Government will continue to work to provide a similar level of protection in more asymmetric conflicts involving non-state actors such as Daesh. The states and groups that destroy monuments and artistic expression are trying to hide. They are trying to destroy pluralism, thought, inclusivity and diversity in order to reimpose a childishly simplistic, inverted form of good and evil. I do not need to tell the House that cultural heritage enables all peoples to see themselves clearly both as individuals and as members of an historically coherent and culturally significant whole. The House will remember the words of Heinrich Heine, now engraved into the ground where the Nazis burned thousands of books in 1933:
“where they burn books, they will in the end burn people”.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) but, with all due respect, if there are two speeches to which the Government should pay particular attention, they are those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). Despite the excellence of the other speeches from both sides of the House, they are the two that really hit the problems on the head.
The Bill is welcome and I wholeheartedly support it, subject to one or two concerns that I shall touch on briefly. The first relates to the definition of cultural property, as mentioned by several hon. and right hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport also touched on the topic in her opening remarks. The definition in the Bill lacks sufficient clarity. I accept that the Bill refers us to article 1 of The Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict but, taking the example of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), film and so on were I suspect not considered when the convention was drawn up in the early 1950s. New forms of heritage—if that is not a contradiction in terms—have emerged since then, and the Government need to give the definition of cultural property a little more thought. That is not an aggressive point; I simply want to point out something that it would be sensible for the Government to look into.
The other area that also needs more thought is the absence of any definition of an occupied territory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon mentioned that when he was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the west bank, the Golan heights and perhaps another place—
Sir Edward Garnier
East Jerusalem—they were designated as occupied territories. However, the world has moved on and, as my right hon. Friend correctly pointed out, there are now other parts of the world that could, either as a matter of fact or as a matter of law, be considered occupied territories. The Government must be more open, or at least clearer, about the definition of an occupied territory.
There is, however, perhaps an even more important matter that needs resolving, which involves the level of criminal intent for the offences described in clause 17. In framing my remarks, I am grateful for the help I have had from the British Art Market Federation, the British Antique Dealers’ Association, Mr Hugo Keith QC, and Professor Janet Ulph of the University of Leicester school of law. I stress, however, that what I shall say is my interpretation. If I have got things wrong, that is my fault and not the fault of those who valiantly tried to explain the matter to me. You will be glad to hear, Mr Speaker, that I cannot for reasons of time go into the detailed legal analysis undertaken by them, but I sent the Secretary of State a copy of Mr Keith’s opinion, which carefully explains why the use of “reason to suspect” in the context of this Bill is unwise and unfair.
Clause 17(1) makes it an offence to
“deal in unlawfully exported cultural property”
that the dealer knows or has
“reason to suspect… has been unlawfully exported.”
So far, so good. No one can support the dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property when they know it has been unlawfully exported, but the mens rea—criminal intent—required under the provision has caused concern in the London art market. The worry is that “reason to suspect” will place an unacceptable and stifling burden on the market. That aspect of the Bill was touched on only briefly in the other place but was not taken up by the Government.
Clause 17 creates an offence of dishonesty, carrying with it a sentence of imprisonment of up to seven years, as well as the destruction of reputation. The problem that worries me arises from the provision that relates to the state of mind, which must be proved before the defendant can be convicted. Dealing in prohibited property knowing that it has been unlawfully exported, the first offence created by clause 17, is simple, easily described, uncontroversial and comes within well-established and clearly understood principles of criminal law. Dealing in such prohibited property believing that it has been unlawfully exported would also be an equally straightforward offence. “Knowledge” or “belief” identify the mens rea, or criminal state of mind, accompanying the prohibited activity. To establish guilt, the prosecution would have to prove that at the time when the prohibited activity took place the defendant knew or believed that he was dealing in prohibited property.
That, however, is not what the second offence created by clause 17 provides. Rather, it defines the criminal activity—dealing in prohibited property—but by relating the criminal state of mind required for the offence to “suspicion” it introduces an unusual concept into the ordinary law that applies to offences of dishonesty. Indeed, it does not even provide that the offence is proved if the defendant personally suspected that he was dealing in prohibited property.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Can my right hon. and learned Friend think of any other examples of mens rea of this type that are in use?
Sir Edward Garnier
One often sees the type currently drafted into clause 17 when a defendant has to rebut a presumption—the possession of certain items in sexual offences or drugs offences. It is also to be found under certain rarely used disclosure offences, such as under section 119 of the Companies Act 2006—something that we speak about so frequently in the clubs and bars of Market Harborough. As regards the substantive criminal law and the making of a substantive criminal offence, my hon. Friend is right to say that this is a rare and wholly unusual distinction, and I quietly urge the Government to think again.
As drafted, this provision abandons the principle that it is the defendant’s state of mind that must be “criminal”, whether defined in terms of belief or even suspicion, for an objective test: whether he had reason to suspect. What may arise from an offence defined in that way can be quickly described. The defendant may be offered property which, because of the circumstances, he may have reason to suspect may be prohibited. Just because he wishes to proceed with caution, and to avoid committing a criminal offence, after sensible inquiry and investigation he may in good faith decide that his suspicions have been allayed and proceed to deal in the property. For a defendant acting in good faith to be convicted of an offence of dishonesty is a novel proposition. It may be suggested that the offence is not intending to apply to such an individual, but only to the individual who, notwithstanding any investigations he may make, turns a blind eye to reasonable grounds for suspicion, but that is not what the clause says. The offence can and should be defined in terms of the defendant’s belief or suspicion, and currently it is not.
Surely the question to ask is whether the defendant did or did not believe, or did or did not suspect. The more powerful the evidence that he had reason to suspect, the more likely it is that the jury would conclude that he did indeed believe or suspect, and that the offence is proved. In short, where the defendant did indeed have “reason to suspect”, that would provide the evidence to establish that he did indeed believe or suspect that he was dealing in prohibited property. That however goes to the evidence available to prove guilt; it should not define the offence.
It would be unusual for an offence of dishonesty to be created that did not focus on the defendant’s personal state of mind. It would also be unusual to create two offences in a single provision which make provision for separate and distinctive forms of criminal intent: knowledge, which is entirely subjective; and reason to suspect, which is not. Any summing up in an indictment which alleges the two offences as alternatives would not be straightforward. Worse still, it would be unwise, and it would make for significant complexity in any trial for two statutes with the same objective—the protection of the cultural heritage of every nation—not to define criminal intent in exactly the same way.
Section 1 of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 states—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but when he leant down like that, I thought it was because he was approaching his peroration. That may have been a triumph of optimism over experience.
Sir Edward Garnier
Ms Bell, I think, has spoken on my behalf. I was just advising you, Mr Speaker, about section 1 of the 2003 Act, which I know you want to hear about.
Sir Edward Garnier
At least I am right about that. [Laughter.] It states:
“A person is guilty of an offence if he dishonestly deals in a cultural object that is tainted, knowing or believing that the object is tainted.”
This Bill says that it is
“an offence for a person to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property, knowing or having reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported.”
For the reasons that I have been briefly explaining, I suspect that the 2003 Act provides the better wording. The provision in this Bill is not following well-established principles relating to the prosecution of offences of dishonesty. I am concerned that the Bill, which is concerned with the same issues, fails properly to take into account that set of principles. As drafted, it may result in the prosecution and conviction for an offence of dishonesty of a defendant who has, or may have, acted in good faith.
It is one thing for a defendant to be convicted of handling stolen goods where they have been shown to have known or believed the goods were stolen—the law is clear and the defendant knows when he is convicted that the jury was sure he knew or believed the goods were stolen—but under this Bill, as currently framed, a convicted defendant cannot be sure that his conviction reflects his actual state of knowledge or belief and that he was not convicted simply for lacking curiosity. Absence of curiosity may be regrettable and sometimes stupid or negligent, but it should not lead to a conviction, with all the reputational damage that flows from it.
Beyond that, I urge the Government to consider what effect this provision will have on the art market here in London. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who speaks with the advantage of being not only a lawyer, but a former director of Christie’s, this will have a stifling effect. It may be that there will not be many convictions or many arrests, but the mere threat of the reputational damage caused by this possibility is enough to put the mockers on this valuable and entirely legitimate aspect of the London art market. The art market will go elsewhere and the crooks will get away with it. If we want to catch the bad boys, and if we want to inhibit this wrong and immoral market, why not stick to the 2003 wording or something similar to it, rather than allowing this Bill to contain an error of principle which could confound the interests of all of us who wish to see the destruction and the dealing in cultural objects that have been stolen brought to an end?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), peroration and all. I declare an interest, as the chairman of the all-party groups on archaeology and on the British Museum, and as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries.
As we have all agreed, the Bill has been a long time coming—it is 62 years old. As I glance around the room, I hazard a guess that that makes it older than anybody in the Chamber, now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) has left.
Tim Loughton
I am delighted to be put right by my right hon. and learned Friend, although we would never know it, Mr Speaker.
I also pay tribute to what is left of the Labour Opposition and the remarkable dexterity of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) who, in a debate on cultural artefacts, managed to mention Keats, Uber taxi drivers, the temple of Bel and an attack on private education. He certainly gave us his money’s worth, even if he does not have many mates with him to support this excellent Bill.
I very much welcome the Bill. We know that the original protocol and convention were passed in 1954, largely as a reaction to the destruction of cultural artefacts of the second world war. We know that the second protocol, which came about in 1999, mostly followed in the wake of great destruction in the former republic of Yugoslavia. We recall the familiar scenes at the UNESCO world heritage sites such as the Mostar bridge, which really brought home the futility of war and the destruction of our culture, which we just do not get back. That protocol recognised that the desecration of cultural property could become a war crime and identified the blue shield scheme, which many Members have referred to. It also set up an international non-governmental organisation advisory body to the intergovernmental committee for the convention. There were therefore great hopes in 1999 that we might follow suit. We have made reference to the heritage Minister Andrew McIntosh, who brought forward in 2004 a commitment to ratify the convention. That led to a Bill in 2008, which was scrutinised by the Select Committee, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). The Bill was supported by the Ministry of Defence and the whole heritage sector, but the excuse given for what happened was that it became overshadowed by the financial crisis and ran out of parliamentary time. Then in 2011, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), as a Minister, reconfirmed the Government’s commitment to ratification at the “earliest possible opportunity”.
In 2014, there was another great body blow when the Cabinet Committee said that it had not been able to grant drafting authority for a Bill—not even a handout Bill. The commitment of successive Governments was in question when their warm words were not followed up by definitive action. At long last, that earliest possible opportunity has arrived. I particularly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon—he is not in his place at the moment—whose personal commitment to this matter and lobbying of the powers that be at No. 10 has made this Bill a reality.
The announcement in last year’s autumn statement of the £30 million cultural protection fund together with a summit of heritage experts really gave flesh to that commitment. The legislative wheels grind frustratingly slowly, and, as with the second protocol, it has taken the cultural cleansing atrocities in Syria and Iraq to concentrate the minds of those in a position to bring forward this ratification today.
I do not want to be churlish, because I really welcome the Bill and the commitment behind it. I absolutely praise all those who have played an integral part in this. Many of them have been mentioned today. I am talking about Sir Neil MacGregor, the former outstanding director of the British Museum, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) who, in his relatively short time in this House, has made a big impact in this area. It is really important now that we get on with it. We need to gain the moral high ground and become the only one of the five permanent UN Security Council member countries to ratify both the protocols and the convention.
Why is this important? At a time when we are seeing horrific scenes of women, children and men being bombed, murdered and executed in the most grotesque fashion by Daesh in the tragic conflicts in both Syria and Yemen, why should we be concerned about a bunch of old rocks and relics? My hon. Friend the Member for Newark described just a couple of examples. Let me mention Professor Assad, the director of antiquities at Palmyra, which I was privileged enough to visit just before the civil war in Syria—it is the most magical archaeological site imaginable, and I speak as someone who studied Mesopotamian archaeology and who has visited many sites—and the guards at Nineveh. These people gave their lives because they appreciated and understood the importance of protecting culture as the spirit of a nation, and that it makes mankind what it is and is what separates mankind from savages. As the Heritage Alliance put it:
“The destruction of cultural capital is a powerful propaganda tool and is part of a long history of demoralising communities by destroying the symbols of their nationhood.”
As Irina Bokova, the director general of UNESCO, said, this is “cultural cleansing”, and we must view it as such and in the same terms as trafficking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Many antiquities can be purchased on the black market. Does the hon. Gentleman think that Governments should—either directly, or indirectly through a third party—try to purchase some of those antiquities and keep them for posterity for the years to come?
Tim Loughton
It is an interesting prospect, but I would much rather track down and prosecute the people who benefit from trafficking these antiquities. We do not want to set up a legitimate market, with Governments paying money to criminals. There are other ways of tracking down some of these important antiquities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark that London has, by and large, a very legitimate market in antiques and antiquities. Obviously there are a few people who are the exception to that, but London has an excellent reputation compared with many other parts of the world. Hopefully, this Bill will prompt the United States Government to ratify the protocols, as it is suggested that they have been looking for a lead from a significant military ally.
We have heard several examples of recent high-profile tragedies involving cultural terrorism: the 2015 looting of the Mosul museum; the vandalism of the Nergal Gate at Nineveh; and the destruction of the temple of Baalshamin at Palmyra—separate to the triumphal arch of Palmyra, which the hon. Member for Cardiff West conflated it with, but an important monument to that civilisation. All those tragedies were at the hands of Daesh. Indeed, Palmyra should be treated as a crime scene, given the damage that was done there. Fortunately, there was not as much damage as Daesh might have inflicted on it had it been given more time.
In other continents, shrines were deliberately destroyed by Boko Haram in Nigeria. We have heard one bit of good news, which is the first prosecution in the International Criminal Court of Ahmad al-Mahdi for his destruction in Timbuktu, the centre of Sufi Islam. He directed the destruction of 15th and 16th century Sufi tombs and the burning of the library in Timbuktu. His verdict just last month gave out a nine-year prison sentence for that cultural vandalism. That sends out a very important message, and we need to see many more people being brought to justice to emphasise just how important a crime against humanity this is.
Tim Loughton
May I continue a little, because I know that the Minister will want to respond on this?
There has also been mention of Yemen. Again, I was fortunate enough to be able to visit Yemen just before the civil war broke out—I am not a precursor to these civil wars, but I was in the country when it was a slightly less dangerous place to be. There are four UNESCO world heritage sites in Yemen: the historic town of Zabid; the old walled city of Shibam, the Chicago of the desert, with 16th century skyscrapers—the earliest skyscrapers in the world—made out of mud brick rising out of the desert; the magical walled medieval city of Sana’a itself; and the natural world heritage site on the island of Socotra. These sites are going largely under the radar. We hear more about the carnage being waged in Yemen, but little about the important cultural background to that country. Those are just a few of the sites that we know about.
Jim Shannon
May I take the hon. Gentleman’s mind back to when he mentioned Mosul? When we visited Iraq, and Irbil in particular, we had the opportunity to meet Archbishop Nicodemus of the Orthodox Church. He was archbishop in Mosul, and he informed us that his church had been destroyed and the cross taken down. Where there was a church is now a car park. When Mosul is liberated, does the hon. Gentleman think that those responsible should be made accountable for their dastardly deeds?
Tim Loughton
Those people should absolutely be held accountable and brought to justice. I am sure that when it is safe to do so, that important religious establishment will rise phoenix-like again, and I am sure the people of Mosul of all faiths will want to see that happen as that city gets back on its feet after the terrible things it has been through.
Across the world, spread across 165 countries, we have 1,052 UNESCO world heritage sites, of which 814 are cultural. I have mentioned some of the sites, but those are just the ones we know about. Some 90% of archaeological sites in Iraq have yet to be excavated, and many will have been looted over recent years. There is also the issue, as we have heard, of how cultural looting by Daesh and others finances terrorism.
The destruction of Syria’s archaeological sites has become catastrophic. There are unauthorised excavations going on, and the plunder of and trafficking in stolen cultural artefacts is an escalating problem. Many of the objects have already been lost to science and society, and the context in which many of them are being dug up in unsupervised conditions will be lost forever. The trading in looted Syrian cultural artefacts has apparently become the third largest trade in illegal goods worldwide. It is big business. It is estimated that looting is Daesh’s second largest revenue source after oil sales. There are around 4,500 archaeological sites including UNESCO world heritage sites which have been under the control of Daesh. Hopefully, fewer or none of them will continue to be, as the counter-offensive against Daesh succeeds in Iraq in particular.
Iraqi intelligence claims that Daesh alone has collected more than $40 million from the sale of artefacts. It is the equivalent of what the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan through the cultivation and sale of heroin to feed markets in the west. We took that very seriously and it was a priority for the invading and occupying forces in that country, yet the devastation and profit involved in the plundering of these archaeological sites and the sale of antiquities does not seem to register nearly as clearly on the world’s radar. This is an important part of putting that case firmly on the world’s agenda.
We are facing a quadruple threat. First, jihadists are looting these sites, claiming some sort of religious reason for doing so. They are entirely hypocritically profiting from their destruction on international black markets. Secondly, it is alleged that President Assad is knowingly selling antiquities to pay his henchmen. There are videos showing Assad’s soldiers at Palmyra some time ago ripping out grave relief sculptures and smiling for the cameras as those are loaded on to trucks. Thirdly, the Free Syrian Army in its various guises is looting antiquities as a vital source of funding. Fourthly, an increasingly active part of the population is involved in looting. Ordinary people are looting Syria’s cultural heritage because they have no jobs, income or tangible economic prospects and are increasingly turning to age-old plundering techniques, in some cases looting to order.
As a result of the activities of those four different parties, the fantastic culture of Syria and Iraq in particular is being systematically plundered, yet that hardly features on the west’s radar. We also have to face the consequences of the financing of terrorist organisations through the plunder of antiquities. We look forward to a day in the future when peace in some form comes to this region, but the looting also threatens to deprive Syria in particular of one of its best opportunities for a post-conflict economic recovery based on tourism which, until the conflict started, contributed more than 12% of national income.
It is important for the United Kingdom to be passing this legislation, as we have one of the most professional and strategically thinking heritage communities in the world. The Bill will enable the UK’s soft power and diplomacy agendas to position the UK as an international leader in demonstrating a supportive and facilitating approach to the protection of cultural property. Post-Brexit—something that has not been mentioned this evening—we need to promote our extensive cultural wealth and network of contacts through world museums such as the British Museum to re-forge new relationships beyond the EU. The respectability and gravitas of having signed up to the world’s protection protocols gives us considerably more strength and credibility in doing so.
We have heard about the £3 million which has been given to the British Museum to bring Iraqi archaeologists and restoration experts to the UK to help train them in how to reconstruct their country after the war and the conflict are over and ISIL has been driven out. London hosted the unveiling of the replica of the Palmyra arch, which then went on a world tour—a fantastic example of rescue archaeology and how, in the face of the cultural vandalism, we will rebuild these important heritage sites. I particularly welcome the proposed property protection unit in the Army. The Foreign Secretary and I have already said that we would willingly volunteer to be part of such a force and go out to the middle east to help the new monuments men and women, but they will be much better than the original monuments men.
I gave this example once before, but the extraordinary figure of Colonel Matthew Bogdanos, who came to the House 10 years ago, led the hunt for the treasures looted from the Baghdad museum in 2003, after the allied invasion. He led an investigation into the looting of the Iraq national museum, from which many thousands of priceless treasures disappeared. Probably the most priceless of those was the 5,000-year-old Warka vase—the first representation of the human face in an art form in stone. After the good works of Colonel Bogdanos, a clapped-out red Toyota appeared outside the Baghdad museum, the boot was opened and in a box was a vase in 20 pieces, which turned out to be the Warka vase—what people had forgotten was that, when the German archaeologists dug up the Warka vase, it was in about 20 pieces and was then glued together. Extraordinary work by an American reservist lawyer with a small team of people reconstructed so many thousands of the important artefacts that had been taken from the museum in Baghdad. We can do even better, and we have the expertise in the British Army, British academia and our museums to play a role even greater than that played by the heroic Colonel Matthew Bogdanos.
May I end, or approach my pre-peroration, Mr Speaker, with a few questions for the Minister? I welcome the £30 million cultural protection fund, as everybody else who has spoken today has. It will help to build capacity to foster, safeguard and promote cultural heritage in conflict-affected regions overseas, but what sort of projects does she envisage it being used for? We know about the £3 million for the British Museum. What happens after the three years to which that £30 million has been devoted?
What about more proactive protection measures than just retaking sites, tracking down looted artefacts and carrying out reconstruction? Can we do a lot more to try to prevent these things from happening in the first place? There were tales in the middle east of the residents of a town, in the face of ISIL, linking hands around some of their important monuments to try to protect them—huge bravery in the teeth of such savagery. Surely we could do more to make sure that we get there before the terrorists and that the terrorists are deflected.
When will we hear further about the Army working group? How many people is it likely to include? The excellent Lieutenant Colonel Tim Purbrick, who gave a presentation to the all-party group on archaeology, is hugely impressive and hugely keen, and he wants to get on with it. Perhaps the Minister can give us a progress report on when we might see some tangible results.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe, in the other place, told peers that work was going on in the Department to consider
“what cultural property should be covered in the UK”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 584.]
Perhaps the Minister can update us on what progress has been made on that, and on when we can expect a definitive list.
Then, of course, there is the thorny issue of when cultural property is attacked by terrorist organisations such as Daesh or Boko Haram that are not covered in the Bill because they are not covered by the protocols to the convention. Effectively, we are asking whether the Minister will pursue the possibility of a third protocol. I know we are only just about to sign the first and second protocols and the convention, but if we are to bring the convention up to date, that will require international co-operation to counter those terrorists who are not part of states.
Penultimately, the heavy workload on the excellent Metropolitan police art and antiques unit has been mentioned. If the Bill is to be effective, that workload will be increased, yet there has, as I mentioned, been only one prosecution to date under the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. Will the Minister give some assurances that that unit, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, will be properly resourced so that it has enough people with the skills and training to track down the minority of criminals who should have been tracked down before now?
Then there is the issue of scheduled ancient monuments —archaeology in the ground. There are some 20,000 scheduled ancient monuments in the United Kingdom, but they are not included in the proposed list because they are not graded in the same way as listed buildings, for example. What added protections are there for those monuments, given that they are not specifically covered in the Bill?
What is the future of the blue shield scheme, which the Secretary of State described as the “cultural equivalent” of the Red Cross, as it is currently a completely voluntary organisation that is also, to some extent, undermined by the lack of a central team to co-ordinate its activities and avoid duplication? I think she is supportive of the excellent work by Professor Peter Shaw of Newcastle University, who has done so much to champion this whole cause.
Finally, I cannot resist echoing a point raised, slightly impertinently, by the hon. Member for Cardiff West: how does it help to find the archaeologists of the future, who may go into the Army to be part of the new team of monuments men, when we are about to lose the A-level in archaeology? How are we to find the expertise that is so essential to carry out the terms of the legislation that we are belatedly but thankfully scrutinising today? Will the Minister, as a result of these deliberations, have a conversation with her colleague the Secretary of State for Education to see what can be done to keep that important subject on the curriculum? I studied archaeology at school to A/O-level. I did not, however—I am sorry to burst the hon. Gentlemen’s balloon—go to a private school. It was an important subject then and it is an important subject today, across so many areas.
This is a really important Bill. It may be specialist in nature, but it has been pored over, in various forms, for the past 62 years, in expectation of this day. We now, at last, need to get on with it.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to rise to support the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, the previous Labour Government put this issue on the political agenda in 2004 and pushed a draft Bill in 2008. The Bill is long overdue, 62 years after the convention was first brought forward. As has been made very apparent during this debate, cultural property is not just bricks and mortar—it is the very fabric and soul of society and our history. It deserves our prioritisation, our attention and our protection. As has been elucidated, unfortunately we do not have to look too far, even today, to see examples of wilful cultural destruction, from Daesh’s destruction at Palmyra and al-Qaeda’s demolition of the mosques and mausoleums in Timbuktu, to the destruction and churches in Mosul, which, as the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) said, goes hand in hand with ethnic cleansing.
We have heard some excellent speeches. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale)—who is, I believe, particularly to be congratulated on bringing this Bill forward—gave a moving account of the courage of Khaled al-Asaad, who laid down his life in the protection of the Palmyra site. Not only is there wilful destruction of such cultural property, but Daesh and others are profiting from the proceeds.
The right hon. Gentleman, among others, made a pertinent point about clause 17 and the difference between “knowing” and “having reason to suspect” that cultural property was illegally acquired. He called for a clearer requirement on dishonesty that exists in similar provisions in legislation such as the Theft Acts. I am sure that the Minister will provide us with an assurance that the threshold is not low to scoop up innocent people but rather ensures that prosecutions are brought against anyone who has not conducted their due diligence. Only a single prosecution has been brought under the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, and it has been criticised for its low threshold. I hope that the Minister will stick to her guns on that.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who spoke on behalf of the Scottish National party, made some excellent points about the plundering of cultural artefacts by Daesh and the role of the European art market.
The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who is not in his place, was full of self-deprecation about how unsuccessful he was as a Minister in introducing the proposed legislation, but he welcomed, as we do, the cultural protection fund. He was right to point out that the British Museum is free to visit, and that is thanks to the last Labour Government, who acknowledged that there should be no class barrier to accessing and participating in culture. Unfortunately, he showed none of the humility that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West called for in recognising some of the less desirable aspects of our history with regard to our colonial past.
The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) made an impassioned case for the Bill in relation to illegal antiquities from Cyprus that turn up in London, the biggest art market in the world. It is vital that we enforce against that here, because it is so difficult to do so in war zones such as Syria and in Cyprus.
Similarly, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said that it is important that we ratify not only the convention, but the two protocols, to bring us into line, finally, with other Security Council members and to ensure that we are at the front of the pack of the five permanent members.
The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was rightly praised by a number of hon. Members for the role he has played in the Bill’s progress. He pointed out that a great wrong is finally being righted, and he is to be congratulated on his persistence. He spoke in particular about those on the frontline who risk their lives to protect their living histories and about why our cultural diplomacy and how we back it up through our legislation and the cultural protection fund are so important. He was also right to say that the Bill is symbolic.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) pointed out that protection is more necessary than ever and that there should be similar protection in conflicts that involve non-state actors. I hope that the Minister will address that in her response.
The right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) called for greater clarity on the definition of cultural property and pointed out that many new forms of heritage have been developed since the 1950s. Greater clarity is also needed on the definition of occupied territory, given that there are many different forms of it in the world, with Crimea being an interesting example.
Last but by no means least, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) praised the renowned dexterity of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West in his opening speech. The hon. Gentleman said that it was important that we hurry up and get on with the Bill, so that we can lead the way and be the first of the five permanent members of the Security Council to ratify the convention, not only to secure and promote London’s reputation as the centre of the international art market, but to prompt other states to ratify the convention and to prosecute those who hypocritically profit from trade on the international black market and, in some cases, as he pointed out, loot to order.
We welcome the Bill and the fact that the Government have finally made time for it. The ratification will put the UK at the forefront of international cultural property protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West has asked me to thank Ministers for allowing him to meet the Bill team in preparing our response.
Will the Minister assure us that legitimate art dealers will not be caught up by clause 17? In her opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that she did not think that that would be the case, but can the Minister be more explicit?
Will digital formats be protected? My hon. Friend Lord Stevenson said in the other place:
“Who could, these days, expect to understand, debate and discuss the culture of any country or time without having regard to the moving image?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 1476.]
We appreciate how tricky it is to capture the spirit, purpose and language of an instrument that was drafted more than 60 years ago, while creating a relevant and effective regime for the present day, but we would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West will probe further the issues raised by several Members about mens rea, but we are generally supportive of the Government’s position, which would require effective due diligence by art dealers in relation to clause 17. Finally, we ask the Government to think again about the removal of art history, archaeology and classical civilisation A-levels, for which my hon. Friend has passionately made the case. They are vital if we are to enforce the measures in the Bill and promote our cultural diplomacy across the globe. We are pleased to support this Bill on Second Reading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
It is with great pleasure and pride that I close the Second Reading debate on the Bill. This piece of legislation has been a long time coming, and I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for his success in securing a slot for the Bill this Session. The debate has shown us that there is cross-party consensus in the House, as there was in the other place, on this Bill, and that we are all working to achieve the shared goal of protecting our cultural heritage.
I thank Members of the House who have, over a number of years, pushed for the Government to ratify the convention and accede to its two protocols. I would like to give a special mention to my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and to the work of the all-party group on cultural heritage. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for her campaign when the Labour party was in government.
I thank all the stakeholders who have helped the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring the Bill before this House, particularly Professor Peter Stone, Professor Roger O’Keefe, Neil MacGregor, and Michael Meyer of the British Red Cross, who have all worked closely with the DCMS for many years on the subject. In addition, I thank the police, the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces, and Historic England and its counterpart agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for their support in bringing forward this Bill. The art market and the British Art Market Federation have also been effective in working with the Department to highlight the Bill’s impact on an important sector of our economy. The Government appreciate and support the work of all those stakeholders to keep the Bill in the spotlight, enabling us to have this well-informed debate.
We have had a good debate that has covered many aspects of the Bill, and I would like quickly to address some of the key points. The two main themes of Syria and the mens rea clause were raised by many. I will deal with some of the specific issues that Members have raised, but some will need to be dealt with beyond the Chamber, so I hope that colleagues will bear with me.
Syria is a complex matter, and we need to remember what the Bill does and does not do. The Bill enables the UK to ratify the convention and both its protocols, delivering a strong message that the UK will not tolerate illicit dealing in cultural property. The Bill applies to the situation in Syria, although its application is limited in part because the UK does not recognise Daesh as a state and because Syria has not ratified the second protocol. However, UK nationals fighting with Daesh could be prosecuted for serious violations under clause 3, because article 15(1)(e) of the second protocol covers property protected under the convention, which Syria has ratified.
Many Members raised concerns about clause 17. It is important to note that the Bill will not require the art market to change how it operates. The matter was not raised on the Floor of the House during scrutiny of the Bill in the other place, but I understand that there is concern in the House. As such, I would be happy to have a meeting with anyone who wants to discuss the matter further. In addition, the Secretary of State and I will meet the chairman of the British Art Market Federation on Wednesday.
If I may, I will explain the Government’s position on clause 17. As dealers should be carrying out due diligence for any piece of cultural property that they wish to buy or sell, in accordance with industry standards, we do not consider that the legislation imposes any extra burdens on those in the art industry. In order for a criminal case to proceed, the prosecution must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that there is enough evidence that prosecution is needed in the public interest. Where there is credible evidence to suggest that an object may have been unlawfully exported, we consider that a dealer would not be acting in good faith if they proceeded in a deal involving that object unless further due diligence were undertaken to rebut that evidence. On that basis, we do not believe that honest dealers should be concerned about the risk of prosecution.
A question was asked about whether the definition of the mens rea exists in other legislation. The answer is yes. The Iraq and Syria sanctions orders create similar offences with similar penalties, using as the mens rea the very similar standards of “reason to suppose” and “reasonable grounds to suspect”. The art market has continued to operate successfully while complying with the Iraq and Syria sanctions orders, so we see no reason why that should be any different in relation to the offence under the Bill. The Government’s view is that the sanctions orders provide the most appropriate models for the offence created under the Bill, given the particular and very serious risk posed to cultural property during times of armed conflict. However, we have listened to the concerns that have been raised, and we are very happy to meet anyone to discuss this matter further.
I will turn to the specific points that colleagues have raised. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) in her summing up, mentioned the issue of digital forms. The reassurance that the noble Baroness Neville-Rolfe gave in the Lords remains true—this was repeated by the Secretary of State in her opening speech—which is that the rare and unique film or music can be included in the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member for Cardiff West also mentioned the issue of recent conflicts, including about how the Bill will apply in Afghanistan. That country has not yet ratified the convention, so the Bill’s application there will be limited.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and other hon. Members mentioned the cultural protection fund. Typically, he was incredibly understated about the role he played in securing the fund. In fact, he did not mention his role and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) in the establishment of the fund. I reassure him and other hon. Members that it is making good progress. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon rightly paid tribute to the MOD. The MOD has operated as though bound by the convention, so the Bill will have no material effect on the conduct of UK military operations.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) raised some interesting points. I just want briefly to say that we welcome his contribution and the support of the Scottish Parliament for the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage started this Bill, so I will finish it for him. He raised the issue of the monuments men. The Bill continues to enjoy the full support of the MOD and the armed forces with regard to the monuments men and women. The MOD has consulted international partners to identify best practice, and it has tasked the Army with examining the best means of delivering the unit. Initial thoughts suggest a small unit of up to 20 personnel from across all three services. I look forward to updating colleagues further in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) raised the question of Cyprus. I think we all agree that the division of Cyprus continues to cause difficulties across a range of issues, and that the most effective way to resolve them is through a just and lasting settlement. It remains important to ensure that the illegal export of cultural property is tackled and the property returned to its legal owners.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for his support, and I welcome his sporting comparison with Formula 1. As he knows, I am hugely competitive, and the idea of our being the first permanent member of the UN Secretary Council to ratify the convention and the two protocols thrills me enormously. To keep the motorsport analogy running, we in the Department are the drivers on that grid, but the car has very much been built and developed by the Members of this House, including by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark has been rightly praised by all colleagues for his role on this Bill. He made the point that we are not the epicentre of illicit trade; nor do we want to be. He spoke with great knowledge about our art market, and about how the Bill may have an impact on auction houses. He will be aware that the market is very much self-regulated, and that is how it should remain. He will also be aware that the art market itself, through its codes of due diligence, sets the common principles of practice in dealing, with a checklist for dealers. The Bill will not change that. Regardless of whether they are large or small houses, dealers should always be concerned about whether cultural objects have been lawfully exported from any territory. Let us be clear that the dealing offence applies only to a very small but very special category of cultural objects—those which are of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) for their comments and support. My right hon. and learned Friend raised two additional points about the definitions of cultural property and of occupied territories. On occupied territories, it is for the Foreign Secretary to decide on a case-by-case basis. On the other definition, article 1 of the convention defines cultural property, but we will shortly hold a round-table meeting of experts to consider what cultural property should be covered in the UK.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was right to pay tribute to the International Committee of the Blue Shield, a voluntary organisation made up primarily of cultural heritage experts keen to mitigate damage to cultural heritage during and after conflicts and natural disasters. My Department is grateful for the support the ICBS has given in shaping the Bill.
The cultural protection fund is work in progress. My hon. Friend asked some specific questions about its future application. I will ensure he gets updated on that on a regular basis.
This debate has shown how important cultural heritage is to all world citizens. The Bill offers the UK the chance to demonstrate its world leadership in the protection of cultural heritage. Through formal ratification we are sending a clear message of condemnation to those who intentionally destroy cultural heritage in times of conflict and those who seek to profit from the illegal trade in the cultural property and heritage of occupied territories. Combined with the cultural protection fund and the existing legislative framework designed to tackle illicit trade and terrorism-related activities, the Bill is another positive step towards ensuring our cultural heritage is protected for future generations. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 17 November.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Christopher Pincher.)
Question agreed to.
House of Commons Commission
Ordered,
That Dame Rosie Winterton be appointed to the House of Commons Commission in place of Mr Nicholas Brown under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended.—(Michael Ellis.)
Business without Debate
Justice Committee
21:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That Chris Elmore and Dr Rupa Huq be discharged from the Justice Committee and Kate Green and Keith Vaz be added.
This motion is the decision of the Committee of Selection. It respects the wish of the Labour party in electing those Members to this Committee.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise to object to the appointment of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) to the Justice Committee. I informed the right hon. Gentleman’s office this afternoon of my intention to do so.
I am aware that this is not a conduct debate and will therefore try to limit my remarks to why I believe the right hon. Member for Leicester East is at this time unsuitable for a role on the Committee to which he has been nominated, and to matters already on the public record and in the public domain. I am sure that should I cross the line or if my remarks are out of order, you will be as quick as always to advise and correct me, Mr Speaker.
I put on record that I have no objection to the appointment of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). In my view, it is unfortunate that her appointment has been linked with that of the other Member in question.
Mr Speaker, since I have been in this House, and on almost a weekly basis—from memory, it is usually on a Wednesday around about noon—you have reminded us how important the public perception of the workings of the House and the behaviour of its Members are in fashioning the public’s opinion of Parliament and our whole democratic system. You were quoted only last week, following the hugely successful Nottinghamshire event, as saying:
“There is a lot of evidence that people have a low opinion of politics and politicians”.
I agree, Mr Speaker, and that is unfortunately true. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Leicester East joining the Justice Committee will do anything to enhance the reputation and perception of Parliament among the public; indeed, it will do the opposite.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am a member of the Justice Committee. I am also a member of the Labour party. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) said, it is the Labour party’s choice to put my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on the Committee. What right does the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) have to tell the Labour party who to put on our Committees?
Andrew Bridgen
If that is the right hon. Gentleman’s belief, I suggest he speaks in the debate on behalf of the right hon. Member for Leicester East. Representing a Committee of the House reflects on this House. As a Member of the House, I have a right to object.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could clarify to the House what the rights of Members of other parties—parties that do not have nominating rights—are in these matters now that we have changed our rules so that each party selects and nominates its preferred candidates.
Mr Speaker
It is the House that appoints to the Committee, and it is for the House to decide. It is on that basis that these matters are brought to the House and subject to motions moved by the Committee of Selection. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman’s long experience will tell him, it is normal and commonplace for these matters to go through without objection, but it is perfectly orderly for someone to object if he or she so wishes.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will come to the hon. Gentlemen —he will continue his speech in a moment. He himself anticipated the possibility that the Chair might take an interest if he were to cross the line between what was legitimate and orderly to say and what was not. Thus far, the hon. Gentleman has observed that distinction and, on that basis, I am content for him at this stage to continue.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely right that we have procedures, but we also have conventions, which evolve. The convention that has evolved in the House, as far as I am aware, is that each of the parties, within their own ranks, decides their members of the Committees, although the whole House votes, rightly or wrongly, on who the Chairs of the Committees should be. Therefore, gratuitously for a Member to try to disrupt that convention is extremely unfortunate, even if it might be just the right side of the Standing Orders.
Mr Speaker
I entirely understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I am not insensitive to him or to his point, which he has made with his usual force and eloquence. That said, a convention is one thing and a binding rule is another. I must simply make the point that, at this stage, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) is in order. He may have offended the sensibilities of the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed departed from what is normal convention in this place, but he is at this stage in order.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker. I am pleased that so far the speech is so good.
An allegation in the Sunday Mirror, with supporting video footage, implied that the right hon. Member for Leicester East had offered to purchase class A drugs while using the services of escorts.
Mr Spellar
It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman should cite the tabloid press which has, from time to time, taken an unhealthy interest in his activities.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
That got disproved, and he is not the one who is up for the Justice Committee.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr McCartney, calm yourself. Be quiet, young man. We do not need to hear from you. You add nothing and you subtract from the proceedings. Mr Bridgen is perfectly capable of addressing these matters to the best of his ability and according to his own lights. He does not require a sedentary interjection from you.
Andrew Bridgen
I am here to try to address matters pertaining to the reputation of this House. If the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) wishes to make light of that, it is for his conscience, not mine. I am here to make my speech and force a vote, in which he will be at liberty to make his opinion known.
In July this year, the Home Affairs Committee published a report calling for the decriminalisation of soliciting by sex workers and of sex workers sharing premises. It also looked at the use of poppers. The Committee, at the time, was chaired by the right hon. Member for Leicester East. Following the much publicised exposé in the Sunday Mirror, he decided—belatedly, in my view—to resign from his position. But here we are, only a relatively few weeks later, and the same Member seeks a position on the prestigious and influential Justice Committee while matters relating to his recent resignation remain unresolved.
I wrote to Scotland Yard on 5 September to establish whether a crime had been committed by the right hon. Gentleman with regards to the allegation of conspiracy to supply a controlled substance. I received a letter, dated 9 September, from Commander Stuart Cundy of the specialist crime investigation unit, stating that an assessment of the information had commenced and that, following that assessment, a decision would be taken on the most appropriate course of action. No course of action has yet been determined by Scotland Yard, so a possible police investigation still hangs over the right hon. Gentleman.
Also on 5 September, I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards with regard to the right hon. Gentleman. An investigation was instigated and then immediately suspended, as is the procedure, pending the results of the police assessment. Should Scotland Yard decide in due course not to investigate the said Member with regards to potential criminal activity, the parliamentary standards investigation will commence immediately.
It is fair to say that the right hon. Member for Leicester East has quite a history regarding parliamentary standards. He was subject to extensive inquiries by Elizabeth Filkin, the then commissioner, into allegations of misconduct in 2001 and 2002. He was suspended from the House for one month in 2002 for breaches of the MPs’ code of conduct. I do not intend to list all the right hon. Gentleman’s brushes with parliamentary standards as I do not wish to detain colleagues longer than necessary.
Further to my letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in which I urged Scotland Yard to liaise with Leicestershire police, it has been stated that four witnesses have confirmed that they were recently interviewed by Leicestershire police and that their inquiries have been going on for at least a year. Those inquiries concern allegations that the right hon. Member for Leicester East abused his position in public office—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. He will know that I take advice on these matters. Having treated of matters that are very much within the public domain until now, his speech has strayed from there. I have consulted on the matter and he is now treating of matters that are not in the same category. He must desist.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have raised concerns with you about the conduct of the right hon. Member for Leicester East historically—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. Let me say clearly to the hon. Gentleman, and in terms that brook no contradiction, that he would be unwise to go into those matters. He has written to me and I have written back to him. I explained to him factually—factually—in a manner that cannot be disputed or gainsaid that it is not for the Speaker of this House to seek to persuade someone to step down as the Chair of a Committee because of suspicions that some people might have about him. That is not the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman were a more experienced Member, he would probably be aware of that fact. I urge the hon. Gentleman to focus on those matters which it is proper and legitimate for him to raise, and not upon those which it is not.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you. Mr Speaker, you have often said that this place must reflect the society for which we make the laws—I agree with you. I respectfully point out to the House that in any other sphere of activity, a candidate with so much hanging unresolved over him would be very unlikely to be considered for such an important office. If the right hon. Gentleman were in the Chamber today, I would ask him to stand down from his nomination, but he is not, so I ask the House to reject his appointment. Otherwise, we cannot blame the great British public for having a low opinion of its politicians and its politics; we can only blame ourselves.
In conclusion, I will leave the House with this question. If the right hon. Member for Leicester East thought himself only last month not fit to be a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and given that the matters relating his resignation are, as I have explained, unresolved, what makes him think that he is a fit and proper person to be a member of the Justice Committee this month?
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend draws his remarks to a conclusion, some correspondence has been referred to this evening. I wonder if he will say whether it is possible to publish that correspondence to ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have an opportunity to consider all of the facts.
Mr Speaker
Order. That is nothing to do with the debate, as I have just been advised by the Clerk of the House. Don’t frown at me, Mr Berry. I know the facts and you’re about to learn them. That is nothing to do with the debate tonight—point one. Secondly, there is no uncertainty or dubiety whatsoever about the correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and me. Indeed, I do not think there is any uncertainty at all about the advice that was proffered not just by me but by the Clerk of the House. Whether he wishes and is astute enough to take that advice is another matter.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend’s failed attempt to help in this debate.
It is clear that the right hon. Member for Leicester East felt the need to resign last month from the Home Affairs Committee. I think it would be a huge mistake for this House now to place him on the Justice Committee when he has so many questions to answer. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote against his appointment this evening.
Question put.
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 19 to 25 together.
Ordered,
Petitions
That Ian Blackford be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Martyn Day be added.
Procedure
That Jenny Chapman be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Melanie Onn be added.
Public Accounts
That David Mowat and Mr Stewart Jackson be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Charlie Elphicke and Kwasi Kwarteng be added.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs
That Oliver Dowden, Mr David Jones and Tom Tugendhat be discharged from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Marcus Fysh, Adam Holloway and Dr Poulter be added.
Transport
That Mary Glindon be discharged from the Transport Committee and Clive Efford be added.
Treasury
That Mark Garnier be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Kit Malthouse be added.
Work and Pensions
That Jeremy Quin and Craig Williams be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and James Cartlidge and Luke Hall be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Social Housing: Regulation
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I am delighted to have secured this debate. I called for it to voice my concerns about the regulation of social landlords and how they manage their properties. First, I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of my constituents who have campaigned, with me and their councillors, to draw urgent attention to their plight. The focus of my contribution will be how we can ensure that social housing tenants have the proper protection they need and can live in security and safety. This applies in particular to repairs and maintenance services, which if not done speedily and to a high standard can be devastating, and in some cases life-threatening.
At a time when local authorities and housing associations have been facing significant funding pressures, it is vital that the Government and regulators pay particular attention to the experience of social housing tenants. Housing associations are a critical part of the solution to Britain’s housing crisis; they provide affordable, quality rented and shared ownership accommodation, and the best ones are anchored in their communities. Many provide specialist housing services—for example, for people with disabilities. Some housing associations have historical roots in the 19th century and the mutual and co-operative traditions.
Tower Hamlets has many excellent community-based housing associations which have worked well in partnership with the council to look after residents and to be genuinely responsive to the needs of local people, but in recent years I have become increasingly concerned that these progressive aims are being subverted and the not-for-profit ethos of housing associations is being undermined in some cases. Old Ford Housing, which was established in 1998 as the successor body to Tower Hamlets Housing Trust, was widely regarded as one of the best housing associations in east London. It was originally a subsidiary of Circle 33 Housing Group for financing purposes, but it was accountable to its own board of tenants, leaseholders and independent members. In 2005, it merged with Anglia Housing Group to form Circle Anglia. Other associations then joined to form Circle Housing Group.
The quality of maintenance has progressively worsened since the merger. Circle Housing has systematically failed local people. Local councillors and I have had to deal with hundreds of complaints from residents, as have other MPs with housing in their constituency that is managed by Circle Housing. Last winter, it failed to manage its heating repairs properly, meaning that many tenants had no heating or hot water for days. Many other examples have been brought to my attention of missed appointments, repairs left undone, poor-quality work by contractors, and failures to communicate with residents. Tower Hamlets Council has taken the rare step of dropping Circle Housing altogether as a preferred partner for housing development in the borough.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important issue to the House for consideration. Does she agree that social housing regulations, in particular the right to repairs, must be further protected? Some people do the repairs themselves and then cannot get the money back from landlords, finding themselves in a precarious situation. Is it not time for the Minister to respond and to address that issue?
Rushanara Ali
I could not agree more. I will ask the Minister to address that point, because it is unacceptable that housing associations in receipt of public money are leaving some tenants to fend for themselves. I hope the Minister will address that and consider how to strengthen the regulatory framework.
Returning to the issues affecting my constituents, local ward councillors Rachel Blake, Mark Francis and Joshua Peck have been working tirelessly to support the hundreds of residents who have been treated disgracefully by Circle Housing. Some of the cases are heart-breaking, including residents carrying umbrellas indoors because of leaking ceilings, a heavy heater falling off a wall near small children playing on the floor, lifts breaking down on a weekly basis, and 30 flats left without light for weeks. No one should have to live like that.
One of my constituents called the Circle Housing office 40 times over a three-month period to fix leaks that left them using an umbrella when using the toilet. Another of my constituents, who was eight months pregnant, slipped on water leaking from her toilet, which she had reported on 88 occasions. Another couple had a boiler that broke down repeatedly for nearly six months. A disabled resident was left without heating for the best part of two months. Another family had to sit with bowls on their laps and towels on their heads because of unrepaired leaks from above. In another case, repair workers failed to attend four pre-agreed appointments organised since May this year to fix damaged walls and ceilings.
In other cases, leaks from bathrooms that have damaged the ceilings below have been left unrepaired for years. Another family’s unresolved piping problems have left them filling the bath with hot water from the kettle after asking for help for months. An elderly pensioner in her eighties went without heating and hot water for 17 days. Another elderly resident had to live with no hot water or heating for eight weeks. When he informed me about the situation, I asked Circle Housing’s CEO if he could tolerate being treated like that and had to threaten to inform the media about the appalling treatment before my constituent’s boiler was finally fixed. It cannot be right that we have go to such lengths to make Circle do its publicly funded job properly. It demonstrates incompetence and a dereliction of duty by Circle Housing.
Circle’s poor quality management was recognised in 2015 when the Homes and Communities Agency found evidence of serious detriment to tenants and downgraded Circle Housing Group from G1 to G3, which means there are issues of serious regulatory concern. Circle’s response to such a damning ruling was to close down its subsidiaries, including the Old Ford Housing Association, and centralise services, moving most of its staff to a new call centre in Kent. That has made matters worse.
In the spring, Tower Hamlets councillors reported further failings to the social housing regulator, whose role is to investigate whether there has been a breach of the home standard, which amounts to “serious detriment” to tenants. I could not imagine more cut and dried examples of serious detriment than leaving dozens, and possibly hundreds, of tenants without heating and hot water for extended periods. The provision of heating and hot water is one of the most fundamental of landlord functions. In response to that complaint, the HCA simply said it was satisfied with the progress Circle was making in improving its services. Earlier this summer, the HCA announced that Circle’s governance rating had been increased again to G2.
My constituents have now had enough. Earlier this year, I received a petition from nearly 1,000 local residents calling on the mayor of Tower Hamlets, John Biggs, to report the continuing service failings to the social housing regulator and initiate legal action against Circle for its failure to honour the promises it made to tenants back in 2005. It also called on me to raise their concerns with the Housing Minister, which I did in writing earlier this summer and as I did to his predecessor—I have not yet received a response. I hope that the Minister will therefore make sure he addresses these urgent matters today.
Given this context of the appalling record of the merger and growth of Circle Housing, it is not surprising that the recent proposal for Circle Housing to merge with Affinity Sutton has raised further alarm bells among residents. If this merger goes ahead, it will create one of the largest housing associations in Europe. Nearly half a million people across London, from Bromley to Brent, from Chelsea to Chingford, will become tenants of this new social landlord, which will own and run more than 127,000 properties. Residents are also rightly concerned that the merger and the centralisation of services, including repairs and maintenance, will see services deteriorate even further.
What we have seen is a complete failure to be locally accountable, with locally accountable board membership having been cast aside. Circle has completely failed to honour the promise it made when the Old Ford transfer happened that that would be maintained and there would be proper accountability. The merger with Affinity Sutton will make matters worse, and my constituents do not want any part of it, nor do residents from other London boroughs who have had similar experiences.
Housing associations receive billions in public subsidy from the taxpayer. Between 2010 and 2016, Circle Housing alone received more than £250 million of Government funding. It must be held to account properly if we are to prevent others from suffering in the way that many of my constituents have over the past few years at the hands of Circle Housing. Will the Minister provide an assurance that there will be more robust systems to process complaints, adjudicate in disputes and provide redress quickly when things go wrong? Will he assure us that he will ensure the HCA urgently investigates why Circle’s management board retained a failing contractor, Kier Gas, to provide its gas safety maintenance, and whether that decision, which left many tenants without heating and hot water for weeks, amounts to serious detriment? With the HCA review due to complete soon, will the Minister commit to empowering the HCA to investigate examples of neglect of repairs responsibilities? Will he think again about the HCA losing the power to give consent to housing association mergers, as set out in the Housing and Planning Act 2016?
I have no doubt that some housing associations and their representative body dislike the old regime from the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and its predecessor legislation, but this case shows that some housing associations do not always make decisions in the best interests of their tenants. The Government should be empowering regulators, not making them even more toothless and unable to act and therefore inept at standing up for the very people whom they should be serving.
In conclusion, I do not believe for a moment that Circle is alone in providing a shoddy service, or that this is the only proposed merger in the UK that is problematic. Instead there may well be a trend towards bigger, more remote and less accountable housing associations with multi-million pound turnovers and substantial assets and reserves behaving like companies that are not serving their communities. This is the antithesis of the founding principles behind housing associations and the opposite of what is needed now to fix the housing crisis.
I commend the work of the many housing associations in my constituency and up and down the country. It is right and proper that we hold to account those that are letting them down—in this case, it is Circle Housing Group—so that the reputation of good, hard-working housing associations that are responsive to their local communities is not damaged by the actions of the few.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this debate on local authorities and the regulation of social housing and on raising the wholly unacceptable conditions that some of her constituents have been experiencing as tenants of the housing associations to which she referred.
Let me start by setting the scene. I am sure that all Members will agree that everybody needs the security and stability of a decent, affordable home, and nowhere is that need greater than in our capital city, which both the hon. Lady and I have the privilege of representing in this House.
As a Government we have gone some way to try to address the problem. In 2014-15, we saw a record year for London house building. Some 27,000 homes were delivered, including more than 18,000 affordable homes—the most since records began in 1991—but we need to do much more. That is why the Government are doubling the housing budget to more than £20 billion over the next five years to support the largest housing programme by any Government since the 1970s.
We are also building a strong working relationship with the Mayor of London’s team to deliver our shared goals to build more homes and to help more people to own their own home. Indeed, I am due to speak to the Mayor about that tomorrow.
As the hon. Lady acknowledged, the housing association sector has a strong track record on house building. It has delivered nearly 300,000 affordable homes since April 2010. That equates to about a third of all new housing in England every year. To help the sector to continue to build more homes, the Government have already committed £8 billion to deliver a range of affordable housing starts by 2021, and we have made it very clear that we will prioritise housing in London.
In April this year, we published the prospectus for the shared ownership and affordable homes programme. The bidding round closed in September, and the Homes and Communities Agency is currently assessing bids. We expect to announce successful bidders in December. This programme will get more homes built and help some people take the first step on to the housing ladder.
Building new homes is only part of the picture. One of the key roles of housing associations is to manage their existing stock. I wish now to turn to the role of the regulator, on which the hon. Lady touched during her speech. It has a strong regulatory framework to make sure housing associations are well managed, provide good-quality homes and serve the needs of their tenants and communities.
The hon. Lady may be aware that the Government are committed to deregulating the sector. She touched on that and asked us to rethink our policy. There are two reasons why we are taking such action. The first reason, with which she will not have a great deal of sympathy, is to do with the deal with housing associations to deliver the voluntary right to buy. The second reason, with which I hope that she and the shadow Secretary of State will have a lot of sympathy, is to allow the Office for National Statistics to return the sector to the private sector where it belongs. If we want to deliver more housing through the housing associations, it is very important that we end this decision to treat housing associations as if they are part of the public sector.
To help achieve those aims, a package of measures was included in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. They include the removal of the regulator’s disposals consents regime, so housing associations will no longer need the regulator’s permission to sell their own stock or to charge it for security. The regulator’s constitutional consents regime will also be abolished. That will remove the need for housing associations to seek permission before they make organisational changes.
What will not change is the strong regulatory framework. The regulator’s monitoring powers will remain unchanged and it will continue to take action where necessary. It will also continue with its vital role in encouraging and challenging the sector to improve efficiency and asset management. Its role is to help maintain a viable and well governed sector that attracts commercial lenders to continue to invest at preferential rates, so that we get the new housing that we need, and crucially to do a good job for the tenants whom those housing associations serve.
Rushanara Ali
I am concerned by the Minister’s response. I cannot understand how that helps to deal with my constituents’ concerns and how they are being treated. It is complacency yet again and does not address the effects on the public. On his point about privatising housing associations, they have received billions in subsidies, so deregulation must go with responsibility and accountability to the public because of that public investment. Surely, the Minister can understand that.
Gavin Barwell
I understand and share the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that, in return for the very significant public investment that the Government are putting into the housing association sector, we not only get the new homes that we so desperately need—I do not think there is any difference between us on that—and that the housing associations do a good job for their existing tenants. If she will allow me to make a little progress, I hope that I can provide her with some reassurance.
The new freedoms that come with the deregulation measures will undoubtedly bring new challenges and may alter the way that the sector approaches decision making and business planning. The sector has a long history of meeting housing need. The majority of housing associations are still charitable and non-profit making organisations. Although some of them are running very large businesses in terms of the money involved, the hon. Lady was right to allude to the key social value that they provide. They must not lose sight of that, and I am confident that housing associations will continue to be responsible social landlords, acting in the best interests of both their current tenants and those in housing need.
Housing associations must have a process in place for tenants to have a say in how the organisation is run and to deal with complaints when tenants think their service does not come up to scratch. The housing ombudsman has the main role in dealing with complaints where tenants feel that matters cannot be resolved directly with their housing association. However, the regulator considers all the information it receives to determine whether there has been a breach of its standards and serious harm to tenants—as clearly happened in the case that the hon. Lady brought before the House tonight—and acts where it judges that to be the case.
I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that, as the regulator is independent and that independence is very important, I cannot directly intervene in individual cases. I am confident that the regulator takes all complaints seriously and investigates where necessary. I apologise to her for the fact that she has not yet received a reply to the letter that she wrote to me in August. If she has any concerns in future, she should speak to me in person. I want to be kept informed of exactly what the situation is and whether the progress that we both want to see is being made.
We heard a lot from the hon. Lady this evening about her concerns in relation to Circle 33 and Old Ford, two of the housing associations in the Circle group. As she may know, the regulator found that Circle’s long-standing poor emergency repairs service for two of its housing associations, Circle 33 and Old Ford, put its tenants at risk of serious harm. That is a very serious matter. The regulator took decisive action in April last year and downgraded Circle as it judged that Circle fell far short of the required standard and ordered it to make urgent improvements. That is not a decision that the regulator took lightly. I am pleased to say that Circle did take action to improve its performance. The hon. Lady referred to Kier, the contractors. My understanding is that that contract was terminated. The regulator has now upgraded Circle’s rating to compliant standard—so-called V2— but that is not good enough. It still has not reached the level that we all have a right to expect, and I will be monitoring that situation carefully.
The hon. Lady referred in her speech to the proposed mergers. As part of Circle’s drive to improve its governance arrangements, it plans to merge its nine separate housing associations, including Old Ford, into one. It believes that this will create a more efficient organisation. Housing associations need to take the views of their tenants into account before making such organisational changes. Indeed, it is one of the requirements of the regulator that they must do so, along with consulting their local authority—Tower Hamlets in this case—and lenders.
Old Ford will need to make its case for this change as part of that consultation. Until the deregulation measures come into force, it will need the regulator’s permission to make this change. The regulator’s criteria for taking a decision include whether the change will lead to simple, clear governance structures and whether it will deliver improved services to current and future tenants. I understand that the regulator has yet to receive an application from Old Ford in this regard. Again, as befits the regulator’s independence, the Government—that obviously includes me—do not have a role in such decisions. It will be up to the regulator, and the regulator alone, to carefully consider the application and to make its decision.
The hon. Lady referred to the merger of the whole Circle group with another housing association, Affinity Sutton. This merger would create a new organisation, to be called the Clarion group, which would manage about 128,000 homes. That would make it the largest housing association in the country. Circle has said this will help to deliver better services to tenants and build it more homes. In this case, I am told it has already consulted tenants, and I am told—the hon. Lady clearly believes otherwise—it did not receive many responses to that consultation. The regulator has given conditional approval to that merger, but it has not yet taken a decision on the nine associations in the Circle group.
I hope that the new organisation will continue to house and protect its tenants in a transparent and accountable manner. The regulator’s job is to ensure that it does. The hon. Lady clearly has real concerns about that. I would say to her that Affinity Sutton’s performance in relation to the repairs service is significantly better than Circle group’s, so there are clearly signs that Circle is merging with an organisation that is doing a much better job for its tenants, and the hope must be that that improved service will be brought to bear for Circle’s tenants. However, it is clear from the hon. Lady’s speech that she does not share the confidence the regulator has in that, and I am happy to discuss with her in detail after the debate the reasons for her concern.
I acknowledge that there has been a lot of change in the social housing sector in recent years. It is becoming increasingly complex, and it continues to diversify into a range of new commercial ventures and relationships. The hon. Lady referred to the internal review the Government have conducted of the Homes and Communities Agency. We will publish the results of that review shortly, but I want to reassure her that foremost in my mind in considering that review is making sure that, when we look at the functions the HCA has at the moment—parts of it increasingly resemble a bank that is making commercial lending decisions—we have a strong, clear and robust role for the regulator to look after the interests of tenants.
It is important that housing association boards’ skills and governance structures continue to evolve to match this increasing complexity. Overall, I believe the sector is rising to this challenge, indicating ambitious plans for building the homes this country desperately needs. It continues to invest in increasing supply to help the Government achieve our commitments.
As independent organisations, it is up to housing associations themselves to explore options thoroughly and openly and to make well-informed decisions about what is best, given their particular circumstances. Mergers will not be the answer in every case, but it should be of concern to us all if associations do not explore options that would help them to make better use of the resources they have and to provide an improved service to their tenants.
Finally, I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate on a very important issue. I have, as Housing Minister, received correspondence from some of her constituents, who are very concerned about the service she has received. I want to apologise again that she did get a reply from me in timely fashion. I mean what I say: if she has ongoing concerns, she should feel free to come and talk to me in the House or to make an appointment to come and see me at the Department, because I would very much want to work with her to ensure that her constituents get the service they have every right to expect from their landlord.
Question put and agreed to.
Electoral Commission (Motions)
(7 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will appoint Sir John Holmes as the Chair of the Electoral Commission with effect from 1 January 2017 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion, on the Electoral Commission,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Susan Bruce as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2017 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.
Michael Ellis
It is a pleasure to appear before you, Mr Wilson.
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report—its fourth of 2016—in relation to the first motion. The vacancy has arisen because the term of office of the current chair of the commission, Jenny Watson, comes to an end on 31 December 2016. I am sure that the Committee would like to thank Ms Watson for her service as chair for the past eight years.
Appointments to the Electoral Commission are made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, under which the Speaker’s Committee has the responsibility of overseeing the selection of candidates for appointment. Commissioners are appointed for a fixed term and may be reappointed for up to a maximum term length of 10 years. As is normal for such appointments, the Speaker’s Committee established a recruitment panel to oversee the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates and, given the importance of the role, it asked the Commissioner for Public Appointments to appoint a public appointment assessor to chair the panel. The commissioner nominated Mark Addison, a former civil service commissioner, to that role, and the other members of the panel were Max Caller, a former electoral commissioner and former chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Dr Jane Martin, a local government ombudsman for England, and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), a member of the Speaker’s Committee. The unanimous view of the panel was that Sir John Holmes should be appointed as chair of the Electoral Commission.
Sir John’s most recent role was director of the Ditchley Foundation, an organisation established to promote transatlantic dialogue and understanding of international policy issues. The majority of Sir John’s executive career was spent working in foreign affairs, in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and as a foreign affairs adviser to two Prime Ministers. After leaving the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where his final role was as British ambassador to France, he moved to the United Nations to be the under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordinator.
The Committee received the panel’s report in April and put the name of the recommended candidate forward for consultation with the leaders of the political parties represented here at Westminster, as is required by statute. This statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. The responses received are published in the Speaker’s Committee report. Following the consultation with the party leaders, the Speaker’s Committee held a public meeting with Sir John, to test his suitability for the role and discuss his priorities for the commission. The transcript of that session can be found on the Committee’s website. Following that meeting, the Committee agreed to recommend Sir John’s appointment to the House.
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report—its third of 2016—in relation to the second motion, that Dame Susan Bruce will serve on the commission as the electoral commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland.
The vacancy has arisen because the term of office of John McCormick, the current commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland, comes to an end on 31 December 2016, and I am sure that the Committee would wish to join me in thanking him for his service. The Speaker’s Committee appointed a recruitment panel to oversee the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates for this role also, and asked Judith Alderton, an independent human resources professional with experience of senior recruitment, to chair the recruitment panel. The Speaker’s Committee agreed that a nominee of the Scottish Parliament should take part in the recruitment exercise for the role, to reflect the Electoral Commission’s increased accountability to the Scottish Parliament for its work in Scotland since the Scotland Act 2016. The other panel members were Jenny Watson, chair of the Electoral Commission; Graeme Pearson, former MSP for South Scotland; my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who are both members of the Speaker’s Committee.
The panel’s unanimous view was that Dame Susan Bruce DBE should be appointed as an electoral commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland. Dame Susan currently holds a number of senior non-executive positions in Scotland, spanning the public and private sectors. Before taking on those roles, her career was in local government: she was chief executive of Aberdeen City Council and then of the City of Edinburgh Council. The Speaker’s Committee received the board’s report in April and agreed to the nomination. Dame Susan’s name was then put forward for the statutory consultation with the leaders of the political parties represented here at Westminster. The responses received to that consultation are published in the Speaker’s Committee’s report.
In summary, this Committee is being asked to consider motions to appoint Sir John Holmes as chair of the Electoral Commission for four years and Dame Susan Bruce as an electoral commissioner for four years. I hope that the Committee, and ultimately the House, will support their appointments and wish them well as they take up their new posts.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his speech; I join him in thanking Jenny Watson, outgoing chair of the Electoral Commission, for all her hard work.
For both appointments, the process of selection and interview has been rigorous. It has included consulting party leaders—I think the former Prime Minister actually responded—and for the first time the Scottish Parliament was consulted on the appointment of the electoral commissioner responsible for Scotland. The process has been open, transparent and accountable to Parliament, with reports published on 19 July 2016 and 10 October 2016. I am sure that the new appointees will look forward to the challenges of addressing the 50 recommendations of “Securing the ballot”, the report by the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles).
The Labour party has some concerns about individual electoral registration and ending the transition arrangements earlier. The Electoral Commission may want to review the situation to ensure that people have not been disfranchised and are on the register, so that they can take full part in the democratic process.
The candidates’ backgrounds are set out in the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission’s third and fourth reports of 2016, and we can see that they both have extensive experience. The Opposition fully endorse those reports and the motions.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am happy to add the Scottish National party’s support to the motions. We welcome the involvement of the Scottish Parliament—and, indeed, of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire—in the appointment of the electoral commissioner for Scotland. If my calculations are correct, the appointments will take the gender balance on the board from 7:3 to 6:4, so we are getting closer to the 50:50 target that I am sure we all want to achieve and that the First Minister of Scotland has set for public bodies to achieve by 2020, as I am sure hon. Members know.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Sir John Holmes as the Chair of the Electoral Commission with effect from 1 January 2017 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.
electoral commission
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Susan Bruce as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2017 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.—(Michael Ellis.)
Aviation Security (Reasoned Opinion)
(7 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Welcome to today’s European Committee. Before we begin, it will be helpful to remind Members how the process will work. The whole proceeding must conclude no later than two and a half hours after we start, which will be 7 pm. First, I will call a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, who I understand on this occasion is Mr Stringer, to give a brief statement about why the Committee decided to refer these documents for debate. Secondly, I shall call the Minister to make a statement, which should be no longer than 10 minutes in duration. It will be followed by questions for up to an hour, and then we will debate the Government motion in whatever time is left, subject to a vote at the end, should we so wish.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The debate arises because the European Scrutiny Committee, on which I serve, has recommended that the House of Commons issues a reasoned opinion against the Commission proposal for a regulation creating a common certification scheme. A reasoned opinion signifies that the House does not consider that the proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. Put simply, this principle requires matters to be left to member states if they are best placed to handle them and the EU will not achieve a better result. Should the Committee approve, the House will be asked formally to approve the sending of a reasoned opinion by the 3 November deadline. A draft is annexed to our report, which forms part of the debate pack.
The terrorist attack on Zaventem airport in Brussels earlier this year was a sad reminder of how important airport security is for individual EU member states, and the incident at Glasgow airport in 2007 was a concrete example of how the United Kingdom is not immune to such attacks. The risk of such attacks fluctuates with changes in the terrorist threats faced by individual member states at any given time. The EU recognised that member states might need to react unilaterally to threats in its 2008 civil aviation security regulations, which set minimum standards for airport security but allow member states to apply higher security standards or more stringent measures in relation to airport security screening equipment than the minimum EU standards. The United Kingdom takes advantage of that provision.
This proposal is ostensibly concerned not with those standards but with creating a common certification system intended to facilitate the marketing of security equipment. However, a significant concern of the European Scrutiny Committee is that, despite Commission claims to the contrary, one of the effects of the proposal, albeit an unintended one, is that member states will no longer be able to apply more stringent measures. The Committee, in its reasoned opinion, also questions the basis of the Commission’s assumption that member states will not voluntarily improve their existing co-operation at a national level on the approval of equipment operated within the European Civil Aviation Conference. It also fears that the benefits of EU action might be undermined by the risk to confidential data associated with the equipment and by the cost and bureaucracy involved for member states in setting up certification processes and bodies.
The French National Assembly also issued a reasoned opinion on similar grounds. Although we are unlikely to reach the one third of votes in national Parliaments required to trigger a yellow card, which would result in the Commission’s having formally to reconsider its proposal, reasoned opinions from two Chambers from major member states ought to have some influence on the eventual outcome.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to make the opening statement, I remind the Committee that this is a statement, so interventions are not allowed. There is an opportunity for questions when the Minister has finished his remarks.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, who, as ever, has brought sagacity and eloquence to our affairs. On this matter, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to say that I agree with what he has said already, and I will set out why.
This measure is probably an archetypical example of the European Union doing what it does not need to do, in a way that it does not need to do it, and that is unhelpful to this country’s interest. I understand entirely therefore why the European Scrutiny Committee has recommended that the matter be debated.
I have an immensely long speech prepared for me but I will abbreviate it—you will be pleased to know that, Mr Hanson—because I think I can set out in sufficient detail in a much shorter way a legitimisation or justification of the assertion that I have just made that is true to the motion.
There are several critical things here. The first is that the UK has one of the strictest aviation security regimes in the world and we keep that regime under constant review. In my previous job at the Home Office as Security Minister, I looked at these matters very closely and at first hand, examining the latest developments in screening technology at airports, for example, which enable us to maintain high standards of security.
The second point is that much of our aviation security derives from a common regime that is already in practice. That regime is Europe-wide; it applies across the European Union. However, that regime allows member states to add their own more stringent measures on top of the baseline standard that applies across the continent.
Of course, that regime is based on particular risk assessments. The circumstances at different airports and in different countries will vary, and it will be necessary to put in place particular measures that are relevant to those circumstances. Different countries have different threat levels; I think that is well understood. To reflect that, we in the UK apply a number of more stringent standards, of the kind that I looked at in my previous job.
I also mentioned a moment ago that aviation security has at its heart the way in which we screen individuals and materials that pass through airports. Screening methods vary from the archways designed to detect metal objects carried on a person’s body to machines designed to detect explosives in cabin baggage or hold baggage.
To ensure that such equipment is fit for purpose, I entirely recognise that it is important that we have standards and that those standards are applied with rigour. It is also important that we are aware of changing threats and take advantage of changing technology. Screening technology is moving on, allowing us to detect materials that previously would have been undetectable.
Standards for checking, testing and validating those technological advances are already in place, having been developed over a number of years and having been overseen by ECAC, which is a pan-European body that brings together 44 European states to work jointly on such matters. Government scientists work alongside their contemporaries from other countries, clearly making a significant contribution to the work on testing standards for screening equipment. It is important that these standards are very exacting and encourage manufacturers to innovate in order to promote the development of new technologies that drive up performance.
Under the proposal that has emanated from the European Union, each member state would be required to designate a body with responsibility for approving the compliance of equipment that is used in the delivery of EU security rules, by issuing EU-type approval certificates on the basis of prototype testing. Once a state has granted type approval to a manufacturer for a particular model of equipment, it is valid throughout the European Union.
The problem is that equipment standards are already at least as high as those required under the proposed regime, so the regime would add nothing to what is happening now. It is unnecessary and unwelcome, but it might be worse than that: it might actually prevent us from developing and applying these new higher standards. It is undoubtedly true that this proposal conflicts, although not necessarily intentionally, with the principle of subsidiarity, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton amplified in his opening remarks and as is implicit in the motion. Because of those core points—first, that there is a high level of aviation security in the UK, secondly, that there is a pan-European approach that already works, thirdly, that this might worsen the situation and, fourthly, that it is clearly contrary to the principles that underpin subsidiarity—I fully appreciate, understand and am mindful to support the motion.
The Chair
I thank the Minister. We now have until 5.35 pm at the latest for members of the Committee to ask questions. Members, at my discretion, can ask more than one question in an exchange.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and to serve alongside the Minister. We were just saying that the last time I did so was on the Infrastructure Bill, which went on for a great deal longer than this debate will.
I have a few questions. First, the Government’s explanatory memorandum, the Minister and the Under-Secretary in the other place, Lord Ahmad, have all said that there have been improvements in the European Civil Aviation Conference’s common evaluation process in recent years. I would be grateful if the Minister can outline those improvements and how they address some of the issues that the regulation is intended to address.
Secondly, both the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee expressed concerns about the impact that this regulation could have on the ability of member states to implement higher standards and more stringent measures on aviation security equipment. I am not entirely clear whether that is a theoretical concern or whether it is based on any evidence. Are there any examples of similar regulations that have caused that to happen?
Thirdly, since the publication of the European agenda on security, have the UK Government been consulting with other member states on aviation security equipment? Does that have any significance for the European Commission’s argument for this proposal on the subsidiarity principle? There may be a link between my first question and my third.
Fourthly, as the Minister is aware, the European Commission drew up five policy options in its impact assessment for this proposal. It would be useful to know the Government’s position on those five options.
Mr Hayes
On the third question—to maintain the Committee’s interest, it is important that I mix up the order of my answers—it is certainly true that the UK Government have enjoyed close co-operation with other European countries on aviation security. Indeed, by necessity, our approach to aviation security is pan-national, and not just with European countries. The Home Office has worked with countries from around the world that are important destinations for UK travellers to improve airport security, including by sharing equipment and expertise where appropriate. In specific relation to the proposal, we have worked with other members of the EU. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned France. France is known to share our view on the proposal, and it is likely that other countries will, too. I will not go exhaustively into the process that will now enjoin the European Union as a result, but it is likely that a considerable number of countries will try to ameliorate, mitigate or block the proposal. Indeed, France is already actively, in the way the hon. Gentleman mentioned, doing what we are being asked to do today.
In answer to the first question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, which was on the development of standards, I mentioned ECAC and the role it has played over a considerable time. We have succeeded in developing standards that essentially do two things. Actually, they do three things—I am receiving advice, which I will use to supplement what I am saying, as Ministers always should. You know that, Mr Hanson, from your time as a distinguished Minister in the Home Office.
The first thing the standards do is take advantage of cutting-edge technology. In practice, that means we are trying to detect more things more accurately. The read-out from the latest scanning technology is clearer. It is designed to detect smaller items that might be concealed about someone’s person or in their baggage. In essence, it is about having a speedier, more effective process.
Secondly, the process produces fewer false alarms. False alarms are important in this area, because they delay the process and the alacrity necessary for the efficient practice of airports. Having fewer false alarms reassures people about the certainties in the system. If there are many false alarms, that undermines confidence on the part of airport staff and others that the system will deliver when it needs to.
Thirdly, co-operation in the scientific community among security experts in both the private sector and the public sector is facilitated by the ECAC process. Discussion at Government level and at primary source level—if we think of the technologies, the scientists and the businesses as primary sources of the equipment—is facilitated by the process. Improvements are being made, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first question.
The hon. Gentleman’s second question was about why the proposal might do harm. The risk is that, at its worst, it could force us to accept technology that does not detect the latest threats. If we moved away from the ECAC system, which is essentially what the proposal means, we would be transferring power to the Commission under the guise of that slightly Orwellian term, “harmonisation”. I have a very balanced view of the EU, as members of the Committee know—I take an immensely reasonable position—but when it comes to the EU, that term is usually a proxy for taking power.
Under the guise of harmonisation and with the delegation of responsibility to individual member states, it is not inconceivable that we could end up with equipment that was less effective than it needed to be. I am concerned about that. I do not say that it is a likelihood, but it is a possibility under the proposed regime. Fundamentally, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. ECAC seems to be working well, so it does not need to be changed. As I said at the outset, the provision seems unnecessary.
Was there a fourth question? If so, what was it?
Richard Burden
The fourth question was about the policy options that the Commission is looking at.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he said, we have worked together before. There are options to try to mitigate the provision. He will be as familiar as other members of the Committee with how the process works in Europe. There will be continuing discussions before the provision gets to the point of being implemented. If it were to be implemented, that would be at least two years down the line. The question that has not been asked—almost the question that dare not speak its name—is, what will happen to this proposal in relation to Brexit? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he is coming to that, and I have rather unkindly anticipated his next question.
To be frank, I cannot see us implementing this proposal and we will do all we can not to do so. If we could not mitigate the proposals in the process that we will now endure and if we could not build a sufficient blocking minority among other nations—which I think we probably could—I suppose it would be theoretically possible that we might end up having it forced upon us for a very short period.
My real anxiety, however, which will be spinning through the hon. Gentleman’s mind at the moment, is what happens to other European countries. Even if we were not part of this scheme—if ECAC is undermined by this—we might all in the end be losers. It is in the interest not just of our country, but of all the countries of Europe, that we affirm our support for the existing arrangements, which seem to me to work well. The frank answer is that we will oppose this proposal at every turn and try to stop it.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, we can proceed to debate the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 12090/16 and Addenda 1, 2 and 3, a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union certification system for aviation security screening equipment; considers that the proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in Chapter 1 of the Sixteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 71-xiv) and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol No. 2 annexed to EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.
Richard Burden
Hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that the regulation before us might be regarded as a bit dry. I guess it is, but the issues behind it—the Minister made this point—are undoubtedly important. As a country, we face significant threats to security, particularly in aviation. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton, who is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, referred to the attack on Brussels airport, which gives us all pause for thought, as does what happened to flight MS804.
It is important that the EU, the UK Government and the aviation industry all work proactively and in co-ordination to address the challenges we face in aviation security. That, of course, includes some common basic standards internationally, and probably at EU level as well. It is also important to understand and to ask the question put by both the Minister and the European Scrutiny Committee about the appropriate mechanisms for doing that—how, in practical terms, we spread best practice.
That is something I saw for myself during a visit to Gatwick airport in November last year, and it was more about the monitoring than the equipment itself. A new system had been introduced at Gatwick, where the monitoring of security scans as the hand luggage went along the conveyor belt was done remotely in a different room, without the distraction of being done there and then by airport staff. They were convinced that that led to better monitoring of the screen.
The people at Gatwick were also convinced that the new system made for a better customer experience, because those who were looking at the screen were uninterrupted and those getting bags off, on and through were concerned about the customer experience. I must admit that I was pretty convinced by that. The discussion I had with staff at Gatwick was how that kind of experience could be spread to other airports.
Turning to some of the concerns that have been raised about the proposal, I acknowledge and note the concerns of the Government as detailed in the explanatory memorandum, as well as those of the European Scrutiny Committee. As the Minister has said, there have been similar concerns in other member states—in France’s National Assembly, for one. The concern is that, if this measure went through as a regulation, rather than a directive, a voluntary agreement or whatever else, it would prevent or undermine the ability of member states to apply stricter measures than the common basic standards.
We have similar concerns. First, it is unclear whether the proposal would restrict the ability of member states to judge the adequacy of security screening equipment, particularly in response to specific security threats. Although all member states face threats, not all of them face the same threats at the same time, so it is important that member states are able to introduce more stringent measures and higher standards in response to new intelligence or technological developments. In any case, that would go beyond the minimum legal standards that the proposal would introduce.
In an accompanying factsheet, the European Commission tried to allay such concerns:
“This proposal does not limit the possibility for any EU Member State to apply more stringent measures for performance requirements as envisaged in the currently applicable EU aviation security legislation.”
The Commission said on the record that the proposal will not restrict more stringent measures being operated. It would be useful if there were more explicit clarification on what is theoretical and what is real. We all agree that it would be wrong for anything to undermine the ability of member states to adopt more stringent measures. The question is, would the measure actually do so?
There were also concerns about the consultation that the Commission undertook and the absence of a consultation in the UK. The European Commission conducted a consultation between March and June 2013, and it received responses that it suggests expressed general support at that stage for a legislative approach—option 3 of its five options. That consultation is now well over three years old, and there have obviously been a lot of developments since then, not least in technology. The Commission’s proposal claims that
“the results of the public consultation can be considered as representative since all the main stakeholder groups responded”,
but the consultation had only 37 respondents across all European member states, eight of which were from the UK.
I appreciate that there has been no formal consultation in the UK, but the Government’s explanatory memorandum states that there have been informal discussions with stakeholders. It would be useful to know whether those discussions identified an industry opinion about the proposal. I would appreciate it if the Minister addressed that point, and I would be obliged if he explored options for a more formal consultation on the issue with a wider section of the industry. That would help to identify whether the production and procurement of aviation security equipment is principally seen as an issue for the airports, the airlines, the handling companies or the manufactures. Further, if the Government are to explore options for action with other member states, rather than accepting EU-wide regulation, what action are they going to take?
As the Minister predicted, I turn to the elephant in the room: the UK’s intended departure from the EU. If and when Brexit happens, it will be important to know not simply whether the regulation will have gone through by then, but what the situation will be concerning spreading best practice and adopting international co-operation over best practice for aviation security equipment. There will still be a need to ensure compatibility and higher standards in other countries and between countries. Recent security scares and concerns have not been chiefly about safety in the UK. They have often been about security and safety elsewhere, and about bags and other items of equipment going from one place through a second place to a third place. There is a real issue that came up in the aftermath of MS804.
There were a lot of concerns among trade unions involved in aviation and elsewhere that, if there is inadequate security and screening at a departure airport and the flight connects with another flight, at that middle airport is that bag going to be screened and, if so, by whom and to what standard?
If there is any doubt about the answer to that, the need for common standards that ensure there is, one hopes, a higher but at least an adequate level of screening at every airport from which the plane departs, through which it goes and where it connects, is more important than ever. More work needs to be done in this area to achieve greater equivalence. Aside from any faults it may include, the regulation at least tries to present a way to discuss and explore that pressing issue.
Therefore, I repeat my last question to the Minister: what do the Government believe should happen to address that problem? I understand his concerns and those of the European Scrutiny Committee about the proposal as a regulation, but would those apply if it were a directive or if one of the other European Commission options were adopted? If and when the UK does leave the European Union, what is the future of ECAC? What is the future for that international co-operation to ensure that passengers and aviation and airline staff are kept as safe as they can be?
I note the concerns expressed by the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government about article 4 of the proposal, but I hope the Government will take on board the other concerns I have outlined, and begin to address the need for improvements and stakeholder consultation, as well as greater equivalence expressed as levelling up of aviation security standards across Europe, and indeed further afield.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman has raised three or four important points and it is important, because of the significance of this subject, that I address them. He is right that aviation security is a matter of profound concern to us all. I do not need to rehearse the events of recent years but it is very clear to members of the Committee and clear more widely that it is vital that we are as sure as we can be about safety and security at our airports. The Government are absolutely committed to that aim.
The hon. Gentleman is right, as I said earlier, that this has to be considered pan-nationally. The nature of the business we are in, travelling from one place to another, means the point at which someone arrives is as important as the point of departure. To that end, the Government will continue to work with countries across the world—not just across Europe—to maintain and raise standards.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the real chance of this proposal from the European Commission having a deleterious effect on our ability to do the things I have just described. Let me be clear that the proposal is that each member state will be required to designate a body severally, with responsibility for approving the compliance of equipment that is used in the delivery of EU security rules by issuing an EU type approval certificate on the basis of prototype testing.
Once a state has granted type approval to a manufacturer for a particular model of equipment, that would then be valid throughout the EU. The manufacturer would then issue a certificate of conformity to accompany each new piece of equipment. However, the proposed new regulation’s article 4, to which I draw the attention of the Committee, appears to override that provision on internal market grounds by expressly prohibiting member states from imposing “additional requirements” in respect of any equipment that has been approved by any other EU member states under the proposed regime. For the benefit of Members who do not have the text in front of them, the article states:
“Member States shall not impede the making available and/or putting into service of any equipment which is accompanied by a valid certificate of conformity issued in accordance with Article 5”—
which I mentioned a moment ago, and:
“They shall not impose additional requirements in respect of such equipment.”
That is not what happens now. ECAC devised and delivered a baseline standard, and countries across Europe are able to build on it. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is absolutely right that we maintain those baseline standards, and that we do more as necessary. As I think he said, it is also right that different countries do different things at different times, because not only does the technology change, but the threat is dynamic.
Our fear is—although legally this is not absolutely clear, to be honest—that it is possible that the measure could have the disadvantageous effect mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as a question, and to which I alluded earlier.
Richard Burden
I understand what the Minister is saying, but I still put that against the assurance of the European Commission in the quote I cited. The Commission seemed to be saying—certainly its impact assessment stated this—that the proposal would allow producers to market and sell their products throughout the European Union once certified by one member state. It does not state, as I understand it, that therefore any airport or member state has to buy those products when it has more stringent requirements of its own.
Mr Hayes
It does not say that—the hon. Gentleman is right. It does not oblige member states or particular airports to buy that equipment, but given that what applies at the moment is that we have the baseline standards that I outlined, and some countries and airports choose to do more, it is hard to know what advantage this proposal brings. At the very least, it is unnecessary, and perhaps worse, it may be undesirable. That brings me to his second core point, about consultation.
The consultation conducted by the Commission was on general principles, not on the specifics that the hon. Gentleman has, with his usual keen eye, drawn to the attention of the Committee. Those general principles, rather than a specific proposal that could have been considered, are things about which we can all largely agree, frankly, so I would not put much weight on the consultation that the EU has so far enjoined. The specific concerns highlighted by the European Scrutiny Committee only really came to the notice of Members of this House or of other legislatures in Europe when the proposals were published in detail recently. That is why it is good to have this debate now, and it is why the Government have had only an informal consultation.
The hon. Gentleman asked, thirdly, about the future of ECAC. I think that there is a future for it, not least because its members value it. Turkey is a growing aviation power, and ECAC provides a forum to draw it into selected discussions. The worldwide character of the threat to aviation means that ECAC can and more especially should continue to play a key role, but it is certainly true that its position would become less significant—not insignificant, but less significant—were the new powers to be taken by the Commission, which is in part why I do not want them to be taken.
As I have said repeatedly, although perhaps this is indicative not so much of my Euroscepticism, which has more recently become extremely fashionable among the great and the good—or at least among the good—but more of my conservativism, we do not need to do things that we do not need to do. If things are working well, we do not change them—and that is not necessarily about political conservatism, but a slightly more cultural affair, Mr Hanson, which I say to reassure Opposition Members and others who might be listening.
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask his questions about consultation, the future of ECAC and the detail of the proposal. The reason that the French have taken the stance that they have—I suspect that they have enjoyed similar conversations, discussions and debates to the ones that we are now enjoying—is that the proposal is, at the very least, shrouded in uncertainty, doubt and scepticism. On that basis, and given the moderate and modest way in which the European Scrutiny Committee has gone about its work, it would ill behove us not to listen carefully to its advice on this occasion and support the motion.
I cannot end—you might be pleased, or sad, to hear, Mr Hanson—without a reference to Keats, since the shadow Minister challenged me to refer to him at the very outset of the sitting:
“Happy is England! I could be content
To see no other verdure than its own;
To feel no other breezes than are blown
Through its tall woods with high romances blent”.
On this occasion, England, Britain, the United Kingdom, is happy with the existing arrangements, and we should stick with them.
The Chair
The Minister might not have finished yet—it depends on whether anyone else wants to contribute in the almost one hour and 50 minutes that we have left for the debate. There is opportunity for others to contribute, if they so wish, but I sense that people do not wish to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
EU Draft Budget 2017
(7 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I will briefly outline the procedure. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about the Committee’s decision to refer the documents for debate. The Minister will then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes, and questions to the Minister will follow. The total time allowed for the statement and subsequent questions and answers is up to an hour. Once questions have ended, the Minister moves the motion on the paper; debate then takes place on that motion. We must conclude our proceedings by 7pm.
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement?
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in a European Committee, Ms Buck. I will take a few minutes to explain the background to the documents and the reason why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended them for debate.
The draft budget sets out the Commission’s proposals for EU expenditure in 2017. It is the first stage in the process of establishing the EU’s budget for the following year and provides the basis for negotiations between the two arms of budgetary authority: the Council and the European Parliament. The Economic and Financial Affairs Council agreed its first reading position on the draft budget on 12 September; the European Parliament reached its first reading position on 25/26 October. A conciliation committee is to be convened to meet with the aim of reaching agreement on the 2017 budget by 17 November. This agreement will be subject to separate approval by both the Council and the European Parliament, after which the budget for 2017 will be deemed to have been adopted.
In addition to the draft budget, this year there are three other documents relevant to this debate. These concern the EU solidarity fund, which releases emergency financial aid following a major disaster in a member state or candidate country; the flexibility instrument, which provides funding in a given financial year for clearly identified expenses that could not be covered by one or more budget headings without exceeding their expenditure ceilings; and the contingency margin, a mechanism to react to unforeseen circumstances as a last resort instrument, which allows for a maximum 0.03% of EU gross national income to be redeployed between budget headings. The three draft decisions would mobilise the EU solidarity fund, the flexibility instrument and the contingency margin for sums included in the draft budget.
We suggest that among the matters that Members might explore are: how the UK’s proposed exit from the EU affects its interests in relation to EU expenditure and revenues in 2017; the degree of support the Government are receiving from other member states for a disciplined approach to next year’s EU budget; whether the Government are satisfied with the proposed margins below multiannual financial framework ceilings; whether there are any particular programme expenditure proposals that cause the Government concern; the significance for budgetary discipline of the proposed mobilisation of the EU solidarity fund, the flexibility instrument and the contingency margin; and to what extent the use of the flexibility instrument and the contingency margin to help address the challenges of migration, refugee and security crises might involve the UK in justice and home affairs expenditure—for example, in relation to Frontex, for which we should not be liable.
It is the custom of the European Scrutiny Committee to recommend the draft budget for debate before the Council concludes its first reading. Regrettably, this debate is taking place long after the Council’s first reading was agreed.
Finally, in a press release of 26 October, the Council set out the issues where the Council and Parliament disagreed: the Parliament wants the level of commitments in 2017 to be way above the multiannual financial framework expenditure ceilings; the Parliament wants the level of payments for 2017 to be above the estimated needs; the Parliament wishes to reopen the agreement on financing the European fund for strategic investments, which the Council considers would reduce the EU’s financial leeway for meeting unexpected needs for research and other future-orientated expenditure; the Parliament wishes for its own staff reductions to be lower than the 5% reduction by 2017 already agreed; and there is disagreement on the scope of the conciliation talks themselves, which should be limited to the 2017 budget.
The Chair
I call the Minister to make an opening statement. I remind the Committee that interventions are not allowed during the statement.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Buck. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the 2017 annual budget proposal. The debate this year takes place within a context different from those of previous years, given the decision made by the British people to leave the European Union. None the less, today’s motion focuses on the proposed EU annual budget for 2017. The Government are clear that until the UK leaves the EU it remains a full member and is subject to the same rights and responsibilities as other member states. That includes paying into the budget, participating in budgetary discussions and ensuring the best possible deal for the UK taxpayer.
The 2017 payments ceiling is the lowest annual ceiling in the 2014 to 2020 multiannual financial framework deal, showing how the 2013 deal continues to restrict the EU budget. The Commission’s draft proposal was fully consistent with the MFF, with €157.7 billion in commitments and €134.9 billion in payments—a 6.2% reduction in payments on the 2016 budget. The Government have long argued for bigger margins in the annual budget to ensure that the Commission can be responsive to unforeseen events without having to request further funds from member states. The proposal aligns with that aim.
The 2016 deal achieved a margin of €800 million; this year, the Commission proposed a margin of more than €8 billion. The Commission’s 2017 budget proposal includes some notable elements. First, it proposes an overall larger heading “1a” within an overall smaller budget. The increased appropriations go towards a top-up of the European fund for strategic investments, which the UK supports as a way of leveraging EU budget resources effectively, and increases in other programmes.
Secondly, the proposal focuses firmly on supporting measures intended to tackle the migration crisis. Those include a number of internal measures, such as a European border force and coast guard and strengthened border management, and external measures, such as increased assistance to host countries dealing with migration outside the EU and actions to address the root causes of migration.
The Commission’s proposal is, of course, just one part of the overall negotiation. The Council set out its position in September. In Council discussions, the Government continued to argue for budgetary discipline. Working with our like-minded budget disciplinarian allies, we influenced the Council position to agree a further cut of €1.3 billion in commitments and €1.1 billion in payments on top of the Commission’s proposal.
The Commission’s amending letter, published on 17 October, makes some regular adjustments to take account of the most recent information about expenditure and revenue in headings 2 and 5, and takes account of some of the mid-term review proposals. The main changes include commitments for additional measures on migration, such as kick-starting a new partnership framework process with third countries and developing a guarantee fund as part of the external investment plan.
There are several additional commitments in the flagship heading 1a programmes. The Commission proposes borrowing commitments from future years in the MFF in order to fund those commitments, consistent with the overall seven-year MFF ceiling. Proposed payments are still almost 6% lower than in the 2016 budget, and margins of €7.5 billion have been achieved—much higher than what has been achieved in previous years. Moreover, there remains much to negotiate. We will argue that, where relevant, the Council’s suggested cuts in September also apply to the new proposal.
The European Parliament set out its position on 26 October, arguing for a principled reversal of the Council’s cuts and the increasing of the Commission position by €4.8 billion in commitments and €3.1 billion in payments. That is not surprising. Every year, the European Parliament exceeds the Commission’s position, and particularly the Council’s position, by several billion euros. Some member states may support elements of this, but, typically, negotiations conclude with more realism, and often below the Commission’s proposal. The conciliation period for an agreement between the Council, Commission and the European Parliament began on 28 October, with the budget ECOFIN expected on 16 November.
As well as the Commission’s draft budget 2017, a number of related documents have been listed for debate. I shall address them in turn. First, the proposal for the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument, which exists to respond to events and financing needs not foreseen at the start of the seven-year budget period. In the draft 2017 budget, heading 3 was short on commitments to finance measures to manage the migration, refugee and security crisis. The use of the flexibility instrument and contingency margin allows heading 3 to accommodate such extra requirements, while still retaining an overall commitments margin.
The mobilisation of the contingency margin is also appended in the draft budget and amending letter to meet the challenges. The Commission’s proposed mobilisation of the contingency margin this year provides additional commitments totalling €1.1 billion through redeployments from unallocated margin in heading 2 and heading 5, and in addition borrows under €800 million from the following two years. It is therefore simply a mechanism to move money around the seven-year budget.
As we have said in the past, the Government support EU-wide efforts to tackle the migration and refugee crisis from within existing MFF ceilings, and in this case these instruments provide a means of meeting emergency funding requirements without calling on member states for additional resources outside of the MFF ceilings.
A separate document proposes that €50 million in commitments and payments of the European Union solidarity fund, the EUSF, be included as part of the 2017 annual budget. This is standard practice, in accordance with the EUSF regulation as amended in 2014. We support the principles of the EU solidarity fund in providing support when an EU country is seriously affected by a major natural disaster. Mobilisations of the EUSF for specific instances of natural disaster in individual member states require a qualified majority voting decision in Council.
The final position on the annual budget is dependent, as I described earlier, on negotiations, and the outcome will ultimately be decided by qualified majority voting in the Council in agreement with the European Parliament. Today I hope the Committee will support the passing of today’s motion, which gives the Government a mandate to continue to work with like-minded member states in pressing for necessary restraint in the final stages of the 2017 budget negotiations this autumn.
The Chair
We now have until 5.34 pm for questions to the Minister, should the Committee wish to avail itself of that opportunity. I remind Members that brevity is to be commended.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Buck.
The motion begins by referring to the European Union solidarity fund. As colleagues will no doubt be aware, the European Union solidarity fund was set up to respond to major natural disasters and to express European solidarity with disaster-stricken regions in Europe. Indeed, the UK was a beneficiary—
The Chair
Order. This is an opportunity for questions to the Minister, not for a statement.
Jonathan Reynolds
The UK was a beneficiary of the solidarity fund to the tune of £127 million during the 2007 floods, which I am sure many hon. Members remember. None the less, the Government’s position on the European Union solidarity fund has continued to be unclear. Last September, the Chief Secretary said that the Government were broadly,
“supportive of the principles of the EU solidarity fund in providing support when an EU country is seriously affected by a major natural disaster.”
However, he then said he did not,
“believe that new pressures should necessarily lead to requests for new money from member states”.—[Official Report, European Committee B, 14 September 2015; c. 4.]
More generally, by next year the EU will begin to look at the allocation of the next tranche of funding—
Jonathan Reynolds
Thank you, Ms Buck.
First, will the Minister outline the Government’s long-term plan with regard to the European Union solidarity fund and the UK’s relationship with it? Secondly, will the Government today confirm whether they have plans to carry out regional assessments looking at the Brexit impact on regions in terms of job creation, business activity and infrastructure projects forgone? Thirdly, is it the Government’s intention to develop a long-term replacement system of regional funding? Can the Minister confirm that this system will retain the seven-year tranche structure, as outlined, which allows long-term projects to flourish—
The Chair
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has the opportunity to ask supplementary questions, but it might be best to ask a question, allow the Minister to respond and then ask supplementaries.
Jonathan Reynolds
I see. I thought the Minister preferred them all at once.
Mr Gauke
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Front Bench. I will deal with regional funding and assessments and also his point on the European Union solidarity fund. We are supportive of the principles of the European Union solidarity fund in providing support when an EU country is seriously affected by a major natural disaster. I make the point— it is a general point that may apply to several of his questions—that it is right that the EU prioritises its expenditure in the way that provides the most value for money and achieves the most for the people of the European Union. It is therefore right that through sound financial management, the EU frees up resources so that it can respond to natural disasters, and the solidarity fund is a means by which it is capable of responding.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact of Brexit and in particular the applications to regional funding. At this stage, I cannot say much more than the points we have already made about the support that we have provided for measures that have been announced. Essentially, the Government have agreed to guarantee projects entered into before the autumn statement. Anything that is entered into subsequent to the autumn statement but before we leave the European Union will be supported to the extent that it provides value for money and is consistent with the Government’s priorities. On regional assessments, all I can say at this point is that we will take into account the regional impacts when looking at our future position and determining our future priorities.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have just one more question. In preparing the Government’s statement to the Committee, what conversations have Ministers had with the devolved Administrations—in particular those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, where issues relating to the EU budget are particularly sensitive?
Mr Gauke
I am sure that it will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that there were several meetings this time last week between the First Ministers of all the devolved Administrations, the Prime Minister and several colleagues, and I met the Finance Ministers on Monday afternoon. There is obviously significant interest from the devolved Administrations in these matters, which were discussed. Where the devolved Administrations sign up to structural investment projects under their current EU budget allocation prior to Brexit, we will ensure that they are funded to meet those commitments. It will be for the devolved Administrations to decide what criteria they use to assess projects, in line with the devolution settlements.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I have three questions, which I will ask together and allow the Minister to deal with together. First, following up on the answer that he has just given about consultation with the devolved Administrations, I did not hear him say specifically what discussion there has been about the EU budget. He has indicated what will happen once the EU budget has been agreed and allocated, but can he clarify what discussions, if any, there were with the devolved Administrations prior to the Government beginning the process of agreeing the 2017 budget?
Secondly, in his explanatory memorandum of 11 July, the Minister did not tell us whether the Government supported the Commission’s proposals. What he has said today implies that the Government supported them at that early stage. Can he confirm that and tell us when the Government came to that position? It seems to me that if it was the Government’s position before 11 July that they would support the Commission’s proposals at the first reading stage, they should have told the European Scrutiny Committee that, so I am interested to know when they reached that position.
Finally, the budget still has to go through a number of further processes. The Minister reminded us that, as often happens, the Council and the European Parliament have different views about what they want in the final budget. It appears from the Minister’s comments that the Government are looking for the Commission’s proposals or less—certainly not any more. Given that there is disagreement with the directly elected European Parliament, will the Minister give a commitment that this will be brought back again and will go through the full scrutiny process, and that any requests of the European Scrutiny Committee will be complied with before the Government commit to supporting either the European Parliament’s proposals or some compromise thereon?
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The EU budget as a whole is a matter for the United Kingdom and, as I say, there is regular communication. This time last week, I was in discussions with the Finance Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and issues relating to EU funding were relevant to those discussions. The position of the United Kingdom in respect of the EU budget is determined by the United Kingdom Government.
On our position on this year’s proposal, let me make it clear that what the Commission proposed is consistent with the seven-year multiannual financial framework, which was agreed in 2013. That was a significant achievement, because it reduced the EU budget for the first time. Some felt that the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, would not be able to achieve that, but he did. That was consistent with this proposal.
The negotiations are live, so it would not be appropriate for me to give away our position prematurely, because that might reduce our chances of achieving the outcome that we want. The Government’s approach will be the one we have always taken in such circumstances: we will continue to push for maximum budget restraint and value for money to minimise costs for taxpayers. I hope that will have the support of all Committee members.
Scrutiny of the annual budget takes place on the Commission’s proposals. The proposals move very quickly and frequently, so timescales do not allow for a further round of scrutiny. The motion sets out the Government’s overall approach of seeking the best possible value for money, and I hope it has the support of all members of the Committee.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck.
I want to follow up on consultation. The Minister outlined the way that the Government are interacting with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but will he outline what the formal mechanisms are for consultation with the Mayor of London? Clearly, a range of issues relating to our impending departure from the European Union will have a huge consequence for London and, as a direct result of that, will reach right across the United Kingdom. It is only right and proper that the Mayor of London or a suitable representative has a seat at the table.
Mr Gauke
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is touching on issues wider than this debate. I suspect that he is not specifically asking about consultations with the Mayor of London on the EU budget proposal for 2017, about which, as far as I am aware, the Mayor of London has not expressed an opinion, but I may be wrong—perhaps I should check that.
On the wider issue of the EU, Brexit and the position of London and its Mayor, all I can say today is that there are regular conversations between the Treasury and the Mayor. Without revealing too much about the diaries of the individuals concerned without their permission, meetings occur, and there is one in the not-too-distant future.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for the reply. To bring us back firmly within the scope of the budget, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about analysis of the EU budget’s regional impact. Obviously, there are longer-term questions about replacing expenditure that currently benefits the regions and nations of the UK. What plans do the Government have to publish their analysis of the regional benefits and risks presented by Britain’s membership of the European Union, and of the risks presented by leaving the European Union, so that we can have an informed debate? A seemingly endless number of Government debates have been scheduled, but we will have those debates in the dark, as the Government seem reticent about publishing any relevant information about the benefits or risks of the negotiations.
Mr Gauke
I point out that the Government published a lot of information during the referendum debate. That information was made available to the British people, and I do not want a repeat of that debate. The British people made a decision, though it might not have been the decision that the hon. Gentleman or I campaigned for, and we have to respect that. The Government are looking at various options, so that we can make a success of the decision that the British people have made. There will be different regional implications, one assumes, of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, but the Government are determined to ensure that this is a success for every part of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and every member of this Committee supports that.
Wes Streeting
This is my final question, I promise. I suspect that like me, the Chief Secretary campaigned to remain in the European Union, but accepts the result and now wants to get the best possible deal. As parliamentarians and the general public determine the best possible deal, can we take it that all Treasury documents published prior to the referendum—including all their figures and assumptions—are ones that we should stand by and use to inform the debate?
Mr Gauke
I fear that the hon. Gentleman wants to take me down a path that is a little way away from the motion in front of us. We are in new circumstances. The determination of the Government is to ensure that we deliver the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations with the European Union and in our relationship with the EU and other parts of the world, post-Brexit. That is our focus.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was going to sit quietly for once, but the questioning has gone along a certain line. May I remind the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Chancellor, in front of the Treasury Committee, said that the reports before 23 June no longer applied, because their assumptions were out of date already? We therefore do not have to work on the maxim of gloom and nonsense that came from the Treasury at that point, and can look to the broad sunlit uplands. One thing we can be certain of is that once we leave, we will no longer have to pay into the budget, will not be part of the multiannual financial framework, and will not have to have these debates any more.
Mr Gauke
As one who was on a different side of the debate earlier this year, let me say that if there was a cloud, there is certainly a silver lining.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 10763/16, a Proposed Decision on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide for the payment of advances in the general budget of the Union for 2017; No. 10764/16, a Proposed Decision on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument to finance immediate budgetary measures to address the on-going migration, refugee and security crisis; No. 10765/16, a Proposed Decision on the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2017; unnumbered European Document, Statement of estimates of the European Commission for the financial year 2017; supports the Government’s efforts to limit the size of the EU Budget in order to get the best deal for UK taxpayers; welcomes the fact that the 2017 Draft Budget respects the Multi-Annual Financial Framework agreement; further welcomes the reduction in payments in the 2017 Draft Budget compared to the 2016 Budget; and notes that the 2017 Draft Budget achieves a greater margin in payments than in 2016.—(Mr Gauke.)
Jonathan Reynolds
I seem to be finally getting the hang of European Committees, just in time for us to leave the European Union.
From the Opposition’s perspective, it seems that we still do not have the information required, particularly on how the Government will manage the interactions between the obligations that they will enter into in the EU budget period we are looking at and our eventual exit from the European Union. There are many questions. The Government still need to inform the British public about their negotiating strategy for Brexit, but in particular, in relation to these documents, they must give an answer on the shortfall in funding to those parts of the UK that will be affected by our exit from the EU regional development fund and the European structural fund. I look forward to those answers coming forward in the months ahead.
Peter Grant
I find myself in a strange position on two counts. I find myself facing a room of Conservative MPs, and I am the one who feels that he has to speak in defence of the UK Parliament. It is more than unfortunate that another substantial document coming out of the European Union—possibly the most important strategic document of the year—is not getting sufficient parliamentary scrutiny in this place from a Government who are taking us out of the European Union because they, or apparently the people, are so fed up with decisions being taken over there, instead of over here.
The irony is not lessened by the fact that year after year, these big, bad, evil, unelected bureaucrats in the European Commission put forward one set of proposals, and our directly democratically elected representatives in the European Parliament put forward another—and Governments go along with the unelected bureaucrats, and support the Commission’s proposals. The irony is therein; I do not attempt to explain it.
We should not look at this in isolation, because those of us who are members of the European Scrutiny Committee and anyone who follows the Committee’s work will know that there is a huge list of important issues that we have asked Parliament to debate, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. On some of them, we have been kept hanging on for ridiculous lengths of time. The scrutiny of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement in the past week or two is simply the most recent and one of the worst cases of that.
I asked the Minister to give assurances that the European Scrutiny Committee would be given the chance to scrutinise the budget, because once it is decided, we are stuck with it. I am not saying that we should necessarily try to get everyone in the House of Commons to agree to every detail of the budget, but this is not a good way to demonstrate that the Government believe in parliamentary oversight of any European document, least of all one with such substantial financial implications.
I remind Members that the Government had these documents on 30 June, and it took 11 days for the Minister to produce an explanatory memorandum, which explained nothing and was not memorable. The memorandum effectively regurgitated a whole pile of numbers from the original documents, but it still took 11 days to do that. The European Scrutiny Committee then took two days to consider that; it had very little time to consider it properly. It has since taken 15 weeks for this debate to be called, and we are now told that there will not be time for further scrutiny before the process has to be completed.
I understand that there are pressures on parliamentary time—I certainly would not have been jumping up and down, demanding to be brought back in the middle of August for a half-day debate on this subject on the Floor of the House—but it frustrates and angers me that so much of the argument about the European Union was about decisions being taken in the wrong place when this Government, and, I have to say, previous Governments, simply have not played ball with Parliament’s own scrutiny processes. That has been a significant factor in making people believe that the lack of transparency is all Europe’s fault, when in fact much of the responsibility lies in this place.
My second major concern is that despite being asked twice about discussions with the heads of the devolved nations, the Government clearly have not discussed the budget with them. The Minister referred to the talks held last week. If I remember correctly, Nicola Sturgeon described the meeting as deeply frustrating and said that those who took part knew no more when they came out than they had when they went in. She did not say that it was a complete waste of time, but anyone who read her comments or those of the First Minister of Wales would have got that distinct impression. That does not show respect for other nations in the United Kingdom, or give any credibility to the claim that we are all equal partners.
I fully understand that EU relations are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and Government, but it is not good enough for the Government to fail to discuss these matters with the devolved nations simply because, constitutionally, they do not have to. We have not been given any assurance that there will be further scrutiny of these documents before the Government come to a decision, and they will probably support the unelected bureaucrats, rather than the elected MEPs. I was sorely tempted to vote against the motion, simply to put on record how unhappy I am about this, but I probably will not.
Finally, in his explanatory memorandum, the Minister helpfully converts the UK’s expected share of the total EU budget from euros to pounds. Our share is expected to be just over 13% of the total—about €20.5 billion. On the day on which the Minister wrote to the European Scrutiny Committee, sterling was worth about €1.21, so our share would have been just under £17 billion. Today, the pound is worth just under €1.11, so our share has gone up to £18.5 billion. Ironically, simply because of the collapse in sterling caused by the Brexit vote, it looks like the cost of us being part of the European Union next year will be £1.5 billion more than it should have been.
Hopefully, when summing up, the Minister will confirm whether the Government want to maintain the fiction that the falling price of sterling is somehow good for British taxpayers, because if sterling stays where it is, British taxpayers will spend £1.5 billion more on the European Union than we needed to. That, I suspect, is why the £350 million a week for the health service will never materialise, and the promises made will never be kept—because that money has evaporated. It is sitting in an offshore account belonging to some billionaire speculator by now. The Government have tried to tell us that the fall in sterling is somehow good for British business. I want to hear the Minister say whether he thinks it a good sign that the cost of the UK’s EU membership next year will be £1.5 billion more than it was when he wrote his explanatory memorandum.
Mr Gauke
I thank members of the European Scrutiny Committee for selecting the documents for debate. EU budget negotiations are a challenging process. The budget will ultimately be decided by a qualified majority in the European Council, in agreement with the European Parliament. That said, I am pleased to say that the Commission’s proposals are fully consistent with the multiannual financial framework, and achieve a much higher payment margin than they did in previous years.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Glenrothes, who characterised the debate as us siding with the Commission as opposed to the Parliament, and says that that is somehow undemocratic. The true democratic voice in the European Union is that of the European Council; it is made up of member states’ Governments, which are, after all, the institutions responsible for collecting taxes, and which are held to account by their public.
I am pleased to say that the Council has, in recent years, looked for greater fiscal discipline, and has supported measures that have resulted in the MFF being lower in this seven-year period than in the previous one. The British Government have made it clear that we support that, and we look to ensure fiscal constraint. The fact that the European Parliament takes a different view does not give it a greater mandate and allow it to overrule the position of member states’ Governments, and the British Government’s position has been made clear to Parliament.
We are committed to keeping the European Scrutiny Committee updated as the proposals evolve. In my opening speech, I highlighted the European Parliament’s position, which is publicly available, and we will shortly submit a further explanatory memorandum on the updated Commission proposal. A deal is often struck at short notice. It has been known to be done rather late at night—I have personal experience of that. As I said earlier, the budget ECOFIN is scheduled for 16 November.
As for our priorities for future spending, I have made clear what we are doing about providing guarantees for future funding. However, we will want to take our own decisions on spending once we have left the European Union. We are consulting closely with interested parties in considering what future spending priorities will look like, but the British people have made a decision and, on this spending, we are taking back control, to coin a phrase.
While we remain in the European Union, we will continue to champion the need for an efficient EU budget that provides good value for the UK taxpayer, and press firmly to ensure fiscal discipline by limiting budget size to deliver the MFF deal. In doing so we will work with like-minded allies to deliver the best EU budget deal possible within the parameters of the negotiation. We will, of course, keep members of the Committee updated, as I said. I welcome their continued interest in this important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Driven Grouse Shooting
(7 years, 6 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
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 125003 and 164851 relating to driven grouse shooting.
It is a joy and great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies. I thank those who initiated the two e-petitions and all those who signed them, because they have provided us with the opportunity to debate driven grouse shooting today. As with all issues regarding animals, this one is highly emotive and draws out a lot of feeling. One of the things I have been surprised about since being elected is that I get far more emails about animals—be they bees, badgers, foxes, dogs, cats or now grouse—than I do about any issues relating to the welfare of people. Something in our national make-up certainly seems to be drawn out when it comes to animals.
The e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting has received more than 120,000 signatures. The petition states:
“Grouse shooting for ‘sport’ depends on intensive habitat management which increases flood risk and greenhouse gas emissions,”
and kills many mammals, such as
“Foxes, Stoats, Mountain Hares…and…protected birds…including Hen Harriers.”
The petition goes on to describe driven grouse shooting as “canned hunting”, which is
“economically, ecologically and socially unnecessary.”
The other e-petition is in favour of protecting grouse moors and grouse shooting. It states:
“Grouse moors…are an integral part of moorland management both for the grouse and other…wildlife such as lapwing and curlew”.
According to the petition, grouse shooting helps to support local businesses, jobs and rural areas.
I have a keen interest in and concern for our traditional rural way of life, but I have never participated in grouse shooting and, as far as I am aware, I have no links or connections to anyone who has, although I will admit to eating a few grouse on occasion—I found them very tasty. I am opening this debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but since the petition was brought before the Committee it has been interesting to learn about the issues and listen to views from both sides. The Committee has received numerous written submissions and held an oral evidence session with representatives of those who wish to ban or control grouse shooting and those who support it.
Grouse shooting has existed in the UK for more than 160 years. It is governed by parliamentary legislation and European Union directives, and it is a devolved matter for the devolved regions of the UK. Red grouse are wild game birds that live in the uplands of the UK. In 2009, there were an estimated 230,000 pairs in the UK.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am hesitant to interrupt such a superb speech, but my hon. Friend mentioned that one of the petitions used the word “canned”, which is surely extremely ignorant and misleading, because the birds are completely wild. Does he agree that there is no logic whatever in saying that driven grouse shooting should be somehow controlled, but that other forms of grouse shooting should not be? There is no logic there, because we are talking about a wild bird, not one that can be reared.
Steve Double
I agree very much with both my hon. Friend’s points.
Red grouse are not found anywhere in the UK but uplands. They live in heather moorland and heather forms the staple part of their diet. Seventy-five per cent of global heather moorland is located in the UK, so in global terms heather moorland is rarer than the rain forest. Heather moorland comprises about 7% of the UK’s land mass, or some 6,500 square miles.
Grouse shooting comes in two forms: walked-up shooting, which involves groups of shooters who walk around a predetermined area and drive the grouse from the ground, and driven grouse shooting, which involves a group of beaters who scare the grouse from the ground towards a line of shooters. One of the petitions calls for a ban on driven grouse shooting, but as my hon. Friend said, it seems slightly illogical to wish to ban only one form of grouse shooting.
Clearly there are informed and strongly held views that grouse shooting is detrimental to our environment and wildlife. Concerns have been expressed about how the way in which the moors are managed contributes to flooding and is responsible for the destruction of other wildlife, including some of our national birds of prey in particular. I am aware that many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so I will be unable to go into all the detail of the issues raised in the time available to me in opening, but I hope others will pick up on the other points. I will deal with what I see as the main issues.
One of the biggest questions, as I see it, is whether the management of grouse moors is good or bad for our environment. First, we have to look at moorland management and whether the moors must necessarily be managed. Moorland looks wild, but in fact it is a carefully managed environment. It is thanks to grouse shooting that over the past 30 years grouse moor managers in England have been responsible for the regeneration of more than 217,000 acres of heather moorland. The petition to ban mentions that such moorland is an important part of the ecosystem and local habitats, so one of the big questions to be asked is, if we were to ban grouse shooting, how would that important habitat otherwise be managed?
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the question is not just how this moorland would be managed were grouse shooting to be banned, but whether it would exist at all or instead be given over to belts of conifers or grazed farmland? Surely the existence of the moorland is a reflection of grouse moor management over generations.
Steve Double
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which I will develop later in my speech, and I agree with him completely.
The management of the moorland for grouse provides the manpower to tackle invasive plants such as bracken and ragwort, along with saplings and shrubs of other species, and keeps the heather moorland clear. That level of intervention would not be viable without the grouse shooting industry. In England, grouse moor owners spend approximately £50 million every year on moorland management; in Scotland, the figure is more than £30 million. If grouse shooting were banned, where would the funds to manage the land come from?
Another concern expressed by those who wish to ban grouse shooting is that it causes flooding. I understand the logic of their argument: grouse moor management can increase the risk of flooding, because burning reduces the ability of the moor to absorb rainfall and run-off must therefore increase, leading to flooding further downstream. I suggest, however, that that is too simple a conclusion and that the issue is far more complex. Indeed, peatland restoration is known to help to slow the rate of water run-off. Ending moorland management as a result of banning grouse shooting might actually make flooding worse and more likely to happen. I am particularly interested in hearing the Minister’s views on that when she responds to the debate, because the issue is of great concern to those who live near such moors.
Another point worth making is that many areas of heather moorland are protected in their current state by their status as SSSIs—sites of special scientific interest. If the tens of millions of pounds of income from grouse shooting were to be lost, how would those protected landscapes be maintained in their current state without the cost falling on the taxpayer, something I simply could not support?
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. It seems to me that the opponents of shooting grouse want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because if we destroy grouse shooting, the raptors would lose their food source, local jobs would be lost and, as my hon. Friend is saying, the environment would be the poorer. The argument is not about conservation, but about destruction of the countryside.
Steve Double
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Again, I agree with the points he makes.
Another argument put forward by those who wish to ban grouse shooting is that it is damaging to wildlife. The petition to ban grouse shooting states that it causes the deaths of predators such as foxes, stoats and hen harriers. The lawful control of predators is essential to protect grouse, which are ground-nesting birds. That includes the black grouse, which is one of the most endangered species in the UK. Peer-reviewed research by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust shows that as the population of black grouse has declined, they have retreated to managed moorland areas, which now account for 96% of the black grouse population. Predator control also protects other valuable species, such as the lapwing, skylark, curlew, grey partridge and merlin, whose numbers have doubled on grouse moors in the last 20 years.
All wild bird species are protected under law, to varying degrees. The UK has some of the most robust wildlife and animal legislation in the world. It is a criminal offence to shoot, kill or tamper with birds of prey such as the hen harrier—and their nests—without a licence.
In 1999, the joint raptor study on Langholm moor measured the impact of hen harriers breeding on grouse moorland. When grouse management of that heather moorland stopped, there was a marked decline in red grouse, skylarks, curlews, golden plovers and hen harriers. The evidence is clear that birds of prey, including hen harriers, are better off on managed heather moorland. Hen harriers need gamekeepers as much as grouse do. However, gamekeepers on grouse moors are often accused of persecuting birds of prey. As one person who gave evidence to the Committee said, grouse shooting
“is underpinned by wildlife crime.”
There are clearly genuine concerns about the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. I want to make it clear that I believe that those who flout the law do the shooting community no favours whatever. There is no justification for illegal activity. However, I suggest that the illegal activity of a few is no justification for a complete ban—otherwise, we would have outlawed driving a long time ago—but instead a case for more effective enforcement of our current laws.
The key argument on this subject is the economic one. We must always keep in mind when addressing issues of this nature that although many of the key arguments are to do with the environment, landscapes and wildlife, they are also about people and the livelihoods and sustainability of our rural communities. The Moorland Association and Countryside Alliance note that in many cases grouse shooting not only supports but is a lifeline for rural areas of the UK that are cut off from employment streams that other parts of the country enjoy.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
We often hear that grouse moors are sustainable because they receive funds under the basic payment scheme, but is it not the case that grouse shooting is not an agricultural activity and is therefore not eligible for such funds?
Steve Double
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will address at the end of my speech. Leaving the EU may give us an opportunity to divert some money to better management of our moorland.
In Scotland alone, grouse shooting supports thousands of jobs that are worth £7 million a year in wages and contributes £32 million to the economy. It is estimated that it supports more than 4,000 full-time equivalent jobs in some of the poorest and most rural communities in the UK. Banning grouse shooting would be an epic gamble with our rural economy.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Petitions Committee is quite new, but I would have thought that someone opening a debate on a petition on behalf of that Committee ought at least to look at both sides of the argument and not present such a biased argument against the petition. More than 120,000 people signed the petition to ban grouse shooting, and they want a debate that sets out both sides of the argument. The hon. Gentleman is failing them miserably.
Steve Double
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think I have presented arguments on both sides, and I have not yet finished my speech, so perhaps she should wait until I have before jumping to a conclusion.
Local post offices, pubs, corner shops and primary schools would be at risk if grouse shooting were banned. Although it is correctly argued that many of the jobs linked to grouse shooting are seasonal, it takes place outside the main summer months and therefore fills a gap in local employment by employing people at a different time from other seasonal jobs.
It is clear that part of the opposition to grouse shooting is down to the perception that it is elitist. We have often heard the term “shooting for fun” used in a derogatory manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. Grouse shooting brings rural communities together in areas that struggle with social isolation and a lack of employment. Many of those who work on grouse shoots are students, school leavers or retirees looking to supplement their income. Those people are not rich toffs; they are ordinary people who rely on the additional income that the work brings them. Those who call for a ban have failed to present any credible alternative to that. No case has been made for where the tens of millions of pounds that are spent on the management of the land would come from. There seems to be a romantic view that if the land is left to nature, it will somehow become a natural paradise full of wildlife and people will pay to view it, yet no evidence has been presented to support that notion.
Many of those who support the movement against grouse shooting are also against all other countryside sports. If those people had their way, after grouse shooting was banned, other forms of shooting would be up for bans. I have even heard mention of fishing being on the radar for a ban one day. Many communities across rural Britain rely on grouse shooting. What do those who support a ban want grouse shooting to be replaced with? Who will employ the gamekeepers, the beaters and the land managers? Following the cessation of trips by tourists and visitors to those local communities, who will visit the pubs and shops and spend money in local businesses? The people who support a ban have no answers to those questions. For them, the end justifies the means. They see the countryside as a theme park or museum—something to be watched and visited. They do not realise that it needs constant management. The management of our countryside relies on viable, sustainable communities. People need to be able to live and make a living in the countryside.
It should be noted that, interestingly, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds does not support a ban. Instead, it advocates some form of licensing of grouse shooting. However, little detail has been presented about precisely how that would work or what value it would add, other than another layer of bureaucracy.
I do not support a ban on shooting—our current laws and regulations provide the right balance between protecting wildlife and the environment and supporting our rural communities—but that does not mean that nothing needs to be done. We should certainly take notice of some of the issues raised by the petition to ban and acknowledge the legitimate concerns of many of those who signed the petition. I believe that the Government can do more to address the underlying concerns that the petition expresses. Specifically, will the Minister address the concerns about flooding and the link to heather burning? What steps can be taken to address those concerns? What are the Government doing to enforce the law on protecting wildlife, especially birds of prey, and what more can be done to prosecute those who flout the law? What opportunities does she believe leaving the EU may bring for using agricultural subsidies to encourage land management, which would increase the protection and diversity of our moorlands?
Several hon. Members rose—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. As people can see, a considerable number of Members want to speak in this debate. To try to give everyone a fair crack of the whip, I will have to impose a time limit, which will start at seven minutes. I will have to review that based on interventions and things like that. If people can keep interventions to a minimum, that will protect as much time as possible for speeches.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The moors in my area are characterised by a long tradition of grouse shooting, so I understand the evidence for the sport’s economic impact. Nevertheless, my grouse moors represent a habitat that is badly degraded and needs a lot of attention if it is to be restored to favourable condition status. One is still able to enjoy the wonders of nature on my grouse moors such as curlew, snipe, golden plover and the fantastic mountain hare, but there have not been peregrine falcons or hen harriers for many years.
One of the petitions before us today highlights huge concern over the plight of the hen harrier and other raptors, and rightly so. In 2013, there were no successful hen harrier nests in England, and the numbers have remained stubbornly and pitifully low. Of course, the debate is also concerned with the conservation status of the moorland habitat favoured for grouse production and shooting. There is lots of confusion over the habitat. Grouse moors in my area, for instance, are areas of blanket bog, which also support extensive heather habitat. That is typical of grouse moors, and it is important to understand the need to balance the conservation of healthy heather habitats with the need to restore and maintain our precious blanket bog.
To be clear on this point, the causes of blanket bog degradation are varied. Industrial pollution, over-grazing, wind erosion and drainage in the 1950s and 1960s have played their part. The management of moorland for grouse is one of many factors and it is important to be honest about that, because if we are not, we will underestimate the importance of dealing with atmospheric pollution and climate change when it comes to the maintenance of a healthy environment. However, the management of moorland habitat for grouse has become controversial, not least because increasingly there is the feeling that there has been a significant prioritisation of habitat conducive to maximum grouse production at the expense of the health of our blanket bog. Of course, the burning regimes traditionally favoured as a moorland management tool are at the heart of the controversy.
Much work is being carried out on the science, and references were made in the evidence session last week to the various studies that have been undertaken, but more work needs to be done. I am pleased that the University of York is undertaking a 10-year study, which attempts to remove as many variables as possible from its experiments, especially in relation to pre-management regimes. The study, which is only five years through, has so far been funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I understand that DEFRA will not fund the next five years, all for the sake of £650,000. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that in her conclusions and to a commitment that the project will continue. We need to have the science, and we need robust science.
I acknowledge that we cannot wait for the science to make progress. Just 26,000 of our 176,000 hectares of upland blanket bog classified as SSSIs are in favourable condition. When it comes to our wonderful birds of prey, let us remember that we saw only three successful nests this year. We cannot wait. We need to resolve the conflict on our grouse moors now. We need to make every effort to establish management regimes that balance economic and conservation interests, and that are capable of adjusting to the science as it emerges.
A number of options are available as the science evolves. The first involves the voluntary approach favoured by DEFRA. Its strategy for the restoration of blanket bog was published last year, and its vision is worthy because it talks about balancing the economics and the environment. Implicit in the vision is the restoration of a healthy population of raptors on our grouse moors. However, if that is to work, the Minister must show some leadership and demonstrate a sense of her responsibility to do all she can to make it work.
Year one of the programme was dedicated to a series of “bogathon” events, accompanied by
“active engagement on a suite of sites where positive relationships already exist or are developing and/or there is a significant opportunity to improve the condition of a site in the short term.”
The document goes on to point out that:
“These pilots will be important in demonstrating the benefits on the ground and also in refining the approach and potentially revealing further evidence needs.”
Will the Minister indicate whether those year-one milestones have been successfully concluded? Will she commit to updating the House on a regular basis? That matters, because if the House is to be satisfied that the voluntary approach is working, we have to hear from the Minister that the Government’s own strategy in that regard is on track to deliver improvements.
Confidence matters, because the debate about how best to manage our grouse moors is increasingly contentious. Even those of us who believe in the voluntary approach are beginning to despair. The breeding of hen harriers this year has been poor, and it is becoming clear that progress in delivering a sustainable future for our moorlands is beginning to stall, stutter and shudder to a halt. It will do so unless something is done to stop the persecution of our birds of prey. To put it quite simply, the killing must stop. It must stop. It is quite clear that that is a prerequisite to progress.
Will the Minister therefore underpin the voluntary approach outlined in her strategy by exploring the possibility of introducing an offence of vicarious liability? Responsible landowners have nothing to fear from that and everything to gain. By isolating and effectively dealing with illegal practice, the law-abiding majority on all sides can gain credibility and trust.
That brings me to licensing. There are many regulations pertaining to grass moor management, and I accept that the detail on the licensing system is unclear as to how to streamline that, but will the Minister at least confirm that that must stay on the table as a political option? After all, while the implementation of the blanket bog strategy is built on voluntary partnerships, is it not equally true that legislative options need to be held in reserve? In other words, will the Minister spell out how she will respond if it becomes apparent that her strategy is failing to deliver?
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this debate about a matter that touches on issues of great importance to this House: biodiversity; the uplands, their fragile economy and the people who live there and make their way of life there; and questions surrounding some of the most magnificent, special wild places in the whole of this beautiful country. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on the measured and careful way in which he introduced the debate?
I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary game and wildlife conservation group and I am a keen game shot. I have had the great joy of spending a good deal of my time in the uplands ever since I was a child. The heather moorland of the sort maintained by grouse shooting is one of the rarest habitat types and enjoys some of the very highest conservation designations. These moors were not designated sites of special scientific interest in spite of being grouse moors but precisely because they were grouse moors. These wonderful places exist only because generations of owners have refused endless blandishments and huge grants from successive Governments to drain them, fence them, plant them with conifers, carpet them with sheep and cover them with roads and tracks.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I will press on—I am afraid I have not got any time.
The owners did that because they love these wild places and the occasional chance to shoot grouse. Driven grouse shooting touches the livelihoods of thousands of people in the uplands: hoteliers, publicans, agricultural workers, shopkeepers, retired folk, children in the holidays and, of course, gamekeepers and their families. What I particularly want to ask today is: what would happen if driven grouse shooting were to be banned and grouse moor management were to cease?
If anyone wants to see in real life what that would look like, go to Wales, which in many places is an ornithological desert. Indeed, on one 5,000-acre estate in north Yorkshire, there are more golden plover than in the whole of Wales. This May, I walked on a well keepered and managed grouse moor that practises enlightened standards of stewardship. I heard curlew, grouse, golden plover, oystercatchers, skylarks, lapwings and the wonderful grey hill partridge. It was truly a miraculous and unforgettable cacophony of sound; people can see and hear for themselves the beneficial effect of legal predator control.
I pay tribute to the work of the gamekeepers in the uplands, whose contribution to the environment and to natural biodiversity in the hills we ignore at our peril. They are responsible for the control of foxes, crows, magpies and stoats, all of which eat the eggs of ground nesting birds. They are the unsung heroes of conservation, and those who take an interest in the matter without knowing much about it need to remember that man has been dealing with predators for centuries. Other colleagues will deal at length with the question of burning, but it is true that if you cease burning, you get long, degenerate, rank heather, which is unsightly and seriously inhibits the habitat for the very species that we want to encourage. Substantial sums of private and public money have gone into the eradication of bracken and thousands of acres have been controlled. Stop driven grouse shooting and all that work will halt; we will be left with old, rank heather, acres of bracken and, inevitably, an ornithological desert.
Driven grouse shooting plays a major part in sustaining communities on the edge of and in the middle of the moors—something that cannot lightly be dismissed. I am very taken with the views of Mr Avery when he was director of conservation at the RSPB; I understand that he started the e-petition to ban grouse shooting:
“The RSPB and other moorland owners and managers agree about many things—we care deeply about the countryside and are angered by the declines in blackgrouse and wader populations; we agree that grouse moors have prevented even greater losses of heather to intensive grazing and conifers”.
He continued:
“Grouse moors undoubtedly provide good habitat for species in addition to grouse. Some birds, particularly breeding waders, do well on grouse moors. The package of management, which includes the killing, legally, of certain predator species, benefits a range of other bird species. On the subject of predators the RSPB does not oppose legal predator control and recognises that it is necessary if the objective is to produce a shootable surplus of gamebirds.”
And so say all of us.
Properly conducted grouse shooting is a force for good in the uplands. It would be a disaster for the landscape, biodiversity and many small but locally important rural economies were driven grouse shooting to be banned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for moving the consideration of the petition.
I am a country sports enthusiast. I do not have time to enjoy it as much as I would like, but it is a family tradition for me to take my son and grandchildren shooting on Boxing day, and to enjoy time together in a natural environment. Anything we manage to shoot is used. Quite often, the girls in the office will see birds of one sort or another—all legal, by the way—hanging in the office to be given to those who want to partake of them; and why should we not do that?
As a keen shooter, I am also a dedicated conservationist, which I mention because I want to tie the two things together. I have planted some 3,000 trees, created two duck ponds, preserved hedgerows and ensured that the habitat is right. The result is that in recent years, yellow buntings and birds of prey have returned. I have no doubt that that is because of the conservation work. That is the kind of thing that is replicated by enthusiasts throughout the UK. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation is clear about the facts of the case: grouse moors are sustainably managed, largely through private investment by their owners, and offer the most cost-effective model of upland management to the taxpayer.
The sale of grouse shooting helps to fund the work of the gamekeepers, which protects the unique upland habitat and the wildlife it supports. It is a pleasure, incidentally, to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who set out that case very clearly. Grouse moor owners in England spend about £52.5 million every year on moorland management, 90% of which is private investment—the equivalent of £1 million a week. I wonder how those who want driven grouse shooting to end will manage those vast moors, staff their management, and pay for it. Even if they cannot see past the idea of shooting, surely every right-minded person must understand the importance to the environment of the work that is carried out by those involved in grouse shooting. If they do not, they need to.
Grouse shooting is already heavily regulated and controlled. There is extensive legislation, which has an impact on almost every aspect of grouse shooting and grouse moor management, including the possession and use of firearms, the use of lead ammunition, the grouse season, methods of predator control, heather burning, use of medicated grit and the protection of wild birds. Any additional legislation would need to be consistent, evidence-based and principled, with recognition that further controls would add to the cost and bureaucracy of grouse moor management without necessarily improving the outcomes. Many of the existing laws on grouse shooting involve licensing requirements—for example, those on firearms possession and heather burning in environmentally sensitive areas. That has given the UK Government, devolved Administrations and Government agencies considerable control over grouse shooting. In England, it is an offence to carry out burning on a site of special scientific interest unless a licence is obtained. More than 70% of England’s upland SSSIs are managed grouse moors, so that requirement applies in most cases. Clearly, we have good control; we should focus on what we have.
The grouse season is relatively short, as there is a closed season under the Game Act 1831. Additionally, shooting takes place only when grouse numbers are at sustainable levels. If we read the factual evidence, we see that estates already self-regulate by cancelling or reducing their shooting programmes if grouse numbers are low, to maintain a healthy population. There is clearly already a management process in place within the grouse shooting sector, aimed at preserving the sport in the long term.
I have carefully considered the emails that have been sent to me and my conversations with those for and against driven grouse shooting. I can somewhat understand the viewpoints, and people have a right to their views, but my opinion is based on factual information about economics and conservation, and on people’s right to shoot on their land as long as they adhere to the strict guidelines that the House has put in place.
In a debate of this kind, it is easy to get caught up in the web woven by those who refuse to see that the sport brings about any good. I remind the House again that shooting is worth £2 billion to the UK economy and supports the equivalent of 74,000 jobs. In England, grouse shooting creates 42,500 work days a year; more than 1,500 full-time jobs, of which 700 are directly involved with grouse moor management; and a further 820 jobs in related services and industries. Research has also shown that associated spin-offs from grouse shooting in the north of England are worth in excess of £15 million a year. That is an enormous shot in the arm for the rural economy, which cannot be ignored and which benefits a wide range of rural businesses. In these uncertain times, grouse shooting is a sector that is proving its popularity, and its importance to its participants. It is estimated that shooters spend £2.5 billion each year on goods and services overall, and that shoot providers spend about £250 million each year on conservation. Shooting is estimated to manage 10 times more land for conservation than the country’s nature reserves. Shooting and conservation go hand in hand—a marriage made in the right order.
I believe in the natural order of things; I enjoy watching the nature channels with my wife when I get a chance, and I understand that nature can seem cruel. However, grouse shooting adds money and benefits to our economy and I do not agree that it goes against the natural way of things.
The only scientific study of wildlife populations after a driven grouse moor ceased to operate but walked-up shooting continued was done in Wales. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex referred to it. The grouse moor was Berwyn, where in 20 years the lapwing became extinct, golden plover declined by 90%, and curlew declined by 79%. All three species are now listed as of conservation concern, with both curlew and lapwing red-listed. That is what happens when grouse shooting is stopped. In Northern Ireland, at Glenwherry, through the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, we have a sustainable moor, where there is pest control. That ensures that it can succeed. All the birds of prey are still there in large numbers, but grouse numbers have risen from four to between 250 and 300. That is what can be done; there is evidence for it.
For all those reasons, I do not feel able to support the e-petition. I ask people to look at the big picture, which clearly shows that we must encourage the sport of grouse shooting and enable conservation to be carried out, to ensure that money will be poured into enhancing wildlife and the environment.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I had the honour of holding a similar job to that which the Minister currently holds at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I sought, as I am sure she does, to ensure that the fact that there is more that unites the forces involved in biodiversity and conservation, land management and field sports than divides them, was prevalent in policy making. It is absolutely imperative that reversing the decline in biodiversity continues to be a priority for the Government and for future Governments.
I formed my opinions on this subject through my experience of managing an area of upland for many decades, and also, as a Minister, through working with grouse moor managers, NGOs, national parks and other organisations to restore peat land and to see what water companies and others were doing in the constituencies of Members such as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). Her excellent remarks about the depleting state of some of the moorlands over many decades were entirely right.
Good stuff is happening and we do not want to see that reversed, but before we go any further let us accept that there are enormous challenges here. I am the first to say that those who are breaking the law deserve to feel the full force of the law. They are doing shooting no good; they are doing their peers no good; and they are doing the name of conservation no good. We need to make that very clear.
Very little in this place is certain to me—very little in life is certain to me—but one thing I absolutely know is that, if the aims of the petition were realised, it would be a catastrophe for the biodiversity of the uplands. I know that because I have seen at first hand how good grouse moor management results in more curlews, more lapwings and more oystercatchers. In an area that I know well, I have seen eagle chicks fledged and I have seen hen harriers and other birds of prey thrive. However, the most important thing is that no one in the House should take my word for it. A number of people have referred to an excellent piece of peer-reviewed science, “Changes in the abundance and distribution of upland breeding birds in the Berwyn Special Protection Area, North Wales 1983-2002”. What slightly surprised me when reading the transcript of the Petitions Committee’s evidence session for the petition was that the main perpetrator of the petition, who has a desire to ban driven grouse shooting, admitted that he had scant knowledge of that report.
As has already been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, the report provides a bleak vision of what would happen to our uplands if there were a ban. Berwyn is a 242 sq km area of blanket bog and upland heath, similar to the one described by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. No driven grouse shooting has taken place there since 1990, and I need not repeat the details of the catastrophic decline that we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Coincidentally, there were increases in carrion crows, as well as peregrines and buzzards, although that is a national phenomenon—a conservation triumph owing mainly to the exclusion of certain chemicals from those areas. Most tellingly in that special protection area, hen harriers declined by 50%.
There is another piece of science that we should consider. It is a very good, peer-reviewed paper, produced by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, called “Waders on the fringe”. I could go into great detail about the paper, but if I could sum it up in one phrase it would be, “If you want to see waders and red-listed bird species, go to a managed grouse moor.”
I will tackle the important point about flooding, because it will be much in the Minister’s mind as winter sets in. I spend a lot of time looking at the devastation caused by floods in places such as the Calder valley, and I am absolutely certain that the arguments around grouse moor management being a cause of flooding are very thin indeed. There may be small areas in certain circumstances but, when I was a Minister, the main problem for the grouse moor owners who battered on my door was that Natural England was being slow or over-bureaucratic in allowing them to block grips or drains. For them, on grouse moor management, “wetter is better”. That phrase resounded in my mind, and I personally have experience of trying to make a grouse moor wetter. We forget at our peril that decisions taken in Parliament or in Whitehall have had devastating effects on our uplands—not least 80%-plus grants for moorland drainage schemes.
I believe that, if many of the people who signed the petition listen to the debate and to some of the experiences of hon. Members, they will feel that there are two very different sides to this argument. I have great praise for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I worked very closely with it as a Minister and I continue to support much of what it does. Its caution on the call for a ban is something we should listen to. I think movement could be made by both sides, but it is sad when issues are polarised in the way the petition has forced them to be. I believe much more work can be done to get to where we can all agree and can take this forward, as other hon. Members have already said.
It is totally wrong to say that this is an argument between a ban and the status quo. The countryside and the natural world never stand still. Grouse moor owners and managers are constantly trying to find new ways of restoring peat and of increasing the quality of the habitat, not just for the birds that they want to use for sporting purposes but for the wider biodiversity of the uplands. We in the House should be obsessed with reversing the decline of biodiversity in this country. If the petition were enacted, it would work in the opposite way. That would be a disaster for my generation and for my children, who would not be able to see the kinds of birds and wildlife that I have had the privilege to enjoy seeing in our uplands.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for introducing both petitions, although I find it odd that we seem to be debating two opposing petitions. I am not here to support the ban on grouse shooting. I am a lousy shot but I support shooting. More important, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) has said, we should be “obsessed” with biodiversity.
I want to see us supporting the management of grouse moors much better. I will talk a little about a place in Northern Ireland that I think is the best example of what we should all be supporting, which is Glenwherry. When I was elected to Stormont, I promised in my maiden speech that I would stand up for country values. However, that means listening to both sides, and today we have to pull together in partnership and find the right way forward.
I was brought up by a mother who would not let me look at any wildlife—bird or animal—without knowing how it lived and how we lived with it. I was also brought up in the valleys of Antrim, which are beautiful whether snow-covered or windswept, although it is not necessarily the case that “wetter is better”. Northern Ireland certainly gets its fair share of rain. It is a stunning part of the world, with great green, flowing valleys.
To the north is Glenwherry. There we have a partnership between the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—what was called the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; Northern Ireland’s agriculture Department—the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise, the RSPB and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, all working together on a mixture of private and public land, paid for by the shooting fraternity and the Antrim Estates Company. They manage the hill farms and the bog land. Interestingly enough, the reason I went there was not about grouse. I went to see how they were looking at pollinators and bees. They look at the total management—the bog land, partridge restoration, bees and pollinators and what we are talking about today, grouse conservation.
The Irish Grouse Conservation Trust was set up 10 years ago to save the Irish grouse and to stop them from disappearing. That was done through the organisation at Glenwherry, where there were four pairs of grouse 10 years ago. There are now more than 250. The site holds some 65% of Ireland’s grouse population, and it is learning how all types of farming can operate next to it, whether that is burning, cleaning, clearing or unblocking the old drains that were put in when people were trying to reclaim land. They are looking at everything so that they can manage the ecosystem and preserve all of the wildlife that is there.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to take account of climate change obligations? The Committee on Climate Change estimates that 350,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide is emitted from upland peat each year, with the majority due to burning on grouse moors.
Danny Kinahan
I certainly take that point on board, but I go back to what I said at the beginning: we all need to listen to one another and find the right way of doing this. In Ireland, we have much more peat than many other areas, but we have to find the right way forward.
The RSPB has been instrumental in this, as has the Irish Grouse Conservation Trust. My feeling today is that we should not all fall out with one another. Let us work together as a team to find the right way of doing this. Burning is well regulated. We have had awful fires on some of the moors in Northern Ireland in the past few years that have had absolutely nothing to do with those looking after the land. We have to find a proper way of protecting it. I believe the proper way of protecting it is those who own the land and shoot on it carrying on as they are at the moment. The same can be said when it comes to looking after birds of prey. It is better if we all work together, pull together and learn from one another.
Sir Henry Bellingham
The hon. Gentleman mentioned working together. Does he agree that a good start would be for the RSPB to come back into the flagship hen harrier joint action plan, which it pulled out of after six months?
Danny Kinahan
I certainly agree. I would like to see the RSPB perhaps being less political and getting more involved in working with all of us.
I think I have made my point. We should work together. We have the skills and we have the regulations. Let us make them work and listen to one another.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
There seems to be a common concern on both sides of this debate, which is criminality. Both sides would say that criminality is wrong for conservation purposes. On that point, would those who oppose a ban on grouse shooting support vicarious liability, to make landowners responsible for criminality on their land? Is that not a potential solution we could all work together on?
Danny Kinahan
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but all sorts of problems come with vicarious responsibility, such as the cost of insurance and of letting people on to one’s land. That needs to be carefully looked at, and we need to find out what everyone thinks about it. Initially, I do not think it is the right way forward.
Let us learn from one another, as a partnership. Thank you for letting me speak, Mr Davies.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is very nice to see you in the Chair imposing a time limit on speeches, Mr Davies. That is fantastic; thank you.
I have not shot grouse before, and I doubt I ever will. In fact, I confine myself mostly to shooting clay pigeons. Today, I want to challenge the untruths being promoted by those who wish to ban grouse shooting—people who outside this place knowingly promote cod science in what I regard as a shameful attempt to set community against community and neighbour against neighbour. That wilful cynicism was no better exampled than by the reaction of Mr Mark Avery and Chris Packham to last December’s floods when, at a time of disaster, they took to the airwaves and their blogs to blame that brutal act of nature on gamekeepers and grouse moors. That was a simply unforgivable act of premeditated malice, with two media savvy men using the suffering of real people and real communities to promote their narrow political objectives.
I was driving north on 27 December 2015 through the lakes when I heard those people and their collaborators putting forward their knowingly scientifically dishonest theories—theories that sadly went unchallenged by the poorly briefed journalists interviewing them. This debate provides me with the chance to put the facts behind the Christmas floods before the House. The facts are these. The two-month period of November-December 2015 was the wettest recorded in the north of England since 1910. The December rainfall total at Shap in the single month of December 2015 was 77.3 cm or, in old-fashioned money, more than 30 inches of rain. From 1 December to 28 December 2015, Bainbridge in North Yorkshire received 49.62 cm of rain—three times more than the December average of 15.65 cm—or, in old money, 19.5 inches of rain per acre. Bingley in West Yorkshire received more than 80% of its monthly rainfall in just two days between 25 and 27 December.
In raw numbers, 1 inch of rain equals 113.31 tonnes of water per acre, so each acre in Bainbridge for the month of December received 2,209 tonnes of rain. I know it is difficult for people in this place to imagine what 1 inch of rainfall per acre actually looks like. Well, it is equal to 16 of the largest African bull elephants landing on an acre of ground. So the rainfall at Bainbridge for December 2015 was the equivalent of 312 bull elephants jostling for position on a space the size of four football pitches.
Sticking with totals and elephants, on 5 December, one storm—Storm Desmond—deposited 13.45 inches of rain on Honister pass. That is the equivalent of 212 bull elephants all arriving in the same place, on the same day. That is why there were floods in the north of England—a biblical rainfall falling over sodden ground in a very short space of time. It was nothing to do with gamekeepers, beaters or the people in tweed who like to shoot grouse.
However, Mr Avery and his friends have never paid science and the facts much regard. Only recently, in his blog, Mr Avery stated in relation to run-off:
“Leeds University research, led by Dr Lee Brown and published in 2014, confirms Ban the Burn campaigners’ criticisms of the Walshaw Moor Estate burning.”
The glaring problem—there is only one—with Mr Avery’s posting is that it is entirely untrue. Very kindly, Dr Brown let me have a copy of his headline findings, and what he actually states in his summary is this:
“River flow in catchments where burning has taken place appears to be slightly more prone to higher flow peaks during heavy rain. However, this was not a conclusive finding.”
Mr Walker
No, I do not have time.
As I like to deal in facts, unlike Mr Avery, I have read the excellent and thoughtful Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council local flood risk management strategy, to which my excellent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), contributed. It was published in June this year. I have read all 60-plus pages of it, and the word “grouse” is not mentioned once. However, what is referenced is the 60 flood events in the area since the end of the second world war, with the statement on page 14 that
“flooding has been a regular feature in Hebden Bridge since the 1800’s.”
That grown-up report does not focus its attention on banning anything. Instead, it talks of working with
“land and asset owners to implement natural flood management schemes to maximise water retention, storage and slow flows.”
That is a responsible council talking the language of collaboration, not division, and a council that wants to bring town and rural communities together, not drive them apart.
I will conclude with this. It is a wholly reasonable position for people to dislike shooting birds for sport and the table. It is a position I happen to disagree with, but I can live with disagreement. However, what is unreasonable is for people such as Mr Packham and Mr Avery to disguise their dislike of grouse shooting as part of some wider concern for the environment. That is the lie that needs to be exposed today. These two gentleman are known for their hostility to the farming community and land management. As one farming friend described them to me,
“These two men are not participants in the countryside. They are simply voyeurs.”
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Bingley, in my constituency.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Davies. Let us be clear what we are debating today. It is not whether people are entitled to shoot for the pot, whether shooting has a role in conservation or the wider issue of shooting for sport. We are not talking today about pheasant shooting, deer stalking or even walked-up grouse shooting. We are talking about driven grouse shooting because particular concerns are associated with it. It is rather disappointing that the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) sat through the evidence to the Petitions Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week and does not seem to have grasped that basic point about the petition.
The weight of scientific evidence is that driven grouse shooting damages habitats, pollutes our water, increases greenhouse gas emissions, increases flood risk and, all too often, involves the illegal persecution of birds of prey. As we have heard, shooting estates commonly burn heather and peat on the moors to increase the red grouse population. Reference has been made to the work by the University of Leeds on the effects of moorland burning on the eco-hydrology of river basins—the EMBER study—which concluded that burning reduces organic matter in the upper peat layers and depletes it of nutrients. Heather burning is intensifying as grouse shooting is intensifying.
Water tables were significantly deeper in burned catchments, indicating greater peat degradation and more carbon released into the atmosphere and water. This contributes to both climate change and to our water bills, as the water companies incur additional costs in removing the dissolved carbon. Treating a single drinking water catchment for the effect of peat burning may cost a six-figure sum each year.
The Energy and Climate Change Committee identified the climate threat in its report to Parliament last year and warned that the
“the majority of upland areas with carbon-rich peat soils, are in poor condition. The damaging practice of burning peat to increase grouse yields continues, including on internationally protected sites.”
Burning also reduces the uplands’ capacity to hold water, thereby increasing the flood risk downstream. In his paper calling for a radical rethink of flood defences, Dieter Helm, chair of the Natural Capital Committee, identified the burning of heather on grouse moors as a publicly subsidised practice that pays
“little or no attention to the flood risk dimensions.”
The Government’s national flood resilience review neglected this. The focus seemed to be on slowing down the flow instead of looking at what mismanagement in the uplands caused the flow to speed up in the first place. That is surely the wrong way to go about things.
It is not surprising that the highest number of signatures for the petition came from Calder Valley because it is communities such Hebden Bridge—which was devastated by the Boxing day floods, as I saw for myself when I visited with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch)—that pay the price for the mismanagement and abuse of the uplands.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for coming to see the devastation in my constituency in Calderdale in the aftermath of the Boxing day floods. I heard the points made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for whom I have the utmost respect, but does my hon. Friend agree that we are not talking about banning grouse shooting in isolation, but that we must take the management of moorlands seriously as part of a package of measures if we are to have any chance of managing flood risk in future?
Kerry McCarthy
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She will know that Natural England initiated a prosecution, but proceedings were dropped in 2012 and the burning continued.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for coming up to the Calder Valley during the floods, which was a horrendous time for everyone. I just wonder whether she has had a look at the moors—indeed, any moors—to see what sort of restoration work is being done to restore them.
Kerry McCarthy
I went with the Uplands Alliance and the Moorland Association to an estate in Cumbria—we did not have time to go to Walshaw Moor; to be honest, our focus was on people in the flooded areas—so yes, I have visited moors with those organisations.
It is all the more galling that burning not only has costly consequences, but is often publicly subsidised under the guise of environmental stewardship. A freedom of information request to Natural England revealed that in 2012-13, £17.3 million of environmental stewardship funding was paid for land used for grouse shooting. The RSPB says that during the last 10 years £105 million has gone to grouse moors, supporting environmental damage to sites of special scientific interest and internationally protected special areas of conservation and special protection areas. In 2014, 30 estates received £4 million of taxpayers’ money—they included one owned by the late Duke of Westminster, who was worth £9 billion; I am sure that, despite some death taxes, the new duke is still pretty well off—that could be spent on public goods such as restoring wildlife habitats or flood alleviation.
Codes of practice on heather burning are simply not working. We need the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to respect the evidence and deliver a joined-up policy that does not involve the public subsidising practices that damage our environment. Nor can the Government continue to turn a blind eye to illegal practices, or meekly say, as they do in their response to the petition, that
“all those involved are encouraged to follow best practice.”
DEFRA has rightly identified raptor persecution as a national wildlife crime priority, but that is just used words. There is no action. Will the Minister tell us today what resources have been allocated to the national wildlife crime unit to prosecute those responsible and to prevent future persecution? We are told that a taskforce is developing a plan, but can the Minister tell us when that plan will be published, who will be consulted and when and how it will be actioned?
The decline of the hen harrier is the most obvious illustration of the failure to uphold the law on illegal persecution. The RSPB reports that four satellite-tagged hen harriers have disappeared so far this year. Their last known transmission was from areas on or close to grouse moors. According to the Government’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee, there should be 2,600 nesting pairs of hen harriers in the UK, including approximately 300 pairs in the English uplands. Instead, this year there are just three. The RSPB said in its evidence to the Petitions Committee
“a wealth of scientific evidence”
shows that is because of illegal persecution. The RSPB has withdrawn its support for the Government’s hen harrier action plan because it has
“patently shown itself unable to deliver”.
As has been said, the RSPB is not against shooting in general, but has made it clear that the
“the status quo is not an option and that voluntary approaches have failed.”
DEFRA’s initial response to the petition was incredibly complacent. It relied on the industry’s own claims about the benefits of driven grouse shooting and, critically, focused on when grouse shooting is
“carried out according to the law”,
ignoring the too many instances when it is not. The Government’s response cited the industry’s Public and Corporate Economic Consultants report on the economics of shooting sports, but a review by Sheffield Hallam University identified flawed methodology and found that many of the claims were not verifiable or supported by robust data.
Shooting is a diverse industry, and different forms of shooting have different costs and benefits associated with them. Only driven grouse shooting involves such disproportionate costs, illegal activity and environmental harm, which is why the petition focuses on driven grouse shooting.
I want to say something about the density of birds required to make a shooting estate profitable these days. Studies have shown that 60 birds per sq km is optimal, but owners now aim for 180 if not 200 birds per sq km. Owners make money according to how many birds are shot and the sole aim of many shooters now is to bag as many birds as possible. It is not about enjoying the countryside, communing with nature or even demonstrating any real skill, which might be required in walked-up shooting; it is just about blasting as many birds as possible out of the sky so that they can brag about it to their mates afterwards. Many find this so-called sport morally reprehensible, but even those who do not must accept that the driven grouse shooting lobby needs to put its house in order.
The Government could take a number of steps to reduce the damage associated with driven grouse shooting. They could put an end to widespread heather burning and investigate the use of public subsidies for environmentally damaging behaviour, ensuring that it ceases after Brexit. They could demonstrate the leadership we need to uphold the law and tackle illegal persecution through the national wildlife crime unit. They could look at the introduction of vicarious liability, which applies in Scotland, whereby estate owners are held responsible for the actions of their estate managers and gamekeepers. They could work with the RSPB to develop its proposal for a licensing system, although doubts have been expressed by others as to whether that would work. I do not have time to debate this today, but they could also ban the use of snares and lead ammunition, which as we know causes massive pollution to our water supplies as well as contaminating food. The Government must show the political will to uphold the law and protect our environment. If we do not see concerted action and swift progress soon, the only answer will be a ban.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, Mr Davies.
Whenever a ban is proposed, it is incumbent on us all to be certain about who that decision would impact on. To many, the image of the losers of a ban on grouse shooting seems clear: old men of a bygone age, sporting tweed jackets, expensive hobbies and outdated views. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real victims of a ban are not caricatures; they are ordinary working people in constituencies such as mine in North Yorkshire—the farmer’s wife who goes beating at the weekend so that her family can make ends meet through difficult times; the young man able to earn a living, in the community he loves, as an apprentice to a gamekeeper; the local publican welcoming shooting parties with cold ales and hot pies. Let us be absolutely clear: those who support a ban on grouse shooting should do so only if they are prepared to look those people in the eye and explain to them why their livelihoods are worth sacrificing.
There are some who question shooting’s contribution to the rural economy. People suggest that the 2,500 direct jobs, and the tens of millions of pounds paid out in wages, is somehow misleading. I agree: the truth is that the benefits created by grouse shooting go far beyond the direct employment it creates. From the Yorkshire bed and breakfast welcoming ramblers drawn to our area by the moor’s summer blossom to the workshops of Westley Richards in Birmingham or Purdey in London, whose handmade shotguns are the finest in the world, the ripples of employment that grouse shooting creates reach every corner of our country.
However, it is not only to the rural economy that grouse shooting makes an invaluable contribution; it is to our rural landscape as well. There is a tendency among some conservationists to act as though farmers and gamekeepers are somehow trespassing upon Britain’s landscape, yet without their hands repairing our dry stone walls or their dairy cows keeping the fields lush, the rural beauty of our countryside would soon fade. Heather moorland, as we have heard, is rarer than rainforest and 75% of it is found here in Britain. It is a national treasure. From Heathcliff to Holmes, the moors have become a proud part of our cultural heritage.
Rishi Sunak
I will not, out of respect to my colleagues, as there are many people still to contribute.
Without the £1 million of private income spent by moor owners on land management every single week, that proud heritage would come to an end. Overgrazed by sheep, used to grow pine timber or abandoned to the bracken, the moors as we know and love them would be lost. That would be a disaster for British wildlife. Academic study after academic study shows that endangered wading birds such as curlew and lapwing are much more likely to breed successfully on managed grouse moors.
Rishi Sunak
I will not, out of respect to my colleagues.
Some 80% of rare merlin—the UK’s smallest bird of prey—are found on grouse moors. There has been some discussion about the state of the hen harrier population and although it has increased over the past few decades, more can be done. We must be clear: a Britain without grouse shooting is not a Britain where the hen harrier would thrive. Research carried out on the Scottish grouse moor of Langholm, and published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, found that when gamekeeping ceased, the hen harrier population plummeted. Without gamekeepers to control them, predators multiply and hen harriers pay the price. That is why the participation of 1 million acres of grouse moor in a new hen harrier brood management scheme is the right approach, and why gamekeepers supporting diversionary feeding is the right approach. Conservation will only succeed through partnership with the grouse shooting industry, and not through its destruction.
That does not just go for birdlife; it goes for the land itself. The rotational burning used to manage heather moorland may seem odd to some, but without it our moors would not regenerate and support the rich wildlife and biodiversity that they do. Meanwhile, contrary to what some have claimed, Natural England and others can find no specific evidence that links burning to floods. As for the myth that grouse shooting is somehow unregulated, I would be amused to see what the gamekeepers in my constituency, with literally scores of regulations, codes, licences and Acts of Parliament to comply with, make of that.
Banning grouse shooting would undermine the balanced ecosystem of our countryside. It would not only leave many families poorer, but leave our landscape and wildlife poorer too. A ban on grouse shooting would be a policy with no winners. Instead, only by working together can we ensure a bright future for the rural Britain that we all care so deeply about.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Many people, not least the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), will be aware of the opinion circulating around the Calder valley that one of the big factors that contributed to the horrendous flooding in the valley at Christmas was the grouse moor on the Walshaw estate above Hebden Bridge. As a townie, I thought I needed to go and visit the estate to see how justified the petition is, and to consider what influence the management of the estate has upon the mitigation of flood risk. I have to tell you, Mr Davies, that what I saw horrified me. Actually, I felt quite sick, and not because I saw anything repugnant—quite the opposite. I quickly realised that the petition and much of the information peddled around the Calder valley about the estate are, in many cases, simply untrue and based more on ideology than on fact and reason. The nonsense that people are led to believe could not be further from the truth, and it is time to put some of those things straight.
It is true that our peatland moors are in a poor state, but that is not because of grouse shooting. Rather, it is a consequence of a number of different factors, not least decades of abuse from coal burning, the over-intensification of farming—to name just two—and others mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). So why am I horrified about the amount of misinformation, which is quite frankly breathtaking, relating to the Walshaw estate? Does the estate slash and burn, as is suggested by many? No, it does not. It does, however, use what is called cool burning. The estate works in partnership with Natural England, Yorkshire Water and many other agencies. Everything it does is done under licence and is strictly controlled and plotted by GPS, and mapped, so that no area is burnt out of cycle, which, for active peat, is over 25 years, and, for other areas, is over 20 and 15 years.
Does this contribute to the increased peak flows? Common sense would probably say that it does; as does a study completed by Durham University and commissioned by Treesponsibility in the Calder valley. Although the study shows that burning does indeed have an impact on flows—I say “flows”, and not “flooding”—its methodology is so inherently flawed by a number of omissions and inaccurate assumptions that it is of very limited value. For example, the author of the study does not take into consideration any other burning outside the Walshaw estate. The author assumes that all channels on the moorland are unimpeded and allow the free flow of water; grips, ditches and drains are ignored; bankside areas are all assumed to be unimpeded and free flowing; and, finally, it is assumed that our six local reservoirs are storage neutral and allow for the unimpeded passage of water. As such, before drawing any conclusions from the study, we have to be aware of the significant weaknesses in its methodology.
We know that water does not have an unimpeded flow. There are thousands of acres around the Calder valley that are up hill and down dale and that have thousands of natural traps and bungs. On top of that, our reservoirs are not always storage neutral. Indeed, managing the level of reservoirs can have a significant impact upon mitigating the risk of flooding. Owing to the significant proportion of water on the moorlands that runs through the six reservoirs on and around the estate, if the levels of the reservoirs had been proactively managed last winter, the scale of the destruction caused to the communities in the valley bottom may have been reduced. Ironically, going into this winter, many of our reservoirs are kept low or empty.
As a result of a variety of factors, including the use of cool burning, mechanical cutting and spraying, and the planting of mixtures of new seeds of heather and cotton grass replacement, we have seen a huge influx of bird species back on to the moor. Many of those species have been mentioned today, and none of them have been on the Walshaw estate for decades. I was fortunate to see some of those species during my recent visit. This evidence is contrary to the petition, which states that grouse shooting exterminates wildlife. The careful custodianship of our moorlands is actually supporting and encouraging wildlife in a way that we have not previously seen.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point about cool burning. Does he also recognise that cool burning allows mosses to develop, which has a huge impact on the carbon capture of the moors?
Craig Whittaker
Yes, I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right. A key point about the over-intensification of farming over decades—20,000 sheep were kept on the Walshaw moor during the war and in subsequent years, and the number is now down to 1,000—is that molinia is a huge problem that causes deeply damaging wildfires, so he is absolutely right.
In relation to the petition, I point out that it is already illegal to kill endangered species. Banning grouse shooting will have no influence on this practice; policing of the law that is in place will. Furthermore, it has been alleged that the grouse moors practise “gripping”, which is designed to drain the moor to encourage heather growth and that that, in turn, has contributed to flooding. The opposite is true. The Walshaw estate has practised grip blocking over the last three years. That practice blocks grips that were paid for by the Government in the 1970s to encourage more intensive farming. Over a third of grips have been blocked at Walshaw and the work to completely block the rest will take place over the next 18 months.
Finally, it is worth drawing attention to the very substantial cost of the restoration work and moorland maintenance programme. The seven full-time gamekeepers —I would call them, more appropriately, “custodians”—who carry out the vast amount of restoration work are on constant lookout in the summer for wildfires, which can totally destroy the peat.
Angela Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that although landowners make a significant contribution to moorland restoration, they nevertheless generally do so with a wide range of partners, such as, in my area—and I think in the hon. Gentleman’s too—the Moors for the Future partnership?
Craig Whittaker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. A lot of this stuff is done in partnership with Natural England. Yorkshire Water is a big partner up there as well. Of course, there is also our local council; our full flood catchment plan was released only last Friday and part of that is about working in partnership to manage the uplands.
As I was saying, these guys are on constant lookout for wildfires, which destroy the peat. Were they not there and were the estate not to have grouse shooting, there would be no capacity to prevent the wildfires. In fact, due to the poor state of much of our moorland, because of the factors that have been outlined, not having those custodians would result in the moors degenerating even further. West Yorkshire fire brigade has attended 249 illegal fires around the Calder valley since 2009. Those really do damage moors and wildlife.
Where do we go from here? In common with organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I do not think that banning driven grouse shooting is the answer. Similarly, I am not convinced that burning is needed to the extent that we hear about, although on the Walshaw estate, that only equates to approximately 2% of the 16,000 acres each year. I understand that there is machinery available that can access hard-to-reach areas, which reduces the need to burn. At the very least, I believe that a reduction in the scale of burning should be worked on and should be achievable.
However, we have to remember that if the current owners of our moors did not carry out the scale of restoration that they currently do, our moorlands would be in significantly worse condition than they are. I do not think that banning driven grouse shooting is the answer—in fact, it would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and as far as flood measures go, it would actually be detrimental. Common sense, not ideology, should prevail.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
As many will know, driven grouse shooting is a really important aspect of the economy and rural community life in counties such as North Yorkshire. It is so pleasing to see so many honourable colleagues here from our county this afternoon.
Clearly, we have to look at both sides of any argument, but I believe that the petition to ban driven grouse shooting simply does not stand up to scrutiny, and it does not seem to have ignited the enthusiasm of many Members who support the ban to speak here today. The economic impact of banning driven grouse shooting would be disastrous. There are estimates that revenue from walked-up grouse shooting would be less than 10% of that gained by driven grouse shooting. Many grouse moors rely on the sale of grouse shooting days for their economic survival.
Richard Arkless
Since I was elected to this place, economics has been used to justify dropping bombs, supplying arms, withdrawing tax credits and now killing birds. Does this place ever come down on the side of morality versus economics, or will it always be the case that if it makes a few quid, it is okay with the Tories?
Nigel Adams
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but it is probably one of the most nonsensical I have heard in this Chamber in the six years that I have had the pleasure of being here.
The petition’s proposals would result in a huge number of job losses. Grouse shooting supports more than 1,500 full-time jobs and many more part-time jobs, so its proposals would be very damaging. In many cases, these are quality jobs, with most paying above minimum wage and with the benefits of working in a beautiful natural environment. Businesses related to or dependent on grouse shooting in the north of England also generate more local jobs and tens of millions of pounds of income, mostly to small and family-owned businesses. This industry is reasonably run and already heavily regulated, and I do not support a further threat to the jobs that are created.
Steve Double
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing moral about knowingly making a decision that will put hundreds of people in some of the poorest parts of our country out of work?
Nigel Adams
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him again on introducing this petition today. I certainly would not want any further excessive burdens to be placed on the approximately 450 estates that offer grouse shooting.
Grouse moor management is conducted in accordance with clear regulations contained within conservation designations, such as sites of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation. That has been shown to be highly effective, with SSSIs that are also grouse moors demonstrating a massive improvement in condition in the last decade. An overwhelming majority are now in either “good” or “recovering” condition, whereas only approximately a third were previously.
The legal predator control and habitat management undertaken by managers of grouse moors is supported by Natural England because these have proven to provide sanctuary and habitat for increased populations of endangered wading bird species, including lapwings, curlew, and other red-listed species, including the red grouse, which is unique to the British Isles.
Additionally, there is little evidence to show that predator species are damaged by the responsible management of grouse moor estates. In fact, studies show that they benefit: breeding merlin pairs were four times as high in keepered moorland than elsewhere, and the control of predators was shown to reduce nest predation, increasing the population of hen harriers and other native birds of prey. When keepering stopped, hen harrier populations did not increase. In fact, they declined alongside grouse populations, because crow and fox populations took over. This petition may be well intentioned, but if its recommendations were implemented, it would end up shooting the uplands in the foot.
Grouse moor managers actively restore peatland and well-maintained peatland helps to reduce flood risk, as we have heard. Those are essential environmental maintenance tasks that the Government do not have to fund, yet they produce huge public benefits—a virtually free service is conducted by grouse moor managers. Grouse moor owners in England alone spend approximately £52.5 million every year on moorland management, 90% of which is private investment. Those tasks would have to be taken up and funded by the public purse or we would face declining biodiversity, increased flood risk and damage to a rare type of habitat on the basis of neglect.
Let me come to those who really matter in this: the local community, many of whom benefit from and enjoy grouse shooting and enjoy living near picturesque, well-maintained heather moorland. It gathers people of all ages together to enjoy the camaraderie of a day’s grouse shooting. Driven grouse shooting brings the rural community together in areas that struggle with social isolation and low levels of employment. It keeps a cultural tradition thriving. Among those who have newly taken up the profession, there are people whose families have been grouse shooting, farming and keeping for centuries.
I will try to put this gently, but I feel that there is a bit of misplaced or inverted snobbery in the petition to ban this practice. There is a sense of knee-jerk opposition without a full understanding of the facts. There is an impression, for example, that grouse shooting involves a bunch of tweed-clad toffs trampling the countryside and killing for fun, but that is a huge misconception. I suspect that those who want to see driven grouse shooting banned, some of whom are given a very regular platform by the BBC to espouse their views, are keen to propagate that image, alongside their dodgy science.
[Mr David Nuttall in the Chair]
The industry is supported primarily by those who have spent their lives living in and working hard for the countryside. All sides—the rural community, the shooters and the gamekeepers—know that their environment and occupation cannot continue unless they maintain good relations with one another and conserve the countryside. The actual business of conservation requires people to get their hands very literally dirty, not simply sign a petition from the comfort of their home.
In the debate, there is an element of seizing upon a convenient, if fallacious, environmental objection as a straw man for some people’s misguided opposition to shooting when, in fact, most country sports contribute massively to conservation and animal welfare. I encourage anyone who is interested to visit a grouse moor and speak with the passionate, hands-on and knowledgeable gamekeepers before leaping to criticise, based solely on a couple of deeply unrepresentative bad examples.
Shot game tends to be of an incredibly high quality and raised to high welfare standards, and is often organic. Almost all game that is shot on such estates, including grouse, gets eaten. A lot of people object to seeing a shooting party carrying home a bird to pluck and cook, but those same people sometimes buy at their local supermarket, without a second thought, eggs and chicken raised in truly deplorable conditions. We must not pander to squeamishness about where food comes from, especially when those ideas are based on uninformed prejudices. Therefore, I am fully in support of the alternative petition to support the countryside and driven grouse shooting.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the chairman of the Countryside Alliance. I will not repeat absolutely everything that has been said this afternoon, but I will compare two moorlands, and build on the excellent story that we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames).
I, too, spent a pleasant day on a moorland—not actually shooting—not that long ago. Many species have been mentioned, and I think I counted 44 in total that day, including mammals and birds. There were blackcock, golden plover, woodcock, snipe, jack snipe, greylag geese, teal, widgeon, mallard, gadwall, pintail and even, right out in the middle of the moor, miles from anywhere, a wild chicken. I am not sure whether there are wild chicken, but there was a chicken that was probably not born and brought up there. There were also a collection of corvids and a few raptors. Probably as important, to pick up on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), was the thriving school, the busy shop and a pub that did business not just during the tourist season, but throughout the winter. In other words, the place was a proper community built around the agriculture and shooting activity of the area.
Compare and contrast that with my other experience of a moorland in mid-Wales, where I used to live and where, something like 20 years ago, grouse shooting of any sort came to an end. Now, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), lapwing have become extinct on those moors. The numbers of golden plover are down by 90% and curlew by 79%. The moors are dominated by crows and other corvids, as well as ground predators. Biodiversity has been damaged by a lack of investment and overgrazing. A new phenomenon —at this stage being reported anecdotally—is the uninterrupted rock climbing in some of the few cliff areas, which is deterring peregrine falcons from nesting. No malice is intended, but the pretty unlimited and unregulated disturbance each and every weekend is contributing to difficulties elsewhere.
Simon Hart
If it is a quick one. I always regret giving way, but I will do so for the right hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman has not yet mentioned hen harriers. A lot of my constituents are deeply concerned about the decline of the hen harrier population in England. Does he accept that there is a real concern that grouse shooting is making things worse?
Simon Hart
If the right hon. Gentleman—and this is not an insult—had been around earlier, he would have heard quite a lot about that. I suspect we will also hear from the Minister on that point. We have all acknowledged that the problem exists, but hen harriers are susceptible to a number of different things; persecution is but one. I will pass that ball to the Minister to deal with when she sums up.
We are told that there are good alternatives to driven grouse shooting. As far as I can make out, those include forestry, wind generation, rewilding—whatever the definition of that is—ecotourism, farming and rough shooting or walked-up shooting, as some people call it. The point is that the alternative already exists across a lot of the UK, including across a lot of Wales. Therefore, arguments that suggest that somehow there will be a booming rural economy in areas where driven grouse shooting does not take place can be contested, because we have the example already. It is not a case of speculating about what the alternatives may be. We know what the alternatives are because they are out there for anybody who wishes to go and see them, and they do not reflect in any way the suggestions made by those who wish to criminalise the activity.
In the joint evidence session last week between the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Petitions Committee, it was pretty obvious to us that the people promoting a ban on driven grouse shooting had made no assessment of the economic or ecological costs, or the social consequences. The Committee felt, I think—I certainly did—that if people are going to make a case that would essentially add to the criminal sanctions of the country, put people out of work and alter the management of the uplands, the very least they could do is come up with a reason that their alternative is better than the existing model that has been tried and tested over some time. Until opponents of driven grouse shooting actually bother to make that case, their argument deserves to fail.
I finish by turning to a slightly more political argument. Earlier this year, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) produced a document entitled, “Labour’s rural problem”, which was an analysis of why Labour was not succeeding in its electoral ambitions in rural areas. On page 33, she confesses that
“much of the party treats the countryside with a polite indifference.”
The report goes on to state:
“An activist from Labour South West, said...‘in the future we need to ensure that we focus on rural issues that most people worry about. Rural issues shouldn’t be confused with animal welfare issues.’”
And so it goes on.
The report compares interestingly with another document, produced by a former Labour MP, called the comprehensive animal protection review, which apparently has the warm endorsement of the shadow Minister. The author of the report says:
“As part of our wider environmental priorities, we will no longer allow drainage of land to facilitate grouse shooting and landowners will have obligations to restore land to its natural environment... We will introduce a licensing requirement for shooting estates”,
without defining what a shooting estate is. There are various other comments about further restrictions on shotgun ownership and increased licensing costs and so on.
There seems to be a problem. There is recognition that, in order to re-engage with rural communities, all political parties need to do things for them, rather than to them. Sadly, some of the comments today reveal that there is still an ambition to pursue a political agenda under the cover of some kind of ecological argument. Because of that and because of the lack of the proponents of the motion coming up with any more positive alternatives whatever, the proposal to ban driven grouse shooting deserves to fail, and I hope that it does.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I must immediately declare an interest as chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, the sister of the group to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) referred. In his excellent speech, he described, par excellence, the biodiversity that takes place on a well-managed moor. I will sketch for the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) got somewhere towards it—what the opposite course may entail.
I have been visiting an estate on the Caithness-Sutherland borders almost continuously for 36 years. When I started, there were a few grouse there. It was decided that the estate would gradually be stocked with more and more sheep. Tick numbers went up. Biodiversity on the moor went down. In the early days, there were raptors, skylarks, curlew, oystercatchers—the whole range of birds discussed today—but now virtually none of those birds remains. The quality of the moor has gone down considerably: the heather has got rank because it is not burnt; the number of grass species has immeasurably increased; and the amount of bracken, which is no good for any wildlife, has increased hugely. Without managed moors, I say to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), biodiversity would definitely go down. I disabuse her of one other fact: without driven grouse shooting, and without proper management, vast tracts of our precious moorland would degrade in the way I have described—we have already heard that moorland is rarer than rain forest and that in the United Kingdom we have 75% of the world’s heather moorland.
Many others have commented on the economic benefits of grouse shooting, so I will not go over that too much, except to say that the £50 million spent on grouse moors, and the associated £15 million spent on ancillary businesses, supports 1,500 full-time equivalent jobs, according to the Moorland Association—my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) may have got the figure wrong in his excellent speech—and some 125 days of seasonal work. Those are considerable figures in some of our country’s remotest areas.
Some 2,715 miles of moorland drainage ditches have been plugged in the north Pennines alone as a result of revegetation with 120 hectares of bare peat, and there has been a reduction in flood risk. Many Members have commented on burning, but it is a fact that just 0.68% of heather moorland in Britain is burned each year. If it is burned properly under proper conditions—Members have talked about hot and cold burning and about rotation around the moor—it should not create the damage that has been mentioned.
On the hen harrier problem, the RSPB came to see me ahead of this debate and pleaded with me to be reasonable. I will be reasonable to the RSPB if it will be reasonable to the grouse landowners. The RSPB pulled out of the biodiversity action plan earlier this year, and I appeal to it to rejoin that action plan because only talking between the two sides is likely to solve the problems. I do not condone anyone who breaks the law, and it is important that we sort out the problem, but the fact that hen harriers do not breed may not in itself automatically be due to grouse shooting landowners. Many other things may cause hen harriers not to breed, including disturbance and weather.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
We are getting close to the end of this debate, so I will move on.
On licensing and regulation, some wish to ban driven grouse shooting altogether, which would be extreme and would be detrimental to the biodiversity of this country. Licensing is an option, but grouse moor owners already have to comply with a panoply of legislation. Like others, I pay huge tribute to the keepers who keep our precious landscape in its current state and maintain its biodiversity. They already have to comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the heather and grass burning code of 2007 and the close season Acts for grouse. There is a panoply of legislation, and increasing regulation is rarely, if ever, a sensible answer. By using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the Government would only harm an activity that has immense economic and environmental benefits. Any discrepancy or case of malpractice should be dealt with locally, and I repeat that I do not condone any breaking of the law.
Finally, we have a fundamental choice between thriving grouse and wider bird populations, local tourism, conservation and strong rural economies; and the devastation of some of these remote areas, job losses, the loss of endangered species, an increase in disease and the loss of habitat. It is all too easy to impose a blanket ban on shooting, and it is irresponsible to ignore the hard science and the factual benefits that driven grouse shooting provides to the UK’s countryside.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
For the benefit of all Members here, this debate is scheduled to finish at 7.30 pm. Thanks to the brevity of Members who have spoken already, even if Members wish to take an intervention or two, there may be time to fit in all the remaining speakers and to hear from the Front Benchers before the conclusion of the debate.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I am pleased to contribute to this debate because the area of Wales that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) spoke about, the Berwyn range, is well known to me. It is worth remembering that that range, which covers a huge area and is internationally protected because of its significant numbers of hen harriers, has been managed by the RSPB. The peer-reviewed findings of the study between 1983 and 2002 are therefore incredibly important. If the decline is down to grouse moor management, why are we not seeing an explosion of hen harrier and grouse numbers on the more than 312,000 acres of land managed by the RSPB? That is peer-reviewed scientific evidence. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) failed to say what sources she is relying on or, indeed, whether those sources are peer-reviewed.
Between 1983 and 2002, lapwing were lost from the Berwyn survey area, golden plover declined from 10 birds to one and curlew declined by 79% despite its conservation designations. Carrion crow numbers increased sixfold and raven numbers fourfold, with the number of 1 sq km grid squares that they occupied doubling and trebling respectively. Buzzard numbers increased twofold, and the number of occupied grid squares increased fourfold. Peregrine numbers increased sevenfold, whereas hen harrier numbers declined by half. No significant changes were detected in the abundance of other SPA-designated raptors, merlin and kite.
Angela Smith
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but the latest report of the Peak District raptor monitoring group is absolutely clear. The group is frustrated by the heavy focus on hen harriers—I say that as a hen harrier champion—because, despite its best efforts over nearly eight years, merlin and peregrine numbers are going down. A range of significant birds are going down in number.
Antoinette Sandbach
I would be grateful if the hon. Lady provided me with a peer-reviewed study showing those numbers.
There has been no grouse shooting and no grouse moor management in the Berwyn range, where the number changes have been happening, since the late 1990s. Between upland breeding surveys, red grouse numbers declined by 54% and the occupied range—in other words, where the birds were—fell by 38%. Grouse count data collected on four moors since 1995 show that grouse numbers have remained at low levels on three of the moors. The study is important because it covers an RSPB-managed reserve. Grouse numbers declined, and so did hen harrier numbers.
Contrast that with what happened in relation to the plastic carrier bag charge in Wales, where landowners and the RSPB worked together to protect the black grouse, which was a huge success. There was a big increase in black grouse numbers on one keepered moor; on the three other RSPB moors, black grouse numbers did not increase. On the keepered moor on the Wynnstay Hall estate at Ruabon, the number of black grouse, one of our rarest grouse, increased. That shows what partnership can do, but it also shows that, when the land is not being managed by keepers, or is not where driven shooting happens, there is a decline in biodiversity. The RSPB reserve saw minor increases in black grouse.
This House has a responsibility to judge on proper evidence, not some scientific allegations made by third parties. [Interruption.] I am quoting the scientific facts from peer-reviewed research. I find it difficult that very few RSPB reserves release their data. They do not allow peer-reviewing of their bird numbers. One need only drive down the Llangollen valley to see the bracken on the hills of the RSPB reserves.
Mr Charles Walker
I point out to my hon. Friend that the Avian Population Estimates Panel states that 100 years ago there were no hen harriers in mainland UK, whereas today there are around 645 breeding pairs across the country. In 1963, there were 360 pairs of peregrines in the UK; today there are 1,500. There were 160 breeding pairs of red kites 20 years ago; there are now 1,600. Birds of prey are doing well in the United Kingdom.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting those data. I would have referred to them myself. Furthermore, Natural England’s report “A Future for the Hen Harrier in England?” identified six causes of hen harrier nest failure: wildfire, predation, lack of food, poor weather, infertility and illegal killing. Clearly, there is an issue with illegal killing; I do not say by whom. It is interesting that the figures released by DEFRA show that, of 12 hen harrier nesting attempts in England last year, six were successful, of which four were on or immediately adjacent to moorland managed for grouse shooting.
What is happening in the RSPB reserves? What is happening on the more than 300,000 acres of managed land? Why is it not working? The evidence that I have cited shows that the call for a ban on driven grouse shooting is not rooted in science or evidence, and I do not support it.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is nice to be under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my colleague and friend the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on making an excellent speech using facts and figures. Many of the facts in my speech have already been quoted, so I have spent a lot of my time crossing them out, as I do not want to repeat those points. If I may, I will go through what I have left. The facts are the important part of this debate.
We know that birds thrive where moorlands are managed. Without the conservation management of moorland, there would be no red grouse. They have already disappeared from the south-western moors and most of Wales, and are amber-listed for conservation concern. Many endangered species, such as lapwing, curlew, golden plover, merlin and black grouse, that are in serious decline elsewhere can still be found in good numbers on grouse moors. Research shows that, where predator control is in place on keepered grouse moors, red-listed birds such as the curlew and lapwing are 3.5 times more likely to fledge their chicks. Scientific research also shows that densities of golden plover, curlew, redshank and lapwing are up to five times greater on managed grouse moors, and that there are four times as many merlin, according to breeding records. In the last 20 years, merlin numbers have doubled on areas keepered for red grouse, but halved on unkeepered moorland.
Where driven grouse shooting has been lost in Wales, populations of many of these species have dropped by 60% to 90%. Driven grouse shooting stopped in Wales in the 1990s, and was replaced by intensive sheep grazing. As a result, the all-important conservation management for red grouse also ended, resulting in red-listed species such as curlew, ring ouzel and black grouse plummeting by between 70% and 90% in just 10 years. The lapwing has been lost completely. All that has happened in an area designated as a special protection area for its bird life.
We have heard about the benefits for wildlife. The 2013 Natural England evidence review “The effects of managed burning on upland peatland biodiversity, carbon and water” concluded that there was “strong evidence” that controlled heather burning and predator control correlated with higher densities of red grouse, golden plover, curlew, lapwing, redshank and ring ouzel.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about evidence, as have previous Conservative speakers. Can he say something about the evidence on the climate impacts of grouse shooting? Precisely the moorland management that he is extolling is destroying heather uplands. We know that, as a result, layers of peat are releasing large quantities of stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, driving climate change. If he wants peer-reviewed documents, I have some here from Leeds University. What does he say about the evidence on the climate impact?
Richard Drax
I am grateful for that intervention. If the hon. Lady will wait, I will come to that point, and I will try to answer it for her.
A 50-year study of Scottish moorland in the July 2016 Journal of Botany concludes that
“to maintain diversity, timely burning is recommended.”
The RSPB has a controlled burning programme at Loch Garten and Hobbister
“to increase the suitability of the reserve for key breeding birds such as hen harriers, short-eared owls, merlins and curlews.”
Strictly controlled and regulated heather burning from October to April ensures a mix of older heather for nesting, younger heather for feeding and fresh burn for regrowth. Using patchwork burning and reseeding creates a mosaic of niche habitats, so that one acre can contain red grouse, curlew, lapwing and golden plover. Research by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust shows that rotational heather burning prevents wildfires, which are likely to burn the peat beneath, damaging the ability of the peatland to store water and carbon.
Written evidence submitted to the Petitions Committee by the Northern Farmers and Landowners Group states:
“These people”—
that is, gamekeepers—
“are the ones with the local knowledge, specialist skills and equipment on site which can be deployed, in tandem with the NFRS, to tackle wildfires in the most efficient manner”.
The Moorland Association has employed 25% more gamekeepers to manage the heather and protect vulnerable ground-nesting birds including curlew, lapwing and golden plover from predators, increasing their populations by up to five times compared with moorland areas without gamekeepers. Legal control of foxes, stoats, weasels and carrion crows on grouse moors is proven to benefit a range of ground-nesting birds, such as black grouse, lapwing, skylark, curlew, and grey partridge. Scientific research shows that endangered ground nesting birds such as curlew and lapwing are 3.5 times more likely to raise chicks successfully on managed grouse moors.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 protects all wild birds, including harriers, falcons, golden eagles, sea eagles, ospreys and many other moorland birds, with fines and six months’ imprisonment for illegal killing. I, too, condemn any illegal activity, and I suspect, although I do not know and it is hard to prove, that on many occasions, illegal killings in large areas are done not by gamekeepers, landowners or anybody else, but by people off the land. I shall leave those listening to conclude who could be doing it, but the evidence and the numbers show that those wild birds are increasing.
A colleague just mentioned historical trends in population numbers, and it is important to go over them again. Whereas 100 years ago there were no hen harriers on mainland UK, today, there are around 645 breeding pairs across the country. Internationally, they are resident in 87 countries across the northern hemisphere, with a population of 1.3 million. In 1963, there were 360 pairs of peregrines in the UK; today there are 1,500. Over the past 20 years, breeding pairs of red kites have increased from 160 to 1600, and pairs of buzzards from 14,500 to 68,000.
As we have heard, heather moorland is rarer than rain forest and threatened globally. Some 75% of the world’s remaining heather moorland is in the UK and viewed as globally important. It is widely recognised that grouse shooting has helped to preserve it. Written evidence submitted to the Petitions Committee by the Heather Trust states:
“It is clear that the best management takes place where there is private funding available and a passion to apply it for the improvement of moorland. This normally means that there is a sporting interest, either grouse or deer.”
With 30 seconds to go, I regret that I have not quite got to the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) asked me about, but I am happy to talk to her after the debate.
Regrettably, my time has run out, although I would like to say an awful lot more. In conclusion, common sense is the solution to what is perceived by a few people as a problem. Wildlife in this country is in safe hands, and there is nowhere better to be than on a driven grouse moor.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am very pleased to take part in this debate. As befits the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, I engage in shooting, although I tend to confine myself to pheasant, partridge and the like, sometimes at the kind invitation of my friends. Grouse shooting is not something with which I am so familiar—the grouse with which I am most closely familiar comes in a very fine bottle from Scotland that has “Famous” on the side of it. However, I come from a long line of Scottish border farmers and I have a cousin, Will Garfit, who is not only one of the most exceptional shots in the country but a famous artist. He is also responsible for a magnificent, award-winning small sporting estate, which he has transformed from a gravel pit. He illustrates the association between shooting and conservation that is exemplified by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which also kindly invites me to go shooting from time to time. The contributions we have heard today strongly illustrate how shooting and conservation go hand in hand.
I believe that people should be free to decide for themselves whether to go shooting. It is currently lawful, it should remain lawful, and it should be a matter for individuals, unless there is damage to the environment. I have been impressed by the speeches of so many right hon. and hon. Members in this debate, particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who knows a huge amount about the subject. The collective wisdom produced today must provide very compelling evidence to those who have signed the petition. I have had a handful of identical emails about the petition but, as we know, our constituents have not written them; they have simply been fed them by the League Against Cruel Sports and have duly ticked the box and sent the emails winging their way to us.
Caroline Lucas
I want to come back to the point about climate change. When the hon. Gentleman talks about scientific evidence, he makes it sound as if grouse shooting is good for the environment. However, the Committee on Climate Change’s 2015 progress report to Parliament notes:
“Wetland habitats, including the majority of upland areas with carbon-rich peat soils, are in poor condition. The damaging practice of burning peat to increase grouse yields continues, including on internationally-protected sites.”
That is the kind of evidence that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but it shows exactly the opposite conclusion to the one he draws.
Sir Gerald Howarth
All the hon. Lady has managed to do, I am afraid, is illustrate her complete and utter obsession with climate change. It is an important subject, but the science is not settled. If she is saying that burning 0.6% of heather in this country is contributing to climate change, I am afraid to say that I, for one, do not believe it.
I do not want to make a long speech, but I have a couple of observations to make. First, moorlands account for something like 4 million acres across the whole United Kingdom, as we have heard, and they employ something like 2,500 people—1,500 in England and Wales and more in Scotland. These are some of the most remote parts of the kingdom. So many of the people who write to us about these matters obviously feel emotional about it but do not understand what it is like to have to farm the countryside to maintain its beauty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) so rightly pointed out, it is people in the farming community—the agricultural community—who tend the land and make it such a magnet for those in the rest of the country to go and visit. They manage the moorland 24/7, 365 days a year in all weathers, to the benefit not just of the landscape, as my hon. Friend pointed out, but of the birds.
The role of gamekeepers, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) described as custodians, really needs to be emphasised. A conversation with a gamekeeper is absolutely fascinating, because gamekeepers have so much knowledge, understanding and passion for the countryside. If shooting were made unlawful or banned, it would be hugely to the detriment of the quality of the management of rural countryside in this country. The case for that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who cited the statistics. My noble Friend Viscount Ridley had an excellent article published in The Spectator in August, in which he pointed out that on a North Pennine moor,
“a survey of breeding birds was carried out this spring. The results have gobsmacked conservationists. On this one grouse moor, there were at least 400 pairs of curlews breeding. This is about as many as in the whole of Wales. There were 800 pairs of lapwings, 100 pairs of golden plovers, 50 pairs of oyster-catchers, 40 pairs of redshanks, 200 pairs of snipe, 50 pairs of woodcocks, 60 pairs of common sandpipers.”
That is an illustration of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) about the fantastic effect that conservation and shooting have produced in the countryside. Viscount Ridley’s article continues:
“In the early 2000s, at Otterburn in Northumberland, the trust”—
the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust—
“did a neat experiment in which two areas had gamekeepers and two did not, then they swapped for four years. The results were astonishing. With gamekeepers, the breeding success of golden plovers, curlews and lapwings more than doubled, and their numbers rocketed.”
I think the case is made.
I fear that opposition to driven grouse shooting is founded not on concern for the stewardship of upland Britain but on emotional hostility to those who participate in shooting, and that the science is being twisted to fit the case for a ban. My right hon. and hon. Friends in this Chamber today have produced a compelling archive of the reasons why this emotional campaign is ill-founded and, if listened to and acted upon, would be seriously damaging to the very countryside that its supporters understandably wish to see preserved.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. In a constituency such as mine, this debate is of great relevance and importance. Let me state from the outset that I am in favour of driven grouse shooting and all the benefits it brings to communities such as mine in the High Peak. However, I will qualify that and outline some of the issues, as I see them, and what I have learned over the past few weeks as I have looked into the matter in greater depth. Although many of the points I wish to make have already been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of them need adding to or repeating.
My support for grouse shooting is matched by my support for enforcement of the law against the killing of birds of prey: kestrels, peregrines and hen harriers, to name but a few. They are majestic animals—seeing one is a fantastic experience—and anybody caught killing one must feel the full force of the law. That is not in dispute.
As I understand it from the representations I have received in the High Peak, opposition to driven grouse shooting exists for three principal reasons. The first is the persecution of birds of prey: it is alleged that they are being killed to protect grouse from predation. The second is ecological: the maintenance of grouse moors harms the environment. The third is the objection on philosophical grounds.
I suspect that my remarks, along with those of colleagues, may incur wrath on Twitter, because many proponents of banning driven grouse shooting tend to use Twitter as a method of expressing their views. However, I reassure them and others that my views are not preconceived ideas; they are the result of extensive discussions with people on both sides of the argument. I have met constituents who asked to see me on the matter, regardless of whether they are for or against driven grouse shooting, and our discussions have generally been cordial and reasonable.
I pay tribute to all those who have taken the time to come to see me on this issue. I thank them for their time and interest. As with any issue, I am always impressed when people feel impassioned enough to come to talk to me about it because it is close to their heart. In a world in which it is easy to just click and send an email, for someone to physically take the time and trouble to make their case in person always resonates more with me than an intemperate email.
In addition to meetings in my constituency office, I have been out on the High Peak grouse moors over the last two weeks to see how they are managed. There is a deluge of conflicting evidence on this issue, both authentic and anecdotal. As ever, as parliamentarians we have to digest it all and formulate our own views on that basis. I make the following observations on the three issues I have highlighted.
On the persecution of birds of prey, claims have been made about gamekeepers killing birds willy-nilly to protect the grouse from predation. I am not saying that all those claims are without foundation, but we cannot assume that all gamekeepers are going round killing birds of prey. That would be ridiculous. Having met gamekeepers, landowners and tenants over the last few weeks, I am convinced that that is not the case.
I have seen and heard of raptors living and being encouraged on grouse moors in my constituency and others. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) says there are no hen harriers in her constituency at all, but on Friday I saw a video of five hen harriers that had hatched there. I was assured that they were in her constituency by the chap who discovered them. That is what I have been told and I will happily discuss it with her after the debate.
Angela Smith
I feel the need to respond to that point because I have been named. That just is not true. There are no hen harriers in my constituency. They have not nested in my constituency for years. There have been just three nests across the whole of England this year, and none of them is in the Peak district. The hon. Gentleman ought to talk to the national park in which he and I are neighbours to establish the truth. The Peak District national park is on the point of walking away from voluntary partnerships because we are not getting the success on hen harrier nesting that we deserve.
Andrew Bingham
I refer the hon. Lady to an article that appeared in The Derbyshire Magazine written by Jim Dixon, who is the former chief executive of the Peak District national park. The article is about hen harriers, and the last sentence says:
“These harriers raise their precious family on a grouse moor in the Peak District.”
That was what the then chief executive of the Peak District national park wrote in 2014.
Andrew Bingham
The hon. Lady just said that there were none in the Peak district. I shall confirm it with the chap who found them, but he assured me. He actually said that he would be happy to speak to the hon. Lady if she wanted to. I have seen and heard of raptors living and encouraged throughout my constituency. The management of grouse moors requires the control of predators such as foxes, weasels and crows, which actually aids and promotes the survival of birds of prey.
I have seen the ecological benefits that the management of the moors can bring. There are claims that the burning of heather can result in the burning of the peat and so on. On Friday, I saw evidence that that is not the case. When it is done properly, the cool burning of heather does not burn the peat. If we left the heather unburned, it would grow longer and become more of a fire hazard, which, were it to catch light, certainly would burn the peat. The burning of heather, little and often, does not have an ecological impact.
As we have heard, there is also a philosophical opposition, which can be applied to many country sports, from grouse shooting through even to fishing. I have never been grouse shooting. My only experience of shooting is a couple of attempts at clay pigeon shooting that were not successful, so I have no vested interest other than the impact on my constituency. Shooting as a whole makes a contribution to country life and the rural economy.
Nigel Adams
Those who seek to ban driven grouse shooting, such as Mr Avery, who my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) referred to earlier, argue that walked-up shooting could be a practical alternative. Does my hon. Friend agree that that argument simply flies in the face of basic economics, given the obvious reduction in the bag and the amount of money that a day’s walked-up shooting would take compared with a driven day?
Andrew Bingham
I completely agree. I think the figures cited earlier were that that alternative would account for only 10% of the economic benefit of driven grouse shooting.
Simon Hart
On enforcement, does my hon. Friend agree that trying to write a law that defines shooting a grouse that is flying towards one as a criminal offence, but leaves it perfectly legal to shoot it when it is flying away, could pose some difficulties?
Andrew Bingham
Yes, that would be completely unenforceable and probably slightly ridiculous.
Grouse shooting makes such a huge contribution to country life. Not only does it provide employment and people’s livelihoods, but it helps with social cohesion in rural areas. I fully respect those who hold the view that we should not hunt, shoot or fish any animal, but there is always the alternative. Look at the benefits to rural areas such as mine. Shooting providers spend millions every year on the conservation and management of some of the most beautiful areas of the country, which are often the hardest to maintain.
I have studied this matter in some depth. I have listened to all sides of the argument and I have been out to the moors to see things for myself. I have met many people; at this point I shall mention Mike Price from the Peak district raptor monitoring group, to whom other Members have referred. He came to London to see me and articulated his concerns. The report referred to by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge actually says that the group does not currently support a ban on driven grouse shooting, although Mr Price expressed a desire to see stronger penalties enforced for those who transgress the law. I thank him for the time he took and for his reasoned approach.
As a result of all the discussions I have had, I conclude thus. Grouse shooting provides economic, ecological and environmental benefits not just to the areas where it operates but beyond. The shooting community continues to make its case and should continue to demonstrate zero tolerance of those who break the law. Similarly, opponents are free to make their points and voice their opposition, but it should be based on rigorous evidence that would stand up in a court of law. It cannot be anecdotal, but should be strong enough to lead to prosecution, if required. It is not only possible for birds of prey and successful grouse moors to co-exist; in many ways, they are necessary for each other to survive.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the Petitions Committee for selecting this topic for debate. After nearly two and a half hours, most of what is to be said has already been said.
My constituency is in mid-Wales and is very rural. Several grouse moor owners and workers live and operate in Brecon and Radnorshire. Having grown up in rural Wales, I am keen on rural pursuits, although I have never engaged in a driven grouse shooting day. I have the pleasure of sitting on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Only the other week I had the privilege of attending the evidence session on grouse shooting. Several right hon. and hon. Members have already referred to Mr Mark Avery, who was on the first panel to give evidence, along with the RSPB. I understand that he is a former employee of the RSPB. It was interesting to hear his evidence, which seemed to be based on ideology and prejudice. He wanted driven grouse shooting to be banned, whereas his former employer wanted no such thing. I want it to go on record that the RSPB does not want to see grouse shooting banned.
There are many different views on grouse shooting—as we have heard today, although I was expecting to hear more from the Opposition—and the perceived ideas that go with it. As I say, I am a lucky man to sit on the EFRA Committee: for many hours and days over many months we conducted an inquiry into flooding, which took us to the south and north of the country. We interviewed people who had been affected by flooding—people whose houses had been flooded right through and businesses that had been flooded and so had to cease trading—and many environmentalists. There are four members of the Select Committee present, and they were involved in that inquiry. I cannot remember one person who shouted from the top of a grouse moor that it is the grouse moors that are causing floods throughout the country. We need to put the evidence into perspective. The flooding this year was caused by many other issues, not by grouse moors.
Antoinette Sandbach
The problem is the grips on the land, which are basically big ditches that were dug out of the moors. They are responsible for water draining off the moors. When they are blocked up, sphagnum mosses help to absorb the water and lessen the risk of flooding. As seen in Mynydd Mynyllod, much of the necessary work on grouse moors is being carried out in co-operation with private landlords.
Chris Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend. When wearing another hat, I am the chair of the all-party group on forestry, and I would love to see a lot more planting of commercial forests in this country. However, that should never be at the expense of grouse moors, because they add a completely different package. At the end of the day, one thing that we seem to have tilted away from in this country in many different spheres is balance. We need to have a balance right across this country, and grouse moors play their part in that. We all want to see flora and fauna in Britain thrive, while also protecting and preserving our rural way of life, which has existed alongside them for centuries. So what can we do? The way I see it, the issue comes down to one simple word: preservation—the preservation of land, the preservation of livelihood and the preservation of our legacy.
The preservation of land is essential to the survival of a number of species of animals, not just grouse. Research from a number of studies has shown the benefits of having properly managed moorland. For example, Natural England has said that an area about the size of 22,000 football pitches has been repaired and revegetated in the north of England alone.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to two moors in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. I sat on the Brecon Beacons national park authority before coming into this place and I had to face a debate exactly like the one we are facing now, only there was a vote at the end of it. Sadly, the national park authority decided by about 18 to six to ban grouse shooting on one of the moors in the Brecon Beacons national park. I could take you there now, Mr Nuttall, and you would see that there are no grouse; in fact, it is a grouse moor in name only. Indeed, not only have the grouse disappeared but so have many other forms of wildlife, including ground-nesting birds.
By contrast, in Radnorshire, there are the hills that surround my home, where I have lived, walked, ridden and hunted for my whole life. I went up there only in the summer with a keeper on that moor and, my goodness me, I saw more in that afternoon—bear in mind that I have lived near that moor and been involved with it all my life—through the professionalism of a keeper, who showed me more and from whom I learned more, than ever I had seen before. As has already been pointed out today, that demonstrates the true professionalism of the keepers on our wonderful grouse moors.
Angela Smith
I thank my fellow member of the Select Committee for giving way. Only 12% of blanket bog in sites of special scientific interest in England is in favourable condition. I am not in favour of a ban on driven grouse shooting, but I am absolutely clear that although there is some very good practice in the management of our grouse moors, it has to be accepted that a balanced position in this debate would suggest that there is still a lot to learn, that there has to be compromise on both sides, that the economic and environmental interests of the grouse moors must be balanced, and that we have a long way to go on this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that point?
Chris Davies
I am delighted to hear my fellow member of the EFRA Committee talking so much sense. Yes, of course I agree—I have already touched on this; in fact, I have forcefully said so—that balance should come back into the equation and back into British life, certainly in the countryside.
I also condemn the persecution of birds of prey, as have other Members, on both sides of the Chamber. There is no room in grouse shooting or any other form of shooting or countryside activity for the persecution of birds of prey. In fact, if Members come to my driven grouse moor in Radnorshire, they will see that kites in particular are now in abundance, whereas they were not before.
The second form of preservation is the preservation of livelihood. As a rural MP, I have seen the benefits of this great industry at first hand. Studies show that the industry creates over 40,000 days of work for many thousands of people in rural England and Wales. That is not to be sniffed at when one considers the number of jobs available in very rural areas. I know first-hand, from a number of constituents who have spoken to me, how difficult it can be to find work in areas without large banks, businesses or warehouses. Our rural areas are the most beautiful places to live, but they are also among the most challenging places to live in.
With farm-gate prices low—as we are seeing, they are slowly rising with a weaker pound, although we will not touch on Brexit in this debate, Mr Nuttall—many farmers have found that they need to diversify in order to make ends meet. Participating in the grouse season is one way of diversifying to keep a farm business running.
Others have given evidence that young people who have worked as beaters have had their first jobs out on the moorland or in the hotels that supply those who go on grouse days. Therefore, the industry fosters an attitude, from a very early age, that work pays. This is not just one-track economic activity; in whole villages and sometimes whole areas, many rural people rely upon grouse shooting for their livelihoods.
Those who take part in grouse days need accommodation, food, clothing and equipment. Often, this is all supplied by local traders and in many isolated areas in our country, grouse shooting has encouraged regional growth. Therefore, we should ensure that we preserve the livelihoods of those in the most rural areas by making sure they have access to economic opportunities for generations to come.
Finally, we must preserve our legacy. We are all concerned about the world that we will pass down to our children and our children’s children. None of us wants a world in which we cannot spot rare and beautiful birds or wander in ancient and well managed woodland and moorland. We each want the world we pass down to be better than the one we came into. However, if we were to outlaw the income that provides us with well managed moorland, I am not sure that the world that we would pass down would be one that we would like to see passed down to future generations. Therefore, it is vital that we also preserve our legacy.
In order to achieve the goals that we set in this sector, we all need to work together, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) stated. There is no use calling for grouse shooting to be banned on spurious grounds, any more than there is in calling for deregulation to free the industry to do what it likes. We need a balance between the two approaches; balance is key.
Ultimately, we need action to preserve the three aspects that I have referred to in my speech: the land, the livelihood and the legacy of our rural areas. Two endangered species are affected by this issue—the birds and the rural way of life—and we should do all we can to protect and preserve them both.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
We now move to the speeches from the Front Benches.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.
I thank those who took the time to petition their MP about the subject of driven grouse shooting, whether they are among the 123,000 people calling for a ban on it or the 20,000 people who expressed a different view. I am sure that all of them have done their own research into the subject. Therefore, I take issue with the insults that have been made against those who choose to petition their MP through the internet.
I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions today—
Sir Gerald Howarth
I think the hon. Lady’s remarks referred to me. The only point I was making was that, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said, if people come to an MP’s surgery and talk to their MP, or if they write in their own terms, one is much more prepared to listen to them than to people who have simply ticked a box and then an email is automatically dispatched, maybe in the middle of the night.
Rachael Maskell
I say to the hon. Gentleman, do not make assumptions about the research that constituents make in order to make their point to their MP. All have an opportunity to petition; it is a formal mechanism that this Parliament recognises as a means of forwarding debate. Therefore, it is the duty of this House to respect that process.
Clearly, this debate is needed. There are areas on which everyone can—
Rachael Maskell
I am going to move on. There are areas on which everyone can agree, such as the need to ensure that raptor protection, hydrological management and the wider management of moorland are sustainable. However, there are clearly areas of disagreement, too.
Labour believes, above all, that more research is needed and that is certainly our biggest call on the Government today. However, we also believe that there are some key principles that need to be considered urgently and some areas where the Government must take action now.
Rachael Maskell
If I may, I am just going to make my opening remarks.
Taking no action over driven grouse shooting is not an option and tighter conservation measures are imperative. Every action taken has consequences on others, and we have heard references to the importance of balance in today’s debate. Our fragile biodiversity and the wider ecosystem demand that we study the evidence.
We have heard again today that historic upland management has undoubtedly been damaging, whether it is about drainage and gripping, or about the industrialisation that we have seen on the moorlands over many centuries, which has been deeply damaging to our environment. However, there are also questions to be asked about land management today.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) about the degradation of her local environment and her local moorland, and about the real need to see conservation creating a more sustainable environment there, so as to protect its unique biodiversity. We talk about moorland as if all moors were the same but they are, of course, all different, with their own characteristics. Yes, we must be obsessed with the conservation of this land.
The big issues that need to be addressed are soil, drainage and hydrology; conservation and biodiversity; wildlife crime; and our wider concern about sustainability. On soil, drainage and hydration, the Boxing day floods brought into sharp focus for me, as for many MPs, the need to concentrate again on the causes of so much flooding. It is Labour Members who have consistently called for further action on catchment management. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for raising their concerns about the impact of land management on flooding.
Mr Charles Walker
As I said in my speech, we saw flooding in December 2015 because it had been the wettest two months for 105 years. In some parts of the country, 30 inches of rain fell in a single month. That is why we had flooding; there is no other reason.
Rachael Maskell
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Yes, there were unprecedented levels of rainfall and, yes, we are seeing climate change that is bringing increased rainfall. The Environment Agency’s mapping shows that we should expect to see more heavy downpours. However, importantly, the causation of some of the flooding—not all of it—is how the uplands are managed. I took time over the summer to visit the sources of some of the rivers that feed into my city, which also flooded. I observed the deep peat bogs and both the post-industrial land and the driven grouse moorland, recognising the differences in the land use, and also pulled on the evidence that we have much debated today.
Kerry McCarthy
I also visited my hon. Friend’s constituency during the Boxing day floods. During that period we had, I think, two Opposition day debates, at least two statements and an urgent question, and all the Government Front Benchers acknowledged that upland management was an issue and that we had to look at the role played by tree planting and other forms of upland management when considering flood protection. I am surprised, therefore, that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) does not acknowledge that.
Rachael Maskell
That is very much what the former Minister said in every single contribution we heard about the need to use upland management to deal with flooding. We continue, therefore, to press the issue, and are very disappointed that in the national resilience plan, the decision about how to address the catchment areas was deferred.
A number of interventions are clearly needed. We have heard about “slow the flow” schemes and hydro-retention schemes, but we also need to consider upland management. We are not looking just at the flow of the water, but at the soil and vegetation, and at how we hold the water in the uplands. The research by the University of Leeds on the effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins—the EMBER research, as it has come to be known—is one of the most comprehensive studies out there. It shows that where there is heavy rainfall, there is more water flowing more rapidly downhill, contributing to flooding. The research also states that the burning of heather has an impact on hydrology, peat chemistry and physical properties, water chemistry and river ecology. As we know, the University of York is also carrying out a study, which is even more comprehensive and sustained, and we must see the completion of that evidence base as well.
Simon Hart
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report into flooding will be published the day after tomorrow. I obviously cannot comment on its conclusions because they are embargoed. Would the hon. Lady at least agree to read that cross-party report in full and consider any future comments on grouse shooting in the context of what she discovers in it?
Rachael Maskell
I will, of course, read the report as soon as it is published because, I, like so many MPs, have been waiting for a long time to see the outcome of that investigation. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the report.
We also know that because of heather burning, water is more acidic and contains a higher concentration of minerals such as manganese, silica, iron, aluminium and dissolved carbon, and that it is left to the water companies to purify it, at the cost, of course, of the consumer. The cost of flooding is huge to the public purse—we have heard about the £2.5 billion that the Government have paid out or will pay out over a 12-month period—and also to the insurance industry and individuals themselves. Driven grouse shooting cannot be held responsible for all of that, but it can be a contributory factor, which is why we say that more research is needed.
Craig Whittaker
I absolutely agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said about the need for a wider catchment plan. I am a bit surprised though to hear that she is disappointed with the Government’s response, when last Friday we saw a wider catchment plan for the Calder valley produced, delivered and on the table. That plan includes upland management, and the hon. Lady’s constituency, which also suffered from the floods in December, is covered by a wider catchment plan that is being put together as we speak.
Rachael Maskell
Indeed. I have been one of the proponents of the need to get on with the wider catchment management of water and flooding, but the national resilience plan talks about a delay beyond this Parliament, which is why it is really important that we press on with the necessary changes. Winter is encroaching upon us and our constituents are clearly concerned.
Rachael Maskell
I want to move on to the next issue. I have limited time and I have generously allowed interventions so far.
The use of lead shot has been much debated in this place, including last December, in a debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). Lead remains a major pollutant, with 6,000 tonnes being discharged into the environment each year, 2,000 tonnes of which is from game shooting. Research is conclusive as to the environmental detriment caused by lead shot usage, and further concern has been expressed by the Food Standards Agency about the way in which the lead enters the food chain. Lead shot has been banned in Denmark for 20 years. We need to see progress on that.
I want to put it on the record that Labour recognises the conservation work that is being done on the upper moorland, and the professionalism of gamekeepers in executing that work. Conservation concerns have been expressed by Members from both sides of the House today.
We also need to look at cost. The cost is not just to the landowner, as many Members have indicated; there is a cost that is met from European Union funding, including money from the common agricultural policy, which, as the Secretary of State will want us to acknowledge, is public money in the first place, from people across our communities. The money also comes from non-departmental public bodies, such as Natural England and the national parks, and from the voluntary sector. Money from the public is, therefore, very much invested in the uplands. In other words, if the public are funding upper moors activities, they must have a say in how the money is spent. If the impact they see is detrimental, we can expect them to sign petitions calling for change. They have done that, and Parliament must listen.
Therefore, change we must, to ensure that soil, vegetation and hydrology are greatly improved. That must be a prime interest in land management, and if it means a move away from current business models, that is what must happen. I take issue with many of the contributions today about the all-or-nothing approach: either there is driven grouse moor shooting or we leave the land barren to develop itself. It does not have to be an either/or model. Thousands of volunteers work in conservation across the country, including in the upper moorland, and there are other opportunities for managing the land. We must recognise the volunteers who spend hours of their own time preserving our countryside. It cannot be an all-or-nothing approach, and the choice that has been put forward in the debate does not reflect the reality. I will give way on that point and will then conclude my remarks.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way right at the end. On the all-or-nothing point, does she accept that while there are problems—some more real than others—a ban on driven grouse shooting is not the way forwards in terms of biodiversity?
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman may have heard me calling for more research to take the whole debate forward. That is important.
Because of time, I will move on. We need to be cognisant of tomorrow’s debate on sustainability, and the points that Members have made on climate change are important. We have to understand the urgency of the issue. Conservation must be the prime driver and main consideration of our management of the uplands, as opposed to the pursuits carried out on the land. It is a matter of urgency, and we cannot just focus on the economic issues. The economic issues and the environmental issues are of equal importance. The crisis happening across the globe should focus everyone’s attention as a prime issue.
My question to the Minister is: how systemically is she prepared to look at the issues? Can we allow the burning of heather, which reduces the carbon storage properties of soil, impacts on hydrology, removes some mosses and leaves degraded soil and habitats behind? Is that acceptable? We would say no. Heather burning has also been cited by the Committee on Climate Change due to the depletion of carbon-rich peat soil, so how can we sustain that activity?
We know that some landowners will burn peat under agreement with Natural England—that is how the codes are managed—but we heard in the evidence session that some of those burnings go outside the allowed perimeters. We know that there are wider issues, too. We need to know how effective the codes are at managing the land. If there is further, conclusive evidence that peat burning causes environmental harm, will the Government call for a ban? In this post-referendum era, what further obligations will they place on upland managers to revegetate, to protect species and to hold more water in the uplands? This cannot just be a debate about choices and freedoms, as some Members have argued today. It must be seen as a matter of urgency to rescue our consumerist society from draining more natural resources.
Turning to raptors, it is of great concern that just three pairs of hen harriers were found on the moors in the past year. I am told that there should be 300 pairs —100 times the amount. Some 149 moors have no hen harriers at all. The numbers have fallen from last year, when there were 13 pairs. We are losing the species. It is a crisis. Numbers of peregrine falcons, white-tailed eagles and the awesome golden eagle—I once saw a pair soaring as I was hillwalking in Scotland—are declining, too. We need to ensure that we get on top of the issue of predation by humans.
I want to turn to the peer-reviewed research by Dr Ruth Tingay of the University of Nottingham. She has produced 30 peer-reviewed papers and 24 research papers. She highlighted how there have been 252 incidences of raptor persecution over the past 10 years. She highlights whether they were shot, disappeared, poisoned, caught by illegal pole traps and so on. The law is not effective, and we need to move it forward.
I am sure no one in the Chamber would condone wildlife crime, but positive action is needed for the hen harrier. The hen harrier action plan is not working in delivering an increased population, and that must be of great concern to everyone. What additional activity is the Minister prepared to undertake to ensure that we see the hen harrier population increase and tougher penalties on those who abuse the law? Financial penalties are clearly not enough. It is important to apply restrictive penalties, such as removing the right to manage a grouse moor. We also need to look closely at the Scottish licensing system and the shifting of responsibility around vicarious liability. We have seen two strong prosecutions in Scotland under the scheme. We need to look at whether that would lead to better managed moors as we move forward.
In the main Chamber, we have debated the use of snares and the impact that that has, but we need to look at the wider impact on wildlife. We have not heard about the mountain hare and the impact that culling is having on that species.
Mr Charles Walker
On a point of order, Mr Nuttall. The Labour Front-Bench spokesperson has been very generous in giving way, but she has now been speaking for 19 minutes, leaving less than 15 minutes for the Minister.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I am sure that the shadow Minister is coming towards the very end of her remarks, because she has been posing a lot of questions and she will be keen to hear the answers.
Rachael Maskell
Thank you, Mr Nuttall. I am just coming to my concluding remarks. There are many issues that we would want to discuss if there were more time, but time is limited today. A responsible Government must recognise that land management cannot just be a balance of choices. We have to address the ecological crisis facing our nation. I will watch the Minister closely and listen to her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, in this debate, which was chosen by the Petitions Committee and ably opened by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). It was triggered by a petition to ban driven grouse shooting, and the Committee also selected the petition to protect grouse moors and grouse shooting for debate. I thank all 20 right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today, especially those who made full speeches and stayed the course. We have heard speeches with passion, insight and clarity. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), who described the extensive research he undertook for this debate. Members made a number of points during the debate, and I will respond to them during my speech.
The level of interest has been considerable, and we have had contributions from all parts of the United Kingdom. Not everyone who intervened has stayed. I thought we had got away from that habit in the previous Parliament. It used to be the Liberal Democrats who popped in, intervened, left and proclaimed proudly that they had spoken in the debate. They are an endangered species, and not one I am trying to save, but it seems that the Green party is adopting similar habits.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government support shooting for all the benefits it brings to individuals, the environment and the rural economy. We are also clear that wildlife should be properly respected and protected. We expect anyone involved in these enterprises to uphold the law in deed and spirit. According to a report by Public and Corporate Economic Consultants, which I recognise was criticised by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), shooting as a whole is estimated to be worth about £2 billion a year to the economy, supporting more than 70,000 full-time equivalent jobs. It is also involved in the management of about two thirds of the UK’s rural landscape. The Moorland Association estimates that the grouse shooting industry supports 1,520 full-time jobs.
Much has rightly been made by hon. Members, and by my hon. Friends in particular, of the supporting economy, which must be recognised, particularly in the most remote parts of rural England—too many Members spoke about it to name now, but their contributions will all be on the record. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) did not do so, although he seems very happy to have huge taxpayer support for the oil industry currently helping Scottish jobs in a fossil- fuel, carbon-busting economy. However, he is no longer in his place.
On moorland management, I think we can all agree on the importance of conserving the habitats on which grouse shooting takes place. It is undertaken on moors in several parts of the United Kingdom. Moorland management is vital for a biodiverse landscape, as has been extensively described. It can offer important benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation—for example, healthy heather provides good habitat for ground nesting birds and attracts butterflies and bees. The control of predators such as foxes also helps ground nesting birds, and without active management and conservation of the land, the landscape would quickly change and biodiversity would be lost. No one wants to see the landscape degrade, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) eloquently illustrated after his visits to the moors on the borders.
Extensive mention has been made of the importance of managed grouse moors to the preservation and increase of numbers of several species of bird, such as the golden plover, the curlew and the merlin, a bird of prey. I support the consensus on the importance of healthy, active peat, which provides good habitat for grouse and other wildlife, as well as numerous benefits to the environment and ecosystem services. Dry, degraded peat helps no one. We are absolutely committed to protecting and restoring these soils and have invested millions in large-scale peatland restoration projects, such as the Dark Peak nature improvement area. The Government will continue to work with moor owners and stakeholders to further improve management practices and peat condition.
The vast majority of grouse moors are in sites of special scientific interest, with Natural England’s consent required for management actions on these sites which could impact their important wildlife.
Dr Coffey
With respect to the hon. Lady, I have less time than the shadow Front Bencher took, so I will try to get through the points. If there is any chance I can take an intervention at the end, I will. On moorland management and the evidence of non-compliance on burning, if the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) can share that with me, I will share that with Natural England.
The issue of agri-environment funding has been raised. I expect we will continue to support our environment once we have left the EU and that, in the meantime, payments will be made to support environmentally beneficial land management, including the management of specific wildlife habitats, and works to improve the quality of the environment for wildlife, water quality and carbon capture.
As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), the uplands have complex land ownership and tenure arrangements, with many areas designated as common land. Many agreements result in funding going to grazing tenancies, which are critical to undertaking the beneficial management of the moors. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bristol East, who suggested that grouse shooting has been subsidised. I want to make it clear that agri-environment payments are not subsidies and they are not paid to support shooting activities.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Dr Coffey
I am afraid I will not give way to the hon. Lady, who was not here at the start of the debate.
Grouse moors contain a range of habitats that require different management methods. Rotational burning is considered to help to maintain healthy heather on the moors at different heights. Short heather provides food for sheep and red grouse and shelter for some ground-nesting birds. Tall heather provides shelter and nesting for other birds. The tapestry, if not the kaleidoscope, of heather plants at different stages of regeneration is achieved by rotational burning, and was cited as key to the success of the Glenwherry project that was referred to by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan). My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) referred to the successful preservation of black grouse in north Wales.
Burning takes place over winter and early spring when there are no birds nesting and the soil is wet. I understand that the peat itself is not deliberately burned and that there is a strong presumption against rotational burning on sensitive areas such as blanket bog, as noted in the heather and grass burning code, which recommends the cool burns that several hon. Members referred to earlier. Natural England’s consent is required to burn on a site of special scientific interest. I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on alternatives and a reduction in burning. Heather could be cut as an alternative to burning, but that can be achieved only on suitable topography, and it may leave highly combustible material behind if not removed. He will know that several fires have been accidentally triggered. They have taken much resource to tackle and left damaged habitats that have taken years to recover.
A DEFRA-funded project is currently looking into the costs and effects of cutting as an alternative. I know the benefits of peat restoration for absorbing water, but, to be clear—I will cover this again—we know that upland peat is vital for filtering our drinking water, of which 70% comes from the uplands. We are committed to restoring and protecting that upland peat.
The 2013 Natural England study on the effects of managed burning found no direct evidence specifically relating to the effect of burning on watercourse flow or the risk of downstream flood events. It is the study to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) talked about cod science; I thought he was in a fishing debate. However, he rightly referred to the sustained rainfall that was the decisive factor in the unprecedented flooding in modern times, and he challenged the selective use of statistics from reports. He gave us some interesting analogies to do with bull elephants. I heard an analogy the other day about the River Wear in the north-east, which suffered flooding last year: something the size of the Royal Albert Hall would have been filled full of water in less than a minute, such was the torrent suffered in the north-east.
Drainage damages blanket bog, and Natural England does not consent to constructing drainage ditches on blanket bog in SSSIs. Grouse moor owners and other stakeholders are currently carrying out programmes of ditch blocking across the country, helping to restore peat condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley referred to the levels of reservoirs, which takes me to another debate. Perhaps he might apply for another debate another time. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) referred to continuing funding for the York University study. No decision has yet been made, but I note her concerns on that matter.
On the “bogathon” milestones, I must admit I did not know about them; I will look into them. My officials assure me that stakeholders are carrying out valuable work to look at ways of restoring peat, including through the “bogathon” events. We are committed to working with moor owners and stakeholders through the blanket bog restoration strategy.
Dr Coffey
I cannot, but I promise to come to the hon. Lady at the end if I have time.
Upland peat is important for carbon sequestration. That is why the Government are committed to working with moor owners and stakeholders to further improve management practices and peak condition. As has already been mentioned, burning is done for heather management, although cool burns are recommended, as I have already said. I absolutely recognise the impact of climate change, but we should also recognise the importance of biodiversity, without which the world would cease to exist.
Although we have heard much about improvements in the numbers of birds, described in detail by several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), I have heard the concerns of some hon. Members that birds of prey, particularly hen harriers, are deliberately being killed. The Government take the illegal persecution of raptors very seriously. On the missing hen harriers in the last fortnight, the matter has been referred to the police. The local wildlife team has been involved and the national wildlife crime unit is aware. I can assure hon. Members that wildlife crime is a Government priority. We recently confirmed £300,000 of funding per annum for the NWCU for the next four years. Raptor persecution is one of six wildlife crime priorities for the UK. The unit has a dedicated group chaired by a senior police officer, with representatives from Government and NGOs working to deliver progress against this wildlife crime priority. It is building an intelligence picture and is due to advise on further action.
We recognise that the legal control of predators is a legitimate wildlife management practice in some circumstances. That is why Natural England will license the killing of certain birds of prey, although it would not consider licensing any activity that would adversely affect the conservation status of a species. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury referred to the Moorland Association study in Berwyn. The issue of hen harriers in Wales is interesting. When grouse shooting stopped, it might have been expected that the populations would burgeon and start to spread, but that has not happened. The populations have stabilised and they have not spread from the area that they occupied.
On the decline in the hen harrier population in England, the Government are committed to securing the future of this bird. That is why we took the lead in developing a hen harrier action plan, which was launched earlier this year. The plan sets out six complementary actions designed to increase hen harrier numbers in England, alongside the continuation of driven grouse shooting and the environmental, social and economic benefits that it brings. The plan is still at an early stage. Many factors can affect the successful nesting of hen harriers—food supply, weather conditions, predation and persecution —but we absolutely believe that the plan remains the best way to safeguard the hen harrier in England.
The Government have no plans to introduce licensing. As has been said, considerable regulation is already in place. Several Members referred to vicarious liability. I am aware that this principle was introduced in Scotland, but there is little evidence to suggest it has had an impact on the conservation of birds of prey. However, we will continue to monitor the situation and will consider whether the approach is necessary and proportionate to assist in tackling wildlife crime here.
Since the introduction of the offence, there have been two prosecutions, but the RSPB’s report suggests that there continues to be persecution incidents. In 2013 and 2014 a total of 18 poisoning incidents were recorded in Scotland. One particular incident involved the poisoning of 12 red kites and four buzzards, which I am sure we all deplore.
The professionalism of keepers has been extensively referred to; I wish to add my contribution to that. I thank hon. Members for debating the petitions today. I am sorry I have not been able to take any interventions in the short time I have had. However, it has been useful to hear the views of Members from across the United Kingdom regarding moorland management for driven grouse shooting. This is not a binary debate. The Government want to see a vibrant working countryside that is enhanced by a biodiverse environment. The uplands are a treasured asset prized by people for their tranquillity, quiet enjoyment, inspirational nature and recreation. They are also a vital source for goods and services, particularly food and drinking water, and make a major contribution to overall livestock production in the UK.
Central to the provision of services and assets that the uplands provide is the active management of the land by farmers, landowners and land managers. Successful upland policy is dependent on upland communities, particularly farmers and land managers, whose rural businesses are fundamental to the rural economy and whose role in managing the land in the long term will ultimately determine the value of the environmental outcomes.
I will finish by stating that the Government have no intention of banning driven grouse shooting, but we have every intention of bringing to justice those who break the law. We all agree that conserving the upland moorlands is in everyone’s best interests. We will help to ensure that a constructive dialogue continues so that grouse shooting is protected and these valuable moorlands thrive.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
Mr Double, you have about 30 seconds to wind up the debate.
Steve Double
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It is good to see a lively debate with strongly held views. Everyone spoke up on behalf of our rural communities, our environment and the diversity of our wildlife, so it has been a very good debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 125003 and 164851 relating to driven grouse shooting.
Written Statements
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Policing
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The Government have been considering a submission from the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign on the need for an inquiry or independent review into the events that occurred at Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984, and subsequently.
This has been a difficult decision to make, and one which I have thought about very carefully. I have now concluded that there is not a sufficient basis for me to instigate either a statutory inquiry or an independent review. I know that this decision will come as a significant disappointment to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and its supporters and I have set out in a letter to them today the detailed reasons for my decision which include the following points.
Despite the forceful accounts and arguments provided by the campaigners and former miners who were present that day, about the effect that these events have had on them, ultimately there were no deaths or wrongful convictions.
The campaigners say that had the consequences of the events at Orgreave been addressed properly at the time, the tragic events at Hillsborough would never have happened five years later. That is not a conclusion which I believe can be reached with any certainty.
It was absolutely right that the Government established the Hillsborough independent panel. Significantly the panel’s report led to the High Court quashing the original inquests verdicts and the opening of the fresh inquests. The jury’s determinations and findings were unequivocal and clear: 96 victims were unlawfully killed. The criminal investigations should now be allowed to proceed unimpeded. The IPCC is working with the CPS to assess whether material related to the policing at Orgreave is relevant to the Hillsborough criminal investigations. The intention is that criminal investigations in respect of Hillsborough will provide files to the CPS by the turn of the year following which the CPS will make decisions about whether any criminal proceedings will be brought as a result.
The campaign and their supporters explained to me when I met them that they want to get to the bottom of what happened on the 18 June 1984, and that only by doing so will their trust, and that of their community, be restored in the police.
However, there have been very significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984, at every level, including major reforms to criminal procedure, changes to public order policing and practice, stronger external scrutiny and greater local accountability.
The operational delivery and practice of public order policing has moved on a great deal from the arrangements in 1984, and tactics have now been reviewed and altered several times both by the police and the courts.
Protections which were singularly lacking at the time of Orgreave now exist with the introduction in the mid-80s of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which has vastly improved the way police investigations and powers operate.
The creation of the Crown Prosecution Service in 1986, with the introduction of independent CPS prosecutors, fundamentally altered the prosecution of offences. It ended the existence of ad hoc prosecution arrangements across the country whereby a mixture of police prosecutors and private firms of solicitors—hired by the police and acting for and on the instruction of the police—conducted prosecutions.
With regards to the external scrutiny of complaints against the police, this was strengthened by the creation, in 1985, of the Police Complaints Authority which was replaced in 2004 by the more effective Independent Police Complaints Commission and in turn will be replaced by the Office for Police Conduct in 2017. The exemplary standards of behaviour expected of everyone who works in policing were reinforced by the introduction of a statutory code of ethics, laid before this House in 2014.
Lastly, the introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners in 2012 has given the public a voice in shaping their local policing priorities and improved the accountability of police leadership.
Over 30 years later, policing is very different and one of my key concerns as Home Secretary is to ensure there is a policing system which works effectively and fairly now. The policing landscape has changed fundamentally since 1984—at the political, legislative and operational levels. The same is true also for the wider criminal justice system.
There would therefore be very few lessons for the policing system today to be learned from any review of the events and practices of three decades ago. This is a very important consideration when looking at the necessity for an inquiry or independent review and the public interest to be derived from holding one.
Taking these considerations into account, I do not believe that establishing any kind of inquiry is required to allay public concerns or for any other reason.
I believe that we should focus on continuing to ensure that the policing system is the best it can be for the future, including through reforms before Parliament in the Policing and Crime Bill, so that we can have the best possible policing both in South Yorkshire and across the country.
[HCWS227]
Work, Health and Disability
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
Today, we are publishing a Green Paper on work, health and disability. It represents an important step towards building a society that works for everyone, where all disabled people and those with health conditions are able to go as far as their talents will take them.
The Green Paper, published by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, marks a new era of joint working to tackle the barriers that disabled people have faced for far too long and redefine how we think about work, health and disability.
A disability employment gap of 32 percentage points currently exists between disabled people and non-disabled people. We are bold in our ambition to halve that gap. We must also be bold in action, on the part of the welfare and health systems, employers and wider society.
We need a more personalised and integrated health and welfare system that puts individuals at its heart, but also one that protects those who need the most support. A welfare system that provides work for those who can, support for those who could and care for those who cannot.
The Green Paper focuses on how best to provide the support for those who could work. We will look at how best to improve the way that work and sickness certification works. Jobcentre work coaches will be encouraged to signpost claimants to therapy.
The Green Paper also consults on the crucial role that employers need to play, for this is not a challenge for the Government alone. Sickness absence costs business nearly £10 billion a year and having a strong, diverse labour market is vital for the economy’s future growth. The Green Paper asks how businesses can help attract and support disabled people in the workforce.
As part of the consultation, over the coming months, we will be talking with disabled people and those who have health conditions. We will be talking to carers, families, professionals, and a range of organisations who are so important to getting this right.
Together, our plan to help and support more disabled people into work is a key step towards building a great meritocracy where all that matters is the talent you have and how hard you are prepared to work.
[HCWS226]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Ricketts
Introduction: Lord Llewellyn of Steep
Road Safety: Eye Tests
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Simon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to encourage drivers to have their sight checked regularly in the interest of road safety.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests, which are in the register, and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency’s driving licence application form makes clear the importance of meeting the required eyesight standards. The Department for Transport also makes clear the eyesight standards for driving in its leaflets and forms, as well as on the GOV.UK website. The department supports the NHS recommendation that adults should have their eyes tested every two years. This advice was promoted through a communication campaign in 2013, supported by the BMA, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and Brake.
Viscount Simon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that in 2014 the driver eyesight survey estimated that crashes resulting from poor driver vision caused 2,900 casualties in the UK per year and that three-quarters of the adult population require either contact lenses or glasses, will the Government do more to alert drivers of the dangers of not getting their eyesight tested regularly, and can consideration be given to using motorway electronic signs to display this message? Road safety week starts on 21 November. Would that not be an excellent time to start running a trial to establish whether these actions have a beneficial effect?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I congratulate the noble Viscount. He has been a vociferous and devoted campaigner for road safety, and I know that he recently received an award from the Police Federation recognising his achievements and service in this area. Highways England uses electronic variable message signs but, as the noble Viscount is aware, these are intended primarily to advise drivers of immediate safety issues and journey information. With regard to road safety week, we are intending, with Highways England, to use other forms of media, such as social media, to promote the importance of getting your eyes tested.
Lord Brougham and Vaux (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that in Switzerland, where my cousin lives, if you are over 70 you have to retake your test every two years? If you are over 80, you have to retake it every year, including an eye test and a full medical. Would he not consider something along those lines?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is always useful to hear personal anecdotes. I actually had my eyes tested on Saturday, and I passed. Turning to my noble friend’s question, the UK has one of the greatest road safety records. People aged 70 are required to sit the test to renew their licence for another three years, and we provide other services through DVLA. Pilots are also being taken up, including with GP practices in Birmingham, to raise awareness of eye tests, particularly for those over 70.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to ask about people who have perfectly good eyesight but who choose to use it to look at their mobile phones while driving. In 2014, mobile phone use was a contributory factor in 492 accidents, 21 of which were fatal, and an RAC survey has shown a steep increase in mobile phone use at the wheel since then. Do the Government intend to increase the penalties for these drivers, and to provide funding to deal with the 27% drop in dedicated roads policing officers since 2010?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Baroness may be aware, the Government have already taken action in this respect and increased the penalties for mobile phone use while driving. I am sure the whole House will be aware of the news today of the sentencing of the driver who caused the tragic death of a mother and three young children. Our thoughts are of course with the family. The noble Baroness raises an important point and the Government continue to look at how we can work across the board with all industry players to underline the importance of educating people. Yes, mobile phones have a role to play, but not while people are driving.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to hear that the Minister has had his eyes tested, but does he accept that one of the problems—which may also be true in his case—is that in the routine eye test, changes in conditions between darkness and light are not tested properly? One of the real issues with older people is that, particularly as cataracts form, their visual acuity may be unchanged but they are unable to accommodate in dark situations, which is when accidents are most likely to happen. Can the eye test perhaps include that in future?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord speaks from great experience in this regard and I will certainly take his suggestion back. I found that my recent eye test was thorough in every respect, but the department and I will reflect on his point about those who are older.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Following the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Simon, how many fatal road accidents per year do the Government accept can be attributed in part or wholly to the eyesight of one or more of the parties involved in the accident being below the standard required to pass the driving test?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I shall write to the noble Lord on the specifics, but as I have said, our safety standards have led to one of the lowest comparative figures across Europe for such accidents, and the Government are looking at how they can work with the medical profession. The pilot in Birmingham that I referred to consists of 113 surgeries where people can talk to their general practitioners about the need for an eye test and nominate themselves to get their eyes tested. Indeed, GPs are also looking at how their duty of care can be extended where someone refuses or is unable to report their eyesight deficiency to the DVLA.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, the Minister implied in an earlier response that from the age of 70 drivers are expected to take a retest and then do so subsequently every three years. In fact, it is not a driving test as we understand it: it is just a question of filling in forms saying that you do not have certain diseases. Can he please correct his statement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Countess is quite correct. I was talking about people having their driving licence renewed after reaching the age of 70, and as I am sure noble Lords know, it is on a three-year basis and the noble Countess is right to point out that it is a specific declaration made by drivers themselves. But as I have intimated, we are looking into how we can work with health practitioners, particularly GPs, to make self-nomination work more effectively.
Children: Oral Health
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote oral health for children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, Public Health England continues to lead a wide-ranging programme to improve children’s oral health. The childhood obesity plan has also introduced two important measures for oral health: a soft drinks industry levy and a sugar reduction programme.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer but oral health is not mentioned in the Government’s childhood obesity plan, even though there is an epidemic of child tooth decay along with hospital admissions for extractions. The state of the nation’s children’s teeth is shocking and a huge cost to the NHS. Common sense says that we need targeted action now. Can the Minister tell the House what is happening with the 10 pilot oral health improvement programmes announced in May and whether the Government will at least consider making oral health part of the daily school regime as a preventive measure?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness is right to say that childhood oral health is very poor, but it is getting better. Some 75% of children no longer have tooth decay compared with 69% in only 2008, but it is still not good enough. The Government’s policy is very much around prevention rather than treatment. The new contract being discussed with dentists will put this work on to more of a capitated basis rather than an activity basis. NHS England has identified 10 areas of deprivation for special treatment and we are looking at a new programme with Public Health England to improve education in this area. Quite a lot is happening.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, surely the way to prevent this is by introducing fluoride into the water supply and to ignore those people who think it is a bad thing. Does not all the evidence seem to suggest that it would be very good, especially for deprived communities?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the evidence for fluoride is incontrovertible: it is good for teeth. There may be other issues attached to fluoride, but in terms of dental health it is unquestionably a good thing. It is interesting to note that in Birmingham, which has been adding fluoride to its water for many years, the incidence of child tooth decay is 29% whereas in Blackburn it is 57% and in Hull, which is considering fluoridation, it is 37.8%. The evidence is very strong, but it is up to local authorities to decide.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, when I have asked Questions, as I have done repeatedly, mainly for Written Answer, about the difference in health between Birmingham and Manchester, with people in Manchester having the worst teeth in the whole of the UK—that was where the problem was with blocking hospital beds—the answer has always been that the only difference in health pattern is in teeth. I have had that point queried and asked what research the Government have done and whether they can really substantiate that fact. I am very much in favour of fluoridation, but I think that people are confused and want to be clear that there is no other health implication of fluoridation. I respect that view. What action will the Minister take to ensure that thorough, general health tests, as compared with the two arrangements referred to, are undertaken?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My noble friend has slightly confused me, I am afraid. There is no question that fluoride has an impact on oral health. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that it has other, detrimental impacts on children’s or other people’s health. We have huge inequalities throughout the United Kingdom, most of which are as a result of social deprivation, poor housing, high unemployment and the like. Those are the fundamental drivers of health inequalities, rather than health systems per se.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, given the harm caused by high levels of sugar added to some processed foods, does the Minister agree that the present restraints on the food industry are woefully inadequate? Does he further agree that much tougher measures need to be taken if the Government are to meet their own public health objectives on oral health, diabetes and obesity?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the introduction of the sugar levy is evidence that the Government take this matter extremely seriously and believe that it cannot be left solely to industry to reduce sugar levels. The Treasury is due to report on the extent of the sugar levy on 6 December. As part of the obesity strategy, targets are being set for nine key categories of food eaten predominantly by children. The results of reduction over time will be made transparent and open. A combination of those measures should have an impact.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, although dental decay can easily be prevented by reducing sugar consumption, regular brushing and adequate exposure to fluoride, it has been shown to be the number one reason why children aged five to nine are admitted to hospital. It is painful, can be dangerous and wastes millions of pounds of NHS resources. When will the Government reverse those statistics and facilitate the fluoridation of all public water supplies?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I think that I have already answered my noble friend’s question on fluoridation. On his second point about regular tooth-brushing, Scotland has a scheme called Childsmile, where there is supervised tooth-brushing in primary schools and nurseries, as well as a fluoride varnish twice a year. We can learn something from Scotland in that regard. It is expensive, but Public Health England is nevertheless looking at it and we may adopt it in our country soon.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, do the nine categories of food to which the Minister referred also include baby foods, which are packed with sugar? I declare an interest, having a granddaughter, Imaan, who has allowed me to taste the enormous amount of harmful sugar contained even in organic baby food. Will the Minister consider adding baby food to his basket list of things to look at?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I cannot recall whether baby food is one of those nine categories that have been identified in the obesity strategy, but I will look into that and write to the noble Baroness.
Directly Elected Mayors
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on directly elected mayors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that directly elected mayors can provide that strong and accountable governance locally that is necessary if significant powers and budgets are to be devolved to local areas, and are the most appropriate governance model for the most ambitious deals, particularly in cities.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the—certainly, for me—welcome suggestions in various newspapers that the Prime Minister is not nearly as keen on making directly elected mayors compulsory for areas engaged in devolution as was the case with the enthusiastic support they got constantly from George Osborne? If it is the case that the Prime Minister is a little bit more open-minded on this, should not the Government at least let those local authorities know, in areas where they are discussing devolution settlements, that if they do not want a directly elected major, they do not have to have one?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first of all, there is no question of areas having to have directly elected mayors: these are grass-roots decisions, brought forward by local authority leaders if they want elected mayors. There is nothing compulsory about it. However, it remains very much the case that that is the policy—the most ambitious deals will go forward only if they have directly elected mayors.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Lincolnshire, which is a large rural area, the county council overwhelmingly voted not to have a directly elected mayor, although it would welcome, and be able adequately to exercise, devolved functions? My noble friend, in his Answer, said, “particularly in cities”. Can he now say that it will not be necessary in rural areas?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first of all, I was aware of what happened in Lincolnshire. Of course it was not a definite, final decision: that will be taken only in the first two weeks of November. I have indicated that there have been deals without mayors—that was the case in Cornwall—but they were unambitious deals. It remains the case that, whether it is rural or urban, the most ambitious deals will have mayors.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister told us that this was a matter for grass-roots decisions and was not compulsory. Do the Government have a list of those powers that can be devolved with an elected mayor and a list of those powers that can be devolved where there is not an elected mayor; and will the Government publish those lists?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is the case that the most important strategic powers on transport, planning, investment and adult education go with having a directly elected mayor via the combined authorities. The noble Lord will know that there are lesser powers in Cornwall, for example. It is also important to note that the mayor is the voice for the area in terms of gaining investment and representing industry. This role is significant and important on the continent and in America and will, I believe, be important here.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think I am probably more of an enthusiast for directly elected mayors than my noble friend Lord Grocott. However, the significant point is that in London, where there is a very successful mayoralty, the local people voted in a referendum to have such a system. Given that the Minister is talking about this being a grass-roots-led process, why do the Government not allow the communities concerned to decide whether they wish to have a directly elected mayor, rather than imposing the conditions centrally from Whitehall?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I indicated, it is the directly elected representatives of cities such as Liverpool and Manchester—not necessarily Conservative areas—who bring forward the idea and then it is for the people to make their choice on the mayor. All the evidence on the continent, in the United States and, as the noble Lord rightly said, in London, shows that this is the way forward for ambitious deals.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, have we not had enough referendums for the time being?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, there are certainly all sorts of drawbacks to having too many referendums.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the much-vaunted eastern region devolved administration of Norfolk and Suffolk—Cambridgeshire has been spun off—is falling apart because of the requirement of an elected mayor? The main reason for wanting those devolved powers is precisely to strengthen the rural transport connections, as part of East Anglia, for example, is surrounded on three sides by water. Following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will the Minister review the position and understand that rural areas are precisely the places where transport connectivity might be vital for economic growth, so that those in the more deprived rural areas can come into their market towns, but that it is not possible because of the Government’s absurd, 1970s insistence on elected mayors?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not sure that this is something that was prevalent in the 1970s. On the noble Baroness’s example of Norfolk and Suffolk, I very much hope that they do pursue a deal, but that is very much a matter for Norfolk and Suffolk. There are other rural areas that are pursuing this with vigour as well—Cambridgeshire, for example. It is a matter for those areas.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the discussions in Yorkshire between rural and urban areas and the question of whether one goes for Leeds-and-a-bit, a greater Yorkshire or an alternative. While an elected mayor for Leeds is entirely appropriate, an elected mayor for the mixed urban and rural areas of Yorkshire, containing between 4 million and 5 million people, seems to us to be entirely inappropriate. Will he take that on board?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I bow to the noble Lord’s knowledge—I know he is very well aware of the local situation—but it is for the people of the locality to come forward with the plans and then, of course, it will be looked at by the department. However, I take his point on the specific example.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected councillor of the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Will the Minister explain to the House why these ambitious deals must have a directly elected mayor? Why cannot the local people decide?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I think I have already answered that question.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
It has certainly been asked in a different guise, but let me reply to it again. It is a matter for the directly elected representatives of the constituent councils to come forward with plans. They know their localities. On occasion, they have not wanted to pursue it; as was the case, for example, in South Tyneside. So it is a matter for them. As I have said previously, all the evidence from the continent, from the United States and from London is that this system works.
Lord Grocott
If the Minister has doubts about referendums will he please explain, in the case of Birmingham and Coventry specifically—where there was a clear rejection in a referendum of directly elected mayors—why now, without a referendum, he is imposing a directly elected mayor across the whole West Midlands region?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am all for people exaggerating my powers but I am not imposing anything at all. As I have indicated, it is a matter for the people of the locality, through their elected representatives, to come forward with these plans. The noble Lord is mixing up two very different things. The referendums he referred to were not combined authority elections.
Transforming Rehabilitation Programme
Lord Ramsbotham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Transforming Rehabilitation programme is, as suggested by the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lord Faulks, changing the lives of thousands of people by reforming the supervision of all offenders in the community (HL Deb, 11 March 2014, col 1695).
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms mean that, for the first time, around 45,000 prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 months receive statutory supervision and support on release and a nationwide through-the-gate resettlement service has been introduced for all prisoners. As these fundamental reforms bed down, we are conducting a comprehensive review of the probation system to make sure that it is reducing reoffending, cutting crime and preventing future victims.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. On 12 September the Public Accounts Committee in the other place published a highly critical report on Transforming Rehabilitation, saying that after two years there was still no clear picture of how the reforms imposed on the probation system by the Offender Rehabilitation Act were working in important areas, such as the supervision of several thousand previously unsupervised short-term prisoners, as mentioned by the Minister. The skilled advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, during the passage of the Act persuaded many noble Lords to vote for the proposed reforms, despite a very alarming Ministry of Justice risk assessment that there was a distinct possibility that many of them could not be delivered. Will the Minister please tell the House whether there is any evidence that the reforms are changing more lives than the system they replaced?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I shall deal first with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, concerning the Public Accounts Committee. We are considering the committee’s report; its findings and recommendations are informing our review of the probation system. We will respond in due course. As the noble Lord said, a review of the whole probation system is being undertaken. I should also inform the House that a White Paper will be published shortly that will look more at prison reform and safety.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the probation service is clearly key to an effective and successful rehabilitation programme. What assessment has the Ministry of Justice made of the scale of impact of staff reductions in community rehabilitation companies and the National Probation Service? Is it correct that the CRC contractor in South Yorkshire is facing a possible service credit fine of up to £2 million because of its failure to deliver the better relationships programme for perpetrators of domestic abuse?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asks a number of detailed questions. I will have to write to him on these issues. It is too early to judge the success of the CRCs. We will not know whether they have achieved their initial payment-by-results targets until final reoffending data are published in autumn 2017.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the report just a few days ago of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and Chief Inspector of Probation makes harsh reading for the Government. This is the second report that they have produced in the past 12 months and it says:
“There has been little change, little delivered, and progress is pedestrian at best”.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government are intending get a grip on this situation, so that we can have less offending, get more people into work, have fewer people in prison and put money back into the public purse? It is surely time for the Government to get a grip on this matter.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct about how much reoffending costs the country, which is in the region of £13 billion. He is right that we must get a grip on this. As he is aware, in 2010 we had the report, Breaking the Cycle. In 2012, we had Punishment and Reform, looking at probation services. We had another report on services and then Transforming Rehabilitation. This is what we are trying to do. Offenders need to be supported through the prison gate, but we must not look only at offenders. We must also look at public protection and at supporting victims.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Would it not be more effective to invest more money in schools training in prisons and to create job opportunities when they leave prison?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This is how one of these systems, on supporting offenders through the prison gate, is working. These services were already working with prisoners before they leave prison. Once they leave, they are helped with accommodation and finding jobs so that they can support their families and make an honest living.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that Transforming Rehabilitation has been an absolute disaster for women’s community services? Previously, women’s centres took women ex-offenders. Now, very few do. The companies that contract, many of which are multinationals, as the Minister knows, have 44-page contracts with gagging clauses. They have provision for a £10,000 fee if any provision is changed. These are small charities doing a remarkable job for the public good. Will the Minister please look at the report of Dame Glenys Stacey, the Chief Inspector of Probation, who has condemned what is happening under this Government, and make sure that women offenders have somewhere to go when they come out of prison?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Baroness makes a very good point about women offenders. We are closely monitoring the system to ensure that probation providers take account of the particular needs of female offenders and deliver on their commitments. I am sure the report to which the noble Baroness refers is being studied by the department.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister willing to look again at the level of support available for young people who have been in care for a large part of their lives and who leave prison with very little, if any, support? We expect a great deal of coping skills from people with the fewest opportunities in life.
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord makes a valid point on the importance of supporting young people who come out of prison. I do not have the exact figures, but I imagine many of them are repeat offenders as well. There is of course a duty for us to try to prevent these individuals reoffending.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Monday 31st October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 72KB) - (28 Oct 2016)
15:41 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 226 / Noes: 186 - Amendment 1 agreed.
Baroness Hollins
( ) in the course of its transmission by means of a public telecommunication system.”
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I had hoped not to detain the House, but last night the Government indicated, to my surprise, that they will oppose this amendment. I hope noble Lords will understand the need for me to set out some of the context.
The debate on Report was very clear about the intention of our amendments to Clause 8, and the large majority in the Content Lobby affirmed this. The noble Earl the Minister helpfully suggested that our original amendments, as drafted, may not achieve our stated objectives. I took advice from the Public Bill Office at some length to clarify the amendment, as allowed for in the Companion to the Standing Orders, at Third Reading. Amendment 1 today aims to ensure that costs protections will apply to new claims alleging illegal phone or email hacking by newspapers, as was originally intended and as was debated.
If the clause is amended today, it will implement, to the limited degree that we are able in this Bill, the court costs incentives and protections of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Bill, which Parliament overwhelmingly agreed over three years ago. So far the Government have failed to commence Section 40, in breach of that cross-party agreement, so this amendment is just one tiny step towards bringing some much-needed balance into the system.
I refer noble Lords to the report issued to Parliament by the royal charter Press Recognition Panel only last week, which clearly and cogently emphasised why such changes are needed and called on Her Majesty’s Government to commence Section 40. We should remember that the independent Press Recognition Panel audits press regulation; it is not a regulator.
I have had discussions with senior members of Her Majesty’s Government, who contacted me to persuade me not to pursue this amendment on the grounds that it may somehow delay Royal Assent for this important Bill, which has as one of its primary purposes the aim of improving national security. However, given the huge support that the amendments have received so far, I am not minded to give way to this pressure. Very briefly, I will explain why.
One argument being made by the press recently that small local newspapers will be at risk from Section 40 is wrong. Newspapers can simply choose to join a recognised regulator and get the same costs protections that the public will get, unlike newspapers that choose not to join. Since we last divided, there is now a recognised regulator: Impress. The limited amendments to this Bill will not affect small newspapers adversely at all—they do not hack phones. The local newspaper threat is a smokescreen. The protests are really coming from the big newspaper groups, which own most of the regional papers and in effect are using them as newsprint shields. It is the big companies preventing the small papers that they own from seeking the costs protection that flows from membership of a recognised regulator. It is precisely the small papers that will benefit from Section 40 protection—they will be much better placed to practise good investigative journalism—unless they choose voluntarily not to seek that protection. That should be their choice.
This is now urgent. Now that Impress has been recognised, many independent small publishers that are already Impress members are suffering actual detriment from the non-commencement of Section 40, and victims of non-Impress newspapers are not getting the costs advantages they were promised. It is complicated. A central theme in the Leveson report and the cross-party agreement to implement it was how to prevent political interference in press regulation in the interests of free speech. That is why the independent Press Recognition Panel was established, which is politician free. But political interference by the Government is what we are now seeing, with the Secretary of State holding the starting gun for the commencement of Section 40. The Secretary of State appears to accept that IPSO is nowhere near good enough but believes that political pressure will force it to improve to a point where it is on a par with Impress.
On behalf of victims of press abuse, the general public, newspaper readers, front-line journalists and those of us who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry, I call on the Government to commence Section 40 as they promised to do when this House and the other place overwhelmingly passed it into law. If the Government do so now, we in this House will not need to see the Bill again. But if there are problems with the amendment which might affect security in some way—unbeknown to those of us who have added our name to it—perhaps the Government could meet me and interested parties, and allow a few days’ latitude to get this right. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support the noble Baroness. My understanding is that this amendment has been tabled because of a drafting issue in the amendment that was overwhelmingly passed by the House, on the basis of the principle of protecting those whose phones have been hacked into by newspapers which have not signed up to an independent complaints system. It is also because the original amendment applied only to private communication networks; Amendment 1 would change it to public communication networks. There is no question at all of a change in principle. I therefore do not understand why the Government would not agree to support this amendment, which is clearly simply to correct that drafting issue. On that basis, we will support the noble Baroness.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. The situation is complex and I think everybody concedes that the amendment as passed by your Lordships’ House last week had deficiencies. However, it was agreed by the Public Bill Office that it was adequate, as it has agreed that the amendment which is now before your Lordships is adequate. It seems to me that the ball is in the Government’s court to try to work out a way in which to achieve this. We must remember that in this Bill we have, for good reasons to do with press freedom, given the media very considerable additional protections for journalistic sources. That is open to possible abuse because sometimes there is no source or there might be, let us say, an incorrect reporting of a source. The quid pro quo for that is surely some protection for the public. Amendment 1 is not perfect, but if it is not to be accepted by the Government, I hope that the Minister will suggest how the Government propose to deal with the evident lacuna, and the risk to members of the public, of having greatly empowered media.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, in considering this amendment we need to be mindful of lessons from history. We have heard the tale before that the press will reform itself. Some noble Lords will remember similar debates following the 1990 Calcutt inquiry. When asked to report on the efficacy of the PCC in 1993, Sir David Calcutt said that it was not doing its job and that the time for statutory regulation had come. But Parliament lost its nerve and the press was allowed to carry on underregulated, with disastrous consequences for ordinary people. Predictably, the newspapers are telling us that IPSO is a much improved version of the PCC, but it falls woefully short of the standards set out by Lord Justice Leveson.
Since we last voted, the Government’s position has actually hardened. When setting out the Government’s response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:
“I fully understand that many noble Lords here, particularly those who have been victims of press abuse themselves, are frustrated as to what they see as a lack of progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry report. I want to reassure noble Lords that that is not the case … the Government continue to look at this issue closely … this is something that the Government are actively considering. … The position is that, for the time being, Section 40 remains under consideration”.—[Official Report, 11/10/16; col. 1809.]
Last Monday, on 24 October, the Secretary of State said at the Culture Select Committee that she was not minded to commence Section 40. The Times the next day—last Tuesday, 25 October—ran a triumphant front-page story based on what it later said were reliable government sources. It said:
“Westminster sources revealed last night that the ‘punitive elements’ of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act …‘will not go ahead’. The change of tack, which avoids a clash between Theresa May and the media, came on the eve of a decision to approve a new regulatory body”.
The Government have not informed Parliament of this and have not sought to correct the story.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, when the amendments moved on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, were discussed, the Government said that they did not believe that they would achieve the outcome she was seeking since the relevant clause dealt with the interception of private telecommunications systems, such as a company’s internal email or telephone system. The fact that the noble Baroness has been permitted the amendment before us at Third Reading suggests that it is accepted that it seeks to address the point made by the Government on Report; namely, that the amendments that were carried on Report do not achieve the outcome the noble Baroness is seeking.
I understand the Government oppose this amendment. Perhaps they will argue that this amendment also does not achieve the objective the noble Baroness is seeking. As the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, reminded us, on Report the Government said that they fully understand that many noble Lords, particularly those who have been victims of press abuse, are frustrated about what they see as a lack of progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry report, albeit that the Government went on to say that they did not accept that that frustration was justified.
I am not able to comment personally on whether this latest amendment, which was tabled at a very late stage, achieves its purpose or not. But I do know that the Government do not seem to have been particularly helpful so far in seeking to assist with what wording would achieve the purpose sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the other noble Lords who are signatories to the amendment concerned, bearing in mind these were amendments which, on Report, had the support of the House.
On Report, the Government accepted the commencement provision amendments, while making it clear that that did not mean that they had accepted, or would be accepting, the earlier amendment related to Leveson which had been passed by the House. Despite that earlier stance, the Government do not appear to have been willing to adopt the same approach to getting the wording right, in their view, for the amendment carried in this House on Report.
We will support this amendment if it is put to a vote. Therefore, if it is carried, the Government will have another opportunity, albeit in the Commons, to put forward wording which achieves the objective sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and indeed up to now by this House in relation to this amendment and amendments already carried on Leveson-related issues, before the Commons makes a decision on whether to accept or reject the amendments passed by this House or to put forward an alternative amendment of its own.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we discussed this issue in some detail on Report. As we previously made clear, the cause of action, or tort, provided for in Clause 8 is intended to replicate the safeguard in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This focuses on circumstances where an individual’s communications are intercepted on a private telecommunications system by a person who has the right to control the operation or use of that system. This was a necessary safeguard to protect individuals, in very limited circumstances, where their employer may unfairly be intercepting communications on a company’s internal computer system, which is not within the scope of the offence of unlawful interception.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about the objective of the amendment. With great respect, the fundamental difficulty is that it really has nothing to do with the purpose or purposes of Clause 8. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested, simply a case of deleting “private” and substituting “public” , or of seeking to amend the proposed amendment at this stage or to improve it—it simply has no place in the clause. Clause 8 was not intended to regulate the press or to deal with awarding costs in circumstances where such a case is brought against a publisher. It simply has no application in this context. I quite understand the concerns about Section 40 that have been expressed, and the question of commencements is understood and is under consideration. But to amend Clause 8 in this way is to ignore the very purpose of this part of the Bill.
The Bill already provides for a criminal offence where an individual has unlawfully intercepted communications. An individual convicted of such a crime is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine or indeed both. So anyone carrying out phone hacking would face, under this Bill, a criminal conviction. That is a significant penalty and, in our view, the appropriate penalty for such an offence.
As we made clear in the previous debate, there are already avenues for individuals to pursue civil claims against those who carry out unlawful interception such as phone hacking. For example, cases have been brought on the grounds of misuse of private information. Although I agree with the noble Baroness that the outcome of Leveson and press regulation are very important issues, I maintain that this Bill, and in particular Clause 8, is not the appropriate place to deal with them. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, thank you for contributing to our understanding of this problem a little further. At no point has the House been told that the amendments are not in scope. In fact, it was suggested to me over the weekend by members of Her Majesty’s Government that I should seek instead to place such amendments within another Bill, such as the Digital Economy Bill. I sought advice from the Public Bill Office but, after considering the matter at length, it advised me that that was not possible and they would not be within the scope of the Digital Economy Bill.
If the House supports the amendment today, as I hope it will, I will be more than happy to work with the Government to find a wording which does no more than provide for as much of the Section 40 costs incentives as could be provided in the scope of the Bill without going any further. I would not be asking the House, in ping-pong, to do anything that destabilises anything else in the Bill. The best solution, of course, would be for the Government to commence Section 40, as they promised and as they should. Then, we could drop all the amendments. It is the Government’s choice and always has been.
On previous occasions when I have had drafting difficulties—and this is a complicated Bill—Ministers have been most helpful in achieving the intentions of your Lordships’ House. I wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asking whether there were any technical difficulties with the amendment, and the answer was no.
I am not content with the answer given by the noble and learned Lord, and I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I will now address a series of government amendments which are minor and technical in nature. They aim to correct minor drafting oversights and inconsistencies within the Bill, as well as to clarify provisions and make minor consequential changes. Clause 41 contains special rules that apply for certain mutual assistance warrants, and Amendments 2, 3 and 4 correct inconsistencies in language in this clause. Amendment 5 is consequential on amendments made on Report in this House, which clarified that a communication can be between machines as well as people. Amendment 10 corrects an inconsistency in language with regard to the renewal of equipment interference warrants. Amendments 21, 22 and 23 are all minor amendments to those clauses of the Bill that relate to bulk acquisition warrants. Amendment 33 is another technical amendment, which provides that Clause 272(4) comes into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. Finally, Amendments 34, 35 and 36 are all minor and technical amendments that are designed to improve and clarify the written language of the Bill. These minor and technical amendments will help to clarify the extent of the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Minister on this group of amendments. As I do not propose to speak on the next and final group, I just want to make a couple of general points about the Bill, which will take only a minute or two.
This is the final day of our deliberations on the Bill, which has had a remarkable passage through Parliament. That is mainly due to the fact that the Government had a draft Bill, and there was also the independent report on surveillance and the work of the Joint Committee. Added to that, the Government were willing to respond to points made by amending the Bill. There will of course be only one issue for the Members of the Commons, who will see a non-government amendment on the matter on which we have just voted and on which I do not wish to comment.
I hope that Labour Party Members in the House of Commons will support the hundreds of Lords amendments. Many of these have been proposed by members of parties other than the government party, although a lot have come from the Government. They make this legislation more than a government Act; in my view, it is truly a parliamentary Act, given the input from other parties.
When the Bill was introduced in the Commons in March this year, I broke a 15-year vow of silence by speaking at the Parliamentary Labour Party to oppose the idea that Labour should abstain if there was a vote at Second Reading. I pleaded for support for the Bill at that point. However, there are still people on the Labour Benches in the Commons who oppose the Bill and I think that my colleagues there should ignore them. It is not a snoopers’ charter; it is not draconian; and it is not a stop-and-search power for the digital age. It will make UK citizens safer. Whether one looks at things like the request filter, the oversight procedures, the privacy protection or the obligations on communications service providers, just to take four aspects, it is a Bill that deserves active support, not sniping from the sidelines or the Front Bench.
There is one hole in the Bill. The Bill is about the state and its duties and responsibilities. The gaping hole now is the use that commercial service providers make of personal information given to them by citizens as they use the services. On page 41 of the report of the RUSI panel, on which I had the honour to serve, we listed the word length of the terms and conditions of popular internet services, and I do not propose to go over those again. All we do as users is tick a box, which means that companies analyse the content of our search results and the content of our emails when we send and receive them and when they are stored. This is done so that we can receive targeted advertising. Indeed, one service provider has filed a patent about being able to sense the mood of the user so that it is better able to make more profit. The Government will not be allowed to do that under this legislation, and Labour MPs should think about that if they are asked to oppose the Bill.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments and I strongly support my noble friend Lord Rooker in everything that he has said. This Bill is a classic example of how a Bill should come through this place. The way in which it has been built up across Parliament has been remarkable. It meets all the requirements for our security and for personal liberty, and we should be very proud of it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was going to speak later but I will speak now, as I am driven to do so by the comments of previous speakers.
The Bill is undoubtedly better than it was at the start. It could not help but be because of all the effort that people have put into making it better, but it is still a most appalling piece of legislation and I should like to read something to noble Lords:
“Today, an ordinary person can’t pick up the phone, email a friend or order a book without comprehensive records of their activities being created, archived, and analysed by people with the authority to put you in jail or worse. I know: I sat at that desk. I typed in the names. When we know we’re being watched, we impose restraints on our behaviour—even clearly innocent activities—just as surely as if we were ordered to do so. The mass surveillance systems of today, systems that pre-emptively automate the indiscriminate seizure of”,
private records, constitute a sort of surveillance time machine”,
“—a machine that simply cannot operate without violating our liberty on the broadest scale. And it permits governments to go back and scrutinise every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever spoken to, and derive suspicion from an innocent life. Even a well-intentioned mistake can turn a life upside down. To preserve our free societies, we have to defend not just against distant enemies, but against dangerous policies at home. If we allow scarce resources to be squandered on surveillance programmes that violate the very rights they purport to defend, we haven’t protected our liberty at all: we have paid to lose it”.
That sums this Bill up. It was written by Edward Snowden, who, as he said, sat at that desk. It was written for Liberty.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that Edward Snowden, by releasing millions of bits of classified material, has actually made all of us less safe than we were? It is a certain fact that he has done that. He is hardly someone to quote as a great and noble person.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I think that we will find in the future that this legislation will return again and again to bite us, and many of us here will regret having passed it.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She played an important role in the course of this Bill in reminding your Lordships of the need to deal with the liberty of the citizen. But the greatest threat to the liberty of the citizen is the threat to life. This Bill, which is now in its final stage, is extremely important in ensuring that in future our citizens are protected against terrorism and the threats that face this country and beyond.
Of course, there were and are still issues that need to be taken very seriously with regard to the liberty of the subject. But in all the years that I have been in Parliament, I have not seen as much scrutiny of a Bill as this one. Not only did the Joint Committee, which I had the honour to chair, go through all the details of the Bill over a number of months, the other committees in Parliament also dealt with it, not least the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I commend the Government—not something that I usually do, but I will on this occasion—on accepting a great number of amendments to the Bill, which have improved it in the sense of ensuring that our liberties are safeguarded but that the basic thrust of the Bill remains the same. This has been a tremendous exercise in parliamentary scrutiny. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, it is Parliament’s Bill as much as it is the Government’s.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for making his point at this stage. This is an important Bill. It will update the framework for the use of investigatory powers to obtain communications for the foreseeable future. But it not only provides powers, it provides safeguards that are clear and understandable: the double lock for the most intrusive powers; the creation of a new Investigatory Powers Commissioner; important safeguards on oversight in respect of legal professional privilege and in respect of journalistic material; a government response to David Anderson’s review in respect of bulk materials; and extensive consultation with the bodies affected by investigatory powers.
What we have today is the product in this House of cross-party collaboration. The parties opposite have taken an incredibly constructive and reasonable approach during the Bill’s passage and we are sending a significant number of changes back to the House of Commons. But those changes are evidence of the constructive engagement from all sides in this House. I particularly note the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Rooker and Lord West, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and from the Liberal Democrat Benches the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Carlile and Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, also contributed to our debates on this matter. Of course, members of the ISC and Members on the Cross Benches have taken a great interest in the passage of this Bill. I cite the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and I am sure that I have missed many others. But this expression is intended for all Members of the House who have taken this matter forward and produced a Bill that we can send back to the other place with confidence, subject possibly to one amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. This House has already discussed the important issue of legal privilege and whether the protections in the Bill for material that attracts privilege are adequate. At Report stage, the Government made a number of amendments significantly increasing the protections afforded to such material which were welcomed by this House.
In response to an amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we also committed to consider whether there was more we could provide in the Bill to set out what the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must do when privileged material has been obtained and an agency wishes to retain it, and the considerations that he or she has to take into account when deciding whether material can be retained. The amendments tabled today speak to that issue, and in broad terms they do two things.
First, they provide that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must order the destruction of privileged material or impose conditions on its use or retention unless the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items that are privileged, and retaining the item is necessary in the interests of national security or to prevent death or significant injury. Secondly, they provide for the commissioner to be able to impose conditions as to the “use or retention” of privileged items rather than its “disclosure”, as was previously the case. This makes it abundantly clear that decisions about what can be done with privileged material—whether it can be retained and who can be told about it—rest entirely with the commissioner, a serving or a former High Court judge who is, of course, well placed to make decisions which have at their heart public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.
The amendments relate to the interception provisions, both targeted and bulk, to the equipment interference provisions, both targeted and bulk, and to the provisions that relate to bulk personal datasets. The Bill therefore makes it clear that in every circumstance where legally privileged material is obtained and an agency wishes to retain it, whether the material is obtained intentionally or inadvertently, the commissioner must order its destruction or impose conditions on its use and retention unless its retention is necessary in the interests of national security or to prevent death or significant injury, and the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to privilege.
Amendments 11 and 24 are more minor and technical in nature. They ensure that Clauses 132 and 195, which relate to the retention of items obtained by targeted and bulk equipment interference, are consistent with the equivalent provisions in those parts of the Bill that deal with interception. I trust that noble Lords will agree that the Government have listened at every stage to the concerns of this House about the vitally important protections that must apply to material which attracts legal privilege, and I hope that they will further agree that the revised protections in the Bill reflect the sensitivity of legally privileged material while ensuring that sensitive but potentially vital intelligence remains available to the agencies in very limited circumstances. These final additions to the Bill make it clear that the criteria which apply to a warrant that authorises access to legally privileged material similarly apply to its retention.
I am obliged not only to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in respect of these amendments, but also to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is not in his place today but who has contributed much to the discussions regarding these provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, when the Bill came to this House, legal professional privilege—that is, the right of members of the public to seek and obtain confidential legal advice—was not adequately protected. The Minister and the Bill team have listened to the concerns expressed by the Bar Council, the Law Society and noble Lords on all sides of the House. The Minister has held a number of meetings; he has looked anxiously at these issues with the Bill team and has responded on Report and again today. I am very grateful to him.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I moved amendments at the last stage. Having listened today to the plaudits given to Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place for the constructive way the Bill has been taken forward from when it was first a glimmer in the Government’s eye, I want to add plaudits for the efforts made outside the Palace of Westminster. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the Bar Council—even if not quite everything it wanted has been agreed to—and to the Law Society, whose work on behalf not of lawyers but their clients has been invaluable in this process. It has been heartening to take part in this process, given the outcome, and to see how seriously and carefully the Government and members of the Bill team, for whom I know this has proved something of an intellectual challenge, have dealt with it. We are grateful to the Government.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(3A) If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (3B) applies to the item, the Commissioner may nevertheless impose such conditions under subsection (3)(b) as the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of protecting the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.(3B) This subsection applies to an item subject to legal privilege if—(a) the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege, and(b) retaining the item is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.”
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
“(3A) If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (3B) applies to the item, the Commissioner may nevertheless impose such conditions under subsection (3)(b) as the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of protecting the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.(3B) This subsection applies to an item subject to legal privilege if—(a) the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege, and(b) retaining the item is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.”
Lord Keen of Elie
“(10A) If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (10B) applies to the item, the Commissioner may nevertheless impose such conditions under subsection (10)(b) as the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of protecting the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.(10B) This subsection applies to an item subject to legal privilege if—(a) the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege, and(b) retaining the item is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.”
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
“(10A) If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (10B) applies to the item, the Commissioner may nevertheless impose such conditions under subsection (10)(b) as the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of protecting the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.(10B) This subsection applies to an item subject to legal privilege if—(a) the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege, and(b) retaining the item is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.”
Lord Keen of Elie
“(2A) If the Investigatory Powers Commissioner considers that subsection (2B) applies to the item, the Commissioner may nevertheless impose such conditions under subsection (2)(b) as the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of protecting the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege.(2B) This subsection applies to an item subject to legal privilege if—(a) the public interest in retaining the item outweighs the public interest in the confidentiality of items subject to legal privilege, and(b) retaining the item is necessary in the interests of national security or for the purpose of preventing death or significant injury.”
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
“( ) In sub-paragraph (3) “intercepted material” means—(a) any content of an intercepted communication (within the meaning of section 57), or(b) any secondary data obtained from a communication.”
Lord Keen of Elie
“(3) In paragraph (a) of the definition of “communication” omit “(except in the definition of “postal service” in section 2(1))”.”
Lord Rosser
Let me take this opportunity to say that, while very differing views have been expressed in this House about the Bill, I believe it is accepted that it has benefited significantly from the attention it has been given through pre-legislative scrutiny and investigation, including by a Joint Committee, and during its passage through both Houses. We have now concluded our consideration of the Bill, and I want to take this opportunity to thank Ministers and the Bill team for the thought they have given to the issues that have been raised, including those left outstanding following the Bill’s passage through the Commons. Finally, I want to thank our own team, particularly Nicola Jayawickreme, for all the help and support they have given me and my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
Wales Bill
Monday 31st October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Wales Act 2017 View all Wales Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-I(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 131KB) - (31 Oct 2016)
Lord Wigley
“( ) A referendum under subsection (3) may only be held following a vote in the Assembly in favour of holding a referendum for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3).( ) The rules relating to any referendum held under subsection (3) must be drawn up by the Assembly in cooperation with the Electoral Commission.”
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, this amendment goes to the heart of the Government’s intentions relating to the permanence of the National Assembly. The Bill as it stands contains the words:
“In view of that commitment it is declared that the Assembly and the Welsh Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in a referendum”.
But what is the Government’s intention, and what do they really mean by those words?
I am aware that the introduction of those words follows a similar declaration in relation to Scotland’s Parliament—that it is a permanent part of the governmental system of that country. In Scotland, the demand for that grew from the Scottish assertion of a claim of right: that sovereignty in Scotland comes from the people. That is fundamental to the developments in that country over the past 25 years. It was central, indeed, to the initiative taken by the late John Smith when Labour leader, and it was the background to the Scottish convention which brought the question of a Scottish Parliament back on to the political agenda in the late 1980s.
I believe that this principle should equally apply to the National Assembly. As it was established—and later emphatically confirmed—by referenda of the people of Wales, it is only right that the National Assembly can be abolished only by the democratic vote of the people of Wales.
My amendment deals with the circumstances in which such a referendum can take place. I believe that it would be totally unacceptable if Westminster were to decide, against the wishes of the National Assembly, to hold a referendum on its abolition. That would make a total nonsense of the provisions in Clause 1 about the permanence of the Assembly. It would be a creature only in existence at the behest of Westminster. Equally, if the rules for such a referendum were drawn up by Westminster, there is no knowing what impediments might be contained within them. One has only to think back to the 1979 referendum, with its 40% rule, which meant that on a 50% turnout, there had to be a four-to-one majority in favour of the Assembly for it to be established. That rule applied in Scotland too, where, unlike Wales, there was a majority in favour of the assembly, but it was overruled because of the 40% rule.
My amendment, therefore, does two things. First, it provides that the right and responsibility for holding any such referendum should lie exclusively in the hands of the Assembly itself. Secondly, Amendment 1 provides that the rules for that referendum should be drawn up by the Assembly in co-operation with the Electoral Commission. These two safeguards ensure that this Bill does indeed legislate for the permanence of the Assembly and recognises—as, I think, do all true democrats in this Chamber—that the future of the Assembly should lie in the hands of the people of Wales alone, and not be beholden to the whims and wishes of the Government of the day here in Westminster. As such, this is fundamental to our vision for the status and future of the Assembly. I ask the Government to accept this amendment or, if it is in any way technically deficient, to bring forward their own amendment on Report to reach these objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the submission made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He has adumbrated all the arguments that I can possibly think of in support of this amendment. It goes to the very heart of the question that this is essentially a contract, not inter-institutional in terms of the mechanics of Westminster, but a contract with the people of Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for introducing this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for his contribution. The amendment seeks to define the trigger for a referendum to abolish the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government, and would provide that the rules for such a referendum be drawn up by the Assembly in co-operation with the Electoral Commission. Clause 1 meets the Government’s commitment in the St David’s Day agreement and delivers the Silk commission’s recommendation that it should be recognised that the National Assembly is permanent so long as that is the will of the majority of the people of Wales. New Section A1(3), in Clause 1, states:
“In view of that commitment it is declared that the Assembly and the Welsh Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in a referendum”.
As matters stand, referendums are governed by the law relating to referendums, as passed by this Parliament, and I do not consider that there is any suggestion that that should be varied. The principle in the Bill establishes in statute what is already recognised to be the case—that the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government are permanent parts of our constitutional fabric. The referendum provision strengthens this commitment and delivers on the second limb of the Silk commission’s recommendation. Although there has never been a question about whether these institutions are anything but permanent, it is only right that if they were to be abolished that would have to be on the basis of a decision by the people of Wales. Let me be clear that such a referendum is not envisaged, and so the noble Lord’s amendment deals with entirely hypothetical circumstances. I therefore believe that it is unnecessary. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
Perhaps I may press the Minister to be a little clearer on this matter. Is he telling the House that there are no circumstances in which a Government in Westminster, in this Chamber or the other Chamber, could move to hold a referendum if the National Assembly for Wales were against holding such a referendum? Or is he saying yes, Westminster can pass such a referendum irrespective of the wishes of the National Assembly?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I do not set out the rules on the sovereignty of Parliament. He will be aware, as I am, that very recently we have seen situations that demonstrate the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of this Parliament, so nothing I say could obviate the possibility of a Parliament coming forward subsequently and reversing that. For example, it would be open to any Parliament here to repeal the Government of India Act. That would not be a sensible move and would not be politically realistic, but in terms of the sovereignty of Parliament, of course, that remains the case. This is an important declaratory principle that has not existed previously, indicating the permanence of the institution and the fact that it is the belief of this Parliament that it should not be done without the consent of the people of Wales.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Does the Minister agree that this matter would be caught by the words of new subsection (6) in Clause 2:
“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly”?
In other words, it is the Sewel covenant. The Government would fall foul of that, it seems, if they were to act in a cavalier way.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance on this matter. He is right that this provision gives that convention statutory force but, of course, it does contain the word “normally”; therefore it is still subject to the will of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He is right that in normal circumstances that would be impossible to do.
Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)
I do not wish to anticipate any major contribution that I may have to make on my own amendment on the word “normally” later on, but I do not believe that the Minister has really answered the question from my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who asked whether the Parliament of the United Kingdom could legislate for a referendum on the future of the National Assembly without the consent of the Assembly. It seems to me that if we are legislating, as we are in the Bill, for the convention relating to the legislative consent Motions to be part of Welsh law and devolution law, then surely, in a situation where the future of the Assembly were subject to a referendum, consent should be sought. Or is the Minister allowing a little room for the removal of the Assembly without the consent of its Members?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows me better than to think that that is on my mind at all. I was not the person who brought forward this amendment. I am unable to rewrite the rules on the sovereignty of Parliament; I was merely pointing out the legal position in relation to this. There is a very clear declaration that is consistent with the Silk recommendation which was discussed by the Silk commission. It is not to be anticipated in any way that this Parliament would wish to do anything relating to the National Assembly except celebrate its existence. I make that absolutely clear; it is my position and the position of my party, as the noble Lord knows. I just point out that this cannot overrule the rules of science and of parliamentary sovereignty that exist independently of the amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for his contribution and my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas for his intervention—I nearly said my erstwhile colleague.
Lord Wigley
I will not in this Chamber.
There seem to be two central points that have not been properly resolved. The first relates to a declaratory statement in legislation. I suspect that that is not something regarded as a strong principle in the systems we run because when we start pressing them we find they do not mean much more than the paper they are written on. Of course this place could pass laws that reverse the force of gravity, but they would not mean anything. The question is what they mean by this, especially, as my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas said, in the context of the legislative consent orders required for all the legislation where the Assembly is involved. The Assembly is involved in this legislation because it is the Assembly that would be at stake and which would be involved in the undertaking of the practical aspects of a referendum. The legislation would therefore require a legislative consent order. If the Assembly said no, is the Minister then saying that that would be overruled? If it can be overruled in those circumstances, how does the principle apply in others when the Westminster Government might feel ill disposed towards policies put forward in Cardiff? This needs more clarification than the Minister has given so far. I invite him to clarify it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not sure that it is in order that I respond, but I will happily talk to the noble Lord outside the Chamber and report to other Peers. I have to say to the noble Lord that the declaratory statement was something pushed for by his party. I am very surprised that he then says that this does not have any significance, because his party pressed for it very hard. I would have thought he would welcome it being put in legislation.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful for that addition. Of course there are things that one declares. The question is whether one declares them intending them to have the force of law, which is what we are dealing with here—we are dealing with legislation. I will now go on from that; no doubt we can have a private conversation about it.
I believe that the people of Wales are entitled to know where they stand, in particular about the possibility that, if the going gets rough, Westminster can organise a referendum with a view to abolishing the National Assembly. That is not a good basis on which the Bill should be built. I welcome the declarations made regarding permanence. I was just looking for a way to ensure that that is the position in law, as well as in declaration, but we have probably taken this as far as we are going to this afternoon, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wigley
“PART A2ESTABLISHMENT OF TWO DISTINCT JURISDICTIONSA2 Legal jurisdictions of Wales and of England The legal jurisdiction of England and Wales becomes two legal jurisdictions, that of Wales and that of England.A3 The law of Wales and the law of England (1) The law of England and Wales is divided into the law of Wales and the law of England.(2) All of the law that extends to England and Wales immediately before the coming into force of this section—(a) except in so far as it applies only in relation to England, is to extend to Wales (and becomes the law of Wales), and(b) except in so far as it applies only in relation to Wales, is to extend to England (and becomes the law of England).(3) In this section “law” includes—(a) rules and principles of common law and equity,(b) provision made by virtue of an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament or an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, and(c) provision made pursuant to the prerogative.(4) Any provision of any enactment or instrument enacted or made, but not in force, when subsection (1) comes into force is to be treated for the purposes of that subsection as part of the law that extends to England and Wales (but this subsection does not affect provision made for its coming into force). A4 Senior Courts system (1) The Senior Courts of England and Wales cease to exist (except for the purposes of section A8 (3) and (4)) and there are established in place of them—(a) the Senior Courts of Wales, and(b) the Senior Courts of England.(2) The Senior Courts of Wales consist of—(a) the Court of Appeal of Wales,(b) the High Court of Justice of Wales, and(c) the Crown Court of Wales, each having the same functions in Wales as are exercisable by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.(3) The Senior Courts of England consist of—(a) the Court of Appeal of England,(b) the High Court of Justice of England, and(c) the Crown Court of England,each having the same functions in England as are exercisable by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.(4) For the purposes of this Part—(a) Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England is the court corresponding to the Court of Appeal of Wales and the Court of Appeal of England,(b) Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England is the court corresponding to the High Court of Justice of Wales and the High Court of Justice of England, and(c) the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is the court corresponding to the Crown Court of Wales and the Crown Court of England.(5) Subject to section A9—(a) references in enactments, instruments and other documents to the Senior Courts of England and Wales (however expressed) have effect (as the context requires) as references to the Senior Courts of Wales or the Senior Courts of England, or both; and(b) references in enactments, instruments and other documents to Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England, Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England or the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 (however expressed) have effect (as the context requires) as references to either or both of the courts to which they correspond.A5 County court and family court (1) The county court and the family court cease to exist (except for the purposes of section A8 (3) and (4)) and there are established in place of them—(a) the county court of Wales and the family court of Wales with the same functions in Wales as are exercisable by the county court and the family court (respectively) immediately before this subsection comes into force, and(b) the county court of England and the family court of England with the same functions in England as are exercisable by the county court and the family court (respectively) immediately before this subsection comes into force.(2) For the purposes of this Part—(a) the county court is the court corresponding to the county court of Wales and the county court of England, and(b) the family court is the court corresponding to the family court of Wales and the family court of England. (3) Subject to section A9 references in enactments, instruments and other documents to the county court or the family court (however expressed) have effect (as the context requires) as references to either or both of the courts to which they correspond.A6 Judiciary etc. (1) All of the judges, judicial office-holders and other officers of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England or Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England become judges, judicial office-holders or officers of both of the courts to which that court corresponds.(2) All of the persons by whom the jurisdiction of the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is exercisable become the persons by whom the functions of both of the courts to which that court corresponds are exercisable except that (despite section 8(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981)—(a) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in England may not by virtue of this subsection exercise functions of the Crown Court of Wales, and(b) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in Wales may not by virtue of this subsection exercise functions of the Crown Court of England.(3) All of the judges, judicial office-holders and other officers of the county court become judges, judicial office-holders or officers of the county court of Wales and the county court of England.(4) All of the judges, judicial office-holders and other officers of the family court become judges, judicial office-holders or officers of the family court of Wales and the family court of England except that (despite section 31C(1)(y) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984)—(a) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in England is not a judge of the family court of Wales, and(b) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in Wales is not a judge of the family court of England.A7 Legal professions (1) Every legal practitioner who would (but for this Part) at any time after the coming into force of this Act be entitled to carry on a reserved legal activity for the purposes of the law of England and Wales, in proceedings in England and Wales or before the courts of England and Wales, has at that time the same entitlement for the purposes of the law of England and the law of Wales, in proceedings in England and proceedings in Wales and before the courts of England and the courts of Wales.(2) In this section-“legal practitioner” means every solicitor, barrister, notary, legal executive, licensed conveyancer, patent attorney, trade mark attorney, law costs draftsman, accountant or other person who, in accordance with the Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29), is entitled to carry on a reserved legal activity;“reserved legal activity” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007.A8 Division of business between courts of Wales and courts of England (1) The Senior Courts of Wales, the county court of Wales, the family court of Wales and the justices for local justice areas in Wales are to apply the law extending to Wales (including the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law). (2) The Senior Courts of England, the county court of England, the family court of England and the justices for local justice areas in England are to apply the law extending to England (including the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law).(3) All proceedings, whether civil or criminal, pending in any of the Senior Courts of England and Wales, the county court or the family court (including proceedings in which a judgment or order has been given or made but not enforced) must be transferred by that court to whichever of the courts to which that court corresponds appears appropriate.(4) The transferred proceedings are to continue as if the case had originated in, and the previous proceedings had been taken in, that other court.SupplementaryA9 Power to make further provision (1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision (including provision amending or otherwise modifying any enactment or instrument, including this Act) that appears appropriate in consequence of, or otherwise in connection with, the provision made by this Part.(2) The provision that may be made under subsection (1) includes in particular provision relating to—(a) courts,(b) tribunals,(c) the judges, judicial officers and other members and officers of courts and tribunals,(d) the Counsel General or other law officers,(e) the legal professions,(f) the law relating to the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals, and(g) other aspects of private international law (including, in particular, choice of law, domicile and the recognition and enforcement of judgments and awards).(3) No Order may be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of—(a) each House of the United Kingdom Parliament, and(b) the National Assembly for Wales.””
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to move Amendment 2, which addresses an issue that has been widely debated in Wales: establishing distinct jurisdictions for Wales and for England respectively. I immediately acknowledge that I am not a lawyer by background. It is a matter of regret that Plaid Cymru does not have in this Chamber a Member with in-depth experience in the law. I beg the indulgence of noble Lords, in particular of noble and learned Lords, who are much more knowledgeable than me in these matters.
I also speak to the other amendments grouped with mine. Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, calls for a Justice in Wales commission to reveal whether the existing single jurisdiction of England and Wales should be divided in two, one for Wales and one for England. I shall also speak to Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which calls for a commission on jurisdiction to examine the desirability of a separate and distinct legal jurisdiction in Wales. I await the cases that will be made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord relating to their respective approaches to this matter, but should my amendment for any reason not be accepted, I would certainly regard their amendments as steps in the right direction that I would support.
I accept that there are divided opinions among lawyers on these matters. I suspect that a majority of legal people in this Chamber might not initially warm to my proposals. I ask any doubters to consider that there has already been keen debate on this issue within legal circles in Wales—the range of amendments being debated emanating from different parts of this Chamber bears that out. I ask noble Lords to accept that there are leading legal brains, such as Sir Roderick Evans and Winston Roddick QC, who have long campaigned in favour of Wales having its own jurisdiction. In his memorable Lloyd George memorial lecture in 2008, Winston Roddick stated, “My view is that a devolution settlement, by which the Assembly is given full legislative competence but not the responsibility for the administration of justice, would be dysfunctional, constitutionally unsound and demeaning to Wales’s developing constitutional status”.
In fact, the need to address the divergence between Wales and England was recognised long before primary law-making powers were devolved. In the first four years of devolution over 1,100 statutory instruments were approved by the Assembly. A very large proportion of these were unique to Wales or reflected distinct differences to those pertaining to similar instruments operational in England, with these differences reflecting the different circumstances of Wales. As long ago as 2004 Professor Tim Jones and Jane Williams wrote an article in which they stated that Wales was emerging as a separate jurisdiction that needed to be separately recognised. If that was true then, how much greater is that need now and how much greater again will it be in another five or 10 years?
Notwithstanding the force of these points I feel I should address wider and more general questions in justifying the change that I advocate. One might argue that the separate or distinct jurisdiction requires a defined territory, a law-making body within that territory empowered to make laws for it and a judicial system within it to administer those laws. However, discussion of a separate or distinct Welsh jurisdiction must have regard for the wider UK context. England and Wales, and Scotland and Northern Ireland, have their legal jurisdictions, but none of them is separate in a watertight fashion. The Scottish judicial system enforces laws made in Westminster, as it does laws made in Edinburgh. The same is true of Northern Ireland in the Belfast/Westminster context.
In addition, important elements of the tribunal systems that operate in each jurisdiction are organised on a UK or GB basis and function alongside intra-jurisdictional tribunals. There is also the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which sits at the pinnacle of the judicial system of each jurisdiction. A Welsh jurisdiction would not be separate in an isolationist sense, but would take its place alongside the other jurisdictions of the UK and therefore perhaps the word “distinct” is more appropriate.
A question concerning the difference between separate and distinct jurisdictions might be exercising some noble colleagues, and I understand that. What does it mean in practice? A distinct jurisdiction will consist of a unified court system, encompassing Wales and England, but applying two distinct bodies of law: the law of Wales and the law of England. The infrastructure is therefore in place, minimising costs. A distinct jurisdiction may over time grow into a separate jurisdiction and that will reflect the evolution of our devolved Government.
As I understand it, the case is based on the need for there to be absolute clarity with regard to the legal rectitude of a legislative action taken by the Welsh Government. This will build up over time in terms of the primary and secondary legislation passed, amended and no doubt sometimes annulled by the National Assembly, and by the plethora of court cases that over time will create the interpretive framework for such laws and regulations.
In the earlier years of devolution—the years through which we are living—there will no doubt be lawyers practising in Wales and England who will be able to keep a focused eye on the law and its interpretation on both sides of the border. As the years go by and the volume of relevant legislation accumulates, it will become increasingly difficult to ride both horses without slips and mistakes. In one sense there is already an embryonic Welsh jurisdiction. There are approximately 15 tribunals that function in Wales. I believe that one was actually created by the National Assembly itself. Responsibility for these rests with the Welsh Government.
A Welsh jurisdiction could have whatever structures and institutions it is decided are needed to best serve the interests of Wales. There is no template that has to be followed and a jurisdiction, once created, is not immutable. It can change and develop as needs dictate; for example, the present Northern Ireland jurisdiction is structurally different from that originally set up. Creating a jurisdiction for Wales is having a clean sheet of paper and deciding on what we need at this stage. It is the opportunity to create a structure that meets the demographic, geographic and linguistic needs of Wales and, most of all, its democratic needs in the context of our devolved legislature and its responsibilities.
I will now address the reasons for creating a Welsh jurisdiction. First, the argument cited most often, as I have mentioned, is that Wales is developing a body of law that is different from the law of England, and those differences will increase as devolution progresses. It is a good, valid and attractive argument but it is not the only one and not necessarily the most persuasive. The differences between the laws of Wales and the laws of England are unlikely ever to be fundamental. There are no differences so fundamental between the laws of Northern Ireland or Canada or Australia and, say, England and Wales that a judge could not come to terms with them.
Secondly, the refinement of the “different law” argument into constitutional terms is, to my mind, far more persuasive. The judiciary, as the third pillar of government, needs to be properly in place in Wales to support the progress of devolution and to act in relation to the Welsh Government as the judiciary in London acts in relation to Westminster. I contend that the joint jurisdiction has not served Wales particularly well. Institutions of the law from the courts to prisons have been developed according to templates set to accommodate the large cities of England and not the needs of Wales. The infrastructure of the administration of justice has never been developed on a whole-Wales basis. It is not acceptable that there is, for example, no Crown Court west of Swansea or between Swansea and Caernarfon, and no Crown Court between Merthyr and Mold. County courts and magistrates’ courts have been closed in a way that would be unthinkable if the jurisdiction was run from Cardiff. Wales is able to decide on the siting of its schools and hospitals but not its courts and prisons.
Thirdly, I contend that legal services are an important economic driver and the development of a jurisdiction in Wales would provide a boost to the Welsh economy, which would by no means be limited to the legal professions. Wales is treated for the purposes of the present jurisdiction as a circuit of England, and work from Wales goes to support employment and career structures in England. We need to maximise the opportunities for the brightest of our young people to work in Wales. That is what devolution should be about and it is as relevant in the context of the law as it is in other walks of life.
Fourthly, many positives could grow out of having a Welsh jurisdiction. It would be small and able to react quickly and effectively to the need for change. It could, for example, develop innovative rehabilitation initiatives, which are linked to responsibilities already devolved to Cardiff. The importance of this was recognised by Gordon Brown a few years ago. Following the Good Friday agreement, criminal law was a reserved matter and it continued to be until 2010. In a speech delivered on 16 October 2008, Gordon Brown, then Prime Minister, sought to encourage the Northern Ireland Assembly to seize the opportunities that the devolution arrangements offered, and he said:
“There is something more vital at stake for your entire society, something that only the completion of devolution can deliver. How can you, as an Assembly, address common criminality, low-level crime and youth disorder when you are responsible for only some of the levers for change, and when you have responsibility for education, health and social development but have to rely on Westminster for policing and justice? The people of Northern Ireland look to you to deal with these matters because to them they are important. Full devolution is the way to deliver better services, tailored to the needs of all communities, regardless of the politics. It is the best way for you to serve them”.
The fifth justification I would advance relates to the Welsh language. Although in recent years attitudes towards the use of Welsh in the administration of justice have changed for the better, nearly half a century after the passing of the Welsh Language Act 1967 we still have a system that is fundamentally English and which accommodates the Welsh language only when it has to. Welsh and those who wish to use it remain in an inferior legal position and this is something that we in Wales have to put right. There is a growing call for a distinct jurisdiction for Wales. Recently, a majority of witnesses at the Welsh Affairs Select Committee in the other place recommended that the diverging body of distinct Welsh law could be best served only by this distinct jurisdiction. Lawyers and constitutional experts alike reiterated the case to that committee that to establish a clear and lasting legal settlement for Wales, a distinct legal jurisdiction is necessary. Academic and constitutional expert Professor Richard Wyn Jones summed it up in a pithy and memorable phrase. He said that a Welsh jurisdiction represents,
“the constitution catching up with the legislative reality”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dear)
At this stage, I should advise the Committee that if Amendment 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 3 and 4 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for putting forward his amendment in the form that he has. He has produced a very long and complex amendment to be added to a very long and complex Bill—too long and complex, in the view of many of us. It is interesting that, by doing this in Committee, he did not attempt to do as one normally would when introducing a matter of this complexity: to go through the detail of the proposal he was putting forward and the wording that has been suggested, which he told us originated with the Welsh Government.
I am glad that one of the things the present Government have decided to do is to revert to a system where we have Green Papers, White Papers, draft Bills and pre-legislative scrutiny. That is the proper way to proceed with legislation.
Clearly, it is quite impossible in a short Committee stage in this House to go through any process of that kind, so while I understand why the noble Lord wants to put the case for a separate jurisdiction of this kind, I suggest to him and to the Committee that it cannot possibly be sensible to proceed in the manner he suggests. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, have each tabled amendments which seem to try to place in legislation the working party which has already been established by the Government to look at this matter with calm deliberation and come forward with proposals for the future. That seems a sensible way forward. Translating the undertaking already given by the Government into some form of legislative commitment, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, may well be a possible solution, and I am not coming out against that.
I note that in Committee in the other place the Minister replying on behalf of the Government confirmed that the working group had been established and said that it would report in autumn 2016. We are well into autumn 2016. Surely if there is to be a report, it should be produced to this House during the Committee stage, not when we have completed it.
While I understand the fervour and enthusiasm with which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has advanced his case, it seems to me that he has produced compelling evidence for why we should not proceed in the way that he suggests in this amendment and that we should follow the line set out by the Government in their working party and possibly consider the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to which I have already referred.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My reason for speaking at all is that I had the privilege of sitting in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the first devolution case that came before that court from Wales. I think I was the first judge ever to use the phrase “Welsh law” because it seemed to me, even at that very early stage, that a body of law was in the process of developing which deserved to be recognised as such. For that reason, I am glad to see new Section A2 inserted by Clause 1, which recognises that there is a body of Welsh law. I am entirely in sympathy with that.
I am also broadly in sympathy with the broad thrust of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I have sympathy with him partly because I come from Scotland, which has its own system of law which was guaranteed when we entered into union with England to create the United Kingdom. It was part of the deal between the two countries that the Scots law that had evolved would continue to exist. We had the advantage of our own body of law, which was developed largely with the assistance of jurisprudence in the Netherlands and France. It was a different system of law from that of England. It was recognisably different, and it required different judges. That is not a requirement for the kind of jurisdiction that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is asking us to consider. There is not that kind of difference between Northern Ireland and England; their common law is basically the same. But the fact that they are different jurisdictions recognises the important difference of outlook between these two countries in the way their laws are developed.
Although I have said I am in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, I am bound to say that I find his amendment goes too far and too fast. It is asking us to take an enormous step without any assurance that there exists yet enough Welsh law to justify what would be done and as to whether we have the manpower and womanpower to create the judicial positions being contemplated. My preference, in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, is for Amendments 5 and 10—I am not sure I mind particularly which of them—which would be a step towards considering, in a little more detail and at more leisure, how this matter should be handled. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will of course say, “That’s going to mean another Wales Bill”, but I am afraid that might be the price to pay for moving at the proper pace to make sure that the systems are properly designed. I would like to see a development of that kind, but it needs to be very carefully worked out, bearing in mind all the things that other noble Lords will no doubt say about the difficulty of creating a Welsh Bar, which will provide the essential requirements for the judiciary to develop.
I would also like the Government to consider whether their recognition of the body of Welsh law as the law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers itself goes far enough. I do not have an amendment to that effect, but the fact is that judges help to make the law too. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which after all looks at Wales through the devolution system and has had Welsh lawyers appearing before it, has its own part to play in creating Welsh law, as I attempted to say in my opening remarks. I intervened really to support the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I hope, in a way, to support the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in what they are about to say.
Lord Elis-Thomas
My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and his references both to the concept of Welsh law and to its meaning in the context of this Bill. I also say to him that I suspect there will be many more Wales Bills as a result of this Bill if it goes through in its present form. Our successors will be here debating these matters further.
The point of my small amendment in this group, Amendment 3, is to clarify that the law of Wales is more than what is made in the National Assembly for Wales, or indeed in this place as English and Welsh law, or by the decisions of the judiciary, since law is developed as the noble and learned Lord indicated. In this sense, the Explanatory Memorandum is much more informative than what is in the Bill itself. Paragraph 25 of the commentary on the provisions of the Bill makes it clear that:
“Subsection (1) confirms that there is a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers is … only part of the law that applies in Wales”.
I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made that point: the law of Wales is much broader, both historically and currently, than what is set out in the Bill. It is for that reason that I ask the Government to consider whether they can look for a wording that is more explanatory and of greater legal standing than that which they have currently adopted.
I will also quote, as I often do, my friend and mentor, the Reverend Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin. He told the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, of which I was then a member, in evidence quoted as part of the committee’s report on the Bill:
“My own view is that there is now within the legal system of England and Wales three bodies of law that can be recognised: a body of law that applies only in Wales, a body of law that applies only in England and a body of law that applies in both countries. I think the legal system needs to adapt itself to that new reality, a reality that is growing as the body of law that applies only in Wales and the body of law that applies only in England increase in size”.
Turning again to the issue of jurisdiction, which my noble friend Lord Wigley so clearly set out in the context of his amendment, there is a link between the complexity of the Bill and the move to preserve a single and undifferentiated jurisdiction. It was made clear to us in the Assembly committee, both in a special seminar convened as part of our scrutiny of the Bill and in evidence, as we stated in our report at paragraph 28:
“It is clear to us that the UK Government’s policy to preserve the single jurisdiction has resulted in much of the complexity within the Bill”.
That is why I believe the Government will have to address this issue either tonight, next Monday or on Report. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that the complexity of the Bill is linked to the whole issue of the lack of flexibility on jurisdiction.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, as a former Lord Chief Justice of Wales and England, I want to make just a couple of points. The word “normally” in Clause 2 is a weasel word. It does not mean anything very much in legislative terms. I am perfectly well aware that it is in the Scotland Act, but what is this supposed to mean:
“the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate”?
Who decides what is normal? If the Parliament of the United Kingdom decides, the Assembly is ruled out.
I am particularly concerned about Clause 2 in the context of Clause 53—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, with respect, I think that this is the next amendment.
Lord Judge
The Minister may well be right, but I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, talking about “normal” in the context of Clause 2. At some stage I want to make the point, so perhaps I may just finish making it, because I do not want to take long about it. Please can we look at the matter in the context of Clause 53 and, in particular, Clause 53(6) concerning statutory instruments, powers vested in the Secretary of State, affirmative resolution, and so on:
“unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”?
It totally omits reference to the National Assembly for Wales, yet in Clause 2 we are told that the Government will not normally legislate without the consent of the Assembly. Somewhere along the line, this bridge has to be crossed.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I tabled Amendments 4 and 5 to establish a justice commission for Wales. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I apologise for not having the legal background or brilliance of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Judge, to speak as I would like on the amendments, but I will do my best.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made some relevant and serious points which need to be considered. It is premature to establish a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, but there is without question an issue that needs to be addressed. I shall briefly summarise the background and explain why the commission is needed and what it would achieve.
There is clear consensus among constitutional and legal experts that there is a problem here that must be addressed. The creation of the National Assembly as a legislature with primary legislative powers, operating within a single jurisdiction of England and Wales, creates a situation which will throw up difficulties in the medium to long term. That single legal jurisdiction, to quote from those who have promoted this Bill in the other place, “has served us well”. Yes, it may have done that, but it has served us well in different times. It served us well when the laws that applied across England and Wales were the same laws—when this place was the only legislature that could enact the laws of the jurisdiction. That is no longer the case and has not been for some time.
It is worth emphasising the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. There is no question but that the UK’s Government’s anxiety to protect the joint jurisdiction is the source of many problems in the Bill. We accept that some constraints have been removed, but there remain many reservations and restrictions whose primary purpose is to protect the consistency of law across England and Wales. The problem is that that consistency no longer exists: the horse has already bolted. The reality is that there is already a growing divergence of law which is the inevitable consequence of legislative devolution. The law on education, planning, the environment and social services is now fundamentally different in Wales. Without reform of the jurisdiction to reflect this divergence, there are risks to the rule of law and the administration of justice. By necessity, a single jurisdiction involves a single body of law that extends across its territory. A single jurisdiction implies that the law is the same across that territory. The laws of England and Wales—already vast—must now absorb the increasing divergence between laws that apply only to Wales and those that apply only to England. This is highly complex, so how can we be sure that the citizens will understand the law or even that solicitors, barristers and judges will apply the correct law? This is not a debating point: these are real practical risks and they are increasing.
This issue demands a serious response and the UK Government see no need for concern on the grounds that this single jurisdiction has served Wales well. That misses the point. The shared jurisdiction served Wales well for four and a half centuries when Wales did not have its own legislature. That is no longer the case. The single jurisdiction is out of sync with the way that Wales is governed. It has not caught up with reality. But it is okay, because we have a glimmer of hope. All is going to be fine because the Ministry of Justice has set up a working group—what in Wales we call a committee—of Whitehall officials. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to this. Its birth was not auspicious: it was a party to which the Welsh Government were apparently invited but had not received their invitation. Never mind: it has now met, but we and the Welsh Government are in the dark as to its progress. Will the Minister enlighten us on some key points in relation to that working group? How many meetings has the group held? What engagement has there been with legal practitioners who understand the day-to-day realities of practising law in Wales? What is the work programme and when can we expect to see the report? Will we have it before Report stage?
It is an incredible coincidence that today, when we are debating this, the Welsh Government have received an invitation to the working group’s second meeting. That is great news, but we should be concerned that that progress is not a serious way of demonstrating a commitment to the fundamental importance of this work. This is why we think it is important to bring forward a commission on which the Welsh Government have equal status and to which they are able to bring their expertise and that of those who have real knowledge of the Welsh justice system. We have no confidence that this informal working group will be capable of producing a serious response to the challenges I have outlined. Maybe it will: let us see if we can see something before Report stage. It is important to have a much more credible mechanism for taking this issue forward which will be independent of government and consist of senior judiciary and other practitioners who already have the authority and expertise required. Such a mechanism would provide a forum for developing solutions to problems that cannot be avoided and would be transparent in producing an annual report on progress against an agreed remit.
For all its flaws, one of the positive impacts of this Bill is that we have had to focus our minds on this key issue. It is clear that the single jurisdiction is no longer fit for purpose in its current form. What exactly should come in its place and how it should operate are questions that necessitate detailed analysis of the situation and the evidence of the problems caused. Much thought needs to be given to what is the right way forward. The relevant body should comprise those with most experience of the problems, and legal and constitutional experts adept at finding solutions. These problems will not go away. The proposed commission would provide a mechanism for addressing them. That is the purpose of this amendment. I hope that the Minister will support it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, those of your Lordships who were here at Second Reading will recall that I told the House that when I was in my 20s and full of ambition and great principle, I thought that it was necessary, when drafting a Bill for the parliament of Wales back in 1967, to have a separate Welsh jurisdiction to determine the laws that that parliament would pass. As I indicated at Second Reading, I have changed my view; I think it is a matter of complete practicality. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who said that the joint jurisdiction has not served Wales well. There is no joint jurisdiction. There is a single jurisdiction and it has operated over four centuries to provide the same standard of justice in Wales as in England. When he was called on to give an example of where it goes wrong, he talked about courts, as though a Welsh parliament would create new Crown Courts west of Swansea or in mid-Wales and would have the funds, judicial power and practitioners to man such a system. It is purely a practical question. To demonstrate that, I quote from the noble Lord’s amendment. Under the heading “A6 Judiciary”, the amendment states:
“All of the judges, judicial office-holders”,
and others,
“become judges … of both … courts”—
that is, the existing judges would continue to operate in both England and Wales. The amendment then proposes:
“All of the persons by whom the jurisdiction of the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is exercisable become the persons by whom the functions of both of the courts to which that court corresponds”.
In other words, practitioners and judges in criminal courts could operate in both England and Wales. Where is the separate jurisdiction in that? Proposed new Section A6(3) states that all the existing judges and others should become judges in the courts of both England and Wales. The same situation is proposed for family courts and the legal profession. Therefore, the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is that existing judges and practitioners should operate in the courts of both countries. How could that be possible if there were such a distinct and arcane system of Welsh law that only Welsh practitioners could understand it? Lawyers are accustomed to dealing with separate parts of the law, whether it is Welsh law, administrative law, the law relating to trusts or whatever. Practitioners and judges deal with differences between the laws passed by the parliament in Wales and those passed by the Parliament in England. There is no problem with judges doing precisely that. At the moment an Administrative Court sits in Wales and deals with legislation passed by the Welsh Assembly quite adequately—the Lord Chief Justice and an old friend of mine, Mr Justice Wyn Williams, sat in such a case last week—and no problem arises from that. However, the hare has been started, and for that reason I have advanced, as a matter of practicality, my Amendment 10.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, with all the Celtic fervour that I can muster. The principle is undoubtedly a proper one, but the technicality is narrow. Some arguments turn upon the existence of Welsh law—its distinctive character—and they are not without their merit. However, that to my mind is not the issue, which is the juxtaposition of a parliamentary jurisdiction and a court jurisdiction. I would go so far as to say that there is something wrong with the constitutional geometry of the situation where more than one parliament operates within the sphere of one legal jurisdiction. That is the essence of it.
Even if there was no difference whatever between Welsh and English law in this matter—and we know there is—it would still be the case, parliaments having the inimitable bent to go their own way, that to have two or more parliaments operating within a single jurisdiction was wrong. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, say that he doubted whether there was any situation in the whole world where that is so, but I ask the Minister—not perhaps in his ministerial capacity but in his capacity as a very distinguished professor of law—whether in any democratic system in the world there is an instance of two parliaments operating within a single legal jurisdiction.
Having said that, I appreciate that there are difficulties, and I have profound respect for what has been said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Judge. A great deal has already been started and been done. The Administrative Court has been referred to and it is undoubtedly a success. In addition—I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, had a great deal to do with this—the civil and criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal were given every encouragement to meet in Wales, and they did so on many occasions.
There are many trends of that kind; nevertheless, the basic problem still has to be met. We have already heard of the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey have their own parliaments and their own jurisdictions. As a matter of legal purity, there should never be a situation where more than one parliament operates within one jurisdiction. Having said that, I appreciate that there are practical difficulties.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, I joined the Wales and Chester circuit of the Bar 45 years and two months ago. I went to chambers in Chester, where my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford was already well established, and I confess that I learned a great deal from him, almost all of it good. It is therefore with a good deal of pleasure that I rise to support his amendment.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in his aspirations for Welsh institutions, but I fear that I have to come to the same conclusion as my noble friend Lord Thomas—that what he proposes is not needed and nor would it work. Speaking only for myself, I suspect, I have long been in favour of the creation of a separate Wales division of the High Court to cover civil and criminal proceedings. Although a great deal has been done, which I shall mention in a moment, we still do not quite have that formal division. In my view, that would be an excellent measure, well understood, and it would possibly allow Wales to have some appointments that would be appropriate to such a division, such as a presidency of the division—there are presidents of the other divisions of our senior courts. I think that that would be met with approval throughout the legal profession in Wales, although, as I shall set out in a moment, it is not necessarily those in the legal profession who are the right people to decide these things.
I join in the tribute that has been paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who as Lord Chief Justice did a great deal to give the Welsh jurisdiction an identity which previously it had not had for several hundred years. Of course, as I think my noble friend said at Second Reading—I have certainly heard him say it in your Lordships’ House—there used to be a chief justice of Wales. Indeed, he and I appeared at the Chester city quarter sessions, in the building of which there is a large portrait of a former chief justice of Wales—the well-known Lord Jeffreys or Judge Jeffreys. He is not necessarily the best precedent for such an appointment; nevertheless, there is that precedent. There could be a president of a Wales division, although not in a Jeffreys-like way—who, by the way, was not half as bad as history has made him out to be. Of course I will give way to my noble friend.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Your Lordships will appreciate that I was born in Acton on the Jeffreys estate.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am delighted to hear that. My noble friend’s sense of justice certainly does not in any way imitate that of Lord Jeffreys of the Bloody Assizes.
However, what I am suggesting is that the presidency of a Wales division of the High Court would have real attractions within Wales.
I would also like—I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, would associate himself with this—to praise the actions of the current Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who was born in south Wales and has frequently reminded us of that fact. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has evolved what was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and given further credibility to the respect that is given to Wales as a jurisdiction where relevant and appropriate.
One group who have hardly been mentioned in this debate is the poor old litigants who go to law in Wales. I had the great privilege of representing Montgomeryshire as its Member of Parliament for 14 years. It sits on a long stretch of the Welsh border. It is quite common for a customer to walk into an estate agent in, say, Llanfyllin, and negotiate the purchase of a property in another branch of that estate agency in Shrewsbury. It is very common—I may have done it myself—to go and look at a new car in Welshpool, but negotiate the price of that new car with somebody in Shrewsbury or some other English town. It is important for Wales that we develop as strong a financial services industry and venture capital industry in Wales as possible, but we need those English and foreign investors who want to take part in such transactions to have the confidence that they work in a predictable legal environment.
This is my final example, although I could give dozens. We need to be sure that those who face a trading standards dispute that arises with a company that operates both in Wales and in England are not faced by someone like myself scratching their expensive head in chambers and saying, “Oh, we’ve got a private international law issue here; a conflicts of law issue on which I will have to write you an extremely learned opinion”—at whatever my hourly rate for the time being happens to be. I do not think that we should inflict those disputes and problems on litigants. Inevitably, that is what would happen after time.
There are many common law jurisdictions around the world and they of course pay enormous respect to the decisions of what was formerly the House of Lords and is now the Supreme Court, and pay lower levels of respect to senior courts as you go down the hierarchy of courts. But inevitably there would be judgments in a separate Welsh jurisdiction that would be inconsistent with judgments in the English jurisdiction or any other common law jurisdiction such as the Scottish jurisdiction—which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, knows, has a different origin—or for that matter the jurisdiction in Northern Ireland.
While I would not wish to leave things necessarily as they are and I welcome the proposal made by my noble friend of a detailed and one-off review, creating a completely separate set of law for Wales would be to turn the clock backwards rather than forwards and would have damaging effects on potential litigants in Wales and on the economy of Wales
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, we are present at one of the most unusual occasions that I can remember. This is an occasion on which lawyers almost universally want to have a less complicated system in which they are less able to find reasons for charging people more money for doing more work. As the House knows, I have a particular penchant for intervening in debates that are largely among lawyers because it is important that they should not be allowed to have unique control over the way in which the law is worked. It therefore pains me to say that I am entirely on the side of the well-argued case put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He has explained exactly why there was no need to go down this route.
However, there is one thing that I hope my noble friend will help me with. I do not understand why the Government have set up a working party at this point which it appears will not report in a way that can help this House and which appears to be dilatory in the invitations it has issued. My concern reflects a point raised by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell: this House deserves better. I would like to know what the working party concludes. It would be easier for us to make proper decisions were the working party to give us its information before we make them. The reason I have risen to speak is not only because of my long-standing interest in Welsh affairs but because this House is very often treated rather poorly by the system. If we are to do the job of careful examination of Bills properly, we should have the information beforehand and not be told that there is a working party which will report afterwards. By then we will have missed the opportunity of being informed and doing our job properly.
I hope that my noble friend will not take it amiss, but this is a case which I have had to raise constantly in this House because it has become something of a habit not just of this Government but of previous Governments—to suggest that because they are having discussions, it does not count that we cannot have discussions as a result of their discussions. Discussions between civil servants, however noble, are not the same as discussions between parliamentarians, so we ought to have the information before we finalise our views.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to make a brief point which I believe will be of practical importance. Some three years ago I gave evidence to the Constitutional Committee of the Welsh Assembly. It was my view that while there was undoubtedly a growing body of Welsh legislation the time was not yet ripe to deal with it in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. There will come a time when we will have to grapple with it but it is certainly not a matter of urgent importance now and there are serious practical points of difficulty in moving in that way.
I say this against the background that much has been done in an administrative way; I join in the tributes paid to the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who moved so much of the work of the higher courts to Wales, followed by the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The work has been done and it has met many of the problems, one of which is that more cases of this kind should be set down in Wales. The process should start there as opposed to being started in London.
The serious issue is the consolidation of legislation already passed by the Welsh Assembly. Over the years that the Assembly has been in existence, Act after Act has been passed, particularly during the most recent period. Any practitioner, be they in Wales or in England, who has to advise a client in Wales on a matter arising in Wales concerning property, employment and so on has to turn up a whole host of literature in order to give proper and responsible advice, otherwise he will be accused of being negligent. I hope that before it is too late the Welsh Assembly will use its powers and resources to consolidate the existing legislation and thus make it easier for practitioners and ordinary litigants.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation among so many distinguished lawyers to make two brief points about the argument we have been having. The Government have acknowledged that there is a problem by setting up this working party, but I am not persuaded that they have done anything other than offer the working party as a sop to those who are concerned about this issue. If the working party was going to be rigorous and reach any kind of useful conclusion for us, it would have met several times by now. Otherwise it is up to the Government to say to us today that it will not be reporting this autumn but, rather, at some point in the distant future because it has discovered that there is a great deal of work to do. I therefore support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Thomas because I believe that three years is a reasonable timescale for a commission to look rigorously and thoroughly at all the aspects of this.
I also endorse the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. The consolidation of Welsh law is becoming increasingly urgent. I know that the Minister is aware of it, having been a Member of the Welsh Assembly. Because the Assembly puts things on its website on the internet, they are not available in the printed format in which most law is available. People can find it difficult and complex to seek out legislation in order to find out which is the most recent version of the law. That issue needs to be discussed. Moreover, something that no one has mentioned so far in the debate is EU law, much of which has been incorporated into Welsh Assembly legislation. Once we have the great repeal Bill, I would ask the Minister how it is anticipated that this will be recognised within the single jurisdiction and whether the working party is considering the issue of EU law.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate on what is clearly an important matter. I turn first to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who put his case very passionately, as he always does. He addressed some of the important issues in this. Perhaps I may make several points, the first of which relates to a matter he raised and which, I think, was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The administration of the courts is quite separate, I think, from the issues of the actual sources of law and separate jurisdiction. The second point I would put to him and indeed to other noble Lords is that to some extent this is a question of semantics. We can say now that we have a separate jurisdiction because we have separate arrangements in relation to Wales. That is undoubtedly the case and some of them are already in place. So I appreciate the points that are being made, but there are shades of grey here. It is not as if it is all or nothing or as if separate arrangements are not being made for Wales now in relation to cases and judicial process; that is certainly the case.
I should also say that what the noble Lord is putting forward represents a massive change which I do not think is necessary. If you speak, as I have done, to people in the law schools of Wales and ask them how many students are actually opting to study devolved law as it is at the moment, you will find that it is a handful. I was stunned because I thought that far more would do so. I do not say that with any pleasure, but it is an indication of the fact that this is an evolving situation and as things stand we do not really have a pressing need for a separate jurisdiction in the way that he has talked about. I do not think that that is the case. Having spoken to practitioners and independent members of the Silk commission, I know that they, too, believe that there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The law schools of Wales recruit students not only from England but from overseas, which is a massive market for them. I know that the noble Lord would not want to jeopardise that. Practitioners, too, talk about the importance of the legal system that we have at the moment. That was exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in talking about the porous nature of the border and the fact that we have to recognise that.
It is right that the working party has met only once so far—I think that it is in Cardiff as we speak and is meeting legal practitioners and lawyers tomorrow. That was not suddenly set up; one cannot suddenly issue invitations in that way. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, was right to say that there is a forthcoming meeting—I think that it is on 7 November, although I am not absolutely certain of that date. The Welsh Government are invited to it, as they were to the first meeting—I think that they attended the first meeting, but I stand to be corrected on that . I will endeavour to ensure that ahead of Report—I will come back to the question of Report in a minute—noble Lords have a summary or details of what has happened so far and of the people on the working party.
All I can say about Report is that we do not know when it will be. I was rightly pressed to say that we would not get to Report because of the need for an LCM from Cardiff. I am not a magician; I cannot say with absolute certainty when Report will be, but I will endeavour to ensure that insofar as we have information, noble Lords are apprised of it as soon as possible and ahead of Report.
Turning to points made by others, I am grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell on the complex and detailed nature of the proposal, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who spoke of sympathy with the general point but acknowledged that we are not at this stage in a situation of wanting a separate jurisdiction. We need to ensure that separate arrangements exist for cases that have a Welsh dimension and that practitioners and judges are steeped in Welsh law if such cases involve Welsh law. I accept that and we are looking at it. I take the point that we should look at this matter on a continuing basis, because it is right that it is an evolving picture. I do not think that we are currently at the stage of wanting a separate jurisdiction, but we need those separate legal arrangements and to make sure that the interests of Welsh litigants, Welsh witnesses, Welsh practitioners and Welsh law schools are all taken care of.
I will take away the points made about the commission. I do not think that a statutory commission is the right answer, but we need a body that looks at this matter on an ongoing basis—I have sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that it is an evolving picture. I have sympathy, too, with the points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about the sources of Welsh law. I shall take those away and reflect on them before Report.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who has vast experience not just of Wales but of the law, for his comments about the need for administrative arrangements and the consolidation of legislation—it was a point well made. My noble friend Lord Deben assured me that he was not being mischievous in putting forward his point; I did not think for a minute that he was. It is absolutely right that we need the evidence from the working party ahead of Report. As I have said, we know that Report is a little way ahead because of the need for an LCM from the Welsh Government before we can proceed, so I hope that we have that in place. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, speaks with great experience, both judicial and political. I take his point about the symmetry of a separate judicial system where one has a separate Parliament and can understand his cri de coeur as a Welshman, but, as he rightly said, we have to recognise that we need to address practical issues in relation to ensuring proper protection for Welsh practitioners, As to Welsh students and Welsh lawyers, we want the best Welsh lawyers to be able to serve in Wales rather than be encouraged over the border because they feel that a separate system has been set up. All those points need to be taken into account and I do not want to shy away from them in any way. We have to do what is right for Welsh law, but, as I have said, it is an evolving picture at the moment rather than one that demands a separate jurisdiction. With the assurances that I have given, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful to the large number of colleagues who have participated in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Elis-Thomas, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Elystan-Morgan, Lord Carlile and Lord Deben; the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope, Lord Judge and Lord Morris of Aberavon; and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Ely and Lady Randerson. A common thread that appeared to run through it was a recognition that, in the Minister’s own words, we have an evolving situation. It is a situation that is under scrutiny by virtue of the body that is looking into the matter. As the Select Committee on the Constitution, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is a member, reported last week, there is a need for the Government to keep a constant eye on this evolving situation to see how it is working out. As the Silk commission recognised, there may be a need in due course for a change in law to accommodate the structures that are necessary so that there is a system working in Wales that reflects our own legislation and growing body of law. To the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who cited cases, I say that, irrespective of the complexity of crossing the border, decisions will be taken within the framework of one set of laws or the other. The body of law in Wales is there; it is growing and it will continue to grow. Therefore the need to accommodate it will be there, however it is done. It may not be possible to do it by virtue of my proposals here, although the Welsh Government have also supported it. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, recognised, there is a need for a perhaps one-off review along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, proposes in her amendment. In other words, there is a general acceptance that it will need to be accommodated.
I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House that if it is not possible to do it within the framework of this Bill, as it seems it will not be, given the timescale for Report, the Government will be open to the possibility—if legislation is needed, and as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said—of further Wales Bills. I would rather that this could be dealt with now, but there may be a need to legislate by virtue of the facts that have been presented to this Committee. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that we are the only place in the world that will have its own separate legislature but not its own system of jurisdiction to run in parallel with it, was not refuted. That must tell us something, and it should inform us, as experience unrolls in Wales with regard to the workings of the Assembly and the body of our law, that we may need to do something about it. I hope the fact that it has been raised today will serve to ensure that a focus is kept on these issues and is not allowed to die away, and that at the appropriate time—and there will come a time when this needs to be acted on—there will be no shying away from the needed legislation if that is what best serves Wales and these islands generally. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
NHS Funding
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will repeat as a Statement the response given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to an Urgent Question in another place on NHS finances.
“Mr Speaker, compared to five years ago, the NHS is responsible for a million more over-75s. In five years’ time there will be another million. Our determination is to look after each and every NHS patient with the highest standards of safety and care, but there is no question that the pressures of an ageing population make this uniquely challenging. I therefore welcome the chance to remind the House of this Government’s repeated commitment to support the NHS. The NHS budget has increased in real terms every year since 2010. NHS spending has increased as a proportion of total government spending every year since 2010 and was 10.1% higher per head in 2014-15 in real terms than when we came to office. The OECD says that our spending is 10% higher than the OECD average for developed countries and, at 9.9% of GDP, it is about the same as other western European countries, for which the average is 9.8%.
Given the particularly challenging current circumstances, however, in 2014 the NHS stepped back and for the first time put together its own plan for the future. It was an excellent plan, based on the principle that because prevention is better than cure, we need to be much better at looking after people closer to or in their homes instead of waiting until they need expensive hospital treatment. The plan asked for a minimum of an £8 billion increase in NHS funding over five years. It asked for this to be frontloaded to allow the NHS to invest in new models of care up-front. Following last year’s spending review, I can confirm to the House that the NHS will in fact receive an increase of £10 billion in real terms over the six years since the Five Year Forward View was published. In cash terms, that will see the NHS budget increase from £98.1 billion in 2014-15 to £119.9 billion in 2020-21—a highly significant rise at a time when public finances are severely constrained by the deficit this Government regrettably inherited.
Because the particular priority of the NHS was to frontload the settlement, £6 billion of the £10 billion increase comes before the end of the first two years of the spending review, including a £3.8 billion real terms’ increase this year alone, something that represents a 52% higher increase in just one year than the party opposite was promising over the lifetime of this Parliament”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that, but I am afraid that his attempt to gloss over the real story of the Government’s manipulation of NHS funding figures simply will not wash. The Government have been found out by the considerable and Conservative chairman of the Health Select Committee, Dr Sarah Wollaston. She has pointed out that the so-called extra £10 billion can be arrived at only through significant manipulation of the figures, including an extra year in the spending review period, changing the date from which the real terms’ increase is calculated, and disregarding the total health budget.
The Nuffield Trust pointed out in a report this morning that the £8 billion figure—which is the real figure, not the £10 billion figure—
“has been flattered by redefining what counts as ‘the NHS’. In the past, the government used to count NHS spending as the entire Department of Health budget for England. Now it only counts the subset of that spending that comes under the control of the department’s commissioning arm, NHS England. Only ‘NHS England’ is protected with ‘real-terms increases’ while the rest of Department of Health spending will be cut by £3 billion by 2020-21”.
Therefore, not only is the £10 billion or £8 billion a wild exaggeration: but the fact is that the NHS is facing an acute funding crisis, wholesale rationing of services and the denial of life-enhancing medicines to many patients.
I would like to put three points to the Minister. First, I see that he quoted OECD figures, but looking at the latest OECD per-capita spend on health, I note that 18 countries in the OECD group have a higher GDP spend on health than we do in this country. Can he confirm that, compared to any country of equally sizeable wealth, we have fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer beds and less access to medicines and new medical equipment?
Secondly, when the Minister says that the £8 billion was what the NHS asked for, can he confirm that the NHS did not ask for £8 billion, but indeed took no part in any discussions? There were discussions with NHS England, which is a government-appointed quango and is not the National Health Service. Can he also confirm that, in negotiations, the Government themselves—including the Treasury—told the chief executive of NHS England that £8 billion was the maximum amount that he could call for?
Finally, on the five-year forward plan—the underpinning of it by sustainability and transformation plans—can the noble Lord confirm that first analysis shows that swingeing reductions are to be made in acute care without any guarantees that community and other services will be put in their place to reduce demand on acute services?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I will try to respond to those last three points. First, the noble Lord is right: the NHS is—and I would regard it still as—the highest-value healthcare system in the world. It does have fewer doctors and MRI machines—however you want to measure it—compared to many other OECD countries, but its outcomes, on the whole, are very good. I can, therefore, certainly confirm that the NHS is a very high-value healthcare system. As far as the involvement of the NHS in the plan is concerned, it was very much put together by the NHS and signed by all of the arm’s-length bodies at the time. This is a quote from Simon Stevens about the spending round settlement:
“This settlement is a clear and highly welcome acceptance of our argument for frontloaded NHS investment. It will help stabilise current pressures on hospitals, GPs, and mental health services, and kick-start the NHS Five Year Forward View’s fundamental redesign of care”.
This brings me to my last point, the fundamental redesign of care. That was possibly not really recognised at the time of the NHS review, because it is a fundamental redesign of care. As the noble Lord said, it means moving resources away from acute settings into community settings, very much as mental health care was restructured 20 or 25 years ago.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Secretary of State said that there were going to be another million over-75 year-olds in five years’ time, and I very much hope that I am going to be one of them. May I give the noble Lord a couple of other statistics? The King’s Fund quarterly monitoring report found that, for each month in the first quarter of this year, there were an additional 54,000 attendances at A&E departments and 14,200 emergency hospital admissions compared to the same time last year. All these emergencies are no way to run a health service.
The noble Lord and the Secretary of State pray in aid the five-year forward view as if it were a statement of fact. It is a plan; it is an aspiration, and at the time it was written, the hole in the funding of the NHS was not £4.5 billion, as the Select Committee says has been given to the health service; it was not £8 billion or £10 billion: it was £30 billion. The Government gave about a third of it and suggested, through the five-year forward aspirational plan, that the rest could be done by efficiencies. We have the STPs, which are supposed to find those efficiencies. We have heard many times in this House over the last few weeks about the shortcomings of those, so when will the Government respond to my right honourable friend Norman Lamb when he calls for a cross-party commission on proper funding of social care and the health service?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be here well past the age of 75, and that there are many years to come before she reaches that age.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: for many elderly people, the worst way to be treated, frankly, is to be blue-lighted in an ambulance into an A&E department of a very busy acute hospital. The whole purpose of the five-year forward view is to deliver care to many more such people outside. I think we all agree with that. The noble Baroness’s party, like ours, agreed with the £8 billion of extra government spending over the course of this Parliament, and accepted the fact that very significant efficiencies could be generated from the NHS. We still subscribe to that view, and the STPs will be the right vehicle for delivering many of them.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, the Minister rightly referred to the realities that are required of a fundamental redesign of care. The point has just been made, and was made in the report from the House of Commons this morning, that that must include looking, at last, at the connection between social services budgets and the health service budget. This is one of the major factors. It will not solve all the problems, but it is a critical point that Government after Government have ignored for the last 20 years.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I entirely agree with the comments made by the noble Lord. We have to integrate health and social care to a much greater extent. We also have to integrate healthcare: healthcare is delivered in silos and is highly fragmented around the country, and that comes out of the same budget, so he is absolutely right. However, we have to recognise that another massive reorganisation between social care and healthcare could be highly disruptive. The great beauty of the STP process is that people in local areas—local authorities, health providers and commissioners—are sitting around tables coming up with plans for their local areas.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is only by virtue of the 2012 Act that NHS England is an independent body, able to express, on behalf of the NHS, a plan for the future, and that this would not have been possible otherwise? Will he further confirm that the coalition Government, in the last Parliament, met their promise to increase the NHS budget in real terms, year on year, but that that promise applied to an NHS budget that included public health and NHS education and training? The NHS’s future sustainability requires a more preventive approach and increased numbers of domestically trained NHS staff.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I entirely agree with my noble friend that the independence of NHS England has been very important. Had the NHS plan been developed by politicians it would have had a lot less credibility. I entirely agree that prevention and public health are hugely important, but of course it takes a long time for public health initiatives to have an impact, so I do not think that any reductions in them in the last two years will have any major impact over the five-year period. Clearly, it will have an impact over a longer period. As for the changes to Health Education England, those savings have largely been generated by moving from a bursary system for nurses to a loans system, which will actually deliver more nurses and therefore help to deliver the five-year forward view.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister saying that there are no financial pressures on the NHS? If he is, that is contrary to every piece of evidence that the House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-Term Sustainability of the NHS has heard. Furthermore, it is the lack of a settlement in social care that is killing healthcare. Is it not time that we had a new settlement for both healthcare and social care that is sustainable in the long term?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I acknowledge that there is tremendous pressure on all parts of the health service and in social care, but if there is not pressure, there will not be change. Getting the radical, fundamental change we need in the health service will not be achieved if we just pour more money into the existing system: we have to have change.
Improving Lives: Green Paper
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in another place.
“This Government are determined to build a country that works for everyone. That means an economy that serves the interests of ordinary working people. It means a society where everyone has an opportunity to go as far as their talents can take them, regardless of their background. As part of that, it means creating a country where a disability does not dictate the path a person is able to take in life.
Under successive Governments, we have made good progress in improving the lives of disabled people. Laws have been changed, old attitudes have been challenged and understanding has improved. More disabled people are in work; 500,000 more than just three years ago. That is encouraging but we need to build on that progress and do more to help disabled people reach their full potential.
It is clear that for many disabled people the barriers to entering work are still too high, and that people in work who get ill too often fall out of work, lose contact, lose confidence and do not return to work. The impact extends far beyond the individual. Families suffer, the health service faces extra strain and employers lose valuable skills. Most of all, it is a human tragedy. Potential is left unfulfilled and lives are lessened. Of course, the health and welfare systems must support those who will never be able to work, too. They should offer the opportunity of work for all those who can, provide help for those who could and care for those who cannot. It is the help for those who could that, through this Green Paper, we will transform.
First, on the welfare system, in 2010 we inherited a broken system with few incentives to move from welfare to work. Too many of our fellow citizens were simply taken off the books and forgotten about. Since then, we have brought control and the right values back to the system. I want to recognise my right honourable friend, the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, for his passion and conviction over the last six years to make that a reality. We have ensured that work always pays, through reforms such as universal credit, while ensuring a strong safety net for those who cannot work. Spending on disabled people will be higher every year of this Parliament than in 2010, but we need to continue to review and reform the system based on what we know works.
One of those areas is the level of personalised and tailored support someone gets when they fall out of work. In the last 12 months, half of all people who attended a work capability assessment were deemed too ill to work, or even prepare for work, at that time. They then routinely receive no employment support at all. It is not surprising then that each month only 1% of people eligible for employment and support allowance after an assessment leave. This benefit was meant to help people back into work; the statistics show that it is not living up to that original aim.
We will build on the success of universal credit and provide more personalised employment support by consulting on further reform of the work capability assessment. We will also introduce a new personal support package for disabled people, providing better-tailored support, including a new “health and work conversation” between someone on ESA and their work coach, focusing on what they can do, rather than what they cannot. We will recruit around 200 community partners into jobcentres, to bring in expertise from the voluntary sector, and we will give young people with limited capability for work the opportunity to get valuable work experience with employers. These are practical steps and support that the welfare system will provide for disabled people.
Turning to the health sector, this Green Paper marks a new era in joint working between the welfare and health systems, between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health. This is about recognising that work and meaningful activity can promote good health, so we will work with Health Education England, Public Health England and others to make the benefits of work an ingrained part of the training and health workforce approach. We will also review statutory sick pay and GP fit notes to support workers back into their jobs faster and for longer. It is also about transforming the way services join up. We will be consulting on how best to do this, as well as boosting existing joint services. For example, we are more than doubling the number of employment advisers placed in talking therapies services. It is right that we focus on services such as these, as mental health conditions, together with musculoskeletal conditions, are behind many people falling out of work.
However, this is not a challenge for government alone, so, finally, I want to turn to the role of employers. Employers have so much potential power to bring about change, not just in their recruitment strategies, but in how they support their employees. We need all businesses—small or large, local, national or global—to use that power to deliver change. The fact is that as well as being good for health, it makes good business sense: sick pay for workers who get ill costs business £9 billion a year.
Businesses are leaders in innovation and transformation. We need to harness that positive power of business to promote disability awareness, so we will create a Disability Confident business leaders’ group to increase employer engagement in looking after the health and well-being of their employees and opening up opportunities to them. Now is the moment for every business to take a proper look at the relationship between work and health and what it means for their business and productivity.
Over the coming months, we will be talking with disabled people and those who have health conditions. We will be talking to carers, families, professionals, and a range of organisations that are so important to getting this right, and which, like us, want to see further change. Together, through this Green Paper and building on our work since 2010, we intend to deliver just that: to improve the way the welfare system responds to real people with health conditions; to see employers step up and play their part; to see work as a health outcome; and to see a culture of high ambition and high expectations for the disabled people of this country”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, although it is a Statement that is, frankly, thinner than we would have hoped.
We support the ambition to halve the disability employment gap, the clear pathway to its attainment, and the proposition that we have debated on endless occasions that there should be work for those who can, support for those who could and care for those who cannot. That has characterised labour market approaches from several Governments over recent times. I found on my shelf a booklet entitled Improving Health and Work: Changing Lives, from 2008, at about the time the Minister was an adviser to the then Labour Government. We have a shared ambition and recognition of those issues. The challenge is to convert the intent into policy and the policy into action that can be delivered. That needs resourcing. I do not think the Minister said much about the cost of his proposals; it would be good if he could give us an indication.
There was a suggestion that too many people were taken off the books, as I think was the expression, in 2010, but that does not give proper credit to the work undertaken at that time. There was a gradual realisation of the importance of the Waddell and Burton thesis, which characterised much of the work of the Labour Government, the coalition Government and this Government.
So far as the welfare measures are concerned, we have not seen the detail, but we can see the innate merit of a personalised support package for disabled people. As for community partners, can we know the basis on which they are likely to be allocated across jobcentres? I think the figure was 200 of them; I guess they would be spread fairly thinly across those centres. The Minister said there is to be a consultation on further reforms to the WCA. Can we hear a little more about the thrust of this consultation and what it will entail?
So far as health is concerned, we had a revolution announced—a new era: there will be some joint working between the Department of Health and the DWP. Of course, that is to be welcomed. The idea of ingraining the concepts of work and health in training is something that again we can see the merits of and would support. We certainly would need to understand the basis of any review of SSP and the fit note, which has had a patchy existence since it was changed from the sick note, but the underlying concept that it should focus on what can be done, rather than on what cannot, is right and something we would support.
The Minister asserted that universal credit always makes work pay. Would he care to write to us on that proposition with the evidence, taking account of the work of the Resolution Foundation and its recent pronouncements on it, and the cuts to the work allowance? Universal credit started life with a very clear ambition to do exactly what the Minister said. Successive cuts to the programme have certainly impaired that ambition and that outcome. We should be clear on the basis of the Government’s assertion that work will always pay.
Finally, the Disability Confident business leaders’ group seems a worthwhile development. We need to understand how it would be funded and the extent to which individuals would engage.
We see in the Statement a good deal of consultation, further work and quite proper engagement with a range of people, particularly disabled people themselves and their carers, but that is a long way from having a clear, funded policy to make a real difference to the lives of the people we are talking about today.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches are pleased to finally see this Green Paper. It has been delayed time and again and many of us were wondering whether it would ever see the light of day.
Reducing the disability employment gap is a worthy aim. There are many people with disabilities whose skills and talents are not utilised. Working with employers to ensure that they recognise the benefits to their businesses of employing disabled people is vital for both the health and well-being of those disabled people who are able to work, and for our economy as a whole.
The move to reform the work capability assessment is an overdue step in the right direction. However, at its heart the structure of the WCA remains fatally flawed. This is in part because of a failure to assess what types of jobs may be available to claimants, and whether they can find such jobs within their skill set and in their local area. I therefore ask the Minister whether, in reforming the system, he will look to create a process that assesses not just whether a claimant is fit to look for a job but whether the jobs available are fit for the claimant.
I also impress upon the Minister the importance of conducting a fundamental overhaul of the system. Tweaking at the edges is unhelpful. Sick and disabled people have little confidence in the WCA, rendering it unworkable. This is particularly important given the incredible mental pressure that the lack of trust in the system puts on claimants, many of whom already suffer from mental ill health. I suggest the Minister seeks to restore confidence as a priority.
On the Government’s plans for helping those disabled people who can work back into work, we welcome the creation of a business leaders group. However, will the Minister look at rewarding the best practice of businesses that are good employers of people with disabilities? For example, Liberal Democrats have proposed that those employers who meet a strengthened version of the two-tick system for mindful employers of employees with mental health conditions are able speedily to access funding, such as Access to Work. It is important that those employers who have a good track record are given a facilitated route to employing more people who may need additional support.
Finally, will the Minister explain why a proper analysis of the failings of personal independence payments is not included in the Green Paper? This has affected people’s ability to lead independent working lives. Will the Government look again at the demands of many in this House, not least my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, on the 50-metre rule and its inappropriateness in assessing mobility? The impact of disability varies greatly between rural and urban areas, and PIP as a supposedly personalised benefit should assess these barriers.
All in all, the Green Paper is welcome, but until the Government address these myriad other problems we will still fall well short of providing the support that people with disabilities should be able to expect.
Lord Freud
I thank both noble Lords for their very thoughtful contributions and for their general welcome, with maybe a little complaint in one case about thinness. I take the point.
Both noble Lords made the point, in different ways, about the level of engagement going on now with this Green Paper. We make no apology for that. We need a process that fully brings on board the disabled groups, so that they have full impact. We want to take the time necessary to do that properly. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, looked at the health and work relationship; it is confined to the area that it is because the process is not about PIP at this stage. There will be other times to look at PIP but it is not part of this consultation.
As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out, fundamental here is the Waddell and Burton report of September 2006. It was very valuable for me when I was writing my first piece of work on what to do with the benefits system. It turned on its head the traditional relationship between the benefits system and work when it said that work, particularly good work, is good for people. It is not one of the problems; it is one of the solutions. It has been really hard to move and change a system that is designed to protect people from work, which made sense when there was heavy industry. It now changes at every level.
We all feel that this is taking a long time, but there is a good reason for it. We are transforming a system that put people in a silo of disability and did not let them back into work. Transforming that requires universal credit as a fundamental base where you do not just have those different groupings; you have everyone able to do what they want, with their pay adjusted accordingly. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about universal credit: it makes work pay.
If you make a comparison between what somebody who had been in the system would have got and what universal credit does, you come up with different figures. Once you are in the universal credit system, the reality is that you are incentivised to work. That will have a behavioural effect, which we are already seeing in the way that universal credit operates. It helps and encourages people to work more. While we do not yet have many numbers of those who are disabled in the system, there are some and they are going in. Within universal credit we will build evidence as to how best for them to do so. As noble Lords appreciate, we are building the universal credit system very carefully with a “test and learn”, and it is still one of the areas about which to learn a lot.
This is a new era, of joint working. I said it, as did the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. It is joint working not just between the two departments, which is pretty tough, but also with employers. Getting all that to work well is one of the reasons why we are taking time over our consultation. Clearly we are looking at building on the three types. We now have three tiers of employers in the new two-tick system that was relaunched in July, with the top tier being the leaders. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about whether there will be the demonstration employer—and we all know individual employers who really have put huge effort into supporting people—I can say that we are setting that up with tiers where the leaders will support others.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on statutory sick pay and the fit note, that is clearly at the heart of getting the relationship between health and work and the employment system in the DWP to work better. That is why consultation in this area is so important. One of the most important things is to get the health system seeing employment as one of the therapeutic outcomes for which it is looking. We have already taken that step, and it takes us a long way. I cannot at this stage tell the noble Lord what the allocation of the community partners will be, but we will work on that.
With that, I think that I have dealt with the first level of questions and would enjoy some more.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and would like to add my word of welcome for this Green Paper. The objective of halving the disability employment gap is commendable, and a lot of work and thinking have been going on in the department about how to achieve it. I commend the Minister and the department on that, and I look forward to studying the product of that activity in the Green Paper more carefully than I have had the opportunity to do so far.
Can I just make a plea for the Minister to revisit the reduction that was made to employment and support allowance going to those in the WRAG in the most recent session of Parliament? As the Minister knows, we had long discussions about this and there would be widespread agreement, even if the Minister did not share it, that although those asking the Government to revisit that cut lost the vote, they won the argument on this one. If the Government do not revisit this cut with a view to cancelling or at least ameliorating it, they will find that they have shot themselves in the foot and prevented themselves even getting to first base in the matter of halving the disability employment gap.
This cut to employment support allowance will hinder people’s ability to look for work by undermining their ability to pay for well-being activities that help recovery and enable them to consider paid work; will make people more worried and stressed, thus impacting their mental health; will have an impact on work-related activity such as travel to appointments or volunteering opportunities; and will make it harder to attend training courses and work-focused interviews if people are already struggling to meet basic needs. That is a substantial argument, which was developed in detail by the charities that produced the report on the impact of the cut to ESA. The case was well made and the deleterious impact of the cut was demonstrated beyond any doubt. Again, I ask the Minister to revisit this if he wants to attain his objectives.
Lord Freud
I very much regret having to say that we are not in a position to look again at that measure. The WRAG was not doing what it was designed to do. What we are now looking at in the Green Paper is how to separate the financial aspects of the benefit from the support that people require.
Lord Fink (Con)
My Lords, what is my noble friend the Minister doing to help employers take on disabled people?
Lord Freud
It is clear that many people who happen to have a disability have immense talents and valuable skills, which employers should want to tap; they will miss out if they do not. We already offer some support—for instance, Access to Work—and we are increasing that spending. The consultation will ask employers what they need from government to help them recruit and train disabled people.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it would be unfair to use the old joke, “This is déjà vu all over again”, because this is a welcome initiative. I have just two quick points to make. The Minister knows a great deal about this. Perhaps he will accept that trashing the past rather than learning from it is not helpful. This is not an entirely new era. In 2005, as he well knows, the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions jointly appointed Professor Carol Black. All the things that came out in the report he has mentioned flowed from that initiative. While it takes a great deal of time to implement good policy, as we are all painfully aware, there has been a great deal of it; for instance, the Employers Network for Equality & Inclusion has 2,500 employers already engaged. A new business leaders’ group is not required. What is required is to build on what is there, to build on the experience of the pathways and the talking therapies, and to ensure that what we all say—and we do all say it—about joined-up policy is put into practice.
Lord Freud
My right honourable friend in the other place, the Secretary of State, took some pleasure in quoting James Purnell from 2008 about the objectives here, illustrating that they are the same. We must acknowledge the continuity there has been in this difficult area and, in particular, give thanks to Dame Carol Black, who I have worked with now for many years and who has done an extraordinary job in trying to get these two networks together. We are building on many years of work but, like everyone else, I acknowledge that it is hard pounding—it takes a long time to get this right.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and I completely understand that PIP is not part of this Green Paper, but the Minister’s department will have to work hard to restore people’s faith in the DWP’s consultation process because it comprehensively ignored the PIP mobility consultation, when more than 1,000 people said that we should not have what was subsequently put into law. I hope the Minister will agree to listen to the voices in the consultation process before there is legislation in this area.
Lord Freud
I know that the noble Baroness has very strong feelings about this. At her urging, I did make significant changes to the mobility measure. We did not have a clean measure before. We now have a precise measure with the 20 metres but we have it on the basis defined—safely, securely and regularly—which is something that she wanted, and have made it a much more measurable part of the PIP process. More people are receiving the top rate of PIP than receiving it were under DLA.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I have great respect for what my noble friend is trying to do, particularly in getting people with autism into work. Will he bear in mind a couple of things? First, we have seen many schemes over a long time that are badged as work prep, with all sorts of names attached to them to get people ready for work. They are important but where they have failed in the past is in going that step further and finding the appropriate job and getting a person into that job. That applies particularly to those people on the autistic spectrum with learning disabilities or chronic mental health problems. When my noble friend is engaging with employers, I ask him to make sure that it is not just the prep they think about but the advice people with those conditions need for interviews and on how to adjust in the workplace.
Secondly, I filled in a work capability assessment form on behalf of a relative. It is not always doctors who can interpret how a particular medical condition affects somebody’s everyday life or how it will affect them in the workplace. Very often physiotherapists, social workers or support workers are better placed than the local GP to know just how an individual is impacted and how they need to be supported in a much wider range of ways than just giving a diagnosis and saying, “This is how it affects them”.
Lord Freud
The noble Baroness is right. One of the areas of greatest concern is people who have learning difficulties and people with autism. The figures are not good. There are more than 1 million people with learning disabilities and only 6% have work. I think we are going to see a report on autism this evening showing that only 16% of people with autism are in work. Clearly, in this period of consultation we need a particular focus on people in this group to help them into the workplace.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, how is the Minister going to see that the various departments work together and not in silos so that disabled people get the help they need? For instance, there are some brilliant people in the spinal injury field but they may need help to get up in the morning and go out to work.
Lord Freud
That is exactly the kind of focus that pulling the two systems together should start to address. As the noble Baroness says, if somebody needs a bit of help at a regular time every day to get to work, just putting that little bit of resource in is transformative for that person. That is something that the system has never really been able to do until now and one of the things that we can start to look at as we bring work and health together.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Green Paper, which is definitely the right direction for us to go in, as is having wide consultation. Has my noble friend the Minister thought about new technologies to support people with disabilities, both in the home and in the workplace as well, as part of the consultation and working with employers?
Lord Freud
Yes, some of the technologies that one sees are remarkable. The noble Lord, Lord Low, who is not in his place at the moment, demonstrates that for the blind every time he stands up—I cannot imagine how he can do it—as did one of the members of my private office, who was also blind. There are amazing technologies to help support in that case; I know that it is also true elsewhere. We want to adopt and take on new technologies. One of the interesting and heartening things with Access to Work, where we have been a little concerned about the take-up, is that we have just introduced a digital offer there and we are encouraged by the response to it. There will be other areas where we can get a lot of benefit from going with new technologies.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this Green Paper is to be recommended. It will obviously need some broad support to get it through. Can my noble friend tell us what he is doing to garner broad support for these changes?
Lord Freud
We have deliberately designed this Green Paper to ask for responses from a lot of key areas. Noble Lords may remember that when we started off on this process, it was by looking down a direct White Paper route. We have pulled back and gone for the Green Paper route, with a lot of areas for consulting. We plan to hear from and work with disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. We want to hear from employers, health and care professionals, the voluntary and community sectors and the devolved Administrations. We really want to build a consensus on what we can do and get the widest support that we possibly can for any changes.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister not to forget education, because the transition for young people from schools into work at 18 is really important? If they start working from 18, it is much more likely that they will remain in work during their lives.
Lord Freud
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that these transitions need to be managed carefully. It is clearly not a health issue for the majority, but it is for some. Just getting into the habit of living independently is tough for youngsters. We are looking at how we can help them. However, it will be separate from this Green Paper exercise.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, thinking of young people with learning disabilities, how easy will it be under the new arrangements for them to move from one council or area of the country to another? Does the Minister agree that this has been considerably restricted over recent years, and something that they perhaps deserve under the new arrangements?
Lord Freud
Youngsters are able to go to other areas to work. I think that the noble Lord must be referring to the restriction on 18 to 21 year-olds getting housing benefit. One of the exclusions that we have been debating with people—we announced that we would look at that strategy—was to make sure that those youngsters who move between areas for work could be exempt from that particular restriction.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I have just come from next door, where there has been a gathering on autism. I have two interests. One is through Motability; the other is because I have a young grandson who is right at the bottom end of autism, so this is very personal. One very key factor on autism is that 60% of people said that they did not know where to go for support or advice about employing an autistic person. I see people nervous of how they should support and handle people whom they have never quite understood. Also, if I may, another factor that we have found over the years—I have had the pleasure of discussing this with noble Baronesses opposite—is that this can also deal with loneliness. If you are disabled and at home, and do not have a job, you might be left on your own for hours or days. I very much greet this Green Paper because it is the start of the right dialogue. How can one achieve on the former factor and make certain that we can help to educate workforces, before somebody comes to them, as to how to handle what they would consider a problem and we would consider a challenge?
Lord Freud
One of the problems with autism is, clearly, that many—too many—of those people are not in the workforce. That essentially acts to exclude them from the normal economic life of the country, which in itself leads to isolation. If we want to get the volumes that we are talking about and halve the disability gap, we need some concrete policies to come out of this Green Paper and address this issue. We now have dialogue between the health systems, the DWP and employers. It should not be beyond our capability as a society to solve this problem.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Green Paper not just for myself but for my daughter, Sarah. My daughter has worked for many years since she left college but has been out of work for the last four months. The majority of disabled people really want to work. It is demoralising and lonely not to be working for any length of time. They do not want to be on benefits; they want to be, like all the rest of us, self-sufficient and a member of their society.
I particularly welcome two things in the Green Paper. Having listened to other noble Lords, I suggest that disability is just a word but it means a huge and wide range of issues that people in our communities have. Tailored support is therefore very important because you cannot lump everybody into the same type of support. There should be specific support—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is not here—but that is not in here at the moment, so I urge the Minister to make sure that, while we go through the whole process with the Green Paper and White Paper et cetera, what should be delivered now is being delivered. That is really important; my daughter does not want to wait for a Bill to go through.
It is particularly important that we talk to employers earlier rather than later. When employers have disabled people working for them—when they go over that barrier—they find it a very positive experience for their businesses and for the rest of their employees, but they need a little help to understand and to be able to manage. Sarah has been for numerous jobs and every time, as soon as they know she is in a wheelchair, they do not come back to her. That is a nonsense. It only needs a little help to understand that a wheelchair is not a barrier to somebody working in a business. I urge the Minister not to stop with what is being offered now but to get on with this, because it is extremely important, not only for disabled people but for the economy as a whole.
Lord Freud
I thank my noble friend. We will get on with it. We have the Access to Work Programme to help her daughter, Sarah. I hope she will find work. We are putting more resource into the programme right now. I can only hope that Sarah is successful, and I trust that my noble friend will keep me up to date with her progress.
Nissan: Sunderland
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
With your Lordships’ permission, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
“Last Thursday, 27 October, the Nissan Motor Company Ltd announced that, following a meeting of its executive committee, both the next Qashqai and the next X-Trail models would be produced at its Sunderland plant. The plant will be expanded through new investment to be a super-plant manufacturing over 600,000 cars a year.
Eighty per cent of the plant’s output is exported to over 130 international markets. The decision is a massive win for the 7,000 direct employees and 35,000 total British employees in the plant and in the supply chain. It is a stunning tribute to the local workforce which has made the Sunderland plant, in the words of the chief executive of Nissan, ‘a globally competitive powerhouse’. We are immensely proud of it and proud of them.
Of course, the decision is great news for the people of the north-east more widely, our world-class automotive sector and the whole of the British economy. This is but the latest in a series of exciting investments in a United Kingdom that is proving to the world that it is open for business. Indeed, it is hard to think of more unambiguously good news.
I and my colleagues in government have been vigorous in ensuring that the Nissan board had no doubts about the importance of this plant and this industry to the British people. Through many conversations I and my colleagues had here and in Japan, it became clear that four reassurances were important to securing the investment for Britain. Three were about the automotive sector generally and one was about Brexit.
They were, first, that we would continue our successful and long-standing programme of support for the competitiveness of the automotive sector, including Nissan. This support is available for skills and training of the local workforce, research and development, and innovation in line with EU and UK government rules. Since 2010 the Government have invested £400 million into the UK automotive sector in this way, and we will continue to invest hundreds of millions more over the coming years. All proposals, from any company, must be underpinned by strong business cases and tested against published eligibility criteria. All proposals are subject to rigorous external scrutiny by the independent Industrial Development Advisory Board and are reported on to Parliament.
Secondly, we would continue our work with the automotive sector, including Nissan at Sunderland, to ensure that more of the supply chain can locate in the UK and in close proximity to the major manufacturing sites. Working with local enterprise partnerships, city and local growth deals have provided a way in which local councils, businesses and the Government can upgrade the sites and infrastructure for small and medium-sized suppliers. This programme will continue with vigour.
Thirdly, we would maintain a strong commitment to the research and development and take-up of ultra-low-emission vehicles. The opportunities presented by bringing the energy and climate change department together with the business department make us ideally placed to build on Britain’s strengths in low-carbon energy, the automotive sector and science and research.
Fourthly, in our negotiations to leave the EU we will emphasise the strong common ground that there is between ourselves and other EU member states in ensuring that trade between us can be free and unencumbered by impediments. A good deal for the UK can also be a good deal for other member states, and that will be how we approach the negotiations. Whatever the outcome, we are determined to ensure that the UK continues to be one of the most competitive locations in the world for automotive and other advanced manufacturing.
Last Thursday was a great day for Sunderland and for Britain, but the best is to come. Over 30 years Nissan has invested more than £3.7 billion in our country and created excellent jobs for a whole generation of world-beating British workers. Last week’s announcement means that a new generation of apprentices, technicians, engineers, managers and many other working men and women can look forward to a career filled with opportunity and success. This Government will always back them to the hilt, and I commend this Statement, and Nissan’s welcome decision, to the House”.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the Commons.
The announcement on 27 October by Nissan Motor Company that it will produce the next Qashqai and will add production of the next X-Trail model at its Sunderland UK plant is to be welcomed. This increase in its investment in Sunderland will not just secure and sustain the jobs of more than 7,000 workers at the plant but be welcome news to workers holding the 28,000 British automotive supply chain jobs and the tens of thousands of jobs in the local economy that are dependent on the thriving plant there. It is, of course, a great tribute to the extraordinary workforce there, and we are very pleased to associate ourselves with the comments about their great achievements.
It is also entirely appropriate to pay tribute to Nissan’s commitment to the UK and its fantastic record since the plant opened in 1986. It is, I believe, not just the UK’s largest car plant but the largest plant ever in the UK. To date, Nissan has invested more than £3.7 billion in Sunderland. It stands as a globally competitive powerhouse of manufacturing and is proof that the UK can and should excel in manufacturing.
In his statement, the Nissan chairman and CEO made two important points, which are the reason for the Minister’s Statement and the Secretary of State’s foray into the media and on to the news programmes over the weekend. He said that:
“The support and assurances of the UK Government enabled us to decide”;
and, secondly, that he welcomed the Prime Minister’s,
“commitment to the automotive industry in Britain and to the development of an overall industrial strategy”.
I ask the Minister to provide the House with more detail around a few important issues, such as the nature of the assurances, the Government’s openness with dealing with underpinning the economy in dealing with the consequences of Brexit and their approach to assurances for other areas of the economy.
We heard over the weekend—there were perhaps more details in the interview with Marr than in the Statement—a number of announcements in relation to the commitments given to Nissan. The first is that this deal is on offer to the whole car industry. Will the Minister confirm that all aspects of the support package will be available to the companies operating assembly plants in the UK? Does it also apply to the more than 650 automotive companies and even the 2,000-plus automotive suppliers in the UK? Have the UK Government made an estimate of the range of potential financial implications if this offer is accepted by Nissan and all the assembly plants and automotive companies?
On “The Andrew Marr Show”, the Secretary of State said that there were four things in the letter, and those were repeated in the Statement. One was that the Government will provide funding for training. The Statement suggests that this will be around £66 million a year. It would be very useful if the Minister could tell us how much Nissan currently receives from the money that has been apportioned over the past six years and whether there were any indications that more was requested or that more would be supplied.
Secondly, the Government have said that they will bring the supply chain back to the UK . The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that 80% of components in a car can be made in the UK. Currently, the average UK content in British-built cars is 41%. The government commitment is therefore to make up this 39%—effectively doubling it—by a new, energetic campaign. This could be one of the most significant industrial undertakings of current times. However, it concerns me that the Statement indicates that this is no more than is done currently in a programme which has made a very small shift but which is running out of steam and where the year-on-year changes are reducing. I would be grateful if the Minister will provide us with any details on anything that would indicate whether this is a new, sustained effort or more of the same programme that is running out of steam.
Thirdly, the Government have given an undertaking to be at the leading edge of research and development for electric cars. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s full commitment in relation to that? Did it relate to grants, tax incentives, employment assistance or R&D spend? Was anything mentioned? The principal argument seems to be that the merging of the departments was enough. Did that really satisfy the Nissan executive or were more details provided? Were any of the details that were provided, whether by letter or verbally, the basis for any conclusions to be drawn by Nissan?
Fourthly, the Government say they will try to achieve tariff-free trade in the Brexit negotiations. Did the Minister—verbally, in a letter or in any other way, such as through officials or in any other form of communication—explain or give any steer on what would happen if the Government failed to achieve an agreement for tariff-free trade? Were any details provided? It is hard to believe that a company such as Nissan was convinced by good intentions alone or that what the Secretary of State has already said meets the test of “support and assurances” that the Nissan chairman and CEO could report to the Nissan executive. There is nothing wrong, and everything good, with providing reassurances and support, but in current circumstances, the Government need to be more open. Ensuring the UK’s economic well-being after Article 50 is lodged may well be the responsibility of the Government, but it will not be achieved only by the Government. There are many others ready and willing to help.
The Government should publish not just the letter between the Secretary of State and Nissan but also any supporting information and data they collect that are relevant to the development of the assurances and their delivery. Can the Minister undertake to do that? Can the Minister also confirm that the Government are united on their approach to negotiations with Europe? Has the Secretary of State cleared his commitment to tariff-free single market access with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and with the Secretary of State for International Trade?
The chairman and CEO of Nissan was explicit that the commitment to an industrial strategy was an important consideration. Could the Minister provide the details of what was provided, if anything, in addition to the statements that the Government have already made public? Does this mean that the Government are willing to provide such assurances to other parts of the economy? Car manufacturers make a valuable contribution to our economy in terms of jobs, productivity and exports, but so do many other sectors, including strategically important ones such as steel, aerospace and pharmaceuticals. Then of course there is the service sector, which accounts for most of our economy. What are the Government going to do support the rest of our economy through Brexit? Could the Minister outline any elements of the strategic architecture or even some of the measurements which will be used to devise a proper plan rather than a factory-by-factory approach?
The UK is currently a beneficiary of EU R&D funding. Will the Government guarantee to match this funding after Britain leaves the EU—including the funding that UK institutions get to lead and manage programmes across the EU, which act to cover the core costs of important UK research institutions? Will the Minister please confirm the current Government’s thinking on what and how affordable it would be to provide some sort of “support and assurances” to the banking sector if it is unable to secure passporting? The Government continue to block action against steel dumping at the EU level. Will the Secretary of State commit to giving equal treatment to other vital sectors by taking action to support our steel industry? Can the Minister give any idea whether the Government will take a different view after Brexit?
We are where we are, and we have to act to ensure the UK thrives. The Government need to provide more detail, and not less, if we are looking to launch Article 50 in five months. Surely the Minister needs to understand the reasonable expectations of having a better timetable and explanation of the government plan. Being more open about the terms agreed with Nissan would be a useful start.
Lord Foster of Bath
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. On these Benches, we are of course pleased that 35,000—some people argue 42,000—direct and indirect jobs have been saved because of the Nissan decision. We too join the tributes that have been made to the workforce and to Nissan for its commitment to the United Kingdom. But we remain unclear about cost, unclear about whether or not the deal extends beyond the Nissan Motor Company, unclear about the implications for sectors other than automotive and, frankly, completely in the dark about where the Government are seeking to take us. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, we wonder whether we have heard all there is to be told about the Nissan deal.
The Business Secretary says his negotiating demeanour—to use his word—will be to try to ensure continued access to the markets in Europe without tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments. What is the fallback position if he fails? WTO rules do not allow compensation to be paid to Nissan for imposed tariffs, so what will happen then? Alternatively, are the Government seeking partial membership—for some sectors and not others—of the single market and customs union? After all, the Prime Minister has said that membership of the customs union is not a binary affair. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister? Is she aware that experts simply cannot see a system where there is, for example, free movement for cars but not for bicycles? Does the Prime Minister know something that the rest of us do not?
If the Business Secretary succeeds in a tariff and bureaucracy-free solution for cars, who will then have responsibility for the manufacturing regulations? Will the UK have a say on them? That will be so important, not least for the specialist car sector and for our work, as the Minister said, on electric and driverless cars. What guarantee can the Government give Nissan in the long term if we do not have a voice in any regulatory framework? What of those other sectors, including aerospace, pharmaceuticals, the service sector and many others including the millions of small businesses? The Business Secretary has made clear that the Nissan deal is not a general deal. So is it the case simply that those who shout loudest get the best deal from the Government? If the Government cannot have a sector-specific customs union, will they stay in the customs union entirely? If so, why do we have a Secretary of State for International Trade trotting around the world proposing deals which would of course be illegal?
The Nissan saga shows all too clearly that the Government do not have a clear plan and that their idea of not having a running commentary on Brexit is, frankly, laughable. When Cabinet discussions are leaked, and when some companies and not others are given specific assurances, it causes confusion and rumour that impact on the economy and the confidence of millions of business owners, savers and investors across the country. Does the Minister agree that it would be better if the Government came to Parliament with a clear statement of their intentions for negotiations and then let Parliament have a vote on that negotiating strategy? We would like to hear the answer.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Foster of Bath, for their support for this important investment by Nissan. We are right to welcome it so widely. It seems to me a very long-term decision—a new plant and a new supply chain—and I congratulate everyone involved. It is in everyone’s interest and shows the strength of our economy. It builds on three decades of success, supported by all parties, in Sunderland and for Nissan.
What is the best way to start on the nature of the assurances? I emphasise that this is not a compensation package. That is important in relation to all the points that have been made. This was about convincing Nissan of the UK’s continuing competitiveness. Governments regularly invest in UK competitiveness by supporting businesses making major investment decisions. This investment has been secured thanks to the highly skilled workforce, the strong partnership between government and industry that we now have, and long-term investment in new technology and innovation. Those same strengths are what matters to the other sectors and other companies that noble Lords have touched on. There is real progress with the announcement that these two important, new, potentially world-leading models will be made in the UK.
I set out in my Statement the importance of electric cars. I do not apologise for the fact that putting the two departments together helps with the electrification of vehicles and encourages those sectors of industry in the UK to tool up to be world-competitive. That is also helped by the departments coming together in BEIS, the curiously pronounced new department.
On Brexit, as the Prime Minister has said, the Government want British companies to have maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market and to let European businesses do the same here. People do not emphasise often enough the huge mutuality of interest. That has to be taken into account in the Brexit negotiations that are being developed.
I do not want to stray into a running commentary, which would go beyond my brief, but we have been showing Nissan and others that we are committed to getting the best possible deal from the future relationship that we will be negotiating with the European Union. We wish to ensure and assure the competitiveness of the British economy, which is what they have been so pleased about. We understand the concerns of industry, and it will be a priority of our negotiation to support UK car manufacturers.
We are working across government in a joined-up way, coming to the correct, mature decisions, and we have an ambition to do the very best for our industries. That includes the other industries mentioned. We have been working across the divide as part of the Brexit process. We have 50 streams of work looking at the different sectors, including aerospace, pharma and steel, where there has been some good progress since we last debated it in the Chamber, with the reopening of the plate mills in Scotland and progress in Scunthorpe and, I would say, Port Talbot.
Finally, I should mention the industrial strategy. We are determined to ensure that the UK is a competitive place to manufacture and to have financial services and all the other things that have been mentioned. As we develop the industrial strategy, we want to work with companies such as Nissan across the economy to ensure that we get the very best results for Britain.
I shall close at that point. I have tried to answer the questions. I will need to come back to the noble Lord on the training numbers.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, with regard to the fourth reassurance given to Nissan, does my noble friend accept that in return for “free and unencumbered access”, to use the words of the Statement, European negotiators are likely to seek concessions from the UK on movement of persons, the acceptance of internal regulations and the payment of contributions? What was said to Nissan on precisely these points? If nothing, would my noble friend care to share the Government’s position with the House?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
In the discussions with Nissan, we emphasised the strong common ground that there is between us and EU member states, our intentions and ambition to get a really good deal and the mutuality of interest in the automotive industry. I am confident that the UK can get a good deal from other member states. That is the view that Nissan has come to, which is why it is making the investment it is.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the centrality of manufacturing to the north-east of England? Nissan is very important. I am probably the only person in this House who was born and brought up in Sunderland, and I well remember the challenge when Nissan was eventually persuaded to invest. It is a loyal company. I have just seen the Japanese ambassador, and that is precisely what he emphasised: the loyalty inherent in Japanese companies.
However, the supply chain is critical. The north-east manufactures more per head than any other region. It is more dependent on manufacturing than any other region in the country. The supply chain is critical, as are other industries, as the noble Baroness says. What discussions is she or are the Government having with Hitachi, which is critical to train development in Newton Aycliffe? It has made new investment there and is very worried because it now does not think, because of EU rules, that it will be easily able to make trains in this country for other European countries.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Baroness is completely right about the north-east: I always love the opportunity to visit, and have been to Newton Aycliffe in the not too distant past. We have a catapult not far away researching world-leading innovation. We are in constant discussion with Hitachi on its investment plans, which are indeed very important. This is the sort of foreign investment that we need to continue to welcome to the UK and the north-east.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth, and it looks as if the Government intend to seek membership of the single market and the customs union. My noble friend Lord Foster’s question on that was not answered. On behalf of the Government, will the noble Baroness come clean about that objective, instead of all this secrecy, confusion and incoherence, as a Member of the other place, Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chairman of the Treasury Committee, is urging? He is also saying that the secrecy has nothing to do with the conduct of negotiations but everything to do with the confusion and incoherence in government. Please can we have a clear answer about the single market and the customs union?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We have already said that it is a priority for our negotiations to support UK manufacturing and ensure that the ability to export to and from the EU is not adversely affected. We need to remain competitive. Our ambition is high. In relation to the customs union, we made it clear that we are seeking the best possible deal with the widest possible access and that we do not expect exports to the EU to be adversely affected.
Clearly, work on this continues, but your Lordships can be clear that our ambition cannot be denied. We are not giving a running commentary because, as the noble Baroness will know, in negotiations, you cannot reveal every detail as you go along. Talking about confidentiality, we have not published the correspondence with Nissan, which she was perhaps hinting at, for the very good reason that investors in the UK—I used to be in business—must be able to have confidential discussions with the Government on their plans and be sure that those will not be revealed to their competitors. That is the way you have to work in the modern competitive world.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the deliverability of what she is saying. If she had said, “Yes, we recognise that we’ve got to be fully in the single market”, or, “We’ve got to be in the customs union”, perhaps she would be able to say to us that she could deliver. Her refusal to say that effectively means that the Government are trying to negotiate a series of sectoral agreements without the wider obligations of single market membership. Does not she agree that this is an extremely hazardous process for the United Kingdom and that there is very little prospect of it being completed within the two years of the Brexit timetable? What will be the position in 2019 in those sectors if negotiations have not been completed? I strongly support Nissan, but does she agree that it will be much easier to get a sectoral deal in goods—where, overall, Britain has a trade deficit—than in services, where we have a huge surplus? If we are looking at our interests overall, how does what the Government are saying add up to an adequate pursuit of the national interest?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Lord is right to express his concerns with passion. You can see that we have already made some important totemic advances. The Nissan statement is one and the other is the Chancellor’s statement about financing the Horizon 2020 investments, which we will ensure are guaranteed. We are working hard in a complex negotiation, moving forward with ambition and a determination to ensure that exports continue both ways. I perhaps have a more optimistic view of matters than the noble Lord does.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
My Lords, I have had a long association with Nissan. I was chairman of the Port of Tyne until fairly recently, from which virtually all Nissan’s cars were exported to Europe and the rest of the United Kingdom. I was also a director of the Northern Development Company, which did such sterling work in bringing it to the United Kingdom 30 years ago. I have followed its prospects and ups and downs over the years. This is not the end of the matter for Nissan. It is very good news in the short term, but we have had this before in the north-east: will the model come or not? The great advantage with the Qashqai is that it has been the most successful model that Nissan has ever made there. It has been made there for the last few years, so it was obvious to carry on making it there and a much easier decision for Nissan to take than if it were bringing a completely new model to the plant. Therefore, the Government have to face up to the fact that, unless this is a complete blank cheque, the future of the plant is still going to be in question when a new model has to be built there. Has a blank cheque been given to Nissan? Is it going to be compensated for any tariffs that are put on goods coming out of the factory in the future? As other Members have said, what about Komatsu and Hitachi and all the pharmaceutical industries in the north-east and other parts of the country that are also going to be affected if we are not in the single market?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I have already made it clear that there is no compensation package. Indeed, Nissan has itself said that there is no special deal and nothing for it that the rest of the industry would not be able to have access to. I commend the noble Lord for the work that he has done in the north-east. It is very important that we continue to invest in these areas with things like the Sunderland and South Tyneside City Deal for new advanced manufacturing. The noble Lord asked about other companies: it is important to bear in mind that the nature of the deal is available to other companies as well, because we are investing in competitiveness right across the board. I already said in my opening remarks that we have invested £400 million since 2010. Companies can apply for support but, rightly, those applications have to underpinned by strong business cases. They have to be approved by the independent industrial advisory body. While we are in the EU, they have to respect state aid rules and even if we ended up in a WTO situation—which I am not forecasting—they would have to respect the rules there. All that is very important.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a training company elsewhere in the north of England. Can the Minister confirm that Nissan will be treated like all other businesses in respect of the proposed apprenticeship levy and is not going to have some sort of exceptional status?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am certainly not aware of any special arrangements for the apprenticeship levy. As I made clear, the sort of arrangements which I outlined in relation to training, skills and innovation are an across-the-board approach which Nissan is obviously welcoming. I know my noble friend’s interest in the north-west and how important it is to him that we ensure investment in Cumbria, not only in nuclear but in manufacturing and other areas.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, is it not abundantly clear that what was worrying Nissan was the repeated statement that “Brexit means Brexit”? Is it not equally clear, from today’s Statement, that Brexit does not mean Brexit and that the absence of access to the internal market and the customs union was starting to worry the management of Nissan? If these guarantees are now being given—and we hope that people on the continent will accept them, which is another question which I have not heard much about—can this be replicated in other sectors? At the end of all this, I hope the agreement with the European Union will include a lot of industrial policy and, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said, that things will be much nearer to acceptance of the internal market and customs union.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I do not have a lot to add, except to repeat the point about the mutuality of interest between Britain and our European neighbours and our determination to approach the matter in a constructive fashion. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU outlined to Parliament our ambition to get the best possible access to the European market that we can negotiate. I think he said that we want business to operate in the EU tariff-free area for the future. We must not forget that leaving the EU also offers us potential opportunities to forge some new relationships around the world and to stand up for free trade, which I believe strongly helps the world economy, the people of Britain and the people of Europe.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s welcome clarity, albeit given in secret to Nissan, has assured the continuation of car jobs in Sunderland and the north. Does the Minister realise that their lack of commitment and uncertainty has contributed to costing some 290 high-tech aircraft engineering jobs in Yeovil? I will see if I can explain. The Government put an order for Apache to Boeing without any kind of competitive tender whatever. In consequence, the confidence has been eroded in the Government’s wish to see a continuation of the helicopter design and manufacturing industry in Yeovil—the only one in Britain. That has contributed to the loss of 290 jobs just recently, with Leonardo probably going to Italy. Does the Minister agree that any attempt to produce any kind of industrial policy that did not say clearly that it wished to see Britain’s aerospace industry maintained, and our standalone capacity to make helicopters sustained, would not be worth the paper it was written on?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the aerospace and aviation industries are incredibly important to Britain. I have already asked on a previous occasion to have a conversation with him about Yeovil in particular, so that I can report to my noble friend and other Ministers who deal with these issues. Especially at this time of uncertainty with Brexit, we need to engage more with business across the UK and discuss difficult issues that arise.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Nissan’s practice, when choosing at which plant to build a new model, is to organise competitive tendering among its plants all around the world, that the best one wins and that that is why this decision has come? As recently as August, the BBC was reporting that Nissan in Sunderland would not even be able to bid for these new models, let alone win those competitions—a speculation in the long tradition of pessimism about the Nissan plant, going back to how it would be lost if we did not join the Euro et cetera. This is a tribute to the fact that, whatever the conditions, this plant is highly competitive thanks to the brilliant work done in the north-east of England.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My noble friend is entirely right. It is great news and a tribute to Sunderland and the people of Sunderland. I am delighted to know that Nissan in the UK scores so very well in the international league tables.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, since the great bulk of Nissan Sunderland’s production is exported to the European market and the typical life cycle of a new model is five to 10 years, can we assume that Nissan has been promised either tariff-free access to the single market or a transitional access of that kind over a 10-year period?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I have made it quite clear that there is no special sweetheart deal. I outlined in the Statement the broad ingredients of what we have agreed with Nissan, and it has endorsed this with a clear statement to that effect. Of course, we need to look ahead over 10 years. We need to tool our industry and ensure that it is skilled and that we have the right sort of investment and innovation. That can include things Nissan is expert in such as electric cars and, no doubt in due course, the move to autonomous vehicles. We can do all that together. Nissan is a very competitive company that likes Britain. There is plenty of opportunity. We do not need to be so pessimistic about the future.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, are we to accept that Nissan was persuaded by the answers to the first three proposals, which are about continuing and maintaining, and the fourth, which is about doing the best deal we can for the United Kingdom? If I was making an objective judgment of Nissan’s capacity for negotiation, I do not think I would give it many marks out of 10 if this is all it amounts to. Why cannot we have sight of the correspondence exchanged between the Secretary of State with the relevant responsibility and Nissan? Surely this is not the normal run-of-the mill argument about confidentiality; this issue goes right to the very heart of the Government’s case and their chances of success in negotiation. Is not that exactly the kind of accountability which this House and, indeed, the other place are more than entitled to ask for?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I feel sorry for Nissan. Over 30 years, it has invested more than £3.7 billion here. We have had important exchanges and correspondence with it of a confidential nature. We have summarised the key ingredients of that in good faith. I do not think there is anything I need to add to give a truer picture. I look forward to Nissan continuing to invest in the UK over many years.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I warmly commend what the Statement said about support for training. I speak as the former chairman of the Engineering Training Authority. I have visited Nissan on many occasions. Its training facilities are outstanding.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I very much agree with my noble friend. Part of our industrial strategy—to give a preview—will be that skills and training will be vital. As the world is changing, especially as it becomes more digital, they are becoming even more important, and we have to invest in skills and training to a much greater degree, as we have heard from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. I look forward to seeing a changing Britain with our new approaches and investments. We should learn from Nissan because it has obviously been so successful.
Education (Pupil Information) (England) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
That this House regrets that information about pupils’ nationality and country of birth collected under the Education (Pupil Information) (England) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/808) could be used to help determine a child’s immigration status.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it is important that schools know how many of their pupils have English as an additional language. I hope that means that extra resources and support can be provided for those pupils. Indeed, schools and local authorities have been doing this for decades. However, the requirement for every school in England—by the way, we are not talking about Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales—to collect information en masse about every child’s country of birth is, frankly, unbelievable.
These regulations were made on 20 July and laid before Parliament on 27 July, after Parliament had risen for the Summer Recess. They were rushed through Parliament in the six-week summer holiday with no debate, no proper scrutiny or, indeed, public consultation. You might have thought that the DfE would have wanted to consult, take soundings and take the views of a range of organisations before embarking on this requirement. However, that was not the case. The regulations were rushed through Parliament and that was it.
Against a backdrop of a massive increase in anti-immigration rhetoric, as witnessed by big increases in hate crime, and at one stage the Government considering asking firms to report on the number of foreign staff they employed, there is real concern among members of different ethnic groups about victimisation and being targeted. I am afraid that this proposal has all the hallmarks of racism, particularly as language codes are already recorded for pupils with English as an additional language, as are codes on their ethnic background. We have already seen the effects of this new requirement. It became a duty for schools to collect this information this September. Some schools have asked pupils to bring in their passports. Can noble Lords imagine pupils having to bring in their passports? In investigating the school census, Schools Week found classroom discrimination whereby only non-white children were being asked to bring in their passports to school. The Independent reported that where parents do not provide information, teachers will be asked to guess the ethnicity of pupils. Is it any wonder that children and young people have felt discriminated against and embarrassed in front of their peers? The Government may say that the guidelines state such and such, but that is a very different matter from practice in schools.
What is the purpose of collecting the information? The Minister says in his letter to me that the information will help us to understand the impact of migration on schools—for example, what extra support we may need to provide. However, there is no extra budget financing. He goes on to say that it will help us plan how we ensure there are enough good places for every child. However, knowing where a child was born has nothing to do with school place provision. The DfE says that the information will not be accessible to the Home Office, but already on 18 separate occasions since 2012 the National Pupil Database data have been handed over to the Home Office, while information has been granted to the police 31 times.
The actions of the Government and statements from them on nationality and country of birth have also raised real concerns about the confidentiality of the school census as a whole and the child’s personal data given by parents in good faith when their child enrols at school. If information from the school census can be shared with other agencies, for example the Home Office and police, without any oversight at all or consent, what does that say about the confidentiality of such information? By acknowledging that the nationality and country of birth data are too sensitive to be kept on the National Pupil Database with other data, are the Government suggesting that that database is not a secure place for a child’s data to be stored? How does this rest with our child safeguarding responsibilities?
I am very grateful to the Minister for his letter of 26 October, in which he made a number of key points. I hope that when he responds to the debate he will deal with some of them. He says that the new data on nationality and country of birth will be provided to schools by parents only if they choose to do so. It will be entirely optional. What is the point of all this if, at the end of the day, it will be entirely optional? How will that affect the need for extra resources or school placements?
On the question of passing information to the Home Office, the Minister says that it is solely for internal Department for Education use. How can we have a 100% cast-iron guarantee that this information will not be passed on to other agencies? He also talks about how we currently give information to private organisations and for research purposes. Is there to be carte blanche? What checks and balances are currently in place when people ask to see this information, and how do we ensure that if we agree that information goes to a private organisation, we are happy that it will be treated correctly and properly?
Finally, to go back to the point I made at the beginning, the Minister talks in his letter about extra support. Are we to understand that there are plans to provide extra financial support for schools which have children from different ethnic backgrounds?
Children are children, and to use their personal information for immigration enforcement is disingenuous, irresponsible, and not the hallmark of a tolerant, open and caring society.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for introducing this Motion and I agree with his concerns.
There are two aspects to this. One is concern over whether school census data might be passed to the Home Office for immigration purposes, and the other is whether the gathering of these data oversteps the bounds of privacy, whether or not there is any usefulness for education. I have to say that but for the perseverance of campaign groups such as Against Borders for Children and Jen Persson of defenddigitalme, we would be none the wiser about the sharing for immigration purposes of the National Pupil Database between the Department for Education and the Home Office that has already gone on.
It has taken two freedom of information requests by Pippa King as well as Parliamentary Written Questions from Caroline Lucas to uncover, for instance, that in the last 15 months alone, requests to a total of 2,462 pupils have been made by the Home Office. I therefore feel that it is already very difficult to trust any reassurances that the Government now might make for the future. These revelations also contradict the statement that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, made in this Chamber on October 12 when he said,
“I reassure the House that the information is kept within the Department for Education and is not passed on to the Home Office”.—[Official Report, 12/10/16; col. 1890.]
This is clearly untrue, and I hope that this statement will be retracted. So far, the Government have said nothing about these disclosures.
We learned at the weekend from the report in Schools Week that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has said that the nationality and place of birth data would be kept in a separate database. This raises a number of questions, not least whether this is a tacit admission that the NPD is not a secure place already in terms of data sharing—and of course we know now that it is not. But I would like to know what would be so special about this separate database. What is the precise wording that will ensure that these data will not be shared with the Home Office? Will this be a legally binding agreement? That these data would be on a different database seems to me to be meaningless in itself. What, then, of the NPD? Can the Minister assure us that those data, aside from nationality and birthplace, will not be shared in the future with the Home Office? What is the wording of any agreement which will ensure that?
Parents are upset, not just about how this information might be used but because these questions are asked at all. They are fundamentally intrusive in the same way that the listing of foreign workers would be. We also know that the same questions are also being asked of school governors. If it is unclear how pupils’ data can be used for the improvement of their education, it seems that the same information on school governors does not have anything at all to do with either a good education or good governance.
One of the things that ought to be emphasised is that these questions are in one important sense mandatory. You cannot leave them blank and, despite what it says in the guidance, parents have been asked for their passports for the simple reason that when the department asks a school to do something, they will naturally try to do so as effectively as they can. It is true that you can currently put “Refuse” as an answer, which parents are quite rightly doing out of protest at being asked these questions, but for many parents this will appear a provocative response. Can the Minister say whether there would be a straightforward opportunity for parents who are unhappy about having already given the information to have it retracted? Having “Refuse” as an option is a telling recognition that this is a sensitive area and, if these regulations continue, it will not surprise me at all if in a year or two that option is removed.
As everyone in education knows, it is a hard job to get pupils who may be excluded from mainstream education by circumstance into education. We need to get all our children into school, not frighten them away. In a sense, the Minister let the cat out of the bag in answer to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, that,
“it better enables us to monitor immigration issues within this country”.—[Official Report, 12/10/16; col. 1889.]
How is that a function of the DfE? Data gathered by the DfE should not be used to monitor immigration issues. Teachers are not border guards.
This is a children’s rights issue. Many parents are against the provision of these data and campaign groups have displayed serious concerns about it. The regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is unfortunately well founded.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Storey in his regret Motion. He talked about an anti-immigration rhetoric, and we have seen the increase in hate crime, for example, which has occurred post-Brexit. However, it goes further than that.
In addition to the Government’s attempt to require companies to report the number of foreign staff they employ, which my noble friend mentioned, under the Policing and Crime Bill currently going through this House the Government will require people who are detained by the police, where the police suspect the individual not to be a British citizen, to produce their passport. I cannot tell which group of people who are arrested will be required to produce their passport, but I suspect that it may largely be dictated by the colour of their skin. What happens if the individual is a British citizen who does not have a passport? I raise this issue because it paints the picture of where the Government are going as regards immigration.
Under a provision in the Immigration Act recently passed by this House, when the police stop somebody driving a car whom they suspect not to be a British citizen, the police can search that person’s home for their driving licence without a warrant. Again, the question has to be raised: which drivers will be stopped by the police and taken to their home address to search for their passport? The whole thing shows the direction of travel that this Government are going in, which unfortunately not only provides—to use the current term—a hostile environment for illegal immigrants but does so for people who are here legally, and indeed for those who are born here but who do not appear at first glance to be British. So the charge my noble friend Lord Storey makes that the provision in the regulations smacks of racism is supported by these other measures that the Government have passed and continue to put through.
The Government say that the details that are asked for will be only for Department for Education use. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made reference to the website Schools Week, which reports:
“The government has refused to release a new agreement that prevents the Department for Education from passing pupil nationality and country of birth data to the Home Office”.
All that the Department for Education would say to Schools Week was that,
“an old agreement that allowed the Home Office to access certain information from the national pupil database had now been ‘superseded’”,
but it refused to release the wording of that new agreement without a Freedom of Information Act request. If the Government are absolutely sure that none of this information will be shared with the Home Office, can the Minister please explain to the House why they will not publish what the guidance is and why they require a Freedom of Information Act request to secure it?
In a letter to my noble friend, the Minister apparently said that this information is intended to enable schools to receive more support. Can the Minister say why in London—where not only is there a higher proportion of low-income pupils eligible for free lunches than in any other region in England but around 42% of the city’s students do not have English as a first language, compared with the national average of just over 15%, and the schools overwhelmingly have larger class sizes than the national average—the schools are doing far better than schools in other, comparable regions in the country? What extra support are these schools going to need because they have pupils who are foreign nationals?
Unfortunately, all the evidence points to this being an immigration tactic rather than having anything to do with trying to improve the education of young people or supporting our schools.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a historic tradition of separating school education from the state in the United Kingdom. Leaving aside the issues of selection by ability and admission arrangements, it has been accepted that, subject to a place being available, a child can attend a local school without any test of right of residence, nationality or language spoken at home. So the new requirement to collect information on nationality and country of birth could well be a tipping point, as these data could be used to assist the Government in pursuing their immigration policies.
It is safe to assume that, when the DfE decided last year to add these new components for the 2016-17 school census, it did not anticipate the furore that that would cause. After all, the DfE has collected data on pupils’ ethnicity for many years. Human rights groups would probably have raised questions, but the DfE might just have been able to fend them off with an appeal to “trust us”. However, that was last year and last year was, literally, another world, because in the intervening period we have had a referendum and now we are in the very messy process of extricating ourselves from the EU. The fact that the regulations appeared on the day before Parliament went into recess in July is probably an indication that the realisation had dawned within the DfE that this had become a politically sensitive issue.
Two effects have combined to cause the furore. One is that, despite the fact that schools are not allowed to ask to see children’s passports or birth certificates, there are reports that some have reacted to the new questions on birth and nationality by doing just that. The DfE has made it clear that parents are not obliged to comply, yet fears remain. What steps will the Government take to ensure that all schools make that information available to parents?
The fears emanate from the second effect—the fall-out from the referendum. The vote in favour of leaving the European Union has left the immigration status of EU nationals living in the UK much less clear than it was 12 months ago. Indeed, the International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, has suggested—in my view, appallingly—that they could be,
“one of our main cards”,
in the negotiations on leaving.
Then came the Tory party conference, with the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, saying that companies could be forced to reveal how many foreign workers they have. Then the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, announced plans to train more British doctors to replace overseas medics already here. With the Prime Minister also using her party conference speech to focus on immigration, there is now an unambiguous government culture of making foreign nationals feel unwelcome.
It is within that context that the implications of the SI we are discussing today are viewed. That is why DfE denials of any ulterior motive do not sound convincing. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, last week, the Minister stated that,
“given the sensitivity of the new information being collected we will not add this to the NPD, so no-one outside the department will be able to access it”.
That is a welcome development, and I am willing to accept it at face value on a personal basis. The problem for us on these Benches is that the Minister cannot speak for other government departments, nor can he control what might happen in terms of the Home Office gaining access to the information, should circumstances, or that department’s needs, change.
Given that a recent FoI request revealed that the NPD had been accessed by the Home Office on 18 occasions, will the Minister tell noble Lords what information about individual pupils will be provided by the DfE to the Home Office in future? And why has the DfE said that it will not make public the agreement with the Home Office that will prevent the passing of pupil nationality and country-of-birth data to UK Visas and Immigration? If the Minister wants noble Lords to have confidence that he can deliver what he says, why not produce the proof? Unless it has a statutory footing, any new agreement will have limited validity and lack clear oversight. Will the Government consider giving the new arrangement a statutory basis? That at least would prevent it being altered by a change of policy in the future.
Given that the department already collects information on the number of students with English as a second language, can the Minister explain in more detail how the addition of country-of-birth data will further assist the department in supporting schools with children who have English as a second language? Will holding country-of-birth data result in more resources being directed to schools with higher numbers of children with English as a second language?
Before announcing the new components of the census, what assessments did the DfE make of the additional burdens on teachers, school administrative staff and parents, and the additional costs involved?
The school census is clearly beneficial in assessing the impact of migration on schools, but academics and journalists conducting research also make extensive use of the database. The Government now intend to restrict such access to important statistics on schoolchildren. In future, those who use the database must not write anything about the data without first showing it to the Government, with 48 hours’ notice. With commendable candour, a government email admitted:
“This will reduce the risk that DfE are caught off guard by being asked to provide statements about research the appropriate people have not seen”.
Can the Minister say how many similar arrangements apply within the DfE or in other departments?
It is clear that the Government did not think through the political implications either of collecting data on pupils’ country of birth and nationality or of transmitting named pupil information, to be held by the DfE, which can be matched with data in other departments. Any difficulties they are now experiencing are entirely of their own making.
It is not too late for the Minister today to assuage the concerns of many noble Lords, and I hope that, by providing answers to the questions that I and other noble Lords have posed in this debate, he will be able to do that. My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie attempted to give notice of our questions to the Minister last week through the Government Whips’ Office but I understand that that did not succeed. Fortunately, I was able to give the Minister a few hours’ notice of them this afternoon. If he cannot give the assurances we seek, he should be aware that my colleagues in the other place will be pursuing these issues with vigour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for tabling this Motion. Today’s debate will help shine a light on our reasons for collecting these data and dispel some of the myths and fearmongering that have taken hold in some parts of the media and in other places, with talk of anti-immigration rhetoric and so on. To deliver a world-class system that works for everyone, we need the right data and evidence to develop strong policy. We will use information on pupils’ nationality and country of birth to understand how we can give all pupils a better education—one that caters to their individual needs. This is about children’s needs first and foremost.
In its eighth report of this Session, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew this instrument to the special attention of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to the timing of this instrument. In its report, the committee noted that the timing for the parliamentary passage of the instrument did not respect our undertaking to schools to have a term’s interval between laying and coming into force.
The committee acknowledged our explanation that the delay was unavoidable due to the referendum purdah and subsequent change of Administration. However, a concern remains whether schools were prepared. The department regrets that we were outside the normal practice of providing schools with at least one full term’s notice. But the commitment that all school-related regulations would have a common commencement date of 1 September was met. Guidance was made available to schools on 4 May this year. We informed the committee that we had received no complaints about the compressed timescale and I reassure the House that this is still the case. As part of its report, the committee also made available to the House letters it has received from campaigners with comments about the department’s policies on access to our data.
Our schools educate pupils from a huge variety of backgrounds and we already ask for information on points such as disadvantage and special educational needs. This information enables us to target and ensure that our policies support all children so that they get the most from their education. There is nothing new in schools collecting information about their pupils. We have been asking them to do this for over 10 years through the school census. These regulations allow DfE to start collecting information on nationality, country of birth and English proficiency through the school census for educational reasons. Questions on nationality and country of birth are standard demographic information that is routinely collected in many data collections.
Let me be clear on a number of points. The new information collected has not been and is not shared with the Home Office. The DfE has no way of determining a child’s immigration status, nor would we seek to do so. Providing this information is entirely optional; parents can refuse to do so if they wish. This is clearly stated in our guidance. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked about the ability of parents to retract this information and I will certainly take that back and consider it.
There is no requirement for schools to request or see evidence of nationality or country of birth. We know that some schools have not followed the guidance and have asked for this, so we will be working with them to ensure they do this properly in future. To address any uncertainties regarding how information should be collected, an information note is in the House Libraries and is on our blog for schools and parents. It is with these new data, which are to be used only by the DfE, that we can work to have a better understanding of what is going on and how to work with schools to deliver the best for all the children, regardless of where they have spent their prior years. The decision to collect these data was taken in 2015, long before Brexit, and followed approval by the Star Chamber Scrutiny Board, which is an external panel of schools and local authorities representing the sector. I reassure the House and repeat that these data items will be used for research, evidence and analysis within the Department for Education only.
Children of foreign nationals can face additional challenges on starting school in the UK. The education system that they have arrived from may be very different from the English system, so they may not be up to the same level as their classmates. This puts pressure on the pupils, teachers and schools. I visit schools constantly up and down the country where they have had substantial, and in some cases very substantial, influxes in-year of pupils with no or little English, or who are new to English—NTE, as it is becoming known—into the school system. They have to educate these pupils in separate classes until they can speak enough English to engage with lessons. That is expensive and they are not specifically funded for this.
One school that I visited recently distinguishes between whether pupils have enough English to engage with maths, which will be earlier than when they can engage in English classes. A colleague visited a school recently where he spoke to a pupil and the pupil next to him said, “He doesn’t speak any English, but I do. I’m from the same country and I’m his interpreter”. That is another approach. We need to understand this behaviour and its impact on our pupils from different educational jurisdictions and the impact on our whole school system.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, questioned our motives on this. We know that white pupils on free school meals are some of our lowest-performing pupils, particularly in areas of intergenerational unemployment, whereas once EAL students can speak English they can be particularly aspirational. That has had a positive and significant impact, as he said, on our school system in London. But that is once they can speak English. In the meantime, it can be very time-consuming and resource-intensive for schools and we need to understand different approaches. EAL is also a very blunt instrument in that many pupils characterised as EAL are fluent in English because it is their second language and these factors are not currently included in our accountability measures. We need to consider whether they should be, but we need more information first. Any noble Lord who doubts that should visit some of these schools. I would be delighted to recommend some that they can visit to see this in action.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the impact and burdens on staff. That is exactly why we seek to get this information—to understand. In short, we do not currently understand the impact of migration on the education system and we should. Understanding nationalities helps us to put the right policies in place to help these children.
Lord Tyler (LD)
I have a particular interest in this subject because my grandchildren attend a primary school in east London, which has a large number of children from different ethnic backgrounds. I want to ask a practical question. The Minister has laid great emphasis this evening and previously on the fact that this is optional. If a number of parents in the school my grandchildren attend take the option not to give this information, how reliable will the information be?
Lord Nash
Obviously, it will not be as reliable as if they had, but it will be better than nothing. At the moment we just do not know and we are seeking a better picture. Frankly, many schools and, I am sure, parents, will understand why we want this information. Parents want their children to be educated better and they want them to be integrated into our school system better. We need to be better at doing that.
Having these data also helps us shine a light on where good practice is taking place. The new data on English proficiency will allow the department and individual schools to explore whether there is a better way of targeting specific children who need additional language support. I repeat loud and clear that the data on nationality, country of birth and language proficiency are not and will not be shared with the Home Office or police. There is a memorandum of understanding in place to this effect, to which a number of noble Lords have already referred. The MoU sets out the terms for sharing data with the Home Office and it reflects the need for practical arrangements between departments of state. It would be disproportionate to put this arrangement on a statutory footing. So far as our apparent refusal to publish this MoU is concerned, we anticipate publishing it shortly.
Where the police or Home Office have clear evidence of illegal activity or fear of harm to children, limited data, including a pupil’s name, address and some school details, may be requested. To be absolutely clear, this does not include data on nationality, country of birth or language proficiency. We have shared data with the Home Office in relation to 520 pupils in the past 15 months, set against 8 million pupils in our school system. It is a very small fraction, but a none the less valuable contribution to the Home Office fulfilling its duties of law enforcement.
Separately from the new data items, the DfE does support the reuse of our data by third parties such as academics and education research organisations when the use of it is both secure and in the interest of adding to the evidence of what works. Recent examples include independent academic analysis of the performance of academies, and others unpicking the recent improvement in outcomes for London schools to ensure that we can maximise what the data tell us about the best things to do next to improve education outcomes.
The data are also reused on websites such as schoolsguide.co.uk and in the Good Schools Guide, which help parents make sense of these complex data when making vital choices. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about our procedures in this regard. We give extracts of our national pupil database out, but only under strict controls. We do not share nationality and country of birth data as part of this process. Access to sensitive data is strictly controlled by the DfE Data Management Advisory Panel, which is comprised of senior experts on the data and legal issues associated with the release of data.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, suggested that perhaps our NPD data are not secure. We believe that they are very secure because we have not had a leak in 16 years. However, we take data protection extremely seriously. All staff who work with data comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act and undertake mandatory annual data handling training. In addition, all information assets are appointed an information asset owner to ensure that access to data is restricted to only those people who have been vetted and approved. All department systems used to collect, store or transfer personal data undergo regular IT health checks to ensure that they are secure, and these policies and the processes within them are regularly reviewed by the Government Internal Audit Agency to ensure that they are appropriate and effective.
I have responded to the point about this being optional by saying that it is better than what we have by a long way. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked whether financial support would be available to schools. Let us first get the information and analyse it so that we can work that out. I have already responded to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about the circumstances in which the data would be made available to the Home Office. They can be requested only where there is a reasonable expectation that a crime has been committed or fear of harm. I hope I have reassured noble Lords about the intended use of the data that these regulations will collect and that I have allayed the fears and dispelled the myths that have grown up around them.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response and he has given us quite important information about some areas of this matter. The truth is that I do not think he or the Government realised the effect collecting such data would have on schools. We have seen some of the most appalling practices such as, “Hands up if you do not live in England”. That is not conducive to good race relations or to how schools work.
On the question of resources, we already collect information about pupils’ ethnic backgrounds so that we can provide them, but the notion of saying to children, “We want to know where you live and where you were born because at some time in the future we may provide some resources”, just seems batty to me. This is not about shining a light; quite frankly, this is just inept. I am disappointed that the Government did not retract what they had done when they realised how stupid all this is. So I am afraid I am not convinced. I know that this will not have any effect on what has happened, but it is important that people stand up and be counted, and therefore I want to test the opinion of the House.
Wales Bill
Monday 31st October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Wales Act 2017 View all Wales Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-I(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 131KB) - (31 Oct 2016)
Lord Wigley
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. As your Lordships can well imagine, it is a probing amendment which, depending on the response that we receive in this short debate, may escalate into something more substantial. The Bill reads:
“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly”.
So what does “normally” really mean?
I have searched through the Bill and have failed to find any definition. I am not aware that the term is so commonly used in other legislation that there is a generally accepted meaning as far as use in legislation is concerned. In an attempt to seek clarification, my colleagues in the other place contacted the House of Commons Library, which confirmed that there is no legal status for “normally”. In this instance, it is inherently vague and asking for trouble, because it leaves every interpretation open to the courts—at least potentially so.
I am aware that questions on this matter arose also in the Commons and that the only response which Ministers were able to give was:
“The ‘not normally’ element of both the convention and clause”—
in relation to legislative consent—
“is essential as it acknowledges parliamentary sovereignty”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/16; col. 784.]
Following a further check with the Library, it confirmed that every Act which requires the assent of the Assembly already contains a clause that confirms parliamentary sovereignty. Including “normally” here achieves nothing but confusion. That is simply unsatisfactory. We cannot make a law on such a basis. “Normal” is an immensely subjective term. What is deemed normal by one person may be regarded as highly abnormal by another.
Noble Lords may be aware of my work in the field of learning disabilities. At one time, people with such disabilities were referred to as “mentally abnormal” or “educationally abnormal”. That carried a huge stigma and was rightly consigned to the dustbin of history. The concept of normality is loaded with preconceptions and it should never be enshrined in law, certainly not without a very tight definition.
The word “normally” is a Trojan horse at the heart of this legislation. It is totally at the whim of Ministers at Westminster as to what it means. It enables them to use this loophole exactly as they might wish. It would have been more honest to write into the Bill that a Westminster Minister may intervene just when and how he or she wishes on matters falling into this category of Assembly powers.
This is just not good enough. I ask for the support of the House in removing the term if the Government cannot bring forward an acceptable term or some believable explanation for its existence in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7 and 8. These amendments are designed to clarify the circumstances in which the National Assembly’s legislative consent is required for parliamentary Bills. As drafted—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has suggested—the Bill provides that Parliament will not “normally” legislate with regard to devolved matters without the Assembly’s consent. He has just pointed out the difficulties in the definition of “normally”, but neither is there any definition of “devolved matters”. Indeed, elsewhere, the Bill speaks of “reserved matters” or matters that are “not reserved”. It does not use the language of “devolved matters” at all.
This provision closely follows an equivalent in the Scotland Act 2016. Your Lordships might recall that the equivalent provision in the Bill leading to that Act was the subject of rather anxious debate. The concern was that the provision was incomplete in specifying when the Scottish Parliament’s consent was required for UK parliamentary legislation. The provision had been included, following a recommendation from the Smith commission that the Sewel convention be given statutory underpinning. Unfortunately, the Government, in implementing that recommendation, gave the narrowest possible interpretation of the convention in writing it into the Bill.
While it is true that, as originally formulated, the convention proposed that a devolved legislature’s consent was required only in respect of a provision within its devolved legislative competence, it soon came to be accepted that consent should also be required if a parliamentary Bill proposed a modification of that very competence. I will simplify this: if the UK Government wanted to bring in a law on an issue where the Assembly already had the power to legislate—so on agriculture or education—the understanding is that that would not be possible without the Assembly’s agreement. However, if the UK Government proposed to change the Assembly’s powers to legislate, it is not clear that that Assembly agreement would be necessary.
Demonstrating that this was not a matter of controversy, the Government have repeatedly said—and the Minister himself has said on this Bill—that a Bill that radically modified the National Assembly’s legislative competence could not be passed without the Assembly’s formal consent, even though that might not appear obvious from the language of devolved matters. This issue is highlighted in the report on this Bill by the Constitution Committee of this House:
“There were important differences between the Sewel Convention as referred to in the Bill and the Sewel Convention as understood in practice. The Bill framed the Convention in terms narrower than those in which it is usually understood, by failing to refer to that limb of the Convention that is concerned with UK legislation that adjusts the scope of devolved competence”.
It should not be a matter of dispute between the UK and Welsh Governments. The difficulty is that, although the two Governments agree on the circumstances in which the Assembly’s consent is required for parliamentary Bills, the Bill does not reflect that common understanding. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is simply to define what is meant by “devolved matters”. In so doing, it sets out the agreed circumstances in which the Assembly’s legislative consent is required for parliamentary Bills. Those circumstances importantly include the situation of the present Bill, which modifies the Assembly’s legislative competence.
This is quite a useful clarification that could be achieved without raising any new issues of principle that might be of concern to the Government. I hope at least that the Minister will be able to reaffirm that when a parliamentary Bill comes forward with proposals for modifying a devolved legislative competence, such a Bill—as he has promised with this Bill—can proceed only with the relevant legislature’s formal consent.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support both the noble Lord and my noble friend in their remarks. My noble friend Lady Morgan has outlined very well what “devolved matters” means in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, quite rightly spoke about the sloppiness of the term “normally”. I think that it opens up huge possibilities for rift between Cardiff and Westminster unless there is a proper definition, if the Government want this, as to when the Assembly is not allowed to pass its comments upon legislation going through this Parliament which affects so-called devolved matters. Is it for the Secretary of State for Wales or a Cabinet committee to decide what is “normal”? No, this is an absolute recipe for conflict between the Assembly and Parliament, and between the two Governments. I hope that the Minister will take this back and either strike it completely from the legislation or, if they insist that there should be qualifications as to when the Assembly cannot utilise its powers, these should be defined very precisely indeed.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and earlier today about the need for clarity in the Bill, and I must say that I share the concerns about the word “normally”. Those concerns were reinforced earlier today by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who produced what seemed to me a pretty devastating analysis and related it to a subsequent clause—I think it was Clause 53. It seems to me that the Government would do very well to ponder what has been said today very carefully. I also have some sympathy with the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench about the use of the word “devolved” when we are dealing with reserved powers. It seems to me that that, too, is likely to be a cause of some confusion. I am not sure that I followed all her arguments, but I am not speaking about those; I am simply seeking clarity. I hope that my noble friend will not dig his heels in tonight, but will take these comments away and give them much careful thought before coming back at a later stage.
Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I am confident that the Minister, whom I have known in another place—if I can call the Welsh Assembly that—at the other end of the line, is not someone who digs his heels in. He successfully danced a fine tune to move his party, the Welsh Conservatives, into a stance on devolution which brings us to where we are today.
I come to the amendments in my name, which I am pleased to share with my noble friend, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, my sister in the Assembly. Amendment 9 attempts to define “devolved matters”. This is another issue that was addressed by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in the National Assembly. The Minister will no doubt say that “normally” occurs in the Scotland Act and that the Welsh devolution settlement does not require any definition of “devolved matters”. I am not very enamoured of the argument that empowering the National Assembly to be able to legislate for devolved matters is somehow an overruling of parliamentary sovereignty, as if the traditional constitution of the United Kingdom, of Parliament assembled in these two Houses, could somehow be undermined or be in any sense overruled by legislative activity in Cardiff.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I was in this Chamber when this issue first arose in 1998 in the then Scotland Bill. I heard Lord Sewel produce his sentence, which was hastily cobbled together. There was no thought behind it. It was not part of the government programme at that time, but he was under great pressure from Scottish Peers to define when the Westminster Parliament would act where Scotland had competence. He came out with his phrase, using the word “normally”, in that context. It has found itself into the Scottish legislation and has been adopted for the purposes of this legislation.
It is an unsatisfactory solution. There are no doubt exceptional circumstances, such as a declaration of war or something of a really serious consequence, when the Westminster Parliament may wish to overrule the Welsh Assembly or act in its place, but the word “normally” does not cover that. It is open to huge misinterpretation and the sort of litigation to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred in his contribution before the adjournment. The Government ought to excise the word altogether. I seem to recall it was still in contention as to whether it was a satisfactory phrase in consideration on the recent Scotland Bill.
I also support Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. I prefer it to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because it is disjunctive whereas his is not. An “or” at the end of his proposed new paragraph (c) might have made it a bit clearer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate on this amendment. I turn first to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Clause 2 places the existing convention on legislative consent on a statutory footing. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, just indicated, this is not something that the Government have suddenly dreamed up. It is an existing convention and something we committed to do in the St David’s Day agreement. As has been noted by various noble Lords, it is also in line with Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016. The convention states that Parliament will not normally legislate on matters devolved to the National Assembly for Wales without the consent of the Assembly, or in the case of Scotland the Scottish Parliament. These amendments seek to broaden the convention in two ways. They seek to remove the “not normally” requirement and also seek to expand the circumstances in which Parliament would not legislate without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales.
That said—the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is right that I am going to refer to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament—I can, nevertheless, understand the points that have been made. I am grateful for comments about this from other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, and earlier from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is not in his place at the moment. I will go back and have a look to see whether we are able to do something by guidance, but the whole nature of the “not normally” is that that there will be circumstances that are difficult to foresee.
The nature of this signals that they are not justiciable, because it is left to Parliament. However, in line with comments from noble Lords and in the interests of ensuring that we look at this from all angles, I will go back and see whether there is something that we can do in relation to guidance on the two issues in relation to devolved matters as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, and the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Wigley. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I understand the Minister is saying that it is not justiciable as to whether the word “normally” is applicable in a particular case. However, it could be subject to judicial review if a Minister brought forward a Bill that was the subject of contention as to whether the circumstances were normal or abnormal. To say that it is not justiciable is not, I think, correct.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I do not think that I said that. I said that it signals that it is not justiciable. I am making the point that noble Lords have been making about the generality of the phrase and that it is difficult to define, and it means that if Parliament decides something it can decide that this is not normal. That is the point about it. As I say, I will take it back and see whether we can accomplish what noble Lords are seeking in guidance.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are two problems here? First, the bar is set at a very low level—a level of “normality”. Secondly, as far as the word “normal” is concerned, although of course it appears in the two Scotland Acts, it does not seem ever to have been judicially interpreted in the courts. That is a considerable weakness. I take the Minister’s point that in a way it is a matter for Parliament to define itself—to define its own metes and bounds—which bearing in mind its absolute sovereignty are untrammelled, but nevertheless it is a crucial word in an Act of Parliament and as such it must be interpretable by the courts. I am afraid that, if the matter were raised before the higher courts now, they would say that “normal” means something that is not abnormal and they would leave us in the mists of uncertitude in that way.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and for clarifying what I was intending to say, and I apologise if I had not made that absolutely clear. I have taken on board the points that are being made. I said that we will look at this in guidance, but as I have indicated there is a need for room for manoeuvre here, so I will take the points back and look at them.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, we are making progress. This is a good omen perhaps for a future amendment that is coming forward. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take it back and look at it. It is always better to have something spelled out in the Bill quite clearly than to depend on guidance notes. Of course the objective of this Bill is to clarify and simplify the problems that have arisen over the past few years, not to dig more holes for ourselves. But in the spirit in which the Minister has offered to look at this again, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The instruction of 26 October suggests that Clause 3 will be dealt with later.
“ The advisory committee for Wales established under section 5 of the Food Standards Act 1999.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I will begin with government Amendments 19, 79 and 80, which relate to four cross-border health authorities. These are: NHS Blood and Transplant; the NHS Business Services Authority; the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation; and the Human Tissue Authority. The purpose of these amendments is to allow the Assembly to legislate to confer functions on these authorities in devolved areas without requiring the consent of a United Kingdom Minister. In recognition of their status as bodies serving both England and Wales, ministerial consent will apply in relation to any changes to these authorities’ constitutions.
Government amendments 11, 12, 15 and 16 add four authorities to the list of “Wales public authorities” in Schedule 3. Because they are now listed as Wales public authorities, the restrictions placed on the legislative competence of the Assembly in relation to “reserved authorities” will not apply to these bodies. The authorities being added are: the Welsh Food Advisory Committee to the Food Standards Agency; the Flood and Coastal Erosion Committee; the Independent Groundwater Complaints Administrator appointed under the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act; and the person appointed by Welsh Ministers under Section 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. My office has been working with the Welsh Government to produce a complete list of Wales public authorities when the Bill is passed. The inclusion of these four authorities in the list is one outcome of this work. Amendment 18 replaces the reference in the list to the Residential Property Tribunal Wales with a fuller legal description of the bodies covered by this umbrella term. Again, my office has worked with the Welsh Government on this change.
In Amendments 13, 14 and 17, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, are seeking to remove the governing bodies of further and higher education institutions, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and regulated higher education institutions from the schedule of Wales public authorities. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord seem to be seeking to address concerns that have been raised with the Wales Office that the categorisation of these authorities as Wales public authorities will undermine the private sector status or the charitable status of higher and further education institutions in Wales.
I reassure your Lordships that the definition of Wales public authorities in the Bill does not affect the legal status of these institutions as both private sector corporations and charitable institutions. The purpose of new Schedule 9A is to set out an illustrative list of public authorities that fit the definition of Wales public authorities in Clause 4 of the Bill. It delivers a key part of the clarity we are seeking to deliver through the Bill by setting out clearly the public authorities that the Assembly and Welsh Ministers can legislate on without consent.
By removing these educational institutions from that list, the amendments would make their status within the Welsh devolution settlement unclear. This would cast doubt on the status of these institutions when the Government’s position is perfectly clear: education is a devolved matter and so the Assembly should be able to legislate in respect of educational institutions in Wales in an entirely unfettered way. However, I am happy to look in more detail at the precise concerns that are being raised. Welsh universities and further education institutions, as authorities exercising functions of a public nature in Wales, have been appropriately categorised in the Bill, but I will look to see how we can reflect their special position in the title of the schedule in order to stress the fact that they are different from other public authorities. On that basis, I beg to move government Amendment 11 and look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about their amendments, which I hope they will not move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13, 14 and 17. I must declare an interest as a governor of Cardiff Metropolitan University and an honorary fellow of Cardiff University.
As the Minister has outlined, these amendments reflect concern expressed by Universities Wales, which represents the Welsh higher education sector, about inclusion in the list. It gave evidence of that concern to the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, whose report has been circulated to noble Lords. The basis of the concern is that this may lead to inclusion as a public sector body by the ONS. Noble Lords may recall that a reclassification of this kind occurred for Network Rail. That reclassification was undertaken with the full agreement of the Treasury but its impact on Network Rail has been to have a huge effect on its ability to borrow.
Higher education institutions are clearly concerned about their ability to borrow. They are currently classified by the ONS as non-profit institutions serving households; they are therefore part of the private sector and, along with most other charities, enjoy that status. This reflects the extent of public sector control, as set out in EU accounting requirements. I must stress that universities regard themselves as independent organisations. They value their academic and institutional autonomy and are treated as public bodies for only a small number of very specific purposes—for example, for freedom of information purposes. It is true that higher education provision and fees are highly regulated but in Wales, less than 10% of university income comes from direct public funding. The ONS is already reviewing the classification of Welsh universities in the light of the Higher Education (Wales) Act 2015.
In England, the proposed higher education and research Bill will address complexities for those higher education institutions established as corporations, but that Bill will not affect Wales. So the potential reclassification by the ONS will badly affect higher education in Wales because all Welsh HEIs are charities. The Charity Commission is clear in its guidance, which says that a charity,
“must exist in order to carry out its charitable purposes, and not for the purposes of implementing the policies of a governmental authority”.
A breach of this rule could of course impact on governors as well, who could be held personally liable. It would obviously have a massive impact on Welsh higher education’s ability to raise funding for research and to assist poorer students, and on those institutions’ tax status.
Understandably, Welsh universities do not welcome their inclusion as public authorities, but neither should the Welsh Government nor the UK Government. If they are reclassified by the ONS, their debts and spending will go on the Government’s balance sheet. They will go first on the Welsh Government’s balance sheet and affect their ability to borrow because universities in Wales have a significant borrowing requirement of their own, which would of course detract from the ability of the Welsh Government to borrow in addition to that. In turn, it would go on the Treasury’s balance sheet.
I am surprised that the Welsh Government have indicated that they do not feel this is a problem and are not concerned about the inclusion of universities in this list. When I think of it, it is perhaps not entirely surprising because there has been a tendency over many years for the Welsh Government to seek greater control over the public sector, which the Minister will be aware of as an ex-Assembly Member. However it is important to remind noble Lords that the international reputation of our universities rests on their independence from government. Many were established as charitable foundations, and all continue to rely on charitable funding and on funds that rely on their charitable status. Universities in Wales are part of the devolved settlement, as the Minister said, and are hence subject to rules that are slightly different from those in the rest of the UK, but they are very definitely part of a UK-wide sector and of an international market, so they must not be undermined by incorrect classification in the Bill. This is a probing amendment, and I am glad to hear from the Minister that he will consider this matter further. I will be grateful for his further comments when he has time.
Finally, and briefly, the further education sector was also established autonomously in the 1990s. The FE sector has higher levels of direct government funding, but it values its independence, its ability to respond to the market and its flexibility. I will be grateful if the Minister looks at both sectors in detail before we discuss this issue again.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness said about the charitable status of Welsh universities, and it is important that the Minister goes back and examines whether it is put at risk by this part of the Bill.
I cannot for the life of me understand Amendment 14, which excludes the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales from the Welsh public authorities list. It is not a university; it is a body that administers funding to the universities. It gets all its money from the Welsh Government, so I cannot quite understand the amendment, particularly because a recent review of non-compulsory post-16 education in Wales indicated that this body will be replaced by a new body dealing with funding for higher education and further education, which is a good thing. The amendment is an incongruous insertion when the argument is about universities and, to a certain extent, further education colleges somehow losing their charitable status, independence, right to borrow and so on. I would value the Minister’s comments on why the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales is part of this scene.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, Schedule 3 will provide some welcome clarity about competence in relation to Welsh public authorities. So long as Assembly Bills meet the competence tests in the Wales Bill, the Assembly will be able to legislate in relation to Welsh public authorities without needing to seek the consent of the UK Government.
Most of the UK Government’s amendments add to or clarify the list, and we support them. We are also very content with the removal of special health authorities. I understand that they will be treated differently and need not be in Schedule 3. I beg to differ with Liberal Democrat Peers who suggested removing from the list of institutions in Wales a reference to the further or higher education sectors, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the regulated institutions under the Higher Education (Wales) Act, to which my noble friend referred.
We do not think it appropriate to support any amendments which might act in such a way as to restrict the legislative competence of the National Assembly in respect of these further and higher education bodies. Having said that, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for outlining the real concerns of the institutions, which need to be addressed. I thank the Minister for agreeing to clarify this issue and for looking at attempting to reflect that special position and ensure that they can continue with their current status.
However, I am afraid that removing these institutions could create uncertainty in the future over the need for ministerial consent where a provision of an Assembly Act confers functions on such a body or removes them from it. No such uncertainty exists in relation to the current legislative competence of the Assembly, and the uncertainty would not arise in the future if these bodies remained on the list.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for participating in the debate on this group of amendments. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I will just perhaps restate some of the points I made earlier. Very much on the basis that we will still cover these institutions, if there is a way of looking at the nomenclature, such that we can seek to ensure that they have the continued strength and independence that they enjoy at the moment, we will do that, as that is very much in the best interests of Wales. We have first-class educational institutions at university and further education level, and we want to maintain that but at the same time ensure that they are brought within this part of the legislation.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, made about the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and agree it does not seem to be in the same category as the universities. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, agrees with that. That is different in nature, but if there is a way of protecting the universities and the further education bodies and their charitable status, at the same time as covering them within the Welsh public authorities, universities and so on, I am keen to do that, and will ensure that we look at the Bill in that regard. I thank noble Lords who brought forward these amendments but urge them not to press them at this stage.
“The Flood and Coastal Erosion Committee or Pwyllgor Llifogydd ac Erydu Arfordirol.”
“The Independent Groundwater Complaints Administrator.”
“ The person appointed by the Welsh Ministers under section 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.”
“A rent assessment committee constituted in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 (including a leasehold valuation tribunal and a residential property tribunal).”
“Candidates at general elections
In section 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (candidates at general elections), before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) At a general election a person may not be a candidate to be an Assembly member unless the person is recorded on the electoral register as living in Wales.””
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 20, I will speak also to Amendment 21. Both stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and assert the fundamental principle that to represent Wales in its legislature, an elected Assembly Member should actually live in Wales—the same principle asserted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which I also support. In doing so, I find myself in the ironic position of seeking to amend my own Act, the Government of Wales Act 2006, which I took through Parliament as a Bill as Secretary of State for Wales. It never occurred to me until the last few weeks that any Welsh Assembly Member would, or indeed could, live outside Wales.
Amendment 20 makes the acceptance of formal nomination as an Assembly candidate contingent on living within Wales. However, if it is felt that is too prohibitive a requirement, since no candidate can be certain of election in advance, Amendment 21 instead makes the membership of the Assembly—that is, for an elected candidate—contingent on living within Wales. That is to say, disqualification would follow without residence within Wales and registration to vote within Wales. Either way, the principle is put in statute, as it would be by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, Amendment 22.
At the most recent Assembly election, 21 candidates stood who did not live in Wales. Fourteen were from the Monster Raving Loony Party, four were Conservatives, one was a Liberal Democrat and one an English Democrat. There was one UKIP candidate, Neil Hamilton, who was elected as a regional Assembly Member and who, I understand, still does not live in Wales but has nevertheless claimed and been granted appropriate expenses, in the same way as those Assembly Members who actually live in Wales. I am not suggesting that there is anything improper here, just that it is an anomaly.
To deal with another question that has been raised, I am informed that to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is similarly no requirement to be resident in Scotland or Northern Ireland, but that is no reason for Wales not taking the view which I advocate. Since devolution, Wales has been the first to adopt policies subsequently followed by other parts of the UK in a number of areas; for example, establishing an Older People’s Commissioner and free bus transport for pensioners. There is no reason why Wales cannot be innovative in this matter either. Indeed, I have been notified that there is widespread cross-party support in the Assembly for the amendment, including from Welsh government Ministers.
On the substance of the amendment, it is an insult to voters in Wales not to live in Wales, within the nation you are seeking to represent and may find yourself representing in the Assembly. Personally, I have always believed that a constituency Assembly Member, like a Member of Parliament, should live in or, at the very least, very close to their constituency, as I did as Member of Parliament for Neath.
Of course, regional Assembly Members have different duties and no constituents in the same way, but surely they should at least live in Wales as well. How can any Assembly Member living outside Wales possibly keep in touch with public opinion in Wales? How can they keep in touch with issues that arise day to day in the political culture, public life or civic life of Wales? How can they spot new problems or opportunities as they arise in the course of their daily experience living as normal citizens of Wales do? How can they reflect Welsh culture without living within it, as I have been privileged to do? How can they really understand the evolution of Wales’s young democracy as it very quickly develops?
It is fundamental, to me at least, that in a democracy, representatives are of the people and for the people, whatever your political party. I hope that the Government will agree with this principle and accept at least one of these three amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, I preface my remarks with a story I was told long ago by Sir John Rodgers, who lived in Kent and was elected for a Kent constituency just a little way from his home. He decided to consult a neighbour, Winston Churchill. Winston replied: “Never live in your constituency”. That is not my position, but I have real practical objections to what is proposed, particularly for candidates.
I have two objections. Let us consider candidates first. Someone may have been born and brought up in Wales and his family live in Wales, but he is at present working in, say, London, perhaps as a civil servant or in business. He decides that he wishes to fight an election. If the amendment were passed, he would be forced to move back to Wales and give up his employment before standing.
I know of at least one very distinguished individual who in the war was in a reserved occupation in the Foreign Office and was determined to serve in the Armed Forces. He promptly got himself chosen as a candidate and immediately had to leave the Foreign Office. He became a founding member of the SAS, served with immense distinction in the Baltic states and later became a very distinguished Member of Parliament. One can also think of someone serving in the Armed Forces—perhaps in the royal regiment of Wales—encamped outside the Principality. He is about to leave the Army or decides that standing as a candidate forces his removal from the Army list. He is perfectly happy, after the election, to move to his constituency and live in it but, as this amendment is drafted, that would not be possible.
I have a second objection. In recent years, I have moved to Monmouth. Take an individual who has been born and brought up in Monmouth. He lives and works there; he worships there; his children go to school there; he goes to a doctor there. However, it chances that he lives just across the Wye bridge and is therefore living in England. He is disqualified from standing. My present Welsh home is on a road that leads up out of Monmouth and virtually every house in it is in the town, but if you go three-quarters of a mile up the road from me to my next-door neighbour, that house is in England. Its occupant may live, work and do everything he has to do in Monmouth but he would be disqualified. This situation is not unique to Monmouth. It happens that a considerable number of Welsh towns straddle the border, starting in the north with Bangor-on-Dee. On Saturday afternoon I passed through Knighton on my way to a memorial service in Presteigne. Someone might live and spend their whole life in Presteigne but it just happens that the house they live in, which is still part of the town, is 100 yards across the border and in England. They are therefore disqualified from standing for election in the county of Powys. Going south, there is Hay-on-Wye, and I could name a whole string of other little towns and hamlets up the border which would be disqualified for entirely the same reason.
Broadly, I have slightly more sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which at least allows them to stand as candidates but says that they then have to be living in Wales before they take their seats. However, that worries me too. Going back to my example of Presteigne, can it really be right that the person who lives, works and carries out all their business in that Welsh town is forced to sell their house 200 yards, say, across the border, in order to qualify for membership of the Assembly? It does not seem to me that this is a reasonable proposition.
I wonder too whether there may not be difficulties when boundary changes take place that force people suddenly to move their homes. However, I will not dwell on that. I have voiced my objections. I do not think this is a reasonable set of amendments and hope that it will not be passed.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has certainly given us cause to consider this issue further. As I speak to my amendment, I will deal with some of the points that he raised. Amendment 22 standing in my name is grouped with Amendment 20 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. As he said, my amendment has a similar purpose to his—namely, to ensure that those who legislate for the future of Wales and those who decide the priorities of public expenditure in our country should do so on the basis that they actually live in Wales, know the needs of our communities and genuinely represent the people among whom they reside. I would have thought that was a fairly fundamental principle. I go further and say that ideally each representative, both constituency Members and regional list AMs, should live within the area they represent. In that way, they know the feelings and priorities of their constituents, friends and neighbours and appreciate the tensions which sometimes arise. During the 27 years I represented Caernarfon, a fundamental element in the way in which I undertook the job was that I could feel I was part of the community. I realise that cannot always be achieved and that some people living a couple of miles outside the constituency may be fully integrated into the community they represent. I also realise that there will be times when boundary changes may work in a way that takes the home of a sitting AM or MP marginally outside the constituency in which they were previously living. These amendments do not address those circumstances. They arise from the incredible fact that there is an AM, as has been mentioned, elected to the Assembly by way of the regional lists, who not only did not live in the region when he stood for election, but did not even live in Wales. What is more, he has indicated that he has no intention of moving his main home to Wales. Frankly, that is appalling and should not be tolerated. If our country is good enough to give him a job and pay his salary and expenses, it is good enough for him to accept that he should live there in order to undertake the work. Nobody is forcing him to come to the Assembly. If he chooses to do so, conditions go with the job, and I believe this is one of them.
I have tabled a slightly different amendment from that of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, as I can see circumstances where his wording could cause difficulties. There has to be a date at which a residency requirement applies. It could be the date a candidate is selected to fight a constituency, the date of the election or the date on which the AM in question takes up his or her responsibilities. I personally believe that the date should be that on which the Member takes up the seat, and should be geared to the point at which he or she takes the oath of office, although the qualification date will need to be geared to some existing verifiable location and date—my amendment suggests the electoral register in force at that time—but I realise that that, too, has shortcomings. If the date is that on which the election is declared, in the circumstances of a by-election, candidates from outside the area would effectively be debarred. Applying the rolling electoral register could possibly overcome that. I am not sure how this might have worked in the Neath by-election in 1991, for example, in which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was first elected.
Lord Wigley
Yes, it was a very good by-election. I enjoyed it very much but then I was not standing. I should declare a past interest in that when I fought the Meirionnydd seat in 1970, which was then taken over by my noble friend in the subsequent election, I was working for Mars in Slough and living in the Thames Valley. There are many similar cases where people who have had to leave Wales to seek work might want to return, whether to a non-political job or to stand for election. The danger is that by having a rule as suggested in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, there could be widespread avoidance, with prospective candidates renting an address for the period of the election, with everyone knowing that the address is merely a scam to give the impression that they are highly integrated local people. The address on the nomination paper for election should be the one at which they are registered to vote and to pay tax. If that is outside Wales, so be it; the electors can take that into account. However, once they are elected, they would be in danger of not being paid their salary or expenses if they had submitted a fraudulent address. Remember, these days there is a need to note for council tax purposes whether one’s address is permanent or a second home.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has raised practical objections to the amendment. I do not wish to raise practical objections but I have an objection of principle. Amendments like this immediately concern me in so far as they restrict the choice of electors. Any amendment that places a restriction on candidates is in effect a restriction on the choice of those who have to do the election. It may be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, candidates may not know the problems of the local area or may not know the culture. That is for the electors to decide and not elect them as their representatives. It is not for us to say to the electors, “Sorry, you can’t elect them because we think they aren’t suitable to represent you”. That is fundamentally an issue for the electors. I am for widening choice for electors; if they want to elect whoever, that is entirely a matter for them. It is not for us to impose a statutory requirement.
I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made about the problems that derive from the particular electoral system in respect of some candidates, but the problem there is the electoral system. My point is one of principle; therefore, one would need to look at the structure and the process of the electoral system to enable the electors to have a better choice, so that they are choosing those whom they wish to represent them. If one wishes the candidates to live within the area, that is a political issue. It is for them to promise electors, rather like Members here can say to their constituents, “If elected, I will live in the constituency”. However, this is fundamentally a relationship between electors and those they choose to represent them. I am therefore wary of any amendment that restricts choice; various amendments have come up in different contexts that do that, and in the Bill I am particularly wary of moving in this direction. I hope the Minister will resist it.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Although I understand the principle of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I fear that it takes rather too hard-line an approach to an important issue of principle. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The principle here is not the individual convenience of candidates who stand for the Assembly or those who are elected to the Assembly, but the fundamental principle that you should not be a member of a legislature to which you are not subject yourself. You should not pass laws that you yourself do not have to obey and take heed of. That supersedes anything that can be said about the practical problems, which undoubtedly exist, for people who live on the border. I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, deals with that issue in that you do not have to go through the upheaval of moving to Wales if you live a couple of hundred yards over the border. Indeed, if you live in the middle of Surrey, you do not have to go through that upheaval until you are elected.
Until this Assembly term, it has always been taken for granted that you would live in Wales. I recall that when the current Assembly Member for Cardiff Central was first selected as the Labour candidate, she lived in Islington, but she felt obliged to obtain a small flat in Cardiff when she became the Labour candidate—and rightly so. It is important that people feel obliged to live in Wales, that they feel part of the Welsh culture and that they understand Welsh media and Welsh issues. Without living in Wales, that cannot be so. Therefore, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
My Lords, I agreed to put my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hain because it is both timely and relevant as the Wales Bill passes through this House. It is not all about Neil Hamilton but it is a bit about him in the sense that he is, as far as I am aware, the very first Member of the National Assembly for Wales who has not lived in Wales. Not only has he not lived in Wales but he lives a long way from Wales, and it highlights why we, as a Parliament, should address this issue—it is different from the franchise that we have known in our country for generations. We are talking about a country; we are not talking about a constituency. I think it is important that you live in your constituency but that is another issue; sometimes it is not practicable or reasonable to do so. However, we are talking about a country that now has a legislative Assembly which passes primary and secondary legislation for that country and which runs the country in many different ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked, very relevantly, what happens if you live in a town or village bang on the border. Of course, the border between England and Wales is very different from, for example, the Northern Ireland and Ireland border and it is different from the Scottish/English border, which has lots of built-up areas on it. However, there is a big difference between being a few hundred yards away in Monmouth and being in Wiltshire, and that in a way—
Lord Crickhowell
I say straight away that I entirely agree with that. I am not arguing for someone who lives in Wiltshire; I am merely pleading the case for those who have worked all their life in a Welsh town but, because of the geography, perhaps live a couple of hundred yards outside the town.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
I think that can be addressed if, in dealing with this amendment, the Government look at what happens in local government. You can be a member of a local authority and live within, I think, three or four miles of the boundary of the local council, and I suppose that could happen with the Welsh situation. Thus, if you lived within a mile or two of the border but felt very much part of a town or village in Wales and you felt Welsh, the accident of the border could be overcome by applying local government laws to the Welsh Assembly.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about the ability of electors to elect an individual to represent them in the Welsh Assembly. There is an awful lot of merit in that. People should be given that choice but, again, there is a difference. The only example of someone living in England and not in Wales is the UKIP leader in Wales. He was elected as a top-up Member. He does not represent an individual first past the post constituency; he is part of a top-up regional list.
The difference is that on that regional list, one generally elects the party and not the individual. When people voted as they did in that region in Wales, they voted for Mr Hamilton not as Mr Hamilton but for UKIP. Therefore, they did not really have a choice of saying, “I don’t want this person because he doesn’t live in Wales”. They did not get a choice in that. In one form or another, I represented people in Wales for 43 years. People then had the option of saying, “I don’t want him on the local authority or in Parliament”, because, perhaps, the candidate did not live in the constituency, ward or whatever. They had that chance, but they do not have that chance with regard to the top-up seats.
Lord Norton of Louth
Surely, the argument, therefore, is that they should be given that chance—that one changes the system so that they have that degree of choice.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
If I had my way I would change the whole system—probably not to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, wants, but to the alternative vote system, for example. The point I am making is that the people in that part of Wales did not get the opportunity to say, “I don’t want that person because they do not live in Wales”. They were voting for a party instead of an individual. I cannot see any reason why, when we set up a Parliament or an Assembly in one of our devolved parts of the United Kingdom, a person should represent it without living in it. All the arguments that have been addressed are valid and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, this debate takes me back to 1981, when I applied to be a candidate in a constituency not very far from my home. It was impressed on me that I should buy a cottage in this constituency, to which my reply was that I lived half an hour away and had a fast car. That was one factor that meant I was not chosen as the candidate. The other was that I was competing against my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. That was much more important.
I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We had problems in my party in the Assembly election before last where two candidates could have been disqualified by being members of public bodies at the time they filed their nomination papers as candidates. One was in a paid office and one was not paid. But they could have been disqualified. One of them succeeded, as noble Lords will recall, in gaining entrance. The other did not.
My recollection is that in the last Wales Bill we adopted a similar provision to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley; namely, that they should have ceased to hold those public offices by the time they were sworn in as Members of the National Assembly for Wales. I think that is fair. A candidate does not know, particularly in my party, whether he is ever going to be elected. Accordingly, to ask him to move his house and family, even if it is only half an hour away and he has a fast car, is not a sufficient reason for disqualifying that person from being a candidate. Therefore, I support Amendment 22.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, there has been an unusual noise of breaking bottles outside your Lordships’ House this evening. It rather reflects what I personally would like to do with the Welsh Assembly electoral system. In my view, it has two quite incompatible electoral systems to it. The constituency Members are elected in the normal way to which we are accustomed. The top-up list of 20 is not really elected by the public at all. The truth of the matter is that the candidates who come top of the list of those of the political parties involved are selected by the members of those political parties. Those political parties can have their own selection process, which might well have absolutely nothing to do with residence in Wales or the interests of Wales. We have a fine example in one person who has been mentioned, who actually represents the riff-raff and detritus of our political system. It is very unfortunate for the Welsh Assembly that we have such a person within it.
I listened with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, as I always do. I understand absolutely the point he is seeking to make. In my old constituency of Montgomeryshire there is a main trunk road that goes through the village of Llanymynech. One side of that road is in Wales and the other side is in England, and indeed there is a public house that is well known to the local residents which has a bar in England and the rest of the pub in Wales, which was of great importance at the time of Sunday closing of pubs in Wales. However, that said, there is no God-given right to be a candidate in an election in Wales. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford just mentioned the two Liberal Democrats who were affected by their membership of public bodies in a way that was reasonably clear if you had gone to a lawyer to analyse the point before the election took place but was not totally clear otherwise.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Murphy and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for bringing these amendments before us tonight. I am sure that we all agree that we have had a very good debate on them. I think that this is the first time we have ever debated the qualifications of candidates for the Welsh Assembly. It is something that we should all be looking at. The current qualifications for candidates are wide. A candidate has to be at least 18 years of age, be a British citizen, an eligible British Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of any member state of the European Union—but I suppose that that could change in the near future. There is also no requirement in law for a candidate to be registered as an elector in Wales. I believe that the qualifications for those who stand for the House of Commons are very similar.
That is very different from the qualifications required to be a local government candidate in Wales and England. Some of them are similar to those for standing for the Commons and the Welsh Assembly, but with one big difference. Candidates have to meet at least one of four criteria. They must be registered as a local government elector for the local authority area in which they wish to stand from the day of nomination onwards, or occupying as the owner or tenant of any land or premises in the area during the whole of the 12 months prior to the day of nomination and on the day of the election. The local government area must be the main or only place of their work during the 12 months prior to the day of nomination and on the day of the election, or they must have lived in the area during the whole of the 12 months before the day of nomination and on the day of the election.
It is clear that local government candidates must have some links with the area which they represent. That makes sense and is in line with the amendments before us. What is good enough for local government candidates must surely be good enough for Welsh Assembly candidates. However, it is important that there should be more than one qualification. It should not be just a case of whether you are an elector and live in Wales; you should have wider qualifications. Of the four or five qualifications, or however many there are, a person should meet at least one of them.
This has been a very good debate and it is important that we should have had it. As other noble Lords have said, it has been brought about because of this year’s elections to the Welsh Assembly, which made us all think about the issue—I do not think that any of us had thought about it previously, because nobody believed that someone elected to the Welsh Assembly would not be Welsh or not be living in Wales. It has never happened before.
The matter requires further discussion, but I ask the Minister whether it could be included in the devolution of election matters to the Welsh Assembly as laid out in the Bill or whether it is a matter for the UK Government to determine. We believe that it should be for the Welsh Assembly to decide on qualifications of candidates. Let it decide what it believes are the right qualifications for candidates. It would probably agree that there should be more than one qualification to stand for election to it.
We need clarity, which I am sure the Minister will give us. If the matter is to be devolved, it is right that we should have had this debate. I am sure that Welsh Assembly Members and the Welsh Government will look what at what we have said. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for bringing the matter forward and, indeed, for admitting to a degree of “mea culpa” on earlier provisions.
The amendments would prevent individuals not resident in Wales, and not recorded as such on the electoral register, being Members of the National Assembly for Wales. As the Government committed to in the St David’s Day agreement, the Bill devolves powers over its own elections to the National Assembly for Wales. This includes the eligibility to stand as a candidate at such an election and the criteria under which a candidate may be disqualified from being an Assembly Member. These would be matters for Wales and the National Assembly for Wales. There is a slight irony in the fact that earlier we debated what “not normally” covers, yet here are seeking to legislate in areas that will now be presented to the National Assembly for discussion and decision. It is absolutely right that this area relating to electoral practice should be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hain—and I have had lawyers look at this—that these matters will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales and it is right that it considers them.
Very good points have been made by noble Lords in relation to the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, spoke about the residency requirement for those who may live just over the border at Knighton—close to the station perhaps, which is in England—rather than in the town of Knighton, and so on. They are issues that the Assembly will want to look at, just as it will no doubt want to look at the point made by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on the choice for electors. I speak as somebody who as an Assembly Member was determined to live in the area I represented; certainly, it was true then that everybody who was in the National Assembly for Wales lived in Wales. These are valid points for the Assembly to look at; they are not matters that we should pontificate on. With respect, I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I will briefly respond to his points at the end of my remarks.
When I moved this rather innocent, inconspicuous amendment, I had no idea that it would provoke such a rich debate about political principles, political theory and the nature of democracy; it has been very instructive and valuable indeed. My noble friend Lord Murphy really came to the nub of the matter when he said that this was about a country’s parliamentary legislature. This is something very precious to Wales and which needs to be given proper respect. That, in a way, links to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which she expressed very eloquently indeed. She said that Assembly Members should—by living in Wales, in this case—be subject themselves to the laws that they are passing and subject themselves to the policies that they are instrumental in enacting.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made a number of interesting points, but at one point he was almost saying that there should be no restrictions at all on candidature, or at least on Assembly Members. The main gist of his argument was about candidates, and I anticipated that, with my noble friend Lord Murphy, with our Amendment 21, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, with his amendment. I do not think that this is the same issue as that about Members of Parliament, because the constituency boundaries are not being changed by the change in the parliamentary constituencies at all. Of course, the parliamentary constituencies do not cross the border of Wales. The new legislation, if eventually enacted, does not do that either.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about his amendment. Frankly, I could not have done as effective a job as MP for Neath as I hope that I did without living in the constituency. That means living and breathing the life of the local rugby clubs, the local businesses and the local schools and hospitals, as I did for nearly a quarter of a century. He made a series of fair points in relation to pressing his amendment, by which I am rather persuaded. We can happily concede that. He asked about the Neath by-election. I had actually bought a house in the constituency five months before that by-election, although I must admit that I had a crazy mortgage, in retrospect. That was an important principle that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, felt was right.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, raised some very interesting points, but he seemed to offer no restrictions on where one must live in order to stand for, or be a Member of, the Assembly. You could be living anywhere—hundreds of miles away from Wales. I simply do not think that that is acceptable. My noble friend Lord Murphy made the point that, in practice, Welsh voters do not have a real choice about the particular Assembly Members they get through the regional lists, and I do not think that he addressed that point. It is, as my noble friend Lord Murphy said, a question of voting for the party.
Lord Norton of Louth
My point was that one should change the system so that the electors actually have a choice. The noble Lord is quite right about the point I was making. I would make it as open as possible for electors to choose whoever they want. I am all for eroding the restrictions on candidature. It is fundamentally a matter for the electors, so if a candidate does live hundreds of miles away, that is a matter for the electors. I remind him that, many years ago, it was actually a Labour Member who listed his address as Greece.
Lord Hain
I did discover all sorts of anomalies when I was Leader of the House of Commons about what was actually going on in terms of people’s residence, and I will not embarrass the noble Lord by mentioning where some of the Conservative MPs lived—that is another matter entirely. I am, as I say, more persuaded by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, than by my two, if I have not dropped my noble friend Lord Murphy in it, so I am happy to withdraw our amendment in his favour.
I also think that my noble friend Lady Gale made an important point about the Assembly having the right to do this and I would like the Minister to look at actually inserting into the Bill a power explicitly conferred to the Assembly to make provision for the eligibility of candidates. On that basis, and agreeing with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the principle at stake here has to be addressed one way or another—if not by this Parliament, then I hope by the Assembly, though it is a matter for that body—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.