House of Commons
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker.
The humanitarian situation in Yemen is one of the most serious crises in the world. The UN estimates that 19 million people are in need of help. The UK is providing support, and we are spending more than £100 million to provide assistance. We all agree that a political solution is the best way to end this conflict. I met foreign Ministers from Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and the United States on 18 December in Riyadh, along with Ismail Ahmed, the UN envoy, to advance the UN road map, which I hope will bring all parties back to the table.
Luciana Berger
The humanitarian situation in Yemen is deteriorating, and the UN estimates that 80% of the population are in need of humanitarian aid—about 21.2 million Yemenis. According to the Government’s own figures, British aid, although welcome, has reached less than 5% of the people in Yemen who need it—obviously nowhere near enough for a major emergency that is affecting people not only in Yemen, but in my constituency. What plans does the Minister have to increase the number of people in Yemen who can directly benefit from British support?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady raises an important aspect of this very sad conflict: we are denied a political solution, but it is the people of Yemen who are suffering. The cause of the problem is the inability to get aid into the country. The port of Aden is used as a conduit, but the main access to the majority of the country is through the port of Hodeidah, which unfortunately is currently in Houthi hands. The cranes are out of action, but we must ensure that we can gain greater access through. I spoke with Ismail Ahmed about what we can do to repair the cranes so that bigger ships can get in with equipment and support, which can then be distributed across the country.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I wholly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). The UN reports that there might be up to 370,000 starving children in Yemen, so in addition to our own aid what discussions has my hon. Friend had with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states about providing significant humanitarian aid themselves?
Mr Ellwood
It is fair to say—this is an important question—that while the headlines are about the military campaign Saudi Arabia and other members of the coalition are doing huge amounts to provide support and humanitarian aid for refugees in their countries. This is often done outside the auspices of the United Nations. During the United Nations General Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development held a conference to bring further countries together to support Britain’s work to get aid into and across the country.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their personal efforts in trying to broker a ceasefire. That is the key: we need a ceasefire in the same way as Turkey and Russia managed to achieve one for Syria. Have there been any further discussions with the United States about getting this back on to the agenda of the Security Council? I know that the Foreign Secretary was in America at the end of last week, so was this issue raised? When can we get this back for discussion at the UN?
Mr Ellwood
A later question on the Order Paper focuses on a UN Security Council resolution, but to touch on it now, yes, it is our ambition to gain a resolution along the lines of what the road map sets out. We met on 19 December and confirmed the direction of travel in which we want to go. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his understanding of the country that it is not so simple as suggesting this is all about the Houthis versus President Hadi and forces on his side. The complex tribal structures that are involved require the buy-in of many parts of the country to ensure that the ceasefire and cessation of hostilities can last.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Mr Ellwood
I can confirm that Yusuf bin Alawi, foreign Minister for Oman, was at the discussions on 19 December, along with Adel al-Jubeir, the Foreign Minister for Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah bin Zayed from the United Arab Emirates. These are the key nations providing support, and I pay tribute to the work that Oman has done through its discussions, bringing the Houthis to the table so that we can get something secure for the ceasefire that we are all searching for.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Inaccurate information has been provided to Parliament a number of times on Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The Minister has said previously that he acted immediately. However, a new freedom of information request reveals that not only the Minister but the former Foreign Secretary knew as early as 28 June last year that Parliament had been misled, but this was not corrected until 21 July. Does the Minister believe that the ministerial code was complied with?
Mr Ellwood
I can only guess that the hon. Gentleman’s question relates to the sale of cluster munitions, because he did not explain its context. Perhaps we can meet later so that he can ask me a fuller question. Alternatively, he can attend the debate on Thursday, when we shall doubtless discuss Yemen in more detail.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Last month the Defence Secretary informed the House that the Saudi Government had given assurances that they would no longer use UK-manufactured cluster bombs. Has the Minister received confirmation from the Saudis that they have now disposed of their stocks of those weapons?
Mr Ellwood
They have confirmed that that is their intention, and I hope to be able to ensure that it has actually happened in time for Thursday’s debate. I can go further, and tell the House that, before the Prime Minister’s visit to Manama for the Gulf Cooperation Council conference, I invited all the GCC nations to sign the convention on cluster munitions so that they could join other countries around the world in condemning those horrific weapon systems.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Ellwood
What the hon. Gentleman has said returns us to the original question. It is vital for us to gain full access to Sana’a, but again, unfortunately, that is in the hands of the Houthis. We are unable to utilise the airport, which would be the best way to get aid into the country, because of disagreements that are taking place. The sooner we can get all parties back around the table—including supporters of Saleh—the sooner we can bring about a cessation of hostilities and get that important aid back into the country, including the capital.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Let me begin by saying that I think it fitting for the House to welcome the fact that, whatever else 2016 brought, it was the first year in nearly four decades in which no member of our armed forces was killed in operations. Sadly, however, that is not because we live in a more peaceful world. In Yemen the conflict remains as fierce as ever, and the suffering of its children is worse than ever. As the Minister himself has said, it is the worst crisis in the world. One child is dying every 10 minutes from a lack of food.
I have here a copy of the United Kingdom’s draft United Nations resolution, which could bring an end to that conflict and allow the delivery of humanitarian relief. There is not a single word in that draft resolution with which any reasonable party could possibly disagree. Let me ask the Minister a simple question. Three months after the resolution’s first appearance, why is the UK still sitting on it?
Mr Ellwood
A UN resolution must be drafted in a way that makes it workable. That means that all parties must sign and agree to it, because otherwise it is just a piece of paper. If we are to ensure that the resolution can stand on the basis of what we are saying and can be enforced, the parties must get round the table and bring about a cessation of hostilities. The hon. Lady is right: we work towards the drafts, but we do not implement them until we are sure that the resolutions can work in practice.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the Minister for his answer, but I must tell him that we have heard all this before. I know that the Ministers do not listen to their ambassadors any more nowadays, but this is what our UN ambassador, Matthew Rycroft, said back in November when he was asked what it would take to achieve a permanent ceasefire:
“The UK will continue to support efforts…including through the use—if necessary—of our draft Security Council resolution.”
That was 50 days ago—50 days of continuing fighting—and we are still seeing the same old delaying tactics on the Government’s part. Let me ask the Minister again: when will the Foreign Secretary pull his finger out, present the resolution, and end what even he has acknowledged is a terrible proxy war?
Mr Ellwood
I am sorry to use these words, but the hon. Lady has just illustrated that she has no grasp of the United Nations process itself, or of what is taking place on the ground in Yemen; and to suggest that any member of the Government does not listen to our ambassadors is to disingenuously mislead the House. I invite—
Mr Speaker
Order. Of one thing we should be clear: that the Minister has a grasp of parliamentary protocol. He cannot accuse somebody of disingenuously misleading the House; both words are wrong, and both must be withdrawn.
Mr Ellwood
I withdraw those remarks; if I add “inadvertently”, and say inadvertently disingenuously misleading the House, would that work with you, Sir?
Mr Speaker
If somebody is disingenuous there can be nothing inadvertent about it, which I would have thought the hon. Gentleman was well-educated enough to recognise; do try to get it right, man.
Mr Ellwood
I think the point has been made, Mr Speaker, and I am sorry to test your patience, but it is important to understand that we take the words of, and work with, our ambassadors very seriously indeed. I spoke to Matthew Rycroft only a few days ago. We are the penholders on this matter at the UN Security Council, and I will make sure there is a phone call between him and the hon. Lady. He can explain the processes of the United Nations so that she becomes aware that we will not get a Security Council resolution passed until we get the cessation of hostilities in place.
Mr Speaker
Progress, apart from anything else, has been glacial—far, far too slow—so we need to speed up.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Foreign Secretary raised this consular case in November last year, and our high commission in Nicosia is also raising this delicate matter, including in discussions with north Cyprus. We will continue to push to see those guilty of the murder of George Low brought to justice.
Gareth Johnson
I thank the Foreign Office for its hard work in trying to secure justice for both George Low and Ben Barker. Natural justice demands that people should not be able simply to walk away from custody when accused of murder, yet northern Cyprus has allowed this to happen with one of the suspects and it is feared that the second will soon follow. Please can the Minister reassure the victim’s family that every possible effort will be made to persuade northern Cyprus to allow decency to prevail and for these men to face trial?
Mr Ellwood
The House will not be aware of this, but I know my hon. Friend is. It has been a delicate and difficult case and I commend the work he has done, including in working with the families, and I can assure him that the Minister with responsibility for Europe and FCO officials are fully engaged to provide the necessary support to both families. My hon. Friend will realise that because this involves north Cyprus, we cannot speak too widely about what discussions have taken place, but we are working hard to ensure justice is seen to follow.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister is right that this has been a complicated case, but there have been far too many complicated cases involving British nationals in the various different parts of Cyprus. Does he agree that the truth of the matter is that until we get a proper settlement of Cyprus so we no longer have a divided island and a divided city, there will be no long-term justice either for the people of this country in Cyprus or for that matter for the people of Cyprus?
Mr Ellwood
I hope the former Minister for Europe will join me in congratulating the two leaders, who are coming together this week. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is going to Geneva to try to push forward what will be monumental discussions to finally provide that important solution. I hope that then cases such as this will be able to be resolved much faster.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
We are concerned by reports about the detention of human rights defenders and activists in Colombia, often held without trial or access to legal representation. Our embassy in Bogota closely follows specific cases. The Prime Minister raised our concerns about threats to human rights defenders with President Santos during the state visit in November.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the Minister for his answer, but, following the amnesty law passed by the Colombian Congress on 28 December, will the Minister urge the Columbian Government to release all civil society prisoners, as agreed, as soon as possible?
Alok Sharma
We welcome the approval of the new amnesty Bill of course, and we believe it will lead to a benefit for all citizens and the wider region as part of the Columbian peace process. We look forward to all aspects of that law, particularly with regard to disarmament and reintegration.
Robert Flello
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
The transition zones are an important, if not crucial, aspect of the peace agreement, yet we are hearing reports of work on living quarters not even having started, of food being so rotten that people are suffering from severe and possibly lethal food poisoning, and of the supply of water being very scarce. Given that the transition zones are where the FARC troops are supposed to be concentrated as an essential element of the peace agreement, will Her Majesty’s Government please put absolute pressure on the Colombian authorities to ensure that the zones are properly completed?
Alok Sharma
We do of course raise these matters with the Colombian authorities on a regular basis. I take the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and we will of course relay it back.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The United Kingdom has supported the Colombian Government of Juan Manuel Santos throughout the difficult, recently concluded and very welcome peace process, and we have pledged our continuing support through the United Nations and the European Union. Will the Minister outline what specifically will be supported, and tell us whether the Colombian people and civil society will be included in the discussions on how the funds will be allocated?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that 2016 was an historic year for Colombia. The peace deal with the FARC ended the longest conflict in the western hemisphere. He asks about the range of support that we are providing for the peace process. It includes a contribution of £7.5 million to the UN trust fund, with more than £2 million dedicated to de-mining.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
According to a report from the Institute for Development and Peace Studies in 2016, there is now a paramilitary presence in 31 of the 32 Colombian departments. Will the Minister make urgent representations to the Colombian Government to ensure that the proliferation of paramilitaries and private armies is countered, and that the articles of the peace process are upheld?
Alok Sharma
I can confirm that we are concerned by reports of violence against human rights defenders, which has increased in 2016. Those attacks have increased in areas from which the FARC is withdrawing, which is disturbing. We will of course raise these matters with the Colombian Government, particularly the importance of security in conflict-affected areas.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Despite signing the partnership for peace agreement, the Houthis invaded the capital, Sana’a, placed Ministers under house arrest, took over ministerial buildings and committed extra-judicial killings. The Saudi-led military coalition was formed, following the legitimate request from President Hadi as set out in United Nations Security Council 2216. It is in this context that the UK supports the military intervention.
Carolyn Harris
At a time when millions in Yemen are facing starvation, it beggars belief that the Saudi coalition is routinely targeting airstrikes at cattle markets, dairy farms, food factories and other agriculture infrastructure. Can the Minister explain why the coalition is doing that, and why we are supporting it?
Mr Ellwood
We are not supporting them doing that, as the hon. Lady can no doubt imagine. We are working closely with the Saudi Arabians and the coalition to ensure that the protocols and standards that they are using in sustained warfare meet the international standards that we would expect, were we to be involved ourselves. Much of the information that comes from the battlefield is very unclear indeed, but we are enforcing transparency in a way that the Saudi Arabians and many other members of the coalition have never seen before.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Saudi-led coalition intends to restore the legitimate Government in Yemen, it is clearly right and proper that we should support it?
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend knows the region well and he is absolutely right. I want to make it clear, however, that the coalition has made errors. It has made mistakes. It has not endured sustained warfare in this manner before, and it is having to meet international standards as never before. It is having to provide reports when it makes mistakes, and it has never done that before. It has no experience of even writing reports. It wants to meet those standards and to work with the international community. We need to ensure that when errors are made, the coalition puts its hand up in the same way that we do and that the Americans did in Afghanistan only a few months ago.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Given that Saudi Arabia has finally admitted to using illegal cluster bombs in Yemen, what consequence or sanction is being planned by the UK Government against Saudi Arabia for that clear breach of international humanitarian law?
Mr Ellwood
If I may attempt to correct the hon. Gentleman, those cluster bombs are not illegal, because Saudi Arabia has not signed up to the convention on cluster munitions. Therefore it is in its right—indeed, any country’s right—to use cluster munitions should it wish. As I mentioned earlier, I have encouraged Saudi Arabia to make sure not only that it has destroyed all the cluster munitions that we sold it in the past, but that it gets rid of its entire arsenal of cluster munitions and signs the convention.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Has the Minister talked to the Saudi coalition about dealing with the long-standing threat from al-Qaeda and the growing threat from Daesh in Yemen, which threatens not just the Gulf but our security at home?
Mr Ellwood
In all our discussions with the Saudi Arabians and other coalitions that are learning how to conduct necessary warfare to the standards that we expect, we sometimes gloss over the fact that the absence of a solution allows the incubation of extremism in the form of Daesh, which is now present in the peninsular, and al-Qaeda. Until very recently, the port of Mukalla was completely run by that extremist operation. From our security perspective, more terrorist attacks are plotted in the peninsular by al-Qaeda than by any of its wings. Yes, it is very important that we work with our coalition friends to ensure that we defeat extremism in Yemen.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
May I endeavour to make a better case for Britain’s policy on the Yemen tragedy than the Minister made in his earlier replies? Will he now make clear the value to our security and to our dynamic aerospace industry of our relationship with the Saudis and the Gulf states? Will he also make clear the concern of the UK and the international community at the expansionist and subversive activities of the Iranian regime?
Mr Ellwood
There is nothing in that question with which I would disagree. Saudi Arabia is an important ally in the region. Its security and the region’s security is our security, too, but as the right hon. Gentleman also articulated, Saudi Arabia is unused to conducting such sustained warfare and it needs to learn. We are standing with Saudi Arabia to make sure it is learning lessons and to make sure that we work towards peace in Yemen, for all the reasons that we have discussed in the Chamber today.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I spoke to the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Netanyahu—he is also the Israeli Foreign Minister—on 23 December and raised the subject of illegal settlements. I probably spoke for a large majority of Members when I said that I am a strong and passionate supporter of the state of Israel, but I also believe that the continued expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank is by no means conducive to peace.
Paula Sherriff
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Will he further advise us on what assessment his Government have made of the Israeli Government’s intent to comply with UN Security Council resolution 2334 on illegal Israeli settlements?
Boris Johnson
That is clearly a matter for the Israeli Government, but I repeat our position that we believe—this is a long-standing view of the UK Government—that settlements in the west bank are illegal, and that the 20% expansion we have seen in those settlements since 2009 is a threat to the peace process. That was why we resolved as we did. Of course, there has been a certain amount of argument about that and a certain amount of push back from the Israeli Government, but the hon. Lady will find that there is a wide measure of international support for that view, which in no way diminishes this Government’s strong support for a Jewish homeland in Israel.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Is there anything in the substantial analysis presented by Secretary Kerry on 28 December, following the adoption of Security Council resolution 2334, with which the Foreign Secretary does not agree?
Boris Johnson
Let me repeat my point: John Kerry was completely right to draw attention to the illegal settlements and to the substance of resolution 2334. I remind the House that the UK was closely involved in its drafting, although of course it was an Egyptian-generated resolution. We supported it only because it contained new language pointing out the infamy of terrorism that Israel suffers every day, not least on Sunday, when there was an attack in Jerusalem. I was glad that the resolution identified that aspect of the crisis in the middle east, and John Kerry was absolutely right to point out the rounded nature of the resolution. May I pay tribute to John Kerry, who is shortly to step down as Secretary of State, for his tireless work for peace not just in Israel-Palestine, but across the wider middle east?
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s vote in favour of UN Security Council resolution 2334, not least because it stated that
“the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution”.
Following the Foreign Secretary’s discussions in the past couple of days with members of the incoming Administration in the United States, does he think that that view is shared by President-elect Trump?
Boris Johnson
I think it is a widespread view in Washington, and across the UN Security Council, that settlements are illegal, which was why the resolution went through as it did, without any opposition. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question directly, I think it is too early to say exactly what the Administration will decide on this matter, but he can rest assured that the British Government will continue to make the points that we have, not because we are hostile to Israel—on the contrary—but because we wish to support the state of Israel.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Let me try to get this right: the British ambassador is summoned formally in Israel because of the way the UK voted at the UN Security Council; meanwhile, in the UK, an employee of the Israeli embassy is caught on film conspiring with a British civil servant to take down a senior Minister in the Foreign Secretary’s Department, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and other Members of this House; and the Israeli ambassador makes a couple of phone calls and all is forgiven and forgotten. Can the Foreign Secretary enlighten us on the thinking behind all this?
Boris Johnson
I certainly can enlighten the House, in the sense that, as my right hon. Friend points out, the Israeli ambassador made a very full apology for what had taken place and the diplomat in question no longer seems to be a functionary of the embassy in London. Whatever that person might exactly have been doing here, his cover can be said to have been well and truly blown, and I think we should consider the matter closed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, because these are very important matters, but I must say that progress is lamentably slow, so long questions will be cut off from now on, because there are people lower down the Order Paper who must be reached.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
But if a UK embassy official had been caught on film in Tel Aviv talking about “taking down” an Israeli Government Minister, they would have been booted out of the country without any further ceremony, so why did that not happen to Mr Masot? If the Foreign Secretary showed even a teensy-weensy bit of resolve in such matters, perhaps Israeli diplomats would not talk about him in such disparaging terms.
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman seems, alas, to have been failing to pay attention to the salient point, which is that the Israeli diplomat in question is no longer doing his job in London—whatever his job is, he is no longer doing it in this city. The Israeli ambassador has made a full apology for the matter and I am happy to consider it closed.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and colleagues to discuss our grave concerns about resolution 2334, which my constituents believe will make peace in the middle east harder to achieve by imposing a complex set of preconditions that the Palestinians will use to avoid serious engagement in negotiation?
Boris Johnson
I am very grateful for that question, and I am happy to offer exactly such a consultation with colleagues. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), has already undertaken to do just that.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the horrific attack on Israeli soldiers in Jerusalem on Sunday. We will never achieve a lasting peace in the middle east until the state of Israel, its soldiers and civilians are free from the threat of terror. Nor will we achieve that lasting peace until all sides accept a two-state solution and a viable Palestinian state can be built, free from illegal settlements. In his allegedly frank discussions with the incoming Trump Administration on Sunday, was the Foreign Secretary frank about those points, too? If so, what response did he receive?
Boris Johnson
The answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second is wait and see.
Mr Speaker
I call Virendra Sharma. Not here. Where is the feller? I am becoming accustomed to having to say this every day; it is very unsatisfactory.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
First, let me repeat the condolences that we have offered, and that I am sure that many Members will want to join me in offering, to the people of Germany for the terrible attack that they sustained on 19 December. We continue to work with our German counterparts to strengthen security. We have superb relations with Germany, and it is vital, both as we go through the Brexit process and beyond, that we deepen and intensify that friendship.
William Wragg
I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s expression of condolence to the people of Berlin. Given that Germany is a net exporter to the United Kingdom and would not want its economy to be affected through the imposition of tariffs, what extra work is being done to build diplomatic relations for the benefit of future reciprocal free trade between our two countries?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful for that question because, as my hon. Friend will know very well, a big operation is now going on. UK Trade & Investment and British diplomacy are pointing out the salient facts that German investment in this country is responsible for around 344,000 jobs here in the UK, and UK investment in Germany is responsible for 222,000 jobs. It would be the height of insanity to imperil either of those sets of investments.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary speaks of our relationship with Germany as being very good and special. Is it not a fact that many leading Germans are concerned about Britain leaving the European Union and the impact that that will have on Europe’s security, particularly in terms of our commitment to NATO, given the instability we see in Russia?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman asks an acute question. Of all the countries in the EU and the rest of Europe that care about our departure, I would say that it is certainly the Germans who have been most psychologically and emotionally affected by the 23 June referendum result. That is why the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) is so apposite and why engagement is vital.
On NATO and our joint defence, the hon. Gentleman should not forget that we contribute 25% of the EU’s defence expenditure, and that will continue, because while we may be leaving the EU, we are not leaving Europe, and our commitment to Europe’s defence is undiminished.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Thanks to our historical connections and our shared economic and other interests, which include foreign policy, defence, security, trade and culture, we have exceptionally strong relationships with the Gulf Co-operation Council nations. That was reflected in the warm reception that the Prime Minister received when she attended the GCC summit in November and established a new UK-GCC strategic partnership.
Jo Churchill
So does the Minister agree that Britain has a unique competitive advantage in securing a free trade agreement with the GCC due to those desired sectors and our long-standing friendship, as well as the GCC’s desire for economic diversification?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One reason why the Chancellor was visiting the region only a couple of weeks ago was to enforce those exact points. I am sure that once the Brexit discussions have moved forward, one of the first areas with which we will consolidate a trade agreement will be the GCC nations.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
In December, the Foreign Secretary accused Saudi Arabia of “playing proxy wars” and destabilising the region. Soon afterwards, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said that that was not the Government’s view. Whose view was the Foreign Secretary expressing?
Mr Ellwood
Let me expand that out further to our relationship with the GCC nations. As I said earlier, those countries are advancing, but they are still very new. Saudi Arabia became an independent country in modern terms only in 1932. It is because of our close relationship with those countries in a wide variety of sectors and the trust that we have in them that we are encouraging them to advance in their governance systems.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The diplomatic stature of the GCC has risen significantly in recent years, not least because of the wise guidance of the GCC Secretary-General, Abdullatif al-Zayani, who is a friend of the Minister and of mine. In view of the impasse in the middle east peace process and the GCC’s relationship with the Arab states and Israel, does he believe that the time is now right for the GCC and the Arab states to take some initiative to move the middle east peace process forward?
Mr Ellwood
I know that that is close to my right hon. Friend’s heart, and that he worked very hard on it when he was Minister for the middle east. He is absolutely right that, as the GCC grows in its prowess, strength and authority, it has an important role to play in what is arguably one of the longest-running concerns, which started with the occupation of the occupied territories more than 50 years ago. In the year that we mark the Balfour declaration, I hope that we will also make progress in this area.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Is not one of the biggest challenges facing the GCC countries the conflict in Yemen, where they have in excess of 100,000 troops? They are up against a rebel group that has been involved in extra-judicial killings, that is trying to overthrow the country, and that is involved in torture. The Library briefing notes put the number of child soldiers in the rebel group at 30%. Is that not a disgrace? Is it not the biggest challenge facing the GCC countries, and should we not be supporting them?
Mr Ellwood
I agree that it is one of the biggest challenges for the GCC. We forget that this is its neighbourhood—its backyard. Those countries want regional security in the same way that we do—we want it near where we live, work and want to raise families. Exactly the same applies to the GCC nations, and it is something that I will explore more in the debate on Thursday.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
We have regular consultations about the future shape of our diplomatic relations with the rest of the EU. The hon. Lady should understand that we may be leaving the EU treaties, but we are not leaving Europe. There will be plenty of ways in which we will continue to collaborate on all the issues that are vital to us, whether in the EU or out.
Emma Reynolds
I welcome that answer. Free movement is a key issue in discussions with our EU counterparts. Have the Government therefore considered that in order to get the best possible access to the European single market, we should propose a managed migration system that still gives preference to EU workers, welcoming those with high skills, but limiting the numbers of low and semi-skilled workers coming here to work?
Boris Johnson
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I say that that would come under the category of our giving a running commentary on our negotiating position. We cannot do that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) says that Brexit means Brexit, and she is perfectly right.
Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Given the trade ties that my right hon. Friend has already mentioned and the fact that we are Europe’s largest defence contributor, does he agree that we should not have to make deals on immigration and free movement to secure a good trade agreement with our allies and friends in Europe?
Boris Johnson
May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on his well-deserved knighthood in the new year’s honours list? He speaks very good sense. I think that I can agree with him completely without in any way being convicted of giving a running commentary on our negotiations, so I thank him very much.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Never mind a running commentary, has the Foreign Secretary given any commentary at all to his own officials, such as Sir Ivan Rogers, who left the service saying that he had not been given any sense of the Government’s negotiating objectives? Will the Secretary of State perhaps speak to Sir Tim Barrow and give him a clue about what the Government intend to do?
Boris Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman consults the speeches of the Prime Minister more closely, he will discover a wealth of information about our negotiating position, but since he has not bothered to do that, I do not propose to enlighten him now, except to say that Sir Ivan Rogers did an excellent job and always gave me very good advice. I think his reasons for stepping down early were persuasive. Sir Tim Barrow, as anybody who has worked with him will know—I think that people on both sides of the House will have done so—is an outstanding public servant with long-standing experience of UK representation in Brussels, and he will do a superb job in the forthcoming talks.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that not only are diplomatic relations important, but relationships between Members of this House and European partners have been important. Membership of the Council of Europe, of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and of all-party groups has never been more important, so can he give an assurance that his Department will assist in every way in making sure that bilateral relationships that exist between Members of this House and Europe will be encouraged?
Boris Johnson
Absolutely—I am very happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. As he will know, there are parliamentary bodies of one party or another that have links with sister parties across the continent, and we will do absolutely everything we can to promote that in the years ahead.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
On behalf of Labour Members, may I pay tribute to the long and distinguished career of Sir Ivan Rogers? He served successive Governments with great distinction, and most of the Secretary of State’s predecessors had the good sense to appreciate it; it is a pity that he could not do so until just now when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) managed to press him. In his resignation letter, Sir Ivan said:
“Contrary to the beliefs of some, free trade does not just happen”.
Can the Secretary of State explain who Sir Ivan had in mind?
Boris Johnson
I have given my views about Sir Ivan, but I am happy to repeat them: I think he is, as the hon. Gentleman said, an outstanding public servant, and he always gave me very frank advice. It is vital for officials to continue to give their round, unvarnished views of matters such as the ease of negotiating free trade deals. It is not necessarily going to be simple, but there is no reason to think it cannot be done speedily, and no reason to think we cannot have fantastic free trade deals, not least with the United States of America.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
We are using every forum at our disposal to try to encourage both sides to get to the negotiating table. It is deeply frustrating. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House who have condemned the appalling attack on—the murder of—four Israeli soldiers at the weekend. All I can do is repeat what we have said: the only way forward has to be a two-state solution, and that is why it was important to restate the Government’s position in resolution 2334.
Mrs Ellman
The General Secretary of the UN has warned about Iran’s activities in arming Hezbollah in Lebanon through its base in Syria. What can the Foreign Secretary do to combat this growing menace to the prospects of any peace in the region?
Boris Johnson
It is very important to recognise that Iran is a malign influence across the region, and we must be very vigilant about what it is doing. On the other hand, we have to engage with Iran. I think the JCPOA—joint comprehensive plan of action—does represent, still, a substantial and valid way forward, and it would be regrettable if we were to junk that process now.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Boris Johnson
As my hon. Friend will know, the level of violence, as we have discussed, has been down by comparison with 2015, but it is still too high. I think it was important, therefore, that the resolution, which has been so much discussed this morning, had that balance in it and that language in it pointing out the threat that Israel faces. It is important that we stress that, and that we encourage the Palestinians to understand that there can be no hope of peace unless they get their extremists under control.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary is using every forum to bring peace. Will he, therefore, be attending the Paris conference, and what new initiative will the UK Government be putting forward there?
Boris Johnson
I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that the UK Government will be attending the Paris talks and we will be reinforcing our message, which is that we think that both sides must get round the table and negotiate. That is the only way forward. It would be folly now to abandon a two-state solution, because, in the end, a one-state solution is not in the interests of Israel.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Government regularly receive reports of sectarian attacks on Christian and other religious communities in the middle east. We want to work with all Governments across the middle east and north Africa to ensure that freedom of religion or belief is respected.
Kevin Foster
Although the genocide of Christians in the areas ruled by Daesh has rightly taken the most attention, my hon. Friend will be only too aware that the persecution of Christians across the region is way too common. Will he join me, therefore, in welcoming the work done by Open Doors to highlight that, and what plans does he have to consider its latest report, which is due to be launched in the House tomorrow?
Mr Ellwood
May I briefly say that I very much welcome the work that is done by organisations such as Open Doors, and the work that my hon. Friend has done to promote them? I look forward to reading the report, which I think is due out tomorrow. Open Doors makes a major contribution to that work and the Government’s thinking to try to support Christians and other religious communities in the middle east and north Africa.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Given all these crimes against Christians in the middle east, will the Government ensure that we do everything we can to make sure that this is recognised as genocide in the international courts?
Mr Ellwood
I have said in this House that I personally believe that acts of genocide have taken place, but it is not my view that counts; it is whether we can legally prove that. As we have debated here before, it is important that we collect the evidence. I am sure that the House will be delighted to know—it has been confirmed already— that the Foreign Secretary joined other countries, including Iraq, at the United Nations General Assembly to launch the work to be done to collect the evidence to make sure that we can hold those who have conducted these horrific activities to account.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I have come back this morning from the United States, where I have been discussing these matters with the incoming Administration. It was clear that there is a wide measure of agreement between us over the challenges we face. I assure the House that our embassy in Washington and the Prime Minister’s office—No. 10—and officials at all levels are engaging with the incoming team to make sure that we work in lock step to build on those areas of agreement.
Henry Smith
In addition to talks with the incoming US Administration, what talks, specifically with regard to security and trade, did my right hon. Friend have with congressional leaders?
Boris Johnson
I have to say to the House that there was a huge fund of goodwill for the United Kingdom on Capitol Hill, and a very large measure of understanding that now is the time to do a free trade deal. They want to do it, and they want to do it fast. That understanding was most vivid and most urgent on the part of the incoming Administration.
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Virendra Sharma. Has the feller now manifested himself? No, sadly not. Never mind. He is not here, but Rebecca Pow is.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
My priorities for 2017 are to renew our efforts to address the crisis in the middle east; to work towards securing the best deal for Britain in the negotiations with our European partners that will be begun by the triggering of article 50; and to build an even stronger working relationship with the US Administration. As I have said, I have just returned from furthering that ambition in the US. As this is the last FCO questions before the end of the Obama Administration, let me repeat formally my thanks to John Kerry for his tireless dedication.
Rebecca Pow
Illegal trading in wildlife is now the fourth most lucrative transnational crime, and it has a hugely destabilising effect on habitats and on many communities. On that note, will the Secretary of State tell me what his Department is doing to help to combat the poaching and illegal ivory trading in Africa?
Boris Johnson
This Government have made it clear that combating the illegal wildlife trade is one of our priorities. We have a dedicated illegal wildlife trade team in London, working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As my hon. Friend will know, the Secretary of State recently came back from a highly successful conference in Hanoi on the ivory trade. We are supporting—[Interruption.] With our funds, we are supporting—[Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who mocks the elephants, that the number of elephants is diminishing by 8% every year. Thanks to the efforts of this Government, that issue is being raised up the international agenda again. We are spending considerable sums of money to support those who are combating the poachers.
Mr Speaker
All questions and answers from now on need to be extremely brief, irrespective of how distinguished those who put the questions are or judge themselves to be. I call Mr Alex Salmond.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
When the right hon. Gentleman was a columnist, he was supportive of some aspects of President Putin’s policies. When he became Foreign Secretary, he became vehemently hostile to Russian policy. After his visit to New York, we are told he is pursuing a twin-track policy, which means that we will be supportive and hostile at the same time. At what time during his visit to Trump Tower did he decide that duplicity was the best policy?
Boris Johnson
I really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to go back and look at what I said previously. I have never been supportive of the policies of President Putin in Syria. Quite frankly, I do think it is important to understand that Russia is doing many bad things—if we look at what they have done on cyber-warfare and what they are doing in the western Balkans, there is no doubt that they are up to no good—but it is also important for us to recognise, and I think he will find that this is exactly what I said a few years ago, that there may be areas where we can work together, and that is what we should do.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
My hon. and learned Friend asks a very fundamental question, because in a sense there is a cold war feel to the relationship between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites, yet the doctrinal difference is actually almost insignificant. Both agree on the absolute centrality of the Prophet Muhammad, but the big issue is about the succession—whether the successor was Ali, the cousin and son-in-law, or Abu Bakr, the father-in-law. She is absolutely right that if the two sides can be reconciled, prosperity and security will improve, and I hope Britain can have a role to play. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
As I have just been advised by our most esteemed procedural expert in the House, we do not need a lecture in each of these cases. We need a pithy question and a pithy reply.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary met Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s chief strategist, a man whose website is synonymous with anti-Semitism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, the hero worship of Vladimir Putin and the promotion of extremist far-right movements across the world. May I ask the Foreign Secretary how he and Mr Bannon got on?
Boris Johnson
I do not wish to embarrass any member of the incoming Administration by describing the friendliness or otherwise of our relations. What I can say is that the conversations were genuinely extremely productive. There is a wide measure of agreement between the UK and the incoming Administration about the way forward, and we intend to work to build on those areas of agreement.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Boris Johnson
I am grateful for that question because it is important for the House to keep in mind the importance of the sanctions. The support for sanctions against Russia—for instance, over Ukraine—is not as strong as it should be in other parts of the European Union, and the UK is in the lead in keeping the pressure on.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
Boris Johnson
The short answer is that my enthusiasm is nothing compared with the enthusiasm of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. We will get a good deal, but it has to be a good deal for the UK as well.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We did not learn the lessons, or the lessons were not learnt, in 2013 when there was a failure to listen to the moderate Sunni voices. That is what allowed Daesh to develop. Extremism is flourishing across north-east Africa and, indeed, the middle east, and will do so unless we engage with those moderates to ensure that they are brought to the table. That is why planning in places such as Mosul and Aleppo needs to be done at once, before the guns fall silent.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Boris Johnson
I am sure the House will forgive me if I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we do not discuss intelligence matters or their operational nature.
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Palestinian authorities did not issue a prompt condemnation of the murder of Israeli soldiers over the weekend? Does he believe that the Palestinian Authority’s glorification of violence, refusal to recognise Israel and refusal to meet face to face is one of the major obstacles to a two-state solution?
Boris Johnson
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point because it is absolutely true. Yes, resolution 2334 has been characterised as a settlements resolution. As I have explained to the House, it also contains some valuable language about terrorism. But there can be no lasting solution for that part of the world unless there is better leadership of the Palestinians and unless they renounce terror.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Mr Ellwood
Not in so many words, but I have had the opportunity to congratulate President-elect Barrow. I believe absolutely that the previous President, who has been there since 1994, should recognise the will of the Gambian people and step down.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
May I ask the Foreign Secretary what agreement there will be on policy towards Russia between the British Government and the new US Administration, given the new Administration’s indebtedness to President Putin through the leaking and hacking of emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman?
Boris Johnson
I make no comment on the electoral efficacy of the hacking of the DNC emails, except to say that it is pretty clear that it did come from the Russians. The point that we have made to the incoming Administration, and indeed on Capitol Hill, is just this: as I said earlier, we do think that the Russian state—the Putin Kremlin—is up to all sorts of very dirty tricks, such as cyber-warfare, but it would be folly for us further to demonise Russia or to push Russia into a corner, so a twin-track strategy of engagement and vigilance is what is required.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary referred to the middle east process. Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry failed in their efforts to get a bilateral agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. Is it not now time to go to the international sphere, in the sense of the Arab initiative originally introduced by Saudi Arabia in 2002?
Boris Johnson
The only way forward is for both sides to get to the negotiating table and recognise that a two-state solution is the way forward.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary share the concern on both sides of the House at President Erdogan’s latest power grab, following the retrograde steps he has already taken to Islamise a formerly secular Turkish society?
Boris Johnson
It is very important to recognise that the Turkish state—the Turkish Government—was the victim of a violent attempted coup in which hundreds of people died. It was entirely wrong of many Governments in the EU instantly to condemn Turkey for its response rather than to see that, again, there is a balance to be struck. Turkey is vital for our collective security; the last thing we need to do is to push it away and push it into a corner.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Last month, a UK Government spokesperson told Sky News that the Government are
“aware of reports of an alleged airstrike on a school”
in Yemen
“using UK-supplied weapons and are seeking further information regarding the incident.”
Can the Minister update us today on progress on that?
Mr Ellwood
I know the hon. Lady follows these events very closely. I do not know the details of that particular Sky report—I have not seen it. I am very happy to meet her outside the Chamber to discuss it. I can give her a reply in due course, or I can give her a public reply in the now much-vaunted and much-publicised debate we are having on Yemen on Thursday.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Since 1953, the Foreign Office has supported Marshall scholarships to help young Americans to study in the UK. Will my right hon. Friend continue to support this increasingly important aspect of the special relationship?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
The Government, of course, support the Marshall scholarship programme. It is another example of Britain’s soft power, and I am delighted to say that we have made additional funding available to enable 40 scholars to study at UK universities from September this year.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary and Ministers will be aware of the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, economically and politically. What role can the British Government play over the next six months or so, which will be crucial to the people of Zimbabwe?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady knows the country very well indeed. Obviously, our relationship has been strained because of the current leadership. She speaks about six months, and who knows what will happen in those six months, but we are working closely with the neighbouring countries to provide the necessary support for the people, who are suffering more than ever before under the current President’s regime.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that improving trust and intelligence sharing with Egypt is vital to our security efforts in Libya? Given that we have heard no security concerns over the Sharm el-Sheikh airport, does he agree that resuming flights there would be a good place to start and would have important security dividends for UK citizens here?
Boris Johnson
It is, of course, true that the loss of UK tourist business to Egypt has been very severe, and we are working hard with our Egyptian counterparts to get the reassurances that we need to restore those flights, which we all want to happen.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Earlier this morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said that the Government only support UN Security Council resolutions when they know they can be enforced. So, if the Israelis continue with the settlement programme, what steps will the Foreign Secretary take to enforce resolution 2334?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Lady will know very well that we are working with our international counterparts to persuade both sides to get to the table, to persuade the Palestinians to drop their violence and recognise the existence of the state of Israel and show some leadership, and to persuade both sides to understand that a two-state solution is the only way forward. I believe that that is the best thing for the Government to do.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Many of my constituents are concerned that the recent UN vote marks a change in the British Government’s stance towards Israel. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that that is not the case, and that we remain steadfast allies of that beacon of liberalism and democracy in the middle east?
Boris Johnson
As is well known, the state of Israel is just about the only democracy in that part of the world. It is a free and liberal society, unlike many others in the region. I passionately support the state of Israel. It was very important that, in resolution 2334, the UK Government not only stuck by 30-year-old UK policy in respect of settlements, but underscored our horror of violence against the people of Israel.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Just as a matter of interest—perhaps others are not so interested— does the Foreign Secretary find that his counterparts are somewhat surprised to find a genuine British eccentric holding the position he holds?
Boris Johnson
I honestly cannot speak for the response of my counterparts. The hon. Gentleman can take this in whichever way he chooses, but all I can say is that there was a wide measure of agreement on both sides of the table on some of the problems that our societies face in America and UK, on the need for some fresh thinking, and on the huge potential of the UK and the US to work together to solve those problems.
Mr Speaker
I very much doubt that the proposition that the Foreign Secretary is an exotic individual would be subject to a Division of the House.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of my constituent Billy Irving, who is wrongly imprisoned in India. As we await yet another judgment, what are the Foreign Secretary’s plans to get Billy and his colleagues home whatever the outcome? Will the Foreign Secretary reassure us and them that that remains his priority, and that it will not be derailed by his Government’s Brexit bedlam?
Alok Sharma
Our heart goes out to Billy Irving’s family and all those involved. I raised this matter with the Minister of External Affairs and the Indian Foreign Secretary when I visited India in October. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also raised it with Prime Minister Modi. We are pressing for speedy due process to take place. As the hon. Lady knows, we await the outcome of the appeal process.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was an outstanding Mayor of London. During his time, he was the first to champion the City of London and a believer of the value of the single market. Will he assure us that, in his meetings with the incoming Trump Administration, he disabused Wilbur Ross, the incoming Commerce Secretary, of his view that Brexit is a God-given opportunity for London’s commercial rivals to take business from the City?
Boris Johnson
My right hon. Friend will find that the City of London has been through all sorts of vicissitudes that people prophesied would lead to its extinction. I remember people making exactly the same arguments about the creation of the single currency and about the economic crash in 2008, and the City of London has gone from strength to strength. Canary Wharf alone is now a bigger financial centre than the whole of Frankfurt. By the way, that opinion was shared completely by our friends and counterparts in Washington. I have no doubt that the commercial and financial dominance of the City of London in this hemisphere will continue.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Further to the question of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), my constituent Ray Tindall and the other men of the Chennai Six, who are in prison for a crime they did not commit, will be looking for a little bit more than thumb-twiddling and warm words. Does the Minister have any concrete proposals to get those innocent men home within the next six months?
Alok Sharma
As I have said, we take this matter incredibly seriously. We have raised it on a number of occasions and will continue to do so. We cannot seek to interfere in the legal process of another country, but let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing absolutely everything we can to urge a speedy process and to make sure the men get help in prison.
Mr Speaker
Finally, a cerebral and immensely patient Member of the House who is unfailingly courteous at all times, Jeremy Lefroy.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. What support are Her Majesty’s Government giving to the welcome moves towards a settlement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
Mr Ellwood
I had the pleasure of visiting the country last year. I was very concerned about the delay to the elections, of which my hon. Friend will be aware, and President Kabila not recognising that his time was up. I am pleased that political dialogue has now been developed between the Government and the Opposition, and that we are now on a programme to ensure elections happen in 2017. I will return to the country very soon to make sure that is enforced, and to offer our support and assistance to this important country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues. This Question Time session probably enjoys a greater demand than any other, but I am afraid supply is finite.
Mr Speaker
Two hours, the Minister chunters from a sedentary position. I certainly would not object to that. He is a member of the Executive. If the Government want to table such a proposition, I think there might be very substantial support for it. I try to expand the envelope, but there are limits: if we do not have a longer session people will have to be briefer in questions and answers.
We now come to the urgent question. I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I’d support the two hours, Mr Speaker.
HMRC Estate
(7 years, 3 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
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the National Audit Office report, published today, on the Government’s management of the HMRC Estate.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
HMRC’s transformation plans will allow it to become a more efficient and effective tax collector fit for the digital age. HMRC’s large estate is ageing and not delivering the best value for money for the taxpayer. The NAO has confirmed that savings of £80 million per year will be made by 2025.
The size of HMRC’s estate has been reducing since 2006, and the NAO report published today shows that HMRC has made some effective changes since 2010, while reducing staff numbers by a quarter and saving the taxpayer over £350 million pounds. However, HMRC wants to keep up the momentum to provide a better service at a reduced cost. As it announced in 2015, that means taking forward big reforms of how the estate works, which will see over 170 small offices consolidated into 13 larger regional offices, an approach which is used across government. This brings with it a whole range of advantages, from efficiently sharing resources and quality digital infrastructure to better support and career opportunities for the staff who can more effectively share expertise. For the public, what this really means is a better, more modern service run by fewer staff costing about £80 million a year less by the time the changes take effect.
The report out today suggests that the costs of bringing about this transformation are likely to be higher than was first forecast. Of course, certain aspects of the programme could not be definitively made at the start. There is a wide range of factors behind that, from rising property costs and changes to the programme, for example to help staff to adjust and to ensure a smooth transition for customers, so the programme costs are of course updated to reflect that. I therefore thank the NAO for its timely report.
The strategy to modernise the service that HMRC provides to taxpayers is the right approach and reflects the way taxpayers now interact with it. It is a plan to say goodbye to the days of the manual processing of tasks that can be done more easily with today’s technology. In short, we remain fully committed to taking forward the changes to the HMRC estate that will help us to bring a better tax service for the people of this country.
John McDonnell
In reality, the report is damning of the Government’s plans to close 170 offices. We on the Opposition Benches have warned consistently that the Government’s proposals will have a detrimental impact on HMRC’s ability to provide advice and to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance.
The NAO report confirms our fears. First, it called the original office closure plan unrealistic. The estimates of the costs of the move increased by 22%, which is £600 million extra. It forecasts a further 5,000 job losses and finds that the costs of redundancy and travel have tripled from £17 million to £54 million. It also says that HMRC cannot demonstrate how its services can be improved and has not even produced a clear programme business case for the planned closures.
As we predicted, this is an emerging disaster. Even the Government now accept that there is a tax gap of at least £36 billion, yet these plans will do nothing but hinder the effort to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. Some 73% of the staff surveyed said that the plans would undermine their ability to provide tax collection services, while 50% said they would actually undermine their ability to clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance. Will the Minister now call a halt to the planned office closures, end the job cuts at HMRC and come back with a realistic plan to resource HMRC fully in its vital tax collection role?
Jane Ellison
The shadow Chancellor is right that HMRC’s tax collection role is vital. At the heart of many of the changes made since the original estimates and planning for this part of the transformation are measures to better support staff and put more things in place to support their move. It is interesting that he makes no mention of the potential benefit to staff of the move. Of course, some will not be able to make the move, but the vast majority will live within an hour’s journey and will be supported, including through the one-to-one conversations which happen with staff ahead of any move.
The shadow Chancellor’s comments do not accurately represent what the NAO said. It has actually recognised that HMRC’s move to regional centres is central to its strategic aim to increase tax revenue, improve customer service and make cost savings. The move to regional centres has never been just about cost savings or buildings; it is partly about how people work in those buildings. Ultimately, we will have an opportunity to change how we work. In 1982, my first job after leaving school was in an old tax office. Some of those offices are over 100 years old and some have not changed since I was working in one as a school leaver. It is absolutely right that we commit to making sure that staff can work in a modern environment.
All staff will be offered the chance to move, and for those who cannot, there will be one-to-one, bespoke support, and some of them will go to other Departments, so some of the comments we have heard are absolute nonsense. [Interruption.] There is a lot of chuntering from the Opposition Front-Bench team, but they are not listening to the facts and they have not read what the NAO actually said. This is a major programme, and it is right that the overall costs be periodically reviewed, but HMRC is not looking to make any significant changes to its overall strategy. We want its staff to work closer together in regional centres and specialist sites in a modern, flexible and high-quality working space.
Lastly, on tackling tax evasion and the tax gap, no Government have done more than this one. It is absolute nonsense to say that HMRC’s capacity to tackle those two issues is diminished; far from it—the UK’s tax gap is one of the smallest in the world and at its lowest ever level. In the summer Budget, we gave HMRC an extra £800 million to tackle tax evasion, and it has done that extremely well, such that once again we have reached record levels of compliance with regards to money from anti-tax evasion measures. I therefore rebut entirely the shadow Chancellor’s points in that regard.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend take it from me that in my experience dealing with constituents and corporations in my constituency who have made inquiries to HMRC, its response times and how it handles cases have improved immensely over the past few years, and that in respect of its seeking to deal with tax evasion and avoidance, there is absolutely no doubt that it has raised its game considerably?
Jane Ellison
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, and I am glad that he has put on the record his appreciation for staff. He is absolutely right. In the past six months, call waiting times have averaged less than five minutes and customer service has improved to the best levels in years. This is something that HMRC management keep under constant review. It is absolutely right that we seek to provide the best service possible, but we cannot do that in un-modernised offices. For example, we must recognise that investing in the most up-to-date digital infrastructure is unrealistic across an estate of more than 150 offices. We need to bring people together in an environment that is fit for the future both for staff and customers.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The NAO has actually said that
“HMRC’s original plan has proved unrealistic”,
that
“suitable property will not be available…within the time frame set out”,
that
“HMRC now estimates it may lose up to 5,000 staff”,
which will require recruitment while it simultaneously carries out redundancies, and that the plans were
“over-optimistic…and carried too high a risk of disruption”.
These are very similar warnings to those expressed in respect of the outturn failings in 2009 of the strategic transfer of the estate to the private sector—STEPS—programme. Given how clear and stark the warnings are, would it not make more sense to pause this, rip it up and start again?
Jane Ellison
No, that is not right; I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The factors driving the programme—the reasons we want to transform HMRC into the most modern and digital tax authority in the world—all still stand. We have always been open about the fact that this is an ambitious transformation, and as with any major programme, a number of which are running at the same time, it is right that it be looked at regularly. Of course HMRC will respond in detail to the NAO report, but the principle driving the plan stands good, for all the reasons I have talked about—it is better for customers, better for staff and better for the taxpayer.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the STEPS programme, but the NAO report noted how much better HMRC had been managing it. There were problems with the programme, which was initiated under the last Labour Government, but the report compliments HMRC on the way it is managing it and got some of the private finance initiative costs under control, and so on. It is right that we constantly re-evaluate programmes of this importance, but I do not agree with the thrust of his question. It is also worth noting that while Scotland accounts for 8% of the UK’s population, 12% of the HMRC workforce will remain there, so Scotland remains a very important part of the HMRC estate.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is good to hear the Minister make the point that the telephone answering is improving. On the Public Accounts Committee, we have been looking at this on an ongoing basis, and we have probably had more information on it from MPs across the House than on any other issue. We support the programme, but with the digital world moving forward will the Minister set out how we will make sure that the staff on the end of the phone have the right qualifications to support businesses and individuals who need information?
Jane Ellison
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Given her membership of the PAC, it is important and nice to have them on the record. Much work has gone into improving customer service levels. At the moment, they are very good and improving and remain a key focus. She made a point about supporting staff with training and so on. That will be much easier in regional centres. For example, at the moment we have a large number of offices, and owing to the nature of the tasks being undertaken and the number of people working in them, it is not possible to provide easy and effective training programmes or to plan career progression in the way it is when a large number of people are concentrated together. As is reflected across both Government and the private sector, we can do a lot more for people when we can concentrate a different range of skills so that people have a chance to plot a career within the same office. That goes to the heart of how we intend to improve the service to customers.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The trouble with all this talk of regional centres is that this is exactly what has happened in every other Department. In constituencies such as mine and across the whole of the south Wales valleys, it feels as if the Government have just said, “No, we’re not interested. Everything’s going to Cardiff. Forget about it.” May I urge the Minister to think again? The Treasury and the whole of Government have a social responsibility, particularly to areas such as Rhondda and the valleys, to ensure they have a local presence.
Jane Ellison
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the motivation. As I said, there is a balance to be struck between the service to customers, how we support staff and how we serve the wider taxpayer interest. Yes, across Government there has been a move towards more modern and—in some cases, perhaps—more centralised services. There is a balance to be struck, but there is a robust programme of support in place for staff who cannot move, and to help them extra money has been put into the transitional costs associated with transport, for example. HMRC is working with other Government Departments to make sure that where we can, we take advantage of the high skills people have, to move them to other Departments where their skills can be used.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister noted that there were some compliments in the NAO report on how HMRC has moved to a more realistic plan for this project, and is now managing the existing estate better than before. Will she set out how HMRC will build on this progress to make sure that the skills are enhanced as this complicated project goes forward?
Jane Ellison
Of course. My hon. Friend is right to say that. As I have said, HMRC will respond in detail to the NAO report, and I will be pleased to discuss that with him. One of the NAO’s recommendations is precisely what he has drawn our attention to—that there should be an iterative process of learning from every part of the move, ensuring for example that experience from the first regional centre to be opened is reviewed and lessons learned from it. This is a long programme of change; it is not an overnight transformation. It is absolutely right to review it at every stage so that we learn as we go along.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
You are proposing to close a very modern office in Workington. The NAO report says that the average distance between offices that are being closed and the regional offices is 18 miles, with most within 50 miles. However, Workington has been paired with Liverpool, which are 142 miles apart according to Google maps—a journey of three hours. To me, the situation is completely unacceptable. The workers in Workington cannot transfer down to Liverpool, and I cannot see how they can be reskilled to work in equivalent jobs in Workington. I would love to know your suggestions on that. As I say, this is just unacceptable.
Mr Speaker
I have no plans to close that office. To my very great life impoverishment, I have to admit that I am not aware of having been to Workington to date, and I certainly would not take it upon myself to presume to close something that I have not even visited.
Jane Ellison
I think we all recognise that you are busy enough, Mr Speaker, without taking charge of HMRC’s regional transformation programme as well.
The hon. Lady has written to me about this matter, and I have said that I am happy to meet her to discuss it, perhaps allowing more time for discussion. She has cited the average figure that appears in the NAO report, but we of course accept that the move is going to be much less easy for some people, perhaps even impossible. We will support those people. With a view to providing suitable jobs in other Government Departments, the HMRC HR department is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions. A lot of work is being done to support staff into other jobs, but we accept that not everyone will be able to move. I have written to the hon. Lady once on her specific points about Workington, but I will write to her again about what is happening in her area.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
HMRC is planning to have a regional centre in Leeds, but it has not identified a site, and any site proposed will be incredibly expensive, crowding out private sector investment in Leeds. Just a few miles up the road in the Bradford district, a site is readily available, and it would be much cheaper for the taxpayer than it would be in Leeds, and it would help the local economy in the Bradford district as well. I urge the Minister to use this NAO report to pause, look again at these proposals and make sure that a regional centre in Yorkshire is not in Leeds, but in the Bradford district where many people in HMRC already work.
Jane Ellison
As my hon. Friend knows, I am familiar with all the localities that he mentioned. I know that Bradford was disappointed not to be the site chosen for the regional centre, but it is equally true that with a railway station in Shipley, my hon. Friend’s constituents are merely 10 minutes from Leeds on the train. I hope that it will prove to be a realistic project for his constituents to move to Leeds if they want to. I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend said and will write to him if I can provide further detail. HMRC has provided detailed responses, explaining the criteria used to select locations and thus explaining why Leeds was chosen over Bradford. I know that there has already been a good deal of correspondence on this issue.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
The Minister will be aware that some HMRC offices have already closed in Northern Ireland, not only causing consternation to the staff who have had to be redirected to Belfast, but preventing accessibility for local businesses and ordinary people who are trying to deal with their tax affairs. In view of the NAO report, will the Minister please pause any further closures, as they simply cause chaos and upheaval?
Jane Ellison
I am not sure that I recognise the description of chaos and upheaval, given what I have said about improved average customer service times at the moment. There are good standards now, which does not align with what the hon. Lady said. I recognise that changes of this scale can be extremely difficult for the people affected by them, but I would like to pick up one point about how people interact with HMRC. We live in a different world from the one that obtained when the estates were last looked at on this sort of scale. The vast majority of taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, interact with HMRC digitally or on the phone. We have to adjust to the way the world is now rather than what it was like some decades ago.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I want my constituents to get the best possible service from HMRC, particularly when they have a problem and things go wrong. Given that HMRC has about 58,000 employees, will my hon. Friend at least consider the feasibility of HMRC allocating at least one named employee for every constituency, so that each MP has someone permanently in place to contact within HMRC?
Jane Ellison
We have had the experience of working through recent challenges in respect of the Concentrix contract and the fallout from it. I have looked personally at how HMRC interacts with Members of Parliament. I have not looked at the specific idea that my hon. Friend mentions, but I shall reflect on what he said. I am looking to ensure that, as colleagues found while resolving issues, the resources allocated to MPs were effective in helping them to get results quickly in some of the most difficult cases. I shall reflect further on my hon. Friend’s points because I want to make sure that HMRC serves colleagues of all parties as effectively as possible.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This modernisation and improvement programme in Northern Ireland has led to the closure of offices in towns that already have high unemployment, to frustration among people who have difficult cases and to a loss of expertise, especially in border areas where criminal evasion of tax is widespread. How does that fit in with the Government’s commitment to spread economic growth, to provide better service to customers and to reduce tax evasion?
Jane Ellison
It is worth noting on the broader point that employment in our countries is at an all-time high. We would always want to retain expertise within HMRC, but there will always be people leaving any large organisation and people being recruited and trained up simultaneously. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier: it will be much easier to support people who want to join the organisation to become highly skilled and professional and to plot a career in HMRC, so that they can have long-term, fulfilling careers in a variety of different areas, under the new modernised structures.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister has said a number of times that there will be a better service for customers in these regional centres, but I note that the NAO report says that HMRC has not demonstrated that. Can she reassure me on how she has reached the conclusion that the service will be better, more efficient and more effective for customers?
Jane Ellison
I did note that point, but I am not sure that I agree with how the hon. Lady has expressed what I said. Let me provide one example. Many HMRC local offices are in very old buildings. As I said, some are over 100 years old and many are from the 1950s. Then there is the latest digital infrastructure, and many more taxpayers are interacting with HMRC digitally, through more than 7 million personal tax accounts. As anybody knows, it is difficult to bring an old office up to modern standards with the right digital infrastructure. If we want to make sure that staff can make the best use of modern computer systems and put them at the service of customers who increasingly interact digitally, it is much better to do so in newer buildings that have been bought for the purpose and where we have planned that sort of arrangement from the start.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Minister speaks of saving money and of modern offices. The HMRC offices at the Pyramids business park in my constituency are high-tech and high-end, with highly skilled staff, and there is plenty of further space. It would save the Government £70 million to keep that estate and develop it. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the details and perhaps consider retaining the hub in West Lothian, rather than moving it to a city centre where rents will be more expensive?
Jane Ellison
I have had a number of conversations with, in particular, some of the hon. Lady’s colleagues who are based in Scotland, and I am, of course, always happy to meet any parliamentary colleague to discuss anything. No change in the plan for that regional centre is envisaged, but some of the challenges relating to West Lothian have been brought to my attention.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Sheffield staff are already commuting considerable distances to their HMRC office because of previous office closures. Does the Minister not agree that HMRC can ill afford to lose 5,000 experienced staff at this time?
Given that HMRC has struggled to find suitable property in the suggested locations, may I ask the Minister to reassess the proposed locations on grounds of cost, ability to retain experienced staff and impact on customer service? Will she reassess them on the basis of evidence, rather than simply deciding which location in each region is easiest for Whitehall civil servants to get to?
Jane Ellison
I am pretty certain that that was not the rationale for the choice of locations. Very careful discussions took place. I will, of course, read the report and reflect on it, as will we all, and, as I have said, HMRC intends to respond in detail, but a great deal of thought went into choosing the regional centres. I acknowledge that some people will not be able to move because the distances will be too far to travel, and we certainly want to retain experienced staff. Those who will not be able to move will have a number of different levels of experience, but if we can retain their skills and ensure that they are at the service of the taxpayer through other Departments, we will obviously try to do so.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
HMRC Porthmadog is earmarked for closure, and in all likelihood the Welsh language unit will be centralised in Cardiff, four hours away. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how these services can best be provided in a region where 71% of the population can speak Welsh and where Welsh is the working language of a county administration?
Jane Ellison
We have considered that issue, and we intend to work on it with other Departments. As I have said, I am always happy to have a conversation with colleagues—[Interruption]—not in Welsh! I will write to the hon. Lady, because the Welsh language has been raised with me before, and I know that it has been thought about in some detail.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is not very often that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I find ourselves on the same page, but on this occasion we certainly are, because he made an excellent point in defending Bradford. In closing offices in that city, HMRC would be turning its back on a skilled and diverse workforce, access to leading universities and one of the best MBA programmes in the United Kingdom, all of which would help it to achieve its aim. Will the Minister therefore reconsider and take a more sensible approach?
Jane Ellison
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, as a Bradford girl, I would never do anything to harm Bradford. Equally, however, as a Bradford girl, I make the extremely short commute between Bradford and Leeds many times a year. I do not think we would wish to lose any experienced staff or expertise from the Bradford office, but the commute from Bradford to Leeds is possibly one of the shortest that any transferring HMRC staff would have to make.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Obviously, there will be an economic impact on many towns and cities that will lose their largest employer, but has an equality impact assessment been made in respect of staff, particularly those with disabilities, who have been asked to move 100 miles away?
Does the Minister not believe that the loss of local expertise will apply not only to tax evasion but to non-compliance with the national minimum wage, which, according to statistics, is on the increase in this country?
Jane Ellison
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we announced more investment in tackling non-compliance with the national minimum wage in the autumn statement. In fact, activity in that regard has been stepped up considerably, as I said when answering a parliamentary question this week. He may wish to refer to Hansard for the statistics. As for his wider point about losing expertise, of course we do not want to do that. We want to do as much as we can to help people to move, because it takes a long time for them to reach their highest level of skill, and we want to retain them when they are at the peak of their professionalism. I will write to him about the equality impact assessment.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister think again about the location of the Wales tax centre? Will she consider siting it not in Cardiff but in the Swansea Bay city region, where property prices and other costs are lower, urban deprivation is much lower in European Union terms and skills are abundant because we have two universities? That was the logic of siting the headquarters of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. As the biggest urban footprint in Wales, we need all the support we can get, and it is very costly in Cardiff.
Jane Ellison
The hon. Gentleman has neatly illustrated the challenge involved in deciding on locations as part of such a programme. He has made the case for Swansea, but other Members have made the case for their areas. It is always necessary to assess against a set of objective criteria, because every area will rightly have its advocates in Parliament.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Is the Minister aware that it will be feared throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly in Northern Ireland, that a policy that the Minister has presented as regionalisation will actually become centralisation and that a very small number of offices with a large number of employees will not adequately service the needs of the community?
Jane Ellison
Of course I am aware of that, but at the heart of HMRC’s wider transformation programme, which will enable it to become the best digital tax authority in the world, is a desire to do more for customers: to collect more tax, to serve people better and to bear down constantly on customer waiting times. Indeed, all HMRC’s programmes—not just the estates transformation programme—are designed to achieve that end.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Minister accept that the closures will have a devastating impact on some communities, that £150 million less will be available to tackle tax avoidance as a result of HMRC’s failure to plan the move properly and that HMRC is even less effective at saving money than at collecting it from slippery global corporations?
Jane Ellison
I think that, for the most part, what the right hon. Gentleman has said is just a political points-score. The facts simply do not bear it out. Since 2010, HMRC has secured more than £130 billion in additional compliance revenues, and in 2014-15, as I said earlier, the United Kingdom’s tax gap fell to its lowest-ever level of 6.5%.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
In Wales, the facts are that the Government are creating one national centre in Cardiff, the most expensive site in the country; that the office in Wrexham is not small, given that it employs 350 people; and that the alternative site proposed by HMRC is in Liverpool, but that has not yet been identified. This is a shambolic policy. It is ill-conceived, and it is being badly implemented. The Minister should listen to my colleagues from Wales—she has heard from many of them today—and reconsider the policy, because it is very bad indeed.
Jane Ellison
I note the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms but cannot agree with the thrust of his points. HMRC will respond in detail to this report. This is a programme over a period of time and we will learn from each move. I do not recognise the description the hon. Gentleman just gave, but I do understand the point made, especially about some of the larger offices, and I realise that until the site in Liverpool is identified things are a bit more unsettling for his constituents who work in the Wrexham office than they might otherwise be.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Cumbernauld tax office already ticks all the boxes in terms of what HMRC apparently seeks in a regional centre: it is the right size and has experienced staff and an excellent location. So what on earth is the point of closing it, disrupting staff and damaging communities?
Jane Ellison
I have had a number of conversations specifically about the Cumbernauld site, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail, but there are a lot of different factors that go into choosing where to centre, some of which I touched on in my response to the urgent question. Inevitably, I cannot touch on them all, but much of this will come out in our response to the NAO report.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I think that the Minister would be outraged if people living in villages, towns and small cities all suddenly stopped paying tax, yet suddenly our civil service is being centralised in a few cities. Please will she reconsider these points? This is totally outrageous for people in north Wales.
Jane Ellison
I am not entirely sure I recognise the point being made. Most of our taxpayers, whether businesses or individuals, now interact with HMRC on the phone or digitally. The number of people who make personal visits, and expect to be able to make a personal visit to a local office, is dramatically lower than a generation or two ago. It is right that we pursue this modernisation programme, but it is also right, as the NAO has reminded us in this timely report, that we review the programme at every stage to make sure we are getting everything right and we learn from each iteration.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the Minister on customer service, having seen my wife wait for half an hour for someone at HMRC to answer the phone over Christmas and given that a previous NAO report has shown that three in 10 people give up before being answered, as the average waiting time is 47 minutes before somebody picks up the phone. As the Minister will know, this was only resolved when HMRC recruited an additional 2,500 members of staff to deal with this crisis at the end of 2015. Is she confident, even though an NAO reports says that for every pound saved by this change £4 will go on telephone bills, that it will not cause a decline in customer service?
Jane Ellison
The focus on customer service is vital. At the heart of the wider transformation programme, not just the estate transformation programme, is the desire both to make sure HMRC is the most effective tax collector that it can be and to deal with customer service. So that is central to all the questions I ask of HMRC and it asks of itself.
On the specific point, I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman’s wife waited for that long. I am concerned about the number of people who wait so long. Although they are a small proportion of the customers who ring HMRC, because of the large numbers who do so, it is still quite a lot of people, and it is an issue I have specifically been discussing with senior HMRC customer service managers, with a view to addressing it further.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Given that the Department for Work and Pensions is also conducting an estate review and is threatening to close eight job centres in Glasgow, what discussions is the Minister having with ministerial colleagues about the cumulative impact of the Government’s shrinking of their estate? What impact is that going to have? How many HMRC employees are going to find themselves without a job and without a local job centre to go to?
Jane Ellison
The last question is difficult to answer because ultimately individuals will decide what is right for them at the time when the facts of a possible move are known. A great deal of support is being put in place to help them either make the choice about moving or move to other jobs. I have had the chance to speak not just to managers managing this programme, but people affected by it on the frontline, when some of them attended an event in London a few months ago. The HMRC human resources department is working closely with the DWP because there are some opportunities for people to move between Departments. However, on the specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s local office, I am afraid it is not easy to give an answer until more is known about what the actual move would be and the numbers affected.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
The vast majority of staff in the HMRC office in Enniskillen in my constituency will be closer to two hours’ journey time from the proposed new location than one hour. Does the Minister not see merit in the NAO report suggesting she should step back from the proposals?
Jane Ellison
As I have said, it is the nature of responding to an urgent question that one has not had a chance to look at the whole report and reflect on it, but HMRC will of course respond to it. Its chief executive is coming to the Public Accounts Committee fairly imminently and I imagine this is likely to be raised by the Committee. Of course we will look at this report—it is important, and we will look at what it says—but the central reasons that drive these plans still stand: modernising our estate, providing a service to the customer that reflects modern life and making sure the working environment for staff and the career progression open to them are the best they can be.
Northern Ireland: Political Developments
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the political situation in Northern Ireland.
As the House will be aware, yesterday Martin McGuinness submitted his resignation as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. This also means that the First Minister, Arlene Foster, also ceases to hold office, although she is able to carry out some limited functions. Under the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as amended by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2007, the position is clear: should the offices of First and Deputy First Minister not be filled within seven days from Mr McGuinness’s resignation, it falls to me as Secretary of State to set a date for an Assembly election. Although there is no fixed timetable in the legislation for me to do that, it needs to be within a reasonable period.
In his resignation letter, Mr McGuinness said:
“In the available period Sinn Féin will not nominate to the position of deputy First Minister.”
I am very clear that in the event of the offices not being filled, I have an obligation to follow the legislation. As things stand, therefore, an early Assembly election looks highly likely. I should add that the rules state that, once an election has been held, the Assembly must meet again within one week, with a further two-week period to form a new Executive. Should that not be achieved, as things currently stand I am obliged to call another election. So right hon. and hon. Members should be in no doubt: the situation we face in Northern Ireland today is grave and the Government treat it with the utmost seriousness.
It is worth reflecting on how we have reached this point. The immediate cause of the situation we now face is the fallout from the development and operation of the Northern Ireland renewable heat incentive scheme. Under the scheme launched by the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in 2012, which is equivalent to a scheme in Great Britain, businesses and other non-domestic users were offered a financial incentive to install renewable heat systems on their premises. The scheme was finally shut to new applicants in February last year, when it became clear that the lack of an upper limit on payments, unlike in the GB equivalent, meant that the scheme was open to serious abuse. In recent weeks there has been sustained media focus and widespread public concern about how this situation developed.
The renewable heat incentive scheme was, and remains, an entirely devolved matter in which the UK Government have no direct role. It is primarily the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to take the necessary action to address the concerns that have been expressed about it. However, I believe that it is imperative that a comprehensive, transparent and impartial inquiry into the development and implementation of the scheme is established as quickly as possible. In addition, effective action needs to be taken by the Executive and the Assembly to control costs. The RHI scheme has been the catalyst for the situation we now face, but it has also exposed a number of deeper tensions in the relationship between the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. This has led to a breakdown in the trust and co-operation that are necessary for the power-sharing institutions to function effectively.
Over the coming hours and days I will continue to explore whether any basis exists for resolving these issues prior to my having to fulfil my statutory duty to call an election. I have been in regular contact with the leadership of the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Féin, and also with the Justice Minister, Claire Sugden, an Independent Unionist. Yesterday evening I had a round of calls with the main Opposition parties at Stormont. I am also in close touch with the Irish Foreign Minister, Charlie Flanagan. Immediately after this statement I will return to Northern Ireland, where I will continue to do whatever I can to find a way forward. The UK and the Irish Governments will continue to provide every possible support and assistance to the Executive parties. However, we have to be realistic. The clock is ticking, and an election is inevitable if there is no resolution, despite the widely held view that an election would deepen divisions and threaten the continuity of the devolved institutions.
Over recent decades, Northern Ireland’s politicians have rightly earned plaudits from across the globe for their ability to overcome difference and to work together for the good of the whole community. That has required courage and risk on all sides. We are currently in the longest period of unbroken devolved government since the 1960s. This political stability has been hard gained, and it should not be lightly thrown away. In the 14 months since the “Fresh Start” agreement, significant advances have been made in areas such as addressing paramilitarism, supporting shared and integrated education and putting the Executive’s finances on a sustainable footing. This summer’s parading season passed off peacefully, and the long-running dispute in north Belfast has been resolved. We have also been working intensively to build the necessary consensus to bring forward the bodies to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, as set out in the Stormont House agreement.
I am in no doubt that what Northern Ireland needs at this time is strong stable devolved government, not a collapse of the institution. Northern Ireland deserves fair, accountable, stable and effective government. It needs to continue to implement the Belfast agreement and its successors. It also needs to strengthen the economy and to ensure that Northern Ireland responds to the challenges and opportunities presented by EU exit; it needs to build a stronger, shared society in which there is respect for everyone; and it needs to address the legacy of the past in a way that enables Northern Ireland to move forward. We must not put all that at risk without making every effort to resolve differences. We must continue to do all we can to continue building a brighter, more secure Northern Ireland that works for everyone. I therefore urge Northern Ireland’s political leaders to come together and to work together to find a way forward that will be in the best interests of Northern Ireland. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I wish we did not have to be here for this statement today, but we are. I thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice of his statement. I want to make it clear from the start that we in the Labour party will support him in his endeavours to maintain the political stability in Northern Ireland. Those of us with long memories can remember a time in which people across Northern Ireland did not know the peace that we can see today, and any damage to this peace on our watch should rightly be to our shame. The issues facing Northern Ireland are many. They include the questions of how we deal with Northern Ireland’s past and its legacy; how we help the many people living in poverty; and how we handle our impending exit from the European Union, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland has the UK’s only land border with the EU. That will be a huge issue in any Brexit negotiation, and we are going into this election period just weeks before the Government sign off on article 50.
Any divisions now will be most damaging for Northern Ireland, when we should all be focusing on coming together to combat the common problems facing us all. This impasse does not help victims or families, and it does not help the economy. For those reasons, all of us in this House must come together, put aside partisan concerns and try to support those in Northern Ireland in order to maintain an enduring and peaceful devolution settlement.
The issues surrounding the RHI scheme have reached an impasse after many weeks of developments and, as the Secretary of State said, we might now be moving towards an election. That election would see constituencies reduced from six to five seats, and as we deal with the many challenges facing Northern Ireland, we could see the loss of many diverse voices that could have benefited the Assembly, which has been together only since the beginning of last year. The election could even deliver a similar result to that seen in 2016, and we would then be back at square one with the underlying issue unresolved. That could result in an even more polarised position than the one we face now.
If we have an election, what will it be fought on? Will it be fought on who can deliver the best outcome for the Northern Ireland economy and for its schools and hospitals? Will it look forward to progress or look backwards to division? With so much at stake, not least the institutions themselves, surely it is time for moderation. Lines in the sand are not what are needed. From the feedback that we are getting from people on the ground in Northern Ireland, I do not believe that the population there want an election, and certainly not so soon after the last one. Is that really what people want?
This is not just about us; it is about the world. The world is watching this. There is a huge amount of good will towards Northern Ireland and huge admiration for the success we have seen after decades of despair. People look to the Assembly for a lead, and that is a huge responsibility for the Assembly and for us in this House. People do not want us to fail. They want us all to rise to the hard challenges and work through them. They do not want us just to walk away when things get tough. We know from sad experience that the worst thing that we can do in Northern Ireland is to leave a vacuum. Six weeks of polarised election campaigning will not move the RHI issue forward one inch, but it could push back the real agenda that matters to the people of Northern Ireland on a day-to-day basis. For these reasons, we call on the Secretary of State today to convene a roundtable in Northern Ireland to discuss ways to end this impasse and to help the discussions. I am glad to say that he has engaged with his counterparts in the Irish Government and with politicians in Northern Ireland. Let us all keep at it. Let us not give in to despair.
On the RHI scheme, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment he has made of the effect the projected overspend will have on the Northern Ireland budget? I thank him again for coming to the House today, and I reiterate that we in the Labour party will do all we can to ensure that the devolved institutions remain, not just for six weeks or six months but for the many years to follow.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for his comments. He underlines the significance of the issues and highlights the importance of having a strong, working, functioning Executive that can take Northern Ireland forward. There is much to be positive about when we look at the jobs that are being created and the incredible businesses that have been established. I always get a really positive sense of that spirit and the belief in what Northern Ireland can and will be. It has a bright future to look forward to.
Clearly we need the parties to come together and to work together, as I have said. The hon. Gentleman underlined that message in his comments. My intent, over this short period, is to continue to engage with the parties and determine what support the UK Government can provide in finding a solution and whether there is a way of pulling back from the current situation if things do not change. I commit to doing everything I can in my role to support that activity.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs to the Northern Ireland budget. I know that the Executive have made an estimate of around £490 million over a 20-year period if no mitigation takes place. One of the key issues is to determine what mitigation could be put in place. We need to support any proposals to mitigate the situation in the best interests of taxpayers in Northern Ireland. Certainly we stand ready to work with the Executive to play a role and to assist if necessary, but obviously we must focus, as time is short before I have to consider my responsibility to call an election. Again, that is why we need to work together.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Unsurprisingly, a very significant number of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. I would like to accommodate most, if not all, of them. My prospects of doing so will be greatly enhanced if colleagues who are customarily addicted to long or multifaceted questions are today able to content themselves with minimal preamble and a simple, pithy inquiry, which I know will enjoy a pithy response from the Secretary of State.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Given that new elections would probably return the parties more or less in the same numbers as they have now, does he agree that repeated callings of elections will not really address the fundamental issue? Do we not therefore need to look closely at how the institutions are actually constructed and formulated so that we can move away from this constant threat of those institutions collapsing or being collapsed?
James Brokenshire
I welcome the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the need to focus on the issues at hand and on the extent to which an election will change things. Between now and next week, our immediate focus and attention has to be on seeking to establish whether there is a way forward between the parties and on encouraging that. Obviously, various points and questions have been raised, but my responsibility at this time is to seek some form of resolution, to see whether a resolution is possible and to take stock as circumstances develop.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
As the Secretary of State alluded to in his statement, this has been coming down the line for a couple of months. Although it is deeply regrettable to see the Assembly stumble, it may need a serious jolt to get it going again. People will have differing opinions about the circumstances of Mr McGuinness’s resignation, but it leaves the Secretary of State with limited room to manoeuvre and leaves Northern Ireland stuck on pause. Can he clarify what steps he is taking to ensures that public confidence remains in the future of the institutions in Northern Ireland?
Can the Secretary of State also assure us that he is taking steps to ensure that democracy remains at the centre of the debate in Northern Ireland? As it seems clear that the relationship in the Executive has broken down and, as he said in his statement, the clock is ticking, and unfortunately it appears unlikely that the parties will get back around the table, is he prepared to face that fact, act quickly and let the people of Northern Ireland get on with choosing who they want to sit in Stormont?
Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s opportunities to affect the direction of Brexit negotiations appear as limited as those of the Scottish Secretary, given that neither is regularly invited into the room. Now that there is no effective Administration at Stormont who can speak up for Northern Ireland in the Joint Ministerial Committee, and remembering that Northern Ireland voted to remain, can he tell us what he is doing to ensure that the interests of the people of Northern Ireland are being looked after when Brexit negotiations are considered?
Finally, will the Secretary of State tell us of his discussion with the leader of the Ulster Unionist party regarding the possibility of suspending the Stormont Assembly until an inquiry into the RHI is concluded? Is he seriously considering that course of action?
James Brokenshire
One of the primary roles of the UK Government is to provide political stability, and we take those responsibilities very seriously. As I have already indicated to the House, if the time period elapses and the First and Deputy First Ministers are not in place, I have a duty and obligation to move in an appropriate way to call an election. As I have indicated to the House, that is my intent. We will take that approach. The hon. Lady highlights the issue of confidence in Northern Ireland’s political institutions, and those institutions are why it is incumbent on me to use this period to work with the different parties to see how confidence can be injected. Finding a resolution still remains the best outcome, if such a resolution can be found in the days ahead. That is where my focus will be.
The hon. Lady also highlights the issue of Brexit and speaking up for Northern Ireland. I assure her that that is precisely what I have done and will continue to do. I have regular meetings across Northern Ireland, and I continued to do so even earlier this week, to ensure that that voice is heard. Obviously, having a strong Executive in place and remaining in place is important, and therefore the Executive’s ability to make points to the UK Government underlines the need for us to find a way forward at this time. That will ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard through that mechanism, as well as through the strong voice that I will continue to give.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, although an election looks highly likely, it should be possible to come up with a rigorous, transparent and comprehensive way to investigate the overspend of the RHI that does not have to involve the break-up of the coalition, an early election or the First Minister standing down?
James Brokenshire
I certainly believe there should be opportunities to find a way forward. I intend to use the days ahead precisely to see whether we can find an agreement. There is a sense of establishing some form of inquiry—I think there are indications from all the parties on ways in which that could happen—and of giving a sense of accountability and confidence in what happens next. I will certainly be using my influence to see what can be done to achieve that.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State, and indeed the whole House, accept that we share the deep regret about the highly irresponsible decision of Sinn Féin singlehandedly to cause the collapse of the present Executive and precipitate what he has rightly called a threat to the continuity of the devolved institutions? It is clear from what Sinn Féin have said in their resignation letter that it is not about RHI, because had this continued we would have had an investigation and proposals to mitigate costs. It has happened because, according to them, they are not getting their own way on a whole series of demands, including on rewriting the past and putting more soldiers and security forces in the dock, despite our having just agreed a programme for government in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State and the whole House need to be assured that we want a full investigation into RHI and have proposals to mitigate costs. This must continue and it must not be blocked by Sinn Féin’s actions, which are the ironic outcome of what they are planning to do. Overall, he can be assured that we in the Democratic Unionist party will continue to work with him and other parties to ensure a stable Northern Ireland, moving forward, based on good government. We want to see the institutions continue, and we will do everything in our power to make this process work. We deeply regret that Sinn Féin has decided to walk away.
James Brokenshire
I welcome any indication of the parties working together, and we need to take this opportunity to establish what arrangements can be put in place. I will therefore continue my discussions with all the political parties in the days ahead. The right hon. Gentleman highlights the issues that are at stake, including the need for continued strong government within Northern Ireland so that those issues can be taken forward. That is certainly what I want to see, and I think it is what the whole House would like to see. We must establish whether there is a way forward to be able to achieve that end.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Many hard-working people across Northern Ireland who just want to get on with their lives will be exasperated by recent events and will welcome the Secretary of State’s measured tone, and indeed the comments of the shadow Secretary of State. In his discussions, will the Secretary of State remind all parties of the huge effort and immensely difficult compromises that brought about the current settlement? Will he stress that the enormously valued long-term benefits must not be jeopardised for short-term political motives?
James Brokenshire
Again, I thank my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) for all their work over many years to provide stability and security. Hard effort has gone into achieving the gains that we see today, and we need to approach the days ahead with that focus to see what resolution can be found.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
If there were to be an election, how does the Secretary of State expect a Government to be formed afterwards? Can he confirm that it is the Government’s intention that under no circumstances will emergency legislation be introduced in this House to introduce or reintroduce direct rule?
James Brokenshire
It is unhelpful to talk about either the suspension of devolution or direct rule—that is entirely premature—as the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s point and the way in which he made it suggests. If we are not able to reach a resolution in these next seven days, the next stage is for an election to be called. As I have indicated, it is likely that that election will be divisive, difficult and tough, and therefore the ability to reach a resolution at the end of it may be very challenging. That is why we need to use the time we have now to address a number of the points raised.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s statement touched on the possibility of an impartial inquiry into the energy deal. Will he give a bit more information about that and the timescale involved? With possible elections looming, will such an inquiry happen quickly?
James Brokenshire
Ultimately, that will depend on the Executive and the parties in Northern Ireland reaching a resolution on it. As I have said, this is entirely within the devolved space, so it is right and proper that a solution should be created within that environment. Equally, this underlines the need for us to get on with it, where possible, to give that sense of assurance, to respond to the concerns that have been raised and to show where accountability may or may not rest, depending on the evidence that emerges.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Dr T.K. Whitaker was one of the constant voices for peace and reconciliation in Ireland, between north and south, and between Ireland and Britain, over his outstanding lifetime in public service. Dr Whitaker died last night, four weeks after his 100th birthday. Will the Secretary of State join me in offering our sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of Rostrevor, County Down-born Dr T.K Whitaker, who was a major driver in the creation of modern Ireland? I am reminded of the tribute of Marc Antony to Julius Caesar that he did
“bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus”.
May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and his reference to the view that a comprehensive inquiry is needed urgently and that there are deep tensions there in the Government? Does he accept that although RHI may have been the last straw, the major factor in the current crisis was the UK vote for Brexit, against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland, which has led to considerable political confusion and damage to the Northern Ireland economy? That, in turn, has played a significant part in compounding political difficulties.
Mr Speaker
I admire the hon. Gentleman enormously, but I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that he really is an incorrigible fellow; I thought that his question had concluded, but I had heard only the first third at that point.
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the news of the sad passing of T.K. Whitaker. At this time, it is worth reflecting on those who have contributed so much to the advancement of political stability and strength in the economy, which is why I pass on my condolences to all who will mourn his passing and join the hon. Gentleman in that way.
I differ from the hon. Gentleman in not sharing his analysis about Brexit, as there are opportunities for Northern Ireland in terms of what it can be and will be following the UK’s departure from the European Union. I am in no doubt about the special circumstances and factors that are very relevant in this, which is why I will continue to advocate strongly in Northern Ireland’s best interests to get the best possible outcome from these negotiations.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I was going to ask you to grant an urgent question today, Mr Speaker, on the investigations into and prosecutions of Operation Banner veterans, but I withdrew it because of the events of last night. Will the Secretary of State inform the House as to what measures will be taken as a result of this situation to stop this very one-sided judicial process?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. I am absolutely clear as to the huge contribution that our armed forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary made in seeing the gains within Northern Ireland over recent years. He makes a point about some of the ways in which the system operates at the moment. There is a need for greater proportionality and balance within the system, which is precisely what the Stormont House agreement and the Stormont House bodies will provide. Notwithstanding current events, I remain committed to taking that forward, leading to a public phase in relation to that work. I judge that to be the right next step.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
Of course there has to be an independent, transparent investigation into the failings of RHI, but is this not a symptom of a wider problem: a breakdown of mutual trust and respect between the majority parties in Northern Ireland? Leaders do not have to be friends, but given the nature of the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland there has to be mutual respect and trust. Is this situation not purely a symptom of a breakdown of that? Do we not need to see leaders who are committed to putting personal differences aside in the interests of the institutions?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman may have noted that I said in my statement that, obviously, the focus has been on RHI, but other issues have come through from this. Indeed, the letter that Mr McGuinness published yesterday highlighted a number of those themes. That is why I make the point at this time about parties coming together and working together in the best interests of Northern Ireland, given so much opportunity that resides there. There needs to be that focus on the big issues at hand and the best interests of Northern Ireland.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
If there are constructive talks in the next few days, will the Secretary of State be willing to consider extending the seven-day period before an election has to be called?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, the law is clear about the seven-day period and I must act within a reasonable period following that. Obviously, if the time period elapses, I will need to consider the position carefully, but I am under that statutory duty and I will follow through on it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
This is not the first time that the institutions have been brought to the brink, and each time leadership is required to bring them back. Principally, that leadership has to come from the parties in Northern Ireland, but there is a leadership role for the Government and the Secretary of State. He has the power under the Inquiries Act 2005 to constitute a public inquiry into the handling of RHI, so will he do so? As he finds his way through this, will he undertake to speak to all parties in Northern Ireland, not just to the DUP and Sinn Féin?
James Brokenshire
On the last point, I say that I had a round of calls yesterday evening to the main opposition parties in Northern Ireland, and I will continue to maintain that contact with parties at Stormont. On right hon. Gentleman’s point about RHI and the nature of an inquiry, I remain of the view that the best solution is that a way forward should be found within Northern Ireland, taking his point about issues of leadership and showing that the devolved institutions are able to deal with the challenges that exist. That is where my focus will be in the days ahead.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) ably expressed the dismay at the grotesquely partisan and inequitable decision to instruct the Police Service of Northern Ireland to start pursuing retired British service personnel, while amnestied former terrorists freely walk the streets. Will the Government introduce legislation urgently to offer them at least the same protection as the amnestied terrorists undeservedly enjoy?
James Brokenshire
There are no amnesties. We have been clear on that in relation to the “on-the-runs” scheme, and Lady Justice Hallett’s report concluded in 2014 that these things never amounted to an immunity from prosecution. But my right hon. Friend makes a broader point about the need for a proportionate and balanced approach to legacy to ensure that all aspects are investigated properly, rather than by looking at one side rather than the other. That is precisely the approach that can be taken forward through the Stormont House agreement.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
We will have a debate later in Westminster Hall on this very subject. May I say to the Secretary of State that if we are going to have more talks, let us deal with this issue once and for all? It is unacceptable that veterans of the armed forces who served the Crown are waiting on the knock at the door, while the terrorists walk free.
James Brokenshire
I know the interest that the right hon. Gentleman has taken in this issue of legacy over many, many years. I agree that it is totally unfair that the alleged misdeeds of soldiers and former police officers should be investigated, while perpetrators of terrorist atrocities are ignored and their victims forgotten. It is precisely that part that was reflected in the proportionate, balanced, fair and equitable stance taken in relation to the Stormont House agreement; this is why we have been continuing discussions on that very issue and why I am determined that we will move to a public phase so that we can take that forward.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Had the historical investigations unit not been structured as it was, the Stormont House agreement would have failed and, in all likelihood, so would the Executive in 2014. Now that the Executive have apparently failed, does the Secretary of State share my sadness that the unit was set up as it was and had to investigate chronologically, meaning that servicemen were bound to be the subject of most of its investigations as terrorists sadly do not keep any records, and they certainly do not respond to letters from the Ministry of Defence inviting them to unburden themselves?
James Brokenshire
The historical investigations unit has not yet been established and the chronological approach that he highlights—that proportionate approach—is not in place. The need for reform and change was reflected in the Stormont House agreement, which is precisely why it is necessary to take this matter forward. Notwithstanding recent events, there is still the opportunity for us to move forward with the parties to ensure that we get the political stability required for these issues to be taken forward, precisely for the cross-community interests that reside around this issue.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State not recognise that it is the hubris of the outgoing First Minister that has brought about the humiliation for our institutions of his now having to contemplate the options he has discussed today? Does he also note that Sinn Féin is saying it has called time on the “DUP status quo”, which seems to be how it is now describing the “Fresh Start” agreement? Would not a future real fresh start involve a return to a key precept of the Good Friday agreement: that the First and Deputy First Minister should be jointly elected by the Assembly? They might then both act as though they were accountable to the Assembly that appointed them, which would have avoided these difficulties.
James Brokenshire
We need to focus on using the time available over the coming days to see what resolution can be found and how people can work together in the best interests of Northern Ireland, because so many issues are at stake. Part of that is about how we move forward and get an inquiry in place so that questions can be answered and so that appropriate accountability, based on the information that comes from that inquiry, is allowed to happen. That is where the focus needs to be.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Like so many Members in the House, I have grave concerns about what seems to be a disproportionate and politically motivated investigation of those who believed that they were just doing their job during Operation Banner. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of those concerns, but he should know that, as an MP representing many serving members of the British Army, I know that this issue is having a measurable effect on current recruitment for our armed forces. Does he agree that this period of uncertainty provides us with an opportunity to set the record straight about what is and is not within the scope of the inquiry?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and for the way in which she makes it. I certainly am struck by the strength of feeling, which is why I underline the points I have made about how we need to see a change in the system. The attention of the state is focused in such a way that there are cases in which people have been murdered as a consequence of terrorist activity but are not being pursued. There are mechanisms that provide for that, and I am intent on taking that forward. Notwithstanding the current issues, that remains a priority.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive remain in post and can continue to govern the Northern Ireland Assembly, as now? Will he therefore exercise maximum discretion to ensure that the objectives of the Stormont House agreement—to secure devolved administration and stop people like me running Northern Ireland as direct rule Ministers—are met?
James Brokenshire
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s viewpoint; he has direct experience from the time he served as a Minister in Northern Ireland. He is right that the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers remain in place in the Executive. Yes, we find ourselves in the current situation, but stability can be maintained through this period. The actions of Ministers in the Executive will clearly be limited, but none the less that stability remains, and we need to continue to work with the Executive at this time to find the solution.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I served twice in Northern Ireland during my time in the Army, so I know a little of the challenge faced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in meeting the expectations of all sides of the community. However, I must echo colleagues who have discouraged him from allowing investigations of British troops. No matter how well designed the investigatory process is, such investigations break the covenant with those who are serving and have served in our armed forces. I encourage my right hon. Friend to block the investigations straightway.
James Brokenshire
I am not able to intervene; my hon. Friend will understand the rule-of-law issues, the related prosecutorial issues and the other aspects that sit around all this. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the balance of effort and the need to ensure that there are proper investigations that follow the evidence rather than anything else. Reform is needed. The situation as it is at the moment is wrong and has to change, and that is what I am committed to achieving.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I remind the Secretary of State that a previous Prime Minister intervened by writing letters, which got a lot of people off the hook. In the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive—probably for a period of months—will he confirm that he will assume all responsibilities for and powers over how the Brexit negotiations apply to Northern Ireland, and that he will not allow Northern Ireland to be prejudiced in any way by the petulance of those who have walked away from the table?
James Brokenshire
As I have already indicated, I am very clear about my role and responsibilities in relation to preparations for the triggering of article 50. I have worked over many months to engage with all aspects of society in Northern Ireland, and I continue to do so. I will continue to articulate firmly and clearly, in Whitehall and elsewhere, the best interests of Northern Ireland throughout the Brexit negotiations. That process is strengthened by having a functioning, capable Executive who can support that, and work with the UK Government to ensure that we get the best possible deal for Northern Ireland from the negotiations.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will have received correspondence from me regarding my concerns about the investigation of personnel involved in Operation Banner. On the RHI, he said in the House today, “The scheme was finally shut down to new applicants in February last year, when it became clear that the lack of an upper limit on payments, unlike in the GB equivalent, meant the scheme was open to serious abuse.” That is not a clear indication of when his predecessor was first made aware of the abuse. When was that?
James Brokenshire
The point is that this was a devolved decision. It sits in the devolved space, so the UK Government have not had that sort of direct role, which was why I made the point that I did. The hon. Gentleman’s question is perhaps directed more at some of the points that have been made about an ongoing inquiry and the need to get answers about the decisions that have been made around the RHI scheme. It is that focus that needs to be given.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that over the past 24 hours the real picture has been emerging. This is about a political wish list from Sinn Féin. The whole issue of a conflict of interest for the First Minister is a red herring. When it comes to the legacy issue, will members of Sinn Féin stand aside and resign when we are investigating things from their past?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Stormont House agreement provides an important framework, agreed by all the parties, for how best to respond to issues from the past. My focus remains on seeking to give effect to that in accordance with the terms of the Stormont House agreement. I will continue to encourage parties to work together so that we can establish the political consensus required to achieve that, because of all the really important reasons that have been identified in the House today.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the list of issues that the Deputy First Minister included in his resignation letter yesterday. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he and Her Majesty’s Government will not be weak in any negotiations with Sinn Féin and will not allow the rewriting of history?
James Brokenshire
I will certainly not be party to any rewriting of history—I have said that on several occasions in relation to the issues of the past. We need to focus on the time at hand and find a way forward from the very difficult situation we are now presented with so that we can see Northern Ireland moving forward. We need to use this time to bring people together, rather than looking at things that separate and divide. We must use these days to focus on how trust and confidence can be re-established, and work with the parties to do that.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Fundamental to the political institutions in Northern Ireland were the principles of power sharing, partnership and respect for political difference. In the past weeks, we have seen the disappearance and the withering away of the principle of power sharing, foremost by the Democratic Unionist party. Will the Secretary of State ensure in his discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland that those principles are adhered to and that everybody comes back to the principle of power sharing?
James Brokenshire
The important part of the political settlement is the fact that it works for all communities across Northern Ireland. That is very much at the heart of the agreements that have been reached and, indeed, of the work that needs to continue. That is why I make the point about the need to look at those things that bind people together and how we use this time at hand, rather than taking the risk of what may be a divisive election that seeks to create more difference, which makes that job harder.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State mentioned legacy issues in his statement, so will he give the House some practical details on how he will proceed on that in the hiatus? Will he also answer the point made by the shadow Secretary of State about a roundtable meeting, as that is something to which we all look forward?
James Brokenshire
On the last point, the most effective thing for me to do is to engage with the relevant political parties and establish the appropriate way in which we can facilitate further discussions to establish whether a way forward can be achieved without the need to call an election. As I have said, I stand absolutely by my commitments under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as to what may be required if we do not fill the positions. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about legacy, I have underlined that I want to establish the necessary political consensus to move forward. The next step is a more public phase of that—I am talking about enabling all the public in Northern Ireland to have their say about the proposals. That is the next step I wish to take.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State recall that, just two years ago, Sinn Féin plunged the institutions into crisis over the implementation of welfare reform and cost the Northern Ireland Executive £174 million—not in a projected or an estimated way, but in an actual way? None the less, in a bizarre irony, the decision to resign and to walk out of the Northern Ireland Executive means that there will be no Assembly to pass the mitigation measures that were due from the Stormont House Agreement. Therefore, Sinn Féin will be delivering the bedroom tax in Northern Ireland in six weeks’ time.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that I detected a question in that stream of consciousness from the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I hear him now chuntering from a sedentary position, “Does he agree?”
James Brokenshire
I am in no doubt about the tensions that exist at the moment but, in relation to welfare, I do look back to those days when there were differences. There were very strongly held views, yet a way forward was established. At this time, I call on the parties to reflect on that experience, to work together and to use this time now to find a solution.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
May I welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that we want to build a stronger shared society in which there is respect for everyone? We all want to see that but, in line with what the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), said, we need to have a completely new look at this. We need to get back to the Belfast agreement so that we do not go round and round in circles, but we must remember that Einstein said that
“insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
James Brokenshire
I know that the hon. Gentleman has put down some thoughts and I read his article at the weekend. The primary focus now is to see how we can use this short time ahead to work and build together to determine whether we can get through this current difficulty and ensure that we can look to a bright, positive and prosperous Northern Ireland. Ultimately, that is what we are about. That is what is at stake, and it is why I will be doing all that I can to establish whether a way forward can found and a solution created.
Point of Order
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to clarify a question that I asked in Foreign Office questions, and to ask your advice on a very serious matter. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), appeared to be confused about what I was referring to in my question. I was in fact referring to his statement on 21 July 2016 confirming that four errors had been made in answer to parliamentary questions and in two statements on the issue of whether the UK Government had assessed alleged violations of international humanitarian law by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. That issue is very pertinent to debates that are going on in the House this week.
A number of Members and I are concerned that the Government have been attempting to prevent scrutiny on this issue and on what they knew about Saudi Arabia’s activities. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) was told in an answer to an urgent question in September that Ministers had acted immediately on recognising that they had given misleading information to the House. However, a freedom of information request released just before Christmas reveals otherwise. It is important to make you aware, Mr Speaker, that that information was released only after the Information Commissioner intervened and ordered the Government to release the information, viewing that they were in breach of the Freedom of Information Act. This is the only occasion when they have been forced to do that in the past year. The information revealed that not only did the Minister and indeed the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), know that there had been errors in information as early as 28 June 2016, but that they took nearly a month to provide that information to Parliament. They only provided it in a written statement on 21 July 2016. The information makes it clear that they were worried about the views of Parliament and the courts. I believe that this potentially constitutes a breach of the ministerial code and the courtesies of this House, which say that information should be provided in a timely fashion when errors have been made in answers. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how I might pursue the matter and find out whether a breach of the ministerial code has taken place.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it. I must start by saying that the content of Ministers’ answers is the exclusive responsibility of those Ministers. If a Minister comes subsequently to realise that he or she has erred in saying something incorrect or even in giving an inadvertently misleading impression by failing to include in an answer information that should have been divulged, it is the responsibility of that Minister to correct the record.
The hon. Gentleman asks how he can best proceed in this matter. My instinct is that he should, if he feels that there has been a potential breach of the ministerial code, write directly to the Prime Minister, for it is for the Prime Minister who, under our existing constitutional arrangements, decides whether to refer an alleged and claimed breach to the independent adviser on ministerial interests. That therefore is the course that I recommend to him. It may avail him. If it does not, and the matter in his mind and that of others remains unresolved, and he feels that the House is in possession of wrong information that has not been corrected, he can always return to the matter by a variety of means. We will leave it there for now.
Mutual Guarantee Societies
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Mutual Guarantee Societies Bill 2016-17 View all Mutual Guarantee Societies Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the creation of mutual guarantee societies, for their membership by small and medium-sized businesses for the purpose of lending to and by such business and for their operation; and for connected purposes.
I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. I am proud that I am introducing this Bill at the start of the Co-operative party’s centenary year. My thanks also go to Co-operatives UK and Philip Ross for their work in pressing the case for this legislative change.
For 100 years, the Co-operative party has been putting forward the case for more co-operation in our country. Correcting the legislative anomaly of the UK not benefiting from mutual guarantee societies not only is another step towards expanding co-operation but, importantly, would ensure that we increase the level of small and medium-sized enterprise bank lending. Put simply, my Bill seeks to harness the positive power of co-operation in order to increase SME lending in this country. SMEs are vital to the UK economy, and they are major drivers of employment and wealth for the country. Ensuring that they have access to the right type of finance at the right time is essential to make sure that they maximise their growth potential and develop new job opportunities.
An economy that allows for SME investment and a financial system that is prepared to lend to SMEs are essential. House of Commons research shows that SME lending is, for the first time since the global economic crisis, starting to become net positive, but a look at the broader Bank of England “Credit Conditions Survey” for 2016 makes less positive reading. It shows that the availability of credit remains static at best; indeed, the proportion of loan applications from small businesses that were approved showed a decline in quarter 2 and quarter 3 of 2016. The survey also shows that that decline is predicted to continue. That trend must be reversed, and the creation of mutual guarantee societies can be part of the solution.
My Bill would allow for the creation of mutual guarantee societies, which are private guarantee institutions created by beneficiary SMEs. While there are different forms of mutual guarantee society across Europe, they typically share a co-operative or mutual status. That means that the mutual guarantee societies’ capital is provided directly by the SMEs that apply for a loan guarantee in the form of co-operative or mutual shares. Each member has an equal voting right and participates in electing the general assembly and board of directors of the mutual guarantee society. By working together, SMEs can then negotiate a better deal from banks. For the banks, the underpinning of the mutual guarantee provides partial security on otherwise unsecured enterprise lending. The risk is lower, so the price of money is lower. The deal flow is greater and underpinned by peer review from SME members, so access to capital is easier. A guarantee provided by a mutual guarantee society on behalf of the SME to the bank replaces collateral, enabling the bank to grant the loan. The guarantee is a financial commitment by the society to repay a certain percentage of the loan if the SME member cannot honour its payments.
In many ways, this Bill is a no-brainer. Mutual guarantee societies provide access to finance, achieve better credit conditions, provide assessments of companies’ intangible and qualitative elements, serve as a bridge between SMEs and financial entities, and can provide better advice and supervision in financial management. The creation of such societies in the UK would also be good for the banks because, among other aspects, they reduce banks’ overall risk, provide qualitative information for the banks, provide more detailed risk assessment at no cost, and allow them to work with supervised and reliable financial intermediaries. The OECD concluded in 2013 that mutual guarantee schemes
“represent a key policy tool to address the SME financing gap, while limiting the burden on public finances.”
The UK is almost unique in not making use of mutual guarantee societies. In Europe, it is estimated that around 2 million guarantees have been made for a value of €70 billion to more than 2 million customers. This represents about 8% of all SMEs in the European Union benefiting from the activity of mutual guarantee societies. The UK has no mutual guarantee market for SMEs to improve their access to finance because of inappropriate regulatory barriers. The provision of mutual guarantees by SMEs is interpreted as requiring the full regulatory burden of being an approved insurer under the “surety” category, with, as a result, far higher capital requirements and regulatory burdens than in any other EU country. Other countries have been able to specify mutual guarantee societies when transposing EU directives so that they are regulated in a distinct and appropriate way. As the UK has no such arrangement, we have, in essence, regulatory gold-plating that blocks the entry of new models of mutual finance of this form.
Following work with the co-operative sector in 2012, the Financial Conduct Authority clarified that the best fit for any mutual guarantee society in terms of regulated activities under current legislation is suretyship. However, this imposes significantly greater capital requirements than is the case in countries that have a bespoke scheme for mutual guarantee societies, and it is not a particularly good fit anyway. My Bill would change that. It provides a definition of a mutual guarantee society and adds mutual guarantees to the list of regulated activities set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001.
Despite the problems and barriers within the existing regulatory system, there is one UK-based member of the European Association of Mutual Guarantee Societies—the British Business Bank. This institution, which was created to drive SME lending, might not be the type of mutual that I believe would be created following the legislative change proposed in the Bill, but it neatly demonstrates the point that mutual guarantee societies must be part of the answer to the question of how we increase SME lending.
I hope that we are pushing at an open door. I note that in written answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), Treasury Ministers have stated that officials plan to meet the FCA to discuss the possible development of mutual guarantee societies. I believe that this Bill would create a welcome mutual addition to our financial services sector and allow the UK to benefit from SME lending in the same way that other countries have done for many years.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Christina Rees, Mr Gavin Shuker, Anna Turley, Lucy Powell, Stephen Doughty, Mr Adrian Bailey, Seema Malhotra, Mr Gareth Thomas, John Woodcock, Jonathan Edwards and Christian Matheson present the Bill.
Christina Rees accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February, and to be printed (Bill 119).
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 10 January 2017 - (10 Jan 2017)
16:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: report and business case—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: business case and strategic plan
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State has also laid before the House of Commons the documents specified in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) The document specified in this subsection is a business case for the proposed use of the new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force which includes information on—
(a) the expected market demand,
(b) the proposed sectors,
(c) the proposed locations, and
(d) the prospective development returns.
(3) The document specified in this subsection is a strategic plan for the development of the activities of the CDC in consequence of the proposed increase in the limit in force.””
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by the laying before the House of Commons of a detailed business case for the proposed additional investment and a strategic plan in relation to the additional investment.
New clause 3—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction purposes for spending outside LDCs—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction purposes for spending outside LDCs
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) or the condition in subsection (3) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force is in a country which is classified as one of the least developed countries.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force will have a significant impact on the reduction in poverty (within the meaning given in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002) in the country or countries concerned.
(4) In determining the classification of a country for the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall use the latest analytical classification of the world’s economies prepared by the World Bank.””
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be for additional investment which is either in least developed countries or which makes a significant impact on poverty reduction in another country.
New clause 4—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: independent assessment of aid impact—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: independent assessment of aid impact
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State is satisfied that arrangements are in place for the independent assessment of the aid impact of new CDC investment which meet the conditions in this section.
(2) The first condition is that a framework agreement has been reached between CDC and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact for the Commission to carry out such an assessment on an annual basis.
(3) The second condition is that each annual assessment will be able to assess projects with a monetary value equivalent to at least 5 per cent of the total value of current investments in the year in question by the CDC.
(4) The third condition is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact has the additional resources required to carry out such annual assessments without impairing its capacity to undertake its other work.””
This new clause would require any proposal to increase the limit by secondary legislation to be contingent on an agreement being reached for an annual independent assessment of aid impact to be carried out by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact covering at least 5% of CDC’s investment portfolio at the time.
New clause 6—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: review of poverty reduction impact and contribution to Sustainable Development Goals—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he has also laid before the House of Commons a review in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) A review under this subsection must provide the Secretary of State’s assessment of the extent to which the increase in the limit on the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation is likely to contribute to—
(a) a reduction in poverty, and
(b) achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
(3) In this section—
“reduction in poverty” shall have the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002; and
“the Sustainable Development Goals” means the Goals adopted at the United Nations on 25 September 2015.””
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by a review, also to be laid before the House of Commons, of the extent to which the increase in the limit will contribute to a reduction in poverty, the aim of development assistance, and to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
New clause 7—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on investment in certain sectors—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on investment in certain sectors
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is not in any of the following sectors—
(a) education providers that charge the end user,
(b) healthcare providers that charge the end user,
(c) the real estate sector,
(d) mineral extraction,
(e) the palm oil sector,
(f) the fossil fuel sector.
(3) In this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””
This new clause would prohibit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) from being in the sectors specified in subsection (2).
New clause 8—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on use of tax havens—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on use of tax havens
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is not in either—
(a) an investment entity, or
(b) a company
which uses, or seems to the Secretary of State likely to use, tax havens.
(3) In determining whether the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Secretary of State shall consider—
(a) information provided by the OECD on countries or territories which are considered to be tax havens, and
(b) such information as is available to the Secretary of State, whether supplied by the CDC or others, about the current location of funds of the potentially relevant entities for the purposes of subsection (2).
(4) In this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””
This new clause would prohibit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) from going to an investment vehicle or company which uses or seems likely to use tax havens.
New clause 9—Conditions for exercise of power to increase limit: countries, poverty reduction and SDGs—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Conditions for exercise of power to increase limit: countries, poverty reduction and SDGs
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2), (4) and (5) are met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that any new investment in a country enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is in a country which is classified as either—
(a) one of the least developed countries, or
(b) one of the other low income countries.
(3) In determining the classification of a country for the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall use the latest analytical classification of the world’s economies prepared by the World Bank.
(4) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
(5) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is likely to contribute to achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
(6) In this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force;
“reduction in poverty” shall have the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002; and
“the Sustainable Development Goals” means the Goals adopted at the United Nations on 25 September 2015.””
This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to the least developed countries and other low income countries and require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that such new investment contributed to the reduction of poverty and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
New clause 10—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: proportion of annual official development assistance—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: proportion of annual official development assistance
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the total value of any re-capitalisation of CDC enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time will not, in any one calendar year, constitute more than 5% of total official development assistance.
(3) In this section—
“official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006;
“the current limit at the time” means —
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””
This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to 5% of official development assistance in any one calendar year.
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000 million” and insert
“the amount specified in subsection (1A)”.
This amendment paves the way for amendment 3.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000” and insert “£4,000”.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, at end, insert—
“(1A) After subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) The amount specified in this subsection is whichever is the lesser of the following amounts—
(a) £6,000 million,
(b) £1,500 million plus the amount determined in accordance with subsection (1B).
(1B) The Secretary of State shall determine the amount for the purposes of this subsection by estimating the amount which will constitute 4% of official development assistance in the relevant period determined in accordance with subsection (1C).
(1C) That period begins with the financial year in which the Secretary of State considers that the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation (determined in accordance with subsection (2)) will exceed £1,500 and ends at the end of the fourth subsequent financial year.
(1D) For the purposes of this section, “official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.””
This amendment would replace the proposed limit on government assistance under section 15 with a new amount, expressed as either £6 billion or the existing investment of £1.5 billion plus a sum not more than 4% of forecast official development assistance over a five year period, whichever is the lesser amount.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to set a limit on government assistance above £6 billion up to £12 billion by means of secondary legislation.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, leave out “£12,000 million” and insert
“the amount specified in subsection (4A).
(4A) The amount specified in this subsection is whichever is the lesser of the following amounts—
(a) £12,000 million,
(b) the current limit at the time plus the amount determined in accordance with subsection (4B).
(4B) The Secretary of State shall determine the amount for the purposes of this subsection by estimating the amount which will constitute 4% of official development assistance in the relevant period determined in accordance with subsection (4C).
(4C) That period begins with the financial year in which the Secretary of State considers that the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation (determined in accordance with subsection (2)) will exceed the current limit at the time and ends at the end of the fourth subsequent financial year.
(4D) For the purposes of this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under subsection (4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under subsection (4) then in force;
“official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.”
The amendment would set a new limit on the power to make regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15, expressed as either £12 billion or the current limit at the time plus 4% of official development assistance over a five year period, whichever is the lesser amount.
Amendment 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not exercise the power under subsection (4) to increase the limit by more than the amount that the Secretary of State estimates is required to meet the plans for investment by CDC in the ensuing three years.”
This amendment has the effect of restricting each increase in the limit by secondary legislation to an amount necessary to support additional investment by CDC over a three year period.
Kate Osamor
Labour Members are unswerving in our belief that the UK must continue to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid. It is imperative, however, that the Government deliver this aid in a way that is accountable, ensures value for money, and delivers on the UK’s development objectives.
Although we support the aims of the Bill—it has reached Report without amendment—we remain concerned about the lack of safeguards. In new clause 2, we ask that no increase in the limit be granted without a report or business case. New clauses 3 and 9 are at the heart of the work of the Department for International Development, which leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty. We on the Front Bench ask the Government to make sure that the Minister is satisfied that any new investment enabled by a proposed increase in the limit will have a significant impact in reducing poverty.
The Department must be at the forefront of tackling global poverty reduction. It is vital that the bolstering of CDC’s resources does not mean a reduction in funds for emergency and humanitarian aid in places such as northern Nigeria, Yemen and Syria, and in other parts of the world that face grave humanitarian crises. Will the Minister commit to ring-fencing such funds so that those in the direst need of help are able to receive it? Long-term investment and the establishment of a sustainable economy in order to kick-start jobs and growth are, of course, crucial to any credible development programme, but a development programme should, at its core, be a coalition of long-term investment and short-term relief. The consequences of losing sight of the latter element would be grave indeed. Just as the UK has a duty to help to lay the foundations for secure, sustainable economies in the poorest areas, where investment is a risk that few are willing to take, the UK also has a duty to assist those who bear the full force of conflict, climate change and food insecurity.
As was laid out on Second Reading, transparency should be the driving force behind any shift in the focus of the aid budget. I now speak to new clauses 4 and 8. It is vital that taxpayers’ money is spent not only effectively, but as transparently as possible. To that end, it is incumbent on the Government to put in place mechanisms that ensure maximum visibility regarding where aid money is being spent, and that minimise public scepticism. We all know that transparency is something that DFID does very well indeed.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Before the hon. Lady moved on to the important issue of transparency, she was talking about balance. It is fair to make the point, is it not, that CDC’s proportion of our development budget for its type, as foreign direct investment, is lower, at 4%, than comparables such as the French FDI of 12% and the Dutch at 30%? For the sake of proportion, it is fair to say that even with that increase, the UK will still spend more on development aid than most of our European peers do, and the proportion of FDI will be smaller than it is for many of those peers.
Kate Osamor
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, but the Bill still needs scrutiny. That is what I am laying out.
We all know that transparency is something that DFID does very well indeed. Its performance in the aid transparency index demonstrates an international gold standard in that regard. Historically, however, the same cannot be said for CDC. It is of the utmost importance that the proportion of the ODA budget that is channelled through CDC be subject to the same checks on outcomes and value for money to which DFID holds itself. New clause 4 lays down conditions that would guarantee transparent governance through an agreed framework reached with the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and CDC. Proper annual measurements of outcome would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
In relation to new clauses 1 and 8 and the issue of CDC use of separate financial centres where countries do not have sufficiently robust regulatory environments, now is the time to put on record the Government’s commitment to strengthening financial service centres in developing countries. The Opposition know that the importance of addressing and tackling CDC’s use of tax havens cannot be overstated. Although we heard assurances in Committee from Diana Noble, the chief executive of CDC, that using offshore financial centres ensures legal certainty and lessens risk for investors, far more than reassurance is needed to ensure transparency on that point. We need clear legislative safeguards, which is why the Front-Bench team will press new clause 1 to a vote. New clause 1 requires any proposal to increase the limit by secondary legislation to be accompanied by a thorough analysis of CDCs use of such centres. Where the countries in question do not have sufficiently robust regulatory environments, it is the UK’s job to ensure that those centres are made more robust.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes some important points. Does she agree that the changes made to CDC five years ago, under which CDC was encouraged to make direct investments in developing countries—contrary to the preceding situation, in which it made investments in funds situated offshore—were a major step forward?
Kate Osamor
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I will touch on that in my speech. Regardless of any development, we must always be robust and we must be able to show taxpayers that we have a transparent and accountable system. That is at the forefront of our objections to the Bill.
I seek assurances from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), that he will consider supporting the implementation of such safeguards. It is of course to be applauded that the whole ethos of CDC has been transformed since it was the subject of widespread controversy some years ago. It is testimony to the organisation’s willingness to change that it reacted to that criticism by becoming a more positive institution and implementing an overhaul of the systems that were in place. These efforts were praised in the most recent report by the National Audit Office, which assessed CDC’s progress in implementing the recommendations that the NAO made in a report in 2008. It was heartening to read in the follow-up report that CDC has proved successful in adapting its strategy in accordance with NAO’s earlier recommendations, including instituting frameworks to limit excessive pay and to refocus CDC’s priorities on the world’s very poorest nations, rather than investing in markets that already attract foreign investors.
Kate Osamor
No, I need to make some headway.
It was also encouraging to learn that CDC has not only met but exceeded the targets agreed with DFID relating to its financial performance and development impact, and has improved its procedures for documenting fraud and corruption. Although we on the Front Bench praise CDC for making those changes, we must not forget that the recent NAO report was by no means unequivocally positive, and that it highlighted significant areas for improvement. Allow me to quote directly from a passage in the report examining the efficiency of CDC’s methods of capturing its development impact:
“It remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places. Given the Department’s plans to invest further in CDC, a clearer picture of actual development impact would help to demonstrate the value for money of the Department’s investment.”
That is quite some statement. According to the NAO, it is “a significant challenge” for CDC to demonstrate how effectively it does the very thing it was set up to do.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The hon. Lady refers to a quote about the challenges of capturing impact. That is an ongoing challenge in all aid work. In terms of efficiency, which is what she is referring to, the NAO report concluded:
“Through tighter cost control, strengthened corporate governance and closer alignment with the Department’s objectives, CDC now has an efficient and economic operating model.”
Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a testament to the improvements that have been made to CDC’s work over the last few years?
Kate Osamor
I said in my opening remarks that CDC has improved, but the report says that it is still very hard to know and to demonstrate the impact of development, and work on that still needs to be done. The report is not totally scathing, but we must pick up such objections. If CDC was transparent, I am sure Labour Members would not have to stand up in the Chamber and say what we are now saying.
New clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), lays down conditions about investing only in certain sectors and about not investing in sectors that provide little or no development impact in ending poverty. These sectors include the fossil fuel sector, the primary education and healthcare sectors that charge at the point of contact, the building of real estate, mineral extraction and work in the palm oil sector. If DFID’s investment in CDC is to increase the level proposed in the Bill, this challenge must be urgently addressed and resolved.
In spite of CDC’s very welcome improvements, the NAO’s recommendations show that we should not forget that it remains very much a work in progress for this organisation to demonstrate transparently and robustly that it is achieving its objectives. With that in mind, we cannot regard the Bill as the end of the process. There is no room for complacency within CDC or DFID on the need to alter the organisation’s processes further to ensure and to demonstrate the delivery of its goals. Given the scale of the proposed increase in DFID funding—from a limit of £1.5 billion to one of £6 billion —and the resulting consequences both for the UK’s development programme and indeed for the developing countries it supports, it is right that the Bill is robustly challenged and meticulously scrutinised where it is found lacking, and that stringent precautions are appended to it where necessary.
New clause 10 lays out that any proposed increase in the current limit would not in any one calendar year constitute more than 5% of total official development assistance.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I want to take the hon. Lady back to new clause 7—I tried to intervene earlier—when she listed the sectors that she feels should be excluded. Does she not agree, however, that by specifically mentioning
“education providers that charge the end user”
as an exception, she risks children in some of the most underprivileged communities not being able to access education? From some Select Committee work, we know that such means are the only way of getting education for many of these children.
Kate Osamor
The hon. Lady makes a valid point, but I am talking about private education, for which someone with no money would have to pay. I do not think we should support that in a developing country, because we do not do it in this country. If someone wants to pay to go to university, there are challenges in relation to that, but I am talking, ideally, about primary education.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
New clause 7 is in my name, and I will speak about it in due course. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an important choice for DFID to make? It previously invested significantly in promoting free healthcare and education—making it available to all people, and removing such user fees—so to allow the CDC to continue to invest in private, fee-paying education is a significant shift away from the work the Department did in the past.
Kate Osamor
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, with which I totally agree.
Kate Osamor
I now need to make some progress.
Labour Members remain positive about the Bill’s ability to achieve its aim of improving the quality of life of people in some of the least developed countries in the world, but we believe that this can be achieved to its fullest extent only if appropriate safeguards are put in place. We retain our right to withdraw our support for the Bill if it becomes clear that the Government have not made sufficient progress.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is the beginning of a new term after a long Christmas holiday, but may I remind Members that, if they want to speak, it is really easy—they just have to stand up?
Mrs Drummond
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was expecting the Minister to respond to the first speaker, and I did not realise that I would be called next.
Stephen Doughty
I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady’s point, but does she not accept that there is a bit of a double standard? The Secretary of State issued a letter on 16 December to other DFID suppliers—institutions, non-governmental organisations and people in receipt of our aid money—making it very clear that they should not invest in tax havens, yet she seems unwilling to apply the same to the CDC, which is also in receipt of taxpayers’ funding. Is that not a double standard?
Mrs Drummond
No, because we are investing in very difficult areas where robust systems may not already be in place, plus the CDC has very clear guidelines about where the money is going, so we can track it much more easily than we can with other aid agencies.
Jeremy Lefroy
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not so much about offshore centres being invested in by funds from a variety of jurisdictions, but about the tax paid in-country for activities undertaken in that country? In that respect, the investments made by the CDC are excellent and provide major tax revenues of billions of dollars a year for those country’s Treasuries.
Mrs Drummond
I thank my hon. Friend for his very clear explanation, which beefs up what I have said.
On the case for raising investment limits, amendments l, 3 and 6 and new clauses 2, 5 and 10 would hamper the CDC in the same way. We have already extensively debated the need to increase the limit, and we have had assurances from the Minister and the CDC that business cases for further capital will be clearly made. We will have the full strategy document this year, backed by an analysis from the CDC of the development impact. We will have both before any additional money goes through the CDC.
On the focus of spending, I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the question of which specific investments are made must be delegated to DFID and the CDC. That would give the Government oversight and ensure that sustainable development goals are at the heart of the investment. Putting countries or, indeed, limiting sectors in legislation would make delivering the development process cumbersome, and I believe that it would hobble the CDC.
Pauline Latham
Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting the CDC is absolutely vital if we are to achieve the global sustainable development goals by 2030? We need to mobilise the private sector to fill an annual financing gap of about $2.5 trillion every year.
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One reason that I am so passionate about the CDC is that we need to build the capacity of developing countries. In my first speech on this subject, I said give a man fish and he will eat it, but give him a fishing rod and he is set for life. That is exactly the philosophy behind the CDC that I am so keen on.
There are circumstances in which some relatively more developed countries are host to companies involved in much poorer ones. As with the misplaced fears about offshore financial centres, we should not close off any path to investment and development. New clauses 3, 4, 6 and 9 all fail in that respect. All the amendments before us share a fundamental weakness and a misunderstanding of the CDC’s role in the world. We put less of our development investment through the CDC than other countries do through their equivalent bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) mentioned earlier. We should be doing more through the CDC if we want to develop mature and robust market economies in the developing world, which is why I welcome the Bill.
Markets are transparent and flexible, and they empower people who take part in them. The aim of our development policy should always be to encourage self-sufficiency and the development of market economies. As I said in my first contribution on the Bill, the CDC is transparent, as the NAO report agreed. I champion the CDC’s philosophy of enabling people to build their own businesses, rather than handing out grants. It is an efficient and transparent model, and we should all give the Bill our wholehearted support and continue to be a major investor in improving the lives of our fellow citizens in developing countries.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I will speak to amendment 3 and new clause 6, which are in my name, and I will offer support for the Labour party’s amendments that I have added my name to.
Nobody here is arguing that the CDC should not exist. We all recognise there is a role for development finance and private investment. As I noted on Second Reading, the Scottish Government have just set up their own investment mechanism in Malawi. But even if we wanted to change some of the deeper fundamentals, that is not in the scope of the Bill. The Government, probably deliberately, have presented a very narrow Bill with the aim of increasing the statutory limit of their investment. Therefore, by definition, that is what our amendments must focus on.
I hope that the Government will see—certainly in the amendments I have tabled and, I think, in the Labour ones—that we have tried to respond to and take on board some of their concerns about some of our amendments in Committee. It is up to the Government to respond and indicate how they will take our concerns on board. We all want to work constructively with the Government on the Bill. We want to recognise and maintain the consensus on the importance of aid, our commitment to 0.7% and the effective use of those resources.
Amendment 3, which is in my name, and amendments 2 and 4, which are contingent on it, gets to the heart of the technical aspect of the Bill: what the cap on investment in the CDC should be. The Government have been repeatedly asked for their reasons behind the figures of £6 billion and £12 billion in the Bill, and I am afraid that they have still come up short. The best we have heard is that this is roughly what they think is needed, or could be managed, over the coming years. In the lifetime of this Parliament, that could still equate to an additional £1.5 billion to £2 billion a year of investment from the official development assistance budget to the CDC. As we have repeatedly said, every penny invested in the CDC is a penny not invested in other mainstream, grassroots and not-for-profit development projects and support.
On Second Reading, I asked about the use of a formula to link the cap with overall ODA budgets, and I proposed such a formula in Committee. The Minister’s first concern about a formula was that it would blur the line between stock and flow. But the aid budget is a flow. It goes up and it can, theoretically, go down as well. I recognise that the CDC investment is a stock: once funds are transferred, that is where they stay and they remain part of the overall capital fund. However, the formula would ask the Government, each time they want to disburse funds to CDC, to calculate how those funds will relate to overall aid spending in the coming years.
The Minister’s second concern was that my formula in Committee effectively discounted the £1.5 billion already invested in the CDC. Amendment 3 and the contingent amendments take that into account. By my calculations, based on figures from the Library, this formula would still allow the Government to invest an extra £3 billion, or a total of £4.5 billion, in the CDC by 2021. Even if the Government will not accept the amendment and we cannot persuade enough of their Back Benchers to join us in the Lobby to support it, I hope that they will commit to recognising that the £6 billion figure currently stated in the legislation is a maximum and that any additional investment they intend to make will ultimately reflect the ebb and flow of overall ODA calculations in any given spending round.
Irrespective of the caps and limits, much concern has been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill over how some aspects of the CDC’s resources have been spent in the past and how they will continue to be spent in the future. That is what I seek to address with new clause 6, which is particularly important in the context of increasing—potentially quadrupling—the overall resources available to the CDC. I welcome the range of amendments in Committee and here today that attempt to place various conditions on the exercise of the power to increase the limit.
As I said at the start, owing to the scope of the Bill, my amendments and those of Labour Members must relate to the increase in the limit from £6 billion to £12 billion under the terms of section 15(4) of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999. Try as we might, it has not been possible to find a way to attach conditions to the investment of up to £6 billion. The Government have indicated that the timetable for using the statutory instrument powers would be some way in the distance, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be some kind of conditionality and review process before those powers are used, especially given that we will apparently have so much time to prepare.
New clause 6 combines two conditions I called for in Committee: before the Government could increase the limit of their investment, the Secretary of State would be required to make an assessment of how an increased limit would contribute to a reduction in poverty, which is the statutory aim of ODA in the International Development Act 2002, and how that increase would help to meet the sustainable development goals. The Government have repeatedly argued that the CDC is doing both those things very effectively, in which case this is hardly an onerous request, but the new clause would have the effect of making it much clearer that this is the CDC’s overall purpose and that commercial gain, returns on investment and even raw figures on the number of jobs created are not an end in themselves, but only the means to the end of reducing poverty and building a more stable and secure world. Again, the responsibility is on the Government, if they will not accept our amendments, at least to acknowledge the concerns being expressed and to give commitments to show in any business case they publish for further investment how the key pillars of poverty reduction and the global sustainable development goals will be advanced.
I briefly speak in favour of, and indicate the Scottish National party’s support for, the range of thoughtful amendments tabled by the Labour shadow team and by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who serves on the Select Committee on International Development. I welcome the fact that there has been cross-party support for the amendments and suggest that the Government pay attention to that. There remains consensus in this House and across the country in support of the principle of aid, the 0.7% target and, of course, the effective use of that aid. Many of Labour’s amendments, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) said, simply ask DFID to hold the CDC to the same standards that the Government now demand of their external stakeholders. Their recent bilateral and multilateral development reviews were pretty much unilateral declarations of everything that was terrible and wasteful on the part of so many of their stakeholders and demanded that the highest standards of efficiency, impact and transparency be applied to them. It stands to reason that those standards should also be demanded of the CDC.
A Government who say they want to crack down on tax dodging should not be allowing an agency of which they are the sole stakeholder to be making use of offshore tax havens. A Government who want value for money and clear impact from their aid budget should not be afraid to ask for reporting on exactly those areas. My colleagues and I will be happy to join the Labour party, hon. Members from other Opposition parties, and any Conservative Member persuaded of the case in the Lobby in support of any amendments they wish to press.
I said on Second Reading that it was disappointing that the scope of the Bill was so narrow. The Government had the opportunity to widen the scope to strengthen the CDC’s effectiveness, transparency and accountability. They also had that opportunity with the substantial and, in some cases, creative amendments that have been proposed by Opposition Members from different parties. If Ministers continue to indicate an unwillingness to accept amendments—it is disappointing that they did not table any of their own to reflect the concerns raised by Members—they must give the strongest possible commitments now in response to the concerns we have raised. The Government must recognise, as the Labour Front Bench spokesperson said, that this is the beginning, and not the end, of a process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Fuller
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am taking absolutely to heart your suggestion that, this being the new year, we have to stand up to get the chance to speak.
I would like to start by thanking all the members of staff at the CDC for the work they do on behalf of British taxpayers and, more importantly, for the people who depend on the CDC for their employment in many of the most troubled and difficult countries in the world. Over the past few weeks, the CDC has been the subject of much ill-founded and hostile criticism, and that must make its job much, much harder, so it is important to put on record our support for the work they do in helping to achieve our country’s development goals.
I would also like to thank the Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor). She did a very good job in putting forward some points of scrutiny and in holding back on some of the wilder suggestions that might have been foisted on her in order to batter the Bill. The fact that historically there has been a cross-party consensus—given what she has said, it continues—on the valuable role of the CDC in achieving our development goals is important. It is a long-standing institution in our country; it is part of the British brand internationally, and she has done a great service today by focusing on the one amendment she wishes to press to a vote but pushing back on other ideas, which other Opposition Members might have asked her to press.
Pauline Latham
I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the CDC last year upped its investment rate to $1.5 billion, which is the level projected for the next five years. Does that investment rate show that recapitalisation is not about some supposed new direction for the CDC but about allowing the good work it has done under its management to continue?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to be clear what is being proposed today. The proposal is not to do more than is being done now, but to enable the CDC to continue to do what it is doing now. If we were to take some of the suggestions from the SNP and others, that might imply that that support should be reduced in the future, and that would be to the detriment of the countries affected and the British taxpayer.
Patrick Grady
ODA flows and gross national income can go up or down, so if, for some reason, GNI were to contract, and the ODA budget were to contract, surely it would make sense for the amount of overall capital investment in the CDC to contract so that more money was available for the traditional aid flows.
Richard Fuller
That is the hon. Gentleman’s point of view, but it is not my point of view, and I will come to the point about balance in a minute.
A general view of the amendments is that they seek to solve problems that do not exist, but that may exist. Statute is not the right way to approach such circumstances; that is a matter for oversight and scrutiny by the departmental Ministers and by us here in Parliament on behalf of our taxpayers—it is not about putting things into Bills. On that basis, I will oppose every amendment that has been proposed today.
There would be some validity to the amendments if there was a question about this aspect of foreign direct investment being unusually large. There might be something to them if the CDC had a poor investment record because it was losing shed loads of taxpayers’ money by making poor investments, if it was clearly ignoring development goals and was being held to account in reports for doing that, or if a problem in reporting oversight was evident and explained in various reports. However, not a single one of those conditions pertains to the circumstances of the CDC, so there is no a priori reason to put these amendments in place.
As I mentioned earlier, the proportion of our development budget that goes to our development finance institution—the CDC—is 4% if taken over five years, which is the usual investment period for a fund. That compares to PROPARCO of France, which has 12% of the development budget; DEG in Germany, which has 8% of the budget; and FMO in Holland, which is a very successful DFI, and which has 30% of the budget. So we are not unusually large—we are actually unusually small. In terms of such initiatives, we should be looking for a measured and slow increase in our ability to invest, so that we can play a fuller role. So I do not think that the point about that really holds.
The point about the poor investment record does not hold either. I have the numbers here, and the truth of the matter is that in terms of its annual return—this is a commercial return, and we have to understand that there are commercial returns for funds—the CDC was set a target of 3.5%, and it achieved 7.8% over the past five years. So there are not really grounds for saying that it is a poor performer in terms of its core function of investing on a commercial basis or that it is doing something untoward.
On the missing development goals, I understand that there is a bit of a laundry list of sectors that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) wishes to turn his nose up to. I have no idea whether the list in his new clause is a full list or whether it just contains things he does not like. One of my hon. Friends made a good point about why there are good reasons to support parts of them. We will hear from the hon. Gentleman in a minute, and I am sure he will make an excellent case for that laundry list. However, in the meantime, I would say that there is not really any evidence of the CDC missing its development goals. Even the National Audit Office report mentioned that the CDC had met the targets for its financial performance, which was point 11 in its summary. In point 12, it said that the
“CDC has exceeded the target for prospective development impact it agreed with the Department.”
So there is no basis in that respect for the amendments.
Are there concerns about reporting for CDC? There may be, but I have not heard them. I cannot point to something that says there are concerns. I do not think that we have heard concerns about reporting on Second Reading, in the evidence stages or today. There may be additional pieces of information we wish to have, and they are listed in some of the amendments, but no real concerns have been raised that these things have not been provided in the past and that we should therefore ensure that the CDC provides them. Therefore, on the issue of whether there is a problem at the CDC that the amendments are needed to correct, there is no justification for the amendments whatever.
We have to be clear about what the role of tax havens has been. The hon. Member for Edmonton was very fair in pointing out that the CDC’s chief executive had made it clear that the CDC does not use tax havens in its policies, and the chief executive explained where those are used and why they are used. I am perfectly happy to rest on the judgment of the CDC, on its governance structures and on the oversight by the Department to make sure that that continues. I do not need to put a statutory underpinning on that. I also do not see that there is a problem at the moment in terms of the CDC having wandered off from what it said it would do. If there was such a problem, I would say, “Okay, maybe it is time for statute,” but the hon. Lady has not presented—maybe others will—a recent concern where that has happened. Therefore, I cannot see a reason for supporting new clause 1, although I understand that she wants to put it to a vote. I think we broadly accept—from that point of view, having a discussion about this is perhaps valuable—that there should be a strong message from Parliament about the use of tax havens and about what is and is not appropriate. If that is her intention, that is a perfectly reasonable point for her to make.
The CDC is a valuable institution. It has support from both sides of the House. I look forward to having further discussion on the amendments and then supporting the Bill on Third Reading.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
In July last year, as part of our ongoing inquiry, the International Development Committee visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As part of that, we went to see a hydroelectric power plant in the Virunga national park, which has been part-funded by the CDC. It is reinvesting a proportion of its earnings into community development projects and protecting the environment. The plant is bringing electricity to a region in which only 15% of the population has previously had access to power, and it has the potential to generate millions of dollars each year and thousands of jobs for local communities. I cite that because such projects are impressive and demonstrate the positive impact that the CDC is already having.
Pauline Latham
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was also on that visit, and that is probably one of the most impressive projects I have ever seen. It provides light to so many people in the DRC who so desperately need it. Those are just the sorts of projects we have talked about and said that the CDC should be investing in more, because they create jobs and make life better for so many more people.
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Lady is a highly valued member of the International Development Committee and I agree with her. The purpose of my remarks on Report this afternoon is to reinforce the point she made. Those are positive projects. We want to ensure that the high-quality we saw in that example in Congo becomes the norm for all the CDC’s investments, particularly as the limit is increased, which I will come to in a moment.
The private sector provides around nine out of every 10 jobs in developing countries. Its development and success is vital in helping countries to achieve sustainable and long-term development. I therefore believe it makes sense to increase the CDC’s investment threshold.
Poverty reduction must be at the heart of the Government’s development agenda, which must explicitly include the work of the CDC. In 2011, the predecessor International Development Committee produced a report, “The Future of CDC”, as the group approached its then cap of £1.5 billion, as set out in the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999. The Committee’s report concluded that the CDC’s mandate should be changed to a specific focus on poverty alleviation. Given that job creation is one of the very best ways to reduce poverty, it is important that the Government have a development investment arm that will help poorer countries to create new and innovative jobs.
As has been said by Members on both sides of the House, the CDC made significant changes following the 2008 National Audit Office report and the 2011 International Development Committee report in line with recommendations to move towards a focus on the alleviation of poverty. As has also been said, those changes were reviewed recently by a further NAO report released just before Second Reading of the Bill in November 2016. The report was mostly positive, and noted that the 2012 to 2016 investment strategy shifted the CDC’s investment focus to poorer countries, which is welcome. The report noted that the CDC had exceeded the targets agreed with DFID relating to financial performance and development impact. However, it also said that the CDC should do more to measure the development impact of its investments. That would not only provide a better basis for investment decisions, but increase the transparency of the CDC.
Poverty alleviation is absolutely central if we are to make a success of the global goals—the sustainable development goals agreed in 2015. Africa needs to generate 15 million new jobs every year if it is to achieve its global goals. That can be achieved only by working with the private sector, including organisations such as CDC. CDC has helped to create nearly 25,000 jobs in Africa and south Asia directly, and it says it has helped to create more than 1 million jobs indirectly. The businesses in its portfolio support around 18 million jobs. I am therefore happy to see the increase in the threshold, but I have a number of concerns to which I should like the Minister to respond.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that I respect not only his passion, but the balanced way in which he deals with CDC issues. Does he share my concern that we risk having a more prescriptive approach towards the CDC, which is a part-private sector organisation, than we have towards a range of non-governmental organisations that are beneficiaries of large-scale DFID programmes, which might be somewhat distorting? Although he makes valid points about the concerns, if we are to hamstring CDC in the way that one or two of the proposals would have us do, it would be an undesirable outcome for DFID.
Stephen Twigg
I am certainly not arguing for prescriptions to be applied to the CDC that would not be applied to other organisations funded by DFID. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has made the valid point that, shortly before Christmas, the Secretary of State set out a number of conditions for suppliers to the Department, and that they should apply to the CDC. I am emphasising my support for the proposal to put poverty reduction at the heart of the CDC. All hon. Members would agree that that should be at the heart of the Government’s entire development and aid strategy, including DFID. I can plead not guilty to the charge that the right hon. Gentleman puts to me. I am not proposing in any sense to hamstring the CDC. I am certainly not proposing, and I do not believe the Opposition amendments seek, to impose any restriction on the CDC that would be out of step with the restrictions we apply to other bodies funded through overseas development assistance.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a strong point, which is very much the point. The proposals are about bringing the CDC more in line with DFID’s overall priority countries and sectors, and with the restrictions placed on other UK aid money.
Stephen Twigg
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have read what the Minister said in Committee—reassurance can be gained from it—but I look forward to hearing him again today. It is very important that we have a sense that, with a very substantial increase in the potential money going through the CDC, we will ensure that it is geared towards poverty reduction wherever it is invested. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, part of that is the question of which parts of the world and which countries the CDC will invest in. Investments in some countries can deliver a lot more jobs and poverty reduction than investments in others.
As I have said, I am happy with an increase in the investment threshold, but we must ensure that the money is spent wisely. The 2012 to 2016 investment plan has expired and we are yet to see the 2017 to 2021 investment plan. I suggest that it would have been beneficial for the Bill, the Government and the CDC if Parliament had seen the plans for the next four years of investment before it was asked to raise the investment threshold. The amendment from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State would ensure that, if the Government introduce regulations further to increase the limit, they would have to be preceded by a detailed plan of investment from the CDC that could be scrutinised by Parliament. I welcome and support that amendment.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Successive Governments can be proud of the role played by DFID in improving lives and the economies of some of the world’s poorest countries but, in light of much of the public debate on international development spending, much of what my hon. Friend says on parliamentary scrutiny is correct in principle. Does he agree that that is absolutely essential for maintaining and building public confidence in international development spending?
Stephen Twigg
I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says, which chimes with my conclusion on the importance of scrutiny of both the CDC and the Government, including scrutiny by the House.
Mark Field
I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says—in the context of the debate it would be useful to have an idea of the programmes that the CDC has in mind for the future. I hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, there is another opportunity to have one. However, does he recognise that, given the nature of the CDC’s expertise and experience, it might to an extent have slightly different goals from other NGOs who receive DFID money? In other words, given the CDC’s expertise, particularly its private sector expertise and experience, the absolute predominance of the alleviation of poverty could in some cases not entirely apply to everything it does.
Stephen Twigg
The focus and priority needs to be on poverty alleviation. At the beginning of my speech, I gave the example of a project we visited—the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) reinforced the point. That project undoubtedly delivered things beyond poverty reduction, but at the heart of that investment and its impact was the reduction of poverty. Keeping the reduction of poverty in mind is a useful lodestar for DFID when it approaches the work of the CDC. I would need some persuading that a project should be funded that did not have some connection to the alleviation and reduction of poverty.
Let me now turn to the issues of scrutiny that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). The recent NAO report, as was rightly said by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), revealed that the target development impact score is on average being met, but only on average. The CDC is making some investments that fall below the target. Some 23% of investments since 2013 have fallen below the target score based on their investment difficulty and propensity to generate employment. Given that the objective stated in the CDC’s current investment policy is to
“focus its investments into the geographies and sectors where there is the most potential for development impact”,
it is unclear why the CDC is investing in projects that achieve lower scores. So I say to the Minister that, along with a more robust approach to measuring development impact, I would like a minimum threshold for impact implemented in the new investment strategy.
As with all DFID spending—and, indeed, broader aid spending by other Government Departments—the International Development Committee will scrutinise very closely the CDC’s work in the months and years ahead. It is vital that we ensure the British taxpayer gets value for money for every pound spent on international development. As has been said on all sides of the House, the CDC has become more transparent following the Committee’s 2011 report and the NAO report in 2008, but more can still be done to ensure that money is being spent as well as possible. One way that could be achieved—I ask the Minister to explore this—is to allow the Independent Commission for Aid Impact to play a bigger role, for example carrying out a regular assessment of CDC investments, allowing scrutiny so we can really ensure full effectiveness and value for money of the programmes in which the CDC invests.
I think we can say that the CDC has been a world leader among development finance institutions in publishing details of its investments since 2012 under the International Aid Transparency Initiative. That is very welcome, but I suggest it would improve transparency further if it published similar details on its entire active investment portfolio, including those made prior to 2012. I ask the Minister to address that point when he responds to the debate. That would enable greater scrutiny of the CDC’s entire portfolio and hopefully provide assurance to the public that all the CDC investments are focused where they need to be: on the goal of poverty reduction.
In conclusion, I believe that the CDC has helped the UK to be a leader in global development, but as with any area of Government spending we need to ensure that every penny is going where it can have the greatest effect: the right places and the right people delivering value for money for the taxpayer. One way to achieve that is by regular scrutiny of the CDC, including by Parliament. I give a commitment that the International Development Committee will play its role in ensuring that we scrutinise and hold to account both the Department and the CDC as the additional money is allocated. Most importantly, as with all areas of development spending, we need to ensure that the ultimate goal is poverty alleviation and eradication, and that we never lose focus on that.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your generosity in allowing me to contribute for a short time.
The CDC has a really important discrete role in our international development portfolio. There are few organisations with the skills and abilities to manage such risk in the most difficult markets. Often, it will bring an economic frontier country, area or sector the opportunities leading towards a risk profile that more established and traditional investment vehicles can get involved in. That is to be welcomed. It supports more than 1,200 businesses in more than 70 developing countries to create jobs.
We discussed a number of issues in Committee, including the fact that investments are not necessarily direct. Amendments tabled both in Committee and on Report address whether that serves to divert resources from the least-developed countries. I would say that it is sometimes necessary to invest in opportunities in other countries as long as the outcomes go to the most needy and the least-developed countries. At the end of the day, that is what we are trying to do with our international development effort.
As many Members have said, it is important to concentrate on our core goals and the SDGs. In Committee, the Minister was explicit in saying he did not believe we needed more legislation. The International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 already enshrines in legislation the need to focus on poverty reduction and the SDGs, and they are already enshrined in DFID’s own principles and processes, so I do not believe that we need to have yet more primary legislation.
On the limits referred to in relation to some of the amendments, we have to remember this is effectively an enabling Bill, which is why it is so short. It is not an immediate call to spend. It is not a case of saying, “Here’s £6 billion tomorrow and then we’re going to raise it further the day after.” The Bill simply seeks to bring the CDC in line with other organisations that have similar requests of Departments. In Committee, the Minister said that any requests for money would have to be subject to DFID’s strategy and have to have a robust business plan that was considered fully before any money was handed over. That can easily be done on a departmental level. I totally agree with my colleague and Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). As a new Member, I look forward to being able to scrutinise the work of CDC.
I note that the CDC has changed. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that some amendments address problems that may not occur or rehearse old problems from before 2010 when the then Secretary of State reorganised the CDC. I do not support amendments on problems that may or may not happen, or have happened in the past but have been largely sorted out. The CDC has moved from pre-2010 looking at low impact, high return investment programmes, to a far more proactive viewpoint to ensure we take into account the SDGs and poverty reduction. I will be scrutinising that along with my colleague the Chair of the Select Committee, but I will not be supporting the amendments, for the reasons I have set out. This can best be done at Department and Committee level through post and pre-decision scrutiny. In conclusion, I look forward to the Bill becoming an Act.
Stephen Doughty
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 7 and the other new clauses and amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
It is fantastic to see so great a consensus in the room around the 0.7% aid target and Britain’s role in international development—in contrast, perhaps, to the shriller debate in the media in recent weeks. It might surprise those hon. Members who have criticised my amendments that there is actually much agreement around the role of CDC; I believe it has a vital role to play—I made this clear in Committee, as I am sure the Minister would acknowledge—in the wider portfolio of our international development effort and in the spending of our official development assistance.
I would like to thank my fellow Co-operative party MPs and the shadow Front-Bench team, as well as other Members from across the House, for adding their names to many of my amendments. It shows the level of very reasonable concern around the many unanswered questions concerning the priorities and operations of CDC. Those questions need to be addressed before we can countenance such a large increase in the official development assistance resources it receives from DFID. I am not suggesting that CDC should not get any more resources—it has reached the cap of £1.5 billion set in 1999 and clearly needs some increase and headroom to expand its activities—but it is worth recognising that it has coped well by recycling resources within itself, partly thanks to some of the investment successes it has enjoyed.
Richard Fuller
Is not the level of investment now consistent with this increase? For CDC’s current level of activity to be maintained, it requires this level of increase, so cannot concerns about too rapid growth perhaps be overstated?
Stephen Doughty
I do not believe that that case has been made; there has been no justification at any point for the actual figures. To maintain CDC at its current level of activity, we need to realise that it has managed perfectly well with £1.5 billion since 1999 and has recycled it within its own budgets. If it was going up by £1.5 billion or £2 billion, I could understand it with a view to creating space for the next 10 years, but £6 billion and £12 billion seem to me to be well out of the appropriate range.
Wendy Morton
From my understanding of the Bill and on the basis of evidence given in Committee, I would like to read the quote that
“no money will go to CDC until a full business case is written in huge detail, which will be prepared in the summer of 2017.”––[Official Report, Commonwealth Development Corporation Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2016; c. 9.]
The suggestion that we are going to give a huge chunk of money to CDC straight away is perhaps creating an unfair impression.
Stephen Doughty
Clearly, the hon. Lady did not listen to what I was saying. I did not say that. I said that the Minister had acknowledged that it was not going to be spent in one year, which was the fear when this was initially proposed. What we are asking for in the amendments is just that clear business case. I hope that the Minister—he was nodding earlier—will be able to set out how that process and scrutiny of it will occur, which is only right. There was only limited scrutiny of the last amounts spent, which were quite significant.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
What my hon. Friend describes is, in civil service language, the ghastly phrase “absorptive capacity”. He will know that, unfortunately, the Department for International Development has allocated some funding into various World Bank trust funds that have not been fully spent with the originally envisaged timescale, suggesting that the Department is beginning to struggle to find suitable sources that can absorb its money as it wants. My hon. Friend is, in my view, right to worry aloud that this is a huge increase in money without any proven capacity to spend it.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. My hon. Friend, one of the longest-serving Ministers at DFID, knows this only too well. He makes a very important point. I have spoken to other experts in the sector who suggest that to absorb that amount, even a doubling would be a struggle, so it certainly applies to the levels we are seeing. That is why it would be much more helpful if the Minister were clear about the schedule for this spending. What is his idea of the number of years over which this increase would be spent before we might require another Act to increase it even further?
We tabled some crucial amendments, as did SNP Members, in new clauses 3, 4 and 6 and my own new clause 9, emphasising the importance of focusing on the poorest, least developed and low-income countries and of ensuring that we remain coherent with the sustainable development goals—the global goals agreed by the UN—and focused on poverty eradication rather than other priorities.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Has not DFID led the world on the importance of aid transparency and a focus on poverty reduction? The problem at the heart of these proposals is that there is very little prospect of transparency of how these resources are spent. Equally, there is very little ability for the Government to guarantee that the resources will be deployed and focused on poverty reduction. Is that not a matter of major concern?
Stephen Doughty
I think it is, and that gets to the point. A lot of information is provided by CDC online, and it is important to acknowledge that much of it is helpful. We can get into individual projects and see the particular spending on those individual projects. However, it is not the same when it comes to the level of spending, which is what the NAO was looking at. It is important to be able to prove prospective development impact and show where it is going.
To take just one example, the NAO looked at the issue of funding going into the health sector in India, and tried to get clear information about where the money was being spent in a particular hospital group. It looked at whether it was going to the poorest or to middle-income patients. The NAO told us in its evidence that it was going to middle-income patients, which does not strike me as a correct use of CDC’s money. That is not to say that the investment is not good in and of itself—I am sure that enabling access to hospital for people in general is a good thing. The question is whether we should be spending our aid money on that. Surely we should be focusing on the poorest.
When we examine the figures in depth—they can be found in a House of Commons Library research paper—we see that although the proportion of CDC’s investments in the least developed countries has increased, it is still significantly lower than the proportion of its investments in middle-income countries. As for spending in individual countries, it is a fact that in India most of CDC’s money is being spent in what are known to be the richest states. The highest proportion of its investments goes to Maharashtra, which is where Mumbai is located. I am not saying that the individual investments there are not good, effective or useful; I am saying that it is a question of priorities. In Committee, it was helpful to hear the Minister speak of the possibility of a cap or restriction on funds that go to India and elsewhere in south Asia rather than to Africa. Giving evidence to the Committee, Professor Paul Collier said that he shared the concern that had been expressed about whether CDC was focusing enough resources on the poorest countries. New clause 9, for instance, relates to those issues.
The wider issue of spending routes that is raised in both the SNP’s amendment 3 and our new clause 10 is crucial. We are not suggesting that CDC should not be given more money, or that it should not have a chance to expand its operations and the autonomy that it enjoys, but we believe that those elements should be in proportion to other forms of official development assistance. It is important that we introduce safeguards. By 2019-20, 6% of United Kingdom official development assistance will be spent by other Government Departments. Money goes into the prosperity fund and other Government funds, and there is often far less scrutiny and oversight than there is in DFID. That worries me, and I know that it worries other Members on both sides of the House.
We need to achieve a fair balance. CDC has its role to play in the portfolio, but that must be proportionate to other ways in which we can spend the money. We must ensure that we are pulling all the levers of development, rather than just one at the expense of others. For that reason, I am inclined to support amendment 3 if it is pressed to a vote.
I want to say something about tax havens, although I shall not do so at length, because we discussed the issue a great deal in Committee and we have also discussed it today. I find it surprising—this relates to new clauses 1 and 8—that CDC continues to use tax havens such as the Cayman islands and Mauritius. A fair point has been made about the importance of stable financial arrangements for investments. In some countries it is clearly not possible to set up arrangements within the legal structures of those countries to ensure that the right fiduciary controls are in place. However, I do not understand why we are not setting up such vehicles in England and Wales, or in other jurisdictions. Why are so many of them in the Cayman islands and Mauritius?
Moreover—I have asked parliamentary questions about this—we are paying management fees to financial services organisations, in the Cayman islands and elsewhere, that also support the far less transparent activities of other corporations and individuals. I find it deeply worrying that, whether or not there is anything untoward about an individual CDC investment, we may be indirectly supporting the flourishing of the tax avoidance and evasion that exists in overseas territories.
Mr Gareth Thomas
Is my hon. Friend aware of comments made by the Secretary of State when she was a Treasury Minister about tax evasion and the need to limit the use of tax havens? Why does the Treasury seem to be concerned about the issue, and why is DFID suddenly not concerned about it? One would have thought that, when it came to such a crucial issue, there would be joined-up government.
Stephen Doughty
That was also a great surprise to me. I referred earlier to the letter that the Secretary of State sent to many of the other DFID contractors on 16 December. That letter was very clear about tax avoidance measures and tax havens. It contained a series of criteria, most of which I think are very reasonable, and which we should expect to be observed by organisations that are benefiting from our aid spending. My question is this: why are those criteria not being applied to CDC? The Secretary of State repeatedly refused to confirm that they would be. There seems to be one rule for one organisation and a different rule for others.
Eurodad research found that 118 out of 157 fund investments made by CDC went through jurisdictions that feature in the top 20 of the Tax Justice Network’s Financial Secrecy Index. That does not seem to me to be coherent with the other statements that are being made by the Government. Indeed, the will of the House has been shown by cross-party support for amendments to other Bills that would crack down on tax avoidance and evasion.
Lastly, I want to return to the issue of coherence, and I urge colleagues to support new clause 7. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) referred to this as some sort of laundry list and suggested I was creating hypothetical straw men that did not actually exist and was dealing with things that have happened in the past. That is not the case; I am talking about things that are happening now. It is a fact that, as data revealed to me since the Committee stage in parliamentary questions show, in 2015 alone CDC invested £56.9 million in private fee-paying education and £117.9 million in private fee-paying healthcare.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I shall speak in support of a number of the measures on the amendment paper, but first I want to make a couple of comments about the political context in which this debate is taking place. I turned on the television over the weekend to see on the tickertape at the bottom of the news channel screen the information that our Government had stopped funding a girl band in Africa. I was shocked by this—I did not realise we were funding girl bands or bands of any other kind in Africa or elsewhere—so I thought I would look into the matter a little more. Of course, on doing so, I discovered that that was not the story at all.
The story was loosely based on a project in Ethiopia called Girl Effect, which is a huge programme that is aimed at empowering young women throughout that country. It has 500 direct participants and more than 10,000 participants online, and it operates from 8,000 schools throughout the country. It is designed to use music and performing arts to give young women in that country confidence so that they can take part in Ethiopian political and social life. It is undeniably a good thing. It was set up by DFID in 2011, and every time that DFID has reviewed it, it has been given an A* rating. It is exactly the type of project that we should be supporting, but it is unusual and unconventional. It is not the same as handing out food to people who are starving, so the case needs to be made for it. We also need to be aware of how these things can be caricatured and used to argue against the provisions that we are talking about today.
That entire Girl Effect project was described in the Daily Mail as the British Government funding the equivalent of the Spice Girls. The implication was quite clear: millions of pounds of our taxpayers’ money was being used not to feed the poor, the starving or the illiterate, but to fund five young women and turn them into rich pop stars. That was not true. The reporting was a good example of what we might call fake news—I believe that that is the term used these days. It was connected to reality by the thinnest threads of truth, yet for many people reading the Daily Mail and the other papers that took up the story, or looking at the tickertape along the bottom of their screen, it created the impression that they were given.
Lots of people, including some in this Chamber who ran to the press to comment on that story, will use these caricatures to denigrate and oppose any foreign aid activity by this country. They use the ridiculous argument that we should be spending money at home before we spend it abroad, as though the poverty and inequality in this country, which we must tackle, was on a par with the hell in sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty, oppression and the daily grind are the normal way of existence for the mass of people in those countries. Knowing that those caricatures exist and that we need to be careful about how we present these arguments brings me to the new clauses and amendments before us today.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good case, but considering that a third of all Ethiopian girls do not go to school, would it not be better for female empowerment if the money were spent on giving them an education? Would that not be more empowering than promoting a pop group?
Tommy Sheppard
I do not want to have a big discussion about the project, but I will respond by saying that we should do both. Of course we should also try to put money into formal education, but the importance of that project was that it understood that digital communication was a much more effective way of reaching young people in Ethiopia than the bricks and mortar of a formal educational establishment. It also understood that music and lyrics can sometimes be better than formal texts at getting through to people, educating them and inspiring them with big ideas. That is true in this country as well. Those things have contributed to the social education of young women in Ethiopia. As I said, the Department for International Development itself said that the project was worth supporting.
The important point in all these debates is that we can win public support for foreign aid and rally the public behind the 0.7% contribution, provided that we are transparent about what we are doing, and that we demonstrate at every turn that the people who are getting the money are those who really need it. It is therefore important that those criteria are demonstrated through the work of CDC Group and others, and that evidence is produced.
I am not sure which amendments and new clauses will be pressed to a Division, but I will vote for whichever ones are, because they would all strengthen the Bill. In my 20 months in this Chamber, this is the first time that I have seen a Bill come back on Report without a single Government amendment. I find that surprising. I know that the Bill is concise and brief, but given the concerns that were expressed on Second Reading about the work of CDC Group, I would have thought that the Bill could have been tightened up a little. I hope that the Government will consider supporting some of the new clauses and amendments because they would make the Bill more efficacious in achieving its objectives.
New clause 6 states that before CDC Group gets a major uplift in funding, the case will have to be made that it is meeting the sustainable development goals and tackling poverty and inequality in the country in which the money is deployed. Let me put it another way. If a project was not tackling poverty or combating inequality, and not contributing to achieving the sustainable development goals, why on earth should we fund it? When it comes to prioritising when money is tight, we have to make sure that it is spent on what it is supposed to be spent on.
On Second Reading we discussed some of the—shall we say?—past mistakes in a number of CDC’s decisions. We talked about the shopping malls, luxury hotels and other inappropriate projects in which CDC Group invested, and we were assured—by the Minister of State, I think—that those things were in the past, that we had learned from them and that they would not be repeated in the future. Well, if that is the case, what is the difficulty in building such a provision into the Bill so that when CDC gets a budget uplift, it will have an obligation to demonstrate that what that uplift is spent on will contribute to meeting these goals and fulfilling these criteria? That is self-evidently a way of ensuring that we do not rely on hope by instead writing down what, as a matter of policy, we want.
Amendments 3 and 4, to which I have put my name, would link an uplift in CDC Group’s funds to the overall ODA budget. It is important to look at doing that; the formula that has been suggested is not onerous and is perfectly achievable. There is an idea abroad that what might be happening is the outsourcing or privatisation of our foreign aid activity, and that pre-eminence is given to a market approach. We will have problems if that impression is not countered, because the truth of the matter is that there is a role for spending public money to try to support the creation of a small business sector in developing countries, to invest in such sectors and to create jobs, but let us not kid ourselves. The vast bulk of our priority aid should be directed at people who need it in order to combat the malnutrition, illiteracy, poverty and starvation that are present throughout such countries. That cannot be done by setting up a small business; it needs to be done through direct state and NGO intervention. That is why we should make it clear that the vast bulk of our foreign aid effort will remain in that sphere.
Although CDC Group and the market have a contribution to make, particularly in countries that are some stages along the process of development, that will not be the primary way in which we do things. I commend amendments 3 and 4 to the House because if we were to agree to them, we would strengthen the Bill and demonstrate to people what our intentions really are: to ensure that the hard-earned taxes that they pay—people politically agree that a small slice should be deployed for foreign aid—are spent doing the things that they want to be done. Those things are combating poverty and inequality in the developing world, and making sure that we get to a more equal world society, which of course is in our long-term interest, too.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I am speaking today because of concerns brought to me by constituents, and only concerns brought to me by constituents. No NGOs have lobbied me. Constituents contacted me before Second Reading to express concern that, if the Bill were passed, we would run the real risk of aid money being spent inappropriately, and of our commitment to aid, of which we can all be proud, being undermined. I return to that concern, which I raised on Second Reading, and to what for me and my constituents are the core issues: directing the money to where it is needed most; scrutiny; and transparency.
On Second Reading, I quoted the recent NAO report on CDC. I know that has already been quoted today, but it bears listening to again. The report concluded:
“It remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places. Given the Department’s plans to invest further in CDC, a clearer picture of actual development impact would help to demonstrate…value for money”.
We are not getting the actual development impact promised. We cannot see what the development proposals are for the future; we are being asked to trust. Perhaps the Lords will see that, but we cannot.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)
I begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members. This has been a very instructive process. The new clauses and amendments tabled reflect what was a really good Bill Committee stage. The Government have huge respect for the intelligence, focus and precision of these amendments, and we hope that Members will see that all the concerns that have been expressed are going to be addressed through the strategy that is produced.
Before I address the new clauses and amendments in turn, I pay tribute very strongly to the Members on both sides of the House who have demonstrated their support for international development. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who gave an extremely powerful speech in support of international development and about the importance of standing up and having the courage to defend complex and innovative projects.
Mr Gareth Thomas
At the outset of his remarks, will the Minister explain why the legislation has preceded the strategy?
Rory Stewart
I shall deal with that when discussing the second set of amendments, which relate to that directly, but first I want to continue to pay tribute to other Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, for their support for CDC. I was struck by the support of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for the Virunga project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, by the in-principle support of the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), and particularly by the phrase produced by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) that is absolutely right in guiding us as we go forward: we need to get the right balance between long-term investment and short-term need.
I should just recapitulate the extraordinary work that CDC has done and echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). It has been a really tough time. As Members of Parliament, we are used to being under full public scrutiny and attack. CDC works very hard and has delivered some high-quality projects, and this has been a very tough period for it.
Three types of amendments have been tabled. The first set basically says yes, we should be giving money to CDC, but we should be giving slightly less money to CDC; the second set says that there should be restrictions on the Government’s ability to give money to CDC; and the third set would restrict what CDC itself can do with the money. Essentially, the Government’s position is that these are all good points, but they are better dealt with through the governance mechanisms and the strategy than through statutory, primary legislation.
I shall deal first with amendments 1 to 5 and new clause 10, which essentially say yes, we should give money to CDC, but we should give less money to CDC. Why do we disagree with what was essentially the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)? First, because, with respect, I still believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow North is confusing the stock and the flow. The fact is that the money put into CDC will be recycled. For the sake of argument, if an investment was 10 to 12 years in length and CDC had $12 billion in the pot, it would be in a position to maintain the current rate of investment of around $1 billion a year—the money would come back and go bounce again at around $1 billion a year. It is not fair to compare what happens in a capital stock used for equity debt investment with the annual expenditure of a Department.
Secondly, there is the question of demand, which the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth referred to. The demand is almost limitless. It is calculated that $2.5 trillion is going to be required annually by 2030 to meet the sustainable development goals, which is why the relevant question is not the demand for the money but the question of the absorptive capacity, which the hon. Gentleman raised.
Thirdly, the Bill is enabling legislation that sets a ceiling—a maximum limit; it is not saying, “This is the amount of money we are going to give.” Fourthly, the design is for the money to go into patient, long-term investment. The three-year review proposed in one of the amendments simply will not work for investments that are intended to be, on average, 10 years in length.
Mr Ivan Lewis
If the Bill is passed and its consequences are added to the fact that more than 25% of DFID’s spending currently goes through other Government Departments, the result will be that more than 50% of our aid will no longer be spent through DFID. Does it not raise serious questions about the Government’s intentions for DFID to remain as a stand-alone Department with a place at the Cabinet table if more than 50% of its spending will be spent by CDC and other Departments? No other Government Department would come to the House and ask for more than 50% of its resources to be spent via other means.
Rory Stewart
There are two distinct points there: DFID’s spending and the proportion of the spending. The first thing to understand is that CDC is 100% owned by the Department for International Development, which is one reason why a number of these amendments are not appropriate. On the proportion of money spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) eloquently pointed out, the small increase that we are talking about in terms of the annual amount that CDC will be able to invest will still be much smaller than comparable organisations in Holland, Germany and France. It will be about a third of the amount that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation can invest—OPIC is just one of the US’s development finance institutions that is able to invest—and only about a sixth of what the International Finance Corporation puts out a year. We are not talking—comparatively, globally—about a large amount of money. We are talking about something in the region of 8% at maximum—even if we hit the maximum of official development assistance—and the other 92% will continue to go in the normal way through non-governmental organisations and organisations such as UNICEF for the objectives that we pursue.
Stephen Doughty
It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the time period over which this increase, if it was granted, would be played out with CDC. The explanatory notes to the Bill say very clearly that the £6 billion is intended to be used in this spending review to accelerate CDC’s growth. Is that his view, and what about the £12 billion? Is that spread over a 10-year period, a 20-year period or a five-year period? Can he give us a ballpark figure?
Rory Stewart
Let me clarify this. The £6 billion represents an additional £4.5 billion, because CDC already has £1.5 billion. We anticipate that that would cover the next five-year period to enable CDC, at maximum—we do not expect it to draw down the maximum amount—to be able to make the kinds of levels of investment that it made last year. The next £6 billion—it is not an additional £12 billion, but an additional £6 billion—would apply to the next five-year period. We are looking at a steady state allocation, which might, at maximum, allow CDC to meet the kind of expenditure levels that it gets next year.
Let me move on now to new clauses 2, 5 and 6 and amendment 6. Essentially, these are a series of measures that restrict the power of the Government to give money to CDC. They do that either by saying that they should not be able to boost the amount of money that CDC has through delegated legislation, or through asking for a strategy to be put in place before the money is disbursed. Again, these measures are not appropriate. The role of Parliament as specified for CDC in the Overseas Resources Development Act 1948 and the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 quite correctly relates to two things: the setting up of this body and the creation of a cap on the amount of money that this body is given.
However, it is not normal for Parliament to get involved in the detailed implementation of specialist business cases. That is true in everything that the legislature does in its relationship to the Executive. The money allocated to our Department in general through the Budget, which this House votes on, is then delegated to civil servants and to the Government to determine how it is spent. The same will be true here, but the strategy that will come forward will reflect very closely the arguments that have been made at the Committee stage and on Report. We will continue to remain in very close touch with Members of Parliament, and we will be judged by our ability to deliver, through that strategy, something that will address those concerns—above all, through the development impact grid and the development impact assessments on the individual business cases, which will address these particular issues.
Mr Gareth Thomas
Will the Minister specifically comment on the use of tax havens by CDC, and will he and other Ministers in his Department echo previous statements by the Secretary of State and instruct CDC to desist from using tax havens for future investments?
Rory Stewart
That is an invitation to move on to the last group of amendments, which comprises new clauses 8, 9, 3 and 7, one of which relates to the issue of offshore financial centres. These are restrictions on what CDC itself can do. There is a suggestion that there should be an annual obligation on ICAI to produce reports on CDC. Then there are restrictions on the routes through which CDC can put its money, and there are attempts through the new clauses to restrict the sectors and the countries in which CDC can invest. Let me take them in turn.
On ICAI, we are very open to scrutiny. The CDC has been scrutinised by the International Development Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. We expect it to be scrutinised in that way and to be scrutinised by ICAI. We welcome scrutiny from ICAI. However, we do not think it is for the Government to impose obligations on an independent regulator. It should be for ICAI to determine its priorities and where it thinks the problems are, and to be able to apply its scrutiny accordingly. It may determine that an annual scrutiny of 10-year investments does not make sense and decide to do it more frequently, but that should be for ICAI, not for statutory legislation of this House.
Rory Stewart
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
I would like to begin by reiterating my thanks and the tribute we owe to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their shared belief in the importance of international development. At the absolute core of the Bill is our moral obligation to some of the very poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for the important points raised, which will be reflected in the new strategy as it comes forward.
I will briefly lay out once more why believe that this is a good Bill. At its core is our understanding that there is extreme poverty and suffering in the world and that economic development will play an important part in addressing it. There is enormous demand in the poorest countries of the world for well-paid jobs. It is one of the first things that any of us discover when we go to Africa and other developing regions. As the Chairman of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said, 90% of the growth and employment in the poorest countries of the world is currently driven by the private sector. As he also said, Africa requires 15 million more jobs a year. Every one of those well-paid jobs is an opportunity for a family to deliver the stuff we all care about—for parents to provide education for their children and the healthcare their families need. Above all, it is through the revenue these jobs generate for Governments that a long-term sustainable future can be maintained. That is what allows a Government to pay for their education and healthcare systems and, if there is an earthquake or some other natural disaster, to access the resources to address it. In the end, the only long-term sustainable path is through the generation of that economic development and growth.
Why CDC? We have chosen CDC because it brings together two important things: on the one hand, the rigour of the private sector and its ability to work out whether investments make sense—are there genuine markets for these goods; can these jobs really be sustained? —and, on the other hand, the values of the public sector. The latter are what ensure we go into the hardest countries in the world—for example, that we do renewable energy in Burundi or the Central African Republic or get into Sierra Leone when Ebola happens—and, above all, ensure that investments are not about short-term commercial returns but are patient, long-term investments of the kind that the commercial sector will often not deliver.
Why CDC? Well, having been established in 1948, it is the longest-serving, as well as the best, development finance institution in the world. It proved it in the 1960s, through its investments in Kenya, and, much more recently, since 2012, with its fantastic reforms, which we have talked about at all stages of the Bill, on salaries, transparency, offshore financial centres, the geography of investments and the sectors in which we invest, all of which is summed up in the development impact grid. That is what answers a lot of the points made in the discussion today, and that is what allows us to make sure that every investment focuses on the areas that generate the most jobs and on the countries where investment is most difficult, where the least capital is available and where GDP per capita is lowest.
We can see this in the real world: in the 17 million indirect jobs created by CDC; in its investments in places such as Burundi and the Central African Republic; in the hydroelectric investment in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo—not an easy place to invest in—which the Chairman of the International Development Committee referred to; and, actually, in the Globeleq investment, where CDC’s investment will help to generate 5,000 MW of power in Africa over the next decade. To put the latter in context, Africa managed only 6,000 MW over the previous decade, so that is almost the entire generation of Africa over the previous decade being driven by a single company supported by CDC. Moreover, there is value for money for the taxpayer because the money is recycled, and the need is absolutely there, as we can see from the fact that we need $2.5 trillion of investment by 2030.
In conclusion, our Department will do many other things besides CDC. Much of the money will continue to flow through NGOs such as Save the Children, CARE and Oxfam. Many of our investments will be with valued partners such as UNICEF. More than 90% of the money we will spend through overseas development assistance will continue to go to health, education and humanitarian assistance. Within that, not all the money in economic development will go through CDC. It will also go through our investments that will take place through support to Governments and technical assistance. However, that CDC investment, combining the rigour of the private sector, the focus on markets and the values of the public sector, reflects the values of the British public who care about poverty and show in their own philanthropic giving how much they care about some of the most vulnerable people in the world. We are showing our respect for the British people by pushing forward with a proven model that will provide the sustainable growth required to address some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in the world. This is our moral obligation.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments in thanking right hon. and hon. Members of all parties who have participated in what I believe has been a very constructive debate—irrespective of whether the amendments and new clauses have been accepted. What they set out has been utilised in the best possible way, as hon. Members have used them to raise some very important points. I offer my thanks, too, to all the non-governmental organisations that supported us throughout the process, to those who came before us in Committee to present written and oral evidence and to staff in the Public Bill Office, whose assistance has been invaluable, as always.
I would like to thank my hon. Friends who have spoken with great concern and passion about the Bill, and I particularly mention my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whose experience in the Department for International Development is widely respected and was visibly expressed in today’s debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who is no longer in her place, who also served outstandingly in Public Bill Committee. I do not want my hon. Friends’ valuable contributions to go unnoticed, and I include that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the Chair of the International Development Committee, who always makes a passionate case and has an informed stance on the matters in hand.
Let me be clear that in today’s constructive debate no Member has opposed the principle or spirit of the CDC itself, and no one has criticised its role and mission statement. All Members, particularly Opposition Members, have made the point time and again that we must not lose sight of the CDC’s sole or founding principle, which is poverty alleviation. We have all accepted that, and we have had constructive debates in Committee and on Report. The amendments and new clauses that were tabled have had some support from across the House. Some were tabled as probing amendments, but some were amendments intended to strengthen the Bill.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, we outlined a number of concerns that we held over its provisions, including on the accountability and scrutiny of the investments made by the CDC, on the need of the CDC to focus its investments on efforts to alleviate poverty and on the necessity of a business case from the CDC. These concerns have been fundamental to our position on the Bill, and they are concerns about which we have sought strong assurances from the Government.
On accountability and scrutiny, we had concerns, as illustrated in our amendments, over the fact that the CDC’s investments are not independently assessed on a frequent and regular basis. The absence of such assessments undermines the credibility of the CDC and its investments, and it weakens public confidence that taxpayers’ money, through DFID, is being spent by the CDC on efforts to alleviate poverty and help the poorest in the world. It is vital for every pound, every penny, of development to be directed towards that goal, and strong, independent scrutiny of the development impact of the investments would assure us of that.
We have heard assurances from the Minister today and in Committee that he would welcome further independent assessment by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. I feel that he has listened, and I am grateful to him for that. We have also been assured that the annual reports and accounts provided by the CDC contain ample information, and that the CDC will be held to account for any discrepancies by either the Public Accounts Committee or the International Development Committee. I am sure that they will make any such discrepancy the subject of inquiries, as they have in the past.
As I have said, it is vital for us to ensure that the CDC’s investments focus on the alleviation of poverty, which is DFID’s legal aim and purpose. Given past investments involving the construction of luxury hotels and shopping centres in well-developed areas, Labour Members were concerned about the possibility that the CDC would use its additional finance to return to such activity. However, the National Audit Office report, which was published just before the debate on Second Reading, makes it clear that that is no longer the case, following the important reforms set in motion by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not in the Chamber today.
The Minister has been kind enough to provide assurances in response to some of the concerns that have been expressed today, so we will not oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.
Jeremy Lefroy
Whether people live in the United Kingdom, Tanzania or Colombia, the most important route out of poverty is a good job or a good livelihood, and that is why I fundamentally support the work of the CDC. It has done excellent work throughout the world for nearly 70 years, and in recent years it has concentrated on the most needy countries, where there is the highest level of unemployment or the highest level of poverty. I welcome the fact that the Government are to invest more through the CDC in the coming years.
However, I think that today’s debate, and our debates in Committee and on other occasions, have made it clear that the CDC must be careful. It must invest in areas in which commercial investors would not normally invest; otherwise, it should be the commercial sector that invests in them. The CDC must invest in the areas that create the greatest number of jobs in return for the investment made. That will often involve agriculture, and it will often involve difficult investments, because it is not easy to invest in agriculture in remote areas. However, that is what the CDC is there for: it is not there for an easy life. I know that—given the management that it has had recently, and given the calibre of its staff—it is up to those challenges, and I welcome the Bill.
Patrick Grady
My I add my thanks to all the stakeholders and staff who have contributed to the Bill process? This is the first piece of legislation on which I have worked as an SNP spokesperson, so I am particularly grateful to the Clerk of Bills for his advice, to my staff and the SNP research team, and to the various non-governmental organisations that have provided input. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for their contributions during the Bill’s various stages. I also recognise the commitment and hard work of the CDC’s staff, and their positive engagement with the Opposition parties.
This is the first piece of DFID legislation in the current Parliament, but I wonder whether it will be the last. The Minister might be aware that I tabled a question to the Secretary of State about the applicability of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 now that the millennium development goals it requires DFID to report on have been replaced by the sustainable development goals. The International Development Committee proposed a consolidating international development Act to bring together all the various pieces of legislation passed over recent years. Perhaps that is not such a bad idea, especially as the debate about the purpose of aid and development seems to be getting louder.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East said on Report, throughout the Christmas recess there seemed to be a drip-feed of very negative stories about aid spending, particularly in the gutter press. It is absolutely right that examples of waste and inefficiency are exposed and questions asked about value for money, but the answer is to improve transparency and efficiency, and to measure impact—especially over the longer term—and not simply to cut off the supply or take heavy-handed, but ultimately counter-productive, action.
The debate on the CDC Bill has catalysed a broader debate about the use and purpose of aid, and the Government can be assured in the coming months that the SNP will be happy to support the cross-party and public consensus on our moral duty to help people most in need around the world, and the symbolism and very real impact of meeting the 0.7% aid target. However, as we have just heard on Report, if the highest standards of transparency and effectiveness are to be demanded from DFID’s external stakeholders, they must equally be applied across Government and to their arm’s-length agencies, starting with the CDC in this Bill.
The Government did not accept amendments, but I join the Opposition Front-Bench team in welcoming the commitments the Government have given. We will, through the procedures of this House, hold them to account for those commitments. There is a consensus behind the need for continual improvement of the CDC, and we want to maintain that consensus.
The Government will see this legislation passed today—their majority in the House assures them of that—and it is unlikely, due to the nature of the Bill, that the House of Lords will have any opportunity to amend or delay its progress on to the statute book. So the Government are being given a significant responsibility today; they are asking for the power to quadruple the budget of an agency which has a long but chequered history. The CDC has had significant successes in its history, but significant concerns have been raised and remain. If its resource base is to be massively scaled up, so must be its accountability and the standards it is held to. I hope the Secretary of State and her Ministers will confirm that they are prepared for the CDC, the Department, and themselves as Ministers, to be held to those standards.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I will say about three sentences.
It is both a moral and practical responsibility and an opportunity to aid other countries. Christian Aid was set up after the second world war to develop Europe, and its success over the next 20 years was fantastic. The same can apply to Africa and other parts of the world, and the CDC has the opportunity, through infrastructure and education, to achieve that.
We must reduce barriers and provide opportunities, and provide a welcome to other countries having the same aspirations and achievements we have had ourselves.
Stephen Doughty
I, too, want to place on record my thanks to the Clerk of Bills and all my colleagues on the Front and Back Benches who have taken part. We have heard excellent contributions from both sides of the House in what has been a very informative and useful process of scrutiny of this Bill through Second Reading, Committee and Report. Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings Nos. 24, 96, 134, 136 to 142, 159, 302, 305 and 307 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 23, 25 to 95, 97 to 133, 135, 143 to 158, 160 to 301, 303, 304 and 306 Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings
I was pleased to hear the Minister setting out a little more detail on the period over which we can expect the CDC to be drawing down moneys. His suggestion that it will be a five and 10-year period in two tranches is much more reassuring than some of the earlier suggestions. There will, however, be a temptation to draw that down at a faster rate because of changes in reporting how our aid is calculated and what proportion the CDC counts towards that. So while I take what the Minister said with great sincerity, I urge him to caution against those who would suggest dumping money, as it were, into the CDC as a way of artificially meeting the 0.7% target. He should only go there with a clear plan and business case, and a clear understanding of how that is going to contribute towards poverty eradication.
I am concerned that we are still not going far enough on tax havens. I listened to what the Minister said and will look with interest at that strategy and what practical steps are taken to see us moving resources out of those jurisdictions, and the secondary effects we can have there.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) about the role that the CDC should play. It should not go for an easy life by going where commercial resources already go. There was some suggestion in the debate that we were almost the only source of funding for many of these investments, but that is patently not the case. In our development spending overall, and certainly in the case of the CDC, we ought to be acting as a catalyst for the very best in poverty eradication, for placing the very best focus on difficult sectors, areas and countries where others will not go, and for achieving the highest standards in sustainability and human rights. We ought to be acting as a catalyst in the world, not just going for an easy return and an easy life.
There is something that I still do not quite understand, and I hope that Ministers will reflect on this. The Secretary of State set out some good principles in her letter of 16 December on transparency, on open-book breakdowns of salaries, tenders and material costs, on due diligence in supply chains, on tax status and compliance, and on disclosures of conflicts of interest. I do not see why those principles cannot be applied equally to the CDC, just as they will be applied to other spenders of our aid spending. I urge Ministers to look carefully at this again. That is a reasonable set of requirements and it would be helpful if they could be applied to the CDC.
On the question of the countries that the CDC focuses on, there has been a shift. It is important to recognise that the CDC is investing more in the poorest countries, but it needs to go much further. I urge Ministers not to have any poverty of ambition in setting the framework and parameters for the CDC, particularly in relation to future disbursements, to ensure that the money goes to the poorest countries and not to middle-income countries that can often draw down other sources of funding and finance.
It was reassuring to hear many positive voices today making the case for our wider role in international development and for our 0.7% aid target. Indeed, it was good to hear the Prime Minister the other day rejecting the more shrill views from some on her own Benches and from the likes of the Daily Mail that we should scrap the aid target and that we should not be spending any international development money at all. She rejected that. This is not a zero sum game. It is not only morally wrong for us to ignore gross poverty, instability and insecurity, as the Minister said; it also fundamentally goes against our national interest and security and global security and stability. Those are good reasons why, with reasonable scrutiny and with reasonable questions being asked about all areas of our development spending, we must maintain our wider commitment to the poorest people and countries in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Policing and Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Policing and Crime Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 March 2016 in the last Session of Parliament (Policing and Crime Bill (Programme)) and the Order of 26 April 2016 in the last Session of Parliament (Policing and Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Subsequent stages
(4) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(5) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Policing and Crime Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 10 January 2017 - (10 Jan 2017)
18:38 - divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 196 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:55 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 202 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:13 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 198 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 24, 96, 159 and 302. I also remind the House that certain of the motions relating to the Lords amendments will be certified as relating exclusively to England or to England and Wales, or to England and to England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If the House divides on any certified motion, a double or triple majority will be required for the motion to be passed.
After Clause 26
Inquiry into complaints alleging corrupt relationships between police and newspaper organisations
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 24.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 96, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 134, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 136 to 142, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 159, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 302, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 305, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 307, and Government motion to disagree.
Brandon Lewis
This first group of amendments includes 10 new clauses added to the Bill in the House of Lords against the advice of the Government. It covers four separate issues: part 2 of the Leveson inquiry; the funding of legal representation for bereaved families at inquests where the police are an interested person; the maximum sentence for the offence of stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress; and the rights and entitlements of victims of crime.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The consultation closed 17 minutes ago. The truth of the matter is that the Government promised that there would be one inquiry with two parts. As far as I can see, the Minister is effectively saying—nudge, nudge; wink, wink—“We are not going to proceed with part 2.” If that is the case, he should be straightforward and tell us so now.
Brandon Lewis
With great respect, the hon. Gentleman should look at Hansard when it is published. That is not what I said at all. I made it very clear that we have been seeking the views of the public and interested parties and that we have to look at what is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest.
The consultation sought views on whether proceeding with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry is still appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest. As the last of the relevant criminal cases has only recently concluded, the Government believe that this is an appropriate time to take stock and seek views on the various options, as the then Home Secretary outlined 18 months ago. Submissions to the consultation will be important in helping to inform the Government’s thinking.
As hon. Members may also be aware, an application has been made to judicially review the consultation. Although I cannot comment on the current legal proceedings, the Government have committed not to take any final decisions relating to the consultation until the legal proceedings have concluded. Given the consultation and the ongoing related legal proceedings, I respectfully suggest to the House that this is not an appropriate matter for further legislation at this moment.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I hope the Government will not be intimidated by a campaign the press are waging at the moment to try to deter them from implementing the Leveson recommendations. May I just tell the Minister that yesterday I submitted my monthly article for the Aldershot News & Mail, as I had been invited to do—[Interruption.] May I say to hon. Members on both sides that it is normally very good reading? The article was about press freedom. I received an e-mail yesterday evening saying that the paper was sorry that it would not be publishing it because it was “contradictory” to its stance on “a free press”. It is extraordinary that the Aldershot News & Mail, owned by the Daily Mirror group, feels it is so vulnerable that it cannot accept an article by me—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) is the other contributor. Leaving aside my criticism of the Aldershot News & Mail, with which I was pretty robust this morning, may I say to the Minister that this illustrates a real paranoia in the media about this issue and it is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to be straightforward and recognise that what we are seeking to do is to protect not ourselves but ordinary people?
Brandon Lewis
As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point. However, let me make it clear again that the Government will make a decision on this once we have had a chance to review the outcome of the consultation and in the light of the legal proceedings, and not before the legal proceedings have concluded.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
But will it not be awkward for the Government if they completely ignore the Press Recognition Panel’s submission? After all, independently overseeing press regulation was what it was set up to do, and it is unequivocally calling for section 40 to be implemented.
Brandon Lewis
As I say, the Government will review the consultation, and I know the Secretary of State will look carefully at that. We are committed to not making decisions until the completion of the judicial proceedings. Hon. Members will also be aware that the Speaker has certified this amendment as engaging financial privilege. Our view is that amendment 24 is, at this time, unnecessary, inappropriate and ill-timed.
The Government fully understand the reasoning behind Lords amendment 96, which seeks to provide public funding for legal representation for bereaved families at inquests. It may be almost seven months since this House lasted debated this issue on Report, but the Government’s position has not changed. Our view remains that we should await the report, expected this spring, from Bishop James Jones on the experiences of the Hillsborough families. The Opposition have argued that this issue goes beyond Hillsborough. I do not dispute that, but the experiences of the Hillsborough families will have significant relevance for other families facing different tragic circumstances, and the issue of legal representation at inquests will undoubtedly be one aspect of those experiences. Bishop James’s report will provide learning that could be of general application, so it is entirely right that we do not now seek to pre-empt his review, but instead consider this issue in the light of his conclusions. For that reason, I put it to the House that this amendment is premature. As with the other Lords amendments we are debating, we must take into account the potential significant financial implications of amendment 96. Of course, the resource implications of the amendment are just one consideration, but it cannot be ignored, and, again, the Speaker has also certified the amendment as engaging financial privilege.
Finally, Lords amendments 136 to 142 seek to make further provision in respect of victims’ rights and entitlements. These amendments ignore the extensive reforms and modernisation we are undertaking to transform our justice system, and to protect vulnerable victims and witnesses, and, where appropriate, spare them the ordeal of appearing in court, through an increased use of video link systems and by rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination. The amendments would result in an unstructured framework of rights and entitlements that is not founded on evidence of gaps or deficiencies in what already exists, or even of what victims of crime want and need. Some amendments are unnecessary because they duplicate existing provisions and practices, or are being acted on by the Government already.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
When will the Green Paper considering the need for a victims’ law, which was first mooted in February last year, actually be published?
Brandon Lewis
We are committed to introducing measures to strengthen further the rights of victims, and it is important that we have taken the time to get this right. We will announce our plans in due course. It is important to be clear that Lords amendments 138 and 139 are, therefore, similarly unnecessary, as the training of all staff in the criminal justice system is taken very seriously.
On Lords amendment 141, on quality standards, the Victims’ Commissioner’s role already encompasses encouraging good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses, and the operation of the victims code, which is a detailed set of victims’ entitlements. In addition, police and crime commissioners, who commission local victims’ services, enter into grant funding agreements with the Secretary of State for Justice to receive the funds to do so. Those agreements set out a range of minimum standards for the services provided. We are currently reviewing existing standards relevant to victims’ services to make sure that we have the best possible framework in place.
The amendments, individually and taken together, are un-costed, vague and duplicative. They could impose significant obligations and financial burdens on the criminal justice system.
On Lords amendment 142, it is not clear what the purpose of directing a homicide review would be. In any case, it is unnecessary. There is already a statutory requirement for a review to identify the lessons to be learned from the death in domestic homicide cases.
Putting aside the many difficulties we have with the detail of the amendments, the Government are already looking at what is required to strengthen further the rights of victims of crime. We are looking at the available information about compliance with the victims code and considering how it might be improved and monitored. We are focused on making sure that we get this work right. We will ensure that any future reform proposals are evidence-based, fully costed, effective and proportionate.
As I have indicated, the intention behind many of the Lords amendments is laudable. On Lords amendment 134, we are persuaded that the case has been well made for increasing the maximum sentence for the more serious stalking and harassment offences involving fear of violence. I congratulate my hon. Friends on the work they have done on that.
As for the other Lords amendments, as a responsible Government we do not want to adopt a scattergun approach to legislation. Nor can we afford to be free and easy with taxpayers’ money by incurring substantial new spending commitments without offering any indication as to where the additional resources are to come from.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What are the Government going to do about strengthening protection for victims, particularly when they have to give evidence in court? Very often elderly people are frightened to go and confront the person they have accused.
Brandon Lewis
I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was trying to intervene before I made that comment. Hopefully he will be satisfied that we are looking to strengthen victims’ rights, but we want to do so in a proper, proportionate and appropriate way.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Taking at face value the criticisms that the Minister levels with regard to the provisions for victims of crime, can he tell the House why the Government have not introduced amendments in lieu, instead of just asking us to disagree with the Lords amendments? After all, strengthening victims’ rights was in the Conservative manifesto at the most recent election; how much longer do we have to wait?
Brandon Lewis
As I said just a few moments ago, we do want to look at strengthening victims’ rights, but we want to make sure that we do so in a correct, appropriate and proportionate way. I want to do that work, and in due course we will come forward with those proposals and ensure that we are doing it properly. Taking into account the work we are doing, Lords amendments 24, 96 and 136 to 142 are at best premature and at worst confused, unfocused and unnecessary. As such, we argue that they should be rejected by this House.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Happy new year to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister.
We support Lords amendments 24, 96 and 136 to 142, along with consequential amendments 159, 302 and 307, and we will vote to retain them in the Bill. We also supported the original amendment 134, with consequential amendment 305. We are glad to see that the Government have changed their position, so we will not oppose their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 134.
I thank those in the other place who have worked to bring these issues to our attention, particularly Baroness O’Neill and Baroness Brinton. I congratulate my noble Friends Lord Rosser and Baroness Royall, whose determination and outstanding advocacy for the most vulnerable in our society has led to the Government accepting our amendments to the stalking code. Each of the substantive issues before us is deserving of a full debate in its own right, but we have only a short amount of time. I will deal with each in turn.
Lords amendment 24—Lords amendment 159 is consequential to it—is a new clause that requires the Government to commission an independent inquiry into the way in which the police handle complaints relating to allegations of corruption between the police and newspaper organisations. It is commonly known as the Leveson 2 amendment, because it is similar in scope to the proposed second part of the Leveson inquiry. As was announced by Judge Leveson on 14 September 2011, this is a proposed examination into
“whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct”
and into any failure of the police and others properly to investigate allegations relating to News International and other news organisations. In 2012, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. David Cameron, said:
“When I set up this inquiry, I also said that there would be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the conduct of the first police investigation.—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 446.]
Yet the Government’s consultation, which ends today, as we have heard, could be seen as a weakening of that commitment. That underlines the need for the clarity that this amendment would provide.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Is not the Government’s position extremely sensible? A succession of criminal trials have looked into this matter. They have proceeded in a proper judicial way, and most of the information that we need is already available. To go on inquiring, inquiring and inquiring is merely adding to the already £50 million cost that there has been to the taxpayer.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is promoting me. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister to the sovereign, not to me.
Lyn Brown
I have heard some specious arguments in this place.
I hope that the Lords amendment is acceptable to Government Members and the Minister. It is explicit that the inquiry should not begin until the Attorney General determines that it would not be prejudicial to any ongoing relevant criminal investigations or court cases. To oppose the amendment is therefore tantamount to admitting that the Government are no longer committed to an investigation into corruption between news organisations and the police, and that they are not prepared to investigate how allegations of corruption are dealt with. If the Government block Lords amendment 24 today, the public really can have no option but to draw the conclusion that this Government have no commitment to asking the important and hard questions of our national institutions.
I now turn to Lords amendment 96, with consequential amendment 302, which was proposed in the other place by Lord Rosser. The purpose of the amendment is to establish the principle of parity of legal funding for bereaved families at inquests involving the police. Many hon. Members have championed this cause, including during the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to the tireless campaigning and personal commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Unequal funding at inquests and the injustice associated with that was highlighted by the sorry saga of the Hillsborough hearings. The scales of justice were weighted against the families of those who had lost their lives. Public money was used not to discover the truth, but instead to defend an untenable narrative perpetuated by South Yorkshire police. The coroner dealing with the first pre-inquest hearings into the 21 victims of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings backed and commended applications for their bereaved families to get legal funding for proper representation, but did not have the power to authorise the funds.
Fees in major cases have attracted considerable public interest, but inquests at which the police are legally represented are not confined to major tragedies such as Hillsborough; far more common are inquests into the deaths of individuals who are little known. Many bereaved families can find themselves in an adversarial and aggressive environment when they go to an inquest. Many are not in a position to match the spending of the police or other parts of the public sector for their own legal representation. In fact, bereaved families have to try, if at all possible, to find their own money to have any sort of legal representation. Opposition Members believe that the overwhelming public interest lies in these inquiries discovering the truth. It follows that public money should be there to establish the truth, not just to protect public institutions, and that must mean equal funding.
In the other place, the Government accepted that many would sympathise with the intention of the amendment. When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister commissioned the former Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, to compile a report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families. We are encouraged to wait for his report before considering the issues further, yet we already know that a system of unequal funding at inquests is wrong. Public funds are used to deny justice and hide the truth. The Government need to act now to change a process that appears to be geared more towards trying to grind down bereaved families than enabling them to get at the truth. The Government really should accept the amendment.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I urge Ministers to listen closely to the hon. Lady’s strong point. When someone dies while in the care of the state in a detained environment, people too often go up against the might of the state. That is simply not fair and it should not be tolerated.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
We also support Lords amendments 136 to 142, which were tabled by Baroness Brinton, along with consequential amendment 307. Those amendments are designed to improve the way in which the criminal justice system interacts with victims of crime, and they are based on the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I presume that the amendments will be acceptable to the Government because, as we have heard, they would enact the 2015 Conservative manifesto commitment to introduce a victims’ bill of rights. Let me remind the Minister of what that manifesto says:
“we will strengthen victims’ rights further, with a new Victims’ Law that will enshrine key rights for victims”.
I understand that the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), already committed to a Green Paper on this issue in a private meeting with the campaign group Voice 4 Victims in February last year, but we are yet to have sight of that. This Bill is the ideal opportunity to take the matter forward, so I encourage the Government, even at this late stage, to think again and not oppose the amendments.
The House will know that victims’ rights are protected in the victims code, which was introduced in 2005 by a Labour Government. We still support that code, but the rights included in it are not legally binding, and in the past few years it has become clear that a firmer legal basis is required to give distressed and vulnerable victims the protection that they need.
Liz Saville Roberts
Does the hon. Lady agree that if the 2012 European directive on victims’ rights were put on a statutory footing in England and Wales, we would be following the lead of that which happens in Scotland already?
Lyn Brown
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but I think that talking about Europe might be too much of a red flag in this Chamber.
If the amendments are agreed to, they will create a statutory duty on elected police leadership to produce an area victims plan depending on local needs, and they will require the commissioner for victims and witnesses to assess the adequacy of such plans. Finally, the amendments will empower the Secretary of State to order a homicide review—basically, a cold case review—when nobody has been charged with a crime. Taken together, the measures would allow the victims code to be better enforced and ensure that our criminal justice system works better for the victims of crime. The Government will, I hope, offer their wholehearted support to these amendments.
Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 134, with consequential amendment 305, which was proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Royall. The amendment would increase the maximum penalty for those found guilty of stalking from five to 10 years. In cases where the offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum penalty would be increased from seven to 14 years. We are delighted that the Government have chosen to accept our case, and I congratulate my noble Friend and all who have pursued the campaign.
Home Office data suggest that as many as one in five women and one in 10 men will be stalked at some point in their lives. Just because stalking is common, it does not mean that it is not a serious matter. Stalking destroys lives. It violates an individual’s right to privacy, and therefore destroys their personal freedoms. It causes fear, and rightly so, since too often it is a precursor to violent confrontation.
I know that sentencing guidelines and specific sentences are the responsibility of the Sentencing Council and judges respectively. However, extending the maximum penalty will allow for greater flexibility in the most serious cases and make it clear that stalking is a serious offence. The Labour party has provided the Government with the opportunity to give judges the necessary flexibility to hand out appropriate sentences to serious criminals. I am delighted that the Government have seen the need for that and responded appropriately.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I rise to support the Government’s amendment on stalking in lieu of Lords amendment 134. This is a momentous day, because the proposed measures, which would have the effect of significantly strengthening protections for victims of stalking, represent the culmination of a 16-month campaign. I truly hope that what began with a meeting with my GP constituent Dr Eleanor Aston in 2015 will end here today.
In doubling the maximum sentences for stalking, the Government’s proposals emphatically and decisively do two things. First, they recognise that stalking is not a minor offence. Instead, it is a horrible, violating, destructive crime that rips relationships apart, ruins careers and can cause lasting mental harm. All too often, it is the gateway to serious violence. Secondly, the Government’s amendments will ensure that courts have the tools that they need to deal with the most serious cases accordingly. Most crucially of all, it will give the courts powers truly to protect victims and to put their needs front and centre in the criminal justice system.
Let me be clear: when we talk about victims of stalking, we are not simply referring to the rich and famous: this campaign has made it crystal clear that ordinary men and women can fall victim to stalking just as readily and just as severely as those in the public eye.
Alex Chalk
That is very gracious of the hon. Lady, and I am grateful. The context for the proposals was the horrific seven-year ordeal suffered by my constituent at the hands of her former patient. I will not go through all the detail now, but I will set out some of it. He turned up at her surgery over 100 times. He posted foul items through the letterbox. He followed her on patient visits, slashed her tyres and sent threatening mail. He appeared at a children’s birthday party her daughter was attending. That caused her exceptional anxiety and fear. After serving a short prison sentence, he—in a pattern that is not uncommon with this type of offence—restarted his campaign. Dr Aston received packages at her surgery in Gloucester and at her home in Cheltenham. One was threatening and abusive, and made it clear that he knew where her children went to school. The second package simply said, “Guess who’s back”. When he was arrested again, the search on his computer revealed that the inquiry, “How long after a person disappears are they assumed dead?” The judge who sentenced Dr Aston’s stalker made it clear that he did not think he had the tools he needed, stating in open court that he had no doubt that the stalker was dangerous in the sense of posing a significant risk, but he went on:
“I am frustrated that the maximum sentence...is five years. I would, if I could, give you longer.”
Mr Jim Cunningham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I enlighten him? He was not in the House when the stalking legislation was introduced by the Labour Government as a result of a private Member’s Bill, against a lot of opposition from his party at the time.
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the reality is that the Conservative-led coalition Government ensured that the measure was put on the statute book. However, in the spirit of being entirely conciliatory, I recognise that a lot of people have made efforts.
I close by saying that I am grateful to the many victims—typically, but not exclusively women—to whom I have spoken and who have shared their stories, as well as to the stalking charities, such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the Network for Surviving Stalking, Protection Against Stalking, Paladin, the Hollie Gazzard Trust, the police and the University of Gloucestershire, which, incidentally, is a leader in research on stalking.
Finally, I want, above all, to pay tribute to my constituent Dr Aston. It was her ordeal that triggered this campaign. She has shown astonishing bravery, reliving her suffering again and again. I know that her greatest wish is that future victims can receive the full measure of justice. If these proposals are carried, that will be precisely the result. I commend the Government amendments to the House.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I had not intended to come along today, but it is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who rightly spoke about the real progress that is being made with the Stalking (Sentencing) Bill. There is no need to have a sort of ping-pong about who has done more about domestic violence, sexual violence and stalking because, frankly, we should all be trying to do everything we can, and I do not care who does it as long as it gets done.
The legislation and the amendments before us —particularly on stalking—represent real legislative progress, but that will mean absolutely nothing if, in practice, the legislation is not realised. As somebody who has worked on the frontline, I am afraid to say that so often we make brilliant rules in this place—beautiful, fancy written rules, still on all the fancy goatskins—and it means absolutely naff all to victims because of issues to do with resources and how things are properly realised by the different agencies. That is why I wanted to talk about the victims code and the amendments to the victims’ Bill that was introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I urge the Government to consider the amendments and to consider making a more robust framework for the victims code, which is a brilliant piece of regulation. I have no doubt that every single person in here is totally committed to making things better for victims. I do not sign up to the idea that you are baddies and we are goodies. We all come to this place because we want to make something better.
I was the victims’ champion for Birmingham and did a huge piece of work on the victims code and victims’ legislation alongside the Government’s Victims’ Commissioner, and I have to say that if Members can find me a victim who knows what the victims’ code is, I will give them some cash now. People do not realise that they have this many days to ask for something, and they do not realise that they can have a victim statement. Only 30% of people remembered even being asked for one. I ask hon. Members to think back to the day that the murderer of our friend and colleague Jo Cox was sentenced. The thing that we do not remember from that day is that man. The thing we remember is Brendan Cox standing and making the victim statement outside the court that he had made inside the court because he knew that he had the rights to do it. That is rare but it was so powerful in that case.
It is imperative that we look at the amendments that relate to the victims’ law and see how we can strengthen them, because I am telling you now—not you, Mr Speaker, of course, but everyone—that at the moment the victims code is a hope as far as victims of crime are concerned, and the Opposition amendments would definitely make it stronger, especially for victims of stalking and sexual violence. I ask the Government to think again.
I want to make a quick point about the amendments regarding the equality of arms in cases where the state is an actor. I speak for the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings, who are not just my constituents but my friends. We have a matter of weeks to answer their plight. Currently, the Chief Coroner agrees with them that they have not been provided with an equality of arms, so an adjournment has taken place before their inquest can be reopened. We have until February to right that wrong. At the moment, I see nothing that tells me that that will change. I ask Government Members to look at the amendments and think about how they would feel if it concerned the families in their constituency.
Brandon Lewis
With regard to the Birmingham situation, I am very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady outside the Chamber. I think that she may have slightly misunderstood what is happening, and I am happy to give a bit more detail about what is happening with the legal aid process.
Jess Phillips
I am only too aware that the Minister will almost certainly tell me that the legal aid, through the Legal Aid Agency, has been granted to two of the seven families of complainants. Although I am more than happy to meet the Minister outside of here, I am going to wager that I know a bit more about it than perhaps he does. I would be delighted to be proven wrong—in fact, the Home Office has heard our requests for Hillsborough-style funding—and, if I am, I will stand on every single platform I can to say that I was wrong and the Minister knew more than me. So I look forward to that!
I will conclude by saying that we all want something better and we all want victims to be treated better, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham has shown with passion how that can be realised. But unless we make sure our regulations are enacted, what we do in this place is slightly for nothing, so I ask the Government to look again at the amendments around victims’ rights.
Mr Charles Walker
In the last Parliament, I was totally politically incontinent—in and out of all sorts of Lobbies, voting with the Government, voting against the Government and voting with Labour. I have really tried to make sure that, in this Parliament, I was only in one Lobby—the Government Lobby. I have managed that loyally for the past 18 months, and I am just so disappointed that the Government are not willing to accept Lords amendment 96, because equality of representation is absolutely critical.
I spoke in this place in a previous Parliament about the terrible tragedy of deaths in custody—deaths in detained environments. Let us look specifically at deaths in police custody. If a person dies in police custody, there is obviously a coroner’s inquiry, but there is total inequality of representation at that inquiry. The family of the deceased are up against the state, the police and their legal representation. That legal representation is given to the police without question, and it is funded without question, whereas the families of the deceased, at a time of huge emotional turmoil, have their finances pored over with a fine-toothed comb—it is not just the finances of the parents, but the finances of siblings, aunts and uncles, and even cousins—to see whether the family can bear the cost of their legal representation. That is entirely unfair; it is not just.
The Lords amendment is very sensible in its scope, and I would hope, even at this late stage, that the Government—if for no other reason than to keep me out of a Lobby that I do not really want to be in—might consider accepting it, so that we can all finish the evening on a very happy and unified note.
Chris Bryant
I do not think that it is going to be a very unified note by the end of the day, and I think there was an element of irony in the contribution by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for their campaign on stalking. The legislation has changed over the years, particularly since 1997, and it is good that this issue is now recognised for the terrible harm that is done to many victims.
I want to talk primarily—this is a bit of a smorgasbord debate—about the Leveson issues and amendment 24, which I wish was not necessary. However, it is necessary, and it has been put on the amendment paper only because their lordships and a large number of us in this House are distrustful of the Government’s intention in relation to what happened over Leveson.
I believe that it is necessary to have the full Leveson—that is not two Leveson inquiries, but one Leveson inquiry, some of which could be done before the criminal investigations were completed, and some of which could not be done until the criminal investigations were completed. That was always the promise. It was never, “We will think about having Leveson 2 once we have come to the end of the criminal investigations; it was always said from the very beginning that there would be one inquiry with two parts and that the second part would happen. In fact, the Prime Minister, in the quote given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), said those words the day after Leveson 1 had been produced. So Ministers have absolutely no excuse for turning round now and saying, “Oh no, no, we never really intended to proceed with Leveson 2.”
Why does that matter? Why is it important? The truth is that we are talking about corruption in one of the organisations of the state that matters most to our constituents and to the rule of law in this country: the police. I am sure the vast majority of us agree, given the little bits and pieces that we have managed to glean from Leveson 1, that there was a time when the Metropolitan police, to all intents and purposes, were a partially owned subsidiary of News International. Metropolitan police staff went to work for News International. When they had finished working for News International, they went back to work for the Metropolitan police. There was a revolving door. On the very day that the police decided not to continue with the investigation into what had happened at the News of the World, the leading investigator was having dinner with Rebekah Brooks.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Section 40 should not be introduced. To say to 90% of the local, regional and national press that they have to be forced into a group they do not want to join is bullying of the worst kind. If it were to happen in other countries, the Council of Europe would probably say it was interference in the free media.
William Hone, whose life is described in the book “The Laughter of Triumph”, defied criminal libel law. We should remember that our press basically got its freedom from that moment, when ordinary people on juries refused to convict because they said that the media ought to have the right to lampoon, to be rude and to investigate. I think that people ought to ask the question: what would be the effect of section 40? Would it increase investigative journalism? No, it would not. It would be a good idea if those backing IMPRESS and section 40 gave a list of successful and wrong defamation cases, including of leading politicians who denied they were drunk overseas and various other criminals who later turned out to be guilty of the things they were accused of by the media.
We rely on the media to find out the things few people know about and make them available to all. The whole effect of section 40 will be to chill the opportunity for the media to investigate and report. That is why I believe this House would be wrong to force the Government to bring in section 40. I hope that we do not and I hope that those in favour of it will find other ways to pursue their own aims.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I rise to support, as strongly as I possibly can, the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 134. It recognises the force of the arguments laid out in the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and I last year, “Stalking: the Case for Extending the Maximum Sentence”. The report summarised the work of our researchers. Through them, we met victims, stalking charities, academics and police specialists. Everything we learned confirmed our initial instinct that there are a small number of very dangerous stalkers, such as my constituent Raymond Knight who pursued Cheltenham resident and Gloucester GP, Dr Eleanor Aston, to the point of nervous breakdown.
I pay tribute to the Government for accepting our report and its single recommendation of doubling the maximum sentence for stalking from five to 10 years, for amending the appropriate sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on racial and religious aggravated harassment in line with the change to the maximum sentence for stalking, and for outlining in correspondence additional training that will be part of the measures to deal with the mental health issues of serious stalkers. I know the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have worked closely on this together. I am grateful to both Ministers here today for their action.
I also want to thank Gloucestershire-based Baroness Royall in the Lords for her commitment and contribution, and all those who informed us and shared harrowing experiences, including a constituent and her family. I would like to quote from her 16-year-old daughter, who was so egregiously stalked. She told us that the stalker
“broke into my house one night…all the knives in the knife stand were gone…I was sure I was going to die.”
In this particular case, my constituent and her family prefer to remain anonymous, not least because my constituent has been moved by the police to a safe house far from her home and her own children.
I am extremely grateful to all those who informed us, educated us and motivated us. I suspect the work I have done with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham means that the neighbouring constituencies of Cheltenham and Gloucester have not worked so closely since the creation of the Cheltenham & Gloucester building society —now, alas, long since gone. It is for a good cause that we come together in support of the Government’s change of law.
The Government’s amendment in lieu will give judges the flexibility they need. As Dr Aston has said, victims will be able to sleep more easily when the worst stalkers are sentenced and the stalkers themselves will better understand the seriousness of their crime and receive more help in resolving what is a severe obsession and mental health issue. Of course, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) pointed out, that will not in itself stop stalking, but it shows that victims and judges are being heard, that MPs and ultimately the Government listen and that laws can be changed so that sentences better reflect the harm that a crime can inflict on innocent victims, most of whom, as in the instance that inspired my neighbour and me, are women. Ultimately, justice is only as good as the laws we adapt and the way in which they are implemented. In that context, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who made stalking a crime on the statute book when she was Home Secretary, and to the current Home Secretary, who has introduced protection orders against stalkers.
I will finish by returning to where this campaign started: the judge and the victim in Gloucester Crown court. I would like to thank Dr Ellie Aston for inspiring us, for being strong and for having faith; other victims for opening their hearts and sharing their stories; stalking charities, such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the Network for Surviving Stalking, Protection Against Stalking and Paladin; and the Hollie Gazzard Trust, the police and the University of Gloucestershire, which happens to be a leader in research in this sad area. This part of the journey for justice for victims of stalking is now close to over. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has reminded us that there will always be other issues to be raised and resolved, but today’s amendment in lieu deserves everyone’s support.
Sir Gerald Howarth
The whole House listened with great respect and interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who have brought to the attention of the House and the country the appalling consequences of stalking. I join others in saluting their efforts to persuade the Government to recognise the gravity of the crime and in reaching this result tonight, which we can all applaud.
I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for mentioning my intervention on the Minister about section 40 and Lords amendment 24. I will not vote for the amendment tonight, because the Government have agreed to a consultation, and I think it right that that process run, but as I said to the Minister earlier, I hope that the Government will not be intimidated by the campaign by the newspapers that the hon. Gentleman referred to. The newspapers seem struck by an extraordinary sense of paranoia and a feeling of vulnerability, when we all know, from the many cases that have appeared, that they are in the driving seat and have power without a lot of responsibility.
Insufficient attention has been paid to the Leveson inquiry and the subsequent report, which was a detailed and considered piece of work. We should do what the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that Parliament should do. Since the Aldershot News & Mail was unwilling to publish my article today, perhaps I can give the House the benefit of it.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend should place a copy in the Library.
Sir Gerald Howarth
My hon. and learned Friend suggests that I put the article in the Library, but when he hears what I have to say, I think he might be better informed, if not wiser, for I cannot account for his wisdom—he is a great man.
Sir Gerald Howarth
He seriously is a very great man.
I wrote this:
“I believe in a free press but I also believe in a responsible press. Sadly, the newspapers are becoming increasingly paranoid about what they see as an attack on them and are refusing to accept the recommendation of the latest inquiry under Lord Justice Leveson that an independent regulator be established. Leveson was set up after an appalling series of intrusions into the private lives of people, which included phone hacking on an industrial scale.”
Milly Dowler’s body was found 200 yards from the boundary of my constituency in a case that really struck the public as appalling.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Phone hacking is brought up again and again by colleagues who, in my view, want to censor the press. Phone hacking is a criminal offence, for which people have gone to jail. There is no need for any further laws.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I have huge respect for my hon. and gallant Friend, but the fact is that the inquiry would not have taken place if phone hacking had not been discovered on what I have described as an industrial scale. People’s engagement with it was utterly immoral, and some went to prison, following legal action, which I think is fine.
My article continues:
“It is hard for those who have not experienced an assault by the media to appreciate the level of distress it causes. I know because some 30 years ago, together with my then colleague Neil Hamilton, I had to sue the BBC Panorama programme for libel—which we won”—
and had the director-general of the BBC fired—
“but at the risk of bankruptcy (and loss of our seats in Parliament) if we lost.”
For the record, our costs—Peter Carter and partners were our lawyers—were something in the region £273,000. So I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that it is all very well for those who have got money. They are able to access justice, but this is all about providing a remedy for those who do not have money and cannot afford to undertake that sort of action. I continue:
“Since 1945, there have been no less than 5 Royal Commissions and enquiries to secure a better and cheaper form of justice for those maligned by powerful media barons.”
Chris Bryant
It is worth bearing in mind that when it came to suing the Metropolitan police to try to ensure that it gave the media information about what had happened to me, my costs were £380,000. My costs for suing Rupert Murdoch were £480,000. In both cases, because it was an no-win, no-fee arrangement, I did not have to pay anything. However, those no-win, no-fee arrangements are no longer available in these cases.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point.
I was mentioning the five royal commissions and inquiries since 1945. The article continues:
“Time and again, reports threatened new laws if the industry failed to sort itself out, time and again the industry failed. In his 1993 report, Sir David Calcutt, QC said of the then regulator, the Press Complaints Commission: ‘It is not...an effective regulator of the press...It is, in essence, a body set up by the industry, financed by the industry, dominated by the industry, and operating a code of practice devised by the industry and which is over-favourable to the industry’.
In 2012, Leveson recommended that newspapers should continue to be self-regulated and that the Government should have no power over what they publish. However, he also proposed a new press standards body created by the industry with a new code of conduct. The new self-regulatory body should be underpinned by a law to provide for a process to recognise the new body and ensure it meets certain requirements. It should also enshrine in law a legal duty to protect the freedom of the press and to ‘provide a fair, quick and inexpensive arbitration service to deal with any civil complaints about its members’ publications’. Ofcom should act in a verification role to ensure independence and effectiveness.”
There we have it. There is a proposal on the table that IPSO is perfectly at liberty to take up in respect of a cheap arbitration service. The other point is that it should not be dominated by former press people, but that is exactly what IPSO is all about. I am not specifically advocating IMPRESS, but I see no reason why IPSO should not be able to organise itself in such a way that it is compliant. Instead, it has set up a body dominated by former editors, which does not meet the Leveson conditions. The Government are right to consult, but I really do not believe that the newspapers have anything to fear from these proposals. I believe that they will be in the interests of the press but, above all, they will provide a remedy for those who cannot afford to seek a remedy. Surely our responsibility is to remedy injustice.
Mr Cox
My hon. Friend knows how much I return his respect, and he knows that I would normally regard him as an infallible guide to almost everything in the planet, but in this instance I think that suggesting that IPSO is dominated by press editors when its presiding spirit is Sir Alan Moses—Lord Justice Moses, a very fine judge who is vigorously and fiercely independent—is over-emphasising the point.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend’s belief in my infallibility, and I assure him that he should not be misguided, because I am infallible in this instance as well. Let me respond to his point by saying that although there may be an eminent judge in the driving seat, the fact is that the membership is dominated by press and former press people. They are in the majority.
Sir Gerald Howarth
It is true. Seven of the 12 are former press people, and that does not meet the Leveson conditions. Let us just meet the Leveson conditions: then we shall all be happy.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and, in particular, to follow some of the passionate speeches we have heard. I intended to focus on Lords amendments 136 to 142, but my thoughts have been drawn to comments that have been made about the press in the context of other amendments.
We have heard about the Aldershot News & Mail, but each week thousands of homes in Torbay receive a publication that reports on local news and local issues and gives the odd opinion on them. It is called “my weekly e-mail update”, and is subject only to libel laws, and to what I am happy to talk about and defend as the local Member of Parliament.
I think we should bear it in mind that we are living in a completely different era, when more and more of the media is moving online. There can be no such thing as a press regulator when there is no press—when websites can be based anywhere in the world and it is difficult to track them down even under our own libel laws, let alone regulate them. The era when people walked down to the newsagent each morning and again each evening to buy a local newspaper has pretty much come to an end. The fake news stories about which people talk—especially in connection with recent elections in the United States—were not put out by newspapers. They were not published by print media; they were published by various people online. There are websites that are effectively “clickbait”, featuring misleading headlines that people will merrily share or stories that do not really get to the nub. A story involving an hon. Member was recently circulated online. Anyone who knew the facts would know that it was flagrantly misleading, but that would not be clear to people who just read the headline online. Will that story be affected by press regulation? No. It is nothing to do with press regulation, because it is not printed material.
When we debate these matters, we must be aware that the era when only a press publication could circulate a story has disappeared. We should think about what we are doing when it comes to a special system that puts them at a disadvantage, given that, increasingly, they are no longer as dominant as they were. It is more likely that local newspapers will close than that they will find themselves being the arbiters of all opinion. Most constituents are more than able to use their own common sense and take many of the claims that they see both online and in the print media with a pinch of salt, but we have libel laws, and we need to remember that.
Chris Bryant
I have heard many times the argument that the libel laws are there, and that it is all very fine and dandy. The truth is, however, that the people of Hillsborough had no legal remedy whatsoever. They had no opportunity to respond to the lies—not libels, because the people concerned were dead—that were told about them for many, many years. That is why we need a proper press regulator that is independent of Government, independent of politics, and independent of the proprietors.
Kevin Foster
The fact is that someone who wanted to spread mistruths today would do it on the internet, and that would not be covered by either of the proposed systems of press regulation. We would probably now see a story of that type circulating on the internet, whereas in the 1980s the internet was something that a few universities used, and the worldwide web was something that United States military had developed for the purpose of its own communications in the event of world war three. It was not as we see it today. That shows why we need to be conscious of today’s position on the media and legislation. The industry, in many cases, particularly the local media, is struggling to survive and is in decline and we do not want to end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater because of the horrendous practices of one or two newspapers, in particular The Sun in that instance.
I wanted to talk mainly about amendments 136 to 142. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). She has a valid point when she says it is easy to put things that sound marvellous and fantastic on to goat skins, but the difference that makes on the ground is another matter. That is why I agree with the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendments.
Some of the provisions of Lords amendment 137, for example, are relatively vague. “Adequate notice” is not defined. There is also the provision potentially making the police and other authorities liable for any “unnecessary delay”; how can the police be held liable if it is the defence that engages in delay? The judiciary have the role of preventing court cases from being unnecessarily delayed.
Jess Phillips
The whole point of these amendments is that all the actors in the criminal justice system—the courts, the CPS, the defence, or the police—have a responsibility. These provisions would make the monitoring of how well they are doing more robust. It does not matter who is to blame; what we want is the victim to be given the information.
Kevin Foster
The amendment talks about ensuring that victims of crime are “not subjected to unnecessary delay”; it does not talk about monitoring. I accept that if we were looking at having a system of guidance, for instance, proposing “must ensure” would be putting something on to the statute book. For me, ensuring victims of crime are supported through the court process would be more beneficial than these amendments. In addition, people now have police and crime commissioners whom they can hold to account for the work they do.
This is a large group of amendments and we could spend quite some time talking about it. I do not believe that adding these amendments to the Bill is the right way forward. We should look at having a properly consulted-on system that does not have unintended consequences. That is why I agree with the Government motion to disagree with the Lords amendments.
Bill Wiggin
I will not delay the House for long. I want to heap praise on the Secretary of State for not giving in to the pressure of the media moguls, and, although we are putting a consultation out, we are determined that no grass shall grow. I want her to be very clear that we truly appreciate what she has done.
Colleagues who are unhappy about amendment 24 ought to pay more attention to the brilliance of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who has put together a fantastic plan for dealing with this thorny issue. If they gave it their full attention, they would, like me, want to see section 40 implemented.
The Press Recognition Panel is completely independent, and given amendment 24 and the concerns being shown by their lordships—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am so sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the Press Recognition Panel is not independent; it is the creation, under a royal charter, ultimately of the Crown and therefore of the state.
Bill Wiggin
It is still independent because it does not choose who and what is the regulator; it determines only that the regulator is independent. It is perfectly acceptable. I know my hon. Friend is very keen to defend the press, but this whole instrument does exactly that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) emphasised the point that the local press in particular would be very vulnerable if it was not regulated—[Interruption.] Yes, it would. The regulator will protect it from having to pay the costs. This is why colleagues should really study what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has put together. It is much, much better than they might originally have thought.
Mr Whittingdale
I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I want to say a few words about Lords amendment 24. A lot of the debate so far seems to have been about whether section 40 should be implemented, but that does not actually have anything to do with Lords amendment 24, which is specifically about whether there should be a further inquiry into the behaviour and performance of the police in relation to their dealings with news organisations.
Leveson 2, as it is now colloquially known, has been put on hold until the conclusion of all the criminal cases, and the amendment rightly recognises that it would be wholly wrong to have any kind of inquiry that could jeopardise criminal prosecutions. However, most of those prosecutions have now been concluded and it is worth looking at the outcomes of those prosecutions when deciding whether there is a case for proceeding. Operation Elveden, which was the police investigation into corrupt payments from newspaper organisations, overwhelmingly resulted in the acquittal of the journalists who had been charged with those offences. I think only two journalists were convicted; the vast majority were acquitted. We need to bear that in mind, because the suggestion that there was a massive corrupt relationship has not proven to be the case.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talks about the importance of weeding out police corruption and of having confidence in an institution of the state. I completely agree with him on that. I want to refer briefly to the case made by the relatives of Daniel Morgan when considering whether there should be a further inquiry. I have every sympathy with the family of Daniel Morgan, who was murdered, because there was considerable evidence of police corruption. I can entirely understand their wish to have his killers brought to justice. A Home Office panel is examining that case at the moment, and we await its conclusion. It may well be that further action needs to be taken to deal with police corruption, and I shall wait to see what the panel concludes. Let us bear in mind that the Leveson inquiry was an inquiry into the culture, ethics and conduct of the press. It was not an inquiry into police corruption.
The main issue that has dominated the debate has been the implementation of section 40, which is not covered by this amendment. I share the views that have been extremely well expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster). However, the Secretary of State has set up a consultation. It concluded today, but it will take some considerable time before the results are made public. I believe that there has been a very substantial response to the consultation, so I do not expect the Government to be in a position to announce any conclusions about the implementation of section 40 or about whether there should be a further inquiry until that work has been done. I suspect that it will take several weeks, if not months. It seems entirely premature to table an amendment requiring the Government to commit now to a further inquiry when we have not even begun to assess the results of the consultation. For that reason, I strongly oppose Lords amendment 24.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 134. Having heard the hard-hitting accounts of my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) in their report on stalking, no one can be left in any doubt that the Government amendment should be carried.
Turning to Lords amendment 137, having represented the police and the prosecutorial authorities as a barrister, and having represented victims both as a barrister and as a Member of Parliament, I hope I can see the situation from both angles. I am entirely supportive of the victims code. Victims have generally been empowered since the code came into force as a result of steps taken by the previous Labour Government, and the beefing up carried out by the coalition Government and the Government of today.
My concern about Lords amendment 137 is that it would make the police and prosecutorial authorities responsible, and in some cases financially liable, for breaches of the victims code, even if they are not directly responsible. Under new subsection (3)(a), for instance, the police or the CPS could become responsible to a victim for delays caused not by them but by a third party, such as the defendant. Under new subsection (3)(b), the CPS could be held responsible if a defendant, or indeed another party over whom it has no control, treats a victim with a lack of “dignity and respect”. That often happens in the courtroom when a defendant gives evidence, or even through how a defendant instructs their lawyer to present their case, but that is a matter for the judge, not the prosecutor, to control.
New subsection (10) is even more concerning because it would require the Home Secretary to
“take steps to ensure that victims of crime…have access to financial compensation from public funds for any detriment arising from the criminal case concerned”.
That is not necessarily a detriment caused by the prosecuting authority, and there is no requirement of bad faith, recklessness or negligence on behalf of that authority. That is a big step both in principle and in practice. It is a big step in principle because it appears to impose a liability on one body for the actions of a third party over whom it may have no control, and it is a big step in practice because it exposes the police and prosecuting authorities to a significant financial burden at a time when we regularly have debates in this House on the need for greater funding for the police and the CPS. Paragraph 128 of the explanatory notes on the amendments explains that “potentially significant” financial burdens are attached.
Although I am an enthusiastic supporter of the victims code and the need to give victims the very best support, imposing a broadly defined liability—indeed, a financial liability—on the police and the CPS is not the right way to proceed without more thought about furthering the aims of the code. More thought is needed, and I am pleased that the Government will be introducing their own proposals to give effect to our manifesto commitment for a victims’ bill of rights. I am sure that that work will take account of the excellent work of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and his commission. I pay tribute to his work and to all the people involved, including a number of my constituents.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 24.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England and Wales. A double majority is therefore required.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England and Wales. A double majority is therefore required.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England and Wales. A double majority is therefore required.
Brandon Lewis
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 23, 25 to 95, 97 to 133, 135, 143 to 158, 160 to 301, 303, 304 and 306.
Brandon Lewis
I am conscious that this group covers approaching 300 Lords amendments, even if many are of a technical nature, and I appreciate that hon. Members would no doubt like me to go through all 300, but time is short, so, tempting as it might be, I will confine my remarks to the most significant amendments, so that other hon. Members may have an opportunity to speak.
On Report, way back in April and June of last year, a number of my hon. Friends tabled amendments worthy of further consideration. The Lords amendments follow up on that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) argued that when a police and crime commissioner took over the governance of a fire and rescue authority, the title of their office should be amended to reflect their new and expanded responsibilities. Lords amendment 215 provides that in such circumstances the legal title of the PCC will become police, fire and crime commissioner. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) proposed a number of sensible further improvements to our firearms licensing regime, and I am pleased to say that Lords amendments 111 to 113 give effect to three of his helpful suggestions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) highlighted the dangers to music festival goers as a result of the irresponsible discharging of fireworks, flares and smoke bombs in the often confined space of a festival venue. Lords amendment 114 would tackle such reckless behaviour by making it an offence to possess a pyrotechnic article at a qualifying musical event. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport indicated in April, we will ensure that this new offence is in force for this year’s festival season. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) sought to strengthen police powers to require the removal of disguises where there was a threat to public order. Lords amendment 94 will enable the required authorisation by a senior officer for the exercise of such powers to be given orally where it is impractical to confer the authorisation in writing.
Other Lords amendments respond to points raised by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) expressed concerns about PCCs taking on the governance of fire and rescue authorities. In response to similar concerns raised in the Lords, amendments 193 to 199, among others, strengthen the process by which a PCC brings forward a proposal for the creation of a PCC-style FRA to ensure that it is as robust and transparent as possible. She separately argued for a strengthening of the Licensing Act 2003 by putting cumulative impact assessments on a statutory footing. We agree, and Lords amendment 117 does just that.
Lords amendments 30 to 33 deliver on the commitment given by my predecessor on Report to amend the Bill to allow disciplinary action to be taken against former police officers outside the normal 12-month period following retirement or resignation in the most serious and exceptional cases. Lords amendments 36 to 42, among others, respond to representations from the Independent Police Complaints Commission and, indeed, from Opposition parties that the reformed organisation should retain the word “Independent” in its title. As a result of these amendments, the reformed IPCC will henceforth be known as the Independent Office for Police Conduct. This will help to reinforce public confidence that the reformed organisation will be fully independent of those it regulates.
On Report, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) argued that the current law requiring a coroner’s inquest in every case where a person dies under a deprivation of liberty safeguard, even where the death was from natural causes, caused unnecessary upset to bereaved families.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
I wish to say how welcome amendment 135 is. As the Minister said, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) was particularly aware of the pressures this was placing not just on coroners but on social services. I am also extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on the Front Bench is, as I understand it, supporting the amendment as well.
Brandon Lewis
I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks. Yes, we agree, and amendment 135 therefore removes the automatic requirement for a coroner’s investigation in such cases. There will be a continued duty on a coroner to investigate any death where there is a suspicion that it might have resulted from violence or unnatural causes or where the cause of death is unknown.
Last, but certainly not least, and importantly, Lords amendments 124 to 132 would right the wrongs suffered by gay and bisexual men who were for centuries persecuted under homophobic laws for conduct that society now regards as normal activity. These amendments will confer an automatic pardon on deceased individuals convicted of certain consensual gay sexual offences that would not be offences today, and on those persons still living who have a conviction for such an offence that has been disregarded under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The amendments will also enable the disregard scheme to be extended, by regulations, to cover other abolished offences used to target homosexual activity, including the offence of solicitation by men under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. These provisions will extend to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales, with the Scottish Government having separately announced its intention to bring forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament.
At this point, I want to take the opportunity to apologise unreservedly, on behalf of the Government, to all those men who will receive a pardon. The legislation under which they were convicted and cautioned was discriminatory and homophobic. I want to make sure that all who were criminalised in this way and had to suffer society’s opprobrium, and the many more who lived in fear of being so criminalised because they were being treated in a very different way from heterosexual couples, actually understand that we offer this full apology. Their treatment was entirely unfair. What happened to these men is a matter of the greatest regret, and it should be so to all of us. I am sure it is to Members across the House. For this, we are today deeply sorry.
This is an historic and momentous step, one of which we can all be justly proud. I pay particular tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who is the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, for the work he has done in government to make this happen. For his campaigning from the Back Benches, I would particularly like to mention, among others, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson).
These Lords amendments improve and enhance the Bill, so I wholeheartedly commend them all to the House.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I rise to speak to this large group of amendments. In moving on to making what I hope will be brief remarks, I have to say how disappointed I am that the Government were not willing to move on the question of parity of funding, which is an issue not just for groups of families involved in Hillsborough, but, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) pointed out, for individual families whose family members die in police custody. This relates to the previous group of amendments, but I wanted to make that point.
Some amendments in this group are welcome. We support the new emphasis on the independence of the new Office for Police Conduct, given the central role it will play in ensuring that the police are held to appropriately high standards. I am glad this has finally been recognised by the Government, and I pay tribute to the work of my noble Friend Lord Rosser.
We are also pleased that anonymity for victims of forced marriage will now be extended to Northern Ireland, following the request by the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice. There is also a number of sensible and straightforward improvements to the regulation of firearms, including a clarification of the laws around antique firearms, and alterations of the definition of airsoft guns that should improve public safety.
I also welcome the Government’s support for amendments to clause 28 that make it possible for investigations into the most serious misconduct to take place more than a year after the relevant officers have left the service. Credit is due in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his consistent arguments in favour of this reform. Families and communities who have been the victims of injustices in the past can be reassured that, in future, time need not run out on the service’s own disciplinary procedures.
Amendments 94 and 300 grant police officers the power to order a person to remove an item of clothing that is disguising their identity if a senior officer gives them oral permission to do so. This is obviously a practical measure, but we want some reassurance that this power will not be applied indiscriminately to Muslim women who are simply observing their religious beliefs, yet get caught up in the investigation of a crime. We would like the Government to consider ensuring that it is made absolutely clear in police training that the sole proper use of this power is to remove items of clothing that are purposely worn as a disguise. I ask the Government to look again at the language of the 1994 Act and to clarify to prevent such abuse.
The amended Bill also contains provisions for posthumous pardons for the victims of unjust laws that have subsequently been repealed. The Minister made a gracious reference to the work of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson), who has tabled a private Member’s Bill on the issue. There is much to welcome in this set of amendments. My noble Friend Lord Kennedy, along with Lord Sharkey, Baroness Williams and others, played a key role in the debate. Lord Cashman made the amendments more comprehensive in scope by including the many men who had been unjustly targeted, and Lord Lexden supported the extension of the legislation to Northern Ireland. Those contributions would have enormously enriched any legislation on this topic.
Labour Members are pleased that the Government have apologised, and support the pardons for wrongfully convicted gay men who have now died. Placing an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on victims of injustice was clearly wrong. We also praise the expertise that has featured in the process and the debate. Although we believe that the Government could have gone further—especially in relation to the issue of pardons for people who were convicted under sexual offences legislation in the past purely because they were homosexual—we do not oppose their amendments.
Mindful of the fact that this is the last group of amendments we shall discuss before the Bill returns to the other place, I want to pay particular tribute to the expert views that have contributed to its progress. Many retired and serving police officers have made excellent contributions both here and in the other place, along with many learned members of the judiciary, and that has been reflected in the quality of the debate. It is important to note the expert nature of those contributions because in recent months some disdain has been expressed for expertise, although when it comes to police and criminal policy, expertise does not go amiss.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I want to speak briefly about Lords amendment 114. Let me take this opportunity to thank the Minister, the current Secretary of State in her former guise as a Home Office Minister, and the Prime Minister in her previous role as Home Secretary for the work that they did with me in making the amendment possible. Provision for parity in law between people who let off fireworks, flares and smoke bombs at football matches and people who do so at music festivals is a step in the right direction. Every year hundreds of people are maimed and injured by flares, and I appreciate all the Government’s efforts. The amendment provides a good example for any Member who is thinking of trying to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill. It proves that laws can be changed in that way, as long as Members work closely with Ministers—and, in this case, Home Secretaries.
Brandon Lewis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for thanking all who have been involved. He should be thanked as well, not just for the work that he did on his own account but for his work in bringing organisations together, so that they could act constructively to produce a workable provision.
Nigel Adams
I think it extremely important to work with industries when introducing new laws, to prevent any unintended consequences that might have a knock-on effect on them.
This is very positive news. During the next festival season, people will be able to go and enjoy themselves, and parents sending their kids off to festivals around the country will be safe in the knowledge that throwing flares is an offence. I hope that the amendment will discourage the lunatics from doing that next year, and, once again, I thank Ministers for all their work.
James Berry
I rise to support amendment 135, and I am delighted the Government have accepted Baroness Finlay’s amendment.
I am a barrister and have represented many bereaved families and public authorities at coroners’ inquests, but I had not expected this fairly niche area of legal practice to feature so prominently in my constituency casework after being elected as an MP. Shortly after I was elected, an incredibly dignified lady called Rosalind asked for my help because of inordinate delays in the west London coroner’s court in issuing her husband’s death certificate, which meant the insurance company was holding up funeral arrangements.
Business Without Debate
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dean Quarry, St Keverne
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Two years ago, in January 2015, I took an early morning walk in the village of Rosenithon to visit a dormant quarry and the surrounding area. The reason for this trek was that I had received a number of emails from local residents, including those with homes just a few hundred metres away from the disused quarry, who were concerned about news that the quarry was to become a super-quarry supplying rock armour up to 10 tonnes in weight for the proposed Swansea tidal lagoon and for other infrastructure projects. For two years now, this threat has hung over the local community, so I bring it to the House today in order to bring it to the attention of the Government and to find some means of securing closure for all those affected.
The quarry, known as Dean quarry, is in the parish of St Keverne and Meneage, which has 5,220 residents. It is situated close to the picturesque tourist destinations of St Keverne village and Coverack village on the Lizard peninsula in Cornwall. Why are local residents and environmental experts fighting so hard to stop the proposed quarry development? It is because, like me, they have genuine concerns about what the reopening and expanding of the quarry will do to the area. They are concerned about: the impact on the Manacles marine conservation zone; the impact on the environment, including air and noise pollution; the impact on local food production; the impact on local inshore fishing; the impact on tourism and future investment; and the impact on the local community.
Quarrying from Dean helped to support villages on the Lizard peninsula in south-west Cornwall for over 100 years. Shire Oak Quarries Ltd proposes to reopen the disused quarry at Dean. Its plan is to turn a small disused quarry into a sea-based super-quarry—similar to those found in Norway and at Glensanda in Scotland—seven times the size of the original operation. The intention is for it to work 5.5 days a week, with regular blasting. The loading of rock armour into barges would take place 24/7 to meet the demand. The plan is to extract up to 1.5 million tonnes a year and to use large barges to ship the rock armour from a new breakwater and jetties that are to be constructed as part of the development scheme. The reason this causes the local community and environmental experts so much concern is that the local economy has moved on; the vast development that is proposed presents a real risk to the area and is creating considerable unrest as the scheme drags on.
I should like to address these concerns one by one. First, I want to address the concerns about the impact of the proposed quarry on the Manacles marine conservation zone. This was one of the first areas to be designated an MCZ, in 2013. It is a rare and sensitive ecosystem and is considered by many marine ecologists to be the jewel in the crown of the whole MCZ system. The intention is to build a 300-metre breakwater to provide shelter for jetties where barges will dock to be loaded day and night. The legitimate concern relates to how the construction and subsequent existence of the breakwater will affect the marine conservation zone. Furthermore, consideration must be given to the potential damage caused by large barges as they manoeuvre in and around the breakwater and jetties as they collect their loads.
Secondly, there is the impact on the environment, including air and noise pollution. Nearly a third of Cornwall is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, granting it the same status and protection as a national park. The Lizard peninsula, particularly the area around St Keverne and Coverack, is unique. A combination of mild climate and complex geology has produced an area with a distinctive character and that includes some habitats and species that are unique to the Lizard and others that are extremely rare, hence the national nature reserve, special area of conservation and site of special scientific interest designations.
Environmental experts are concerned that reopening and expanding Dean quarry will result in the industrialisation of this area of outstanding natural beauty and site of special scientific interest. The concern is that the scale of the operation proposed at Dean quarry will threaten the bird breeding grounds and stop-off points for migratory birds, as well as threatening the harbour porpoises, bottlenose dolphins, grey seals, minke whales and basking sharks that are all regularly seen off the coast of Cornwall.
There will be an impact on local food production. Nearby farmers are concerned about dust settling across their fields, and they have worries about their cattle ingesting PM2.5 particulates. Although there have been no studies to show how such particulates might affect both the animals’ health and their milk, 4 million litres of milk per annum are produced within a mile of the quarry, much of it organic.
There will also be an impact on local inshore fishing. Alongside farming, risks arise for the fishing industry in the area. The Manacles have for centuries been used by local fishermen and are a flourishing sea bass breeding ground. It is suggested that proposed industrial activity relating to the loading of barges and the underwater noise generated will have a detrimental effect not only on the bass but on other fish, crab and lobster stocks, which still provide a sustainable living for local fishermen who, with the improved water quality, are now seeing stocks grow. Local fishermen have had to stop netting on the Manacles because of the marine conservation zone, so they are at a loss to understand why heavy industrialisation may be allowed to happen.
Tourism is a vital part of the rural economy, and this area of outstanding natural beauty is deeply valued by visitors and is recognised as a key economic resource. Tourism on the Lizard has largely substituted the area’s falling economic activity in farming, fishing and light industrial production. Tourism is now the significant employer in the area, and St Keverne and the Lizard has established itself as a significant destination for holidaymakers both from Britain and from further afield. A number of businesses have made a success of their operation on the Lizard, and two with which Members may be familiar are Roskilly’s ice cream and organic farm, which attracts up to 60,000 visitors each year, and Cornish Sea Salt, one of the great success stories in west Cornwall. Both businesses are located in close vicinity to Dean quarry. In fact, Roskilly’s organic farm surrounds the quarry, and the owners of the quarry own the mineral rights to the farmland.
The tourist season has extended, with many people preferring to holiday during the quieter months, which in turn enables many previously seasonal businesses to open all year round. The Lizard is unique, which is why visitors return year after year. At the moment, the Lizard is a desired destination for tourists, offering them peace, clean air, dark skies, beautiful landscapes, a stunning marine environment and the South West Coast Path national trail, which Lonely Planet now rates as one of the best walks in the world.
According to 2014 figures, local business turnover, supported by tourism, is worth more than £51 million a year to the Lizard peninsula, with more than 1,000 jobs directly generated by tourism. The estimated local gross wage income is more than £13 million. People involved in this important sector have raised a number of concerns with me. They are concerned about the impact on the local economy should Dean quarry reopen. It has been predicted that the reopening of Dean quarry is worth £190 million to Cornwall over 20 years. Within the same timeframe, tourism is worth more than £1 billion to the Lizard peninsula alone. It is more than likely that industrialising the peninsula’s east coast would decimate those figures and many associated jobs and businesses.
Even now, news of the proposed quarry expansion has had an impact on some tourism businesses, with a drop in interest from potential holidaymakers and some businesses having chosen not to expand or invest until the position is made clearer. This naturally has an impact on the local economy; fewer visitors equals less money in the local economy. In turn, that will have a negative impact on any associated trades, and the local jobs that go with them, such as those in property maintenance, restaurants, retail outlets, attractions, garden centres, website design, IT businesses, sporting facilities such as kayaking, and accountancy. We should not, in any circumstances, trade what has become a destination hotspot for holidaymakers around the year for noise, air pollution, a scarred landscape and loss of marine biodiversity.
The final concern relates to the impact on the local community. Summary findings from a noise impact survey were presented by Shire Oak Quarries Ltd at a public meeting on 30 January 2015. The assessment incorrectly stated that Dean quarry is
“in a remote section of the Lizard Peninsular”.
In fact, there are several hamlets within 500 metres, and St Keverne is less than 1 km away. The noise levels at times will be 3 dB above the limits deemed suitable in a rural environment, which will have a considerable impact on how far and how intensely the disturbance will be heard. Further noise pollution will be created by explosions at the quarry, and by the loading and unloading of rock on to barges and lorries. Residents who live in the area have worked hard to foster a close-knit, caring local community with good local schools and services. They have developed a community that lives in harmony with the local environment and now benefits from the natural surroundings. All aspects of the quarry proposal fly in the face of those achievements.
I am bringing this to the Minister’s attention because, yet again, residents and businesses on the Lizard have been forced to return to the High Court on Friday 20 January. Despite having won a judicial review in 2015, Cornwall Against Dean Superquarry has instructed its solicitors to issue a claim for a new review against Cornwall Council, pressurising it to uphold its decision, made a year before, to halt the redevelopment due to the lack of an environmental impact assessment. Dean quarry is currently surrounded by a fence, which the developer continued to erect after planning permission for the development was quashed in the High Court on 18 December 2015 because of the lack of an EIA. At the time, both Mr Justice Dove and the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), agreed that the reopening of Dean quarry constituted major development, requiring, by definition, an EIA. To date, no retrospective planning application has been submitted by Shire Oak Quarries Ltd, nor has it submitted an EIA after it withdrew its application to reopen Dean quarry “with immediate effect”. Cornwall Council has failed to take enforcement action via a stop notice on the developer, Shire Oak Quarries. What can the Government do to ensure Cornwall Council takes seriously the concerns of the community, and gives adequate consideration to the environment, the local economy and local residents?
I have not seen evidence that the new jobs created at Dean quarry will adequately compensate for the negative impact on the local tourism industry and the many families who rely on tourism to earn an income. I am not satisfied that enough has been done to understand the extent of the air, noise and light pollution that is inevitable, and I am convinced that there is a more suitable, competitive source of rock available for lagoon and other infrastructure projects elsewhere. For years, as our core industries have declined, including farming and fishing, we have encouraged people to diversify and find new ways to make a living. The community of St Keverne parish has done that, and it would be more than a slap in the face to compromise that good work. Will the Minister please look closely at the situation surrounding the proposal to reopen Dean quarry and take whatever action he deems necessary to ensure local concerns are adequately considered?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this debate on the reopening of Dean quarry in St Keverne in Cornwall. I know that the subject is of great importance not only to him but, more importantly, to many of his constituents, as he so eloquently set out. I should say at the start that I am in a difficult position because propriety considerations prevent my commenting on the detail of the specific planning issues relating to this case, both because of my role in the planning system and because, as he mentioned, those issues are currently subject to a judicial review. With my hon. Friend’s permission, I shall therefore focus my attention on how the mineral and marine planning systems operate, and how they contribute to our robust regulatory framework to plan for the sustainable extraction of minerals in this country.
The national planning policy framework, with which I have become intimately acquainted over the past five to six months, is clear that the purpose of planning, including planning for the steady and adequate supply of minerals, is to deliver sustainable development. I should put on record that that does not mean development at any cost or anywhere. National policy sets out that planning must take account of the roles and character of different areas. It must recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of coastal areas and the wider countryside, the natural and historic assets located in an area, and the possible impacts on them as a result of applications for development of any kind, including the extraction of minerals.
In respect of the natural historic environment, local planning authorities and the Marine Management Organisation should set out in their local plans and marine plans a positive strategy for the conservation of the natural and historic environment. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance, whether they are located on land or in the sea. Similarly, when processing planning applications, the aim should be to minimise adverse effects on the natural and historic environment. Special protection areas are given specific protections in national policy for that purpose. As my hon. Friend suggested, that is relevant in this case because the quarry is located in the Lizard section of the Cornwall area of outstanding natural beauty, as well as being in the Coverack to Porthoustock site of special scientific interest. In addition, the Lizard special area of conservation borders the site to the south.
National policy makes it clear that the extraction of minerals is essential to support sustainable economic growth and quality of life. We rely on a steady and adequate supply of minerals to provide building materials for infrastructure, housing and other construction, fuel for heating our homes and transportation, and chemicals for industrial production, which in turn create employment and attract inward investment into our country.
As my hon. Friend alluded to in his speech, Cornwall is a mineral-rich area and has since antiquity hosted many forms of quarrying and mining for valuable minerals such as tin, lead, copper, china clay and hard rock. Quarrying and mining have historically made a large contribution to the prosperity of Cornwall’s local economy, alongside its traditional maritime industries, such as fishing and shipping, and newer industries such as renewable energy and tourism. It was good to hear my hon. Friend acknowledge that in his speech.
The planning system has to make sure that the environmental impact of mineral extraction is minimised. It also has to mitigate its potentially adverse effects on the environment, such as through the use of planning conditions attached to individual applications and the continuous monitoring of extraction sites by the local authority during the operation of those sites.
Planning applications to extract minerals that were granted decades ago are, as my hon. Friend said, relevant in this case because Dean quarry is currently dormant. Before such quarries can reopen, their existing conditions have to be reviewed to make sure they meet contemporary environmental standards. The conditions are reviewed under the “Environment Act 1995: review of mineral planning permissions” guidance, which is popularly known, I am told, as ROMPs. Members will be reassured to know that the extraction of minerals from dormant quarries cannot lawfully commence until the developer has submitted an application for revised mineral conditions that has been agreed by the local authority, and that an application for review of conditions may need to be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment, as my hon. Friend said.
It is important to remember that the extraction of minerals is a temporary activity, so local authorities, through the use of planning conditions, can put in place early and high-quality restoration plans, agreed with the developer, as a condition for receiving planning permission in the first place. That means that once extraction operations have stopped, former quarry sites can be quickly returned to a productive land use, with the landscape restored.
I have illustrated the role that the land-based planning system plays in providing a key component of the regulatory framework that ensures that the extraction of minerals is undertaken with the minimal impact—that is my responsibility. However, for geological and historical reasons, many quarries are located along our coastline. The Marine Management Organisation, which falls under the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is the planning authority for English territorial waters. It plays a vital role in planning for mineral extraction where the land-based and marine planning systems overlap at the mean, high and low-tide waterline.
For sites such as Dean quarry that are situated on the coastline, the local authority—Cornwall Council in this case—and the Marine Management Organisation have to work collaboratively when considering planning applications that will have an impact on both the land and marine environments. Such an impact could be that from land-based operations that are in close proximity to marine conservation zones.
Despite the robust regulatory framework that the Government have put in place to plan for the steady and adequate supply of minerals, there are still many concerns about applications for mineral extraction and the possible negative environmental impacts, even if such applications constitute a temporary use of land and the land in question will be restored once that use is completed.
My hon. Friend eloquently set out his constituents’ concerns regarding this particular case. I am sure that the whole House understands those concerns, but it is the Government’s view that the local planning system is the best way to address them. Essentially, what we ask of the planning system in this country is that it balances the need for various kinds of development. We all recognise the need for more housing in this country and the need for mineral extraction, but those needs must be balanced against environmental concerns and the concerns of local residents, and the planning system is the way in which we do that.
What we need to decide in this House is the balance that we wish to strike between the Government’s role and that of local planning authorities and mineral planning authorities. It is our view that, in the main, the Government’s role should be constrained to setting national planning policy. Most decisions in relation to individual planning applications and the responsibility for enforcement activity rest with local planning authorities.
There are exceptions. From time to time, local councils, residents groups and Members of this House will lobby the Secretary of State to ask him to intervene in a particular application, to call in an application, or to recover an application that is with the Planning Inspectorate. It is the Secretary of State’s judgment—this is set out in policy through a written ministerial statement to this House—that those cases should be few and far between, and that they should have a wide national interest, rather than a particular local concern.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying to my hon. Friend that he has powerfully set out the concerns of his constituents, and that he should express those concerns to the relevant planning authority that is responsible both for enforcement activity in relation to the particular issues that he mentioned and in determining any applications. If he believes that there are grounds for a particular application of any kind not to be decided by the local authority—if it raises issues beyond local importance, for example—he has the opportunity to make the case that the Secretary of State should call it in. I hope that I have at least set out for him the policies of this Government that try to strike the right balance between the needs to ensure a steady supply of minerals in this country, to protect our precious land and marine environments, and to ensure that the planning system addresses the concerns of his residents that he so eloquently set out this evening.
Question put and agreed to
Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017
Draft Combined Authorities (Mayors) (Filling of Vacancies) Order 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Combined Authorities (Mayors) (Filling of Vacancies) Order 2017.
Andrew Percy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
The draft orders were laid before the House on 28 November 2016. If approved, they will provide the rules on the conduct of elections of directly elected Mayors of combined authorities, the rules by which mayoral vacancies are to be declared and the procedure for filling those vacancies through by-elections. First and foremost, they will provide the rules on the conduct of the mayoral elections that will take place in May. The draft orders are part of our process of making good on devolution deals. They will also apply in subsequent elections. The second and smaller draft order addresses how vacancies in the mayoral office are to be handled, should one arise following the election.
To set the wider context, I should add that we are also introducing orders that will confer devolved powers on these Mayors once they have been elected. The first such order was for Greater Manchester; many of us here today are veterans of the debate on that order, which was approved just before Christmas.
I emphasise that the draft orders should be seen in the context of the full body of electoral law governing local elections throughout England. In making these orders, we have not sought to make piecemeal changes to that wider body of law. The rules set out in the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 closely reflect the rules that apply to local authority elections and elections of police and crime commissioners and local authority Mayors. The order contains detailed provisions about the conduct of elections of directly elected Mayors of combined authorities, including rules on nomination arrangements, deposits, spending limits for candidates and the conduct of the poll itself. All of us on the Committee will be well aware of those rules, which largely replicate the generality of the election rules that operated for our election to Parliament. I shall therefore simply highlight the four areas in which we have made special provision for combined authority Mayors because the circumstances are such that the standard rules cannot be appropriately applied.
First, we have made particular provision for candidate deposits—the deposits that candidates have to lodge and that are returned to the candidate if their share of the vote is greater than 5%. The rule in the draft order provides for the deposit for a mayoral candidate to be £5,000, which is the same as that for PCC candidates.
Secondly, we are making particular provision for nomination arrangements, with respect to the number of signatures that a candidate needs to stand validly for election. The draft order requires combined authority mayoral candidates to secure a minimum of 100 signatures from electors. Moreover, at least 10 subscriptions must come from the area of each constituent council, to ensure that any candidate standing for election as Mayor of a combined authority can demonstrate that they have support in all of the constituent boroughs or authorities. In cases with more than 10 constituent authorities, candidates will still need at least 10 subscriptions from each area and will therefore need more than 100 signatures in total. That is a significantly greater requirement than that for local authority Mayors, but it reflects the size and varying geographies of the combined authorities. For example, it would prevent the nomination of candidates who secure support from one particular part of the combined authority—perhaps the rural hinterland—but who do not have support in the urban core.
Thirdly, we are making particular provision for candidate spending limits, which restrict how much each candidate is able to spend during the election. Local authority mayoral candidates are limited to £2,362, plus 5.9p per registered elector. The limit for combined authority mayoral candidates is £2,362 per constituent council in the combined authority, plus 5.9p per registered elector in the combined authority area. That provision, with the majority of funding being measured per capita, ensures that appropriate candidate spending limits are set across the range of mayoral combined authorities, which vary significantly in size across the country. When appropriately scaled for the number of electors, total candidate spending limits closely align with those for candidates for election as Mayor of London.
Fourthly, the order provides for the creation of a combined authority returning officer, appointed by the combined authority. That is similar to the provisions for PCC elections. In both of those roles, the respective returning officers are personally responsible for publishing the notice of elections, administering the nomination process, ensuring that candidates comply with the requirements and declaring the result—all the usual things for which a returning officer is responsible.
The Combined Authorities (Mayors) (Filling of Vacancies) Order 2017 provides the rules by which vacancies are to be declared in the office of Mayor, and the procedure by which they will be filled through by-elections. The order is necessary to establish the rules for when such vacancies occur. They apply best practice for the declaration and subsequent by-election to fill an elected role to the office of combined authority Mayors. Those provisions are required in advance of the election of combined authority Mayors, the first of which will take place in May, to ensure that any subsequent vacancies are appropriately and consistently dealt with. We do not want a situation where we have an election but no provision for filling any subsequent vacancies.
In conclusion, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Mr Paisley, the draft orders are vital to ensure that democratic elections can take place and that the public can choose who is going to be their local Mayor and exercise the new powers and functions. The details are set out in the orders, which provide a strong legal framework for the elections. They will also ensure that residents have confidence in the elections, that they are conducted fairly, and that the outcome of the poll reflects the wishes of the residents in the area. I commend both draft orders to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the Minister on talking at length about what is a straightforward matter.
A few points of clarity would be helpful. Everybody present recognises the importance of these elections, not just because we value voter turnout, but because, in order to demonstrate the authority of Mayors, it is important to demonstrate that there has been a decent turnout and that people support them and acknowledge the importance of their role.
There are 18 designated areas in the UK where postal vote fraud and electoral fraud may be being carried out. Those areas are under special arrangements, so when people vote they have to provide both photo identification and a second form of ID, such as a utility bill, mortgage statement or council tax bill. Some of those areas will take part in the forthcoming mayoral elections, which in some cases means that a single voting officer will have to oversee different voting arrangements. Voters in the Oldham district of Greater Manchester will have to produce two forms of ID, but those a step over the road in the Manchester district will not. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how he envisages a returning officer administering what are, in effect, two electoral processes in the same area.
On the points raised during the consultation, I fully support the principles that have been taken on board. I struggled to understand why the Greater Manchester combined authority asked to be able to decide for itself who should get the notice of election and voting cards. That should be determined by a national framework, and we are pleased that the Government have not gone with that recommendation. The spending limits make complete sense—they are in line with the calculations used locally—and the number of signatures required for a candidate to stand is also reasonable for the areas in question.
I am therefore happy to support the draft orders. I would be grateful for a response on the point about ID and how the returning officer will administer that process.
Andrew Percy
I welcome the shadow Minister’s support for the draft orders and the work that has gone into them. I take on board his point about Manchester’s particular proposal, and I am pleased that he welcomes the Government’s response to it.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of electoral fraud. We were all concerned by the report, and I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles). For the avoidance of doubt, although we have listed the 18 areas that are most at risk of fraud allegations, the Government have been absolutely clear that that does not mean that we have earmarked them for pilots. No decision has been taken on pilots. I accept the shadow Minister’s point about pilots meaning that the same election will take place under slightly different rules. That does not mean that pilots should not happen, because the primary issue is about dealing with electoral fraud, but we will have to make a considered judgment as we look to start the pilots. Although we have listed the 18 areas that are most at risk, we have not yet determined which of them will take part in the pilots. When we do so, I will, of course, be happy to talk about it with the hon. Gentleman.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman raised any other issues. As he says, these important draft orders will allow us to get on, run the elections and create exciting new structures for England that will move away from here those powers that can be better exercised locally, closer to the people. They will also, importantly, allow new resources and funding to be determined and spent locally, in line with local priorities.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I wonder whether I may take the opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of questions about the elections, following on from his helpful elucidation of the purpose of the draft orders. First, on the spending limits, what provision have the Government made with regard to the funding of candidates’ promotion literature? One of the mistakes that we made with the PCC elections was not funding such literature, which resulted in a lower turnout. I wonder whether that is covered in the draft orders or elsewhere.
Secondly, on the provisions relating to ensuring local legitimacy in the combined area, what provision is there in the relevant legislation for requiring candidates to be resident in the wider area? Another mistake that we made in the PCC legislation was to statutorily require residency. That unreasonable requirement resulted in people trying to game the system by having a nominal address in the area, and it discouraged candidates who may have been excellent and had strong local links but who happened to have an address outside the area. There is an opportunity to put that right for mayoral elections, and I hope that it will also be put right for PCC elections. I apologise for not giving the Minister notice of those specific questions, but this seemed a good opportunity to raise them.
Andrew Percy
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the first PCC elections. I remember finding it strange that, even though an election in my own police area of Humberside, which is a very big area, was mandated by Parliament, no organised literature was distributed. The arrangements for the election under discussion are set out very clearly and are similar to those for the London mayoral election: a booklet will go around—one for every elector, which is what the Electoral Commission recommended to the Government. With individual electoral registration, there is a good reason for that.
We also have to consider the issue in the context of the Department’s work. We have put aside resources to encourage people to turn out, and we want people to be aware of them, but this is an evolving process. These are new structures, and I cannot pretend that people in the Dog and Duck and the Percy Arms, which is the pub in my village, are talking about devolution every weekend. Once a local Mayor is in post, whoever she or he is, and once people start seeing their powers being exercised and decisions being made, we will have to sell this for future elections. As with PCC elections, we are hopeful about the engagement that we can get for this first election, but once people start to see those powers being exercised and the influence that Mayors have on both a regional and a national stage, they will be even more excited about the prospect of devolution.
On the issue of being resident in the area, I am not going to be a hypocrite. When I was a local councillor, I ran several successful election campaigns against my Labour opponents who, shamefully, did not live in the ward in which they were trying to un-elect me. It would, therefore be a little hypocritical of me to agree with my right hon. Friend about that, but I take his point about individuals who may live just outside the boundary of a local authority but who still have very strong links with it and possibly work in it. They are eligible to stand—they do not have to be resident if they work in the local area—but I have always campaigned strongly on the importance of living on my own patch and requiring my opponents to do the same. Actually, I prefer it when they do not, because that makes it easier. People sometimes have strong links to an area in which they do not necessarily live. One of the provisions relates to whether they are working or renting property in the area. Indeed, I think that one of the provisions states that someone who rents an allotment in a local authority area is entitled to stand for election there. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend’s point is important.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT COMBINED AUTHORITIES (MAYORS) (FILLING OF VACANCIES) ORDER 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Mayors) (Filling of Vacancies) Order 2017.—(Andrew Percy.)
Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Children and Social Work Act 2017 View all Children and Social Work Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 January 2017 - (10 Jan 2017)
The Chair
I remind Members that we have dealt with clauses 1 to 57 and schedules 1 to 3. We now move on to new clauses, new schedules and, in due course, clauses 58 to 64.
New Clause 1
Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain
“Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) contains amendments relating to—
(a) the placement by local authorities in England and Wales of children in secure accommodation in Scotland, and
(b) the placement by local authorities in Scotland of children in secure accommodation in England and Wales.”—(Edward Timpson.)
This new clause would introduce NS1, which amends legislation to allow local authorities in England and Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland, and makes provision relating to the placement by local authorities in Scotland of children in secure accommodation in England and Wales.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 9 to 15.
New clause 27—Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain—
“(1) Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) ends at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would revoke provisions in the Bill that enable local authorities in England and Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland, and vice versa, two years after the Act comes into force.
Government new schedule 1—Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain.
Edward Timpson
Happy new year to you, Mrs Main, and the rest of the Committee. It is wonderful to be back and to see everyone looking bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and ready for what we hope will be a constructive last few days in Committee.
The Government amendments in this group, introduced via new clause 1 and new schedule 1, are necessary to fill a legislative gap relating to looked-after children being placed in secure children’s homes in Scotland by English and Welsh local authorities. The new clause and new schedule make various amendments, some of them technical, to various pieces of primary and secondary legislation, with the aim of making clear the ability of local authorities in England and Wales to place looked-after children in secure accommodation in Scotland.
Reciprocal provisions already exist that allow Scottish local authorities to place children in England or Wales under compulsory supervision orders, so this is not a new or even emerging position. Placements in Scottish secure homes have happened commonly over time, with the option to place children in Scotland increasing the diversity of specialist secure provision available to local authorities in England and Wales, which is in the best interests of our most vulnerable children.
Government amendments 9 to 15 will make the relevant changes to the Bill’s extent provisions to reflect new clause 1 and new schedule 1 and provide for them to come into effect when the Bill is passed.
It is right to say that extensive discussions have taken place with officials in the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and Ministers from both those Administrations have indicated their support for the Government amendments as drafted. Scotland is currently progressing its own legislative consent motion to that effect.
The hon. Member for South Shields will want to speak to her new clause, and I will no doubt want to respond to the points that she makes, but I urge the Committee to see the Government amendments for what they are: a technical solution to a gap in the law to allow the continuation of a well-established practice.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be back in Committee, Mrs Main. I, too, wish everyone a happy new year.
I rise to speak to new clause 27, which is in my name. It was with a mix of anger and sadness that I tabled the new clause, which would give Ministers two years to sort out a situation that has arisen on their watch: the intolerable lack of secure places for our country’s most vulnerable children. Those are children who are looked after by the state and who the courts have found to be at risk of significant harm and injury or a risk to others by their being looked after by local authorities. They are our responsibility.
I will briefly share with the Committee a small example from the Department for Education’s own research of a child who was placed in secure accommodation:
“Marie was referred as a very young child because of sexual abuse and severe neglect. She was removed and placed for adoption aged four with two younger siblings but went on to experience three adoption breakdowns. This was partly due to the children’s sexualised behaviour but also events that couldn’t have been predicted—including the death of two adoptive parents. She returned to the care system for the last time aged nine with a severe attachment disorder.”
We owe it to children like her to ensure that when they are in crisis, the best possible support is available to meet their needs.
Two years is enough time for the Government to fix this problem if there is sufficient political will. New clause 27 is a pragmatic response to a situation that should never have been allowed to happen. I have decided reluctantly that seeking to block the Minister’s amendments would not be in the immediate interests of children who are desperately in need of secure care. Children have been sent from England to Scotland because of a lack of provision close to their families, local services and communities. The legal cases that I understand led to the Minister tabling his amendments concern children from Blackpool, Cumbria and Stockport being detained in Scotland. Those are looked-after children who are attempting suicide and self-harm, and who are in acute states of distress. Courts have made orders for them to be detained because they are not safe in ordinary children’s homes or in foster care.
We should not routinely send those children to another country, where they will have to adapt to a different education system and risk disruption to their mental healthcare. We are talking about placing children hundreds of miles away from their families, social workers, independent reviewing officers, independent advocates, visitors and lawyers. Will the Minister explain how we can be sure that their detention will be effectively monitored—particularly as he has not extended the duty on local authorities to establish secure accommodation reviews with independent input?
The legal situation of children looked after by English councils but detained in Scotland must be remedied as a matter of urgency—I totally accept that—but I do not support the Minister’s new clause because I do not believe it is a good policy decision. Let us be clear: the new clause, which will allow for the lawful detention in Scotland of looked-after children from our country, has not come about because social workers, researchers and young people have told the Department for Education that authorising the use of secure units in Scotland for looked-after children from England and Wales would be in their best interests, or that sending those children hundreds of miles from home would make them feel safer and more secure.
The changes are the result of the courts being put in the invidious position of deciding that a looked-after child fits the criteria for a secure accommodation order, but being then informed by the local authority applying for such an order that there is no secure place for that child in England. Orders have been made by the High Court that have bypassed the Children Act 1989, because that legislation does not allow for looked-after children to be detained on welfare grounds in Scotland. The Act does not allow any looked-after child to be placed outside England and Wales without the consent of the child or his or her parent—although that can be overruled in certain circumstances. That provision has been law since, I believe, 1980. Without any consultation with young people or professionals who work with them, the Minister’s new clause strikes out the need for the child’s consent and for parental consent. We are talking about vulnerable teenagers whose lives have spiralled out of control. How can we expect to help them to regain and build up their self-esteem and show they are valued if we send them to another country without asking for their permission?
The research I mentioned earlier found that local authorities viewed detaining a child on welfare grounds as necessary for a small number of children, but all of those authorities agree that that is often a draconian step—and that it is more draconian to send a child to a different country to be locked up. It is a well-established social work principle that looked-after children fare better when they are close to their families, friends, schools and the health professionals supporting them. That principle is well-enshrined in the Children Act 1989.
Since 2011, the number of children placed in secure accommodation for welfare reasons has increased. In March 2011, 62 children in England and Wales were placed in secure accommodation on welfare grounds, while in March 2016, 105 looked-after children in England and Wales were detained in secure accommodation on welfare grounds.
The Government have clearly not been paying attention. This situation needs a national strategy and national leadership—especially when we take into account that The Scotsman reported just last year that children from Scotland may have to be placed south of the border owing to a lack of spaces there. I took a quick look at the availability of secure places in Scotland, and the latest information, as of 6 and 8 January, is that only one of the five secure homes in Scotland has any vacancies; the rest are entirely full. St Mary’s Kenmure centre, on the outskirts of Glasgow, has only three places available, yet serves the whole of Scotland. What assurances can the Minister give that Scotland’s secure centres have room for children from England and Wales? What research has his Department done to establish the capacity of Scotland’s secure care provision? If there has been any research, will he please share it with the Committee?
I fear that if we leave the Minister’s amendments as they are, and do not exert any pressure on the Government to sort out this mess, children may suffer greatly. I am not aware of any consultation, policy document or impact assessment published by the Department about these legislative changes. The amendments are not minor formalities; they fundamentally alter the legal protection given to our most vulnerable looked-after children. The Minister’s exemption clauses could lead to the removal of even more safeguards from that cohort of children; we are talking about legal protections that have been in place for decades. I hope that Members will support my pragmatic new clause.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to return to the Committee, Mrs Main. I wish all Committee members a happy new year. I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. I am dismayed that our response to an absence of suitable secure accommodation close to children’s families and homes is leading us to reach for the solution of sending them, effectively, to another country—certainly to another jurisdiction in relation to law and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, education. I particularly want to press the Minister on that point.
The education system in Scotland is different from that of England and Wales, and it is not clear to me what, if any, thinking the Government have done about the impact on young people’s education of moving them to a different country with a different school system. Many young people in secure accommodation will be teenagers approaching the age of 16 when they should be taking examinations, planning their futures, and receiving careers advice and support. It would be helpful to the Committee to understand what thinking the Minister has done and what planning there has been to address those children’s educational needs.
Is the arrangement really seen as some kind of stopgap in which the children would be moved back as quickly as possible to secure accommodation closer to home; or does the Minister believe its purpose is for a child posted to secure accommodation in Scotland to spend the entire period there? I can understand the wish, having found suitable accommodation for a child, not to disrupt it; but equally it seems to me that if we are dealing with a shortage of suitable spaces in England it would be helpful to know whether the Minister intends children placed for a period in Scotland to be brought back home as quickly as possible.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main; I also wish you a happy new year.
I want to put three or four quick points to the Minister in relation to the measure. Could he give us an idea of how many children he thinks will be transferred north of the border, or, indeed, the other way? It would be interesting to have some context, and to know the scale of the problem and perhaps when he first became aware that there was a problem in need of such a resolution. I am particularly interested in how many children from England are likely to move to Scotland, and would like an indication of which local authorities are under the most severe pressure, so that they must look north of the border.
Whether or not the Minister accepts new clause 27, does he accept that if there is not some kind of time limit on the proposal the danger is that we will be legislating to export a problem? That seems a strange way to deal with children who are often very damaged and difficult. I am not sure that in the long run it is in the best interest of the care system in this country that we should end up simply exporting the problem.
Finally, I have on previous occasions heard the Minister say he does not support the idea that children should be moved far from home; I think that particularly in relation to Rotherham he had some strong opinions on that, which I agree with. While I accept that awareness of an impending problem or crisis may have brought him to introduce legislation, I wonder how he would reconcile the notion of sending children north of the border with his strongly held view that it is not in children’s best interests to move them too far from their home base for care provision.
Edward Timpson
I begin by thanking hon. Members for their contributions to this debate and for raising important issues about not only this new clause but, more widely, the secure children’s homes available to our most vulnerable children and young people in England, Wales and Scotland.
I will address some of the specific points raised. The latest information I have is that there are currently 17 children who have moved from England to secure children’s homes in Scotland. We first became aware of the issue that the new clause tries to fix on the back of a judgment of the family division of the High Court on 12 September last year that children could not be placed by English or Welsh authorities in secure accommodation in Scotland under section 25 of the Children Act 1989. This is a long-established practice, hence the legislative issue we are seeking to resolve was a surprise to everybody.
No child has been placed by an English or Welsh local authority in secure accommodation in Scotland without the authority of the courts in England and Wales. That is an important point. Every case where a child is moved to a different part of the United Kingdom on the basis of a request to place them in a secure children’s home outside their original area will be subject to court approval. The court has to decide on the usual basis under the Children Act of it being in the child’s best interest.
I will write to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about which local authorities currently have children placed north of the border. The hon. Member for South Shields alluded to some of those, but I will endeavour to provide the hon. Gentleman with a comprehensive list.
Kate Green
In writing, will the Minister also tell us how long those children have spent in children’s homes north of the border? As there are only 17 children, I hope he will be able to give us that information for each child.
Edward Timpson
I will endeavour to provide as much detail as possible.
This is not about exporting a problem. It is a two-way street, because of course, children from Scotland and Wales are placed in England, and vice versa. This is about trying to improve the diversity of choice for very specialist placements, which starts to address the other point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak rightly raised about the presumption that children, where possible, should be placed as close to home as they can. I agree with that.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have done a lot of work on residential care, looking at how we can improve the commissioning of places and the decision making, so that it is higher up the process when making a choice about the most appropriate placement for children, where residential care is the right type of placement. However, I think we all agree that for very specialist placements—particularly knowing the numbers in secure children’s homes—it would be impossible to have that type of specialist provision on the doorstep of every local authority, so we need to look in the round at what is available in the wider area, to try to meet those specific needs.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for South Shields that there is more work to do on ensuring we have a functioning secure children’s home system that meets the demands placed on it. We have not been sitting idle, waiting for a problem to bubble to the surface. We have been working hard to establish, for the first time, a co-ordinated approach, to understand where the pressures on the system are, the availability of particular types of provision and how we can better match children and young people with the right placement for them as quickly as possible. That is why we set up the National Secure Welfare Commissioning Unit in May last year.
I wrote to the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services with a strong commitment to work with them to find the long-term system change we need, so that we can address some of the issues that the hon. Member for South Shields raised. I am not saying that we have the perfect system—we are not at that point by any stretch of the imagination—but we are working hard to ensure that we have a better way of providing the right sort of care for the children who need it, whether on welfare grounds or on other grounds that form part of the background of some children who need secure placements.
Steve McCabe
The Minister is telling me that he is proposing a reciprocal arrangement and that there will be a transfer of children from Scotland to secure accommodation in England as well. If he has the numbers will he give them to us now? If not, perhaps he will write to us. I am curious to know how many children from Scotland are in secure accommodation in England. I am also curious to know how a country with such a small population compared with England can have an excess of secure accommodation. Can he say more about the particulars, without identifying individuals, although I realise that 17 is a small number? Is there something special about the accommodation available in Scotland which differs from accommodation in England, making it necessary to have that transfer? I am curious to understand what that is. If it is not simply a question of numbers, I am curious to know the particular circumstances that necessitate that sort of shift.
Edward Timpson
I may come back to the hon. Gentleman with further information, but I can tell him that in Scotland there are 89 welfare places in secure children’s homes. They are available to children both in Scotland and in England and Wales, as has been the case for a considerable time. On the range of provision in Scotland, every decision made for each individual child is based on what is in their best interests. Clearly, therefore, some specialist provision in Scotland is deemed suitable as the best for a child in England with their particular needs.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse on exactly what each secure children’s home offers, but I undertake to provide further detail, so that he is reassured that the decisions made by the courts are such that those very vulnerable children and young people are getting the best possible care and support. Furthermore, all those children and young people who have been placed in Scotland will still have placement visits from their social worker and regular reviews of the quality of that placement, even when they have been placed in Scotland or Wales.
Part of the care plan for a child or young person is about how their educational needs will be met. It will have to be set out and approved by the court before the placement is allowed to go ahead. However, I will look carefully at what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said, because I wholeheartedly agree with her that, wherever a young person is placed, it is important that they need to have opportunity—to advance themselves as an individual and in what they are capable of achieving academically and in getting into the workplace—and some stability in their life. That placement must meet all those requirements. I will look carefully at what she says and perhaps have a further conversation with her about how we ensure that children and young people in those circumstances are not missing out on the benefits of the education that is vital to their life chances.
Although I understand the points that have been made—I hope I have shown that I appreciate what hon. Members have said—I go back to where I started: the amendments do not seek to change existing policy or the practical circumstances in the system of secure children’s homes. They provide a technical fix to clarify the legal position of a long-standing and mutually beneficial arrangement that works for and should continue to work for our children.
We need to look carefully at how to continue to co-ordinate across England, Scotland and Wales and at how to improve provision in England. That is what the co-ordination unit is trying to do and why we are working hard with the LGA and the ADCS to see how we can make sure that the provision meets the future needs of this small but important and group of vulnerable children and young people who deserve the best possible support. I hope that on that basis the Committee will support the Government’s amendments and that the hon. Member for South Shields will be sufficiently reassured not to press her new clause.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am concerned that without acceptance of the new clause the practice the Minister is proposing may become the norm. I have not heard anything from him today about whether the Government are working to increase capacity throughout England, Scotland and Wales. What will happen when Scotland runs out of capacity, if it is being used as the overspill, for want of a better word, for children from England and Wales? I highlighted in my opening comments the fact that Scotland is running out of capacity. What will then happen to these children? The Minister has not given any assurances on where we are going with this. He has agreed that my new clause needs to be looked at and to have conversations with me, but ultimately, if my new clause is agreed, it will holds the Minister to account and will make sure that within two years he has found a solution. I would like to push my new clause to a vote at the appropriate time.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Power to test different ways of working
‘(1) The purpose of this section is to enable a local authority in England to test different ways of working under children’s social care legislation with a view to—
(a) promoting the physical and mental health and well-being of children, young people or their families,
(b) encouraging children or young people to express their views, wishes and feelings,
(c) taking into account the views, wishes and feelings of children or young people,
(d) helping children, young people or their families gain access to, or make the best use of, services provided by the local authority or its relevant partners (within the meaning given by section 10(4) of the Children Act 1989),
(e) promoting high aspirations for children or young people,
(f) promoting stability in the home lives, relationships, education or work of children or young people, or
(g) preparing children or young people for adulthood and independent living.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations, for that purpose—
(a) exempt a local authority in England from a requirement imposed by children’s social care legislation;
(b) modify the way in which a requirement imposed by children’s social care legislation applies in relation to a local authority in England.
(3) Regulations under this section may not be used so as to remove any prohibition on a local authority in England arranging for functions to be carried out by a body whose activities are carried on for profit.
(4) Regulations under this section may not be used to exempt a local authority in England from, or modify, its duties under—
(a) section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (duty to provide appropriate services to children in need);
(b) section 20 of that Act (provision of accommodation for children who appear to require it for certain reasons);
(c) section 22 of that Act (duty to safeguard and promote welfare of looked after children etc);
(d) section 47 of that Act (duty to make enquiries and take action to safeguard or promote welfare of children at risk);
(e) section 10 of the Children Act 2004 (duty to make arrangements for promoting co-operation to improve well-being of children);
(f) section 11 of that Act (duty to make arrangements to ensure that regard is had to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children).
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section relating to a local authority in England only on an application by that authority.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to regulations under this section that only revoke earlier regulations under this section.
(7) Regulations under this section may be made in relation to one or more local authorities in England.
(8) Regulations under this section may include consequential modifications of children’s social care legislation.”
This new clause would give the Secretary of State a power to enable local authorities in England to test different ways of working under children’s social care legislation for one of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1). Subsections (3) and (4) include safeguards on the use of the power. The power may only be exercised on an application by a local authority. See also the following, which are related: NC3, NC4, NC5, NC6, NC7, NC8 and NC9.—(Edward Timpson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 3—Duration—
Government new clause 4—Parliamentary procedure—
Government new clause 5—Consultation by local authority—
Government new clause 6—Consultation by Secretary of State—
Government new clause 7—Guidance—
Government new clause 8—Annual report—
Government new clause 9—Interpretation—.
Edward Timpson
I will speak to new clause 2 and the other new clauses in this group which deal with the power to pilot different ways of working. The purpose of the new clauses is to enable a local authority to test the extent to which changes to the complex legislative framework surrounding children’s social care might achieve better outcomes for children.
I will begin by briefly outlining the purpose of the clauses before I turn to the improvements that have been made since they were debated in the other place. The Government believe that the legislative framework is the bedrock of children’s social care services. However, that does not mean that it is perfect. In 2011, the Munro review showed us that over-regulation can be a barrier to good social work practice and can prevent social workers from putting the needs and wishes of children first.
Too frequently, legislation sets out not just what local authorities need to do, but exactly how they must do it. However, when it comes to changing the law, especially where those changes are about prescribing less process and leaving more to professional judgment, we often fail to act. That is because we do not have evidence of how a change would work in practice. Without evidence, it is simply unclear what applying a change to all local authorities would mean.
The power would enable an individual local authority to test new ways of supporting children and young people. That would be done in a carefully controlled way, for a limited period of time with the sole purpose of achieving better outcomes for children. The evidence from each pilot will allow us to assess the need for changes to legislation across the country.
Local government supports this power. Local authorities want to do their best for the children in their care and to be trusted to try new approaches to do just that. However, we also heard concerns expressed in the other place and by those organisations that we consulted about the risk to children. Clearly, that is not something that would ever be on my agenda. The Government have listened and I will outline the changes we are making which I believe address the concerns that have been raised.
Government new clause 2 introduces the power to test different ways of working. It outlines the purpose of pilots that could be granted and the scope of the power. A pilot can be granted only if the application has demonstrated clearly how it will benefit children or young people in at least one of the following ways: promote their physical health and wellbeing; encourage them to express their views, wishes and feelings and take them into account; help them gain access to or make the best use of services provided by the local authority or its partners; promote high aspirations; promote stability in their home lives, relationships and educational work; or prepare them for adulthood and independent living.
The new clause makes it clear that the local authority must use the power with a view to achieving those aims. Efficiency and cost considerations are not a sufficient basis for a pilot. It makes it absolutely clear that pilots can be conducted only for the purposes of promoting children’s best interests and for no other reason.
Another important aspect of the new clause is that it sets out areas of legislation that the power cannot be used to revisit. That should remove any lingering concerns that some hon. Members expressed on Second Reading that pilots may be undertaken for the wrong reasons. In particular, it makes it clear that the power cannot be used to allow local authorities to contract out functions to profit-making organisations. While I confess to being puzzled by some of the debate that characterised the power wholly inaccurately as a means to privatisation, subsection (3) puts the issue beyond doubt.
Steve McCabe
Will the Minister clarify something? Unless I have misunderstood something, the new clause does not refer to pilots at all. What we are legislating for is the power for the Minister to make regulations to change the way in which local authorities deliver some services or meet some requirements. I do notice, however, that subsection (5) says that local authorities must apply to use the power. When they apply, will they have to propose a clear pilot that expresses what the innovation is, what the changes are and what they are designed to achieve, or will they simply have to say, “I’d like to change this regulation as it applies to us at the present time”?
Edward Timpson
To address the two points the hon. Gentleman made, we are introducing pilots because we are testing, in very controlled circumstances, a different way of carrying out the functions of a local authority: what they have to do and how they propose to do it in a different way. We will then be in a position to consider that in the controlled way that I will set out regarding both the process and the safeguards that follow, so that we have the evidence that, as I said at the start, we need to have—I think every hon. Member would agree—before we consider making any change more profound than simply piloting something that a local authority wanted to test as a way of establishing a new way of working.
I will come on to explain what that process is, because it is tightly controlled and heavily safeguarded which, in many respects, is unprecedented when compared with, for instance, the pilots under the previous Labour Government in relation to social work practices. I commend the Labour Government on setting those up, because they tried to find new ways of working within social work and they have led to some different ways of delivering those types of services—in Stafford, for example. That was done in a similar way by setting up pilots, testing ideas, seeing whether they would be successful and were something with which others might want to proceed.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that changes to the duties would ever have been the subject of a successful application for the use of the power. Under the process and safeguards put in place, the case simply could not have been made that modifying one of the duties could result in better outcomes for children. However, by excluding them from the power, that point is put beyond doubt. The power to innovate is about testing changes to how local authorities deliver services, not questioning their fundamental responsibilities to children and young people.
Kate Green
Does the Minister agree that it is important for local authorities to consult the child’s school on the impact of new ways of working on education?
Edward Timpson
The hon. Lady makes a strong point. We are talking about others who are relevant to that child and need to be consulted, and I concur with her that it will be important for the school to be involved in the consultation to make sure that there is a full and rounded view of what the impact may be on children in that area.
When the local authority has completed its consultation, it will make an application to the Secretary of State, and Government new clause 6 provides that if she decides to take the application forward, she should consult the expert advisory panel, which will provide significant independent scrutiny of any application. The panel will consist of two standing members, the Children’s Commissioner and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector. The Secretary of State will also appoint other individuals who hold expertise relevant to the subject matter of an application, including representation from local government, social work practice, the voluntary sector and experts in the evaluation of pilots. The panel will be able to comment in full on an application.
In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, the panel, which is independent and has relevant expertise, will be able to comment fully on any application by a local authority under this provision. It will be asked particularly to provide advice on three key areas: first, the impact of a pilot on children; secondly, the capability of the authority to achieve the purpose of the application; and, thirdly, the adequacy of the monitoring arrangements. The panel’s advice will be published to ensure the process is transparent. When the Secretary of State has considered the panel’s advice, she will decide whether to continue with the process and, if so, she must gain Parliament’s approval. Government new clause 4 sets out the parliamentary scrutiny that each application to use the power must undergo before it is granted.
We have already sought to strengthen scrutiny in the other place to increase the types of application that would go through the affirmative resolution procedure. Changes to both primary and secondary legislation that originally passed through the affirmative procedure will follow that affirmative procedure. Only secondary legislation passed through the negative procedure and applications by the Secretary of State to end a pilot by revoking regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
In addition, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an explanation of how the purpose is expected to be achieved and an assessment of the impact on children. That, alongside the panel’s advice, will provide a critical means for Members to scrutinise the pilot before agreeing that it can proceed or be rejected. I contend that this very comprehensive process will ensure that full and proper safeguards are in place.
Government new clause 3 makes it clear that all pilots should be time limited to a maximum of three years, after which they will automatically come to an end. There is provision for the pilot period to be extended only once for an additional three years. Such an extension could be used when a pilot is successful but the Government need further time to make provision to roll it out across the country. Before a pilot can be extended, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament that clearly identifies the extent to which the pilot has achieved its specified purpose up to that point.
To ensure that the monitoring and evaluation of pilots is transparent and learning is shared, Government new clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to provide an annual report for each year a pilot has been in place. This report will provide a central source of information on the progress of pilots and bring together resulting learning. Government new clause 7 sets out a provision for the Government to issue statutory guidance to local authorities that will include how the power should be used, or not used, in particular circumstances; how it should be monitored and evaluated; and the qualities local authorities will be expected to demonstrate in applying for the power. The guidance will ensure that there are clear standards and expectations of local authorities in applying for the power. We will consult publicly on the statutory guidance so that all interested parties have a say in how the power works.
I appreciate that this is a new approach, so it is understandable that some colleagues have raised questions and have sought additional safeguards. We have listened to such concerns very carefully and the new clauses before the Committee are substantially different from those that were discussed in the other place. The scope of what could now be allowed is much tighter and the safeguards, consultation and transparency are even more robust. That has allowed some leading members of the children’s services voluntary sector to lend their weight to our ambition and comment positively on the new clauses.
For example, the Children’s Society, one of the country’s leading children’s charities, feels that changes we have made enable it to support the new clauses. It says:
“The Children’s Society welcome the Government’s commitment to innovation in children’s social care and are supportive of their intention to allow local authorities to test new ways of working in a time-limited, safe, transparent and well-evaluated way. We are of the view that the Government have listened to the concerns raised by the sector and have taken significant steps to ensure that the intention behind the power is clear, and that robust safeguards have been put in place.”
Similarly, Barnardo’s supports the power and the changes that we have made. It says:
“During the passage of this Bill, the Government has taken on board a number of our concerns, and we believe that the current proposed system for testing innovation will be safer and more transparent than what the Government originally sought to introduce. We particularly welcome the provisions which ensure that local authorities will not be permitted to question the fundamentals of what they do to support children whilst allowing scope for piloting new ways of working. Stronger safeguards have also been put in place to improve consultation and accountability.”
Those are strong endorsements of the approach the Government have taken from those who have a strong interest in ensuring that children get a better deal from the community and the services that they require.
Before I ask hon. Members to support the new clauses, I want to end by saying that I would not be doing this or asking the Government, as they have, to support these new clauses in the their entirety, if I did not have a strong view that their sole purpose—and the motivation behind them—is to improve outcomes for vulnerable children.
If I thought there was a better way to deal with the current system, where too many children are still being failed, I would welcome it. We are working to ensure that where children’s services are inadequate we tackle that. Since 2010, we have turned around 34 local authority children’s services that were deemed to be failing children in their areas.
What I am not prepared to do is just accept the status quo, when I have local authorities telling me that they could do a better job for children if they were given the opportunity to do so. The new clauses seek to provide them with that opportunity whilst ensuring that their responsibilities for those children remain as strong as ever. I do not intend to do anything for children other than try to make their lives better, and I hope hon. Members will agree.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I apologise at the outset that my comments are rather long but they are entirely relevant to the Government’s new clauses. As I listened to the Minister, I hoped he would offer some clarity on a number of key issues that have rightly plagued these Government plans to allow councils to opt out of primary and secondary protective legislation for vulnerable children and young people. I want that sentence to sink in with the Committee for a moment.
The Minister is asking us to approve a power that threatens vast swathes of hard-fought legislation that was carefully crafted in the proper way, rooted in robust evidence and consultation with the sector, children and families, often in the wake of tragedies and failures that should not have occurred, and that had cross-party commitment to better protect and provide for children and young people.
Of course, not all children’s social care legislation has evolved because things have gone desperately wrong. Many statutory requirements in the care system, in leaving care and in support for families have emerged through creative practice and innovation, but I fear that after the Bill, innovation will be forever associated with the removal of legal protection. That does a terrible disservice to all the excellent projects, pilots and world-leading practice that have developed in children’s social care across the decades.
The Minister is asking us to hand the Secretary of State unprecedented power to dispense with primary and secondary legislation without any prior Green or White Paper consultation, any public evidence sessions, as there should have been for such a radical change, or any evidence that any of the endangered legislation works against children’s welfare. Once an exemption or modification to the law has been authorised, the trials could last up to six years—that is a long time for a child reliant on the state for his or her care and protection.
Our most vulnerable children are being used as guinea pigs. That is no exaggeration. Look at the transcript of the Lords debate that led to the first incarnation of these awful clauses being kicked out. These so-called innovation clauses were described several times by noble Lords, even those on the Government side, as an experiment. Do we really want to give consent to such high-risk experiments when local authorities are facing extreme funding pressures and increased demand? Nagalro warned in its evidence to the Committee:
“Anything which helps spread the budget further is going to be greeted”
with great enthusiasm in County Hall. It also warned that the Bill risks introducing perverse incentives into a system already buckling under great strain.
To say that I am deeply disappointed that the Government have chosen to reinsert the measures in new clauses despite their blistering defeat in the Lords is a total understatement. The fact that the Lords succeeded in deleting a whole set of clauses—a rarity in either House—should have been a red-flag warning that the proposals are dangerous. Yet here they are again, with further amendments, none of which allay the serious and substantial concerns raised in the Lords and elsewhere. The Committee has received extensive evidence from concerned organisations and individuals about the grave risk to children and young people. We have been warned that the new clauses give the Government a blank cheque to remove legal protection. We are being asked to agree a job lot of measures where virtually every requirement made for all vulnerable children and young people could be axed for some at a future date.
The Minister claims that he has listened to the views expressed by peers and other stakeholders and that he has made substantial changes to the clauses, but he has not, and the risks to children and young people have not gone away.
Edward Timpson
The hon. Lady says that we have not made any substantial changes, so what has she to say about the quotes that I gave from the Children’s Society and the Barnardo’s, which say that we have done precisely that? The Children’s Society said that
“the government have listened to the concerns raised by the sector and have taken significant steps to ensure that the intention behind the power is clear, and that robust safeguards have been put in place.”
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister, like me, will be well aware that while the charities may have expressed support in their submissions to the Committee, they have also expressed concern. The fact is that there are only three organisations, so far as I am aware, that support the new clauses.
Edward Timpson
I am happy for the hon. Lady to make her case. The purpose of having this Committee and the debate is for the House to make a decision, but I am afraid that what she says is simply not the case. Among those who support the new clauses are Anthony Douglas from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Mark Costello from Foster Care Associates, the Children’s Society, Barnado’s, SOLACE, which is the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, and Chris Wright, chief executive of Catch22. Debbie Glassbrook from the National Independent Reviewing Officers Managers Partnership, a whole host of local authorities and associated bodies—including Achieving for Children, Leeds City Council and others—and the ADCS and the LGA also support the new clauses.
The hon. Lady has to be careful that she does not characterise the debate as all being on one side of the equation. There are those who have listened carefully to the arguments, including Barnado’s and the Children’s Society, and who have always supported innovation. They are clear that they are happy that the changes we have made reassure them enough to support the measures.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that intervention. He mentioned approximately 10 or so organisations that he feels are in support.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
However, there are nigh-on 50, if not more that are against this. I will discuss this later in my comments.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I invite the hon. Lady, either now or later in her remarks, to set out what she has, in principle, against professional local authority officers and elected local councillors seeking to serve their communities to tailor services to meet local need and demand, compared with the man in Whitehall with the bowler hat and the umbrella, who seems, in her mindset, to know best. What has she got against the localism agenda in respect to tailored local solutions?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I will come on to that later in my comments. To clarify, I have nothing against local authorities knowing what is right for them and making decisions. [Interruption.] However, this is a slightly different case and if the hon. Gentleman keeps calm and listens, I will get to my point.
Another change concerns statutory requirements selected by the Government for special treatment. There are six sections of the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004 and one part of one schedule to the Children Act 1989 that cannot be touched by this new power. I am sure I am not alone in wondering how the Minister came to select this list of core legal duties. Can he explain how he decided that the many remaining duties in the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004 and their associated statutory instruments could, in principle, be disapplied? How did he decide that none of the children’s social service functions in any of the following Acts of Parliament are worth saving: the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the Mental Health Act 1983, the Housing Act 1996, the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and the Care Act 2014?
Are we really being shown a glimpse of a brave new world where all that will be left of children’s social care legislation could be these six saved sections of two Acts of Parliament? I point the Committee to some of the frightening scenarios sent to us by Dr Ray Jones. We cannot say that we have not been warned how dangerous these new clauses are.
Children’s rights charity Article 39 has listed a number of statutory requirements that could be removed. These include—although this is not exhaustive—a local authority’s duty to provide accommodation to children it is looking after, assess the support needs of disabled children as they approach adulthood, allow children in its care to have reasonable contact with their parents and visit children it looks after. Is the Minister really convinced that none of these duties are fundamental to promoting and safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable children and young people? Why is there such resistance to undertaking a public consultation prior to the introduction of these clauses? Does the Minister not want to ensure that he and his Government have got this 100% right?
Let us also remember that part of this Bill will also be under threat of exemption once—and if—it receives Royal Assent. In fact, every single future children’s social services function that this House introduces will have a fragile and uncertain existence if we allow these new clauses to go ahead.
The Minister has written to the concerned parties, claiming these new clauses are about empowering the frontline. The frontline does not want these powers. The vast and varied range of organisations that have submitted evidence to the Committee want us to reject these new clauses. In fact, 47 organisations have come together specifically with the goal of opposing these new clauses.
The Government set out their stall on this radical new power in their strategy “Putting children first”, which was published in July last year, two months after the Bill appeared. It said that exemption trials would offer
“a controlled environment in which we could enable local authorities to test deregulatory approaches that are not currently possible, before taking a decision to make substantial changes to existing legislation that would apply across the board.”
Any proposed full repeal of legislation would have to come back to Parliament—I understand that—but for trials to have any credible and reliable influence on future legislation, they must be ethical and robust. Nagalro has correctly told us that if a local authority obtains an exemption, all the children in its jurisdiction will be subject to it whether they agree with it or not. They will have no individual say in the matter. What on earth does the Minister envisage happening if some children who do not agree come back to a future Government and claim that they were treated wrongly compared with those in neighbouring authorities?
In “Putting children first”, the chief social worker for children and families asserted:
“We must be enabled to use our professional judgment in flexible and creative ways, rather than having to follow a procedural path”
or a set of “legal rules.” The chief social worker avoiding having to follow legal rules is concerning and not a positive message for social workers or those considering joining the profession. Who would choose to work in a local authority that has fewer duties to vulnerable children and young people than its neighbouring councils?
Edward Timpson
I am grateful to hon. Lady for giving way again—she is being generous. I want to probe her point about legal rules and people working in children’s services not wanting to be more expansive in using their professional judgement around those rules. Does she think that the opportunity that some local authorities have taken of pulling together their initial and core assessments to have a single continuum of assessment, and not having to comply with the strict timescales set out in regulation, is a good idea? We must bear in mind that the evidence suggests not only that the quality of those assessments has improved as a consequence, but that the timescales have improved as well, because not working to a 40-day or any other time limit has resulted in more timely assessment.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was in secondary legislation, not primary legislation. These new clauses are about changing primary legislation. He has said that 34 local authorities have been turned around, and that was without changes to primary legislation. What prohibits social workers from doing their job—they see this time and again—is not primary legislation but guidance that varies from authority to authority, such as local authorities prescribing that children under two have to be visited every other day. We do not need primary legislation to change such things.
Edward Timpson
Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Those were indeed regulations that I was referring to, but I was trying to tease out from her whether she disagrees as a matter of principle with what the chief social worker was trying to say—that religiously following rules does not always lead to the best service being provided to children, and that local authorities that are more innovative and find different ways to provide services can be successful on the back of such changes. I wanted to find out whether she objected to that approach, or whether there was some other reason why she feels that something that happens under secondary legislation would not be appropriate for primary legislation.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I have a problem with the chief social worker wanting to opt out of legal rules that have been in place and protected children in this country for decades and that are in primary legislation. That is our argument today.
Children England says that the exemption clauses would represent an unprecedented constitutional challenge to the principle of universal application of primary legislation everywhere and at all times throughout the land, and an equally fundamental challenge to the primacy of Parliament. At most, an exemption would require an affirmative resolution in Parliament, and such motions are almost never opposed. Historically, Parliament has passed 9,999 of 10,000 resolutions since 1965. What is the emergency that causes such far-reaching legislation? No evidence has been presented to explain why we are being asked to agree to the undoing of decades of protection. The fact is that it is not legislation that hinders effective children’s social care.
Professor June Thoburn, who received a prestigious award last year for her outstanding contribution to social work, said that none of the substantial body of research—some Government-funded and some independently funded—on the workings of the Children Act 1989, as amended, points to the need for any specific sections of the legislation to be suspended on the grounds that they are impeding flexible and good-quality practice. Action for Children and the NSPCC briefed the Commons in December, stating:
“Despite numerous conversations with ministers and officials, ?the evidence for the need for this power remains unconvincing and does not justify the potential risks of suspending primary legislation.”
The Department’s own factsheet accompanying the amendments states that local authorities have raised some ideas on how this power could be used, such as removing the requirement for an independent reviewing officer to be present at all reviews because some—only some—children say they do not want IROs present or to chair their reviews. That wrongly suggests that reviews are nothing more than a meeting or that the law prevents children from chairing review meetings. As the National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers has explained, IROs have a great deal of discretion in how they manage reviews for children and young people and are guided by the young person as to how they wish to make arrangements for their own reviews.
In 2015, the care planning regulations were amended by the DFE to allow children in recognised long-term foster placements to have increased flexibility in how their care plans are reviewed, and in particular to reduce the number of meetings if they wish. It is therefore a concern that there is so little understanding of the IRO role among those who seek to reduce or remove it.
IROs were created in response to judicial concerns that care plans agreed in care proceedings were not being followed. They are completely independent from day-to-day decisions. Without that independent oversight, a child may well be very unhappy in their placement, with no one to turn to. What if that child’s situation changes? Worse still, what if they are abused and have no relationship with their social worker and no IRO, and their carers are complicit in that abuse? We remove safeguards such as this at our peril.
Besides bringing an end to universal IROs, the factsheet includes four more examples affecting disabled children, adoption and fostering assessments, and care leavers. There are five examples in all in the Minister’s factsheet, with fewer than two pages of information, that could extinguish swathes of our legislation.
The Committee has been presented with more evidence against these amendments in a single month than the Government have managed to produce in favour of them in eight months. We have received detailed submissions from distinguished academics such as Professor Mike Stein, who has been researching the problems and challenges faced by care leavers for more than 40 years. He warns of the risk of returning to the failures of a discretionary system that resulted in both territorial and service injustices.
For robust critiques of each of the examples in the factsheet, I recommend that Members look at the submission from CoramBAAF. It says that removing legal protection from children on the basis of geography legally entrenches a postcode lottery, which the Minister has acknowledged and referred to as some small-scale variations in the past. He should be focusing on ending variation in children’s social care provision, not legitimising and increasing it.
I will repeat a line I have quoted before in this Committee from the NAO report “Children in need of help or protection”:
“Nationally the quality of help and protection for children is unsatisfactory and inconsistent, suggesting systemic rather than just local failure.”
The amendments do nothing to remedy that—indeed, experts tell us that they are likely to make matters a whole lot worse. Children and families living close by but across local authority boundaries could have different rights, and councils could have different statutory responsibilities. Courts would cover local authority areas where the law, as amended by the Secretary of State, was not uniform and not consistent. That could create a dangerous patchwork of legal protection.
Edward Timpson
I ask the hon. Lady to be very careful. I would like to know what she is insinuating.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister; I will get to what I am insinuating very soon.
Some local authorities are being placed in an impossible situation. If they do not back the Government, is it fair to assume that they will not receive funding—especially given that, last October, many of them received a rather threatening letter from the chief social worker stating that if they did not back the new clauses they could never again complain about bureaucracy and grandly suggesting that this was a once-in-a-lifetime chance for them all to do the right thing? If she is so certain that this policy is in the interests of young people and children, why has she not shared her thinking with the Committee? It is telling that the Committee has received no evidence from her.
The fact is that the Local Government Association is being placed under immense pressure to back the new clauses. Is it not the case that only a small number of local authorities, if any, back them? Can the Minister tell the Committee that the Secretary of State’s intervention powers will never be used to coerce local authorities into applying for exemptions?
My final comments concern the Minister being well aware that much of the anxiety about the new clauses comes from the fear that they pave the way for the privatisation of child protection services. Despite new clause 2(3), those fears legitimately remain. If the Government are so resoundingly against profit in child protection, why, in the explanatory memorandum attached to the 2014 regulations, do they advise companies that subsidiaries of profit-making companies are not banned from running such services?
The Deregulation Act 2015 now means that social work services to individual looked-after children and care leavers operating outside local authorities are no longer required to register with Ofsted. Add to that the LaingBuisson review, commissioned by the Department at the behest of the chief social worker and two others, which gives advice on how the market could flourish in children’s social work and says that independent providers are happy to play the long game on a journey to whole-system outsourcing.
Companies such as G4S, Serco and Virgin Care have all attended meetings with the Department to consider how they can play a role in delivering and shaping statutory children’s social care services. It is little wonder that very few trusted the motivation behind the original clauses or that fears persist that behind this power is an insatiable appetite for breaking up children’s social care. The Minister has tried to distance himself from this report for which his Department wrote the terms of reference and which it funded, yet refused to release for a considerable time. Perhaps it is waiting until the Bill has passed through both Houses.
If the Minister really means what he says about profit and child protection, he should be seeking to prohibit subsidiaries of profit-making companies from delivering social care functions. Getting legislation right in children’s social care is extremely important. Our legal duties are vital in protecting those most in need. We should always approach change in this area with great care and caution, to ensure that children and young people are not put in any jeopardy.
The new clauses have no place at all in the Bill. I implore hon. Members to reject them and to bring an end to the enormous fear and concern that have built up outside the walls of this place. The Minister has not fully responded to the comprehensive critique from the Lords, and there remains a gaping black hole as to which legislation the sector is crying out to be exempted from, and who on earth is crying out for the exemption.
The Government should withdraw the new clauses as a matter of honour and out of respect for the vulnerable children and young people who depend on the legal protections that Parliament has given them over decades. The Minister may then undertake some robust and meaningful consultation, and could return to the House later if he wished.
Simon Hoare
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. We should be grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for sharing with us her Momentum-commissioned essay; possibly the instruction was “Write an essay about what you think a wicked Tory Government might want to do with regard to children’s social services”—that is, without actually having seen any of the new clauses that the Minister has tabled.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I assure the Committee that I have read the new clauses, thank you very much.
Simon Hoare
It is an enormous shame that having read them the hon. Lady did not include them, or edit her speech having reflected on them. I am not entirely sure—[Interruption.]
Simon Hoare
Thank you, Mrs Main. I have great respect for the hon. Member for South Shields, and it is with great respect that I say that I do not think she has read the clauses. She seemed to conjure up a picture in which the current rules and regulations are perfect and the best practice and statutory requirements set out for local authorities to follow are so beyond any form of change or improvement that there should be no scope for innovation. [Interruption.] I do not want to detain the Committee too long.
One might almost think that the cases of Baby P and Victoria Climbié, for example, had never taken place. I am in no way suggesting that the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Minister will guarantee that such atrocities do not happen again, but there may well be benefits from the use of local professional expertise and from local authorities’ designing of innovative proposals for better care of vulnerable young people.
Simon Hoare
I give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who looks as if he may burst a blood vessel unless I do.
Steve McCabe
My blood vessels are in good shape, I am happy to say. Given the hon. Gentleman’s extensive understanding of the subject, would he care to say which specific item of legislation he would like local authorities to be exempted from at the moment, to advance innovation in child social work?
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap of misreading or misconstruing, accidentally or otherwise, the purpose of the new clauses. We can all read them, but the Opposition Front Bencher has characterised—
Simon Hoare
No. The way the hon. Lady has characterised the proposals in her remarks is—I conjure up a scenario—that someone from some town or city hall knocks on the door of the Secretary of State and says, “I have a whizzy idea: we are going to do this,” and the Secretary of State says, “Oh, that sounds quite interesting—go ahead and do it,” in some secret smoke-filled-room deal.
Let us look at new clause 2: it talks about the purpose of helping to promote physical and mental health. Contrary to what the hon. Lady said, it is also about
“taking into account the views, wishes and feelings of children or young people”.
That is in subsection (1)(c). As to the idea that there is carte blanche for the private sector, I suggest that she look at subsection (3), which specifies a different set of criteria. The hon. Lady talked about six years as a de facto, but if she looks at the new clauses she will see that the period can be up to three years with one further three-year extension, which makes six years—not six years from the outset, as the hon. Lady said. The Secretary of State will also need to be persuaded of the need for an extension.
It is not only the Secretary of State. We are very lucky to have a Minister who, owing to his personal family experience, is recognised for his interest in and understanding of this subject. However, my hon. Friend will not always be the Minister in charge. The Bill is not couched or tabled in a way that purely relies on the bespoke integrity of my hon. Friend. New clause 6 clearly tells us of the new obligations on the Secretary of State. They
“must invite an expert panel to give advice about…the capability of the authority”,
because it is absolutely key that the authority should have the wherewithal, financial skills and so on to be able to deliver the innovation. That advice must also assess “the likely impact” and
“the adequacy of any measures that will be in place to monitor the impact”.
The idea that the hon. Lady did her best to present to the Committee as the root of her opposition to the new clauses—that finger in the air, pie in the sky, blue-sky thinking ideas would merely require the sign-off of a Secretary of State—is, I think, a gross distortion of what the new clauses intend. If the hon. Lady and her Opposition colleagues have no faith in the independent veracity of, for example, the Children’s Commissioner or the chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills, who are stipulated in new clause 6(2)(a) and (b) to provide advice to the Secretary of State, I think that is a poor state of affairs.
On the consultation, new clause 6(4) and (5) clearly state the timetable and the trigger for action that the Secretary of State must follow. I do not see the new clauses as a way for local authorities to duck out of their obligations. I served on a Local Government Association panel for several years, and I must tell the hon. Lady that the LGA is unbeatable and incoercible; if it thinks a Government of whatever stripe are doing something wrong, it will always tell the Government that that is the case.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The fact is that local government is split on this issue; there is not a consensus. In relation to all of the times the hon. Gentleman refused to give way, he should go back and read Hansard; he has misquoted everything I have said and I look forward to his apology.
Simon Hoare
I will certainly be reading Hansard; I do not quite follow William Hague’s example of reading it under the bedclothes at 2 o’clock in the morning, but I shall look at what the hon. Lady said; if I have misconstrued her, I will of course apologise unreservedly. However, I took from what she said and how she presented her arguments that this will give carte blanche to a Secretary of State, in cahoots with a chief executive or a head of children’s services in a local authority, to find a way to deliver below-the-radar financial savings and to deliver some sort of third or fourth-rate children’s protection, and that there is a whole cadre of local authority professionals who are desperate to be freed from the shackles of statute, regulation and guidance.
I was not quite sure what the hon. Lady was moving us towards in her thinking—whether those people will turn around and say, “Gosh, we are now free of all of that, we are saving ourselves a huge amount of money; we can sit around and have a cup of tea and a biscuit and talk about things in a rather ideological or theoretical way”, or whether they are going to pilot things that are so conspicuously dangerous and ill-advised for young people that there would be an enormous rise in the amount of terrible cases. That is the impression with which the hon. Lady left me and, I suggest, other Government Committee members.
Kate Green
It is not quite the same. What concerns me is that as a result of these proposals we will see the risk that currently good joint working across agencies may become fragmented. That particularly troubles me in relation to children within the ambit of the criminal justice system, who are very under-addressed in this legislation. The hon. Gentleman has just said that, as a local councillor himself, he thought that there were really good opportunities to work with officers to devise good quality, flexible local solutions. Can he give me an example of that kind of achievement in the local authority of which he is a member—or indeed any other local authority?
Simon Hoare
I certainly defer to the hon. Lady, who has a wealth of experience in this area, far greater and wider than I have. I will leave the point she makes about young people in the criminal justice system for the Minister to comment on, because I am not entirely sure about that. I think it is best to say that.
On the opportunity for joint working, if the hon. Lady looks at local government she will see shared services and joint chief executives and joint directors of this, that and the other, and councils coming together in order to safeguard frontline services, often across geographical boundaries. I was a councillor in Oxfordshire, where we hooked up with three councils in Gloucestershire to do all sorts of things.
The order of general competence contained in the 2011 Localism Act allows for that to continue and flourish, where there is joined-up working between local authorities and statutory partners and others, under these new clauses. All it will mean is a discussion between two, three or four parties to see if they want to buy into an innovative idea which they will then take to the Secretary of State.
To conclude, I think the new clauses are absolutely right. The tone and the tenor of the debate in the other place was a gross distortion of what the Government wish to do. That was certainly echoed in the remarks of my noble friend Lord True, leader of Richmond Council. Chris Wright, the Chief Executive of Catch22 said:
“Rather than restricting social workers to box ticking”—
that is not saying we are taking away all the boxes, there will still be boxes to tick, of course—
“we should give them the power to build interventions based upon their professional expertise”.
This clause moves us closer to the goal of more human services that work for children and their families. The phrase “human services” certainly struck a chord with me. These new clauses should be supported. The argument deployed by the hon. Lady should be resisted most strongly.
Steve McCabe
I agree with the Minister in welcoming innovation in our approach to children’s services. It is something he and I have in common. We both have a history of working with children in this area, and I welcome measures designed to free up social workers to do better for children.
When a Government embark on a radical change of this nature, we normally have some kind of preparation for that change. There might be a Green Paper or a White Paper, or extensive consultation to allow us to shape what will happen. What seems to be happening—I do not know whether this is what the Minister intends—is that we are legislating without any real sense of what the pilots are designed to do and without any real description of them. In fact, the Bill does not refer to pilots at all, and for all anyone knows, they could be an exercise in exempting local authorities from long-standing primary legislation.
I accept that the notion of pilots exists in the Minister’s mind and that that is his intention, but it is not clear from what we are debating or from what we are being asked to vote on, and will not be the result of the legislative changes. I do not want to restrict or inhibit any effort at innovation, but it would be useful if he could give the Committee an explanation of why he is departing so radically from the normal approach to these changes in the way he has decided to proceed.
I have some specific questions about what will happen. We debated the three-year limit with the potential extension of a further three years, but what will happen at the end of six years? Let us suppose that a pilot is an outstanding success. Will the Minister then legislate for the change to be applied across the entire country, or will the exemption simply lapse at the end of that period? As the hon. Member for North Dorset reminded us, the Minister might not be in post forever. Let us suppose there is a change. What will happen to the policy then?
Kate Green
I agree that we need to know what the intention is if these pilots roll out successfully, but do we not also need to know what will happen if they roll out unsuccessfully and whether there is any scope for early cancellation of an experiment if it is harming children?
Steve McCabe
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would be helpful if the Minister could make his intention clear to the Committee. It would be horrific if people were trapped in a failing system for three years because the legislation was passed in such haste that no one had envisaged what should be done if something went wrong. We seem to have had enough examples of that in legislation for children over the years.
I am genuinely curious to know what will happen if the pilots are successful. How will the Minister ensure that, if there is a change in the occupancy the post, what he seeks to do will continue beyond the six-year period? He mentioned the Labour pilots as an example of this not being particularly new, and that is the case, but if I remember correctly, those pilots were tied to sunset clauses that had to be renewed in legislation. I seem to recall being in this very Committee Room when he proposed a statutory instrument to enable one of the Labour pilot provisions to be converted into law.
Will the Minister say a little more about research into the pilots? I have no problem with his panel of experts. They look like people we should be able to rely on; I hope we can. As I understand it, their role will be to assess the initial offer and proposal. We need to know about the thorough examination of the pilot.
How will we know that it is a success? Presumably, we are not going to rely simply on the local authority saying, “Hey, this has worked. Isn’t it good?” Will the Minister tell us whether there will be a requirement, when the local authority introduces the measure, for it to describe exactly how the proposals are to be assessed and measured, so that the expert panel can take that into consideration? Will he also tell us whether this innovation will cover only a single local authority introducing a pilot, or is it likely that two or three local authorities in partnership could come to him with a specific proposal?
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a particularly important question in the context of Greater Manchester, for example, where children’s services are the responsibility of each of the 10 local authorities? There may well be a wish to look across the footprint of the whole Greater Manchester conurbation when we move forward with the Government’s devolution plans.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend because she anticipates what I was going to ask. This proposal comes at a time when a lot of other innovation is taking place in local government. We have the proposals in Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the West Midlands Combined Authority. I am not clear how this measure would fit with a proposal from one of those authorities. I am not trying to be clever; I assume the Minister has discussed this with colleagues and some thought has been given to it. It is part of the question about what happens after three or six years. I am interested to know how the proposal would make progress. I do not want to dwell on this matter.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am sure the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend’s points but I asked the Minister in written questions what would happen after the six-year period. The response was that it would not be possible for a trial to be extended beyond six years. So, even if this measure works, it will be totally pointless because it will not be extended beyond six years.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assumed that it could not be the case that we would spend hours in Committee legislating for something that could be a success but would simply end after six years. It is important, since we are being asked to make decisive changes to primary legislation, that the Minister provides answers not just for the Opposition but for his own Back Benchers, as they may have to explain this in their constituencies. That would be very helpful.
I want to deal with the question of who is or is not supporting the Minister’s proposals. It is always difficult when a Minister starts reading a list. The rule of thumb is that his officials find a list of supporting organisations and give it to the Minister so he can read it out. That is standard and happens in every Government. What the Minister never mentions are the people who do not share his view.
Edward Timpson
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman—I am sure this issue is something he will follow through—that the process I set out earlier is very clear. Every application that goes through that very rigorous process, which includes the application going through the expert panel and the Secretary of State then deciding whether to go ahead with a pilot, has to be put before Parliament so that it can decide whether that pilot should go ahead. It is a time-limited pilot; it does not change any legislation on the statute book in relation to children’s social care. There is rightly an opportunity for Parliament to have its say and express its view.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful to the Minister. It is absolutely fair that by negative or affirmative resolution there will be an opportunity for a small weighted Committee of Members of Parliament—like all Committees, its membership will be determined by the parliamentary majority—to determine that outcome. I would not want to mislead the Committee by pretending otherwise. None the less, the crucial decision about giving the Minister a blank cheque to remove protections will be taken today by this Committee. We will find out the consequences of that decision further down the line. That is the point I am seeking to make. In my view, that is innovative, but I am not sure it is the kind of innovation I want to be associated with.
Kate Green
I had not planned to speak at this point, but a number of points that have come up in the past hour have raised further questions in my mind, and I hope that the Minister will allow me to explore a few of them a little more. It is important to say to all Members that no Labour Member is against innovation or the notion that we should take seriously a lot of the ideas and suggestions of local experts around local circumstances, but when it comes to child protection, we have a long history in this country of learning from when things go wrong, and it is important that we protect that learning. Much of the range of child safeguarding legislation that we have today has been a result of very dire consequences for very vulnerable children.
It is therefore important that we are mindful of what we could be unpicking, particularly given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, pointed out, we have got a permission in advance that says, “Go off and do what you like, and then come back and tell us how it went.” That causes some concern for Opposition Members. May I ask the Minister specifically whom he sees as being accountable for the outcome of a pilot authorised by him or the Secretary of State, particularly if it has caused harm to an individual child? It is really important that the public understand who is responsible and ultimately accountable in those circumstances. As he knows, those are the most difficult, public, contentious and distressing cases; it is very important that we know where the buck stops.
Steve McCabe
I do not want to get too bogged down in detail. The Minister may need time to answer this, but I am curious: if the circumstances he just described led to a court case over a care outcome, with one local authority arguing that it had never supported the exemption and the other having argued for it, how does he think that might affect the outcome of the judgment?
Kate Green
I am afraid I have no idea. The Minister might be able to offer his reflections on that—if not immediately, perhaps he could come back to the Committee in due course.
As well as social care, the other area where there is real interest in Greater Manchester in moving forward with a combined authority footprint is the justice system—both the criminal and family justice system. I declare an interest: I am a life member of the Magistrates Association, which has raised particular concerns and submitted written evidence to the Committee. I am very unclear what the intentions are in Greater Manchester in terms of reshaping the justice system on that combined conurbation footprint.
The Magistrates Association has rightly pointed to the useful work of Lord Laming, which highlighted the need for a much more integrated approach to young people in the youth justice system. There are concerns that such integration could be impacted if the proposed pilots do not specifically engage with the justice agencies with which those young children might come into contact. It is unclear what impact the proposals will have on the family courts and on young people in the criminal justice system.
This is my final question to the Minister. In Greater Manchester and more generally, how does he see relationships between local authorities making suggestions for innovation sitting alongside the relationships that need to exist with a whole range of other non-local authority services with which children and families come into contact? It is not clear to me what happens if a local authority says that it wants to innovate in a particular way and take advantage of exemptions from current statutory positions if other public authorities say that that really is not acceptable to them or may conflict with their statutory obligations. Will the Minister explain to the Committee how such potential conflicts would be handled?
Edward Timpson
I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions to this important debate, which have, understandably, provoked a lot of discussion on the attempt in these clauses to enable local authorities to try new ways of working with the sole purpose of improving children’s outcomes. We have had an opportunity to explore not only some of the detail around the process, which is a crucial part of this House’s scrutiny, but what we are seeking to achieve, and for me, that is ultimately the main driver behind these clauses.
I should say at the outset that the principle behind this approach is not necessarily new. I spoke earlier about the social work practices under the last Labour Government, and of course there are also the provisions that were brought in in 2002 by the last Labour Government to allow for innovation in education. In many ways, the proposals before us are closely modelled on those provisions. It is helpful to have that context when discussing how we try to do in children’s services what the last Labour Government tried to do in education.
I will do my best to address the many points made by hon. Members, and apologise in advance if I am unable to remember all of them, or to scribble quickly enough to ensure that I answer every question, but I will do my best. I want to start by talking about the question around the Secretary of State’s intervention in this process. I assure the House that it is absolutely not the Government’s intention to direct a local authority to use the power against its wishes. It is really crucial that the House understands that this is a grassroots power, designed for those working most closely for children; it is for them to decide how to use it. This is not a top-down policy. It is a bottom-up policy that enables local authorities, under their own steam, to come forward with their own ways of trying to improve outcomes for local children, which will then be closely scrutinised, as has already been set out. The Secretary of State’s powers of direction arise where a local authority is not discharging any of its children’s social care functions to an adequate standard. That is where it would apply.
Hon. Members have asked why we have chosen to exclude specific duties. I want to be clear that by excluding certain duties from the scope of the power, we are not signalling the wholesale disapplication of other duties that apply. The chief determinant of whether a pilot will be granted is whether it can promote one of the outcomes that I have outlined.
Steve McCabe
I think I must have misheard the Minister there. Did he say that it would apply where a local authority is not adequately discharging its duties?
Edward Timpson
What I said was that the Secretary of State only uses her powers of direction when they arise where a local authority is not discharging any of its children’s social care functions to an adequate standard. I apologise if I did not speak with enough eloquence, or provided one less word than necessary in that sentence to make it acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
There are many aspects of legislation where I expect local authorities would find it extremely difficult to demonstrate how a change would be in the best interests of children. We are seeking to remove a small number of specific duties because they reflect the core responsibilities of local authorities to protect the wellbeing of children. We have taken extensive legal advice on exactly what those core duties would be, based on the legislative framework, and we have also worked with local authorities to make sure that we have the right aspects and duties in place to ensure that they are out of scope. We aim to put that beyond doubt, so that these core duties cannot be revisited. [Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is itching to get up.
Edward Timpson
No, he is just listening intently. That is good to see. I should also reassure the hon. Member for South Shields that the principles that are set out—
Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Children and Social Work Act 2017 View all Children and Social Work Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 January 2017 - (10 Jan 2017)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Government new clause 3 —Duration.
Government new clause 4—Parliamentary procedure.
Government new clause 5—Consultation by local authority.
Government new clause 6—Consultation by Secretary of State.
Government new clause 7—Guidance.
Government new clause 8—Annual report.
Government new clause 9—Interpretation.
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Wilson. I am sure that Committee members have been spending their lunchtimes thinking carefully about what we spoke about this morning, and wondering what more I would say this afternoon. To ensure that we make good progress, I will address the specific points made before our break.
If I understood the hon. Member for South Shields correctly, she was questioning, as part of her response, whether the principles set out in the new clause were binding. I reassure her that any use of the power may be only for the purposes set out in the new clause, and for no other reason. That will also be clear in the statutory guidance. She also raised the issue of the Human Rights Act 1998; as with all legislation, new regulations would need to be compatible with the Act. The House also scrutinises all legislation.
Other hon. Members asked about situations in which a pilot was successful—as they will be in every case, we hope—or not successful. I will take a few moments to explain those two situations. All successful pilots will be evaluated so that we understand the impact and whether there is a case for permanent changes to the legislative framework. Such evaluation will be ongoing through the process, with a full review after three years.
If seeking to extend an exemption for a further three-year term, the Government would be required to report to Parliament. That would happen where the pilot has clearly demonstrated benefits, but the Government need additional time to decide whether it would work across the country. If, following a successful pilot, the Government decide that they would like to make the change for all local authorities, all the usual process would apply, including consultation and full parliamentary scrutiny. The pilot, however, is only the first step towards helping us build the evidence base on which we may want to make further changes in future.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify whether the evaluation would be independent? A concern expressed this morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak was that local authorities might be evaluating their own pilots—marking their own homework.
Edward Timpson
Part of the evaluation is through the expert panel, which is involved in ensuring some independent oversight of the pilot, but it would need to be evaluated locally, as well as nationally. In addition to local government, the Department will keep a close eye on the development of the pilot; I will say a little more about that later.
If a pilot is not successful, it will be monitored locally, as well as nationally by the Department, to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on children. For example, we can track the relevant performance metrics, and random case audits are a helpful tool as well. As I mentioned in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, the expert panel will scrutinise the proposed monitoring arrangements locally and by the Department to ensure that they are robust in what they are evaluating. If the Department gains intelligence through those processes that a pilot is not working in the best interests of children, that would be investigated and acted on immediately.
All regulations can be revoked through the negative procedure at any point. To answer a question posed earlier about whether a pilot can be terminated within the three-year period, I should say that it can be revoked at any point, should that be deemed necessary. That is clear in regulation. We will also want assurance in the application from a local authority that it will end a pilot immediately if there is evidence of an adverse impact on children.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I am not sure whether the Minister will include this in his comments, but is not putting in the provision that a pilot can be revoked at any point if it is causing harm to children a backward way of doing things? Will he not accept the comments made by me and my hon. Friends that there should be robust consultation? The Bill should be built on the evidence now—not after the fact, to remedy mistakes once they have been made.
Edward Timpson
I understand what the hon. Lady says and take it in good spirit, but it misses the point of what these clauses are about: building an evidence base. We cannot future-proof all of children’s social care on the basis that we are already seeing failure—I will come to the geographical spread of success and failure across the country—irrespective of the fact that we have a very rigid and complex legislative framework within which all these local authorities have to work. In itself, that framework is providing the inconsistencies that it is meant to prevent. What we are trying to do in the Bill, in a careful and controlled way, is enable different ways of working that are not about what local authorities have to do but about how they do it. That is the purpose of the new clauses.
Hon. Members also asked what would happen if there was a situation where more than one local authority was in a pilot. New clause 9 makes provision for combined authorities to apply for use of the power set out in it. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked in particular about the Greater Manchester combined authority, which I think involves 10 local authorities that are currently working on their own devolution settlement. Of course, that may involve children’s services, because I understand that such services are part of their agenda. Where there is a combined authority, we will want to see any application made under these provisions, just as we would for any individual local authority.
Similarly, if a local authority was running a pilot and subsequently became a combined authority, it would need to reapply for any change or extension of the pilot. We will make sure that that is set out in statutory guidance, because that would clearly be a change in circumstances in respect of what would have been approved originally by Parliament. As a consequence, the authority would need to seek further approval.
The hon. Member for South Shields also returned to the issue of profit making. As I have said before and will say again now, the power to innovate has absolutely nothing to do with profit making in children’s social care. The clauses make it clear that it cannot be used to revisit the established position on profit, and we have also been clear that pilots are granted on the basis of achieving better outcomes for children and not on efficiencies. I do not see any evidence that this process could be linked to profit making and we will make it clear in statutory guidance that the local authority will be expected to use the financial impact assessment as part of its application, detailing the expected costs and benefits of a pilot. That information will also be available to the expert panel when it scrutinises applications.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I have a point that I want to clarify quickly. The Minister said that new clause 9 refers to the situation of a combined authority, as established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Would it be possible for local authorities that do not fall within that state of affairs to come together? We have examples in London of local authorities that are already working jointly. Is there provision in what he is proposing for that kind of combination to exist? Also, regarding a specific combined authority, would it be possible for a Mayor to override his view about what provisions should apply?
Edward Timpson
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first point is yes, but of course the authority still has to comply with all the elements put in the applications and the process that follows in respect of the scrutiny of the application, and whether it is approved. There need to be very clear lines of responsibility and accountability within that, because ultimately it is the local authority that is responsible for providing those services; it holds that function.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about the Mayor, it is not one that I have been asked directly before; I know that it is becoming more relevant in some parts of the country. My initial view—I will clarify it later; if he does not mind, I will take some time to do that—would be that this is something approved by Parliament, which cannot be superseded by a Mayor or their powers. However, I will certainly seek to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets chapter and verse on that point.
I also wish to consider the issue around consultation, which hon. Members have raised. The Department has had a period of very open consultation about the power and it has spoken with a wide range of organisations, including representative bodies of social work, local government, the voluntary sector, children’s organisations and others. Those meetings have been instrumental—indeed, critical—in forming our thinking on the new clauses, but we will of course continue to consult as we develop the detail of the process. We have committed to consult publicly on the statutory guidance to accompany the clauses and, as I have said before, there will also be consultation on each individual use of the power.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Does the Minister not accept the information I shared with the Committee earlier: that there are far more organisations, practitioners and experts who are against the new clauses than are for them? More than 100,000 people have signed a petition against the measures. If the Minister really wanted to listen to the sector and the public, would he not be going back and deeply re-thinking the new clauses? Even the NSPCC has said:
“Despite numerous conversations with ministers and officials, the evidence for the need for this power remains unconvincing and does not justify the potential risks of suspending primary legislation.”
More than 50 organisations in this country who are experts in the field share that view. Why is the Minister not listening to them?
Edward Timpson
Of course I respect all the views expressed about the Government’s view on any policy. I am not somebody who will not listen; in fact, I dare suggest that I have a good track record of listening to those who have views on matters that fall within my portfolio. The truth is that no legislation under her party’s Government or this one has ever passed where people have expressed only one side of the argument. Can the hon. Lady tell me any different?
It is my job to listen to both sides of the argument but to come to a considered and informed view as a decision-maker in a position of responsibility to make legislation. I have already alluded to the many representations I have had that I cannot ignore, from the likes of the Local Government Association and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. I also mention the support from the Children’s Commissioner for the new clause, which I did not mention before. There is a balance to be struck. I accept that this is not an uncontroversial piece of legislation. It has provoked strong views, but is one on which, on balance, I think we have come to the right conclusion.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Unless I am misreading new clause 2 and onwards, it would provide a power to enable local authorities to explore an innovative way of working: there is no compulsion. If they decide not to do that—if they do not want to do innovative, blue-sky work or whatever we wish to call it—there is no obligation for them so to do. It is an enabling power; it is not an enforcing power.
Edward Timpson
My hon. Friend is right: the whole purpose is to ensure that this is a grassroots movement from a local level. There is no direction from Government about how local authorities decide they would like to provide the services they are responsible for. If no local authority applies, that is the end of the matter. The reason we are debating the clause is that local authorities have come forward and said that they want to be able to do that. It is important that we listen to those who are on the frontline, charged with making decisions and bringing policy into action, when they come to Government with a very clear view about what they think needs to be done.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I take the Minister’s point about consultation; there are always two sides to the argument, but the balance is heavily weighted against him on this measure. Other colleagues may correct me if I am wrong, but I have always held the belief that there is a history in this House of making child protection legislation—legislation that protects our most vulnerable children—on more of a cross-party consensus, as was the case with Children Act 1989, which is the flank of legislation used by all practitioners and all agencies when discharging functions in relation to protecting children.
The Minister said that local authorities are coming forward. I do not want to embarrass anyone, but when I asked one local authority that he had cited before as coming forward what power it wanted to be exempt from, it could not say. Is it not the case that there is just not enough support out there for these measures at all? The new clauses should be scrapped.
Edward Timpson
No. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady. To answer the earlier question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, the likes of Leeds City Council—one of our flagship children’s services councils—North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire County Council and the tri-borough, are all local authorities that have a strong track record in delivering high quality children’s social care. They understand the huge benefit that innovation in their services can make and has brought and they are at the front of the queue among those who want to trial many of these new ways of working. The tri-borough has said that it is
“excited about the ‘power to innovate’ clauses within the Children and Social Work bill. We believe this builds on the Munro Review of Child Protection in helping us to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and to enable social workers on the front line to spend more time working with families and less time sitting in front of their computers and filling in forms.”
North Yorkshire says that it
“welcomes the opportunity…On behalf of the wider LA sector we are keen to safely explore whether there are freedoms from current national requirements which could be used to enhance local practice.”
I am not prepared to ignore the views of those who I know are at the front of children’s social work, delivering excellent services, who are still looking to improve and can help others to do likewise.
Steve McCabe
The Minister is being generous. I am also grateful for the information he has provided about the authorities looking for the opportunity to innovate. Can he tell us what kind of exemptions they are seeking? What are the powers that they feel are currently restricting their innovating practice and which they are seeking to be freed from?
Edward Timpson
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman took the time to read the letter that I sent round to all Committee members, which set out a number of examples of how local authorities think the power can be used. There is no presumption that those would be granted, of course: any application would need to go through robust scrutiny before it was agreed, as I have set out.
Edward Timpson
I am just answering the question from the hon. Gentleman, if the hon. Lady could be patient for a few moments. If the hon. Gentleman rereads the letter, he will remember that it talks about testing changes to the planning processes, trialling new approaches to the independent reviewing officer, more agile approaches to adoption and fostering assessments, and looking at different approaches to assessing friends and family carers.
Of course, the whole point of the new clauses is that it is not me telling local authorities, “This is what you must do”; it is for them, over time, to come up with their own ideas about how they think they can improve their services. It is not what they have to do, but how they do it. If that is a concept that some struggle with—not necessarily the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps some in his party—I am afraid we are never going to have a meeting of minds; we are not going to find the consensus that, I agree, we are able to reach in the majority of cases on child protection.
There is a fundamental disagreement about what we are trying to achieve and the way we go about it. I am absolutely sure that the approach we are taking will do what local authorities want and what Eileen Munro set out in her report almost six years ago.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister is being extremely generous. I read his letter in depth and the fact sheet that went with it. As I said in my opening comments, there are four examples that would get rid of vast swathes of legislation that protects children. Evidence from CoramBAAF to this Committee debunks every one of those four examples and highlights the extremely dangerous pitfalls there would be if that were to take place.
The Minister keeps quoting Eileen Munro, as if in her review in 2011 she recommended dispensing with primary legislation. She never did. That is what the Minister is trying to do, but Eileen Munro never recommended that.
Edward Timpson
I am sorry that the hon. Lady takes that view, because I was under the impression that the review into child protection carried out by Professor Eileen Munro in 2011 was widely welcomed and respected across the political spectrum. That is exactly what is reflected in the many Hansard reports I have read from across the House, in which hon. Members all lauded a report that finally got down to the nuts and bolts of why we need to have a system that, as the tri-borough rightly expressed in relation to this clause, gets social workers out working directly with families and away from being in front of a computer at their desks.
The reason why I keep quoting Eileen Munro is that she was the person charged by Government to provide an independent review, which has been considered, scrutinised and generally approved by this House as the way to go. I am often held to account for how many of Eileen Munro’s recommendations we have implemented, so I place credence in what she has to say about what we are trying to do, because she has already considered it and come up with a solution for Government, in her independent capacity. She says:
“I welcome the introduction of the power to innovate set out in the Children and Social Work Bill. This is a critical part of the journey set out in my Independent Review of Child Protection towards a child welfare system that reflects the complexity and diversity of children’s needs.”
I cannot ignore that, because it demonstrates that her report is still relevant in many ways. I would like to know whether the hon. Member for South Shields agrees with the Munro report. If she does, but disagrees with what Eileen Munro is saying now, what has changed? What is different? I cannot see where the logic would take us.
That is why it is important to allow local authorities such as Hampshire, North Yorkshire, the tri-borough and others—such as Richmond and Kingston with their “Achieving for Children” in Richmond—to try out new ways of working. They might not know, at the moment, exactly what those will be, but they need the opportunity to try them in a controlled, safe way. The Bill provides that without removing swathes of legislation. It enables them to trial or pilot a new way of working, exactly as was done with social work practices under the last Labour Government. Then a decision can be made about whether to go forward with it.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister seems to be painting the picture that I disagreed with Eileen Munro’s recommendations. I certainly did not. In fact, I strongly supported recommendation 10 that councils should have a legal duty to provide enough early intervention services, which this Government rejected. He listened to my opening comments. He knows why I disagree with the new clauses, and he knows why thousands of people outside this House do as well.
Edward Timpson
I am not sure what question the hon. Lady wants me to answer on the back of that, but I can reassure her that Eileen Munro said in her conclusion:
“A move from a compliance to a learning culture will require those working in child protection to be given more scope to exercise professional judgment in deciding how best to help children and their families.”
I still do not understand what there is in our clauses, according to the hon. Lady, that contradicts that approach.
There are a number of other issues that I want to cover before I conclude, because it is important that every question asked by an hon. Member receives a response. One question was about which of the measures would be within the scope in the Bill. IROs in particular have been mentioned as an example; it is only an example. There has been some debate about the possibility of relaxing IRO support. The local authorities interested in that approach are talking not about getting rid of the role in its entirety but about using it more flexibly; it is an important distinction to make.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked where improving outcomes is now in relation to the Bill. We have expanded the requirements that we set out in relation to new clause 2, replacing them with a more detailed set of requirements to ensure that the outcomes that we are seeking for the relevant children, whom I listed earlier, are much more clearly defined. We have also extended the consultation requirements on local authorities to go beyond safeguarding partners to include other relevant persons, particularly in relation to children and young people. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned schools, which are important and which we must ensure are part of the consultation where relevant.
Depending on the impact that the use of a power will have, it might be appropriate for local authorities to consult publicly, as they would in other circumstances. If the Secretary of State were dissatisfied with the extent of consultation, she could ask local authorities to widen it before agreeing to grant an application.
I risk of falling out a little further with the hon. Member for South Shields. She unhelpfully raised the link between funding and local Government support for these new clauses. I can categorically say there is no link between them and funding received by any local authority. The chief social worker was simply urging the profession to take this opportunity. I am sorry that the hon. Lady chose to try and suggest, or at least insinuate, otherwise and I hope she will disassociate herself from those comments.
In closing, I want to reiterate two points that must not be overlooked. First, this power is about grass-roots innovation. It is all about believing in and trusting professionals to test new approaches, and it is hard. The purpose of the power is to improve the services we deliver for children. If we look at who is calling for this power, it is not private companies or failing children’s services seeking to cut costs, but some of our country’s most inspirational leaders and innovative charities. To characterise this as something that is intended to take away support from children or even enable privatisation is to misrepresent our ambition and undermine the integrity and professionalism of staff who work with children on the frontline.
The new clauses being debated by the Committee today are significantly different from those debated in the other place, and I hope the Committee recognises that the Government have listened and taken substantial steps to put safeguards in place around the power. I remain ready at any time to discuss these new clauses further, but in the end, they are a genuine attempt to help local authorities test different approaches and better ways of working in the interests of children. I urge the Committee to support them.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I want to make some brief concluding comments.
If Government Members want to vote for this, they should be able to articulate with total conviction and clarity which primary legislation—out of the lists provided by concerned organisations and individuals under threat— they are and are not comfortable with a local authority, even their own, opting out of. They must be able to articulate why they are happy to give local authorities the opportunity of opting out of supporting disabled children in their area or visiting vulnerable children in their area and why they are satisfied to do so against a groundswell of objection outside and inside the House, even among Government Members. What culpability are they prepared to accept when children in their area have been harmed as a result and claim redress from the state?
The Minister asked for support, but he has not articulated a case, built on strong evidence and stakeholder engagement, for why these clauses are needed. He has not offered any comfort or explanation to people who are seriously concerned about the threat that these clauses pose to vast swathes of legal protection, on which the most vulnerable children and young people rely. I have not been reassured that the endgame is not the marketisation of social work.
These clauses have been the main thrust of the Bill from the outset. They epitomise this ideologically driven Government at their very worst and set a precedent, as Liberty, CoramBAAF and others have said in their evidence, for changing the fundamental rules on how our country’s laws are made and how we are governed, which MPs on all sides of the House have always adhered to. I am deeply disappointed that this Minister, of all people, is going along with this. We on this side will never, ever go along with it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Edward Timpson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause supports our aim of establishing a new career pathway for social workers that recognises specialist, post-qualification expertise in child and family social work and will reinforce our focus on the quality of practice. It makes provision for the Secretary of State to determine and publish improvement standards for social workers in England, or to arrange for someone else to do so on her behalf. An improvement standard is a post-qualification professional standard which, if attained, demonstrates a particular expertise or specialisation. The Secretary of State will be required to consult before determining any improvement standards.
I would like to make it clear that these standards are distinct from the proficiency standards which the regulator, Social Work England, will set and which must be met by all social workers in order to register. The new clause is vital to enable the introduction of the national assessment and accreditation system which is a fundamental part of our national reform programme that seeks to ensure that all children and families get the support and protection they need.
We are all aware that child and family social workers do an incredibly important job under very trying circumstances, and we all thank them for it. They deal with complex and fraught situations that require great depth of skill, knowledge, understanding and empathy. To clearly set out what characterises effective work with children at their most vulnerable, the chief social worker for children and families, Isabelle Trowler, has published three statements on the knowledge and skills needed to operate at three levels of practice for child and family social workers. That includes frontline practice, supervisory roles and practice leaders. One of the Department’s priorities is supporting the workforce in consistently meeting these aspirations.
The knowledge and skills statements will form the basis of a national assessment and accreditation system for child and family social work, or NAAS. Child and family social workers will be accredited against these standards in order to recognise consistently the specialist knowledge and skills that child and family social workers, supervisors and leaders need in order to practise effectively. NAAS will provide, for the first time, a consistent way of recognising the specialist knowledge and skills needed by child and family social workers, supervisors and leaders to practise effectively. It will recognise progression through the child and family specialism, making clear what good practice looks like and what path a career in social work could take. Supporting social workers to improve their practice is vital when it comes to supporting the profession, and thus the children and families they work with.
We have carried out extensive work with the profession to establish what form assessment will take, and we have launched an open consultation to support our thinking on how the new system is to be rolled out. While there are no current plans for a NAAS for adult social work, this measure would enable the Secretary of State to determine and publish a similar set of improvement standards in relation to adult social workers in England. There is already a degree of specialisation in this area through the roles of approved mental health practitioner and best interest assessor. We intend to look closely at whether taking further steps in this direction for adult social work is desirable.
I trust that the Committee will support this important work to build the professional and public status of children and family social work and support the profession so that it can focus ever more closely on practice that delivers for vulnerable children. [Interruption.] I cannot conclude without hearing from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak.
Steve McCabe
As I have said before, the Minister is extremely generous. I wanted to ask him about people who have acquired higher-level awards and qualifications as part of previous accreditation exercises. He will be familiar with the old CCETSW post-qualification award in children services. I think I am right in saying that the NSPCC ran a similar award at one stage. There are therefore practitioners who have a previous higher-level qualification award. Is it the Minister’s intention that their awards will be accredited or in some way fitted into the new framework or will those people now be expected to acquire an additional higher-level qualification?
Edward Timpson
This is a new form of accreditation and assessment. Over time, all practitioners who want to work in the field will need to be accredited against the new standards set out in the knowledge and skills statement. The difference now is that there are three different tiers. One of the things that has led to our bringing in this proposal is the strong feeling that there has not been a clear career pathway for children’s social workers. When they become experienced they may even become Members of Parliament or they end up in management, away from the frontline but still using their great expertise and knowledge about how to deliver good social work. They have an opportunity to supervise practitioners or to become a practice leader.
Those who are already accredited and have shown that they have relevant experience will be well placed to meet the new accreditation standards that are being set for supervisory and practice leader role. We hope that over time that will enable more of those very high-quality, well-versed and experienced social workers to remain active in social work, rather than our losing that precious commodity as they move into corporate roles within their organisation. I hope that explanation finds favour with the hon. Gentleman and that hon. Members will support the new clause.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I have a few brief comments and questions for the Minister. I am a little concerned that we are seeing an attempt to put back into the Bill powers for the Secretary of State to determine professional standards and assess whether social worker practitioners meet them or not. It is right that Ministers should want to take action to improve standards, but will the Minister explain what those standards will be as they will be subject to secondary legislation and therefore not to intense parliamentary scrutiny? It is only right that the Committee is clear about the intention of the new clause and understands why the Secretary of State feels the need to determine professional social worker standards. It is also a little concerning that after the success in the Lords of the noble Lord Hunt as regards an arm’s length social worker regulatory body, new clause 10(1)(b) is now proposed. Will the Minister explain the rationale for the new clause and give assurances that there will not be Government interference, influence or Government-funded assessment activities of social workers against improvement standards?
The new clause attempts to reassert the role of the Secretary of State in setting standards and developing assessment benchmarks post-qualification. Could that not result in confusion and conflict with the role and functions of the proposed social worker regulatory body, or is the intention that the Secretary of State and persons appointed to assess improvement will be a de facto second regulator? I am sure the Minister agrees that that could have the adverse effect of creating confusion about who is setting and who is assessing standards. It could create more bureaucracy in an already highly complicated arena and would have an adverse effect on recruitment and retention—an area in which, as the Minister knows, the sector is already struggling.
After this morning’s debate, I cannot help thinking that there is an attempt to do something else with the new clause, especially as it has been introduced once again without any consultation or discussion with the social work sector. In answering my questions, can the Minister convince us otherwise?
Edward Timpson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her reasoned and helpful questions to try to establish what the new clause proposes. I think I have set that out in some detail already, but I will try to address some of the specifics that she has raised.
I have already given a picture of what the consultation has involved to date. It is also worth reminding the Committee that more than 1,000 social workers have volunteered to test out the assessment accreditation process as it is rolled out so that we can be sure that what we have at the other end is fit for purpose. There has been widespread involvement of the social work profession. This is not a new phenomenon. It is being brought in very carefully as regards this important change for those working on the frontline.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope the Committee will bear with me. As can be heard, I am not as well as I should be. I have to admit I probably would not have been here today were I not so passionate about this subject and the importance of providing sex and relationship education as a form of safeguarding for all children. With that in mind, I will probably not speak as loudly and clearly as I might do otherwise. I hope that does not dull the willingness of Government Members to listen to the case for the new clause.
I want to go through a number of elements of the new clause and explain why it would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill. First, this is a safeguarding issue and, as we know, the Bill covers safeguarding. On Second Reading, the Minister agreed that it should be part of the discussion of the Bill. Secondly, introducing this element of safeguarding needs specific legislation as it is clear from the evidence on the provision of relationship education to children that guidance will not cut it. Thirdly, we need to consider the status quo and the response of the public. Our role as politicians is to lead but also to listen. There is overwhelming public support for such an important measure.
Finally, I shall explain why we must see progress now and in this Bill on this issue, which has been debated in this House for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. In 2010, as Members may recall, the previous Government made the first effort to legislate. We have had these discussions now for six years. Thinking back in time, though, is perhaps the point at which all of us will start with this discussion, perhaps remembering our own sex and relationship education. For me, 2017 is important, because it is the year in which I turn 40—a big statement birthday. Do not all shout at once that that could not possibly be so—[Interruption.] Too late!
This has already been one of those years in which I have had conversations with people that remind me that I am no longer a tender teenager—not least, having a conversation with my staff where they expressed incredulity about the fact that when I was at school we did not have Wikipedia. We did not have the internet—[Interruption.] Government members of the Committee are nodding their heads. The world in which our young people are growing up is very different from the one that we knew.
As a former youth worker I am always reminded of something we taught ourselves, which was, “Everybody has been a 15 year-old but not everybody has been a 15 year-old in the modern world.” When people first reflect on the idea of sex and relationship education, they think of the headlines, the concerns that many of us have about things such as Snapchat, sexting and online pornography—the normalisation of an extremely sexualised culture.
I know that some who have been concerned about these proposals have written to Members to say, “There are groups in our society who are not privy to this online forum and therefore should not be involved in this legislation,” but that makes me think about why this is not to do with the internet or the modern world, but with the timeless challenge that we face in our society of how we ensure that everybody has good, healthy and constructive relationships with other people, and with the importance of sex and relationship education in that, because it is a safeguard. If we are honest, when we look back to our childhood and to some of the things that all of us of my generation—or, indeed, those who are older—know, we are aware that exploitation, danger and risk to children have always been prevalent in our society.
When we think about the scandals that have been uncovered in the last couple of years, about how people used to talk and interact with young people, or about the treatment of young girls in our society, we can see that safeguarding children is not a question of the modern world but a question of a better world. New clause 11 is very much not about the internet; it is about the world we live in today and how we make sure that all our young people are given the right education and the right skills, not simply to identify risk but to prevent risk.
The new clause is also about recognising the range of issues that we need to deal with in our world today. I am extremely proud of a young woman called Hibo Wardere from Walthamstow, who has been a leading campaigner on female genital mutilation, and of the young woman from my community called Arifa Nasim, who set up Educate2Eradicate. They are going around schools in this country talking about issues with “honour-based violence”—I call it that, but there is no honour in it. We know that there are multiple issues within our society that we have to be able to talk to our young people about if we want to keep them safe.
Given how sensitive people are about the concept of sex and relationship education, it is very important to think about it in terms of the risks people might face and the importance of addressing them. It is easy for British people to laugh about sex, and to feel uncomfortable or awkward about it. I remember my first sex education lesson at school, where I fell asleep and was woken up by a teacher waving a female condom at me—nevermore do I think about a plastic bag in that way. However, this is not a comedy issue, because we know that millions of young people in this country are at risk. Some 47,000 sexual offences were recorded against children last year. I say “recorded” deliberately: these are just the ones we know about. Crucially, a third of those were perpetrated by children against children.
We know that 5,000 rapes have been reported in our schools in the past couple of years and that nearly 60% of young women aged 13 to 21 report facing sexual harassment in their school or their college. The place that we want all our children to go to, to be safe, and to be able to learn, grow and expand their minds, has become a place of danger and risk for too many in our society. The truth is that the world is different from the one that we grew up in. There has been a normalisation of extreme sexual imagery because of the accessibility of pornography. I remember people having magazines and books at school that would probably be considered pornographic. Now, it is on a phone or a computer. Only 18% of parents think that their children have accessed pornography; the reality is very different—it is closer to 40%. Indeed, 79% of young men and 62% of young women report it being part and parcel of their everyday life.
At the moment, sex education is mandatory in terms of the biology of sex. In the biology curriculum, we teach young people about reproduction, but we do not teach them about relationships. That is where the risk comes in and where the gap in our safeguarding procedures exists. At the moment, we only have sex and relationship education across our schools in a very patchy way. Some schools are doing amazing work, and we should recognise that, but safeguarding only works if every young child has access to information, training and support.
Ofsted found in 2013 that 40% of schools required improvement or were inadequate in their provision of sex and relationship education. That means millions of children in our schools right now are simply not getting the right sort of information about relationships, consent and sensitive issues such as their relationships with the other sex and with the same sex, domestic violence and abuse, female genital mutilation and forced marriage.
Critically, Ofsted also showed us that young people are crying out for this kind of information and support to keep themselves safe and that they were extremely disappointed in the quality and frequency of lessons. Inevitably, it is part and parcel of their lives to ask these questions. However old we are, we all remember the point when we first become aware of our own feelings of wanting guidance and the right kind of relationships with people.
It is fascinating that study after study shows the value, power and potency of good sex and relationship education to address many of those issues and to keep our young people safe. A study by Bristol University just last year found that while schools find it difficult to acknowledge that our young people might be sexually active, children do not. Young girls reported being harassed in school if they asked questions about sex and relationships, and young boys reported feeling inadequate and anxious if they revealed an ignorance about relationships. We cannot let that stand. Frankly, if we do not step into that void, the internet or the playground will. That is where the risk comes.
For avoidance of doubt, this is not about replacing parents. It is about supporting parents and recognising an environment in which sexual feelings and sexual imagery are so much a part of modern life. Even with the best parenting and the good advice that we know millions of parents across this country try to give their children, if the people who children come into contact with on the street, in the playground or in chatrooms do not have the same set of values and level of support, the risk remains.
Only one in seven children in our schools have had any form of sex and relationship education. That means six other children are missing out and therefore might have negative impressions about what a good, positive and healthy relationship looks like. We know that this is something children themselves have reported, with 46% of children saying they have not learned how to tell when a relationship is healthy. We should think about that for a moment. When children do not know that violence and intimidation should not be part of a close, loving relationship, and when 44% of children have not been taught what an abusive relationship is, that is not an environment in which we can consider our children to be safe.
It is about not only physical violence but intimidation and coercive control. We have now legislated on that for adults, but we have a gap when it comes to young people. Some 43% of children do not know they have a responsibility to seek consent and have a choice about whether to give it. That is startling. The children who have not had that education are crying out for us, as politicians, to get this right, which is what we are trying to do through the new clause.
We should create a safe environment in which children of any age get the right kind of education to make healthy relationships and to know not simply what sexual conduct is, but what it means to give their consent, to be with someone for love, and what an equal and loving relationship looks like. This is not only about having healthy relationships with peers. It is also about a young child recognising when they are at risk. One of the concerns we have and the reason the new clause discusses age-appropriate education is the importance of starting early with children. One of the most shocking cases I dealt with as an MP in my constituency was not one, but two instances of children under the age of 13 engaging in sexual behaviour in local parks, involving children who did not want to be involved—that is the best way I can put it.
Think about that for a moment: children under 13. That means we need to start with children under 10, if not younger, giving them the right words to be able to say no and describe what is happening to them, and what they do and do not like. Yet, again, we are finding in the Ofsted studies that too many children are not being taught the proper words for their own organs and how to talk about what might be happening to them. This becomes a safeguarding issue, because we know that when children are given the right information in an age-appropriate fashion they are much more likely to report abuse or be able to report something happening to them.
Steve McCabe
Before my hon. Friend concludes, I want to say that I am more than happy to support her new clause, although the Minister may be about to tell us that he has an alternative or additional proposal.
Since we have spent so much time talking about the value of innovation, would my hon. Friend be open to a proposal in which the Minister encouraged schools to innovate? We could make a start right away by finding the best models for my hon. Friend’s proposals and some of the wider issues referred to by other organisations, including online safety, tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse and broader health issues. Would she be open to a proposal that said, “Let’s invite schools to innovate. Let’s ask Ofsted to report on the success of that innovation. Let’s encourage schools that are doing the right thing, so that the Minister can free the others from the constraints and encumbrances that current legislation imposes on them.”?
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend will be aware of previous conversations about straying from the point. We were very mindful in drafting this new clause that we should focus on relationship education as part of PSHE, which has been declining in schools. I believe there has been a 21% decrease in the number of PSHE lessons in the past couple of years because it is not valued. We recognised that it had a particular role to play in safeguarding because of the widespread evidence of sexual harassment of children.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the value of other forms of lessons. I will give a shout-out to Kris Hallenga and the CoppaFeel! team who have been looking at how to provide cancer education within PSHE. There is clearly a broader debate, but we do not know if there is going to be any alternative education legislation that might allow such proposals to be included.
The point about innovation and safeguarding is apposite. One reason Opposition Members were concerned about other parts of this legislation is that we want to give schools a clear framework about what should be included. Within that, we could work in a way that works for pupils and their location. That is why the new clause specifies a framework for sex and relationship education as part of safeguarding, recognising that it needs to be age appropriate.
The way in which a five, six- or seven-year-old would be taught about their body and how to ensure that, if anything happened that they were not happy or comfortable with, they could speak out, would be very different from the conversations that might be had with 13, 14 or 15-year-olds about some of the things that were going on in their lives. It would also be done in a way that was inclusive. I am particularly mindful of the evidence of young people who are gay and lesbian who said they were not given good sex and relationships education, which caused them huge amounts of harm at a young age, so it is important to ensure it is inclusive.
Finally, we need to recognise different religious perspectives. That is an important element, and I do not underplay that. Concerns have been expressed by religious organisations. We need to reflect and respect religious perspectives without using that to stop the important provision of relationships education.
The new clause is drafted in such a way that it is very much about the role of Ofsted, which I am sure would be involved in any form of safeguarding and monitoring of sex and relationships education in schools, however the Government choose to do this—if they do want to. There is a clear role for Ofsted to look at this as a form of safeguarding. Schools that were not providing sex and relationship education would be judged inadequate on safeguarding, which is a very serious matter, but it would reflect the importance of the topic.
Crucially, the new clause would give young people the opportunity to say whether they wanted to take part in this education. Some 90% of young people surveyed said they wanted this education, so it is important to give them the power to opt out, rather than that being led by their parents. The Secretary of State would have the role of setting the age at which they would be of sufficient maturity to do that. I am thinking particularly of young people who might be at college or in further education who would be covered by the new clause: we want to ensure that they have the right to take part in lessons if they choose to do so.
Finally, returning to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made in saying, “Let’s just get on and do it”, the new clause sets out a clear timetable. That is the message I want to give to the Minister. I heard his words on Second Reading and I have seen the briefings from the Education Secretary. There has clearly been a sea change in the Government’s perspective on the issue over the past year, which is welcome.
I recognise that there is cross-party support for sex and relationships education. Five Select Committee Chairs said they wanted to see it happen. All of us who have been campaigning on the issue for some time want to see action, because we are all acutely aware that we have lost previous opportunities to make progress. The guidance that covers sex and relationships education for our young people was produced in 2000, before the era of Snapchat, Facebook and even Twitter, which feels as old as the hills. We need to move with the times, but most importantly we need to move. If the Minister will not accept new clause 11 and work with us to make it work, I want to hear him make a commitment to legislation. I tell him plainly: another consultation, another review and a generalised commitment will not do any more. Young people in this country need and deserve better from us.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I find it strange to say—she perhaps will find it strange to hear—but I am critical of the new clause because it is not ambitious enough. Rather than just talking about safeguarding and listing aspects of personal, social and health education under subsections (a) to (e)— aspects, in reality, of sex education and relationships management—I would like be bolder and enlighten and empower all our pupils in the whole sphere of personal, social, health and, indeed, economic education. In that sense, my call to the Minister is to be more ambitious and go further than the hon. Lady set out.
The hon. Lady referred to 90% of pupils wanting this form of education. I think it is 92% of pupils who want it, and they are not just referring to the limited form of education that she talked about. They want a sphere that would include economic education too. That is hugely important. Within schools, we are focusing more on mental health issues, wellbeing and preparing our pupils not only to cope with the challenges and pressures of their school surroundings, but with the challenges of the workplace and life in general. To pick up on the hon. Lady’s theme, I would like to see legislation that covers all those parameters. There is great support for that—some 92% of parents and 88% of teachers support it.
Legislation has to be properly thought about within this sphere, however, because 12% of teachers are not positive about such provision. That may be because they are concerned about their workload and want some reassurance about what may be taken out of the curriculum if this particular provision put in. I would prefer to take a thoughtful approach. I have no issue with a consultation, because it gives us the opportunity to feed in on how legislation should be formed.
I do not wish to speak further, because I am pleased and keen to hear what the Minister has to say. I reassure the hon. Lady that while I will not be voting for a new clause that is restrictive and could go much further, I am certainly behind the general thrust of ensuring that we enlighten all our schoolchildren on the wider area—an area that does not just cover sex education and relationships management, but all the challenges of daily life.
Kate Green
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I am sure she welcomed the enthusiasm that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle displayed for a broad-based PSHE offer for young people, I am afraid I was rather chilled by his final words that the intention was enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow pointed out very eloquently, as long as she and I have been in Parliament—and no doubt for many years before that—that is what we have heard: the intentions are good, but nothing materialises. In the meantime, our young people are crying out for this kind of education offer.
Huw Merriman
Perhaps it is the lawyer in me, but I think it is important to note that the new clause says that personal social and health education
“must include but shall not be restricted”
to certain subjects. There is also a danger that this is not the greatest piece of legislation. Anyone looking at the new clause will think that they are required to teach all the things that I have added, perhaps with the exception of the economic aspect. It is not entirely clear what provision the hon. Member for Walthamstow is trying to restrict—or widen.
Kate Green
I find the whole sentiment behind this discussion rather disappointing. I think it is very clear what the concerns of young people, parents and teachers are and why my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has tabled the new clause. She, of course, can speak for herself. Of all my colleagues, I think it is fair to say that, but may I say on her behalf that if this proposal is not perfect, we are amenable if the Minister wishes to produce something better, but we want it now. We have waited too long for something to happen, as opposed to warm words and expressions of enthusiasm.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is absolutely right to point to the importance of the debate in the context of all the attention the Government are giving to mental health and wellbeing. If we look at the record of previous Governments, including the coalition Government and the present Government, on a whole lot of related issues, it seems a great shame that we are not supporting those steps forward, which have been made with cross-party support in relation, for example, to female genital mutilation; in relation to stalking, which will be the subject of amendments in Committee later this afternoon; and in relation to coercive control, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow; in relation to same-sex marriages; and in relation to the very good follow-up which has been put in place following some of the appalling child sex scandals of recent years. It is tragic that the Government and previous Governments, having made great social steps forward in all those areas, are unwilling to underpin them with really good education for our young people so that they can understand their rights under that legislation.
Stella Creasy
I always stop my hon. Friend when she gets going at my peril because she is such a powerful advocate. Can I give reassurance to the hon. Member for the constituency which I cannot think in my head right now but I am sure is a wonderful place?
Stella Creasy
That’s it—a lovely place. Personal and social education is already part of the curriculum, but what we have seen over the past couple of years is a diminution in time allocated to it. The new clause would make the provision of lessons on these particular issues part of the safeguarding element that is inspected, and so prompt schools to ensure that these issues are covered. That does not preclude any of the points that have been made and the wider debate we can all have.
There is cross-party consensus about the value of PSHE and concern about the diminution in its delivery over the past couple of years. However, the measure would ensure that these subjects were part of the framework on which schools were inspected. If they were not providing lessons and guidance on these issues, that would be a matter for failing by Ofsted.
Ofsted looks at the provision of sex and relationships education, as we have seen, and has shown that it is of poor quality in many schools right now. However, at the moment it is not part of the safeguarding duty that they inspect. By making it part of the safeguarding duty, the measure gives Ofsted stronger powers to push schools to do it. It is not about PSHE being restrictive—the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is reading the proposal in quite a literal way—it is about Ofsted’s powers. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a conversation about Ofsted, I would be happy to talk to him, but I suspect it is beyond the scope of today’s debate. I hope that reassures all my colleagues as to why we want to make sure that these particular topics are covered.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to pick up the point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made about teachers’ confidence in dealing with this subject. As my hon. Friend has explained, in embedding in the inspection regime an expectation that safeguarding standards are part of the way in which the curriculum is delivered, we create a need to ensure that teachers are properly equipped to teach that curriculum. That will have an effect on what is taught in teacher training colleges and on teaching practice. It will have an effect on the way in which schools organise, manage, support, mentor and develop their staff and on the way in which staff time is allocated, to ensure that teachers are able to teach the subject properly.
From talking to teachers, I do not think that their worry about this subject is so much about whether or not they have time to do it—they think it is important and want to make the time—as about a fear that they do not know how to do it. It requires proper attention to equip and educate them to deliver top-quality teaching.
We know that quality is an issue. My hon. Friend pointed out that one in seven children are receiving no sex and relationships education at all. Of those children who are receiving such education, half told the Terrence Higgins Trust in research it carried out that the teaching they received was poor or even terrible. There is little point in offering a poor or terrible education to our children. We have to raise the quality. That is not an excuse for doing nothing. It is an excuse for embedding firmly an expectation and an obligation on schools, along with an inspection regime to ensure that they meet it.
I am troubled that despite all the social progress we have made in my adult lifetime, and particularly the immense progress in relation to equality between women and men, young people’s attitudes to relationships between the sexes remain primitive in so many ways. We have seen shocking research in recent years, which has shown that young men and young women—teenagers—believe it is acceptable, for example, for a boy to hit his girlfriend if he sees her talking to another bloke or for a man to expect the woman in a partnership to put food on the table when he wants it.
The fact that those attitudes should still be pervasive among young people shows that there is a very real need to educate them in relation to not only in the biology of sexual relationships, as my hon. Friend said, but on the much broader dimensions of respect and equality. We have delivered those things in so many other ways—in legislation and social practice—but they need to be underpinned in our education system.
I want to conclude by saying, on my behalf if not on behalf of my hon. Friends, that if the Minister thinks the new clause is deficient, I insist he introduces something else as a matter of urgency. We would be happy to consider that. As my hon. Friend said, time is running out. If such a proposal is not available in Committee or on Report, there is no further chance to achieve the intention that is constantly expressed in this House and which is the will of the House and the wider public: to do so much better than we do now. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Without strong assurances that things will now change, I am pleased to support my hon. Friend’s new clause.
Simon Hoare
I am the father of three young daughters of eight, six and four. The moment I am dreading is when they start asking what we used to call “those questions”. I am rather hoping my wife will be on hand. I am sure she will then promise to give me some sex education after she has dealt with the children.
This is such a complex and complicated issue, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow set out. I rise to make a few remarks against the backdrop of having attended a faith school and as a practising Roman Catholic. My wife is a member of the Church of England, but my children are Catholics. I very much support what lies behind the hon. Lady’s new clause. I see nothing contradictory in being a practising Christian and wanting to ensure our next generation is equipped with as much resource and education as possible for the challenges that face modern youth—challenges that I, as a 47-year-old, could never have envisaged when I was 14, 15 or 16.
I remember the acute embarrassment—teenagers like to do this to their teachers—when we had a spinster nonconformist Methodist biology teacher in a Catholic state school who was asked by a friend of mine during this biology lesson—one where we had those pictures that were never quite clear anatomically—“Miss, what does a man do if he wants to have sex, but they do not want to have a child?” He knew full well what the Catholic teaching was on artificial contraception, but it threw this nonconformist spinster into an absolute tailspin and her answer was, “I think you should go to talk to the school chaplain”—she did not know how to answer. So it is as much about educating the educators as it is educating those who need the information.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow has been in this place longer than I, and I am reluctant to give her any advice about it—the new clause, that is, not anything else—[Laughter.] Before my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent chips in with anything slightly “Carry On Laughing” or whatever, I think there are some omissions between 2 (a) and (e). For example, it is important to have something about transgender. Likewise, while the hon. Lady said at the start of her remarks that this was not solely about digital, given its huge impact on perception, the curriculum should include an element on digital and the internet.
We have all bandied statistics around, but I remember reading that today most teenage boys that have accessed pornographic websites, just out of interest and teenage curiosity, actually believe that most women do not have pubic hair. That is a direct bit of education from the internet that affects the mindset and changes how we think about ourselves and our potential partners in a relationship.
I also notice—and it slightly belies what has actually been support from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and I hope, certainly in theory, from the Minister—that the new clause is tabled solely in the name of Labour Members of Parliament who all happen to be women. This is an issue that should command cross-party support and certainly representation from both sexes. A father, a husband and a boyfriend have as much interest in ensuring a high quality of PSHE as women do. The hon. Member for Walthamstow might want to think about that point, which is why I hope that she will not press this new clause to a vote today but instead think about some proactive cross-party working on Report. That is not to kick the issue into the long grass; it would just help to create a better base.
Some wording—some form of protection—is needed for those who run faith schools, all faiths, to make the position absolutely clear. I have little or no doubt that I will receive emails from constituents who happen to read my remarks. They will say that this is all about promotion, and this or that religion thinks that homosexuality—or another element—is not right. So to provide a legislative comfort blanket, for want of a better phrase, the new clause needs to include a clear statement that we are talking not about promotion, but about education, and where sex education is delivered in a faith school environment, those providing the education should not feel inhibited about answering questions such as “What is the thinking of our faith on this particular aspect of sexuality?”
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman has touched on an incredibly sensitive issue. I do not want to misinterpret his remarks, but he should be aware that many of us are concerned about children who are same-sex attracted in faith schools. One of the things that is important about getting this right is making sure that every school is acknowledging those children. Can he just clarify what he means by inhibition?
We did try to work in a cross-party way on this, and I continue to do so—and cross-gender, as well. I agree with him that this is not an issue for women; it is an issue for all of us. We are where we are with the new clause, but it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could spell out what he is talking about. Specifying religious inclusiveness and recognition of different religious perspectives is not the same as allowing a religious perspective to inhibit what we might teach young people. We need to give every young person, whether they have relationships with the same sex or different sex, the right education and support to have healthy relationships and to feel good about themselves as well.
Simon Hoare
I take the hon. Lady’s point but I think we are looking through different ends of the same telescope. I do not think it would be sensible, or maximise the benefit of the thrust of the new clause, if faith schools were able to say “This aspect of human sexuality is contrary to”—I use that term in its broadest sense—“our religious doctrine, and we will not teach it.” The point I am making is that it should be taught because it is part of human nature—people are born straight or gay, or whatever phraseology one cares to use—but the school would not be in breach of any regulation or legislation to say to the class “We are a Muslim”—or Catholic, Jewish or Methodist—“school: this happens in human life, but the religious teaching of our majority faith in this classroom is that we don’t promote it”, or “That is not what we think.”
That is in part why this sort of debate is not best suited to the Committee. These discussions should take place across the genders and across the parties in preparation for Report. I am conscious that in trying to answer a legitimate point, fairly raised by the hon. Lady, I may have used terms that a 47-year-old white Catholic would use, which some people might find slightly old-fashioned and out of date, or perhaps not as politically correct as they should be. The thrust of what the hon. Lady is talking about is absolutely right, and germane to the whole of the Bill. However, if we are to command support from the religious as much as the secular, the sensitivities and anxieties that people often jump to—“This is all about promotion and trying to convince children at six that they should be gay, and if they are not there is something wrong with them, etc.”—need to be clearly and sensitively identified, so that those particular hares do not start running.
That is why I urge the hon. Lady, if she and her colleagues are serious about the new clause getting a fair crack of the whip, not to press it to a vote this afternoon but to work in a cross-party way to see what can be achieved, hopefully with the support of the Minister—we shall listen with interest to his remarks in a moment—on Report.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, which would ensure that all local authorities would provide accurate, age-appropriate personal, social and health education, including age-appropriate sex and relationship education. I believe that we speak for most of the hon. Members in the Committee Room, and in the House more broadly, in saying that steps in such a direction are necessary and important to ensure that children can stay safe, happy and healthy in the 21st century. The current guidance in the area, as my hon. Friends have said, is out of date, and therefore woefully unable to address the challenges and possible dangers they outlined. The education system must respond to change in society to provide young people with the skills and knowledge they need to be safe. While guidance in PSHE and particularly in sex and relationships education is not able to do that, the dangers are clear, as is the case for acting.
I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Education Secretary seem to be coming round to the cross-party consensus on the issue, with suggestions in the media that the Education Secretary is planning a change of policy in that area. The issue is not about politics or partisan point scoring, but about protecting the best interests and the health of children. I am sure all Members in this room will agree that that must be one of our highest priorities.
The Bill offers an ideal opportunity for the Government to make the changes in our education system that are so badly needed. I hope the Minister will support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow.
Edward Timpson
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Walthamstow on a stoic effort when she is clearly under the weather? I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Members who have spoken in what has been a helpful debate in teasing out the issues that surround these sensitive subjects. Now is the time to make sure that every child has access to effective, factually accurate, age-appropriate sex and relationships education and PSHE. That is why we are responding positively and strongly to calls for further action. I am grateful to the hon. Members for tabling this new clause.
Perhaps surprisingly, we have ended up with a greater level of consensus on this new clause than we have had on previous new clauses. As I have said in previous debates on the Bill, we hear the call for further action on PSHE and we have committed to exploring all the options to improve delivery of SRE and PSHE. We are actively looking at how best to address both the quality of delivery, rightly raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and accessibility to ensure that all children can be supported to develop positive, healthy relationships and to thrive in modern Britain today. We welcome the support in delivering this in a timely and considered manner.
The Secretary of State herself has made this a personal priority, as we have heard, and we will be able to say more at a later stage in the Bill about how the Government intend to secure provision that is fit for purpose, inclusive and supports all young people growing up in our country today. It therefore seems to me that we are all pursuing similar aims. We all welcomed the excellent report published on 13 September by the Women and Equalities Committee and the considered recommendations within it. We are unanimous that sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools in any form is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. We are much more alive to that and need to make sure that that is properly reflected in the way that we equip children in future.
As part of our response, published on 9 November, the Government have committed to work with other interested parties over the coming months to produce a framework to support schools to produce their own new codes of practice, setting out the principles for a whole-school approach to inclusion and tolerance to combat bullying, harassment and abuse of any kind. Alongside that we have also committed to building our evidence base to better understand the scale and scope of the problem, as well as providing best-practice examples of effective ways to work with boys and girls to promote gender equality and both prevent and respond to incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence. We will also set up an advisory group to look at how the issues and recommendations from the Committee’s report can be best reflected within existing Department for Education guidance for schools, including the statutory guidance, “Keeping children safe in education” and our behaviour and bullying guidance.
Clearly, there is more that we need to do, which is why the Secretary of State is prioritising progress on the quality and availability of PSHE and SRE. In doing so, we must of course, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, look at the excellent work that many schools already do as the basis for any new support and requirements. As we know, sex education is already compulsory in all maintained secondary schools. Academies and free schools are also required by their funding agreement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, and we encourage them to teach sex and relationships education within that. For example, many schools cover issues of consent within SRE, and schools draw on guidance and specialist materials from external expert agencies such as the PSHE Association, which produced the “Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) for the 21st Century” guidance in 2014. This supplementary guidance was developed by the PSHE Association, Brook, and the Sex Education Forum. It provides specific advice on what are sadly all too modern issues, including online pornography, sexting and staying safe online. The guidance equips teachers to support pupils on those challenging issues, developing their resilience and ability to manage risk.
In addition, Ofsted publishes case studies on its website that highlight effective practice in schools, including examples of how SRE is taught within PSHE. Examples include a girls’ Catholic secondary school that has used pupil feedback to enhance its programme to equip students to learn about healthy relationships and issues of abuse and consent. I do not dismiss out of hand the suggestion by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that innovation might have a place in this arena. There is much to commend his suggestion, and I will take it away and give it further thought.
We are also actively considering calls to update the guidance on SRE. As hon. Members have said, the guidance is out of date, and attempts since 2000 to update it have not come to fruition. The guidance is already clear that young people should learn about what a healthy relationship looks like, but it does not necessarily equip children with the skills and knowledge that they need in the world as it is today or ensure that the timeless nature of SRE that the hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke about is properly reflected.
Whatever we do, as hon. Members have said—including my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, in relation to faith schools—we must attempt to allow everybody with a view a chance to make their case. It is a sensitive issue, as everyone is aware, but we want to ensure that we bring as many people with us as possible. The broader the consensus, the greater the prospect that any change will be successful. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow is aware, I have already said that work is in train and we will return to these issues later, at a stage of the Bill when the whole House will have an opportunity to debate them.
Stella Creasy
It is great to hear that the Government are now working on this. My challenge to them is that I need some specific responses. The Minister talked about a framework. Will it be statutory? Over the last couple of years, we have seen clear evidence that because SRE is not a statutory part of the curriculum, it is not happening in too many schools. Some 60% of schools in this country are now academies; the measures that he is discussing cover maintained schools. Will his framework be statutory in all schools, including academies? When will it be introduced, and when will we see the difference?
I said to the Minister in my initial remarks that I would like him to address the question of when we will see the change. A consultation, a framework and guidance are great, but if there are no teeth—if SRE is not statutory and schools are not inspected on it—nothing will change on the timescale that we want. I say to him gently that all of us recognise the difficulties and sensitivities involved in the religious issues—that is why these matters are part of the new clause—but I am not sure that I know of any other policy area that has such overwhelming public support. The risk is that if we keep finding long grass, we can stay in it. Can he give us an explicit commitment now about what the framework will actually do legislatively?
The Minister talked about the Bill coming back at a later stage. We are at the end of Committee stage, so he was talking only about Report. That is not much time for all of us to consider it and ensure, if legislation is involved, that it will be effective. If legislation is not involved, the clear evidence is that any measures will not make a difference.
Edward Timpson
Just to be clear, when I talked about the framework, I was doing so in the context of the response to the report of the Women and Equalities Committee on sexual harassment in schools. It is a framework to support schools to produce their own new codes of practice on issues of inclusion, tolerance and combating bullying, harassment and abuse of any kind. It is not a catch-all framework for PSHE or SRE; it is specifically to deal with those issues raised by the Committee. It illustrates the seriousness with which the Government take those issues and the fact that we are prepared to do something about it, rather than just thanking the Committee for its work.
There is a balance—I know that the hon. Lady is trying hard to strike it—between giving the Government constructive assistance in finding a way forward and appreciating that this issue cannot be resolved with a new Secretary of State in a short period of time. There are lots of repercussions that need to be thought through. The last time that legislation was attempted in 2008-09—I think the then Minister was Jim, now Lord, Knight—that was played out for all to see. We therefore need to be careful about the process we set up and how we ensure that we bring people with us.
Stella Creasy
This is difficult. I thank the Minister for what he has said; I appreciate that it feels a bit as if every amendment and new clause I am involved in is a sticky wicket for him. I asked him some very specific questions about legislation and the need for legislative action on the issue, on which I think we all agree. He referred to 2008-09. There was an attempt in 2013 to make legislation, and that was pushed back by the previous Government for the same reasons that he is talking about. We have proposals and there is support for them.
Edward Timpson
There is an important distinction. The parallel I am drawing is with 2008, when there was an attempt by the Government to lead an independent review and to look at making changes. In 2013, the attempt was not by Government. We are talking about the Government coming forward with proposals. That is the parallel I am trying to draw, rather than looking at 2013.
Stella Creasy
The difference is that there was legislation in 2008-09, and the Minister will recall that it was caught up in the wash-up ahead of the general election. There is not legislation here, and that is what we are looking for now.
The parallel for me is with what my mother calls “eat the frog” moments. If a person has to eat a frog, there is no nice way of doing it, so they might as well just get on and eat the frog. There will be people who oppose whatever we try to do on this issue, and the Government cannot keep saying “at a later date” and not specifying anything.
Are we going to see a legislative proposal on Report? If we will not, then continuing to press the new clause is the best way we have of pushing to make progress. Members from all parts of the House agree that we need progress and a recognition that while we will never get it perfect, we can get good legislation. The failure to make progress over the past six years has let our children down. Unless the Minister wants to intervene and say, “We will commit to bring forward a legislative opportunity on Report”, however late in the day, I will press the new clause to a vote. It is important to set a marker.
I appreciate that Government Committee members are shaking their heads. I am sorry, but frameworks and guidance are what we have had for the past six years, and we are not making progress. As the Minister does not want to intervene, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 20—Former relevant children: provision of sufficient suitable accommodation—
‘(1) In the Children Act 1989, after section 23C insert—
“23CA Duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation for former relevant children
(1) It is the general duty of a local authority to take steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable, the outcome in subsection (2).
(2) The outcome is that the local authority secures sufficient suitable accommodation (whether or not provided by them) within their area to meet the needs of former relevant children, where “former relevant children” has the same meaning as in section 23C(1) of this Act.
(3) In taking steps to secure the outcome in subsection (2), the local authority must—
(a) produce, and make available to all former relevant children, information about the providers of accommodation and the types of accommodation they provide,
(b) be aware of the current and expected future demand for such accommodation and consider how providers might meet that demand, and
(c) have regard to—
(i) the need to ensure the sustainability of the market, and
(ii) the need to encourage providers to innovate and continuously improve the quality of such accommodation and the efficiency and effectiveness with which it is provided.”’
This new clause would establish a clear statutory duty on local authorities to secure sufficient, suitable accommodation for all care leavers up to age 21. Local authorities already have a duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked after children in their area.
Steve McCabe
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. Hopefully this will not take too long and will not be terribly contentious. The Minister and I might not necessarily agree on the nature of my new clause, but I hope that there is not too much between us on this issue. As far as I can see, the new clause follows a very welcome decision that he took in the last Parliament about children in foster care staying put. I believe that was the right thing to do and he deserves credit for it. I should say in passing that the idea flows from a previous Labour pilot; we did not have to exempt a single local authority from a single bit of legislation to implement that pilot, but there you go.
Anyway, the new clause comes from a decision taken by the Minister. I always thought at the time that people would inevitably say, “Well, if you are making this provision for children in care who happen to live in a foster home, what about other children in care who have different arrangements?” In fact, I am slightly surprised that we have not reached a stage where this has been tested out in court. It always occurred to me that someone would inevitably seek to challenge and test the legality of a situation whereby we can have rather different sets of rules for children who are subject to the same care provision but are living in slightly different arrangements.
What I seek to do with the new clause is simple: I am trying to mirror the arrangements that the Minister made for children being able to remain in foster care for other children who might want to remain in the children’s home where they live. There are two aspects to consider. First, there is a moral issue. For children who are subject to care orders, we are their parents. They are our responsibility. That is what we sign up to when we receive such children into care.
I listened to the hon. Member for North Dorset talking about being a father and about his children. I assume that all of us who are parents are not the sort of people who are likely to kick our kids out at 18. Maybe some of us will be quite glad to see them go off to university, so that we get a bit of a break and a breather from time to time, but generally I would not think most of us, and most parents, are like that.
The truth is that parenthood is one of those things that people buy into probably for their entire life. There will always be times when children will come back, and there is no golden rule saying that at 18 or 21, they are capable of standing on their own two feet and can be cut adrift. If that is how we would behave towards our own children, it is not unreasonable to say that we should behave like that towards all children, and certainly children for whom we have become the parents.
The situation with foster care is more clear cut. I know that the Minister has a great deal of personal experience of this. The children are living in a semi-permanent arrangement with a particular parent or set of parents and have often been there for a very long time. It makes perfect sense for someone such as the Minister to say, “Well, it is ridiculous to have an artificial cut-off point—I am going to seek to extend that.”
The issue is much more tricky when it comes to children’s homes, because that provision has developed at different times under different frameworks: some local authority—although there is probably much less of that now—some private or in charity or not-for-profit organisations. The nature of the buildings and the homes is different. Although the new clause is designed to try to mirror the provision for foster care arrangements, I am reluctant to say that I want the Minister to legislate to say that everyone can remain in a children’s home, come what may. I do not personally think that is sensible.
As a consequence, I went back and had a look at a proposal drawn up a couple of years ago by a consortium of organisations, many of which the Minister has a lot of contact with: the National Children’s Bureau, the Who Cares? Trust, Action for Children, Barnardo’s and the Centre for Child and Family Research at Loughborough University. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the work they engaged in, which was a scoping exercise, “Staying put for young people in residential care”. The consortium came up with four options that it suggested we might want to consider.
The first option is for care leavers to continue to live in the same children’s home that they were living in when in care, as this is obviously about what we do with children after they pass the cut-off point of 18. My own hunch is that that may work in some circumstances and not in others.
A second option was that the care leaver lives in a separate building but in the same grounds as the children’s home they were living in when in care. Again, that might work in some situations. There may not be scope for that sort of provision in all situations so it may not work and there may not be funding or finance to deal with it.
The third option is that a care leaver might live in a different house from the one they were living in when in the children’s home, but that they would continue to have support—something akin to supported lodgings. The fourth option, which I think is more commonly referred to as “stay close”, is for the young person to live independently but with regular access to their former home—for example, being invited back for tea on a regular basis.
That strikes me as broadly what happens with our own children. They may continue to live with us beyond the age of 18 or they may come back periodically; they may at times live near us and come back. One would hope that we are always available when they need help and support. That is what I am asking the Minister about in the new clause.
Depending on his response, I am not sure that I will want to press the clause to a vote. I am making the point that we cannot have a situation where we have decided that someone who has the good fortune to be in foster care gets extended provision and we recognise their needs beyond the age of 18, but if someone lives in a different kind of care provision, they do not get the same consideration. I do not hold the Minister responsible, but we hear horror stories of care leavers ending up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, virtually doss-houses in some cases, where they are required to live alongside people with serious alcohol and drug problems, with prostitution on the premises.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I shall speak in support of new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, and my new clause 20.
As it stands, there is a clear inconsistency in the law, where children in stable foster placements can stay with their foster families until the age of 21 under the terms of staying-put arrangements introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, but similar provisions do not exist for those in residential care. I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is simply unacceptable. We cannot have a two-tier system under which those in foster care receive more comprehensive support from the state, their corporate parents, than those in residential care.
I know that the Department for Education is in discussion with key organisations on this matter, and that the Minister is aware that children in residential care often have complex needs and require an immense amount of support. I have no doubt that he is also aware that safe and secure housing is key to improving life chances, especially for some of our most vulnerable children, yet more than often that is not the case. Care leavers have disproportionately poorer outcomes compared with other young people; 40% of care leavers are not in education, employment or training compared with 14% of their peers. The Government’s own figures show that nearly one in five care leavers aged 19 to 21 were in accommodation that was considered either unsuitable or that suitability was not even known. I am sure that the Minister would want to use the Bill to take every opportunity to improve life chances and outcomes for those care leavers, and whenever he did so, he would have the support of all us in this room, because safe and stable accommodation is a basic human need and the starting point for providing young people with absolutely the best beginning in life.
The statistics on the number of care leavers who come into contact with the criminal justice system in comparison with those in the general population are heart-breaking. According to recent figures, the offending rates for looked-after children in England are now four times those for of all other children. For those who end up in prison, a recent study by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that 27% of young people in the young offender institutions it surveyed had previously been in care. When female young offenders were looked at, that figure was up to 45%. It is clear from those figures alone that the current legislation is failing care leavers. One of the factors that is known to give them a better chance in life is to ensure that they all have suitable and stable accommodation.
Local authorities have a duty to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation for looked-after children in their area. New clause 20 would introduce a similar duty to ensure
“sufficient…accommodation for all care leavers up to age 21.”
The Bill requires local authorities to consult on, and publish details of, their local offer to care leavers, setting out the support available for areas such as education, health, employment and accommodation. However, the local offer, as currently drafted, does not go far enough. It requires only that local authorities state publicly what they already provide, and there is no duty on them to ensure that the provision in their area meets local need. There is also no evidence, as we discussed earlier—that the local offer for SEN introduced in the Children and Families Act 2014 has made it more likely that relevant needs are met.
Many care leavers have had to deal with enormous trauma, instability and disruption in their young lives before they have learned the coping skills to deal with the impact of their experiences. That is why so many children growing up and leaving care have related mental health issues. It is absolutely vital that we support these young adults by offering them the stability of safe and secure accommodation. I want the Minister to explain to the Committee what he is going to do to remedy the inequality between children in foster care and children in residential care, and to ensure that the accommodation needs of every single one of our children leaving care are met, and met appropriately.
Kate Green
I just want to say briefly that I support both new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends. In introducing the Staying Put legislation for young people in foster families, the Minister took a big step forward. I have seen the benefit of that in my constituency, including the fact that it has put pressure on the whole system to facilitate keeping those young people in the families that have been providing the foster care, including ensuring that the financial arrangements to support housing costs are consistent with the Staying Put legislation. I have had casework where a foster parent has come to me to say that she faced a cut in the household housing benefit, and we were able to push back on that to enable the young person to stay in the foster home post-18.
That is a really important lesson, if I may say so, in relation to young people leaving residential accommodation. We know that there have been very difficult conversations going on over the last year or so relating to financial support for supported accommodation, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. The Government have delayed, on two occasions, changes to housing benefit as they would apply to supported accommodation, but delay is not a long-term answer to what is putting huge uncertainty into the circumstances in which housing providers of that particular kind of accommodation are able to plan for the future. We could send a really good, useful signal in this legislation about the need for proper, strategic underpinning of accommodation for young people whether they leave foster care or residential care. We need to provide continuing housing support for them as young adults. This legislation is an important opportunity to reinforce that as our starting priority, which is the best interests of those young people.
I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to both new clauses. I think that he did a very good thing with the Staying Put legislation and it would be good to see that extended to the benefit of all looked-after, and formerly looked-after, young people so that we can really do everything. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, we should, as corporate parents, do what parents would do for their own children.
Edward Timpson
I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling these new clauses. They would place a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation for care leavers up until the age of 21 and would extend the existing Staying Put duty to those children leaving residential children’s homes. I understand the purpose behind both the new clauses and agree that care leavers should be supported to access the accommodation they need.
As a backdrop, it is worth going to the start of these Committee sittings and remembering some of the other aspects in the Bill in respect of corporate parenting principles, the care leaver offer and the extension of the personal adviser to every care leaver up to the age of 25 when requested. This is not an area where we have been neglectful. On the contrary: we are the first Government I am aware of who have managed to pull together a comprehensive cross-Government strategy on care leavers and get commitment from a whole range of Departments in areas where we know care leavers particularly require help and support.
I remind the Committee that local authorities are already responsible for providing suitable accommodation to all care leavers aged 16 to 17. When care leavers reach age 18, local authority leaving care teams are responsible for helping care leavers access suitable accommodation. Their new home must be suitable for their needs and linked to their wider plans and aspirations—for example, living close to work or college.
The tapered support offer that already exists for care leavers, which clause 3 will strengthen, is designed to help move young people away from dependence. The corporate parenting principles we are introducing in clause 1 will also ensure that local authorities remain focused on providing appropriate support as care leavers move to independence.
When a care leaver is homeless or at risk of homelessness, the homelessness legislation provides strong protection for them. Local housing authorities have a statutory duty to house care leavers under the age of 21 if they become homeless and people over 21 who are vulnerable as a result of being in care. Statutory guidance for councils also makes clear that those leaving care should be treated as a priority group for social housing.
The Government recognise the importance of improving practice and are funding the homeless charity St Basils to work with local authorities to improve joint working between children’s and housing services, to help them develop accommodation pathways for care leavers that provide a range of options, reflecting care leavers’ readiness to live independently. The Government are also supporting the private Member’s Homelessness Reduction Bill, which will place duties on local housing authorities to provide targeted information and advice for care leavers on preventing homelessness.
Another accommodation option for young people leaving foster care—it has already been mentioned—is Staying Put, which we introduced in 2014. That enables young people to stay living with their former foster carers where that is what they both want. The latest data show that, encouragingly, more than half of 18-year-olds who were eligible for Staying Put are now choosing to do so.
New clause 20 would extend Staying Put to young people leaving residential care. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that those young people should have the same opportunity as those in foster care to maintain relationships with their former care givers. That is why earlier this year, after the research that the hon. Gentleman mentioned from the NCB and others, we asked Sir Martin Narey to conduct a review of residential care. Like the hon. Gentleman, Sir Martin believed that simply extending the Staying Put duty to those leaving residential children’s homes was not the right answer and that the Government should test variations of Staying Close—I am afraid we are back into innovation territory—as an alternative to Staying Put for those leaving residential care. In July, we accepted his recommendations and committed to introducing Staying Close for all those leaving care through that route.
We are not biding our time. On 21 December, we invited local authorities to bid to run pilots, through which we will learn what works to deliver Staying Close, as recommended by Sir Martin Narey. We will use that information to make sure that the future roll-out is fully effective and properly targeted.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Will there be an option in Staying Close for children in residential care to remain in their residential placement if they wish to, or not? Mr Wilson, I should probably have declared at the outset that I am a patron of Every Child Leaving Care Matters, which campaigns on this issue.
Edward Timpson
The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we have been working very closely with the Every Child Leaving Care Matters team, so that it is able to positively contribute to the work and look at the different models that we need to test out through the piloting of Staying Close. In that way, the needs of each individual young person can be met by the range of models available. Some of the early innovation that has already taken place through the children’s social care innovation programme has shown, interestingly, that there are different types of arrangements that work for different young people.
For example, in North Yorkshire we have the No Wrong Door project, which is centred around having a consistent keyworker throughout not only the young person’s time in care but also their time leaving care, irrespective of the place that they are then in. That is built around the concept, which has come through the care inquiry and other routes, that helping maintain those important relationships through that transition can be as beneficial as anything else that we do to support them.
The House Project in Stoke has set up a housing co-operative run by care leavers, who are responsible for managing their tenancy. They have formed their own community, have a good social network and continue to be well supported, but they are starting to gain a sense of independence. I think that the answer to the hon. Lady’s good question is that we want to ensure, through the piloting, that we allow the opportunity to try all the different options available for young people leaving residential care. There are already some residential care settings that keep on young people beyond 18. We need to discover through the pilot what level of demand there is for that and where it is right for that to be done.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Just to clarify the option to remain in some of the models that the Minister has said are being explored, will there be an option for children who want to remain in residential care to do so, or will there not? I am not clear from his response so far.
Edward Timpson
We have accepted the recommendations of Sir Martin Narey that there should not be a duty to provide that for every young person leaving residential care. Through the piloting of Staying Close, we want to consider the different opportunities to find not just the right accommodation solution but the right relationships and pathway into independence for each of those young people.
I think that that is the right approach, and a sensible and proportionate way to respond to the consistent view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak on staying in residential care. Having now understood the basis for his new clause, I hope that I have given him a sense that we are travelling in a direction that accords with where he hopes to go. However, there is still some work to do, and we have committed in our response to Sir Martin Narey’s report to rolling the measure out across the country, so that every young person leaving residential care will have the opportunity to continue with the support received by those in foster care.
Steve McCabe
That was a helpful response from the Minister, and I would like the chance to reflect on what he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Syms.)
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 3 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
Children’s Wellbeing and Mental Health: Schools
(7 years, 3 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
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of supporting children’s wellbeing and mental health in a school environment.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, I think for the first time. It is timely to be discussing the incredibly important issue of children’s mental health and wellbeing, particularly in the context of schools, given what the Prime Minister said yesterday. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister of this country chose to make a speech that was significantly about mental health. That in itself is quite a novelty and should be acknowledged as such. She spoke powerfully about the “burning injustices” in society and focused particularly on those who suffer mental ill health.
My problem is that the response must match the scale of the injustice, and I think that the response has ultimately fallen short, but as a society we are on a journey and it is an important step that the Government are now saying the right things. I suspect that it is acknowledged by many Conservative Members that there is still a gap between the rhetoric and the reality for many people throughout the country, particularly families experiencing mental ill health, who sometimes have to wait horribly long for any access to treatment.
I will briefly describe my own family experience. This goes back to the last decade, which makes the point that the situation we are discussing is not the fault of any individual party or Government. When our oldest son required treatment and as a family we were fairly desperate, we were told that he would have to wait six months to start treatment, so we did what I guess any family would do and paid for treatment. Of course, very many people cannot do that. I do not want to live in a country in which people who have money can access great care, but those who do not are left waiting. That for me is the injustice that we must confront, but I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has raised this incredibly important issue.
One in 10 children are estimated to have a diagnosable mental illness, and 75% of mental health problems in adulthood started before the age of 18, so there is both a moral and an economic case for dealing with mental ill health among children and teenagers, because by neglecting it we store up enormous problems for people later in life, at enormous cost to the state—that is the key point that we must recognise. However, despite the prevalence of illness among children and teenagers, three in four children and young people with a clinically significant mental illness are not in touch with appropriate mental health services, and sometimes it can take up to 10 years before the first symptoms are diagnosed and addressed.
I stress that I do not want to over-medicalise this problem; we do not want to drive everyone into treatment. What we want to do, of course, is prevent the need for that, so we must shift the system so that it focuses much more on preventing ill health and deterioration in health, and schools are necessarily central to that.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, in relation to mental health and schools, that it is important that young teachers are trained to recognise the difficulties that some children have, so that there can be early intervention to try to prevent the need for all the children to go into treatment.
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I totally agree. As I will explain later, giving professionals the tools to manage the issues in front of them seems to me to be fundamental to a sensible approach.
There appears to be growing evidence of increasing mental health problems among young girls. In August 2016 a survey for the Department for Education found that rates of depression and anxiety have risen among teenage girls in England, although the rates appear to be more stable among boys. The survey found that 37% of girls reported feeling unhappy, worthless or unable to concentrate; that was more than twice the percentage for boys. According to the Children’s Society’s latest “Good Childhood” report, a gender gap has opened up between girls and boys in relation to both happiness with life as a whole and appearance. One in seven girls aged 10 to 15 felt unhappy with their lives as a whole, and the figure had gone up over a five-year period. We need to seek to understand that situation better in order to make the right response. I pay tribute to the Children’s Society, which has supported me in bringing this debate to Parliament. I also thank, as I should have done at the start, the MPs who joined me in applying for the debate.
There also appear to be problems among women between the ages of 16 and 24, according to a major report by NHS Digital. Reports of self-harm in that group trebled between 2007 and 2014, so something very serious is going on. Research is urgently needed to understand the causes of the trend. Social media appear to be part of the picture—there are concerns about sexting, cyber-bullying and so on.
We must also remember the issues that relate to boys and young men. Horrifically, suicide remains the biggest killer of men under the age of 45 in the UK, and the rate has been increasing in recent years. In 2014 the male suicide rate was three times higher than the female rate. I am pleased that the Government focused on suicide in yesterday’s announcements. Ultimately, there is nothing more serious or important than seeking to prevent lives from being lost in that horribly tragic way, with the impact that it has on families—my family, along with many others in this country, have gone through that experience—so we need to give it the greatest possible attention.
The overall lifetime costs associated with a moderate behavioural problem amount to £85,000 per child, and with a severe behavioural problem they are £260,000 per child. That is why it is so important to deal with these issues early, rather than allowing them to become entrenched.
The Children’s Society has highlighted school-based counselling, which can be highly effective for children experiencing emotional difficulties. It can be used as a preventive measure, an early intervention measure, a parallel support alongside specialist mental health services, and a tapering intervention when a case is closed by the specialist services to help a child or teenager through to recovery. Research shows that children perceive it as a highly accessible, non-stigmatising and effective form of early intervention.
Studies have also shown that attending school-based counselling services has a positive impact on studying and learning. In 2009 Professor Mick Cooper assessed the experiences of and outcomes for 10,000 children who had received counselling in UK secondary schools. More than 90% reported an improvement, which they attributed to counselling, and 90% of teachers reported that counselling had a positive impact on concentration, motivation and participation. So we end up achieving better academic attainment if we make the investment for those children who need it. It can be cost-effective, given the long-term cost to the economy of problems that continue into adulthood; some studies have indicated that the long-term savings can be in the region of £3 saved for every £1 invested, and data from Wales indicate that the average cost of school-based counselling is significantly lower than the specialist treatment children get if that is the only alternative. So we save money by giving children access to school-based counselling rather than delaying intervention and referring the child to a distant service, probably with a long waiting time, which is also far more stigmatising.
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy has estimated that the overall cost of statutory provision of school-based counselling across all of England’s state-funded secondary schools would be in the region of £90 million per year. On the basis that 60% of schools are already delivering it, the additional delivery would cost around £36 million. I suggest that that investment is well worth making given the improved preventive care.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for being a few minutes late for the start of his important speech. I am sure that he, like me, will have had the privilege of visiting a number of schools, not only in his own constituency but across the country, that are really committed to their students’ mental health and have invested in school-based counselling. Does he share my concern that in this past year we have already seen cuts to those services within schools because they have seen their budgets reduced and they are having to incur the additional costs of pensions, for example? The prospect for the years ahead is to see some schools that fund counsellors five days a week going down to three, or three days down to one, and some having to scrap the provision altogether because they simply do not have the resources to make this very important service available in their schools.
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and pay tribute to the tremendous campaigning work that she does on mental health. Her point highlights the gap between the rhetoric, which is often well intentioned, and the reality. There is now a much greater focus on prevention in the Government’s argument, but what too often happens with a system under impossible strain is that the preventive services are cut first because there is a desperate need to prop up acute services within the system. She makes an important point.
Let me address the issue of stigma in schools. Stigma can exacerbate mental health conditions and prevent people from speaking out and seeking help. In October 2016 the YMCA launched a nationwide campaign aimed at tackling the stigma associated with mental health difficulties and to help to encourage young people to speak out. It found that more than one in three young people with mental health difficulties had felt the negative impact of stigma. School is where most young people experience stigma, and more than half of those who have experienced stigma said it came from their own friends. There is often a lack of understanding among young people—teenagers—about what mental health really is. That is why it is so important that we get this on the curriculum so that every teenager learns about their mental, as well as physical, health and wellbeing, and about how they can become more robust in coping with the challenges they face.
The impact of stigma is profound and pervasive, affecting many areas of a young person’s life. Young people reported that the stigma affected their confidence and made them less likely to talk about their experiences or to seek professional help. I can remember the moment when our eldest son said to me, “Why I am the only person who is going mad?” I just thought that here is a teenager feeling that and having stored it up inside himself, having not been able to talk about it for a long time. We can just imagine the strain of trying to cope with that on top of all the normal pressures of being a teenager. We have to do far more to combat stigma if we are to improve young people’s experiences.
I want to mention “Future in mind”, which is the blueprint we published in March 2015 just before the coalition Government came to an end. It was widely welcomed across the sector. We involved educationalists, academics, practitioners and young people, in particular, in the work we did. Central to the recommendations was the role of schools, and among the recommendations was the proposal that there should be a specific individual responsible for mental health in every school to provide a link to the expertise and support available, to discuss concerns with an individual child or young person and to identify issues and make effective referrals.
There should be someone taking responsibility but also a named contact point in specialist mental health services—too often we find that schools do not have the faintest idea who to contact when a child needs support—and also joint training. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) made the point about the training of teachers. If we can get teachers working alongside specialist mental health workers in schools, everybody will benefit.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman also pay tribute to the work of the Samaritans? It has a scheme called DEAL—developing emotional awareness and listening—which it is rolling out across Wales in particular. There is a resource pack available for teachers if they want to take it into schools, or the Samaritans will send volunteers into schools to undertake, separate from the school system, talks and raise awareness for young people. That is the sort of low-cost—not expecting lots of money to be involved—involvement of people and organisations such as the Samaritans, with their specialist knowledge and awareness, that is extremely helpful in reaching young people.
Norman Lamb
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the incredibly valuable work that she has done, particularly on suicide. I join her in paying tribute to the work of the Samaritans and the army of volunteers who give up their own time to save people’s lives. The sort of initiative that she described is incredibly important. Do the Government remain committed to implementing “Future in mind”? There is a danger in Government that we just replace one initiative with another. There is a very good plan there, which has all the right principles, and the important thing is just to do it and make sure that the money—I will come to that in a moment—actually gets through to where it is required.
Luciana Berger
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for kindly giving way again. May I echo his very important points? “Future in mind”, the report for which he was responsible, was released in March 2015. We are nearly two years down the line and, despite the fact that the “Five Year Forward View” explicitly stated that it accepted the recommendations of the “Future in mind” report, we are yet to see the vast majority of them implemented. I echo what he said and urge the Government to address that very important point in their response.
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Given that I was responsible for that report, I feel very strongly about its absolute importance. I chaired a commission for the Education Policy Institute that reported last November, and we were pleased that the Secretary of State for Health came to speak at the launch, which I thought was important in itself. We looked at what has happened since “Future in mind” and in some parts of the country they are doing great work, but in others very little is happening. Very little has changed, with the bulk of the money still going to the acute end of the spectrum and not being reinvested in preventive care.
Critically, in many areas of the country, as the YoungMinds survey showed, 50% of clinical commissioning groups are not spending all the money—the additional investment secured in the coalition Government’s last Budget. They are not spending the full allocation on children’s mental health. I think that is scandalous. It amounts to theft of money solemnly pledged by the Government for children’s mental health, yet in many areas it is being diverted to prop up local acute hospitals. We cannot tolerate that. The Government have to find ways of ensuring that all that money is spent as intended. I know that the Government plan to have greater transparency, with Ofsted-style ratings for CCGs, but frankly there needs to be more than that. When a CCG is under financial stress, it is just too easy to shave a bit off children’s mental health to spend it where the public are clamouring for action, because ambulances are stacked up outside the A&E department.
In the first year after “Future in mind”, the system that we designed meant that local areas would get the money only if they produced a transformation plan to show how the money would be spent on changing the system to focus more on prevention. My proposition to the Government—the EPI commission report said this—is that every year the money should be tied to a commitment from the CCG that every penny of it is spent on children’s mental health. The CCG must also demonstrate that it has stuck with the plan from the previous year and that it has a plan to continue the change in the subsequent year. Unless we use the money to drive change in local areas, it will not happen because the system is under so much strain.
The other point argued for by the Education Policy Institute commission was that the Prime Minister should launch her own Prime Minister’s challenge on children’s mental health, as the former Prime Minister did on dementia, because that sort of prime ministerial stamp of importance for this subject would be incredibly valuable. Yesterday was a start, but I challenge the Prime Minister to go further and launch a formal challenge of that sort.
My final point—I am conscious that other Members wish to contribute to the debate—relates to the importance of ensuring that when a child needs specialist treatment, they get it on time. This goes to what I regard as a discrimination within the NHS, because anyone who has a physical health problem benefits from a maximum waiting time. Whatever their issue is, they know that a standard maximum waiting time applies nationally. It is accepted that those standards are under strain, but at least they exist, and I know that they drive the system, from the Secretary of State’s office downwards, in looking at every individual hospital’s performance across the country.
On mental health, however, apart from the two maximum waiting time standards that we introduced in the last two years, there are no other maximum waiting time standards. There is no standard for children. Families across the country can be left waiting, sometimes for months, to get any treatment at all, and when they get referred too often they have to clear high thresholds. In other words, someone has to prove that they are really sick before they get any help at all. That dysfunctional and irrational approach completely contradicts the principle of early intervention.
When you have a child aged 15—as I did, a girl—who had an eating disorder and was turned away from treatment because her body mass index was not low enough, and who then got admitted as a crisis case two months later because the problem had been neglected, you are left in a state of despair. We need to ensure that children with mental health problems have the same right to timely, evidence-based treatment as anyone with a physical health problem does, and that they should be treated close to home rather than being shunted sometimes hundreds of miles away.
These are the burning injustices that exist for many families across the country who cannot pay to opt out of the system. We have a duty and a responsibility—the Government, in particular, have a duty—to ensure that those children get the treatment they need on a timely basis.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
Five Members wish to speak in the debate and I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 10.30 am, so if Members could keep their remarks, including interventions, to about seven minutes each, I calculate that we should get everyone in and share the time equally.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this debate, which is so important and timely, and I am pleased to be able to speak in it. I noticed last week that the debate was going to take place and I started to prepare my comments then, but of course, in the light of the Prime Minister’s excellent and welcome speech yesterday, I have had to change them somewhat.
I think it is pretty much agreed across the House that we need to put more emphasis on mental health, putting it on a par with physical health, as we have heard. We also need to do much more work on removing the stigma that seems to be attached to mental ill health, especially among young people. Another universally agreed principle is that prevention, or at least early intervention, is much better than cure. Obviously, that is where the school environment can really come into its own, and where I truly believe we need to focus a lot more effort.
To be positive for a moment, many Members from across the House have worked on bringing to the Government’s attention the fact that we needed a fairer funding formula for our schools. I am delighted that that is happening, and particularly that rural areas, such as mine in Somerset, will receive a much fairer share of funding per student. Although that will not solve mental health problems, it will alleviate the situation for many schools. They will have slightly more money to go around, which may mean that they have money to pay for consultants, advisers and specialist services, should they need them, for mental health. That is just one small thing, but if there is better education across the board, that has to be better for children growing up.
We know that a vast amount of mental health problems begin at school age, with 50% of lifetime diagnosable illnesses beginning at the age of 14, so it makes perfect sense to start dealing with those at that young age. I want to point out some positive initiatives that we could learn from and that perhaps should be copied on a wider scale. One is community engagement and involving young people in activities so that they really feel part of something. To give an example, I was very proud to go to the recent Somerset elections to the Youth Parliament in my constituency, where I was really taken by the assuredness of the students. Not only were they having great fun, but how well they conducted themselves, and how interested they were in life! I got talking to the chap who runs that—Jeff Brown from Somerset County Council—who said, “You should see the state that some of these children come to me in, when they are quite young—about age 11—and how this involvement, engagement and working together has really changed and helped them.” He also said that many of them had mental health issues, so if we could encourage children to get involved in such areas, it would be very helpful. Obviously, that means that we have to keep giving funding to organisations such as the Youth Parliament.
Another area that I am especially interested in, given my gardening and environmental background, is schools that are running gardening and outdoor projects to involve children in activities out of the classroom. I recently went to North Town Primary School in Taunton Deane; it has an excellent, innovative gardening set-up for a primary school. It is really involving children and giving them an outside interest—especially those who, perhaps, are not so academic—in growing and in watching the seasons change, watching nature and watching wildlife. The Royal Horticultural Society has many statistics to prove that that has a really beneficial impact on people’s mental health, and anything that any schools can do to get involved in such projects is worth while and to be encouraged.
Similarly, the Somerset Wildlife Trust, of which I am a vice-president—I am very proud to work with it—does an awful lot of work with local primary and secondary schools, enabling children to connect more with nature and the outside. According to national wildlife trusts’ statistics, 93% of schools said that outdoor learning improves people’s social skills, and 90% of children said that they feel happier and healthier when they are doing these activities outside. Interestingly, 79% of teachers in the surveys that they did said that outdoor learning had a real impact on their teaching practice, so I think there are real lessons to be learned there. Those are all excellent examples of what has already been done.
When I met the people from YoungMinds, they stressed the importance of placing wellbeing and all the activities that I have mentioned alongside academic learning. Again, I welcome what the Prime Minister said, and I was especially pleased to see that a review will be done of child and adolescent mental health services; I hope that it will begin swiftly.
Now for my negative bit: in the south-west, young people’s mental health is a significant issue. I am sure that all Members could give examples; I have many from my casework. People come to me with heart-rending stories exactly like the one that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk told about his daughter. I could list handfuls of people who are affected, including my children’s school friends, my son’s sports mates—guys with aspirations—and neighbours’ children. It is absolutely shocking how many people we can think of offhand. It is not only awful for the child; it puts so much pressure on families, especially if they must go long distances for treatment. It is awful for the child and awful for the parents, but it is also difficult for other siblings to carry on a normal life, and for parents to bring up all their children. I do not know if the right hon. Member for North Norfolk has other children, but I know that the impact makes things difficult for siblings. This is a serious issue, and this House and the Minister need to deal with it.
I welcome the introduction of mental health first aid training in schools, but will the Minister liaise with the Department for Education on an issue relating to the budget cuts for sixth-form colleges? In Taunton Deane, we have an outstanding sixth-form college called Richard Huish College, which has just been shortlisted to be The Times Educational Supplement’s sixth-form college of the year. I wish the college well in that, but when I spoke to its principal, he told me that the school had had to cut all its enrichment courses: sport, drama, music. He was at pains to stress that we need to send the message that we should not expect children to excel only at academic things such as maths and English. Obviously, those are important, but there are other ways for children to show that they are good at something, and for us to celebrate what they do. He pointed out that it is often the children who do not get such opportunities, or who think that they are not good at anything, who fall into a trap and start on a downward spiral. That is how we end up with a spike in mental illness. I urge the Minister to go along to the Department for Education and see whether we can have a bit of joined-up thinking.
I am delighted by the renewed focus on children’s mental health, especially as children spend a third of their time in school. Much good is already being done, as I have pointed out, and I would like to see some of those models copied, especially the ones relating to outdoor activities, the environment and even sport. Some schools run a daily mile; I believe that started in Scotland. Pupils go outside at a set time every day with their schoolteachers, in whatever they are wearing, and run a mile. They might get a bit sweaty, which I believe the girls do not like terribly—
Rebecca Pow
—although my hon. Friend’s daughter does. What a terrific idea. If everybody does it, nobody worries about what they look like. It is simple and cheap; it does not cost a penny. I will also throw in that on Radio 4 this morning, we heard about shared family meals. There is so much benefit in things like that.
To conclude, I stress that the long-term benefits of addressing mental health issues at an early age will be to everybody’s advantage. I applaud the Government for what they are doing, but it is just the start—the building blocks or foundations on which I hope we will build a better future, in which we do not have to debate this issue.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for the opportunity to have this debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, one thing of which I am very aware is that change only comes when there are champions, at the local and national levels. He has certainly been a champion in this House for mental health. When he was a Minister, it was always a delight to speak to him, because I knew I was talking to somebody who understood the problem, and I pay tribute to that.
I welcome the publication of the latest national suicide prevention strategy—I am particularly pleased by its recognition of the work of the all-party group—but one of the big problems is that there is no new money for local action plans. If we do not start on a local basis, we will not get the change that all of us want.
The all-party group works only with academics; on the whole, the people who come to speak to us come from an academic background. Their work is fully researched, and the way forward is understood. Just before Christmas, two researchers from the National Centre for Social Research, Sally McManus and Caroline Turley, addressed the all-party group. They discussed the findings of the recently published adult psychiatric morbidity survey, which examined trends in mental health and well-being since 2000.
It was extremely depressing. One of the first things that they mentioned was self-harm. The all-party group considers both suicide and self-harm prevention, because self-harm is often an early indicator that someone is suffering from mental health problems. If we ignore it, we just build up problems for the future. Self-harm among 16 to 24-year-olds has doubled since 2000. One in four women and girls aged 16 to 24 have self-harmed, rising to one in three among over-18s. In 2000, one in 15 young women between 16 and 24 reported having self-harmed. By 2015, that figure was one in five.
Young women are twice as likely as young men to self-harm. They do so for a number of reasons, but it is often to relieve tension, anxiety and depression. For them, it is a coping mechanism. Triggers vary from one individual to the next, but bullying via social media, low self-esteem and anxiety are often cited. Some care must be taken in considering those figures, as the rise might be due to increased willingness to report, but the increase is borne out by other studies. Clearly, that level of distress cannot be ignored.
Of the 16 to 35-year-olds surveyed, one in 10 asked for help but did not receive it. Someone aged 16 to 18 with anxiety and depression has only a one-in-five chance of accessing help. The older someone is, the more likely they are to receive help. Some 37% of those who reported having self-harmed had received medical or psychological help, leaving two thirds who had no help. If an individual presents at hospital after an incident of self-harm, they will not necessarily receive the help that they need.
The highest rate of access to help was among 35 to 54-year-old white British women. If young people come from a black or ethnic minority background, their access to mental health support decreases. That is incredible and totally unacceptable. Findings published recently in The BMJ, drawn from the multi-centre study of self-harm, 2000 to 2012, considered hospital admissions for self-harm and concluded that despite NICE guidelines, only a little over half were offered a psychosocial assessment.
Sadly, another issue that we must consider is that all too often the criminal justice system picks up the failures of the mental health services. Too many young people are sidelined into youth offending teams and ultimately into young offenders prisons. Staff at those young offenders prisons have told me that some of the most tragic cases that they deal with are of young people with mental health problems who are being criminalised at an early age. That has to stop.
The Department of Health is diverting its failures to the Home Office and to the Ministry of Justice. I cite as an example a young girl in my constituency who, very sadly, has quite severe mental health problems. Over the years, she has appeared in front of the police and the courts more than 140 times. She has served numerous prison sentences; she is in and out of prison all the time. The police and the probation service recognise that her problems are linked to mental health. She has been involved in the mental health system since she was a very young child, but now that she is a young adult, she is being sent back and forth in the criminal justice system and is not receiving the mental health support that she needs. She is now out again; she has already tried to take her own life by jumping from a bridge and has broken her ankles. The likelihood is that she will be back in prison before we know what we are doing.
I agree that we need to start early. The work in schools is essential. Young people need to know what is normal—“I’m going through adolescence, my hormones are all over the place; what is normal and what is actually a problem that needs dealing with?” We need to look at NICE guidelines on psychosocial assessments, which need to be in place more often. The Department of Health informed me in response to a parliamentary question that it does not keep records on where a psychosocial assessment has been offered, but that would give us an idea of how often we are failing.
Another important thing that needs to happen is a triage system. For a GP’s letter to a consultant asking for an appointment to just sit on a secretary’s desk until the secretary has done that assessment is nonsense. Dr Robert Colgate has set up a triage system for mental health that allows direct access to a consultant, so that help and support are available to GPs, mental health nurses and psychiatric social workers straight away and medication, help and appointments can be given straight away.
This has gone on too long. We know what the problem is, and it needs money and investment. Let us make sure that we start from today.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), with whom I share a mental health trust, which we are both glad to see is out of special measures. I congratulate the staff on that, but there is much more work to do. I concur with other Members who have said that prevention is better than cure. There could be no more opportune time for this debate, which comes a day after the Prime Minister highlighted mental health, and particularly children’s mental health, as a problem. We have been talking the talk, not walking the walk, for quite long enough.
Why have I chosen to speak today? Mental health is one of my top three surgery priorities. Week after week, in surgery after surgery, I see families whose lives are breaking down because of waiting times. Very often, it is not only the child at the centre. Often Mum has given up work, so there is an economic impact; Dad has stopped doing overtime, so there is a further economic impact; and the siblings do not quite get the activities that they used to, because everybody is focused on the child who has the problem at that time.
I have four children; the last left school last year. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), I have been somewhat horrified over the past 10 years, as they have travelled through their teenage years, to see how their contemporaries have struggled with mental health and to see the help that has been available for them. As a governor some 10 years ago, the fact that some of my children would be sent hundreds of miles away, when we know that closeness to the family gives better outcomes in the long term, filled me with horror. We really need to drill down into the issue of tier 4 beds and the local availability of child and adolescent mental health services.
As governors and teachers, we instigated sessions with parents on eating disorders and resilience. The World Health Organisation’s whole-school approach is the right one, but we actually need a whole-system approach of teacher training, actual connectivity and knowing where the services are. School-based counselling is excellent, but as the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said, we need to ensure that the funds are there at the right time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, I welcome fairer funding, but the fairer funding formula for Suffolk still leaves us short of the national average, so for us it will make a slight difference but not enough. Suffolk’s population is rural, and delivering issues rurally causes problems. It is much harder for us, with a sparse population in which more than 40% are scattered around, to deliver those scattered services.
Why do only 25% to 40% of children and young people currently receive input? Some 50% of lifelong mental health illnesses develop before the age of 14, and 75% before the age of 25. Young people with mental health problems use other coping strategies: self-harm is one that is familiar to me, unfortunately, and they are four times more likely to turn to alcohol. All these are destructive. They are 20 times more likely to go to prison, as we have heard. Tragically, they are six times more likely to die before the age of 30.
One in seven adults has a common mental disorder. If we capture these problems earlier on, we will be doing ourselves and the country a great service, saving people’s lives and building resilience within their families. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister placing importance on mental health, but at the schools and colleges I go to, particularly my sixth-form college, the pastoral care teams reckon they spend up to 70% of their time on mental health issues. I have talked to teachers in the primary sector, who are seeing issues earlier and earlier. We need that teacher training and we need that funding.
How do we improve? We must build resilience, both personally and emotionally. We must focus on young women, who are three times more likely to experience common mental disorders than young men. However, our young men have less ability to express themselves and we see greater suicide numbers in young men, so we need a comprehensive approach. I encourage schools to reach out. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, I support volunteering and using green spaces. The Green Light Trust does a great deal locally; Westgate Community Primary School does the daily mile. Exercise and sport improve outcomes, because children are within a team—research backs that up. Reducing the hours children spend in front of a screen, ensuring they eat together—all these things are part of resilience building.
When things go wrong, we do not want to medicalise, but we do not want to wait. People need services locally, and we need our children not to be sent all over the country. We have to look at the provision of funding and the allocation of resources. The lack of the family unit locally undermines short and long-term recovery.
I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Prince’s Trust, of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and of Heads Together, which aims to destigmatise and shine a light on the area. That is to be welcomed. I will not give the statistics about body image and coping with work for young people, because we have already heard them, but we need to understand where the money goes. When I spoke to my local mental health trust recently, I discovered that some £363,000 went to eating disorders, but that there was no more money for any additional services. That worries me.
I ask the Minister the following questions. Young people’s mental health needs prioritising. How do we scrutinise those who commission those services? I welcome the £67 million investment in digital connectivity, but many of my constituents do not have access, and there is a broader issue with telecare and prescriptions. How are we locking into the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that the fourth utility is there? Will she assure me that rural areas will be fairly treated? As in everything, we sit in the lower quartile both for education and for health, and that is not a good combination. How can we ensure that cuts in community care and local government support, which often give support services the money they are looking for, are considered effectively? Many trained professionals have moved out from children’s services into adult services. We need to capture that skill and bring it back.
It was my birthday when “Future in mind” was announced. I want to understand how we will properly evaluate whether the money that was announced yesterday—most welcomely—and the money announced in “Future in mind” is being spent where we need it to be spent, so that we can understand what is working. I was also glad to hear the Secretary of State for Health announce that sustainability and transformation plans will not be passed without mental health being high on the agenda.
Many have said that the journey to better mental health starts with a conversation, so I hope that this is our conversation and that by 2020 there will be shorter waiting times and talking therapies in every region, and particularly for my young people.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to serve under you as Chair, Mr Nuttall, and I thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for securing this timely debate, which he opened excellently.
Mental health in schools is devolved to Wales and provision there is often used as an example of good practice. Today I would like to draw Members’ attention to certain areas of good performance in supporting children’s mental health services in Welsh schools, particularly in Gwynedd, the county in which my constituency is located and that I served as portfolio leader for education between 2008 and 2012. There is always room for improvement and there are still areas of concern, some of which infringe upon non-devolved competencies and impact heavily on the wellbeing of children and young people.
I will just point out that student union presidents at Grwp Llandrillo Menai, the three-college further education institution for north-west Wales, are so troubled by the prevalence of mental health issues among 16 to 19-year-olds that they have chosen Mind as this year’s cross-college union charity. The Children’s Society’s “Good Childhood” report for 2016 highlights the issues affecting children’s wellbeing, as well as the connections between wellbeing and mental health. It calls for the introduction of statutory provision of emotional wellbeing and mental health support within schools in England, to act as a point of early help and to provide referral to specialist services if necessary.
Although they were conveniently timed during a row surrounding the “humanitarian crisis” in health, I am sure that we all welcome yesterday’s announcements about reform of mental healthcare, particularly the pledge to offer mental health first aid training in schools. The Government are making the right noises, but the detail is yet to be communicated. The real-terms increase in health spending is unlikely to meet the requirements created by health inflation over the coming years, so it is by no means a silver bullet solution, and of course it has implications for the Barnett consequentials that Wales receives.
As I have said, counselling provision in schools is already on a statutory footing in Wales. During the Plaid Cymru and Labour “One Wales” Government of 2008, the goal was set of ensuring that every secondary school child could access counselling as needed. In addition, in our first few months as an Opposition party last year we secured a landmark budget deal with the Welsh Government, whereby we realised a manifesto pledge to increase spending on mental health services by £20 million a year, and to improve access to trained counsellors and therapists in the community.
An example of a successful school counselling scheme is being implemented by Plaid-run Gwynedd and is operating in both Gwynedd and Ynys Môn. Since its instigation in 2008, 500 children a year have received counselling, and I am glad to say that very few of them have gone on to be referred to child and adolescent mental health services. In fact, in 2014-15 more than 11,500 children and young people across Wales received counselling, and 89% of those seen did not require onward referral after the completion of their counselling.
However, despite significant progress in that field in Wales, there are still areas of concern. A number of issues remain about the provision and delivery of CAMHS, including the transition from child to adult services and the support offered to children and young people who do not meet the clinical threshold for CAMHS but who still need support. In Wales, the comparable waiting times for child and adult mental health services are such that four of every 1,000 children and young people are waiting for treatment, which is eight times greater than the equivalent number of adults.
A particular point to which my attention was drawn came from my surgeries, as I am sure is the case for many Members here today. It seems that those children and young people who cannot attend school because of mental health issues fall between the cracks. Olivia Hitchen is 15, and I am glad to say that she was happy for me to mention her name—of course I asked her first. She lives in Corris in Dwyfor Meirionnydd and has explained how better support needs to be provided for young people who suffer extreme anxiety when they are placed in the crowded environment of a school classroom. It struck me as interesting that we expect children to operate in social groups for the purpose of education in a way that is strikingly different from the operation of most working environments; we do not usually put people in large groups with one person addressing them. If individual children do not fit into the conventional classroom, there seem to be precious few alternatives for them, particularly if they have mental health issues as well.
Olivia is highly intelligent and articulate. Her issues with anxiety appear to be reduced when she does not attend formal education, but she now needs to achieve formal qualifications, such as GCSEs, through examinations. Surely our education system should match the needs of the child and not expect our children to be moulded to the needs of the education system.
My final point today relates to the non-devolved ways in which children’s wellbeing may be improved. Of course, poverty increases the risk of mental health problems; it can be both a causal factor and a consequence of mental ill health. My constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd has one of the highest poverty rates in the United Kingdom. Of the 11,312 children living there, it is estimated that 2,510 live in poverty. Increasingly, those children who are in poverty live in a household where at least one adult is in work—there are 1,958 children in that situation in my constituency. A move into work is not automatically a move out of poverty. The impact of this Government’s punitive universal credit moves is hitting children in my area hard. Families in my constituency face a four-year freeze in their benefits, and the cumulative effect of the changes to support will mean that many families lose out overall, thus aggravating mental health-related issues.
Every child must be given a chance of achieving robust health and happiness. Despite the gains created by the examples I have cited from Gwynedd and from Wales overall, more must be done at both Welsh Government level and UK Government level to ensure that the best opportunities exist for all our children.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall; it is the first time I have done so. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. During his time in office he really helped to highlight the challenges in mental health and he continues, quite rightly, to put the spotlight on mental health now. We are all grateful to him for the work that he has done in this area.
It is clear—obviously partly because of the Prime Minister’s speech—to all of us who have tried to make some efforts on young people’s mental health over the last year that it has become a major issue. For me, it became absolutely clear that it was a critical issue around 18 months ago, when I had a group of about 10 young people come to Parliament for an induction day. In a gap in the Q and A session, I decided to ask them what they thought was the most pressing challenge that their generation faced. In unison, those 10 young people, who were studying for their A-levels and had great prospects ahead of them, did not talk about tuition fees or debt; they talked about mental health. They said that mental health is the challenge we need to deal with.
As I started to explore this area in more detail, I went to an event at a school—it was a Christmas party, I think—and spoke to one of the parents who happened to be involved in dealing with pupils with pastoral issues in another neighbourhood. She talked about the increased incidence of self-harm, particularly among young women, which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned. I then had the chance to speak to a number of children who were not actually dealing with mental health challenges in their own life but who were really worried about how they could help their friends who were. They were coming home and asking, “How do you deal with a friend who is involved with self-harm, or who is considering it?” Trying to come up with those solutions is a heavy burden for a 12 or 13-year-old, so these issues need to be tackled urgently.
I am grateful to YoungMinds for the work it is doing. As I have spoken with its chief executive, Sarah Brennan, and her team, it has become clear that mental health is now not just a challenge for the one in 10 children who we have heard about, or the one in 12 to one in 15 children who are dealing with self-harm; the latter figure could even be higher, according to the hon. Member for Bridgend. It is clear that young people’s mental health is a growing challenge. It is not just static; it is growing. Therefore, because of the increase in the number of referrals and because of the challenges that exist—from talking to my local mental health service provider, Cheshire and Wirral Partnership, I know that they exist—we must tackle the issue. As I have said in previous debates, the issue is amplified by social media. Feelings of low self-esteem and low self-worth need to be tackled and we need to help build resilience.
Although, obviously, not everything has been done yet, the Government took an important step forward with the “Future in mind” report, and credit needs to be given to the Prime Minister for her efforts and for the initiatives she put forward yesterday: mental health first aid training for teachers and staff; a thematic review by the Care Quality Commission, with Ofsted support; a new Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health; and the absolutely key aim—it has not been mentioned in this debate but we must ensure that it is delivered—that by 2021 no child will be sent away from their local area to be treated for general mental health disorders. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) highlighted that concern. The Prime Minister was honest enough to highlight that treatment is only part of the answer. What we need to do now is prevent mental health challenges and build resilience.
Something else that has not been mentioned today is the important investment of nearly £68 million in digital mental health services to provide online therapies. It is absolutely critical that we can multiply the expertise out to as many people as possible, making it easily accessible through digital technology.
In the couple of minutes I have remaining, I want to highlight what else we need to do next. We need to learn from best practice. Peer-to-peer support does not cost a huge amount and we need to ensure that we do it. The Emotionally Healthy Schools programme in Cheshire East has been particularly helpful. We must also ensure that there is counselling support and space available at school.
I know that you are keen for me to wind up, Mr Nuttall, but let me just say one thing in conclusion. We need to ensure that the digital funding that is available pushes forward recognition for greater support from social media themselves. Often social media are a cause or an amplifier of mental health challenges. We must ensure that easily accessible apps are in place to support these young children.
Finally, given what the Prime Minister has said, it is time for our various third sector charities to come together with a clear set of asks for the Government and a clear plan of action that they would like to see us take forward; YoungMinds, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s and all organisations that have clear expertise bringing to bear a clear plan of action that will deliver for those young people who are suffering and those we do not want to see suffer in the years ahead.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
I ask the Front-Bench spokespersons to restrict their comments to nine minutes, so that we can leave a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up at the end.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. As a former secondary school teacher with more than 23 years’ experience, I am pleased to be speaking in the debate, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for bringing it forward. He has direct personal experience of the issue and has spoken movingly about it. I think that we would all agree that he has moved the debate forward, certainly in England, where much more focus has been placed on the matter.
There is no doubt that over the past 20 years we have all started to become more aware of mental health, and of how widespread its challenges are in our society. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk articulated the importance of continuing to move the agenda forward, and that is a very good thing, because the greater our awareness of different mental health issues, the forms they can take and the challenges they pose to our society, the better equipped and educated we are as we try to deal with them, and that is never more true than in a school setting.
We know that the teenage years can be challenging in and of themselves, as young people grow, discover who they are and try to find their own path in life, and mental health issues that are not addressed in those formative years can scar a young life forever. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) pointed out, the whole family unit is scarred and caused real pain and anxiety.
We often hear Governments talking about attainment, teaching and learning, nurturing and citizenship, and inclusion, but none of those things are possible in their truest sense unless our children and young people enjoy good health, including good mental health. The statistics outlined by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) are truly shocking. Apart from the human cost, we of course need to consider the huge economic cost.
All those who have contact with young people are charged with creating a supportive, positive and fostering environment. Of course parents have a role to play, but things might manifest themselves in school and not at home, so all those who have contact with children must be vigilant. Schools have a privileged and important role in child protection. I can think of examples from my time in education when it was through the vigilance of a teacher that a young person who was struggling was identified and offered vital support, shielding the young person from falling into a downward spiral of problems and despair.
In Scotland, child and adolescent mental health services are linked to schools, and they work with young people referred to them by schools. The number of mental health professionals in those services has more than doubled under the current Scottish Administration. We all of course welcome the extra £15 million announced by the UK Government to help tackle mental health issues in young people, because we know that it is important in achieving positive outcomes.
I want to say a word or two, if you will permit me, Mr Nuttall, about some of the work that has been ongoing in Scotland for a number of years. In Scotland we have already built up support networks at the early intervention level to ensure that young people, parents and health professionals, as well as schools, are much more aware of how to help young people who begin to show signs of mental distress. In addition, we have already seen good examples of staff in schools being upskilled in areas such as mental health first aid, and some schools have involved young people themselves in the training programmes, so that they can support their peers. That might go some way towards tackling the stigma, which the right hon. Member for North Norfolk outlined.
In Scotland we are getting better at this work. The demand for child and adolescent mental health services has increased year on year, with 10% to 20% more young people starting treatment every year. That is being driven in part by the unmet need that we know has always existed across the entire UK, which is now being picked up by GPs, staff in schools and other children’s services. We are getting better, but we are not there yet, and there can be no room for complacency on such a serious, widespread and important issue. I will point out, however, that for a number of years now Scotland has had a dedicated Minister for mental health, which is a symbol of the kind of commitment required by the enormous social issue with which we are confronted.
The new measures announced by the UK Government are good—of course they are, as far as they go—but let us not forget that, as the fierce advocate for mental health, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, has already pointed out, mental health funding has not always made it to the frontline services where it is desperately needed, and that must be addressed. I note the comments about waiting times, and I say to the Minister that Scotland was the first nation in the world to introduce, in 2010, waiting time targets for child and adolescent mental health services. That is a good path that the UK Government should think about going down. Unfortunately, in 2015 people in England were told that it was not feasible to have such targets. Why is it not feasible? If it can be done in Scotland, there is absolutely no reason why it should not be done in England.
Every constituent part of the UK needs a coherent, ambitious and bold mental health strategy to address the scourge of poor mental health, which has a huge effect on society. The Scottish National party Government is in the process of setting out their vision for mental health for the next 10 years, to transform mental healthcare in Scotland—including for children and young people—funded to the tune of £5 billion over this parliamentary term, funding that has been prioritised despite enormous budgetary pressure.
It is that kind of big thinking—that joined-up thinking—that is needed by those living with poor mental health wherever they live in the United Kingdom. I am interested in the plans that the Minister will set out today. Will she look at some of the excellent work being done in Scotland to see what lessons can be learnt to improve the situation in England?
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Nuttall. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this debate.
We have heard from Members of all parties: my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who was here for a short while; my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon); and the hon. Members for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), for Macclesfield (David Rutley), and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). We have heard much today much about the state of mental health services for children and young people, which was the focus yesterday, and about some of the causes and challenges. I, too, welcomed the Prime Minister’s intervention on children’s mental health yesterday. It was a step in the right direction, but inadequate without work on existing resources, which I will come on to. If mental health treatment is a burning injustice, it needs more than what I have seen summarised as teacher training, a review and a Green Paper.
Providing mental health first aid training in secondary schools will help some young people, but given that 50% of mental health problems start by the age of 14, why is that training not being extended to primary schools? A further commitment could fund a counsellor in every school, as we have heard in this debate when it was discussed by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk. We have also heard about the excellent results of school counselling in Wales.
The Children’s Society has stated that school-based counselling is seen as accessible, non-stigmatising and effective by children and pastoral care staff. As we have heard, it estimates that the additional cost of ensuring a counsellor in every school would be around £36 million; that is an overall £90 million cost when we include the current use of counselling by schools. That is not a great sum and it could make a great difference.
Personal, social, health and economic education should be statutory in our schools. That already has the support of the House. The Chairs of four Select Committees, including the Health and Education Committees, supported that as a
“crucial part of preparing young people for life.”
Importantly, the most recent Ofsted report on PSHE provision found that in two fifths of schools where learning was weak, pupils have gaps in their knowledge
“in the serious safeguarding areas of personal safety in relation to sex and relationships, mental health, and alcohol misuse.”
Does the Minister agree that if the Government are serious about tackling the stigma around mental health, making high-quality PSHE lessons statutory would be a good place to start?
Clearly, schools can play an important role in identifying vulnerable young people who may be living with mental ill health, such as those in care or those who have experienced abuse and neglect. Schools need to be supported to identify and respond to the safeguarding and emotional needs of young people affected by abuse and neglect, yet according to the Children’s Society, less than half of mental health trusts have clear pathways set up for referrals of children who have experienced sexual exploitation. If we think of the number of places in this country where that has been an issue, that is a serious gap.
Given the emphasis on the role of schools, it is deeply worrying that the National Union of Teachers’ analysis of Government figures for the national funding formula consultation found that funding would be cut from a very large percentage—98%—of England’s schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, referred to the impact of cuts on schools’ budgets and their ability to fund counsellors. Some Conservative Members feel that their budgets will improve, but for many schools, they will not. Does the Minister agree that putting greater financial pressure on schools will, as we have heard, damage their ability to employ counsellors and take on other vital work to link schools with mental health services?
If schools and teachers take on a role in mental health, they need to be able to make a referral to mental health services quickly. On average, nearly one in four young people are turned away due to high thresholds for accessing services. It is unacceptable that vulnerable young people are turned away from the services they need. When young people do get access to services, they can still experience wide variations in waiting times across the country; average waiting times for treatment range from two weeks in Cheshire to 19 weeks in north Staffordshire. Such disparities must be addressed.
I turn briefly to the issue of young people in crisis waiting long periods for a bed, or being admitted to units hundreds of miles from home; as we know, that includes young people with eating disorders being sent to Scotland for treatment. It is clear that the stress and sense of isolation that that causes can damage a young person’s chances of recovery.
The Prime Minister said yesterday:
“By 2021, no child will be sent away from their local area to be treated for a general mental health condition.”
That is simply not soon enough. Will the Minister tell us whether that target of 2021 for out-of-area bed placements can be brought forward?
I turn now to CAMHS funding and the £1.4 billion of extra funding promised from 2015 to 2020. YoungMinds found, through freedom of information requests, that in 2015-16, only just over a third of clinical commissioning groups had increased their CAMHS spending by the full amount allocated to them, and this year only 50% of the CCGs had increased their spending to reflect the additional funds. As we have heard in this debate, it is totally wrong for such funding to be used for other NHS priorities. We have also heard that it is important that we know what commissioners are spending the CAMHS funding on. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds was right to talk about Members of Parliament being able to drill down into CAMHS spending.
There has been an issue with the way that CCGs have reported their CAMHS spending to NHS England. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reported that CAMHS funding ranges from £2 per child per year in NHS Luton to more than £135 per child per year in NHS Birmingham South and Central. When pressed, the CCGs with the lowest expenditure levels said that they had reported only the figure for the additional spending allocated to them, rather than their total CAMHS spending.
In our debate on children’s mental health in October, the Minister talked about delivering “accountability through transparency” on spending. I wrote to her on 7 December about the confusion among CCGs on the figures that they should be reporting on their CAMHS spending. I asked her to investigate and, if necessary, issue guidance so that we have the accurate figures on CAMHS spending that we need if we are to monitor that important area. I have yet to receive a response, so perhaps the Minister will respond on that issue.
Given that one in four young people are being turned away from services, we should be prioritising practical and measurable solutions to make sure that young people who need to access mental health services can do so. The Government can start the improvements, as a springboard from what the Prime Minister covered yesterday, by ensuring that the entire £250 million that was promised in each year of this Parliament is spent as intended. This spending should be ring-fenced for CAMHS and not used elsewhere in the NHS. If the social care precept can be ring-fenced, why not funding for children’s mental health?
Some schools in some parts of the country are doing excellent work on the “Future in mind” programme. In Salford, we have an emotionally friendly schools programme to support our teaching staff. We have approved registers for schools counselling. We have established school champions and young ambassadors for peer support. We are doing a review of transitions from primary to secondary school. We have developed an emotional health directory of services for children and young people, which sets out the services available and resources on websites. We are establishing a rapid response advice line for frontline professionals in schools to give them advice and guidance in times of crisis or if they lack understanding.
So much is going on, but as the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said, things are not even across the country. The Government should make it a priority to ensure that young people have timely access to clinically effective mental health support when they need it. “Future in mind” set out
“A five year programme to develop a comprehensive set of access and waiting times standards”
to bring rigour to mental health. I feel that a five-year programme is too long. It does not seem fair to spend so long developing access and waiting time standards when young people are not receiving the treatment that they need. Does the Minister agree?
Yesterday’s announcement could have been of a counsellor in every school, statutory PSHE and the ring-fencing of funding for children’s mental health. The things that we have discussed in this debate and to which I have just referred would have more impact on the burning injustice of mental health treatment than what has been summarised as teacher training, a review and a Green Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), his colleagues and the Children’s Society for initiating this debate. As ever, I pay tribute to his continuing personal commitment to improving mental health services, not only as my predecessor but also through chairing the commission on children and young people’s mental health for the Education Policy Institute. That work has been extremely valuable to us.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that today’s debate is both timely and hugely important. As many colleagues have demonstrated in their comments, we know the distress that mental health problems cause to individuals and those who care for them. Some 10% of children have a diagnosable disorder—700,000 in the UK—and they are twice as likely to leave school with no qualifications, four times more likely to become drug dependent and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. He could not have put it better. There is a compelling moral, as well as social and economic, case for change. We know that if we can get our children and young people the help and support they need early on, when problems first arise, we can make sure that the problems do not become entrenched. That is why the Prime Minister was clear in her determination to improve mental health services and tackle the burning injustice of those with mental ill health having a shorter life expectancy.
As has been discussed, the measures announced by the Prime Minister particularly tackle children and young people’s mental wellbeing and build on the substantial work already in train to implement “Future in mind”. We will continue that work, so that we can go further and faster in intervening earlier more often. In driving those reforms forward, one of the challenges we still face—the right hon. Member for North Norfolk identified this when he was a Minister—is the “fog” when trying to identify and pinpoint the best treatment and support for those with mental health problems. We need to base policies on the most robust evidence possible, so that we can be sure that we are providing the care that people need at the right time and in the right way.
That is why the Department for Education is conducting a large-scale school survey on the activities and approaches used in schools to support children and young people’s mental health in order to find out what works best, and why the Prime Minister requested that the Care Quality Commission undertake an in-depth thematic review—the first of its kind. That is also why we are carrying out a prevalence survey on children and young people’s mental health—the first since 2004, which was before YouTube, Twitter or Snapchat. The survey will look at issues such as cyber-bullying and the impact of social media for the first time, and it is on course to report in 2018. It will fill an important gap in our understanding.
As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk knows, I believe very strongly that transparency in mental health services has lagged behind that in acute services. At a national level, data on children and young people’s mental health services were included in the new mental health services data set for the first time in January. It is still early days, but as collection improves, new metrics to monitor delivery are becoming available. We know from experience in acute services that that does improve accountability, standards and safety for patients. I will respond in detail to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) about her letter—I do not have time to do that properly right now—but we are looking at how we can drive accountability, eradicate all shadow of confusion from clinical commissioning groups about how they should be reporting, and make sure that we get that data set exactly right. As recommended by the taskforce, we will publish a 10-year research strategy to ensure that the evidence-gathering is sustained. A new policy research unit for mental health will be established in 2017 to make sure that the research continues to become a reality.
While all the evidence-gathering is going on, we cannot stand still. That is why we will press ahead with the implementation of “Future in mind”. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said, some areas are performing well and improving, some need to get the message about why this is important, and others are coming from such a low base that they are still working on capacity building, so we are not seeing evidence of improvement yet, but we are clear that we are ambitious not only to deliver “Future in mind” but to go further upstream and intervene earlier to prevent problems. The evidence base that we are building will come together to support the publication of the Green Paper, with increasing focus on preventive activity across all delivery partners. The Prime Minister committed initially to a new focus on schools, colleges and local NHS services working more closely together to provide dedicated children and young people’s mental health services. We are supporting schools and the NHS to develop work by evaluating models and approaches and exploring the impact that closer working can have. We will initially support that by funding the provision of mental health first aid training for teachers in secondary schools—we know that that works. That is our start. I am going to do the training in the next few weeks, to see exactly why it works.
As we know, the Prime Minister also launched a refreshed programme of activity on peer support in schools and online to help young people, through providing access to well-trained mentors, as well as comprehensive support structures to help identify issues and prevent them from escalating.
Nicola Blackwood
Absolutely. We are also looking at increasing support for schools by finding the evidence of what is proven to work in their approaches to mental wellbeing. That will be achieved by a programme of randomised control trials of promising preventive programmes across the country. As the hon. Lady also mentioned, the refreshed suicide strategy has a particular focus on self-harm, which is causing so many problems in schools.
To make the measures work and to see the progress that we so desperately need, we have to work closely with colleagues across Government. As colleagues have said, schools and colleges have an important role to play in supporting children and young people’s mental health. That role is not only laid out in statutory safeguarding guidance but is one of the four areas of Ofsted judgment in the new common inspection framework.
Colleagues are right: if we are to expect schools to play this role, we must give them the right training and resources. In 22 pilot areas, which include 255 schools across the country, NHS England has been trialling a single point of contact in schools. That programme has tested improvements in joint working between school settings and specialist mental health services—particularly improvements in local knowledge and identification of mental health issues—and it aims to develop and maintain effective local referral routes to specialist services to ensure that children and young people have timely access to specialist support where required. It is also testing the idea of a lead contact in schools and specialist mental health services and examining how different areas choose to put that into practice. The work is being independently evaluated by Ecorys, and the final report will be available in the spring. The question is whether that system is more effective than having an individual counsellor in every school. We are looking at that.
Other support available includes Government-funded PSHE Association guidance, and lesson plans on how to teach mental health across all four key stages. A range of training on how to recognise specific mental health issues is available to all professionals who work with young people through the MindEd website; our analytics have shown that teachers are the largest single group of registered users on the MindEd tool. As the shadow Minister said, mental health and wellbeing is an evolving and vital area of education, and we need to make sure that it is fit for children growing up in modern Britain, so the DFE is looking again at the case for further action on PSHE and sex education provision, with particular regard to improving quality and accessibility. I am sure that it will keep the House updated on that.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk is absolutely right that school counselling can turn around a child’s whole life trajectory, so schools are encouraged to provide counselling services, and the DFE has produced guidance on good school-based counselling as part of a whole-school approach to wellbeing. It has also published advice on behaviour and mental health, which provides teachers with information, and with tools to help them identify pupils who need help and to give effective early support in understanding when a referral to a specialist mental health service may be necessary. An advisory group, including sector experts and young people, looked at what good peer support for mental health and wellbeing looks like and considered how to encourage good practice in schools, community groups and online. There is much greater recognition that the earlier we pick up these things, the better it is for young people and their mental health.
The “Children and Young People’s Mental Health: Time to Deliver” report from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk found that we are making progress in many areas of the country, but not nearly enough to be complacent. I agree completely with that. We are restless in our ambition not only to drive delivery of “Future in mind” in all areas, but to go further and deliver upstream interventions to prevent problems, rather than waiting until the need for treatment. I hope that I have convinced the right hon. Gentleman that this is an area to which we are fully committed, and that we will continue to drive forward with his agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of supporting children’s wellbeing and mental health in a school environment.
Leaving the EU: European Social Funding in Scotland and the UK
(7 years, 3 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
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on European Social Funding in Scotland and the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. During the EU referendum campaign last year, great importance was attributed, and a lot of time was given, to the debate about how much money the UK contributes to the EU. One spurious and now debunked claim was plastered on the side of a now infamous bus. However, seldom spoken of before, during or after the referendum campaign were the funds that come back from the EU to the UK, where they go and the difference they make. We live now in post-vote, pre-Brexit uncertainty, in which the vacuous slogan “Brexit means Brexit” is accepted as satisfactory political discourse, although it has little meaning. Indeed, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, stated last week that even after high-level talks with the UK Government she is no further forward in understanding the UK Government’s negotiating plan.
The debate during the run-up to the referendum became so shrill and engulfed in dog-whistle politics that the many benefits of EU membership were ignored in favour of focusing on borders and migrants, even though those benefits make a huge difference to many communities in many constituencies, including mine. I am, of course, referring to European structural investment funds, which bolster and boost economic development across the EU’s member states and regions. Since their inception in the 1970s, European structural funds have enabled great progress to be made in reducing economic and social inequalities among the EU’s member states and regions.
My remarks, and indeed my concerns, focus predominantly, but not exclusively, on the European Social Fund. Like other nations across Europe, Scotland has benefited enormously from European social funding. That great investment in our people has created invaluable opportunities in employment and education in the city of Glasgow and across Scotland and the UK. In the current period—2014 to 2020—Scotland will benefit from the European Social Fund to the tune of £464 million. Those funds, matched by the Scottish Government, will see millions of pounds invested across the country to improve sustainable and quality employment, to promote social inclusion and combat poverty, to create opportunities in education and employment, and to fight youth unemployment.
It is easy to distil facts and figures into rhetoric while missing the impact on the lives of real people in our communities, for whom European social funding helps to bridge a gap. In communities in my constituency, partnership working with local housing associations, such as that between Parkhead Housing Association and Glasgow Kelvin College, uses outreach to teach computing skills to people in their own communities and community centres, which lowers digital exclusion and helps people to attain the confidence and skills they need to achieve their potential. The system would otherwise leave behind many of those people.
The last round of European social funding—2007 to 2013—supported fantastic and worthwhile projects across Scotland. Glasgow City Council helped people out of gangs and into work. Coatbridge College provided employability services to school leavers. Glasgow Met worked with ethnic minorities to improve employability skills. The Wise Group helped people find routes out of prison. Fife Council tackled worklessness. Glasgow Clyde College provided community-based training. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce offered business mentoring. Dundee College helped people not in education, employment or training. ENABLE Scotland supported people with learning difficulties into work. The Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living helped people with disabilities to secure work.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about the impact of the loss of European social funding on Glasgow and the surrounding area. Does she agree that the loss of ESF funding will have serious consequences right across urban and rural Scotland, including on my constituency, whose fragile economy benefits greatly from ESF funding and whose people voted overwhelmingly to remain within the European Union?
Natalie McGarry
The hon. Member makes a very compelling case. He is a doughty fighter for his constituents in Argyll and Bute.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Before coming to this place, I worked at South Lanarkshire College, and I saw for myself the immense difference to people’s lives that ESF funding can make. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many people in our local communities, including mine, whose lives are on a very different and more positive trajectory because of the benefits of colleges such as South Lanarkshire and the work they do with European funds?
Natalie McGarry
The hon. Member makes a very important point. The post-Brexit discourse has focused on higher education and other sectors, but not much on further education and the invaluable work that is done in local communities—at the very coalface, in the sense that people in colleges and community groups go into the very hearts of communities, where people are hardest to reach. That work is invaluable, and the hon. Member’s point is well made.
The projects that I mentioned are only a few of the many supported through European funding that make a tangible and real difference to the lives of people in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. This year alone, Glasgow Kelvin College, a further education institution that serves my constituents and has a campus in the Easterhouse area of my constituency, secured £1.5 million-worth of European social funds, on top of £1.9 million last year, which enabled it to continue its fantastic work on employability and vocational skills across Glasgow. That European social funding directly supports real jobs—more than 10 of them—and helps to create opportunities for many more.
In the past few months, I have met the principals of colleges in Glasgow with groups and organisations whose work relies on European social funding. They are worried about the future. They should currently be considering future bids for funding, but little or no information has been forthcoming about where they stand. The Government can provide certainty to Nissan and talk about guaranteeing research and technology funding to appease the higher education sector, but European social funding is the Kevin McAllister of the Brexit rush—drowned out by louder voices, trampled on in the rush to get out the door and left home alone.
The elephant in the room is, of course, the fact that the UK is leaving the EU, and that no non-EU country has ever received European social funding. Brexit is not the circumstance of Scotland’s or Glasgow’s choosing. Organisations across our city and throughout our country stand to lose hundreds of millions of pounds. Our people the length and breadth of Scotland and the UK stand to lose invaluable services and support, which will be to the detriment of their lives and our economy.
My constituency—indeed, our entire city and our country—voted to remain, yet our further education and communities face Brexit’s damaging consequences unless the Government stand up now and guarantee that they will protect the funding for projects at an equitable and comparable level. The true and full impact that the projects financed by the European Social Fund have may not be fully realised during one round of funding, but it will be undoubtedly real and lasting. That cannot be said of the impact that taking it away will have—it will be immediate and painful. EU funding has been an integral feature of Scotland’s educational, employment and economic landscape for so long that the removal of those key resources cannot be easily done—at least, not without substantial damage.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that much of that damage will be done to the deprived communities in cities such as Glasgow, which use such funding to engage young people in education, employment and training?
Natalie McGarry
The hon. Member has pre-empted almost my next sentence.
Worse still, because structural funds are targeted at poorer regions and areas of higher socioeconomic disadvantage, the impact will be disproportionate if such gargantuan funding gaps cannot be filled. Of course, the UK Government have announced that they will underwrite all EU structural and investment fund projects signed before the autumn statement last year, and that they will assess whether to underwrite funding for certain other projects that are signed after the autumn statement but before the UK leaves the EU. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the UK Government were
“determined to ensure that people have stability and certainty in the period leading up to our departure from the EU”.
That statement, however, is at odds with the Government’s position, and their rhetoric is far from reconciling with the reality facing organisations in Glasgow, across Scotland and, indeed, throughout the UK. The Government’s position falls far short of what is needed. It is a limited guarantee for a narrow number of schemes for a restricted number of years, and it will leave Glasgow and Scotland hundreds of millions of pounds worse off than if we were still members of the EU. Organisations throughout Scotland that provide invaluable services do not have the certainty or security that the Chancellor has promised them.
In December, at Education questions in the House, I expressed those specific concerns. After I asked my question, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who had campaigned to leave, asked:
“Given that all EU spending in Britain is simply returning part of our gross contribution to the EU budget, would it not be sensible for the Government simply to commit now to replacing EU funding with UK Exchequer funding, thereby keeping everyone happy?”
The Minister for Schools replied that the
“the United Kingdom Government will decide how best to spend the money that was previously going to the European Union.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 1164.]
That was certainly more substantive than “Brexit means Brexit”, but no more enlightening.
With an eye to the future, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of losing EU structural funding on economic growth, output, productivity and employment in Scotland and throughout the UK? Does the UK intend to adopt a similar social and regional development programme to that of the European social fund and the European regional development fund? If so, would the UK Government match the existing allocated structural fund budget in absolute terms? Would any new programme have the same priority areas of focus as EU structural funds? The EU structural funding programmes allow for long-term planning over a seven-year period. Would the UK Government commit to a similar seven-year funding structure, or would it be different?
In the here and now, will the Government confirm that European social funding will not be frozen during the negotiations for the UK to leave the EU? Will the Government confirm what discussions they have had with the EU to ensure that structural funding that has been allocated to Scotland for 2014 to 2020 will not be clawed back? Finally, will the Government commit to undertake an evaluation of the European regional aid lost to Scotland during 1975 to 1995 because of the Government’s deployment of a subtractionality funding model?
The UK Government can, should and must do more. Ignorance, or indeed arrogance, will simply not suffice. It would be unforgivable for Scotland to be punished for a situation not of its own making; to suffer for an ill-judged Westminster gamble to appease Eurosceptic Back Benchers. Now is not the time for uncertainty for the further education sector or invaluable community projects. The Government can end that uncertainty now.
Guaranteeing existing levels of support and match funding is not subject to treaty negotiations with EU partners; we are talking about the here and now, and about what the Government choose to prioritise. The Government cannot hide behind empty slogans because this is about the Exchequer and the Government’s spending priorities. The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that she wanted a Government who would work for all. Prove it. She should not disregard Scotland and not ignore our interests, and she should show us her plan and that she is serious about protecting Scotland.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
It is a great pleasure again to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful contribution. I also thank the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for their additions to the debate, which has been useful and interesting.
The European social fund was set up with the objective of creating a more cohesive society, as well as a more prosperous economy throughout the EU. Projects throughout the UK, including in Scotland, have received funding from the fund. Under the ESF programmes for 2014 to 2020, a total of €466 million was allocated to Scotland. Funding for some 123 projects has already been agreed. The previous ESF programme in Scotland saw more than 430 projects funded and completed, and more than 390,000 people supported. In England, 86% of participants said that they had, for example, developed skills required in work.
Leaving the EU means that we will want to take our own decisions about how to spend our own money, which will continue to deliver the policy objectives previously targeted by EU funding. That is the context in which we have gathered for this debate. I would like to start by saying that I recognise the concerns of the hon. Member for Glasgow East and others who have spoken so passionately in the debate. She asked for certainty. I agree that it is essential that we provide certainty for recipients of ESF funding. That is why in October my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced certain guarantees.
All European structural and investment funds projects signed before last year’s autumn statement will be guaranteed, including those funded by the ESF. That also includes those projects that will continue beyond the UK’s departure from the EU. Moreover, funding for projects signed after the autumn statement, but before we leave the EU, will also be guaranteed—that is, providing that the responsible Department is content that the projects provide strong value for money and are in line with domestic strategic priorities, which are both reasonable points.
Carol Monaghan
All those assurances were very welcome when they were made, but the problem remains that we have an issue beyond that. We need to look to the future. We need a guarantee of funding—a pot of funding that will still be available for further and higher education way into the next decade.
Simon Kirby
I recognise the hon. Lady’s point, which I will cover. It is important that we have a long-term objective, that we spend money wisely and that we get the best possible solution.
The Government will ensure that the devolved Administrations are funded to meet the commitments they have made under current EU budget allocations. Given that the administration of EU funding is devolved, it will be for the devolved Administrations to decide the criteria used to assess projects.
I would like to respond to some of the specific points made. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow East about the guarantees, to which I referred, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—specifically, to ensure that recipients of funding throughout the UK, including Scotland, will have payments guaranteed. After Brexit, they will continue to be guaranteed. They will not be frozen or clawed back during the negotiations. That is an important point. The Government have committed to consulting stakeholders to review all EU funding schemes in the round. In the meantime, the Chancellor has made two guarantees, which I have mentioned. The hon. Lady’s questions are the very types of question that we hope and anticipate stakeholders will raise in the consultation, and the Government will listen carefully to everyone’s contributions.
It is also worth putting it on record that the UK Government’s decision to focus on investment, which was announced in the recent autumn statement, will result in the Scottish Government’s capital budget being increased by some £800 million by 2021—money that can be used to boost productivity and promote growth in Scotland. Significantly, the Scotland Act 2016 also enables the Scottish Government to raise more than half of its own funding.
In conclusion, as we are all very aware, the UK will leave the EU. The Government are determined to make a success of that for all of the UK, including Scotland. We have been clear about the contribution of funding secured through the ESF, but leaving the EU means that we will want to take our own decisions about how to spend UK money. Brexit will allow us to do that. The Government will work closely with the Scottish Government to get the best possible deal for all parts of our United Kingdom. We will give the Scottish Government every opportunity to have their say as we form our negotiating strategy, and the Government will continue in the coming months to consult stakeholders to review all EU funding schemes in the round. We are very much in listening mode.
Our aim will be to ensure that any ongoing funding commitments best serve the UK’s national interest while ensuring appropriate certainty. The Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations will be fully involved. In the meantime, it remains important that recipients of ESF funding continue to implement good value projects. The coming years will present a number of opportunities, which we must grasp and maximise. I am encouraged by the commitment of those who have spoken in support of vital schemes in their constituencies, and we will continue to work closely with all partners to ensure that every part of the UK prospers.
Question put and agreed to.
Soft Drinks Industry Levy: Funding for Sport in Schools
(7 years, 3 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
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
The clocks on either side of the Chamber are not working, but frankly we are not overwhelmed with people wishing to speak so there will be no time limit on speeches.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the allocation of funding from the soft drinks industry levy for sport in schools.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David? This is a subject that I am passionate about. Since becoming an MP, I have spoken in a number of debates on the power of sport to influence good behaviour, create opportunities and provide enjoyment. I must stress that the purpose of the debate is to focus not on whether we are right or wrong to have a sugar tax, but on how we should spend the levy, now that the decision has been taken. With a £500 million pot, that is a significant amount of money that can make a genuine difference.
I must thank all the organisations that have contacted me in recent days ahead of the debate, including: the Sports and Recreation Alliance, which is understandably keen to see sporting opportunities increase; Sustrans, which wants to see more funding for walking and cycling programmes to and from school; Youth Sport Trust, which has also focused on the sports element and the link between greater physical activity and greater academic performance, which I know the Minister for School Standards will welcome; and ukactive, which has done a huge amount of research, highlighting in particular the cliff edge fall in activity during school holidays, which I will come back to. I was also contacted by health organisations such as: Diabetes UK, which is obviously in favour of reducing the amount of sugar being used; Cancer Research UK, on the same principle; and the Royal College of Surgeons, on behalf of dental surgeons, obviously to reduce tooth decay.
This is an important subject, because one third of children are obese or overweight by the time they leave primary school. To me, that was a staggering statistic to read. When I was growing up, it seemed that all of us were active and charging around, so I was staggered by the figure of one third—one in three. That is not only an alarming figure; social norms start to be created. If an increasing number of children are overweight or obese, that becomes acceptable and therefore it starts to increase. On a topical level, through the NHS we currently spend £6 billion a year helping people with illnesses linked to being either overweight or obese. How we could better spend that money if there were fewer obese people. And an obese child is five times more likely to be an obese adult than an adult who was not obese as a child.
The Youth Sport Trust highlights that only 21% of boys and 16% of girls meet the recommended guidelines for physical activity. I recognise that we are competing with video games, shrinking gardens—back gardens are now one third smaller than they were in the 1960s—and cautious parents. When I was growing up, parents did not think anything of children disappearing on long bike rides, playing in distant parks and going to their friends’ houses far afield, whereas nowadays parents are understandably worried if their children are out of sight. Again, that limits the opportunity to be active.
The Government recognise that we have to do something. In August 2016 they published “Childhood obesity: a plan for action” with the aim of reducing significantly the rate of childhood obesity. The plan included the soft drinks levy, which is worth £520 million a year, and clearer food labelling—something I pushed for in the previous Parliament through my work with the British Heart Foundation—because we have a duty to allow consumers to make informed decisions. Another fact that surprised me—I say this as someone who does enjoy drinking sugar-laced fizzy drinks but who wishes to be informed—was that a five-year-old should take in no more than 19 grams of sugar a day, yet one can of Coke contains 35 grams. How many consumers actually know that? If they did, would they change their habits?
Crucially, the plan was announced as part of a nudge policy, where we gave the industry two years to make changes. I recognise that many of the leading manufacturers and retailers are already making changes—as I said, I am not focusing on whether the levy was right or wrong, but clearly part of the strategy is to influence behaviour—but, as we have recognised that physical activity is good for health and good for improving academic performance, I welcomed that the money would be ring-fenced to spend on activities connected to schools. If we are to have a tax and get extra money, let us ensure that that money is spent in the right way. The best way to do that for children is through schools.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important subject to the Chamber. Given his enthusiasm for sport in schools, which I share, would he like to comment on the coalition Government’s decision to scrap the school sport partnerships in 2010, which has had a really detrimental effect on sport in our schools? I do not see the sugar tax as going all the way to replacing the excellent school sport partnership scheme that we had.
Justin Tomlinson
Actually, that was the very first time I rebelled—I was rewarded by sitting on some obscure European committees thing for five years to think carefully about my actions. The funding was not scrapped. There was a change and initially a proposal to remove the ring-fencing, but the money was then once again ring-fenced, though schools were allowed to choose how to spend it on sports-related programmes. I supported that because we have got some fantastic school sport partnerships that are still thriving today—including my local one—but there were also some pretty poor ones, which have gone by the wayside, and those schools have now spent that money on individual sports coaches, sports clubs and things like that. We got there in the end, and funding has increased in this area since 2010.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of sport, no one is against using some of the sugar tax revenue for encouraging greater sporting activities, but does he not accept that in his constituency, in mine and in everyone else’s, during the school holidays large numbers of children who would have free school dinners during term time do not get any food from the school or free school dinners? Might not one of the ways of making the sugar tax progressive be to earmark part of the revenue to ensure that schools could at least lay on the facilities for voluntary bodies to provide school dinners during the holidays?
Justin Tomlinson
That is a powerful point, and I agree with the sentiment of it. I would not necessarily use the sugar tax money, but that is something that the Government could consider as a wider point. It is a fair point, and actually some of the head teachers in some of the more deprived parts of my constituency have raised similar concerns about what happens to the children not just with regard to eating, but on wider issues throughout the holidays.
As it stands, there will be £285 million to extend the school day in secondary schools in relation to sport, £160 million to double the primary school physical education budget, and £10 million to expand breakfast clubs. That was welcomed by Emma Boggis, the chief executive of the Sport and Recreation Alliance, who said it will
“deliver more opportunities to get children of a young age active”
and
“to stay active in later life.”
That is an important point. We must recognise that the opportunities we create must be regular and sustainable, because we also recognise that if the Government’s intention for the sugar tax works out and all the manufacturers reformulate their products and customers switch from full-sugar versions to zero-sugar versions, the amount of money will diminish. We must therefore ensure that the money is spent to seed regular sustainable activities. This is where I bring forward my rather reasonable—in my unbiased opinion—asks.
This has all come about from a visit to Oakhurst Community Primary School, which hosts the Draycott sports camp, run by Mark Draycott, a PE teacher at the school. The school runs after-school clubs, weekend clubs and school holiday clubs. There are lots of sports camps and I am sure that all of us as MPs have visited them at some point, but this one sets itself apart by a country mile. More than 200 primary schoolchildren were being active each and every single day in the last summer holidays, of whom slightly more were girls than boys—that is something for Sport England and the Sport Minister to recognise and celebrate, because that is a particular area of challenge—and they were engaging in all sorts of different sports.
A summary of how the camps work is that they run during every school holiday from 9 am to 6 pm, costing £12.50 a day, which is probably the cheapest childcare that a parent will find. They create an active environment that is inclusive and engaging for all abilities. That is vital, because a particularly sports-minded child probably has sports-minded parents and will already be signed up to a football, rugby or netball club. The camps are for the vast majority of children who are not necessarily sports-minded and who are the most likely to become obese.
The camps focus on helping children to be more active and introducing them to new sports—not only football and netball, but cricket, athletics, golf, lacrosse and so on—so that they can replicate what inspires them on the television. I visited a camp during the Olympics and saw them recreate the things that were inspiring them on the TV—it was amazing. Because Mark Draycott is a teacher, and because the majority of his support staff have connections to the school or are teachers themselves, they have the expertise to identify and support those children who are starting to fall by the wayside, and who are not naturally gifted or naturally enthusiastic about sports, to make sure that they remain engaged. They concentrate on killing the fear factor that some children have when playing sports and ensuring that they enjoy the activity. They are increasing participation among girls and bucking those national trends.
I highlight that because we have an opportunity to replicate this. As Mark Draycott said when he was interviewed on “BBC Points West” this morning, the camps should be not only at Oakhurst in Swindon, but all over the country; there should be hundreds and hundreds of them. They are sustainable, because the taxpayer is not paying him to do this—he is running the camps as his own organisation. However, the Government can help. First, anybody who wishes to set up one of these camps will need to build up numbers. We could therefore look to incentivise other people to do the same sort of thing as Mark by reducing the charge for hiring the school facilities at the beginning, until they build up the numbers and become sustainable in their own right and can keep going.
We also need to attract more good quality physical education teachers into the profession. We had a chronic shortage of PE teachers, although more are beginning to come in now. The beauty of this situation is that Mark Draycott came from a sporting background—he was a non-league sports player. The coalition Government tried to attract troops to become teachers, but it turned out that there were not millions of troops who wished to become teachers. However, there are many non-league sports stars who are minded and who, with the right incentives and the right instructions, could go on to become very good PE teachers in schools. I urge the Minister to look at that potential wealth of talent from whom, if we advertise to them, we could potentially recruit some very good people.
There could be lots of Draycott sports camps all over the country, which would be fantastic for those who wish to pay and can afford to do so—as I have seen, for 200 children every single day. That is something that we can replicate. However, I wish to go even further. I would also like to see all school facilities made available for free between 4 pm and 6 pm to any voluntary organisation that wishes to use them. For example, if some parents get together and wish to put on a netball, football or basketball club—I do not mind which, so long as it is a constructive activity for young people—between the hours of 4 pm and 6 pm, we should not charge them. Some of the sugar tax money can then be used to compensate the loss of income to schools. That is not a peak time for school hire fees, because school sporting facilities are generally used when offices and factories shut at 6 pm, which is when schools would expect to make their income. I therefore suspect that compensation would be only a modest part of that income, but it would remove the barrier that many enthusiastic parents find.
I know that, because I spent 10 years as a borough councillor in Swindon representing a new build area with private finance initiative schools. There were limited leisure facilities, yet there were fantastic sporting facilities that the taxpayer was paying for but which we could not afford to access at a time when they were simply not being used. That does not make sense. We can find people willing to give up their time; there are hundreds of sports clubs across all of our constituencies that would seize the opportunity to provide constructive opportunities that will make our children active, that will remain in place once the money starts to diminish and, crucially, that will help busy parents.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many teachers across the UK are already running voluntary after-school clubs and taking their own time to offer the sorts of activities he is talking about?
Justin Tomlinson
I absolutely pay tribute to teachers, parents and people in the local community who are prepared to give up their own time to provide constructive activities for young people. I want the Government to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit that Mark Draycott showed so that others can set up their own holiday camps and there are regular, good and exciting opportunities for young people.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to seize this opportunity. It is not often that a Department is given a significant increase in funding. I know from my time as a Minister that it is normally a case of wondering how on earth we can find money to do all of the worthy things we would like to do. However, this is an opportunity to benefit children by making them more active and therefore less obese, and to improve their academic achievement, because there is a direct link between those who are active and their ability to progress academically. It will also be a welcome blessing for hard-working, busy parents, whose biggest challenge is often what to do with children after school, during the long school holidays and at weekends. This offers the opportunity to deliver those long-term, sustainable solutions. I want every child to have as much fun as those children who go to the Draycott sports camp, and now is the time we can make that a reality.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
When I first heard about the sugar levy, I was naturally against it; I am against taxes and I am against extra levies. However, as a member of the Health Committee, I saw the evidence for myself, and I realised that the issue of obesity is too great to ignore. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has already alluded to some of the data, which show that one in five children start primary school either overweight or obese—that doubles for children in the most deprived parts of the country—and that one third of children now start secondary school either overweight or obese. However, what is really frightening is that children are now being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, which until recently was seen as a disease of older age.
Along with the Health Committee, I came to the conclusion that we must do whatever we can to combat this epidemic. Even though I am against taxes, this is part of a whole raft of measures that we need to take on board to protect the future health of our nation. We should not see the sugary drinks industry levy as a tax and as money that will always be there; we need to use it as part of a method of helping families to change the way they live and their current habits. As part of the plan is to encourage the industry to reduce the amount of sugar in drinks, the levy will decrease year on year, so we need to look at ways of ensuring that whatever uses for that money are set up now are sustainable, and that the young people do not fall off the cliff edge once the money is no longer there.
I am delighted that the money is going to be spent mainly in schools. Let us face it: children spend most of their time in the school environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon alluded to, they could spend even more time there and undertake some of the activities we have talked about. The school environment is perfect for creating new habits and for helping those habits to go to the home environment as well. We need to tackle obesity at every age. It is a huge problem in the adult population as well as in children. If we can change those habits in the children now, we will be changing those habits for life. That is really important.
There are two sides to how the levy can be spent. Today we are focusing on exercise, but it is also about nutritional education as well. That is why I am delighted that some of the money will be spent on extending breakfast clubs. I would like to see that not only for breakfast clubs, but for after-school clubs that can help children learn more about how to cook further meals, not just how to eat breakfast. We have a long way to go on that.
Let us focus more on how the money can be spent on activity within schools. As chair of the all-party group on adult and childhood obesity, this issue is very close to my heart. I have said before that the plan launched in August does not go far enough. It needs to be braver and bolder and to include more measurement. We can continue to have that argument. The plan set the ambition for children to have 60 minutes of moderate or vigorous exercise a day at primary school age, and for at least 30 minutes of that to be in the school environment. It also recommended expanding breakfast clubs, which I mentioned, and for secondary schools to be open longer, with some of those extended hours including sports clubs and groups. As my hon. Friend said, that could extend to the school holidays and not just be at the end of the school day.
It is important we are able to measure the outcomes of anything we put in place, because we need to know what works and what is cost-effective. As I said, the levy will reduce over time, so we need to know what is and is not worth investing more money in. Whatever we do should have a tick box for sustainability.
I have come up with some ideas. We have heard in the past about the daily mile, whereby children run or walk a mile every day within school time. However, some schools do not have the right environment for that. Some have playing fields, but at this time of year they can be very muddy. Investment in all-weather paths would be useful for the future, so that children are not discouraged by getting very muddy; sometimes children do not like to get dirty, and at other times they do. If they had a good environment, they could get out there and be active. Once that surface is in place, the activity becomes free and sustainable, and it could be used after school and in the school holidays, not just during school time.
Only last week I visited one of my schools in Ilkeston, Hallam Fields Junior School, which is a very fortunate school. It is built on the hillside and its playing fields and grounds have fantastic views, so the kids love going out to play. Not far away is another school that is enclosed by houses. Its outdoor facilities are just not as good. We need to encourage kids in schools where facilities do not lend themselves as easily to exercise and help those schools. Perhaps we can look at schools joining together in some way.
We need to extend this debate to what children do outside school. They can form habits within the school environment, but if those habits are not continued once they get home, it is not good for the children, for the parents or—let us face it—for the taxpayer. A number of family activities can be done at very low cost and with little investment. Once again, we could look at using some of the levy from the sugary drinks tax for that. As I said, schools need to provide at least 30 minutes of exercise per day, but that means parents need to provide more exercise as well every day.
Improving some of our parks could be one answer. I know that parkruns are very popular. In fact, Long Eaton parkrun has just received an award for being a good community group for the whole of Derbyshire, which is really encouraging. It does not cost anything, and it caters for all abilities and ages. If we could encourage more voluntary groups such as that to provide activities, that would be really good and in keeping with what my hon. Friend is talking about.
We have seen some great successes within the senior school environment through the “This Girl Can” campaign. One of my other schools, Kirk Hallam Community Academy, has been very successful in encouraging more girls to get involved in exercise. That has now filtered down from the secondary school to the local primary school, which is really good. Local authorities have responsibility for maintaining parks, but they also have responsibility for public health. If they were encouraged to invest more in outdoor activities that helped the public health side of things, it would be a win-win situation. It is important that there is joined-up government to ensure that we tackle the problem of obesity head-on. If we just leave it to one Department or another, I am sure it will fall through the net.
Cycling is another activity that allows parents to lead their children by example and helps to form lifetime habits. My hon. Friend talked about barriers. The cost of a bike could be a barrier to many families. We are all familiar with the Boris bike, so why not use that concept and have community bikes? Schools could play their part by providing a hub for community bikes. Families could book bikes, go out for a 5-mile or 10-mile cycle and then return them. There could be a range of bikes for all abilities and ages, and children could get some exercise and continue a habit formed in the school environment. That would benefit children and adults as well. It has been estimated that in the first year the sugary drinks levy will raise £520 million. In this context, that is not a lot of money, so it must be invested wisely and effectively. We must also be able to measure the impact.
I want to finish by painting a picture, which hopefully will help people to understand just how important it is to do whatever we can to tackle the obesity crisis. The sugary drinks levy is just one way to tackle this. Cancer Research UK recently revealed that teenagers drink almost a bathtub full of sugary drinks on average every year. That is shocking, and it needs to be changed. The sugary drinks levy must be just one part of a whole raft of measures, to ensure that our young people stop drinking that bathtub full of sugary drinks annually. Whatever we think about the sugary drinks tax, the money must be spent wisely and in a sustainable and measurable way.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. Before calling the next speaker, I remind Members that there is a firm rule now that if they intervene, they must remain for the winding-up speeches, so they cannot just intervene and then depart. I call Mr Tom Mc Nally.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is Mr John Mc Nally. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
I thank the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for securing this debate and congratulate him on his rebellious nature. We are probably all very grateful for that. He might be welcome in our party in the not-too-distant future.
John Mc Nally
Well, you never know. We are growing as we go.
I welcome the introduction of the sugar tax with open arms. I was glad that the Chancellor looked at this issue and introduced this possibility, so that today we can look at how we best use this money. It is one of the biggest changes to benefit our communities in general.
I have to declare an interest. In the first instance, my three great-nieces, Liv, Honor and Celi, were all under the scholarship and tuition of Elaine Wyllie at St Ninians Primary School. I have seen that initiative working at first hand. I have also taken on board what Maggie, MP for Erewash, said about how to put in the proper surfaces—in fact, at that time, I was quite instrumental in helping the person who was laying the surfaces—and how to reduce the number of puddles on the surface so that people can train and walk on it. That initiative has been one of the biggest successes in the whole area, so I am very grateful to Elaine Wyllie.
At the last meeting of the APPG, where I am proud to serve under Maggie Throup, Elaine Wyllie came along to explain how successful the daily mile has been, and not only in Stirling and my own area of Falkirk, where all the schools are participating. I think that Barack Obama became involved in the initiative; it has spread through the whole world. It grips the imagination. We only have to stand and watch the children going to school to see the benefits in how they act. They are eating better and looking better, and their attention to school matters is better. Everything from that initiative is a plus.
We have also had the benefit—again, through Maggie—of the drinks industry coming along to the APPG. It was interesting to hear from a vast company such as Coca-Cola what it was trying to do and the effect that the measure would have in terms of how it reformulates not only its cans of drink, but its whole way of thinking. This is not just a simple step from one thing to another; it is a huge investment that these companies have made, and we must be mindful of that.
There is another thing that Maggie has understated. I know for a fact that she got—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I feel that the point has been reached at which I must say that the hon. Gentleman should refer to other Members by their constituency rather than their first name. I do not wish to be pompous, but I think we have to be firm.
John Mc Nally
I am probably the opposite of pompous, and “Maggie” is easier to say than “Erewash”. Anyway, to be serious, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) managed to get representatives of the drinks industry and the British retail industry along to the meeting, and it was fantastic to hear the exchanges between the audience and the drinks industry. There was a bit of honesty, which was great to hear.
I want now to move on to the second thing that is very close to my heart. One of the most striking things about the various meetings hosted by the APPG on adult and childhood obesity is that they are all extremely well attended—any of the other, side events are also extremely well attended. They have involved a huge variety of people with a background in medical knowledge. All the contributions have been superb and worth listening to, and the rooms are always full, but one thing that I find striking every time I hear it is that there are, I believe, only 12 health visitors in the whole United Kingdom who have any in-depth professional knowledge of how to give advice to a mother and child on childhood obesity and how to deal with it. My wife, who is a recently retired health visitor and master of public health, has become extremely interested in pursuing that.
Liz McInnes
Does the hon. Gentleman know whether there are any health visitors who are capable of giving advice to a father and child, as opposed to a mother and child?
John Mc Nally
That is a great intervention. Being a man, I sometimes miss these things, but my wife has pointed out to me very often that there are—[Laughter.] She is never shy and, being a good husband, I always listen to what she has to tell me—I learned early that that saves an awful lot of grief.
The serious point is that there are not enough health visitors across the UK who are sufficiently well trained and educated on this matter. My wife is now preparing for a correspondence course. To reiterate the point, we need to look seriously at this: could we take some of the money from the sugar tax and apportion it towards training health visitors to a better level and to have a better understanding? That is really the point that I came here to make today.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and my fellow Health Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup). I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for bringing this very important debate to the House.
I realise that this is not a debate about the sugar levy per se, but I would like to state at the outset that I fully support the levy. In fact, if anything, I would like it to be extended to include milk-based sugary drinks. It addresses a very important issue, and it is worth reminding ourselves of the data on health inequality from obesity. Now, in the most disadvantaged areas, 26% of the most deprived children are leaving year 6 not just overweight but obese, with extraordinary long-term consequences for both their mental and physical health, so we should remain focused on what the purpose of the measure is.
Let me also stress that we should not think about tackling obesity as just about sport; it is also about nutrition. We should not lose sight of that in the debate. Reducing calories has to be the mainstay of addressing childhood obesity. That said, we should also have a message that exercise and physical activity matters, whatever one’s age and weight, and has extraordinary benefits. I fully support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon about how we can incorporate sport as part of the anti-obesity strategy and about the importance of hypothecating the money raised by the sugary drinks levy so that it goes to these types of project and is focused on the most disadvantaged groups.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the 26% in the most deprived areas are probably children from the families who are least able to afford some of the things that have been mentioned, such as the £12.50 a day for sports activities, and that the cost of things should not rule out children who probably need that activity more than others?
Dr Wollaston
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I absolutely agree. It is essential, if we are to address some of the accusations that this is a regressive tax, that we ensure that it becomes progressive in the way the money and the resources are allocated. I think there has been a commitment to that. We can look at how the Government have stated they will spend the money—providing up to £285 million a year to give 25% of secondary schools in the most disadvantaged areas the opportunity to extend their school day, and £10 million of funding to expand breakfast clubs in the most disadvantaged areas. I absolutely agree with the hon. Members who have already commented that that could be extended into holiday periods. I am talking about how we look at nutrition, and expanding nutritional education and, in particular, targeting that on the most disadvantaged areas. We know that Mexico’s experience is that those on the lowest incomes end up spending more of their income on products such as sugary drinks, so we must be absolutely clear that the benefit returns primarily to the most disadvantaged, and of course it is the most disadvantaged areas that have the highest levels of childhood obesity, so I absolutely agree with what the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) has said.
This is primarily about school sport and how we hypothecate the money for activities in the most disadvantaged areas, although not just in the most disadvantaged areas. We have already heard the hon. Member for Falkirk pay tribute to Elaine Wyllie, and I add my tribute to her extraordinary achievements. She told me when I met her recently that if directors of public health take this initiative on board, that gives it much a greater impetus. She has looked at where it has been most successfully rolled out, and it is where directors of public health work together with education to push for it and see the benefits. Of course, the benefits are not just for children. The initiative is now being rolled out to families and staff in schools, so there is a whole-community approach to changing attitudes to mobility.
I would also like to make a point about active travel. The all-party parliamentary group on cycling, of which I am a member, held an inquiry in the last Parliament, “Get Britain Cycling”. One issue that was very clear from that was that active travel is one of the forms of activity that people are most likely to engage in over the long term. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider how schools can engage with the programme and get children cycling to school and college. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash pointed out that the cost of a bike can sometimes be a deterrent, but there are many things we can do about rolling out Bikeability to all ages across schools and ensuring that we focus on active travel, because that is the form of activity that people are most likely to sustain throughout their life.
I would also like to pick out the importance of play. I pay tribute to Play Torbay, in my constituency, and the work it is doing. That has been pointed out by the all-party parliamentary group on a fit and healthy childhood. I do not know whether the Minister has had the chance to read its excellent report, which considered how we can use the money effectively. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash that evaluation is critical. We need to see what delivers results in the long term, particularly because, if the tax is effective in the way we hope it will be, the revenues raised from it will decrease as a result of behavioural change. We need to ensure that the money available is targeted in the most effective ways.
We should also look at the difference in activity rates between girls and boys. Girls are not as physically active; particularly as they go through the school years, activity levels decline. I urge the Minister to continue to support Sport England’s “This Girl Can” programme, which has already been referred to. We need to look across the piece and make sure we engage children at every level in a way that they are most likely to continue to keep active. I have a concern that if we just talk about sport, we risk taking our eye off the ball. Tackling obesity first and foremost has to involve calorie reduction. We must take empty, wasted calories out of children’s diets. There are other harms; obesity is not just about sugar levels. The biggest single cause of admission to hospital for primary school children is to remove their rotten teeth. The benefits of reducing sugar in children’s diets go beyond tackling obesity.
Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues on the rest of the money from the sugary drinks levy that we are raising? As it stands, the Government have indicated that a significant proportion will go towards the academisation programme, but now that there has been a change to the policy objective of forced academisation, I think the sugary drinks levy would command far greater public support if every penny of it was hypothecated to public health measures to support children, particularly at a time when public health grants are being cut and measures to support children who are already obese are being cut back in local authorities. I hope to see even more of the sugary drinks levy being hypothecated to progressive measures to target children who are already obese and to help prevent children from becoming obese in the first place. I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon in saying that sport is a key part of that, and that matters whatever a child’s weight and whatever a child’s age.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and it is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), given her experience in these matters. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). He is not from Scotland, I hasten to add, so I doubt he will be joining the Scottish National party any time soon. He is a champion of many causes, and I know he feels particularly strongly about helping young people in many different ways. I am delighted that he secured this debate, which I welcome.
As co-chairman of the all-party group on mountaineering, I have been doing a lot of work over the past few years to try to encourage outdoor recreation. It is vital to encourage more people to get involved in it, so that we improve participation in sports-related activity and help rural tourism. Most importantly, as I have been working on these issues, it has become clear that outdoor recreation is a vital tool to help tackle obesity and physical inactivity, which we have talked about at length today. That is important for adults and, particularly in relation to this debate, young people. Given the powerful debate we had this morning on young people’s mental health, it is important to add that outdoor recreation and sports more widely can help with young people’s mental wellbeing, which is absolutely key.
Before I go into my suggestions for how the money could be spent, it is worth looking at lessons from other countries. I will focus on Finland for a minute. The Finns feel so strongly about physical activity that it is now deemed, as of 1999, a basic cultural right. I am not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds incredibly important. Their Government have focused on this, as an area for improvement across the board, in a strategy called “On the Move”, which has four guidelines. I will not go through all of them, but the first one is interesting: reducing sitting in daily life, across the course of life. Perhaps we should have more debates standing up. The second one is increasing physical activity across the course of life. They have rolled this down to different age groups. The Finnish National Board of Education has got funding and support available to ensure that many schools have clubs, 85% of which are related to physical activity and sports.
We want to improve participation in sports and physical activity, and the Finns have made huge strides in that arena. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, the issue is also about active travel and being active in the workplace and the classroom.
I welcome the soft drinks levy; it is an opportunity. Some have said the funds are not significant, but hundreds of millions is significant and can make a difference in the lives of young people. Some may dispute how much of the funding will be put in place, but if it is of the order of hundreds of millions, we need to make sure we use it purposefully and invest it wisely on behalf of young people. I am pleased that it will be focused on primary and secondary schools, particularly in areas that are disadvantaged. It will help secondary schools to have more activities and sports available after school.
I am a big supporter of the daily mile, sometimes called the active mile. I have been working with ukactive to promote this further. It has been referred to several times. It is a simple, basic initiative that encourages and inspires children to take 15 minutes out of the day to run, walk or jog. It is as basic as that. It is fun, non-competitive and inclusive. I support competitive sport, but this initiative is something that everybody can engage with, and it helps to encourage more children to get more of their 60 minutes of physical activity a day done in school. Various initiatives are being taken forward by different providers. The daily mile is promoted by the Daily Mile Foundation and the golden mile by Premier Sport. Of course, there is junior parkrun. I was able to do my first park run with my 10-year-old daughter at the end of last year. There is also Marathon Kids, supported by Nike and Kids Run Free.
The daily mile has demonstrated that children who participate are healthier, less overweight and more alert. As the Minister for School Standards will be pleased to hear, they are also more focused on their lessons, so it is a win all round. My daughter is benefiting from her daily mile at Upton Priory School in Macclesfield. I look forward to promoting the initiative much more actively in March when I work with Active Cheshire to encourage more schools in Macclesfield and across east Cheshire to benefit from the initiative.
I would warmly welcome the Minister or one of his colleagues setting up a meeting with ukactive and the providers of the different schemes to work out how we can encourage more schools to get involved and to adopt daily mile or active mile initiatives during 2017. It is a low-cost programme. If we want to leverage the funds that come out of the soft drinks levy efficiently, I cannot think of a better initiative. It would be incredibly easy to leverage and would help hundreds of thousands of children from a wide range of backgrounds. It would be easy to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) raised concerns about some schools not having sufficient space, but let us consider the walking bus or other activities that we can do to encourage kids to walk to school; that is easy to do, and I hope that the Minister takes that on board.
I cannot keep away from active outdoor recreation too long, so I will spend a few moments on that. So often when we talk about sport, it is traditional sport: rugby, football, hockey, netball. If we want to appeal to the widest possible group of kids, we must remember that not every child will be interested in those traditional sports. We have to find other ways of engaging those kids in physical activity. I know that the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), has strong views on this; I look forward to hearing from her.
The daily mile is one activity, but “Reconomics”, a very important report taken forward by the Sport and Recreation Alliance, highlights that there is plenty more we can do. There is orienteering, Duke of Edinburgh schemes, walking, cycling, which I know is a passion for the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), and climbing, which is a passion of mine; they all have a lot to offer. If we want to reach—and that is the operative word—the maximum number of kids, we shall have to think more innovatively about how we spend the money. Traditional sports alone will not do that.
I am delighted that the Government have a new sports strategy—perhaps it is not so new; it is a year old. It is a wide strategy that includes a focus on outcomes—physical, health and mental wellbeing outcomes. Its focus is not just on sports; for the first time, at least five of its 20-odd pages focus on outdoor recreation. This is a perfect opportunity for the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government to work together to ensure that those health and mental wellbeing outcomes are achieved, through funding from the soft drinks levy.
This debate is important and timely. I encourage the Minister to look at those two areas—the daily mile and outdoor recreation—as well as others that have been mentioned, and at linking these things through. It is vital that we work not only with Ministers but with health-related bodies and third-party sector bodies. We want to make sure that there are genuine improvements in the quality of young people’s lives, and this is the opportunity to do it.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) on obtaining an important debate which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, timely, given the subject matter.
My views on the sugary drinks levy are well documented, and this is not the right debate in which to go over them. If anyone wants to, there is an article online, entitled “Ten reasons why the sugar tax is a terrible idea”, setting them out. Today, however, is about the allocation of the money. I have concerns that can be wholly set aside from the debate. Both sides, whether in favour of the tax or against it, are well meaning; the issue is whether it will work, how much money we shall get, and what we shall spend it on. I have an issue with dedicated or hypothecated taxes in principle, because we do not really have an idea, apart from some presumptions and assumptions, about how much money will come in.
I accept all the points made by hon. Members about obesity. I know, from just one Christmas when I have come back to Parliament feeling that my suits have shrunk considerably—that is the excuse I am using—that we have an issue with obesity, and childhood obesity in particular. We must take measures to tackle that, without question. My worry is that this is an instance of “Something must be done. This is something, so let’s do it.” Parking that worry, however, and accepting that we must address the problem of childhood obesity, I agree with all the points that have been made about sport, including sport in schools, and fantastic initiatives such as the activity camps that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon mentioned, as well as the use of school premises out of school hours. They are fantastic ideas. Driving past secondary schools in the evening or at the weekends, one can see that many are being used. However, primary schools are less used. They have beautiful fields, and in some cases astro pitches or multi-use games activity centres, which would be perfect. They sit unused when members of society, and in particular young people, would desperately love to go and kick a ball around or play basketball. There is a huge public health gain to be made from the principle of using the money to fund measures that will reduce obesity and get more children active.
However, if we accept that there can be such a massive public health gain, and that the right thing to do for the health of the nation is to invest the money as I have described, we should be funding it through general taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said when the policy was announced:
“We are going to use the money from this new levy to double the amount of funding we dedicate to sport in every primary school. For secondary schools, we are going to fund longer school days for those that want to offer their pupils a wider range of activities, including extra sport.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 964.]
The figure mooted at the time was some £520 million. I want, as does, I believe, every Member of the House, £520 million or thereabouts to be spent on school sports; but we have no way of saying how much of that money will be raised from the sugary drinks levy. That is my fundamental concern. If we are saying that the issue is important and that we should invest in it, and that it will have a massive impact on childhood obesity and public health, we should invest in it. We should not be giving schools and other organisations, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, funding that is not sustainable.
We should treat the issue as important, and commit the money to it. I am worried because, on my calculation, reformulation, portion size, illicit sales and such things as cross-border shopping will mean that the figure raised will be more like £200 million to £300 million. That is a considerable shortfall on the amount quoted in the Budget last year. We must ask questions about hypothecated taxes and direct taxes. I would love to ask the Minister what the budget is: what is the expectation, and how much money do we think will come from the sugary drinks levy?
I have two concerns. One is that we shall have to top the levy up from general taxation—and if that is the case I support doing it. It is a worthwhile thing to do, and we should finance it. I am also concerned, as are many people in the food and drink manufacturing industry, that we have just set a figure of £520 million. That is what we need to fund the initiative, and that is what we are going to raise. If we cannot raise it through sugary drinks we shall start looking at other products. Perhaps there is an argument for doing that, and for applying the levy to sugar across the board. I discussed that at some length with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). However, we are not there now, and we must be clear about what our ambition is. Perhaps we are thinking about a tax that applies to more products. I take some issue with that in principle. Nevertheless, if that is the direction of travel we must make sure we are clear.
If we are going to raise £520-odd million, I should like to know that it will go into school sports. For all the reasons that have been given by Members of different parties in the debate, that is very important. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon on obtaining the debate, but I have concerns about whether that money will be pulled through from the soft drinks levy to be spent in schools. I know that the tax is direct and hypothecated so to some extent it is out of the Minister’s hands, but perhaps he can give some commitment about how much money there will be to spend on sports in schools and on some of the great initiatives that have been mentioned. That would be helpful and would set minds at rest.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) on securing today’s debate. After a fortnight spent in overindulgence, this is a particularly timely debate. Of course, part of the over-indulgence of Christmas is fizzy drinks. Like many of those present, I remember that in the past fizzy drinks were an occasional treat—a luxury at Christmas and Easter only. However, now it is fairly commonplace for people to consume a can of Coke or other juice on a daily basis. The average consumption has gone up from 45 litres per person a year to more than 210 litres. That is 22 bags of sugar—fairly horrendous.
The hon. Member for North Swindon opened the debate by presenting some challenging figures. He told us that one in three children would be obese by the time they left school. He talked about the importance of early activity, and I agree that habits formed early have a lifelong impact. I was particularly interested in the sports camps that he talked about. For many parents £12.50 would seem a good deal for childcare; however, as other hon. Members have pointed out, it might also be a barrier for some people. Perhaps we need to be more creative about how we fund such things. Possibly some of the levy could go to providing places for children who would otherwise be unable to go, because of finances. As well as causing obesity, sugary drinks affect teeth. They affect concentration in school and can have a massive impact on how well a child learns and performs in education.
I happened to take my two youngest children to the cinema on Sunday. When we were queuing up there were bucket-like containers of soft drinks and I calculated that one of those containers—not the biggest—would have 12 teaspoons of sugar in it. If any of us saw someone putting that into a cup of tea or coffee, we would be horrified. We are all aware that urgent action has to be taken here. I support the introduction of the soft drinks levy as an extremely sensible first step in tackling the crisis, but I do not believe that it is going far enough.
It is good to see the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), here. Some of the Health Committee’s other recommendations were tougher controls on the marketing and advertising of unhealthy food and drink. I believe that would make a big difference to what young people want, or think they want, to eat. Another recommendation was early intervention to offer help to families of children affected by obesity and further research into the most effective interventions. The hon. Lady talked about the importance of nutrition, active travel and active play and how all of those play a role in tackling obesity. The hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) also shared her expertise from the Health Committee and explained that she was usually against taxes but, in this case, supports the levy because its purpose is to change habits that have been formed. I was pleased to hear her mention the “This Girl Can” campaign. I was a sports coach, as well as a teacher, for many years and was very positive about the benefits for young girls, and teenage girls in particular, of participating in sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) talked about the excellent work of the APPG on adult and childhood obesity, and about using the levy to train health visitors and health professionals in educating parents, both male and female, about the importance of nutrition. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) raised Finland’s approach to physical activity. It is possible that his suggestion that we spend more time on our feet in this place would greatly shorten proceedings. I know that there is a vote coming up, so I will try to speed up and will come back to the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
Although I have said that I welcome the creation of a soft drinks levy, in isolation it cannot address the levels of obesity that we see. I am disappointed that further restrictions on junk food, as recommended by the Health Committee, have not been developed further. I would like to see that happen—possibly we will see it during this parliament. Banning those adverts would make a big difference.
In Scotland, the obesity crisis is no different. We are committed to addressing Scotland’s excess weight—personally, and generally as a nation—and the Scottish Government have undertaken to consult on the development of Scotland’s new diet and obesity strategy in 2017. Scotland is already investing in sports facilities and ensuring that PE is provided in schools and that active schools programmes continue. Proposals to increase physical activity using the revenue are indeed welcome, and we welcome any ideas that will help to boost physical activity in schools. In Scotland, we have seen a massive investment in PE and school sports. In 2005 10% of children were doing two hours of physical activity a week; we now have 98% of children in Scotland doing two hours of PE a week, which is a massive improvement.
For me personally the most exciting development, which has been mentioned by almost everybody who has stood up, is the daily mile. It was first developed by St Ninians Primary School in Stirling because the children were too tired after the warm up in PE to do the actual lesson. It takes only 15 minutes and does not require any specialised equipment. In fact, they do not even change into their gym gear—out they go and they do their daily mile. The hon. Member for Erewash talked about the difficulties with some of the facilities available in schools. My own children do the daily mile and they just do it up and down the tarmac playground. I have said to them, “Is that not particularly boring?” They love it and they talk about being energised and feeling refreshed when they go back into school. Coming back to the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, I am a keen hill walker and love the outdoors, but my children do not always share that enthusiasm and would sometimes rather sit in front of the television. They have been doing the daily mile since August, and it was really interesting over Christmas when we went hill walking—suddenly they were chasing up the hill ahead of me. I could not keep up with them. What a difference a few months of the daily mile has made to their fitness.
The Scottish Government have made a commitment that Scotland will be the first daily mile nation with a roll-out to schools, nurseries, colleges, universities and workplaces. Every school will be offered help and we already have more than 800 primary schools doing the daily mile programme, which is a massive step forward. As to the impact that that has had, St Ninians primary—the instigators—talks about the children thriving on being outdoors and of its national success in cross-country running. It says that the children are sleeping and eating better—parents know straightaway that with a bit of exercise during the day children will go down no problem at night. Children are more focused and ready to learn when they return to classroom, but most important of all, there are no overweight children in primary 1 at St Ninians, which is a massive step forward.
To finish, and not to leave the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) out, he raised concerns about how the sugar tax could be spent and talked about whether, if funding sport was worth doing, it should be done through general taxation. I found myself actually agreeing with some of the sentiments that he raised but, as I said at the start, we have something that is a sensible first step. If we can put some of this levy towards some of the things mentioned today, that would be great. This is a first step in tackling obesity, but it should not be a tax that the Government want to collect. This should be a tax that we aim not to be collecting at all, like the duty on cigarettes or alcohol. We need to be raising our children as fit, active and healthy citizens now and in the future.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) reminded us about the importance of outdoor recreation, so I rise to my feet very tenderly, having just participated with the MP parliamentary football team for 90 minutes over in Chelsea. We played the press lobby. It was a one-all draw, and there was no love lost between the two teams when we came off the pitch.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) on securing the debate. Why he is not in Government, I do not know. I thought that he did an extraordinarily good job with disability confidence in the last Parliament. I was pleased to support that with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), in putting on one of the biggest events in the north of England, and I hope that impetus carries on even though he is no longer at the Department for Work and Pensions. The hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) has already laid out the facts, and I congratulate her on her chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on adult and childhood obesity.
One in five children are overweight or obese before they start primary school, and the figure rises to one in three by the time they leave year 6. That puts children at serious risk of developing serious conditions such as heart and liver disease, cancer, related mental health problems—I think that the hon. Member for Macclesfield is the only Member who has mentioned mental health today—and diabetes.
Let me make an observation about health in my constituency, where I have the world-class Wythenshawe hospital, run by the University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust. Its outcomes are unbelievable, but I say to consultants that my constituency has one of the worst levels of public health outcomes in England and Wales, and what we are really doing is triage in the trenches. My population is ravaged by hypertension—I am looking to the doctors in the Chamber to help me out here—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and, in particular, type 2 diabetes, which is having all sorts of impacts on NHS costs—somebody has already pointed out the £6 billion cost to the NHS.
I am starting schemes in all those three areas and, as the hon. Member for North Swindon said, using civil society as best as I can to tackle them. With the British Heart Foundation’s work on hypertension, Diabetes UK’s diabetes groups and the British Lung Foundation’s Breathe Easy campaign, we know that we can keep people out of our A&Es, which is a huge issue this week, whichever side of the political fence hon. Members are on. People can self-help and self-medicate, which is important because by the time they go to A&E or to their doctor or health professional, it is almost too late.
I concur with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health Committee: some areas do not have such a strong civil society and they need a leg-up from Government through the hypothecation of taxes. We have seen a link between the scale of poverty and obesity in children, in particular. The Government recognise that but have taken away the targets along with the unit that looks at child poverty, which is rocketing, and not just under this Government—it was going up previously because of the economic and financial crisis.
In 2016 the Government introduced a new levy on soft drinks through the sugar tax. In England the new levy revenue will be invested in programmes to support physical activity and balanced diets in school-aged children. I want to talk for a moment from my personal experience as a primary school teacher for 10 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is not currently in his place, pointed out that children go to school for only 40 weeks a year. It is important for politicians to remember that, because I used to get frustrated at this place when I was a teacher in the classroom. We all think that we can change society by changing our schools, but it is only a small, if important, bit of how we change society.
I used to eat with the children before and after the Jamie Oliver meals came in. I patrolled the free school meals kids in particular, not because I was the sugar police—although, we did had very firm policies in my 500-place primary school about what they could have in those packages—but because I knew what the afternoon would be like if they had had a can of Coke, a load of chocolate and a packet of crisps. It is almost impossible to get really extraordinary teaching and learning going on with poor diets. Everybody in the Chamber has made the link between good food and good mental health in children.
There is a clear link between sugar intake and childhood obesity, as illustrated by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition’s 2015 report on carbohydrates and health. With 30% of the sugar in children’s diets coming from sugary drinks—the point has been made that children are consuming a bathtub of these drinks annually—action is clearly needed. The levy is expected to raise more than £500 million in the first year. It is a good policy. I will come back to why I disagree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) in a second, but I thought that the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) articulated well why it is a good policy and why we should support it. The amount raised is likely to fall over time as manufacturers remove sugar from their products and the consumption of sugary drinks falls.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Colchester because he has stated that this is a nanny state-type tax, but what we now have, particularly with school budgets, which I shall come to later, is a postcode lottery. For example, look at what Britvic is already doing to avoid the sugar tax. It is changing its behaviour and remodelling the formula so that it does not pay the tax. Surely that is a good thing. Surely that is how Governments should intervene to make the world a better place, particularly for children.
Will Quince
Not at all. I accept that point, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has reiterated what I was saying. We all accept that if the industry reacts and reformulates products, that will be a great thing. However, if it does so and takes the action we know it is taking over a shorter period of time, rather than a longer period, that will mean we have less money ultimately to spend on this programme.
Mike Kane
But over the longer term people will hopefully be consuming less sugar, which I think is the key objective. However, the hon. Gentleman is right; reformulation not only will reduce the tax take and therefore be a measure of the success of Government policy—we need measures relating to public policy—but will have an impact on reducing consumption, which is just as important. He also pointed out that it is important that the impact is comprehensively evaluated, so that it can be refined and adjusted continually to keep getting public health gains.
Let us move on to schools and sport, where I have a few things to say to the Minister. Doubling the PE and sport premium fund to £320 million a year from 2017 is good news and shows a commitment from the Government that this is important. The premium has shown that it can enhance the quality of PE teaching and increase pupil engagement and participation in sport. Continued investment in sport was also highlighted by school leaders as the most important factor in maintaining quality PE provision in a Youth Sport Trust survey published last year.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on what she said about teachers. This is not just about civil society. Tens of thousands of selfless teachers give up their time after work to run such clubs—during a decade of primary school teaching, I ran the football club and the cross-country club—and all the other clubs that are part of what is expected of schools but are not in the job description. It is right that we praise the teachers up and down the land who do that.
However, as essential as all these things are, a legacy for school sport is about looking beyond primary-age provision and competitive sport initiatives. Everyone has talked about the daily mile, outdoor recreation, walking to school and our physical environment. Increasing the number of pupils of all ages who are participating in school sport—competitive or not—across all phases of education and the amount of time that they spend doing so should be fundamental to a comprehensive strategy, yet the Government have gone backwards on the issue.
Take, for example, what my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said about the previous coalition Government’s decision to remove £162 million of funding from school sport partnerships. Those partnerships were terrific—there is no doubt about it. The Government are embarking on breaking up our estate by privatising and nationalising it, and there are a spread of school campuses across the country. What the partnerships did was link combinations of local primaries to their secondary school, which usually had the expertise, resource and field capacity to do really joined-up work and get a system going where those clusters could really begin to make a difference.
When the money went, there was a negative impact, as opportunities for young people to participate in more school sport decreased, as the Education Committee noted. As I said to the hon. Member for Colchester, that decision has created a postcode lottery relating to good provision, because we had a national system but we now have local systems in which local schools are trying to do their best to keep up good practice. It has been particularly evident in secondary schools that do not have ring-fenced budgets for sport.
We also know that, unsurprisingly, since this Government removed in 2010 the requirement for pupils to have at least two hours of sport a week, the number of pupils taking part in sport has collapsed. From personal experience, there is an over-expectation of sport in schools. A teacher who is timetabling two hours, as I used to have to do, must think about their relevance as a classroom teacher. Sometimes we in this place do not think about that. It can take 10 minutes to get the children changed and five minutes to get them to the playground or field—if the school is lucky enough to have one—or to the hall. The curriculum focuses mainly not on physical activity but on skills, and then the children need to be warmed down, get changed and go back. I saw teachers selflessly giving up their play times and breaks so that the children could get the best hour possible.
The situation will be exacerbated by school budgets, which will be cut by £3 billion between now and 2020—an 8% cut in real terms. Schools are not the panacea for the policy. Despite the fairer funding formula, they will be reducing staff in all areas of our country in the months and years to come. I have had the indication that I should leave it there.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) on securing this important debate.
Childhood obesity is a national problem. Data from Public Health England’s national child measurement programme shows that, in England, a third of children are obese or overweight by the time they leave primary school. As my hon. Friend so ably said, we run the risk of creating new social norms in which obesity is the new normal. Sugar consumption is a major factor in childhood obesity, and sugar-sweetened soft drinks are now one of the biggest sources of dietary sugar for children and teenagers. A single 330 ml can of cola can contain nine teaspoons of sugar—more than a child’s daily recommended intake of added sugar—often without any other intrinsic nutritional value. The introduction of the soft drinks industry levy is a clear indication of this Government’s commitment to addressing this vital issue.
Reducing sugar consumption alone, though, is not enough. It is also important that all children have the opportunity to engage in sport and physical activity. This debate is therefore timely, as it allows me the opportunity to set out our plan further to improve physical education and school sport using revenue generated by the levy. The Government understand that high-quality PE is a route to instilling a life with health, wellbeing and exercise at its core. That is why PE is compulsory at all four key stages in the national curriculum and why, through the primary PE and sport premium, we have invested more than £600 million since 2013 in ring-fenced funding to primary schools to improve PE and sport.
We know that that funding is making a big difference. Independent research by NatCen has found that since the introduction of the primary PE and sport premium, 87% of schools have reported that the quality of PE has increased, and the vast majority of schools have introduced new sports and extracurricular activities. I join the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) in paying tribute to those teachers who go the extra mile, almost literally, to provide extra sporting activities.
The NatCen research also shows that 84% of schools also reported an increase in pupil engagement in PE during curricular time and in participation in extracurricular activities. The number of qualified specialist PE teachers in primary schools has increased by 50%, covering almost half of all schools. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon will undoubtedly be aware that primary schools in Wiltshire received around £1.8 million in additional funding in 2016-17, and that primary schools in Swindon received an additional £611,400.
We know that there is more to do. The soft drinks industry levy will be used to double the primary PE and sport premium to £320 million a year from September 2017. The funding will continue to be ring-fenced to assist schools in developing PE and extracurricular sport activities and to make long-term improvements that will benefit pupils joining the school in future years. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) that that funding is committed to 2020 and will help drive up the quality and breadth of PE and sport provision.
The increased funding will allow schools to build on the progress made through the existing premium. It will enable them to hire qualified sports coaches to work with teachers, provide existing staff with training or resources and introduce new sports and activities that encourage more pupils to be healthy and active. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon told us about the PE teacher Mark Draycott and his excellent initiative, Draycott sports camp, established in 2013, which operates out of Oakhurst primary school, where Mr Draycott is also a teacher.
The idea behind the camp was to create more opportunities for primary-age children of all abilities to participate in sport and physical activity during the school holidays. The programme offers extracurricular clubs after school and during the holidays. I commend my hon. Friend on championing that great work and taking the time to visit the camp last year, where I am reliably informed that he acquitted himself creditably in a netball shoot-out and a game of lacrosse. My hon. Friend pointed to the importance to schools of recruiting qualified PE teachers such as Mark Draycott. The Department continues to recruit well in physical education. In 2015-16, we recruited 1,235 new teacher trainers, against a target of 1,227.
My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Macclesfield (David Rutley), as well as the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and others, praised the daily mile initiative and its success in ensuring that children exercise every day. It is the brainchild of Elaine Wyllie, whom I look forward to meeting in February. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes emphasised the importance of active travel and encouraging children to cycle to school where it is safe to do so, and I agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pointed to the importance of being active in the workplace. Perhaps we as MPs should sit less and stand more. We run for office, stand for election and take our seats, but of the three, the most important is obviously running for office. He asked for a Minister to meet ukactive. The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson) or I would be delighted to do so.
A positive experience of sport at a young age can create a lifelong love of sport and physical participation. That is why we are focusing on primary-age children, as we want to help them develop healthy habits and a love of sport at an early age, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash emphasised. Secondary schools have specialist PE teachers already on the staff and can access programmes such as Sportivate and satellite clubs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes raised a concern about children from disadvantaged backgrounds. We want all pupils to be healthy and active, and we know that many schools are already using their sport premium funding to target disadvantaged pupils, who are traditionally the least active. In many schools, that will include providing additional support to children who might not be able to attend after-school clubs and activities, but we know that there is more to be done, which is why we are doubling the funding from September 2017.
We have also announced that £10 million a year in revenue from the soft drinks levy will fund the expansion of healthy breakfast clubs in up to 1,600 schools from September 2017 to 2020. The programme will ensure that more children benefit from a healthy start to their school day and is a fitting accompaniment to the primary PE and sport premium.
We are anxious to ensure that schools continue to use the funding wisely and have a number of accountability measures in place, as has been mentioned in this debate. Schools are held accountable for how they spend their funding through Ofsted whole-school inspections and a requirement to report their spending plans and the impact of that spending online. Furthermore, we have updated grant conditions and guidance and continue to work with our partners to disseminate best practice and examples of innovative uses of funding to schools, ensuring that they are best placed when the doubling of the premium comes into effect.
The Government aim to reduce England’s rate of childhood obesity significantly within the next 10 years. I firmly believe that a cross-governmental approach is key to success. In addition to the soft drinks industry levy, two landmark strategies have been published in the last 12 months: the Government’s sports strategy and the childhood obesity plan. We continue to work closely with a range of other Departments to deliver those strategies.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
St Michael’s Gate, Peterborough
(7 years, 3 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
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered housing benefit and tenancies at St Michael’s Gate, Peterborough.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard—not for the first time, I think. I thank the Speaker for giving me the opportunity to share with the House this issue, which relates to housing benefit and in particular to a loophole that has given rise to a very unfortunate and regrettable situation in my constituency. The BBC’s “Look East” programme has covered the case, and my local newspaper, the Peterborough Telegraph, and its parent company, Johnston Press, have launched a campaign to highlight the loopholes in housing benefit regulations in respect of St Michael’s Gate and other areas.
We are talking about a pleasant residential area of 74 flats and houses in the Parnwell area of Peterborough, which I know well, not least because my parents live very close to it. The site’s owner—Stef & Philips, a residential estate agent based in North London—has decided to invoke section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 to obtain vacant possession, effectively evicting and ejecting the families who live there. Earlier today, an hon. Member said to me “Isn’t this rather a narrow, niche subject?” I beg to differ; I believe that it goes to the heart of what the Prime Minister meant when she spoke about people just managing.
These are decent people, doing their best on modest incomes, who for whatever reason have not been able to afford to buy a property so have rented. Many of them have assured shorthold tenancies of six or 12 months. Frankly, a calamity has befallen them. They have been thrown out of their homes, which some of them have lived in for many years. They include families, young people, older people and children. Their situation goes to the heart of what is moral and what is right, and it is important that I bring it to the Government’s attention.
I would be remiss not to thank Councillor Wayne Fitzgerald, the deputy leader of Peterborough City Council. Despite the fact that the council has received considerable negative publicity in this case, he was courageous enough to appear with me at a public meeting in October and face the wrath of residents and local people who, naturally, are very upset.
Stef & Philips has used a special company vehicle known as Paul Simon Magic Homes Investments Ltd in order effectively to evict these people. In simple terms, it has evicted long-standing tenants, who have paid their way, to house homeless people to whom Peterborough City Council has a statutory duty. We are in a crazy Alice in Wonderland world; we have created homeless people in order to house homeless people. You can understand why a lot of my constituents are very angry about that, Mr Pritchard.
Since 4 December, the vacant possession proceedings have been pursued. We are talking about 68 assured shorthold tenancies, two assured tenancies—the holders of which are fortunate enough to have legal protection, so they will not be evicted—and four vacant properties. The unscrupulous landlord is evicting private tenants in order to turn some of the properties into bedsits. It tried to increase the number of properties from 74 to 98, but that was refused by Peterborough City Council. Nevertheless, it has increased the number to 88 in order to get more housing benefit, paid for by the taxpayer, having inflated rents and charged a management fee by using a loophole in the housing benefit regulations.
Peterborough City Council has been placed in a very difficult position. It has had to discharge its statutory responsibility to homeless people with local links—I have checked that they have those links—who have hitherto been housed in local hotels, particularly the Travelodge. The council has had to do that under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002, and it has had to divert money for that purpose on a three-year contract with a two-year break clause, which will pull in the thick end of £3 million over those three years.
What Stef & Philips has done is legal, but frankly I believe that it is morally dubious and unethical and so is the company’s business model. Such companies masquerade as confederates of local authorities, seeking to ameliorate the problems of homelessness and provide social housing solutions; far from it, they are part of the problem. In fact, in the rather self-serving statement that it belatedly issued to local media on 21 November, the company made a virtue of the fact that it is upgrading these residential units. But of course it owns them, having purchased them, so it is not doing it out of the goodness of its heart for benign, charitable reasons; it is doing it to support its own investment in its particularly dubious business model.
As I say, the company has sought to subdivide the properties. It has created a situation in which, out of the families living in the 74 units, 17 have already presented as homeless, 12 have been placed in the position of declaring themselves formally homeless and nine have been accepted as homeless by Peterborough City Council. Those were the figures on 4 December; they may be different now.
The situation is not unique. Stef & Philips recently tried the same modus operandi in Luton. Thanks to “Look East”, which was able to look into the company’s activities, Luton Borough Council said that it was not interested. The council said that it was not willing to see the taxpayer’s pound gouged and the taxpayer fleeced, and it sent Stef & Philips away with a flea in its ear. Unfortunately, Stef & Philips re-let those units, which are in Milliners Court in Luton, to Barnet Council. So it is not as if Stef & Philips has stepped in to assist Peterborough City Council out of the goodness of its heart; it has seen a niche business model, unethical as it is, and has taken action accordingly.
At this stage, it is appropriate to step back and try to understand why we have been placed in this position. The Minister may wish to dwell on that in his reply; his officials may also want to look into the matter, and perhaps the Minister will write to me in due course if he is not able to answer my questions now. At some stage, St Michael’s Gate was owned by what we now call a registered social landlord—a housing association. It was effectively social housing, and it was a very nice, pleasant settled estate in Parnwell, but at some time—we do not know when—it passed from the public sector into the ownership of a company called Akelius and then to Stef & Philips, which pursued the actions that I have mentioned.
The reason why that is important is that it would have needed the sign-off—the sanction—of the housing regulator at the time, whether that was the Housing Corporation or the Homes and Communities Agency. We are not talking about a couple of bedsits or flats; we are talking about a significantly large housing estate. Why that change was allowed to happen is an important issue, and the Minister might want to ponder it.
There was also a failure of intelligence by Peterborough City Council, in that it allowed this set of very good quality social housing units to pass into private hands. I know for a fact that, quite rightly, the council is actively pursuing the option of establishing a joint venture housing company with the largest residential social landlord in the area, which is Cross Keys Homes, a stock transfer company of some 13 years’ standing in Peterborough.
The council has £13.6 million of right-to-buy capital receipts. Why was it not possible for it to use some of that money to purchase or lease the property at St Michael’s Gate, so as to discharge its homelessness obligations under the appropriate legislation? That did not happen, but it is only fair to observe also that the council, in response to the uproar caused by the St Michael’s Gate debacle, is now accessing Government money, as a result of bids to the homelessness prevention strategy and migration funding, to deal with homelessness specifically.
The other issue is the increase in homelessness. Despite what I think are sometimes the ill-judged comments of the city council, which blames the Government’s welfare reforms and specifically universal credit for the spike in homelessness, there is no evidence to suggest that those reforms are the reason why we have suddenly been overwhelmed by an upsurge in the numbers of homeless people in the Peterborough area. There are other reasons for that increase.
One is the large scale of immigration. Incidentally, that is an issue that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), is discussing in my constituency, at Paston Farm Centre in Peterborough, as we speak. That large scale of immigration has had the effect of saturating the private rental market in Peterborough and it has caused some difficulty. Also, the introduction of a selective licensing scheme in the city has meant that many of the more dubious landlords have opted out of the private rented market, which has obviously put pressure on the number of properties that are available. Of course, we have also seen a national phenomenon, which is that people are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet, and therefore they do not pay their rent and are being evicted. All these things have come together, but neither the benefit cap nor universal credit have been an issue.
There has been a failure of intelligence and a failure of governance, and I regret that I was given erroneous information by the leader of the council, Councillor John Holdich. He is an honourable man, and I believe that he genuinely made an error, but he told me that if Peterborough had not signed this three-year contract then Luton would most assuredly have done so. As I say, that proved to be an erroneous statement, because Luton subsequently denied that it was true. Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that, given the modus operandi of Stef & Philips, the company would have touted round these properties to other local authorities that needed to discharge their homelessness duties, whether that was Stevenage, Harlow, Milton Keynes, etc.
There was a call-in of this case on 19 October last year. However, the councillors present at that call-in meeting were placed in a very difficult position, because this deal was a fait accompli. It had been made and the council had no option but to accept it, because if the council had pulled out of the scheme with Stef & Philips, it would not have been able to house its homeless people in the Travelodges, and the company would have touted the properties around and taken other people from outside Peterborough.
I will finish by asking the Minister to examine the loophole in the housing benefit regulations, because effectively it means that instead of 74 families having assured shorthold tenancies that generated an income of £659,000 a year, Stef & Philips—by treating each unit as a temporary overnight homelessness unit, with the £60 per week management fee, inflated rents and the local housing allowance subsidy level—is able to bring in £966,000 of taxpayers’ money a year. In short, the key issue is the disparity in the housing benefit levels that are paid between rented accommodation in the private sector and what is achievable when the accommodation is utilised by the local authority for temporary accommodation.
As I say, I ask the Minister to review those regulations and particularly the management fee, because this site is not a foyer for young people or a housing association property for people with special educational needs or mental health problems. To all intents and purposes, it is de facto mainstream normal housing, albeit that it is temporary and is now being used to accommodate homeless people.
I would also like the Minister to work with the Local Government Association to tackle the issue that is growing across our country of local authorities shuttling round the most vulnerable homeless people to different local authority areas, because they are unwilling or unable to house those people themselves. I know that Lord Porter of Spalding, who is the chairman of the LGA, takes this issue very seriously.
There is also a lack of accountability. It should not be the case that we have to pursue freedom of information requests to obtain information from Stef & Philips, which is in receipt of large amounts of public money, and local authorities need to work together to make sure that they develop and put in place protocols to prevent this situation from happening again.
Peterborough City Council is between a rock and a hard place. It is not solely at fault and in fairness—although I hate to say it—neither is Stef & Philips. I feel very bad about what has happened. I apologise to my constituents that I could not do more to help them and to a certain extent I feel that the system and I have let them down. The current situation is unfair and morally repugnant, and I hope that this debate and the Minister’s response to it will ensure that, to all intents and purposes, decent people are not treated like this again and this situation will not be repeated in the future.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, for what I believe is the first time.
I would like to start my response by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) for raising this issue in Westminster Hall today. It is not the first time that he has raised it with me or with my Department; I believe he presented a petition to the House and I have just signed off our response to that petition. As all Members of the House will know, he is a highly diligent constituency MP, and it does him great credit that he has raised this particular issue today. I also join him in congratulating his local newspaper, the Peterborough Telegraph, on the interest that it has taken in this issue.
As my hon. Friend said, and as I understand it, nearly all the current tenants at St Michael’s Gate hold assured shorthold tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. That gives them the right to live in the property as their home and to get repairs done, and they cannot be made to leave within the first six months of the tenancy. However, the legislation also enables a landlord to regain possession at or beyond the end of that six-month term, with two months’ notice.
Before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market in this country was in decline. Regulated rents and lifetime tenancies meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. Since the law was changed in 1988, the private rented sector in this country has grown steadily, from just over 9% of the market at that time to 19% today. It now fulfils a major role in providing housing to people in Britain. The sector is not without its problems, but it is worth saying that both the quality of accommodation in the private rented sector and the satisfaction of the people living in that accommodation have increased over time.
There are certainly problems, with which my Department continues to grapple, but overall that story of deregulation has been a success and has allowed more people to access accommodation in the private rented sector. The difficulty here is that although we know people want the stability of a secure home, the Government’s view is that more restrictive legislation of the kind that would have prevented this company from doing what it did would mean fewer homes available to rent, which would not help tenants.
My hon. Friend posed the right question in his speech. What happened may well be legal, and we may well have to accept that if we want a thriving rental sector we must allow landlords to ask people to leave a tenancy, with notice. The question my hon. Friend posed is whether the behaviour of the company in this situation is moral or right. I very much share his concern, and I think that anyone listening to this debate or reading the transcript will ask that same question about what has happened, which has, as my hon. Friend said, a sort of Alice in Wonderland quality to it: a group of people essentially being told that they need to leave their homes, resulting in many of them being made homeless, to provide housing for the homeless. That seems to be a highly irrational way for a company and a city council to behave.
Accepting that if we want a thriving rental market in this country we must accept the ability of landlords to regain possession of their property, what can the Government do to try to make the situation—
Gavin Barwell
Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was trying to address the concern my hon. Friend raised. If we accept that to have a thriving rental market in this country, we need to allow landlords to regain possession of their properties, what can we do to make the kind of situation that his constituents have experienced far less likely? The key answer is to increase the supply of housing. Many of the issues that he referred to—I will answer some of the detailed questions in a second—come back to the point that for probably 30 or 40 years, we in England have not been building enough homes, so the demand for housing far exceeds the supply.
Those constituents who had to approach the council and seek protection under homelessness legislation are an example of a wider problem. Historically, the main causes of statutory homelessness—when people go to their council and ask for help with rehousing—have tended to be relationship breakdown and those kinds of issues. The most common cause of statutory homelessness in this country now is the ending of a private rental sector tenancy. My hon. Friend describes a particularly strange and indefensible situation, because of the role that the company played in provoking it, but it is a fairly common one in a general sense. People lose a private rental sector tenancy and find themselves unable to find alternative accommodation in their area, and therefore have to present themselves to their local authority.
To try to alleviate that problem, the Government are doing two things. In addition to supporting the largest affordable housing programme by any Government since the 1970s, we are investing very large sums of public money in trying to help local authorities prevent homelessness and support those affected by it; we are investing £149 million in central Government programmes and giving £315 million over the course of this Parliament to local authorities.
The House is also playing a part, and we should put that on the record. The private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), which is currently before the House, does two critical things. First, it looks to widen the safety net. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough did not touch on this, but it is possible that some of his constituents find themselves outside the safety net; single people who are not vulnerable in any way are not currently covered. The private Member’s Bill would widen that safety net. It would also get councils to intervene much earlier to prevent people becoming homeless, rather than just dealing with the problem when it occurs.
The second main thing the Government are trying to do is increase the supply of housing. The fundamental solution to so many of the housing problems we face in this country is to build more homes—in this particular instance, more homes for rent—to offer people greater security than is often the case currently, without forcing landlords to offer that security. In the forthcoming housing White Paper, my hon. Friend will see a lot of measures on that. I will mention two briefly.
First, the Government are very keen on build to rent. In this country, most of our private rental sector properties are owned by individual landlords, many of whom are responsible for only one property. We are keen to see institutional investment in building new private rental sector homes. That brings not only a degree of professional management and a very welcome new supply, but the potential to offer longer assured shorthold tenancies, because we are not talking about individuals who may need to access their assets six, 12 or 18 months down the line, but major pension funds and the like who are interested in a long-term, secure return on their investment. That would address some of the concerns of his constituents. Secondly, the Department is also promoting a model tenancy agreement, which encourages landlords to offer longer tenancies and therefore greater protection to people.
I want to address three questions that my hon. Friend asked on behalf of his constituents. He told us that the properties in question had at some point been what we would call social housing; they had been owned by a registered provider. He asked why that housing had been allowed to pass into the private sector. I cannot answer that question for him today—my briefing was unclear about the history. My officials believe that, if it was owned by a housing association, that was some time in the past. He is right to say that if that was the case, the transfer would have to have been authorised by the housing regulator. I am very happy to see if we can find out, without disproportionate effort, when that occurred and what the rationale was for approving that decision. That is clearly something that his constituents would want to know the answer to. It is a highly relevant question.
My hon. Friend raised two other questions to which I think he deserves an answer. He talked about the management fee, and the distortion whereby somebody can earn more money renting out accommodation to local authorities looking to place homeless families than renting it out as normal, general-purpose, private rented accommodation. The management fee is not paid directly to the landlord—it is paid to the local authority—but my hon. Friend is right that, because many local authorities are so short of emergency accommodation to place homeless households in, the rates that landlords charge them are often of that kind. The long-term solution to that is to get more housing in our country, so that local authorities are in a much stronger position in the market when trying to secure accommodation and do not have to pay such high fees.
Given the way that the management fee, which is managed by the Department for Work and Pensions, works at the moment, it may reassure my hon. Friend somewhat to hear that the Government are replacing it, and will move to a grant to local authorities, which will be administered by my Department. The overall pot of funding for that grant will be £617 million. That will give local authorities much more flexibility in how the money can be used, and may prevent the appalling situation that he has reported today from recurring.
My hon. Friend’s final point is very difficult. It is an issue that many of my predecessors have had to grapple with: local authorities are placing families that they have accepted as statutorily homeless outside their area. Many hon. Members have raised that concern with me in the nearly six months that I have been Minister with responsibility for housing. Let me reassure him at least partially. Local authorities have to secure accommodation within their own borough as far as is reasonably practicable. We have changed the law so that councils have to take into account the impact that a change in location would have on a household, including possible disruption to things such as employment and schooling.
In some circumstances, accommodation in another borough may be more suitable for a household. I cannot say to my hon. Friend that that can never happen, but I can assure him that we have made it more difficult. Again—this is probably the right moment to draw my remarks to a close—the long-term solution to the problem of councils placing families in different boroughs is to end the housing crisis in this country. We must ensure that we build more homes and build up our housing supply, so that each local authority has the ability to place the families it accepts within the area in which they live. Clearly, in most cases, that is the right thing for those families, because most people have friends, families and personal relations, whom they risk losing if they are placed at a distance. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very disturbing case.
Question put and agreed to.
Stormont House Agreement: Implementation
(7 years, 3 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
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I know you have taken an interest in these matters over the years. I welcome colleagues who have taken time out to attend the debate, including the Minister. I look forward to his response.
Although policing and justice issues are now devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive—at least for the next few weeks—the legacy of our troubled past remains a matter for this Parliament and the Government of the United Kingdom to deal with. Let me remind colleagues that, during what we call the troubles in Northern Ireland, there were more than 3,500 deaths, of which more than 2,000—60%—were murders carried out by republican paramilitaries, mainly the Provisional IRA. More than 1,000 murders were carried out by loyalist paramilitaries, amounting to 30% of the overall total. British and Irish state forces were responsible for 10% of deaths during the troubles, almost all of which occurred as a result of entirely lawful actions, where police officers and soldiers acted to safeguard life and property. Let me restate that for the record: the paramilitary terrorists were responsible for some 90% of the deaths in the troubles, and state forces on both sides of the border for 10%. I want hon. Members to hold that statistic—that fact—in their minds during this debate. I apologise to colleagues, because this is a very complex issue and I need to take some time to go through the background and the issues we are still dealing with in Northern Ireland.
There are some 3,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland linked to our troubled past. What a terrible legacy that is—one of pain, loss and in many cases a deep sense of injustice. It is a well-accepted principle that in a democracy no one should be above the law and yet, as will become clear from my remarks, there appears to be one rule for those who have served our country and the Crown and another for those whose objective was to destroy it. Unfortunately, those legacy issues were not adequately addressed, never mind resolved, in the Belfast agreement on Good Friday 1998.
Instead, in that agreement, the Government of the day agreed to release early from prison those prisoners sentenced for offences linked to the troubles in Northern Ireland and who were members of a terrorist organisation on ceasefire, in support of the peace process. In effect, the terrorists who had been found guilty of crimes including murder were released from prison after serving only two years in jail. For many of them, that was the limit. They included, for example, the notorious Shankill bomber, from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Sean Kelly was convicted by the courts in Northern Ireland of the murder of nine innocent people in a bomb explosion on Shankill Road in Belfast. He was sentenced to nine life terms in prison, but under the terms of the Belfast agreement he was released early, having served less than one year for each life that he destroyed.
In addition, and beyond the terms of the agreement, in September 2000 the then Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, announced that the Government would no longer seek the extradition of Provisional IRA prisoners who had escaped from prison, including several who escaped from the Maze prison in my constituency in 1983. They were allowed to return home; they were no longer sought to be brought back and put in prison, where frankly they belonged. They included convicted terrorist Dermot Finucane—the brother of the late Pat Finucane, about whom we have heard a lot in the past—who was the former head of intelligence and the head of southern command of the Provisional IRA. He was a very senior figure in the Provisional IRA, and he escaped from prison and was allowed to return home. Kevin Barry Artt, who was convicted of the murder of the deputy governor of the Maze prison, escaped and yet was allowed to return home without having to go back to prison. I could go on with the list of the concessions that have been made to Sinn Féin and the IRA over the years in relation to those who were convicted of, or are alleged to have committed, very serious crimes.
In 2001, the then Labour Government sought to extend that further to introduce an amnesty for all members of terrorist organisations on ceasefire. On 4 May 2001, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr John Reid, wrote to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and said:
“In the Hillsborough statement of 8 March we accepted publicly for the first time that it would be a natural development of the Early Release Scheme to discontinue the prosecution of pre-Good Friday Agreement offences allegedly committed by supporters of organisations now on ceasefire.”
Crucially, Dr Reid went on to say that the proposals, which would be enacted into legislation,
“should exclude members of the security forces from the amnesty arrangements”.
In other words, a terrorist who had committed crimes, including murder, before the 1998 agreement would be granted an amnesty, but a soldier or a police officer alleged to have committed an offence would not be the beneficiary of such an amnesty. Thankfully, through parliamentary opposition, that reprehensible scheme was defeated and the secret deal that had been done was thwarted.
But it did not stop there. Having been frustrated in that attempt to bring in an amnesty for terrorists, the Government of the day did another secret deal, issuing letters to paramilitary prisoners and suspects wanted for questioning about terrorist offences to say, “You may now return home. The police will no longer question or arrest you in connection with offences committed before 1998.” We did not know of the existence of that scheme, and it was only finally exposed when John Downey was brought before the courts here in London on charges linked to the murder of four soldiers in the Hyde Park bombings of 1982. What happened? Downey produced his letter—that “get out of jail free” card—and the courts threw out the case against him. He was allowed to walk free, without being prosecuted for the offences he is alleged to have committed.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
When I was serving in Northern Ireland, my regimental band was blown up in the Regent’s Park bombing on the same day. A few hours later, I took a patrol out in the New Lodge area of Belfast, as the news of the bombing was coming through. The soldiers under my command showed unbelievable restraint in the face of taunts about that terrorist incident. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the feelings of the people who showed that restraint, day in, day out, only to see now a one-sided judicial process that could take people of that era—people of my age and older—into court for alleged crimes committed during that period?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Yes, I do understand entirely the strength of feelings. I have many comrades with whom I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland, and they are daily subjected to headlines in our local newspapers such as “Off the hook” over pictures of convicted terrorists. The hon. Gentleman can imagine how my comrades feel too, having put their lives on the line to bring some of those people to justice. Similarly, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who went out to investigate the crimes, now find that the people they put behind bars can walk free, some of them as the result of the use of the royal prerogative of mercy.
As the result of a report prepared by Lady Justice Hallett into the on-the-runs issue, the Secretary of State of the day, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), told the House of Commons in a statement in 2014:
“The Government…will take whatever steps are necessary, acting on the basis of legal advice and in conjunction with the police and prosecutors, to do everything possible to remove barriers to future prosecutions.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1041.]
She was referring to the future prosecution of terrorists. Since that statement was made, I am not aware of a single terrorist suspect being brought before the courts in Northern Ireland in relation to those matters. The Secretary of State also identified 36 priority cases highlighted in the Hallett report. Those were to be the subject of a review by the legacy investigation branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Will the Minister tell us in his response what has happened to those 36 priority cases that were to be reviewed? Are the suspects still wanted for questioning, or have they been told, “No, you’re okay, we don’t need to talk to you”?
I want to highlight a case that I find particularly appalling. Kieran Conway is a self-proclaimed member of the Provisional IRA from Dublin. He claims that he was a senior intelligence officer at the time of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings, in which 21 innocent people lost their lives. Conway asserts that he is aware of the identity of some of the IRA members involved in that mass murder, but he has refused to disclose that information. In addition, Conway admitted that he had been involved in a number of shooting incidents, perhaps as many as 100. He claims that a number of British soldiers were killed in some of those shooting incidents that he witnessed.
Kieran Conway is so confident that the UK authorities will not pursue him that he has written and published a book setting all that out and putting it in the public domain. Not only that, but he has appeared on the BBC “HARDtalk” programme, openly boasting of his involvement in those crimes. Has Kieran Conway been arrested and questioned about the claims he makes in his book and has broadcast on other media? No, he has not—far from it. Today, Kieran Conway is a solicitor in Dublin, who acts on behalf of so-called dissident republican suspects in the Special Criminal Court. Imagine the conversations that Mr Conway has with his clients—“Don’t worry, boys. One of these days the Brits will cut a deal with you too. Just keep on doing what you’re doing, just like I did, and I’m walking the streets and advising clients how to evade justice.”
Soldiers and veterans look at all of that and they think, “What is going on?” We know is going on: veterans of our armed forces are getting the knock on the door early in the morning. They find a large number of police officers outside their homes; their homes are invaded and searched. The veterans, sometimes just out of bed, are marched off to a police station, subjected to cross-examination and interrogation about crimes that occurred sometimes 20 or 30 years ago. Those are the men and women who served our country, who put themselves on the frontline and who were prepared to go out and face the terrorists; today, they are waiting again for the knock at the door.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, because he is making a powerful speech, and I congratulate him on it. Given the number of years that he has cited—20, 30 or 40 years—does he agree that if we accept this principle about harrying and pursuing members of the armed forces, then there is no reason to stop there? Some of my constituents who served in Cyprus and Korea, or even further back, are saying, “In the fullness of time, perhaps we will be questioned about what we got up to, under the rules and norms of today rather than those that applied at the time.”
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Gentleman worked with me and others on such legacy issues, so he is well aware of the background to the situation. He is absolutely right. Earlier in the main Chamber, some of our colleagues made the point about what impact this might have on our ability to recruit men and women into our armed forces today. Would not a young 18-year-old looking at a career in our armed forces think twice about serving a country that might let them end up in the dock, simply for doing the job and protecting the community? That is a huge question that we need to ask of the Government. What is going on?
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing the debate forward and on making his points so powerfully. Does he agree that evidence that is 20, 30 or 40 years old will be hard to rely on? We should be putting cases away unless there is new evidence. What really bothered me was that when I met a member of the police the other day, he said, “There are new ways of looking at evidence.” If there are new ways of looking at evidence, there is a threat that we will look at everything again. We simply cannot do that. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, himself a veteran, for his intervention.
Let me remind hon. Members of the price that our security forces paid in Northern Ireland for the service that they provided to our country: 520 Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force regulars, reserves and veterans murdered by terrorists; 243 from the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment, or their veterans murdered by terrorists; 325 from the Royal Ulster Constabulary or other constabularies throughout the United Kingdom and retired police murdered by terrorists; and 26 prison officers and former prison officers murdered by terrorists. That is more than 1,100 men and women in the service of the Crown who were murdered by terrorists, alongside countless others seriously injured and left to bear the mental and physical scars of that reign of terror. That is the legacy of the service provided by the men and women of our armed forces and police services in Northern Ireland.
Evidently, little effort has been made to bring to justice those responsible for those heinous crimes. I repeat, because it bears repeating: 90% of the deaths in the Northern Ireland were not caused by the Army, the police or anyone connected with the Crown; they were carried out by illegal terrorist organisations. Yet where is the pursuit of those people? The victims of these crimes cry out for justice. Where is the justice for them?
The Chief Constable, in fairness to him, established the Historical Enquiries Team, which was tasked with re-examining all the unsolved murders connected with the troubles in Northern Ireland. To a certain extent, that was a paper exercise. The team’s only remit was to review the previous police investigations; it did not have police powers to pursue investigations. When that team was wound up, its role passed to the legacy investigation branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is where it currently sits. The reality today is that 90% of the resources of the legacy investigation branch—I stand open to challenge on this—are devoted to investigating 10% of the deaths during the troubles, and 10% of its resources are devoted to investigating 90% of the deaths. Where is the equity in that? Where is the fairness in a system that produces such a result?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this very timely debate. Does he agree that there is no comparison between former service personnel who served in Northern Ireland, who may in the vastly distant past have been engaged on patrol when whatever happened—whether it was an oversight, a misjudgment or a split-second decision—resulted in injury or death, and whose actions account for many of those 10% of deaths, and the deliberate, premeditated murders of the terrorists? That is what annoys and angers many personnel who served in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank my hon. Friend for that well-made intervention. Two former members of the Parachute Regiment have recently been charged in connection with the shooting of an IRA commander in Belfast in 1972—one Joseph McCann from the Markets area of Belfast. Those two veterans are aged 67 and 65. A 75-year-old veteran, who previously served in the Life Guards, has also been charged with the attempted murder of a man in County Tyrone in 1974. Those cases will soon appear before the courts, yet people do not, when they open their newspapers every day, see the terrorists who are responsible for the vast majority of the murders coming before the courts.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman knows why I was not here at the start of the debate, and I am grateful to him for his courtesy. Does he agree that exactly the sorts of cases that he cites are having a chilling effect on men and women serving in the Army, who look at that opportunity for a career and say, “Why on earth would I do this?” Can he also tell us why this is happening now? My understanding is that these cases were properly identified and investigated at the time. Why is there partisan pressure now to reopen what was dealt with quite properly in the past?
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady is an experienced former Minister. She has only just arrived. The debate is very over-subscribed; we will probably be down to two minutes for the six or seven Members who wish to speak.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I will move to my final point, Mr Pritchard, which I feel is important, but I will first address why this is happening now. I think it is because we have had a number of inquiries, which resulted in the creation of the legacy investigation branch. For example, cases linked to the Saville inquiry have been re-examined, cases have been referred by the coroner in Northern Ireland that were previously referred by the Attorney General, and cases have also been referred by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to the legacy investigation branch. A combination of all those things in recent years has resulted in what we are now seeing. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady’s point.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that despite the imbalance that he has well documented, Sinn Féin are still not happy? Indeed, the crisis in Northern Ireland is driven by their desire to get even more soldiers in the dock and even more security documents in the open, so that they can rewrite history. The Government ought to resist the blackmail that the people of Northern Ireland and the Government here at Westminster are being subjected to by Sinn Féin.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, to which I need not add.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many people who died in the troubles—all murders and killings were wrong—who were not members of the armed forces were innocent civilians? I can think of many of my own constituents. Will he relate that to the Stormont House agreement, which this debate is supposed to be about?
Danny Kinahan
I just want to make the point that Corporal Major Hutchings, whom we heard about earlier, was today refused bail to go on a cruise with his wife so that his health could get better. That shows the lopsided nature of what is going on.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further intervention. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) is absolutely right about the murder of the innocent. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, republicans are trying to rewrite the history of the troubles. They want to portray the security forces as the bad guys, and they want to be portrayed on the side of good. But let me be clear: whether it was the massacre at Kingsmill, McGurk’s bar, La Mon, Belfast’s Bloody Friday, the M62 bombings, Birmingham, Narrow Water, Droppin’ Well, the Grand Hotel in Brighton, Newry police station, Enniskillen war memorial, Ballygawley, Shankill Road, Greysteel, Loughinisland in the South Down constituency, Canary Wharf or Omagh, no one can ever sanitise the horror, the inhumanity and the sickening murderous depravity of those acts of terrorism. They cannot rewrite the history of what they did to the people of Northern Ireland and others.
Two years ago, we reached an agreement in Stormont about the legacy issues and several new institutions were proposed, including an historical investigations unit that would have full police powers to revisit the unsolved murders. The main impact of the establishment of that unit would be that the murders committed by the terrorists would finally be subjected to proper scrutiny and reinvestigation, and the innocent victims that the hon. Member for South Down referred to would have the opportunity to have their cases re-examined to see whether there was the prospect of prosecution and people being brought to justice. I accept the point that the hon. Member for South Antrim made about getting evidence for cases from so long ago.
The Stormont House agreement is there. There is currently an impasse between Sinn Féin and the Government on national security. Sinn Féin are demanding that this Government fully disclose in the public domain everything that happened, which would mean that if the Special Air Service had carried out an operation in Loughgall and shot members of the Provisional IRA who were exploding a bomb outside a police station, all that the SAS did—all the rationale, all its modus operandi and all the military planning that went into that operation—would be out in the public domain. How could we ever counter terrorism again if we put in the public domain the very methods that we use to detect what is happening and safeguard life? It is a nonsense that a former terrorist organisation should have the right to demand that a lawful Government put that information in the public domain.
The Government must hold the line on national security; further, they should act now. They need to proceed with the Stormont House agreement. They need to implement the historical investigations unit. We have waited long enough. It has been two years since the agreement. Why are we allowing Sinn Féin a veto over the investigation of the murder of innocent people, soldiers and police officers? We owe this to those people and their families. I urge the Minister: please, let’s get on with it. Let’s do the right thing. Let’s investigate these murders. Let’s give the people the opportunity for justice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Some housekeeping points: the debate will end at 17.52 because of Divisions. The Minister might like to give the mover of the motion, Sir Jeffrey, a minute at the end to wind up. The Front-Bench speeches will start at 17.32, with five minutes for the Labour Front-Bencher, five minutes for the Scottish National party and, of course, 10 minutes for the Minister.
A final point: Members will be aware that the screens are not working, so you cannot keep track of time, but the good news is that we can do it for you. There is a now a time limit of three minutes for each speaker, I am afraid, and when the time is up, you will hear the bell.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on securing the debate. However, I do have to say that, as someone who participated in many of the negotiations in the process—some of which he discussed—and in particular has always been pushing to ensure that we keep the promise that was made in the Good Friday agreement about properly addressing legacy issues and tending to the needs of victims, I do not accept a lot of his recounting of the history of the process. Indeed, I would have to say that he has disremembered a number of key points.
In relation to dealing with the past, in a number of the negotiations that took place after the Good Friday agreement the Social Democratic and Labour party, at times the Alliance party and the Women’s Coalition were all saying that the question of victims and the past needed to be dealt with, but it was quite clear from the two Governments that the parties that did not want the past dealt with were the main Unionist party at the time and Sinn Féin.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the negotiations in Hillsborough in 2003. It was then clear. Three parties suggested that a victims’ forum be established to move forward on issues of the past because the Governments and their parties were failing. Again, that did not happen because of Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist party, but of course the Governments continued to proceed on what they said was their commitment from Weston Park in relation to the so-called on-the-runs. That led to the legislation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill in 2005. Contrary to what he said, that Bill was providing opportunities for certificates of amnesty to be given to members of the security forces or anyone else. Anyone could get certificates. In fact, anyone could turn up and get a certificate for anyone else—that is how wide open the scheme was—and it could all happen in secret, with victims not knowing or being told. If anyone found out, the Secretary of State could put on an additional seal of secrecy. I am proud of the fact that the SDLP led opposition to that. Did the Democratic Unionist party make that a deal breaker at the time in the negotiations for the restoration of devolution? It did not. It was the SDLP that fought on that, because the DUP was happy to go along with some aspects of the amnesty scheme, provided that it extended to members of the security forces as well.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the establishment of the Historical Enquiries Team. Paul Murphy was Secretary of State at that time, and he told me very clearly that I, as the SDLP leader, was the only party leader who was pressing for anything to be done in relation to historical enquiries. I was the only person who lobbied for that team to be established and the only person who lobbied for funding. Of course, it could not be provided for in statute because there was not agreement from the other parties. So we have the DUP complaining about the very things that it opposed and helped to prevent. Similarly, in terms of the Stormont House agreement and the prior discussions on Haass and everything else related to dealing with the past, the DUP stood in the way of getting an agreement as well.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure as ever to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on securing the debate. I had wanted to speak at length about the perception of amnesty, but there is not time to do that, so, as an ex-soldier who served in Northern Ireland twice and in Iraq and Afghanistan twice, I will focus on what I believe is the impact of these inquiries on those who are serving or may serve in the future in our armed forces.
Retrospective investigation over actions taken in battles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland breaks the covenant that the Government, Parliament and the nation has with our armed forces. Those who have served feel betrayed, those who now serve are concerned, and those who might have served now might not. However necessary the Government might insist that these inquiries are and however fair and proportionate the investigatory process is designed to be, merely the prospect of it is enough to make those serving now hesitate before pulling the trigger. In battle, that hesitation costs lives.
Those who serve now do so inspired by this nation’s relationship with its armed forces over the centuries. To defile that relationship is to diminish our military capability now and in the years to come.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I shall deal with three aspects of this issue in the short time we have. The first is what the British Government should do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) clearly, fairly and comprehensively set down what we believe as a party that we as a society should strive for in terms of fairness and justice.
When I think of the Government, I also think of our head of state. Her Majesty the Queen has done more than anyone else historically and symbolically to bring people in these islands together. Her son, the Prince of Wales, made a historic visit two years ago to the place in Ireland where his cherished uncle, Lord Mountbatten, was murdered.
There was a conviction for an attempted bombing of the Prince of Wales last year, and three Members of the Dáil—MPs like us in the Republic of Ireland—wrote to court in support of a dissident republican. Mick Wallace TD, Clare Daly TD and Maureen O’Sullivan TD all wrote in support of a dissident republican who attempted to kill the son of our head of state. There is a huge onus on the Irish Government and on parliamentarians in Dublin when we consider Kingsmill and the promises that the Taoiseach made to the families of the Kingsmill massacre. They said that they would make full disclosure to the coroner’s inquiry. Have they done it? No, they have not. Therefore, while there is an onus on the British Government to ensure that we are serving our armed forces personnel and veterans in this country, there is a huge onus on those co-guarantors in the Irish Government to step up to the plate as well.
From a Northern Ireland perspective, what can we do? In my constituency last year, prison officer Adrian Ismay was murdered by dissident republicans. Despite five breaches of bail, the chief suspect in his murder was not challenged by police—police sent an order to officers not to bother him with bail checks—and only this week we discovered that Damien McLaughlin, who was charged with aiding and abetting the murder of David Black, a prison officer in 2012, absconded on 18 November. He has not signed on bail even though he was required to do so five days in the week, and the police did not raid his house for six weeks. They did not tell court or seek a warrant for his arrest until this January.
Whether it is historic, a legacy case or very much in the here and now today, we are failing innocent victims. I do hope that the Minister takes the opportunity to respond.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the opportunity to have the debate and thank the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) for initiating it. I think the starting point is the inequality in the current process and system, which was highlighted by the Minister just a few weeks ago in this Chamber. He accepted that the approach to the past had not been proportionate. That is a good starting point, and we have to realise that.
I am not going to go over all the issues, but may I say that unless we get a system that delivers for the victims in our society, Northern Ireland will never progress as a society that builds together and works together.
We have heard instances of some former soldiers. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment. I remember being on duty when Sergeant Hugh McCormick, a Roman Catholic police officer, was murdered coming out of mass on a Sunday morning—I remember going to that. I remember being flown out to an incident in which a good friend of mine, Jimmy Graham, was killed—the third of the Graham brothers to be murdered. He was driving a school bus to pick up a load of young kids to bring them to swimming.
The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned the innocent victims. How much more innocent can you get than workmen coming home from serving and working, doing a building job? Their van was blown up at Teebane. How much more innocent can you get than those standing around a war memorial to remember the dead of the two world wars? An IRA bomb went off and murdered 11 of those people. How much more innocent can you get than those Kingsmill people going home from their work? This is absolutely disproportionate. I remember speaking to Ronnie Funston at the Enniskillen cattle mart where we were selling cattle. Two days later, he was murdered on his tractor. He was an innocent man and not a member of any security forces.
I have to say that, unless we stop this process whereby the majority of the focus is on former security forces, we will never move forward. If terrorists and former terrorists can get their royal prerogative, why can soldiers not? There has to be some equality in this system; we do not have any at present.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
First, I hold soldiers to a far higher standard of service than I do terrorists—that needs to be understood. However, I have to say that what is happening at the moment is the worst possible recruiting sergeant imaginable. Having 70-year-old veterans being hauled out of their beds at 3 o’clock in the morning to answer for things that may or may not have happened 40 years ago is remarkable. I can scarcely remember what I was doing last year; I certainly cannot remember what happened 40 years ago.
I am really worried about the quality of available evidence for investigations of this sort. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has talked, and is worried, about a “twisted narrative”. He needs to say in clear terms what he will do to unpick that narrative, because the message at the moment is that the awful things that happened during the troubles were predominantly caused by members of the armed forces, which is truly remarkable, given the statistics shared by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). That must be dealt with now. It needs to be nipped in the bud, otherwise our colleagues at the Ministry of Defence will find it ever more difficult to recruit the young men and women needed to serve the forces of the Crown.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Pritchard. It is undoubtedly safe to say that the political landscape across the Irish sea today is not as it was when the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) secured the debate. The stalemate around the implementation of the agreement remains, but there is now more to consider.
Some would suggest that politics in Northern Ireland has just entered election mode, and that there is little to be said by politicians such as myself on this side of the water. There may be some encouragement for the parties to get back around the table, but the chances of that happening currently seem sadly distant, to say the least. The renewable heat incentive seems to have become all-consuming, and the fallout from it will clearly continue to be an issue for some time; there may yet be an inquiry, and we will wait to see what that brings. The implementation of the Stormont House agreement will be waiting for whoever assumes responsibility for the Northern Ireland Executive in the months to come.
I do not think it is for me to tell Northern Ireland, its people, elected representatives or institutions what they should do, but it seems that the process of implementation is more than stuck and needs a hard push to get it moving. It will need some hard-headed negotiation and a great deal of good faith on all sides. The supply of good faith may be experiencing some issues at the moment, but I have no doubt that the fine men and women who sustain politics in Northern Ireland will not be shy in providing the hard-headed negotiation; we have seen that reflected in the passionate contributions from every single Member who has contributed today.
There has been plenty of movement in Stormont since the re-establishment of the devolved Government, and the individuals and parties who have served in the Assembly deserve great credit for the advances there and for the establishment of peace as an expected part of life. The attitudes shown at Stormont over the past decade will be needed now as much as they ever were, and I urge all parties in Northern Ireland to take a bit of time to focus on a strategy for the future that establishes what needs to be done to advance the interests of the people they represent, rather than allowing those interests to remain stuck.
It will be almost entirely the responsibility of Assembly members to sort out the problems that have resulted in the stalemate, and they will have to be the pivot on which the future turns and the implementation of the agreement depends. That said, it will need the support of the UK Government—especially in providing the resources needed for addressing the legacy issues and moving on from them. It would be good to have some assurances from the Minister that that will be forthcoming.
The next wee while will not be a walk in the park. The Scottish National party recognises that responsibility for forward movement rests in Belfast, but we offer whatever small help we can.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I join those who have paid tribute to your chairing of the debate, Mr Pritchard. I also join those who have paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I have known him for many years. He is a man who always speaks with utter—sometimes painful—honesty, but with the deepest sincerity. Anyone who has any doubt at all about the rawness of these issues should listen to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, because that rawness still smarts today. We, as parliamentarians, and as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement in this country, have an absolute bounden duty to seek to achieve that which we all want: a peaceful, settled and secure Northern Ireland.
I also associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott). I joined him in what I have to say was a slightly unlikely occasion for me: the 12 July parades in Maguiresbridge. I talked to people for whom the border conflict is not a footnote in history but a bloodstained page in their own family lives and their own family bibles—people who actually lived through that horror.
I do not look at this from one particular perspective or another, and I certainly do not look at it with blinkered eyes. However, as the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) quite rightly said, we expect higher standards from our armed forces. I see no comparison between terrorism and military action, but there have been occasions in the past when people in our armed forces have not acted in the best traditions of our armed forces. I do not think that any of us should pretend that there have not been occasions when matters have occurred that need to be investigated.
I do not believe that every single person in any single organisation can be completely exonerated. That might seem offensive to some people, and I apologise, but on behalf of the many who have served in the armed forces, there is no time or respect for people who act outside the law. Yes, it was a horrendous time, but there is still no excuse for anyone breaching their code of honour—and it is a code of honour that one subscribes to when one wears the Queen’s uniform.
However, the Stormont House agreement and the subsequent Fresh Start were about much more than that particular aspect. Hon. Members should not forget that it was welfare reform that ran the whole business into the sand. It is hard to think that it was agreed only in December 2014. At that time the issues were overwhelmingly ones of welfare reform, and also about the size of the Assembly. There were a huge number of other issues, including the winding up of the historical enquiries team and the introduction of another two or three bodies.
At that time, flags and parades was extremely important, as was the past. I pay credit to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and all of those involved in winding down the Twaddell Avenue circumstances, which showed that, on occasion, we can actually achieve things. What seemed insoluble a few years ago has been solved, and I pay undiluted credit to all the people involved, at least two of whom are sitting in this room today. However, implementation of the Stormont House agreement is the subject we are talking about today; we are not talking solely about the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Richard Benyon
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the world looked at the peace process in Northern Ireland with huge admiration? It did many people sitting in this room enormous credit that they were able to swallow that agreement for the greater good. However, the world is also looking at the United Kingdom in a whole range of ways at the moment, and one of them is how we treat our veterans. This comes down to a matter of great interest for Britain’s perception in the world. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is something the Government would be well advised to consider?
Stephen Pound
I do not think that anyone would possibly cavil at the thought of respect for our military, our veterans and the military covenant. Equally, however, I do not think that anyone would say that without exception there has never been an incident in which a person wearing the Queen’s uniform acted outside that code of honour and those rules. That might be uncomfortable to say, but I think that we do our armed forces and our veterans a disservice if we say that they can do no wrong. After all, they are human beings.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My problem with it is that one side in the conflict constantly referred to it as a war—it still does—so on one side there are people acting as they would in a war, where they can do terrible things, whereas the security forces are bound by very strict rules. I think that is the unfairness of it.
Stephen Pound
What we call something is less important than what actually happens. When someone is dying, when someone has been shot in the back, when someone has been bombed, when someone has been a victim on either side, whether it is called a war or murder is less important to their relatives back home who receive the message of the death of a loved one. I entirely understand that some people will seek to justify it on one side or the other, but we are talking here about the implementation of the Stormont House agreement and Fresh Start.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who speaks for the Scottish National party, is absolutely right. One reason why the Fresh Start agreement was successful was that at that time the PSNI accepted and admitted that there was still dissident republican activity on the streets of Northern Ireland. That was one reason why the Democratic Unionist party went back into the Executive. I think that we should be concentrating on those issues. We have to look at the murders that are taking place today. We have to move forward. Yes, the past is a mighty weight on our shoulders and it cannot be denied, but we cannot allow it to crush us. We have to move forward.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister that the debate will end at 5.52 pm. If he wishes to allow time for Sir Jeffrey Donaldson to respond, he might wish to resume his seat at 5.50.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Kris Hopkins)
First, let me say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on not only the content of his speech, but the honesty and the power with which he communicated his feelings on this very important matter. I also congratulate colleagues on both sides of the Chamber who either intervened or made speeches. I will mention a couple of those briefly before commenting on the Government’s position.
Let me recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) and the passion with which he speaks, as a former soldier—I speak as a former soldier as well. When I look at the hon. Members who made contributions, I see that it is a mix of people; some have served, and some represent communities that suffered terrible violence over a long period. Some people represent areas with soldiers. Some people serve on Committees. There is huge interest in, and a huge commitment to, trying to find resolutions to some of the challenges that we still have in Northern Ireland. The House should be very proud that it can bring together people with knowledge and a determination to resolve some of these issues.
There are difficult issues to address. I compliment my opposite number, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), because we can just be sucked into a narrative that says that soldiers are always right. I served in Northern Ireland, and I was extremely proud of the professionalism with which my colleagues served. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers served very bravely. However, to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about the way the world is looking at how we treat our veterans, one reason why our services are regarded as such a professional body of people is the high standards that politicians, our military and the public expect from soldiers. It only takes one person to commit an act that undermines that reputation, so it is important, regardless of whether someone is a soldier or a terrorist, that if they have committed a wrong or there is a thing to be answered, it should be answerable.
James Heappey
A number of people have said that the military are held to a higher standard, and rightly so, but they are held to that higher standard at the time of the engagement and in the immediate aftermath. They are investigated by the Royal Military Police and the Special Investigation Branch there, in theatre. What does not need to happen is the investigation 40 years later of people who have done their duty and long since stood down.
Kris Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will just say that I sat and listened to the former Prime Minister’s contribution on the Bloody Sunday investigation. I have to say that I refused to accept a narrative that I had heard for many decades about what had happened, and there was clear wrongdoing, so there are moments when we have failed and we should hold our hands up and not just capitulate to a romantic message that we are always right in the military.
I want now to focus on what we are proposing, because the key message that I got from today’s debate was the passion with which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley wanted to get that proportionality and balance back into what is happening at the moment. The Stormont House agreement addressed many things relating to legacy and the shape of the Assembly, but for us in this debate it was about the formation of the historical investigations unit and addressing some of the issues that people have talked about: the care of our veterans; reform of the Northern Ireland inquest function; ensuring that victims and survivors have access to high-quality services; implementing the comprehensive mental trauma service; seeking an acceptable way in which victims can gain a pension; and giving victims and survivors access to advocate-counsellor assistance. It is vital that progress is made on all of that to address the legacy of the troubled past, and we need political stability to be able to drive that forward. The Government want to put £150 million on the table. We want to create a period of five years in which we will work our way through and address the 90% of murders that were carried out by terrorists, and balance and proportionality will be brought back into the system.
There are huge numbers of former soldiers who were murdered and whose cases are not being investigated at this time. Nearly 200 soldiers were murdered, and those cases are not being investigated at the moment because there is no mechanism in place. When people talk about injustices against soldiers at this time, that is because of the present system. I would like to talk about what is proposed. When I was here just a few weeks ago, there was more resistance to what was suggested in relation to the historical investigations unit. I think that there is now an idea, an understanding, of what we want to actually do in putting that proportionality in place and ensuring that those 3,500 people who were murdered and the families of those people get some justice.
One conversation that has come about has been about an amnesty—an end to this whereby we just draw a line. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley read out a long list of people and of events that had occurred—terrible events in which people were traumatised and damaged and will be for a long time. They want justice. There is not a line to be drawn. Whether an act was perpetrated by a terrorist or whether a soldier was involved, people want their moment in court, when they can get an understanding of what happened.
Dr Murrison
Will the Minister not accept, though, that because terrorists do not keep records and are not going to respond to letters from the Ministry of Defence inviting them to unburden themselves, there will be a mismatch in the information available to the courts? That means that successful prosecutions may be brought against servicemen—a small number, I suspect—but there is no chance, realistically, of a commensurate number of prosecutions being brought against terrorists.
Kris Hopkins
What is important is that we create the space, give the resource and set a framework in which those investigations can be explored. We are suggesting a five-year period in which chronologically we work through the evidence that is available, the evidence that we can now discover through new means and techniques that are available, so that there is an understanding of what happened at that moment and we can best explore that. It is right that we put that proportionality back in and ensure that that is addressed.
I want to give the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley the opportunity to respond, so I will briefly touch on some of the issues and questions raised. First, the PSNI is still considering the 36 priority cases and actively reviewing the incidents involved. So there is not an end to that; it will pursue that. I have mentioned to the hon. Lady from the SNP, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), that the Government have made clear their commitment to provide £150 million over five years to help support the establishment of the new institutions that are addressing the past.
We need to create a political space in which we can deliver this. The Secretary of State wants to consult the public on how we do this, but people will again raise the issues that have been put on the table today. However, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, it is important that justice is provided and that proportionality is brought back into this system. I hope that when these proposals come forward they are robustly challenged, people make contributions to them and we understand that this is about bringing justice to the people of Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his response and thank other right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. Let me be clear, Mr Pritchard. As a former soldier, like a number of colleagues who have spoken, I am not prepared to stand back and see my former comrades vilified and hounded for serving their country and standing in the gap between democracy and tyranny. They defended us, and we must defend them. Peace is a noble cause, but when peace means the denial of justice and becomes the oppressor of the innocent, it is less noble.
I can do no better than quote the words from a tribute poem written by Shane Laverty, who was 10 years old when his 18-year-old brother, RUC Constable Robert David Laverty, was murdered by the Provisional IRA on the Antrim Road in Belfast on 16 July 1972. He was sitting in a patrol car, travelling down the road. I finish with this:
“Remember me. For I cannot pass this way again and memories are all you can have. Unlike those who put me here. Was it I who broke the law or they? Yet they live to fight another day.”
We owe it to Constable Robert David Laverty, his family and all those who served our country as police officers and soldiers to stand by them, to stand with them and to ensure that there is proper, proportionate justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.
Written Statements
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK HPR1000 Reactor
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
I have today asked the UK’s independent nuclear regulators, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and the Environment Agency, to begin a generic design assessment of the UK HPR1000 reactor.
This is the nuclear reactor design by China General Nuclear which General Nuclear Services (a subsidiary of Électricité de France SA and China General Nuclear) propose to use at a prospective new nuclear power station at Bradwell in Essex.
In September the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government had decided to proceed with the first new nuclear power station for a generation at Hinkley Point C. This will see the start of a new nuclear programme that will help provide the energy security we require as we move to a low-carbon energy future.
The investment by General Nuclear Services (GNS) in committing the resources required for the UK HPR1000 reactor (Hualong reactor) to go through the generic design assessment underlines the fact that international companies continue to view investment in the UK’s low-carbon energy future positively.
The Government welcome such investment. The nuclear industry in the UK is subject to a stringent regulatory regime to ensure safety, security and mitigation of any potential environmental detriment. Generic design assessment is now an established feature of the regulatory regime and is a respected process for rigorous and transparent nuclear regulation. I am therefore pleased to be asking the regulators to begin to assess the UK HPR1000 reactor through GDA.
As with previous such assessments, the full cost of the GDA will be charged to the requesting party (in this case GNS) which submits the design for assessment. This process is independent of any final agreement to commission a reactor of the relevant type.
[HCWS398]
21st Century Fox/Sky Merger
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
Sky Plc announced on Friday 9 December that it had received an approach from 21st Century Fox Inc to acquire the 61% share of Sky Plc which it does not already own and I made a statement on 20 December about the proposed merger and the process that would need to be followed.
21st Century Fox have been in contact with my officials and have confirmed that they intend to notify the proposed merger to the European Commission for review under the EU merger regulation. Before formal notification, the parties intend to engage in pre-notification discussions with the Commission from January onwards. The timing of a formal notification to the Commission is therefore not fixed and will happen dependent on the parties’ ongoing discussions with the Commission. It is in the nature of this process that we cannot know in advance the dates upon which certain steps will happen.
As I made clear to the House on 20 December, I will aim to make a decision on whether or not to intervene within 10 working days of formal notification being made to the European Commission. Given the clear intention of the parties to engage with the Commission informally, I have asked my officials to prepare and put in place the necessary procedures to ensure that when I need to make a decision I can do so as quickly as possible and with the relevant information in front of me. As such, my officials have commenced their work to analyse the relevance of the public interest considerations as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002 to the merger. In doing so, they will look at the available evidence and will consider representations which are relevant to those specified public interests. This is preparatory work, and I am clear that the point has not yet been reached where I will be taking a decision on whether or not to intervene.
Any decision I do take on whether or not to intervene will be a quasi-judicial one and it is important that I am able to act independently and that the process is scrupulously fair and impartial. As a result, I will not be commenting on the merits of the proposed merger. I do, however, I recognise that this is an issue of significant interest to the public and has raised a lot of interest in Parliament, as well as being a significant issue for the parties concerned. I will therefore be keeping Parliament informed of the process as it moves ahead and will make a further statement when the parties have formally notified the Commission, ahead of making any decision about whether to intervene.
[HCWS399]
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The eighth review conference to the biological and toxin weapons convention held in Geneva concluded on 25 November 2016.
At the review conference, states parties agreed a final declaration reaffirming their continued commitment to the convention’s objectives and their determination to exclude completely the possibility of the use of biological weapons. States parties reviewed the operation of the convention and expressed views on its articles. States parties agreed that the prohibitions in article I, defining the scope of the convention, apply to all scientific and technological developments in the life sciences and in other fields of science relevant to the convention that have no peaceful purpose.
The conference also agreed to:
Hold meetings of states parties of up to five days every year before the next review conference in 2021. The first meeting in December 2017 will seek progress on issues of substance and process, aiming to agree a substantive programme of work up to 2021.
Renew for five years the mandate of the three-person implementation support unit, which serves as a focal point and support for states parties’ work under the convention.
Continue to seek improvements to the convention’s assistance and co-operation database and to ensure specific, timely and concrete offers to states parties seeking assistance under the convention.
Renew the sponsorship programme to support participation by states parties otherwise unable to attend key meetings, funded by voluntary contributions.
The United Kingdom worked closely with other European Union member states and like-minded partners in preparatory meetings and at the review conference to secure an outcome which strengthened implementation of the convention. Despite our best efforts and the support of an overwhelming majority of states parties, a more ambitious work plan proved impossible to secure.
The UK will continue to support work in this field, addressing substantive issues with like-minded states parties and others; where necessary, we will do so outside the formal framework of convention-sponsored meetings. The UK will engage constructively in future annual meetings of states parties to support and strengthen the convention which remains a foundation stone of the international non-proliferation system.
[HCWS400]
Grand Committee
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 154KB) - (10 Jan 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it is now 3.30 pm and, as is usual at this time, I must advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung—or as soon as your Chairman sees that they are being rung—and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1: Power to construct and maintain works for Phase One of High Speed 2
Amendment 1
Baroness Randerson
“(a) a spur from Old Oak Common in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to a junction with the West London Line south of North Pole Road on the boundary between the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; and(b) ”
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name in this group. I start by assuring the Minister that we are not seeking to rewrite the Bill. These are very much probing amendments, which I want to use to reveal some of the reasoning behind the government decisions on links between HS1 and HS2 and, most importantly, to gain some assurances on future plans.
Amendment 1 reinserts into Clause 1 the concept of the link between HS1 and HS2, which was dropped during the Commons debates. We acknowledge that there are practical difficulties associated with providing that link which would make it difficult and therefore costly. There are, however, huge practical difficulties associated with the proposed—and very costly—Euston development but that does not seem to have deterred the Government or HS2 Ltd. Ideally, when HS1 was built a box should have been built at Stratford. The idea was there originally but it was abandoned to save what was actually a small amount of money and it would be very difficult to do that now with an operating system.
I acknowledge, too, that surveys some years ago showed that the number of passengers wanting to travel directly from the north of England to the continent was not really large enough to justify major investment. Things have changed since then, however. Rail passenger numbers have soared and the Government have committed themselves to the development of the northern economy. Nevertheless, I recognise that Brexit, particularly a hard Brexit, will probably impact on passenger numbers to the continent, which will be lower than they would be in other circumstances. Surely, however, whatever those circumstances, the numbers will be considerable, so their needs should be considered.
The West London Line Group has proposed a short double-track link between Old Oak Common and the West London line north of Shepherd’s Bush. This would provide more choice all round of routes across London and further afield. There is an important point of principle: this would reduce the number of changes that people have to make. More than one change and you probably go by car instead, rather than choose to take the train. The proposed link would not only connect areas north of London to the continent but improve links with southern England generally. We are interested, therefore, to hear the Minister’s explanation of exactly why the idea of a direct HS2-HS1 link was dropped. As a result of that decision, one assumes passengers will now have to walk from Euston to St Pancras. I say that one assumes they will walk rather than be carried in any sort of transportation, but maybe the Minister can provide that information.
Euston Road is already very congested and if you have walked along it recently you will know that it is quite difficult to get down. I believe the committee’s report said that 61,000 passengers are now arriving at Euston per day. We are talking about only a proportion of those passengers but that is still a significant number and those travelling from HS2 to HS1 will, almost by definition, have luggage. Factoring in the points at which you alight from the HS2 at Euston and get on to the HS1 at St Pancras, the distance is more than a mile. The distance between the front entrances is 0.6 miles. Although my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will speak more about this issue, our point is that without a clear, comfortable, speedy and weatherproof interchange, the use of HS2 and HS1 as a route from north to south, or from the north to the continent, will be seriously undermined. So, I ask the Minister to provide us with details of the plans.
My noble friend will also say more on the use of Old Oak Common as an interchange into London but I want to underline its strategic importance, and thus the importance of developing it in a robust and flexible manner that will ensure it withstands the test of time. Many passengers will decide to leave their HS2 train at Old Oak Common rather than travelling on into Euston, and they will be able to take Crossrail from there, for instance. Indeed, it will be situated in a spider’s web of railway lines and will be very intensively used, so it needs to be up to the job and its regenerative potential for the area in which it is situated must be maximised. I ask the Minister: why were the original plans to link HS1 to HS2 dropped and, importantly, could they be taken up again if demand was at such a level that that would be justified; what firm plans exist for the trek along Euston Road; and can he assure us that Old Oak Common will be built with maximum capability and flexibility for expansion? I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
If I may just follow up a few of the points made by my noble friend, we have discussed before the question of a link between Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross. When I was deputy general manager at Euston back in the far-off days, it was being discussed—it is one of these projects that seems always to be under discussion but is never carried out. I am looking for something like the link you get between terminals in airports; that is, a wide, well-lit way of getting between the two stations with a travelator or similar device for your luggage. I am not looking for some form of futuristic railway, just a convenient, out-of-the-weather way for moving you and your luggage between the two places.
There will be a lot of time to think about this, because there will be a long period when Old Oak Common will be the London terminal for HS2. There can be dispute about how Old Oak Common could be used, but there will be six platforms there and the trains from Birmingham, which will take only 38 minutes, can almost be described as commuter trains. They will not require huge amounts of servicing at Old Oak Common, it will be possible to turn trains back there very quickly, and Euston may well not be needed until after phase 2A of HS2, so there is plenty of time to think about it and get it in place.
My noble friend commented on connections to HS1. I know that people in the south of England feel that it is very difficult for them to use it: they have to make a big journey. That will be alleviated if the Government could—again, they could work on this contemporaneously with the work on HS2—strengthen the link along the south coast between Brighton and Ashford. There are bits of that railway that need sorting out. I hope we can get some sort of assurance about what the Government intend to do.
Those are questions, not things that we will have disputes on, but we want to know what the Government envisage that they will do, in the long term, about the problems here.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 9 is grouped, although I am not sure it is closely connected to what the two previous speakers have been discussing. It would delete one of the amendments that the Select Committee proposed in its report. Let me make it quite clear: I do not criticise the Select Committee on this issue; I am sure its amendments are just what is needed. I ask the Minister, however: is it not a bit unusual for a Select Committee’s amendments to be incorporated in a Bill without debate? I had assumed that they might have been tabled for debate today, and we could have debated and no doubt approved them, but it was surprising that a new issue of the Bill was published in the past week as a result of the amendments being included. This may not be a question for the Minister—it may be a question for the Chairman of Committees or someone else—but it is something that we should debate. Perhaps it will be different next time, if there are to be more committees such as this.
While I am on my feet, the Minister kindly briefed us on progress just before we broke up for Christmas. One question that many asked him was: were the Government going to respond to the excellent report from the Select Committee? It would have been nice to have their response before Committee today. We have not had it, but can he assure me that we will receive it in good time for Report?
Lord Snape (Lab)
I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and her colleagues. There are few benefits in old age but I am told that one is that one’s long-term memory improves, sometimes at the cost of one’s short-term memory. I suspect that I am the only Member present here today who served on the original Channel Tunnel Bill, and I well remember the promises made at the time about the connection between HS1and HS2. Even back in those days, there was lots of criticism about the apparent devotion to expenditure on railway and transport in the south of England at the expense of the rest of the country. Assurances were given at that time that there would be genuine benefits from the Channel Tunnel and the associated high-speed lines that would spin off to both the Midlands and the north.
Lord Berkeley
My noble friend did not mention the chord that received permission under the HS1 Bill, built between the London end of High Speed 1 and the North London line. It is there, with tracks and electrification. It has no signals, so it would need a couple of those. We could run trains on the west coast main line from HS1 to Birmingham tomorrow. I do not know how much it cost, but it was a lot as it is quite a complicated piece of construction. It was built as a result of lobbying from the north-west in particular, led by a man called Ken Medlock, who is still alive aged 102 and still very interested. The problem is someone needs to run trains on it.
Lord Snape
I bow to my noble friend’s expertise on the geography of this stretch of railway line. I was aware that it was a single track; there was much mocking at the time because it was and it led to the North London line, with the consequential speed restrictions and additional traffic. There was concern that this was not an adequate link, but it is a link nevertheless. I am not blaming the Minister for having the line built—I might blame him for various other decisions he has taken—but perhaps he could tell us whether it is feasible to add signals to this line and give us some connection. Surely the Midlands, the north-west and north-east of England, and perhaps Scotland, deserve better for their taxes than to be told when they arrive in Euston, “Put your bags under your arm and catch the Northern line if you wish to proceed further towards Europe by train”. Surely the Minister and the country can do better than that.
Lord Adonis (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the Secretary of State who started HS2, and as a member of HS2 Ltd. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for missing the beginning of her remarks. I know the whole Committee will want to pay tribute to the Select Committee, which put an astonishing amount of work into the Bill. I cannot think of a more onerous duty that Members of your Lordships’ House take on than being members of hybrid Bill Committees. At the very least they require some kind of parliamentary medal for endurance, which I hope will give them some special form of extended life that ensures they will definitely see the opening of this line all the way through to Manchester and Leeds in 2033. That is the least they deserve.
There are two different issues here and it is important not to mix them up. The first is through trains from Paris to the great cities of the Midlands and the north, which my noble friends Lord Snape and Lord Berkeley rightly said was envisaged in the original scheme for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The trains were built, but the services were never run. The second is the lamentable connections between Euston and St Pancras. The two issues are separate for this reason: with the best will in the world, the economic case for running through services from Paris and Brussels to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds is very weak indeed.
If I may detain the Committee with a story, when I was Secretary of State I tried to persuade Eurostar to run services to Birmingham once the upgrade of the west coast main line had been completed, which would have made it possible to run a service once that and the High Speed 1 line to St Pancras had been completed. It ought to have been possible to run a service from Paris to Birmingham in three and a half hours, which I thought would have been competitive with the plane and played a very big part in changing the whole mentality of people in respect of high-speed rail and connections with the continent. I simply could not persuade Eurostar to run even one service a day without public subsidy because the traffic projection figures were so low.
If noble Lords stop and think about what has happened on that line, it is not so difficult to fathom. Although HS1 has been a great success in engineering terms and has played a useful part in linking two of Europe’s great cities, it is way off all the projections of traffic between London and the continent. I do not think it is yet even at half the level of the projections of what the traffic should have been. There is still only one service an hour between London and Paris for most of the day. Often those services have quite light loads. The London to Brussels service, which is also about hourly, is often barely half-full. Eurostar told me that there was not enough traffic to fill even one train a day between London and Birmingham and it would do it only if I was prepared to give it a very large subsidy. I had so many other parts of the railway I was seeking to subsidise, including many of the parts that my noble friend Lord Snape has mentioned because the lines in the Midlands and the north require great subsidies to be maintained, that I simply could not justify a public subsidy to do it.
It is important to be frank about this because everybody pays lip service to the benefits of linking HS1 and HS2. On the face of it, it seems absurd that there is not a connection between the two but because the service would be so intermittent—with the best will in the world, only a few trains a day would run on that service—I very much doubt it would be taken up in any big way. While we have cheap airlines that offer very frequent services to Manchester and Birmingham—both are highly successful airports, which are expanding and have significant capacity that they can make available to flights to the continent—it is unlikely that such a line would be viable.
As a footnote, it is always the unexpected in life which changes the course of events, including in transportation. The big unexpected event of HS1 was the massive development of domestic services on the high-speed line—all those Javelin trains—which has made the whole thing much more viable than it would otherwise have been and was not expected on anything like that scale. The other great unexpected gain of HS1, which nobody projected at the time—and who knows what the unexpected gains of HS2 will be?—was the Olympic Games. When the decision was taken to give the Olympics to Stratford, a critical part of the decision was the connectivity that the Javelins provided going out of St Pancras. I am not criticising the decisions to build HS1 or the Channel Tunnel, which were visionary and historic decisions, but unfortunately a link between HS1 and HS2 would be hugely expensive —running into many billions because it would have to be tunnelled. The economic benefit would be limited without massive subsidies. Given the huge costs already in the HS2 scheme, it would be hard to justify those expenses.
My noble friend Lord Snape referred to the plan for a kind of patch-and-mend link between HS1 and HS2 using the North London line. There was a plan for that in the original HS1 scheme, linking to the conventional lines. There was also initially from HS2 Ltd a plan for it in respect of the HS2 line. It has to be said that nobody much liked this. It would have been a very slow connection, weaving its way up to the North London line, across and down, which would have made the line even less competitive with the airlines. When the trains were running, it would have used a lot of capacity on the North London line, which, as noble Lords will know, is now an integral part of the Overground service and a major freight artery. That would have been highly inconvenient. Even that required the building of a substantial single-bore tunnel at a cost of more than £1 billion. The view was taken that rather than expend a large sum of money on a very unsatisfactory patch-and-mend link between the two, which would barely be used in any event, it would be better to wait until some point in the future when our relations with Europe reach a new and glorious period, in which traffic between the major European cities flourishes on a scale never seen before and might then make it economically viable to construct a link between HS1 and HS2.
However, only a tiny fraction of those people who wanted to connect between Euston and St Pancras would have been using direct services to the continent in the first place so the issue of connectivity between Euston and St Pancras, which I think everyone will accept is still highly unsatisfactory, is there in any event. There is a long-term solution: Crossrail 2, which will have a single station serving Euston and King’s Cross St Pancras, and will connect the two underground. That will make it much easier to get to them; it will give big dispersal capacity at Euston when phase 2 of Crossrail is completed in 2033, which is hugely important; and, as I say, it will connect the stations because the entrance at one end will be at Euston and the entrance at the other will be at King’s Cross St Pancras.
Although this degree of work has not yet been done, my assumption with the planning of Crossrail 2 is always that it will be possible to use it also as a pedestrian tunnel with a travelator for getting from Euston to St Pancras. The transport planners are not wildly keen on that idea because it will add to the cost of Crossrail 2 and they want a more limited scheme that has access only for transport users. But it looks patently obvious that if you have a Crossrail 2 station serving the two stations, and you have this underground link, putting in a simple travelator and making it possible for people to connect between the two stations underground must be sensible.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will just make one or two relatively brief observations. I add my thanks to those already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to the Select Committee for the work that it did. I know it took up a considerable amount of its members’ time, and I was extremely grateful that I was completely disqualified from sitting on it, for more than one reason, and so was never faced with any request that I should do so.
Clearly, the discussion that we have had, and the amendments that we are considering, have homed in particularly on whether, at some stage, there will be a link between HS1 and HS2. I hope when the Minister comes to respond that he will address the specific terms of the amendment that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It has a specific proposition in relation to the creation of a link between HS1 and HS2 which is different from it simply going as far as Euston and St Pancras, in that it provides opportunities for interchanges in south London. I hope the Minister will address that point when he comes to respond.
Most speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in a sense raised this point. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made the case that there would not be sufficient demand to run through trains—or that was the basis of one of the key points he made—but under the proposals as they stand we face having not only no through services but also no easy interchange between HS1 and HS2, precisely because one is coming in at one station and departing from another, further down the Euston Road. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister in his response what the Government’s intentions are on improving the interchange link between HS2 and HS1, if they are not looking at going down the road of running through services.
In London transport in recent decades—it is has not happened overnight—we have seen an increase in the number of lines going through and across London, which we used not to have. We have seen Thameslink and the West London line; Crossrail is coming in and Crossrail 2 is projected; the DLR manages to cross the river and go from one side of London to another; there are improvements on the London Overground and the East London line. Improving transport links between one side of London and the other has been a feature of recent decades. It does not appear that this will be repeated with high-speed services.
I have one or two questions about Old Oak Common, which will clearly play a pivotal role in HS2. There are some proposed links to what one might describe as the classic network but, as has been said, there are quite a large number of suburban lines around the Old Oak Common area. Presumably, one of the advantages of HS2 in improving transport links would be good connectivity between those suburban services and HS2 at Old Oak Common. Are the Government looking at improving connections between HS2 and other suburban lines in the vicinity to improve access to HS2 for people in a much wider area of London as a result? As has rightly been said, one thing that attracts people to a service is either not having to change at all—you can run through from A to B—or, if you do have to change, it is straightforward and easy. Will the Minister comment on that aspect as well?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to the Javelin trains—I hope I am not misinterpreting what he said—and the commuter network that has built itself up around HS1. I have always thought that one of the reasons for so much opposition to HS2 is that there are no proposals whatever for any stations in a large number of the areas it runs through. People therefore see the line as a fairly negative factor. It runs through their suburban area or part of the countryside but they do not get any access to it. I appreciate that the Government are not contemplating it at the moment but, in the longer term, do they intend even to consider whether in time there may be a case for additional stations on the HS2 route? I do not profess to be an expert on this, so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that since the high-speed line opened in Taiwan, more stations have opened on the line. I am not starting from the stance that the Minister should be standing up now and announcing new stations all over the place, but is this something the Government will be looking at in the longer term, in the light of what is happening with Javelin trains and what is happening in another part of the world which has seen a relatively recent development of high-speed services?
I appreciate that the Minister has already been asked this question by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, but I too would like to know precisely when we will get the Government’s response to the report. There are recommendations and urgings—if I may use that expression—in it and it makes debate and discussion a lot easier if we know which of those the Government are picking up and which they are not. The sooner we know, the better it is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I go any further, on behalf of the Government I join the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Rosser, in thanking the Select Committee. Members of the Select Committee did some incredible work and showed great dedication and devotion to the cause in terms of the petitions that were heard. I want to put on record my thanks and those of the Secretary of State and the Government as a whole for their work in that respect. I tuned into some of the sessions from afar, from my office at the DfT, and some very robust discussions took place in the committee.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, goes to the very heart of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness and acknowledge that these are probing amendments, seeking further clarification. As she rightly articulated, at Second Reading in the other place the principle of the Bill was agreed, and that did not include a spur such as the one being proposed. I empathise with her views and the views of those who support the amendment. I know that this is not the intention behind the amendment but if it was carried, it would have the result of re-hybridising the Bill. I am sure that is not the intention of the noble Baroness or those who spoke in support of the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
The question of hybridisation and additional provisions came up many times in the committee. The promoter wrote to me several times—this is one of the things I will talk about later—saying, “You cannot have an additional provision because it would have to go back to the Commons”. We knew all that but what nobody said was that there is a precedent for adding small works using the Transport and Works Act approval process. The argument that you cannot do something because it would turn it into a hybrid and send it back with additional provisions should not be used. If Ministers wanted to make a change, as they did with the HS1 Bill, when they added Stratford station under the Transport and Works Act, that would be a perfectly acceptable way of doing it. I hope the Minister will agree.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I was alluding to the intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. I agree with the noble Lord inasmuch as the detail is something that we have debated before. I am sure that we will return to this this afternoon and, if we continue, on Thursday.
Turning to the nub of the proposals, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, separated the issues very well. I would separate them further. There is the issue of having a rail link between HS1 and HS2, and then the link between Euston and St Pancras. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, articulated some ideas. The noble Baroness is correct that there were considerable practical details and environmental impacts in linking HS1 and HS2. However, notwithstanding the recent growth, the benefits of such a link, compared with the costs and impacts, were not considered to make the proposal viable. I will come back to that point in a moment.
There are some international comparisons. In France, for example, the TGV network functions effectively without direct links between the high-speed rail lines in Paris. I was a bit perplexed when the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, started talking about Taiwan; for a moment I thought we were going to get a very imaginative proposal for linking it to Euston—thankfully it did not come to that, but who knows what the future holds? Our perspective on the building of HS2 is certainly that all solutions for linking it to HS1 were considered. Indeed, an international connectivity study was also conducted on improving the potential rail links. One of the issues that arose was around cost. Some of the proposals ranged from about £610 million to £6 billion and it was therefore felt that they did not provide value for money.
Lord Snape
Before the Minister sits down, may I press him for on connectivity between HS1 and HS2? I presume he agrees with my noble friend Lord Adonis that there are problems with envisaging the number of passengers—let us say passengers between Birmingham and Paris—who would use such a link, but is there not something uniquely English about us having an existing link between the two lines that is not used? My noble friend’s argument was that there is no market for passengers between Manchester or Birmingham and Paris. How do we know that if there is not a direct link? The Minister has made it plain that he has three children. The last thing he wants to do is change between different modes of transport. I have every sympathy with him; I have only two and they are adults, but the last thing I would want to do is take them on such a trip. We have an existing link that is not signalled and not used, yet my noble friend, to whose work on this scheme I pay tribute, says that there is not a market for those passengers. If we do not run the services, how will we ever know? Only in England could we have a link, unsignalled, between two high-speed lines—one of them a prospective high-speed line—and say that we are not going to use it. On the economic arguments in respect of passengers taking a through journey, if the Minister moved from the wilds of Wimbledon to Birmingham, would he not find it more attractive to take his three children to Paris on a through train rather than using Euston and St Pancras, no matter how the two were connected?
When were the economic arguments made that there is not a market for the sort of travel that I am envisaging? They obviously did not occur until we had ordered the trains and built the depots. There must have been some feeling that there was a market when trains were built. If I recollect rightly, the Nightstar trains were virtually given away to the Canadian railways. I know that there is a big difference between Canada and our country, but they managed to find a practical use for them—so they should; they got them at cut price; the British taxpayer paid for them all. When did those economic realities first impinge on the decision not to have a link between the two? Will the Minister at least consider looking again at signalling that single line just to test the water and see whether we can have through trains connecting those taxpayers in Birmingham and Manchester, who are contributing to the cost of this whole thing, with Paris and Brussels—to name but two destinations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I appreciate the sentiments behind what the noble Lord says, and as I have already articulated, the Government did look at connectivity. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made a very valid point that before you build something, you have to look at the business case and the viability of it. I do not know what the future demand may be for links from other parts of the UK to the continent, and that may well be looked at on a future date. As I have already alluded to, building HS2 opens up doors of opportunity, in terms of the infrastructure connectivity and of course the speed of the link that it provides. I am sure that at some future point those will be looked at again. However, various reports have been conducted. I believe the Higgins report in 2014 advocated abandoning the link between HS1 and HS2, specifically on the issue of costs. That really underlines the Government’s thinking.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord for suggesting that I go from the wilds of Wimbledon up to the Midlands and that perhaps my children would want to go to the continent from Birmingham rather than from London. If I relied on the intention of my two younger boys, we would be chugging along on the Thomas the Tank Engine, which would not provide the kind of high-speed rail link the country desires, but I note what the noble Lord said. As I said, the Government have explored this during the various processes behind the planning of HS2 links, and various reports have been conducted. I have already indicated that the different links that were looked at were deemed not to provide sufficient benefits and not to be viable in terms of cost. I hope that provides, if not total reassurance, at least some answer to the noble Lord’s concern. With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Adonis
I just intervene to correct the record. I did not say there was no market—there clearly is a market, as Birmingham, Manchester, Paris and the other great cities of northern Europe are substantial cities. The problem is that the market at the moment is almost entirely taken up by the cheap airlines, and there is simply no way, unless there is a significant change in the economics of the transport sector—which may happen at some point in future—that you could justify the investment, based on the return from a very limited rail service. A wildly optimistic figure of £600 million has been mentioned, but once you start to tunnel around Euston and St Pancras and build connections with the North London line, you are really looking at many billions. I cannot emphasise enough that the single biggest threat to this project is cost overruns in building the core of it, between cities where there is massive traffic—namely, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and London. It would not be a sensible use of public resources at the moment to add in—on a wing and a prayer, because for sentimental reasons we think it would be nice to have one or two trains a day that start off from Manchester and have “Paris” on the front—the commitment to many billions further of public spending.
My noble friend may be able to make a case for it if something dramatic happens to the cheap airlines. I know that through his other connections he is very close friends with many of the operators of those airlines. If they cease to operate their services between Birmingham and Paris, or between Paris and Manchester, where they are offering seats for £10 or £20—sums which we are not remotely going to be able to offer by high-speed rail—then of course the whole thing may change, and at some stage we may be able to build these services. Meanwhile, this is why connectivity is so important. Provided that you have a good connection between Euston and St Pancras, you will get some passengers who do not want to fly who will connect between the two. What the Minister said about investment in resources to get a better walking connection was very welcome. As I say, at some stage there will need to be a fixed connection, and when that comes, it will also facilitate traffic between HS1 and HS2.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. As well as the fount of most of our information, the committee’s excellent report, we have had the benefit of background information from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as well as the Minister’s response.
I will briefly refer to a couple of issues. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, referred to the fact that promises were made about HS1 and HS2 links. That was fundamental to the case for HS2. Plenty of people still think those links will happen. When you tell them that they will not, they are very disappointed. I appreciate all the practical issues; I couched my comments to make that clear. Notwithstanding the comments about cost by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I fear that our successors, sitting here in 30 years’ time, if this House continues to exist that long—I bear in mind we have been trying to reform it for more than 100 years—will probably sit here and say, “Of course, it would’ve been much cheaper if they’d made that link at the time”.
We now have to accept that that link will not take place in the short term. Therefore, we have to concentrate on the obvious link—the trek down Euston Road. I am disappointed that the Minister did not come up with a full answer, but I appreciate entirely why he did not: there is no full answer. My fear is that people are saying that it is too early and this is something for later on. That has been said this afternoon. The trouble is, decisions made about the purchase and demolition of buildings and the reconstruction of Euston Station will be made without factoring in the answer to this problem. They will be based on the principle that people will walk up and down Euston Road.
I have real concerns about disability issues here, not just families with children and a lot of luggage. I have real concerns about how people with disabilities will make the link between the two stations. I also fear that because, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out, a number of players have responsibility for this, we could end up with a group of organisations none of which will shoulder the responsibility alone, quite understandably. Therefore, it might be difficult to make progress.
I remain dissatisfied on the link between the two stations. I look forward to the Crossrail station, which it appears will provide the tunnel at some point in the future, but in the short term there certainly will not be a satisfactory thought process to produce a really good link. I will continue to show an interest in this. Having said all that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“( ) Construction work otherwise authorised by this Act may not begin until— (a) the nominated undertaker has published an up-to-date estimate of costs for works authorised by this Act, broken down into geographical and system elements;(b) that estimate has been examined, reported on and approved by an independent expert panel appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose; and(c) the report of the panel has been published.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I will speak to Amendments 3 and 4, which are in my name. I am getting very concerned about the costs of HS2. The reason for that is, as many noble Lords will know, that I with two experts, Jonathan Roberts and Michael Byng, came up with a scheme to provide a cheaper and more effective station at Euston for the end of HS2. I appeared with them in front of your Lordships’ Select Committee and, along with colleagues, pay tribute to the way that the members of the committee listened and took an interest. Frankly, I congratulate them on staying the course. If we ever get further such committees in both Houses, I hope that the House of Commons committees will learn something from the way that your Lordships’ committee operated, because it was really good.
I will not go into the detail of the scheme. We had a lot of support from people privately within HS2, Network Rail, TfL and Camden, but many of them are restricted from saying publicly what they felt. I believe it would work. We could never get a cost for the HS2 scheme out of HS2, so we ended up costing it ourselves with Michael Byng, who is a real expert in railway costing and has written the textbook on costing railway works for Network Rail, which is being implemented—not before time, I would say—and has a lot of credibility. We ended up demonstrating that we could probably save the Government £1.8 billion by putting all the trains into Euston and giving the west coast main line services a new station on top, so to speak, alongside the HS2 station. On a like-for-like comparison, the saving was £3 billion to £4 billion. Interestingly, HS2 never challenged any of the costs in the committee, which surprised me.
The reason I tabled Amendment 3 was to suggest that, before the Government embark on construction work on the ground, they need a comprehensive, up-to-date and independent cost estimate of the section between Old Oak Common and Euston. Having got some further information from HS2 since we appeared in front of the committee, we understand that it will cost £8.25 billion at 2014 last-quarter prices. This includes contingencies, risk compensation and everything else one might want.
The problem for me, and perhaps for the Minister, is that in a Written Answer he gave me on 21 December, the equivalent cost for the whole phase 1 scheme was £24.3 billion, on the same basis. That means that the section from Old Oak Common to and including Euston is about 34% of the total cost. That leaves £16 billion for the remaining 200 kilometres of line.
I am sure that this is not how it has been thought about, but one sometimes gets the feeling that, “Well, London’s expensive to build in, but when you get north of the countryside in Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire, it is quite easy”. The Committee should be aware that this is a line connecting the two major cities in this country. A tunnel has been proposed through the suburban areas in London, but not for the Birmingham area, from Water Orton to Curzon Street. It has to cross three motorways and several major railway lines and rivers. In fact, 40% of the total length is in either tunnel or viaduct, so it is a complicated structure. It will probably need new signal boxes and more power supply: my colleagues have calculated that the power needed for these high-speed trains is equivalent to half a Hinkley Point, when phase 2 is finished. It is a very big project.
We have got £16 billion to build 204 kilometres of line. Mr Byng has priced this, on the same basis that he presented to the Select Committee, pointing out that the cost of land acquisition, permanent and temporary, and disruption in the open areas is very expensive. We talked once to Professor McNaughton about the amount of compensation that was needed around Euston alone exceeding £1 billion—that was just the compensation. The costs are obviously very high. Mr Byng has now come up with an estimate, on the same basis, that the total cost of phase 1 of HS2 would be £53.6 billion, which is about double the figure that was in the Written Answer. Jonathan Roberts, who is a very experienced railway man, has compared those. I am not a cost engineer, but I respect the view of these two people. The costs when we started off at Euston have never been challenged. I want this scheme to happen, but I worry that there is no way that any bit of phase 1 can be completed at the price of £24 billion quoted in that Written Answer.
I believe that HS2 has spent about £1 billion on consultancy since it started, but why have they not done any credible costings on it? It is a very complicated route, but why have they not done it. We get back to the issue of value for money and business case, which my noble friend Lord Adonis mentioned earlier. Noble Lords will be aware that the chairman of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Tyrie, wrote to Chris Grayling in the last week or so asking why they had increased the passenger number estimate, and whether it was just to improve the business case. I have not seen any answer, but I expect there is one. If one is going to increase the capital cost by anything approaching the figure I have given, that does not do a lot of good for the business case, because it goes down the other way. What can be done, because I do want this to happen? The first thing is to get a credible estimate by independent experts. I hope that Ministers will avoid the temptation of shooting the messenger, because it is important to get the figures right.
What can be done in a more positive way? As noble Lords have already said, one thing is to slow the trains down a bit, because the running costs of going at 400 kilometres an hour, or even 360, are extremely high, as are the capital costs of the trains and the track. Does it really matter if it takes two minutes longer to get to Birmingham? My view is that it does not, especially when you have got to walk 20 minutes from the new Curzon Street station to New Street, though that is a separate issue. You could leave out everything from Old Oak Common eastwards, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned earlier. He said it would work and I agree. Or we could adopt the cheaper scheme that we proposed for going to Euston. You could leave out the Handsacre link, which is not so expensive—maybe £1 billion—which links the top end of phase 1 to the west coast main line. It is a particularly worrying design because you have got six tracks coming together into three.
Beyond Handsacre, going towards Stafford, there is a section of the west coast main line that is not four tracks but three. I am not quite sure why it is only three; I think that somebody who had a large estate did not want his land built on. Anyway, it has a serious effect on the capacity of the line. If you did not put in the Handsacre link and you carried straight on to Crewe, which is where it is needed, people in Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent might not be so happy; on the other hand, if the west coast main line is to operate well, as it does, they might be happy. That is another way of perhaps saving £1 billion.
Lord Bradshaw
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said. The scheme as envisaged is extravagant, and this is not a time when we can afford extravagance. There is a good case for having an independent assessment of the costs, particularly to consider such things as how long this railway can terminate at Old Oak Common, which would set aside a considerable sum of money. If a connection has to be made to Euston, how can that be done in the most economical way? I do not believe that that issue has been addressed. We are not talking about small sums of money; we are talking about billions of pounds.
One thing that I was told about the Bill was that people had made assumptions about the time it took to turn round a train from the north that was heading in the direction of London. I have run a lot of London stations. I can assure noble Lords that, with the number of trains that it is proposed to run from Manchester to Old Oak Common, it would be quite easy, given the six platforms there, to turn the trains round. What one has to factor in is the capacity at Old Oak Common. That means that there has to be a sufficient number of people to service the trains. Special attention also needs to be given to the access to and from the platforms.
I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the Handsacre link, which seems to cost a lot of money. I certainly agree on the issue about speed. There is a complete misapprehension of the value of journey time savings when we talk about savings of two minutes or less, yet that structure holds up the whole of our transport evaluation, whether in road, rail or anything else—the biggest factor to be taken into consideration is the value of the small time savings, which are all added together and form a colossal sum. However, people making a journey do not take into consideration whether they are going to be two minutes quicker, because in lots of modes of transport unpredictability is a much bigger factor than the journey time saving.
I also want to probe—to push very hard—on the time savings. We should be very careful about speeds which go much above 125 miles per hour, possibly up to 150. It costs a lot once you push speeds towards the upper end of the limit. I am happy to join the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his call for independent costings, but there is also a need for re-evaluation of the economic basis on which the line is to be built.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, we have dealt with only two amendments so far, and any member of the public sitting listening to the Committee will be asking themselves: “Why on earth are you going ahead with this project?”. All we have are problems, which seem to me almost insurmountable; we have no answers to them. When we ask about the trek from St Pancras to Euston, the answer is, apparently, offer £3 million to the local authority as a prize if it can come up with the answer. That does not sound to me like much of a solution.
I know that this is not Second Reading, but we must ask ourselves whether there is any sense in going ahead with this whole project. We have not yet dealt with the environmental problems, which will be huge and last for years. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose amendment I support, that the whole scheme is not properly costed and nobody knows what will happen in the long run.
The Minister described it as a vital scheme. It is not. The money could be much better spent on all sorts of things: hospitals, schools, or Liverpool-to-Hull transport. If we pursue it, I think we will regret it for a long time. As this matter proceeds, I hope that your Lordships’ House will think it through very carefully and perhaps have second thoughts about proceeding with the whole scheme.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 5 and 6, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson who, I understand, cannot be here today but will be here to make some remarks if Committee continues on Thursday. These amendments call for further things which need to be done before work starts on the project, the first being the cost-benefit analysis of the environmental impact of the work and the second being the traffic management requirements.
I apologise to the Committee: I was unable to speak at Second Reading and should therefore declare my interests. I lived in the Chilterns for 36 years, not in an area directly affected. Further along the proposed line, I know personally every one of the villages mentioned in the amendments on the Marshalled List today. Quainton, Twyford, Chetwode, Mixbury and Barton-Hartshorn—I know them all and have known them for 50 years. I do not just know the villages, their names and the roads; I know the farms, fields, the woodlands and some of the people still living there, and I have seen the devastating effect that the Bill is already having on their lives and their communities. The environmental, not to mention the social impact, is enormous. I know that I am not allowed to make a Second Reading speech, although I did not make one before, and I shall strain every sinew not to do so.
The Government tell us that the public have a right to require value for money, and I totally agree. The cost changes each time I see a figure, but £57 billion is the latest one, and no one with the slightest grasp of reality believes that it will stop there. This House, in the detailed report of the Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Hollick, has already drawn attention to the need for a number of the central questions to be answered. Those questions were posed and not adequately answered by the Government’s very flimsy response in July 2005; nor do I believe they have been since, although I know the Minister said at Second Reading that he thought they had been. Where is the answer to a key question in that list, as to whether HS2 is the best way to spend £50 billion—although I up that now to £57 billion—to stimulate the UK economy?
One thing that has not been done is that the environmental impact has not been subject to any cost-benefit analysis. Surely the public, who are going to have to pay for this project in so many ways and relatively few of whom will see any actual benefit, are entitled to a proper cost-benefit analysis before our countryside is destroyed. As for the pressure to carry on with this project without a cost-benefit analysis, I will come to how it was conceived in a moment, but I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, when he spoke in this House on an earlier debate on this topic, that the Labour Cabinet was searching for a legacy project and someone suggested that China and France had high-speed railways. I do not think the pressure for it comes from the rail users on Southern, from the commuters standing on trains day after day coming into London or even from those whose businesses in the north of England are hampered by the absence of a good trans-Pennine rail link. We are told there is going to be a lack of capacity, but it is not visible to me as I stand on the excellent Chiltern line stations and see an excellent service at present—not overcrowded —from London to Birmingham. What about spending money on capacity which is really urgent right now, as we have all been seeing in the last few weeks and indeed right up to today?
The reality is that, in choosing that legacy, scant consideration was given to the devastating environmental damage which will inevitably result to a very special piece of English countryside. My noble friend Lord Stevenson was going to talk about the Chilterns, and I will just say a few words about it. It is a unique area of beech wood but has also become, in the 36 years I have lived there, the lungs of London. Anyone who goes down to the Chilterns on a weekend will see people pouring out of London to walk and enjoy the peace which reigns over most of it. Beyond that, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire—the area I know well—is not tourist country. It is not even really walkers’ country but it is old England—the England that we ought to preserve and celebrate. If we destroy those things and take them away from the public, at vast expense and for relatively little benefit to very few people, without making a proper cost-benefit analysis of what we are doing, I do not think we will be forgiven. Indeed, not having such a cost-benefit analysis would be pure vandalism, and I hope the Minister will say that the Government will address all the things set out in the five amendments in the group before anybody starts work with the bulldozers and the concrete and does damage that can never be repaired.
Lord Snape
My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down started her speech by saying she was not going to make a Second Reading speech and then, if I may say so, did exactly that. We can all make the sort of Second Reading speech that the noble Lord opposite made too, but we are supposed to be talking about particular amendments to the Bill. Thirty-something years ago, I made a speech in the other place in favour of the Channel Tunnel. The response, largely from my own side of the Chamber, was that there were lots of other priorities that we should spend our money on, such as housing, social services, hospitals, et cetera—the sort of speech that the noble Lord opposite has just made. It was Dennis Skinner who objected to my advocacy of the Channel Tunnel, so the noble Lord opposite has now become the Dennis Skinner of the Conservative Party—not a label I would have thought that he would go out to seek normally.
Lord Framlingham
I understand that this is not the place to make a Second Reading speech but we are entitled to talk about the value of these amendments in the whole scheme. What is being highlighted is that there are no solutions and that is very important.
Lord Snape
Again, with respect to the noble Lord, I do not mind him speaking about the amendments; procedural matters are not for me, anyway. But he said, in effect, that the money being spent—whether that is £50 billion as my noble friend said or whatever—would be better spent on other things. That, I have to say, is a Second Reading speech, and the question, “Why are you spending money on this rather than that?” could be asked in either Chamber in relation to any matter under the sun. As for my noble friend’s contribution, while I had better be careful that I do not make a Second Reading speech myself, I am somewhat sick of hearing about the enormous damage that is being done to an area of natural beauty by a two-track railway line.
Lord Snape
I will come to the tunnels in later amendments—my noble friend should not distract me just yet; I will deal with them in a moment or two.
As it was said, the garden of England, Kent, was not destroyed by High Speed 1, although I sat and listened for months on end to petitioners telling me that it would be. I am glad to say that was the last hybrid Bill I served on; I do not want to do another one after that experience. The destruction never happened, and, indeed, the economy of various parts of Kent has been boosted enormously by HS1, as we heard earlier. I do not know where my noble friend was when the M40 was being built. There are of course no tunnels on it, but I presume that it is a great asset to the Chilterns. I would have thought that objections to it, such as they were, would have been somewhat muted by the convenience to the objectors of getting their motor cars back to London from the lovely parts of the Chilterns in which they lived or were visiting.
Lord Framlingham
I accept what the noble Lord says about the building of a two-track railway, but surely given the size of this project he will concede that every possible effort should be made to ensure it has a minimum impact on the countryside. Given that huge size—£55 billion—even reasonable amounts of money should be given, without much discussion, to make sure the damage is kept to a minimum.
Lord Snape
I am immensely sorry to refute the noble Lord’s assertions but we spent a long time looking into this project and a considerable amount of money has been and is being spent trying to meet some of the objections that he outlined.
Those who, like my noble friend, were against the project denounced it for costing some £50 billion, yet with every speech they want to add to that cost because there is something in their area that they wish to preserve. I pay tribute, as others have, to the Select Committee, and note that my noble friend Lord Adonis has joined us. It spent months listening to various petitioners, many of whom were against the project, but all anxious for more public money to be spent on the bit they objected to. We could go on like this for ever and not build anything at all. Presumably that was the objective behind the speech of the noble Lord opposite. For my noble friend to pray in aid my noble friend Lord Mandelson by describing it as a vanity project—this from the man in charge of the Dome, a vanity project if ever there one—is, in addition to the other Second Reading speeches that have been made, of no great service to the Committee or the project.
I am fascinated by the agreement between my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. My noble friend wants to extend the line from Hanslope to Crewe. I am not sure how much that would cost. He also wants to build a four-track railway to replace the short distance of three-track railway from Hanslope Junction—as he will recall, there is another three-track railway going north from Rugby. Although it is neither in the Bill nor his amendments, it should not be too great a project to build that replacement. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, meanwhile, wants to reduce the other end of the line to Old Oak Common. Yet they say they are in agreement with one another—by the sound of it, they both want to redesign the whole project. I am not quite sure how much that would cost, either.
I do not know whether there is any great merit in these amendments. I know that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spent a considerable time behind the scenes in the attempt to redesign Euston station and I am sure that we will come to that issue under a future amendment. However, it seems to me that this Committee will not make much progress if those who were against the project in the first place make similar speeches on every set of amendments between now and whenever the Committee adjourns later today or on Thursday.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I rise to make a short point following the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. I recently went to the railway museum in Swindon, where I read all about the predictions of disaster for Brunel’s Great Western Railway and the huge opposition to it. In fact, the towns that accepted a station in their centre prospered; those that rejected a station did not prosper as much. We nowadays look on railways as an environmentally friendly way of travelling. I simply want to point out that I do not believe that amendments that question particular aspects of the Bill undermine the Bill; in our case, they are designed to strengthen it. Wanting to monitor the spending of money is a sign that we want the project to succeed. I want to make it absolutely clear that putting down an apparently critical amendment does not mean any lack of support for the concept of the project as a whole. We want it to succeed.
Lord Snape
I hope the noble Baroness will accept from me that I am not making that accusation. I am saying that I do not quite understand the agreement between my noble friend and her noble friend Lord Bradshaw on this group of amendments, but I am sure that they will explain it. I appreciate that there are genuine and legitimate concerns inherent in their amendments. My objection is to speeches that are meant to sabotage the whole project. We have had these debates on umpteen occasions. My noble friend mentioned the Economic Affairs Committee report, which was torn apart on the Floor of the House. I am not saying that my contribution made any difference, but the approach that was taken was enough for me. If we are going to judge every project on so-called value for money, no project would ever meet the criteria laid down by those who were against that project in the first place. Whatever you did, they would say, “This is not value for money”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, some of the objectors to Brunel’s railway were thought quite credible. They gave evidence to a House of Commons Committee saying that trains passing through Box Tunnel on the Great Western main line at faster than 60 miles an hour would asphyxiate those on board. They were not particularly credible then, although they were listened to, and some of the objections that we have heard to this project are not particularly credible now.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging Second Reading debate. I sympathise completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and all the communities that are affected. The golden rule of any construction project is that people would rather it happened somewhere else. The golden rule of high-speed rail is that people want the stations but they do not want the line, but the line unfortunately has to go somewhere. Every time that this has been looked at, still more of the line going through the Chilterns has gone into a tunnel to mitigate the impacts on the local community. None the less, the construction work will be a major inconvenience for local communities and I in no way underestimate that fact.
The House and successive Governments have had to address themselves to a particular issue. My noble friend referred to the Government to 2010, in which I led the work. I can tell her that it was absolutely not the case that this was generated as a vanity project. It was generated by looking at the options of further upgrades of the west coast main line. Noble Lords need to understand that the last upgrade of the west coast main line, which was completed in 2009, cost £10 billion —of course, inflation would make that figure much larger now. That was a modest upgrade to provide very limited additional capacity compared with what HS2 will provide. Unfortunately, there is no free lunch. We definitely need upgrades to parts of the Southern network —particularly the London to Brighton line, though if the trains were operating on that line at the moment most of the immediate concerns would be met. Upgrades are needed to most of the commuter lines coming into London. However, we are also going to need significant additional intercity capacity. My noble friend said that this is a line that very few people will use—these are the major conurbations of the country. Almost half the output of the entire country is generated between them by London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. It is simply not conceivable that we will not need very significant additional transport capacity between those conurbations over the next generation. We will clearly not be flying lots of planes between them. We do not want to build new motorways: I know my noble friend will have views on the impact the M40 had on the Chilterns.
The only option is a significant increase in rail capacity and that can only come in one of two ways. It is not the case that this has not been examined; it was looked at exhaustively in the work that I and the subsequent coalition Government did. It can come from radically upgrading the existing lines. Options for this have been looked at, including four-tracking the Chiltern line—the impact of which on the Chilterns would be greater, out of all proportion, than HS2—and significant upgrades to the west coast main line. The sums required to conduct those upgrades would be approaching the levels we would spend on HS2. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to Brunel. The London to Birmingham railway, linking the two major cities of the country, is not even a Victorian project; it is pre-Brunel. It was opened for the coronation of Queen Victoria in 1838. There are only four miles of the entire line going to Manchester which are straight, because most of it was built to get around the estates of many Members of your Lordships’ House. Building significant additional capacity on that pre-Victorian railway, including the required resignalling of almost the entire line, the relaying of the junctions for longer trains, and the rebuilding of the stations—starting with Euston, which is operating at twice the capacity for which it was built in the 1960s—are vastly expensive projects.
The question to which Parliament must address itself, and have a consistency of purpose on, is not whether something needs to be done—there would be a massive betrayal of our national economic future, particularly post-Brexit, if we do not have sufficient transport capacity between the major cities and economic centres of the country—but what should be done. Taking a longer-term view of investments will produce a step change in capacity between these major cities, rather than more patch and mend. Producing incremental increases in capacity will not be sufficient, including on commuter lines because the building of high-speed lines releases significant capacity on existing commuter lines.
Lord Snape
The noble Lord is making a much better non-Second Reading speech than I did. Does he agree that any upgrade of the existing railway lines could not be done at the same time as running the present intensive service? The short-sighted nature of debates in this House and elsewhere means that alternative routes have long since been closed—since the 1960s—so we would paralyse the west coast main line for a decade or so ahead while not having the benefits of any diversionary routes.
Lord Adonis
My noble friend is completely correct. Of the £10 billion spent on the last upgrade of the west coast main line, £1 billion was spent on compensation to train companies for not running services. The easiest way to make money if you are running a train service on the existing rail network is to have major upgrade work taking place, which means you get compensated. You get a huge and reliable source of funds for not running any services at all.
I do not want to go through these big arguments again. I come back to the Chilterns. The villages and settlements my noble friend Lady Mallalieu mentioned would not be the successful, vibrant settlements they are without the Chiltern line itself. It was the construction of the Chiltern line that put life-blood into many of these communities. Two sets of decisions were taken at the end of 2009 in respect of these lines, one of which has been hugely controversial, and will continue to be until it is open, when people will wonder what all the controversy was about, which is the construction of HS2. The other big investment that I authorised, which also took some persuading because there were alternative uses of the money, was a significant sum for the upgrade of the Chiltern line, which I assume my noble friend welcomes. That upgrade now enables services on the Chiltern line to run at 90 miles per hour. As my noble friend mentioned, it provides an economic alternative route to Birmingham, which was not possible before. We have just opened the new services going to Oxford, which will transform the connectivity of that area, including the construction of a great deal of housing.
All this is being made possible by significant investment in a major transport artery, including one that goes through an area of outstanding natural beauty. We cannot have successful communities and a thriving economy unless we have decent connectivity. The Chilterns knows that better than anywhere because it has one of the most successful and fastest-growing railway lines, in traffic terms, in the country in the Chiltern line. It is vital that we do not deprive our great conurbations and all those who depend on them, which are the life-blood of the nation, of the essential benefits of connectivity into the next generation.
What we need to do—huge attention has gone into this—is reconcile those big investments and the big projects with the amelioration necessary for the local communities. Nowhere in the history of the planning of railways has seen greater investment in tunnels to ameliorate the impact on the community than what is taking place in the Chilterns. A huge amount of work is going into ensuring that the impact of the construction work is reduced too, but it is important not to confuse these two essential points. The continuing work that needs to be done, which HS2 Ltd should do and which my noble friend is quite right to continue to press it on, is seeing that the impacts of the construction work on the communities affected are minimised. Equally, we as a Parliament need the resolve to see that we have the essential connectivity between our major conurbations in the next generation, without which our economy would be severely damaged.
Lord Rosser
I do not wish to make a Second Reading speech, but I simply say that at Second Reading we indicated our support for the Bill and the project. That is where we stand. Likewise, we accept the point made that that does not prevent amendments being tabled and debated to discuss issues of outstanding concern.
I wish to raise only one point in the context of my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Amendment 3 referring to routes east of Old Oak Common. Do the Government intend now, in this debate, to address the point made in the Select Committee’s report in paragraph 178, or is their intention not to respond to this issue at this time, but when they produce their formal reply to the report? The issue I refer to is the point about the comprehensive redevelopment of Euston and this comment in the Select Committee’s report:
“The new station which will eventually emerge after so much expenditure of public funds and so much misery endured by Camden residents, ought to be a world-class railway station, and the splitting of its design into two different operations seems unlikely to assist in the achievement of that objective. We earnestly urge the Secretary of State to ensure that funding is provided for the second planning stage to proceed as soon as possible”.
What will the Government’s response be to that, and, indeed, to the views of Camden Council on this issue of ensuring the design and development of Euston as a coherent whole? Will they respond when they reply to Amendment 3, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, or does the Minister—I would obviously accept this—wish to indicate that that will be covered in the Government’s response to the Select Committee report when it comes out?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions. On the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I have already alluded to the fact that the Government will look to publish their response to the Select Committee report next week, which will certainly cover the two questions that he raised.
On the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about shooting messengers. It is certainly never the intention of government to indulge in such activity. We fully accept that there are challenges. There have been thorough reviews of the proposals behind such a large infrastructure project. I fully accept, too, that strong sentiments are associated with large infrastructure projects such as this, in their building and in the challenges posed in ensuring that we mitigate impact on the environment. As several noble Lords have said, such challenges should be looked at practically to see how best they can be addressed. Without such an approach, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, well articulated, many an infrastructure project, and perhaps our railway as a whole, might not be present today. I was once told by a Parisian that when the Eiffel Tower was being constructed Parisians at the time strongly objected to such a monstrosity appearing in the middle of the capital city. I wonder what they would think wherever they are now. Nevertheless, I note the concerns that have been expressed and will address some of the issues that have arisen.
A number of the amendments that have been tabled for this Committee stage of the Bill have been fully considered by Select Committees of both Houses and look to alternative proposals for aspects of the Bill scheme. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that two Select Committees have already spent a combined period of more than two years hearing evidence and considering all aspects of the proposed Bill scheme and alternatives to it. Those committees received representations from more than 3,400 petitioners and made their conclusions having explored all the relevant issues. As we move through the different stages of the Bill, it is important that we draw a line under such considerations.
On a review of the costs for phase 1 of HS2, I assure noble Lords and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the costs have already been subject to intense analysis and review over several years and will continue to be reviewed for many years to come, and indeed during construction. Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Framlingham, raised the issue of costs. I assure him and others that both the Public Accounts Committee of the other place and the National Audit Office, a body that already has a statutory function to examine proper allocation of public expenditure, have produced several publicly available reports on the costs of HS2. I am sure both bodies will continue to examine those costs as we move into the detailed design and construction stage and as more detailed costs information becomes available.
As noble Lords will be aware, an updated cost estimate for the project is also published at each new iteration of the business case, with the next such iteration due this summer. The project as a whole, including its cost estimate and business case, is subject to regular independent review by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the Commons Public Accounts Committee. I therefore do not believe or accept that further independent review is necessary at this time. The Select Committees and other committees that I have referenced have looked at the costs associated with the project. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we have produced high-level cost estimates for our Euston proposals as well, but we have to be mindful that we need to keep certain detailed cost figures commercially confidential as we go to market for the construction work. I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge that officials in my department and the team at HS2 have sought to work with him and given time to listen to the proposals he has presented.
I also fully endorse the point that was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that those who may be suggesting alternatives or being critical of certain elements of the construction of HS2 are not against the scheme as a whole. Indeed, I know that the noble Lord accepts that part of the reasoning behind building HS2 is the economic case in terms of addressing issues of capacity. I know that he, as a great champion of the freight industry, also accepts that once we see the extra passenger capacity on HS2 it will release extra capacity for freight on existing lines.
I assure noble Lords that we have produced various costs for both the Select Committees, including funding costs and costs for key elements, but we will provide more detail as we move forward. It is also worth noting that an independent review of the HS2 Ltd cost estimate of a bored tunnel through the Colne Valley has been undertaken. The outcome of that independent cost review, undertaken by the lead non-executive director for the DfT, Ed Smith, has been published and concluded that the HS2 Ltd cost estimates were both reasonable and consistent. Other than delaying the railway, and in doing so adding additional cost, it is not clear to me what benefit the amendment would bring.
With regard to the alternative routes into Euston and the associated request from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to consider a route east of Old Oak Common, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary or appropriate. The noble Lord knows that I respect his commitment to this subject. I know that he appeared before the Select Committees in both Houses to make the case for an alternative solution at Euston. Neither Select Committee saw fit to recommend his alternative solution, nor a value-for-money review as the amendment proposes.
Given that it is the role of the Select Committee to consider such matters and that both Select Committees, having considered all the available evidence on these issues, did not believe any further cost reviews were necessary, I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate at this stage. It would serve only to delay the beginning of construction once Parliament had authorised the project. Clearly, such a delay in and of itself would add additional and unnecessary costs to the delivery of the scheme, which I am sure is not the noble Lord’s intention.
The link to the west coast main line at Handsacre was also considered by the Select Committees of both Houses, which were the most appropriate forum for any subsequent amendments on this issue to have been made. It is also important to note that the link at Handsacre serves a dual purpose. It will allow services to run north following the completion of phase 1 but, following the completion of phase 2A, it will also allow high-speed services to continue serving Stafford, something that the people of Staffordshire value very highly.
As I said, the Select Committee of the other House spent considerable time hearing evidence from parties wishing to promote alternative environmental mitigation proposals, including tunnel options in the Chilterns. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke with great passion on this issue. I assure her that this work included reviewing the cost-benefit analysis of the various options. Ultimately, the Select Committee of the other place requested a 2.6-kilometre extension to the Chilterns tunnel, at an additional cost of £47 million, and recommended a 100-metre extension of the Wendover Green tunnel, at an additional cost of approximately £15 million.
However, the committee was clearly of the view that the environmental benefits of further tunnelling did not warrant the significant additional cost. The cost of the other proposed tunnel options ranged from £82 million to £485 million. While I am sure that those who favoured an extended tunnel in the Chilterns will continue to be dissatisfied that their proposals were not supported, I hope that they—including the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who could not attend this afternoon—would concede that the process allowed them to have their say and that we should now respect the outcomes of the process even if we do not always agree with them.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. At one stage, I felt that I had really put the cat among the pigeons in an unacceptable way, but we have come back to the text of the amendments, and I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I want the scheme to go ahead. It is needed for capacity, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said. My worry is to do with the costs. As the Minister knows, I have been meeting senior officials of HS2 and his department, probably for two years. In connection with the Euston scheme, it was clear to me that there was no cost estimate for the AP3 scheme, as it is called; that is why we decided to price it for them. The figure came out at £8.25 billion. Because it was so high in relation to the total cost of phase 1, I thought it was very likely that there would be a serious cost overrun for phase 1, which could put the project at risk, which I do not want to happen.
If HS2 or his department have figures for costs, is the Minister willing to share them with us? We have a big schedule here of the costs of the whole project from railway control systems, train power, enabling works and building works to signalling. If we have got it wrong, I would like to know about it. We have a blank screen at the moment. Could we have a meeting on this before Report when we could share these costs with his officials?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
If there is anything that we can assist with between different stages of the Bill I would welcome meetings, either directly with myself or with officials, and if schedules allow we will arrange them. On the cost of the Euston AP3 scheme, an estimate of expense was deposited in September 2015, as required by Standing Orders, and I hope that the noble Lord is aware of this.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps we can follow this up afterwards. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor
“Benefit and cost review of a Wendover Mined Tunnel
(1) The Secretary of State shall commission a review of the potential benefits of constructing a Mined Tunnel at Wendover, Buckinghamshire.(2) The review shall have regard to possible alleviation of High Speed 2 construction and train operational noise, and to alternatives for such alleviation.(3) The review shall include estimates of the costs of construction of a Mined Tunnel and other relevant costs.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the outcome of the review before both Houses of Parliament—(a) within three months of the passing of this Act; and(b) before commencement of any High Speed 2 construction works necessitating the movement of more than 24 heavy goods vehicle through Wendover per day.”
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, my amendment—and possibly those that follow—may rehybridise the Bill. However, as this is Grand Committee there are no votes and that is not likely to happen today. I have tabled them to elicit a response from the Minister. While rehybridising and recommitment does not often happen, it is not unprecedented. As a Minister in a long-past Government, it happened to me on a Scottish transport Bill. Lord Burton put down an amendment about badgers and otters crossing roads—a subject which your Lordships would get rather worked up about. My speaking notes from the department at the time said: “Resist at all costs”, which I gamely tried to do. However, I was somewhat undermined half way through the debate by the noble and learned Lord who had chaired the Select Committee standing up and saying that there was an omission that the committee had failed to debate or look at. He therefore supported Lord Burton’s amendment that it be looked at again, whereupon I had to retire hurt. It did work, and the Bill finally came forward with Lord Burton’s amendment.
These amendments are important because the Select Committee had a very limited remit when it looked at the Bill. It could not stray from its rather narrow route. That said, it produced a good and admirable report. It made some general points about the promoter engaging in effective and timely public engagement and noted that it found the complexity of the process difficult for petitioners to understand. Petitioners sometimes also found the documentation provided by the promoter, “arcane, opaque and unhelpful”. They were also sometimes unfairly treated by late replies after months of silence, suggesting that their concerns had perhaps been met. I am sure the Minister will be the opposite this afternoon: clear, helpful and responsive.
In its report, the Select Committee noted the issues that surround Wendover and reported that it had directed a longer Chilterns bored tunnel, greater noise protection for Wendover and better construction arrangements in Hillingdon. It did not comment on the evidence presented on the proposed mined tunnel further along the route. It could not consider changes that require an additional provision without a direction from the House. We have the opportunity at a later stage of the Bill to give that direction for it to be looked at via a transport works order. The initial longer, mined tunnel was rejected by the promoter on grounds of cost. Although it is obvious that a longer tunnel is more costly and complicated, the promoter did not fully take account of the possible savings on the compulsory purchase of land and housing and the effect on the environment. There were two experts and, as we all know, experts on both sides of the argument hate being proved wrong. Those who wished for a longer tunnel provided an expert—described by the Select Committee as a credible witness—who disputed the costs. Indeed, those costs were not greater but actually a saving on the promoters’ costs. That is because the mined tunnel would be 4.2 kilometres long and it would save just over a kilometre of viaduct. As we know—as the experts tell me, anyway, and I think they are right—viaducts are expensive to build and maintain. There could be a saving on property, there could be a saving on costs, and it would solve noise issues. Mined tunnels are cheaper and have been done before. The area is virtually the same type of chalk as the other Wendover tunnel. Indeed, the water table does not present an insoluble problem.
I am no expert. I hesitate to say who is right between tunnelling and rail experts. I leave that expertise to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who does know about these things. But I do know that this is an issue that should be re-examined as there is clearly a difference between acknowledged experts. In the overall scheme of timing and costs, it is actually quite minimal but for the people of Wendover it is extremely important and there is no excuse for the Government and the promoters not to get it right. Those affected by the route have a right to have their case heard and their petitions properly scrutinised, not rejected out of hand for the convenience of the process. I have tabled this amendment to ask the Government to look again at the issues of cost and to ask the Minister whether he will consider having a short, quick, independent review into whether this is feasible. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, I support the noble Viscount’s amendment. It appears that this provision was not in fact looked at by the Select Committee. It is a provision which, unlike the concerns that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, is likely to save money rather than cost more—
Baroness Mallalieu
My noble friend, I am sorry. On the face of it, it will not require any delay either. The Select Committee was not able to look at it. It was told that the proposal that was then before it was additional provision.
The end result is that Wendover, which I think members of the Select Committee will remember is the village from which they had the largest number of letters, received the benefits, I suppose you could call them, only of a rejection of any sound barriers, which, although they were thought by the committee to be effective, would have been visibly intrusive. It was told that the donation to the church of £250,000 was generous. It is a very musical church which is going to have great difficulty in continuing as the centre for various concerts and performances. A new cricket pavilion was to be provided by the promoters on an alternative ground. That was the end result of Wendover’s concerted effort to bring about some changes in the proposals.
This proposal—if it is right, and I have no means of knowing whether it is—would appear to be one that would have the support of that community, would go a considerable way towards helping to ameliorate some of the worst parts of the line and, as I said, would result in some savings and no delay. Surely it would be possible for the Minister to say that this is one of the proposals that, respecting what the committee has said, was not before it and should be looked at before it is rejected out of hand.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I do not necessarily oppose the amendment, although I listened with interest to what my noble friend said about how this would save money. I am not sure what costings the noble Viscount has carried out. There has been some criticism of the costings so far as the whole project is concerned, yet we are told by the noble Viscount and my noble friend that this will actually save money. Perhaps, for the clarification of the Committee, they could tell us how their conclusions have been arrived at. I am no expert. My noble friend Lord Berkeley might tell me. I am not quite sure what a mined tunnel is and what differentiates a mined tunnel from a normal railway tunnel.
Viscount Astor
As I understand it, a mined tunnel is where you use a digger to make a hole, as opposed to one of those circular machines that makes a round hole. Apparently it is a cheaper way of doing it than the other way, but I am not an expert.
Lord Snape
Though he is not an expert, the noble Viscount has done extremely well. I am enlightened.
Lord Berkeley
Maybe I can help. My noble friend at some stage probably came down the Channel Tunnel while we were building it. We had boring machines boring the tunnels, but there were two caverns for crossovers, which were mined using something called the new Austrian tunnelling method, which involves more or less what the noble Viscount said. It is a big digger on tracks with a revolving arm and cutters that stick out. Something then gets the spoil that goes underneath it, then you spray concrete with reinforcing mesh on it and put in in situ or precast concrete later. It is supposed to be a lot cheaper; you do not need a boring machine. My colleagues have looked at the costs and they reckon that there is about £750 million to save. It is a very good scheme.
Lord Snape
I am replying to an intervention on my speech. I will of course give way to my noble friend in a moment, but first of all I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. He was very clear indeed. I have become an expert now on mined tunnels. I give way to my noble friend now.
Lord Adonis
I simply wished to make a point to the Minister. My understanding is that it is not correct to say that the Select Committee did not consider this issue of a mined tunnel at length. My understanding is that it spent a very considerable amount of time listening to the arguments. I find it inconceivable, with all the expertise my noble friend Lord Berkeley has been able to give us this afternoon, that we could substitute our judgments in the course of a debate of half an hour, or an hour, or an hour and a half for the huge attention that the Select Committee gave to this over many hours, as I understand it, seeking a very wide range of expertise. If it is the case that the Select Committee considered this and that my noble friend Lady Mallalieu was incorrect in suggesting that it was not considered, I cannot see that there is much point in us continuing this debate in the form that we are.
Lord Snape
I am rather sorry I got involved in this whole thing now. I make one plea on behalf of the train passengers, who will pay a substantial amount and a bit more besides as a premium. Part of the pleasure of taking a train journey is looking out of the windows. This obsession with tunnelling everywhere through the Chilterns means we will perhaps be denied the sight of my noble friend galloping across the rolling hills of the Chilterns in pursuit of the uneatable. Surely these are sights that people enjoy when travelling by train. Rather than confine train passengers in tunnels for miles on end, would not the noble Viscount be satisfied with some sort of noise barrier, rather than insisting that train passengers on this proposed high-speed line spend their lives in semi-darkness to avoid my noble friend and her colleagues?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to come into this debate, but I confirmed with my colleagues that I was not suffering from post-traumatic High Speed 2 Select Committee delusion. We spent an inordinate amount of time, quite rightly, looking at possible alternatives and at costings. We did not just take the promoter’s word for it. Whenever it put up its experts we looked at whether we could ascertain whether there was an independent corroboration of the costings. Indeed, the Minister confirmed that this was the case earlier when he talked about the possible tunnelling in the Colne Valley area. That was independently assessed. It was proved that the promoter’s costings were right. There were not any savings to be made, although there were lots of assertions that there were savings to be made.
I appreciate the thanks we have had for the amount of time we spent. There were times when I remembered the old Army adage, “Never volunteer”, but, despite that, for the most part we enjoyed it because it was expertly chaired. We ought to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, who carried out the task, in our collective view, skilfully and carefully.
On the final point in Amendment 7, there are no heavy goods vehicles going through Wendover. It was asserted on many occasions that there are alternative routes. Like my noble friend Lord Adonis, I am not trying to pretend that this project will not cause problems in its impact during the construction phase, but we at least ought to be accurate if we are putting down an amendment. I hope that that has helped noble Lords.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. After the interventions by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Young, I feel that there is little left for me to say except to clarify that they are both correct. It is important to underline that point for the record.
I will start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend. As he recognised, the issue would lead to a rehybridisation of the Bill. He talked of his own experience and I fully accept that it is procedurally possible for this to happen, but we need to think long and hard about whether such amendments should be made. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that, as we heard from a member of the Select Committee, this was given a fair and detailed hearing by that committee, as well as in the other place. Despite not being able to consider changes that would require an additional provision without a direction from the House, your Lordships’ Select Committee nevertheless heard further arguments on the case for a mined tunnel at Wendover, on the supposition that an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 could be used to enable further powers to be secured if needed. After that extensive and exhaustive review, neither Select Committee felt the need to recommend that additional work be undertaken to investigate the merits of or provision for a mined tunnel—we all know what that is now—at Wendover.
I reiterate that we have provided a range of additional assurances for the residents of Wendover, which, as well as the ones that I have spoken about, include noise barriers on the Small Dean embankment, an assurance relating to noise mitigation measures at Wendover Campus School and funding for a bespoke package of noise insulation at St Mary’s Church, Wendover, to allow it to continue to function as a concert venue. I have already talked about the 100-metre Wendover tunnel extension and the noise barriers that were secured in the other place. I have also alluded to the independent review of costs—the noble Lord, Lord Young, also mentioned it—conducted by the non-executive director, Ed Smith. I reiterate the hope that the noble Baroness will reflect not just on what I have said today but on the appropriate sections of the Select Committee report, which also considered this matter.
While I continue to recognise the valid concerns that my noble friend raised about remaining impacts on Wendover, the area has been given many commitments to manage the impacts of the new railway. I believe that this House should respect the decisions of the Select Committees in the House of Commons and in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Mallalieu
I apologise for interrupting, but I just want to be clear about this. I am looking at the relevant section of the report—120—and it appears that the committee looked at a bored tunnel but not at a mined tunnel. If I am wrong about that, I would be grateful if I could be corrected. Notwithstanding the fact that the committee was in some doubt about whether it should look at it, it looked at a bored tunnel, whereas the proposal that is now being made by the noble Viscount is a somewhat different project.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I can assure your Lordships that we looked at all the alternatives at great length on many occasions. Although I did not always enjoy the repetition, it was important that we heard the arguments. We heard from experts on both sides, so if there is one thing this Committee need not worry about, it is whether these alternatives were given a lengthy and fair hearing.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has spoken. I particularly enjoyed the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that a four-kilometre mined tunnel would put HS2 passengers in darkness. If I have got right the speed that the train is going to go, in a four-kilometre tunnel, you only have to blink three times and you have missed it.
Lord Snape
I am sure that is right, although I am not sure whether it would stand up mathematically in a courtroom, but we are not talking about just this particular tunnel—there is lots of tunnelling through the Chilterns, which has come about as a result of demands, including semi-hysterical demands from a then member of the Cabinet, which in the view of many of us who have taken an interest in the project have added unnecessarily to the cost and makes travelling by train less pleasant. A lot of the people that the noble Viscount represents are against the project as a whole—a point that we have made time after time.
Viscount Astor
I am not going to get into that debate with the noble Lord, but I think I am right in saying that the purpose of HS2 was not to give travellers better views of the countryside but to get them somewhere more quickly and more efficiently, although I am sure it is an added bonus if they have a better view of the country.
To come to the point, there is a difference of opinion among experts. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, does not like to see any criticism of this project and regards the promoter’s and the department’s experts as necessarily right. I do not know whether they are right. I did not say who was right; I said that during the Select Committee hearings there were a lot of conversations between experts that show there is a difference of opinion, as there have been since its report. All I am saying is there is an opportunity for the Minister and his department to look at this again. That is all I am asking. I am not saying who is right and who is wrong, but that there is an issue. It will not delay the Bill or the process. It is about whether the Minister’s department will look at the evidence and see whether it addressed all the concerns and issues.
Lord Adonis
I was not seeking in any way to say that one set of experts should be more highly esteemed than another. I was making the factual point that my understanding, which has been confirmed, was that the Select Committee heard experts on both sides. Indeed, it engaged its own experts because it was not going to take the word of one set of experts against the other. It spent many hours reviewing the case and reached its judgment. I was simply making the point that if that is established as a fact, I cannot see how we would be in any position to substitute our own judgment for theirs.
Viscount Astor
The Select Committee came to a conclusion, which may be right or wrong. But its members are not rail experts. I admire its distinguished report, but even they would not say they got everything right on every single issue. What I am saying is that during and since the committee, issues have arisen, and there has been further debate and work done on cost. My request to the Minister was whether his department would look at it without in any way holding up the process. Perhaps my noble friend might give this some thought between now and Report. Would that be possible?
Lord Snape
The noble Lord said that this mined tunnel would not, in effect, make much difference as far as the journey is concerned. Would he be interested in knowing—I have just been assured by an expert that these facts are correct—that out of the 210 kilometres of the high-speed line, no less than 47 kilometres is already in tunnels? If he does not mind me saying so, that is more than enough.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, again for sharing facts. During the debates we have had this afternoon—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am always grateful for the noble Lord’s interventions.
My noble friend talked about analysing and reviewing evidence. Let me reassure him that the Select Committees of both Houses have looked at this in detail and that it was an exhaustive process, as we have already heard from one member of your Lordships’ committee. It was not looked at only for a few seconds in passing—a blink and then you are through the tunnel, so to speak. This is the view of the department, the Government and myself, and we have to respect the decisions that have been reached by not one but two Select Committees on a process which they themselves—notwithstanding that there were additional provisions as part of the proposals—looked at. They considered the opinions and views of experts from both sides, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young, and their conclusions after that exhaustive process need to be both reflected on and respected.
Viscount Astor
I have listened to what my noble friend said and will consider it carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor
“( ) change the landscaping and other works, including shaping bunds to maximise the noise attenuation of the bunds by including steep sides, noise attenuation fences and trees, to mitigate any adverse effects of the construction, maintenance or operation of any of the works and of the operations of the railway authorised by this Act;( ) change the works for the benefit or better protection of property, people, farm animals in yards, woodlands, habitats or wild species affected by any of the works or the railway operations authorised by this Act;( ) reduce the extent of farm land taken for biodiversity where there is demonstrable equivalent local biodiversity capacity and considerate estate management and farming practices;”
Viscount Astor
My Lords, Amendments 8, 25, 26 and 27 have nothing to do with tunnels—I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Snape, about that. They are designed to make the route even more pleasant for those travelling on it and to protect those living alongside it.
My first amendment is perhaps more general, although it particularly affects Buckinghamshire, which, as your Lordships know, is a county with exceptional areas of outstanding national beauty. It does, however, have a dense population at the same time as having a wonderful countryside, and has some motorways and roads but also narrow lanes. One group that has been concerned throughout this whole process but has felt excluded is the parish councils. Some of them do not have the funds to enable them to take part and some do not have the expertise, and although there were community forum area meetings they did not always work or address all the issues. They certainly did not have some of the expertise that they required to make a good case. Local communities have knowledge of local traffic flows, school runs and public transport, and know what the effect of disruption is. If there was one noticeable point made in the Select Committee’s report, it was that the promoters had failed adequately to understand the long-term disruption, noise and pollution during the building stage of HS2. This amendment asks whether during this process adequate attention will be spent on these issues.
The next three amendments are more specific. Amendment 25 concerns the proposed Calvert infrastructure maintenance depot. The depot requires a large site that will serve as a base for the maintenance of the railway and for infrastructure projects. In the original plan an accommodation bridge was included as a substitute for a user-worked crossing—not being an expert, I had to ask someone what that was before I felt able to speak to your Lordships. The accommodation bridge has now been removed by the promoters, as stated in a recent letter that was received after your Lordships’ Select Committee’s petitioning stage, and so was not able to be considered. The alternative user-worked crossing was instead proposed. I do not know whether this late change was intended to be an improvement or was a cost-saving exercise but the result is that the effect on Doddershall has not been properly reviewed—certainly its residents do not think it has. HS2 at this point follows the Bletchley to Bicester to Oxford existing railway, which will form the new upgraded east-west line. That upgrade will be an added complication. The present ameliorating effects of the route will result in a much longer and more expensive journey for farm traffic crossing in and out of Doddershall. As it is not clear why the original accommodation bridge was removed, will the Minister look at this, and see why it happened and whether it makes sense? It is a detailed point but it has been put to me by those who feel that they have an important concern that was not able to be addressed because their letter was received after the Lords stage
Amendment 26 concerns the route and, again, local traffic problems. I have given the Minister notice of what I am going to say because this is a complicated local issue. He may wish to write to me with a detailed reply. It is about configuring the local roads between Quainton and Waddesdon; otherwise, an estimated 1,200 people will have a much longer, more difficult journey between the two, adding to traffic complications. It is a local issue and I am sure there are many local issues along the route and it would not make sense to bring up every single local concern about HS2. I have brought it up today because people in the area feel that the promoters changed the effects that this was going to have after the Select Committee process. Therefore, they were not able fully to address the issues.
Finally, Amendment 27 asks a question about the alternative route that was developed by Arup for HS2 and was presented by Twyford Parish Council in Committee in the Commons. It is a route that would save the demolition of houses. The promoters believe that it is straighter and less costly. Again, I am not an expert. I do not know. They also believe that it would remove noise issues along the route and the disruption to local residents and farmers would be much less. My point to my noble friend the Minister is: this is a local issue. It is not the biggest issue that affects HS2, but it is important to the people who live there. I have tabled these amendments to ask the Minister whether he will consider these representations to see whether they can be addressed to help those who are affected by HS2. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling his amendments. I appreciate that he is seeking further clarification. I will take each amendment in turn.
First, the provisions set out in Amendment 8 replicate the powers already in the Bill under Clause 2(3). With respect to reducing the amount of land take, we are already under a general duty to minimise the amount of land we are taking for the railway if it is possible to do so without compromising the construction and implementation of the project in a timely and economic manner. Furthermore, we have given a general assurance to the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association that we will aim to further minimise the loss of high-quality agricultural land where there are opportunities to do so through the detailed design stage of the project. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel reassured in that respect, and I am sure those discussions will continue during the design phase.
My noble friend also raised the issue of changes or alterations, referring to the area between Calvert and Doddershall. I inform him that the Bill scheme has not been altered in this area, as he suggested. The accommodation bridge to which he referred is part of the East West Rail scheme and not part of HS2, and as such will not be subject to this Bill. He mentioned a particular letter that was sent by concerned parties. I have briefly checked with officials and I have certainly not seen it. If it is available and he would like to forward it, I will respond appropriately to the matters raised in it.
Amendment 26 suggests a revised road layout in the Quainton area. As my noble friend may know, this issue was considered in detail by the Lords Select Committee, having been the subject of a petition and an evidence session. My view, which I reiterated in the debate on the previous amendment, stands: it is not appropriate to revisit here issues that have been discussed at length and in detail by the Select Committee. The considerable time that the Select Committee spent on those issues needs to be respected.
I also appreciate that this issue could be delivered outside the Bill powers, in which case it certainly does not require further consideration here. My noble friend recognised that but, as the requested road layout would require new land to be acquired, objections to the change would be expected, in particular from the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre due to the adverse impact on its operations and land use. I assure my noble friend that these issues have been fully explored by the Select Committee, which ultimately did not see merit in making a recommendation of the kind being sought by the amendment. It would create a requirement for significant works to the existing Station Road, where the proposed road layout would need to be raised to pass over HS2, taking land from the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre overflow car park and thereby restricting access to the adjacent industrial premises. It would also require substantial temporary diversion works to Station Road during the construction of the revised road alignment.
Amendment 27 seeks a review of the route alignment. Although I respect and appreciate my noble friend’s commitment to refining the scheme, as he notes in the amendment, the “route C” alignment was an option considered in 2010 as part of the appraisal of route options consulted on at that time. It was the subject of detailed consideration, but ultimately was not selected when the Government announced the route in 2012. At this late stage in the progress of the Bill it is inappropriate to suggest that we disregard all the previous work that has taken place. I respect the fact that my noble friend has sought clarification by tabling these amendments and I hope I have been able to provide it, at least in part. As I said, if there is a letter that has yet to be answered I will ask my officials to look at it and we will respond accordingly. I hope that, on the basis of the assurances I have provided and the clarifications I have given, he will be minded to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response, particularly to Amendment 8, which is very helpful. I will indeed write to him on Amendment 25 and the correspondence that has been received. I have one point to make about the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the Minister and the noble Lord opposite talked about it as though whatever comes out of it should be written in stone and never questioned, looked at or judged again. They forget, however, that the Select Committee had a very narrow remit; it could not look outside that very narrow route. It was restricted and could not look at lots of different possibilities because the remit under which it was set up did not allow it to do so, even if it wanted to. That was the issue that affected it. My noble friend has been enormously helpful. I am very grateful and do not wish to detain the Committee. However, although I understand why the committee had restrictions—otherwise the petitions would have gone wider and wider and wider—these prevented it looking at some of the issues that affected the route. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I did not want to intervene again, but I feel I must correct the impression that the noble Viscount is creating that we did not consider these issues. All the issues raised by the amendments were considered in depth. We were not restricted. We heard numerous petitions on the possible alternatives. In his opening contribution, the noble Viscount suggested that we somehow did not listen to parish councils. I assure him that we listened to them on many occasions. Inevitably, some were better than others. After some of the legal representation that we heard, I would have much preferred to hear from the parish councils again. The idea that because they did not have high-powered legal representation they were unable to make their case is not true. I just wanted to correct the impression that the Committee should look at this again because it was not given a proper searching examination by the Select Committee; it was.
Viscount Astor
All I can say to the noble Lord is that some of those involved in parish councils felt unable to present in the way that they should have; I quite respect what he said.
Lord Framlingham
I am sorry to speak again, but I am beginning to wonder what we are doing. If the Select Committee has done everything that needs doing and the Minister will not accept any of the amendments, I am not sure how this Committee will contribute much to the process.
Viscount Astor
I do not know whether my noble friend wants to answer that, but perhaps I may finish responding to the noble Lord. He is quite right that there were a lot of petitions, and I am not in any way criticising the Select Committee or any of the work it did, but the petitions affected the route as proposed. The committee was unable to look any wider into some of the other issues. That was the point I was trying to make. I was not disagreeing with the noble Lord, but I was pointing out that the Select Committee was under certain restrictions. Having said that, unless my noble friend wishes to say anything, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“( ) In subsection (6), “the deposited book of reference” means the book deposited in November 2013 in connection with the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the amendments in this group in my name are merely corrections flowing from the passing of a new set of consolidating regulations for the environmental permitting regulations and the need to update the relevant references in the Bill. There is also a correction to clarify the date on which Clause 66M—the vocational qualification reporting duty—will come into effect, and a clarification of a reference resulting from a change made by the Select Committee. I beg to move.
“Phase One of High Speed 2 property bond scheme
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a property bond scheme in relation to the scheduled works.(2) Where—(a) the value of an interest in land is depreciated by the presence of any of the statutory nuisances listed in section 79(1)(a) to (h) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (statutory nuisances and inspections therefor); and(b) the nuisance arises from the construction or operation of the scheduled works,if the person entitled to the interest (“the applicant”) makes a valid application within the prescribed period, a property bond for that depreciation shall be issued by the nominated undertaker to the applicant.(3) The Secretary of State must make rules governing the making and approval or rejection of applications for property bonds under this section, including—(a) the contents of an application,(b) the evidence of open market value that is required to be provided,(c) the evidence of depreciation that is required to be provided,(d) any fee for making an application,(e) the process for assessing and deciding the open market value and the depreciation of the land, and(f) any minimum depreciation that is required for an application to be valid.(4) When the interest in land is sold the owner of that interest must decide whether to— (a) redeem the property bond and sell the land for its depreciated value, or(b) sell the property bond with the land and sell the land for its open market value.(5) If the owner of the interest in land decides to sell according to subsection (4)(a) the owner must serve notice on the nominated undertaker of the owner's intention to sell the land together with details of the property bond at least one month before selling the land.(6) If the owner validly serves a notice under subsection (5) then the nominated undertaker must pay the difference between the depreciated and open market value of the land to the purchaser of the land at the date of completion of the sale whereupon the property bond is redeemed.(7) A property bond shall be a local land charge until it is redeemed and for the purposes of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 the nominated undertaker shall be treated as the originating authority as respects such a charge.”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my noble friend might have expected to be back by now, but my understanding is that it is accepted that he has other amendments which will be discussed on Thursday. Without wishing to move this amendment, he will speak on the subject then. For that reason, I do not seek to move the amendment on his behalf. He may address this issue in the context of amendments to be moved on Thursday.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“For protection of Park Village Limited
(1) The Secretary of State shall make compensation to Park Village Limited and its successors and assigns in respect of any loss or damage (including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, loss of profits and damage to tenant’s fixtures and fittings and stock in trade) which it may sustain to its business, being the business now or hereafter carried on at No. 1, Park Village East, London NW1 7PX by reason of and during—(a) the exercise by the Secretary of State of his or her powers under this Act; and(b) the execution of works connected therewith by statutory undertakers being road works within the meaning of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall preclude the making of compensation under any other enactment or rule of law but compensation shall not be made in respect of the same loss or damage both under that subsection and that enactment or rule of law.(3) Any dispute arising on a claim for compensation under subsection (1) above shall be determined by the Upper Tribunal.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, my colleagues will know that I am a very strong supporter of this imaginative and important project. I proposed this new clause to highlight the unfairness of the compulsory purchase compensation code, which does not provide an adequate means of addressing the very real and present unfairness and inadequacies concerning the lack of access to compensation or suitable redress, in particular for small and medium-sized businesses greatly affected by the extent and duration of public works—in this case, phase 1 of the HS2 project as set out in the Bill—but which do not necessarily have any property interests. I believe it should be the promoter’s objective that no business is financially disadvantaged by significant loss of income or business as a direct result of the severity of impacts arising from construction activity.
I take this opportunity to say how strongly I believe, in the absence of such adequate compensation generally, that the promoter, in pursuit of fairness, should either agree a regime of compensation for the reimbursement of business and consequential losses in special cases where construction impacts are likely to be most severe, or accept a protective provision in the Bill for special cases.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, there is a case for ensuring adequate compensation in special circumstances, and one such case is outlined in the proposed new clause. I understand that the company, Park Village Ltd, is and has always been acknowledged as a special case but is not necessarily being treated as such. It is a matter of public interest that this issue should be addressed during the progress of the Bill.
I am satisfied that Park Village Ltd is seriously under threat from the HS2 works. No adequate solution for the company’s plight has yet been agreed following the appearance of the company before both parliamentary Select Committees. I was very pleased that the Select Committee of this House referred to its sympathy so far as the company was concerned, but I am pleading for more than just sympathy.
The company suffers the dual misfortune of being sandwiched directly between the proposed utility and construction works in the street directly facing the premises and the demolition, excavation and construction works for the proposed new tunnel portal, head house and barrette wall, making it potentially the single most affected business in the street, in Camden and perhaps ultimately on the entire HS2 route. Without assessing any blame, I believe there has been a failure to grasp the seriousness of the impact of the extent and duration of the HS2 works on the viable operation of this distinctive and exceptionally sensitive business, which relies on the special character of the property and its peaceful and accessible location.
Compensation proposals put to the promoter in the event that mitigation cannot adequately resolve the impact of the HS2 works on the viability of the business have so far been ignored, leaving the company effectively at the mercy of HS2. There is the very real possibility that this exceptionally renowned family business will be unnecessarily lost to the scheme unless special measures are put in place to ensure its continuance.
Let me explain. Park Village Studio is a valuable local asset with a business that has attained international recognition for its exceptional work, but it is nevertheless a family-run, father-and-son business with only limited capacity to withstand externally undermining impacts on its viability brought about by the HS2 works. The studios provide an accessible, high-quality, characterful, tranquil and creative environment where films can be made in necessary peace and quiet, notwithstanding the proximity of the existing railway, which is in deep cutting.
The highly intrusive and lengthy programme of demolition, street utility diversions and construction works proposed by HS2 on virtually all sides of the property, including impacts above and below, will cause the business to suffer significant noise, vibration and pollution impacts. Of particular concern is the proposal by HS2 to deny vehicular access for months at a time to either or both of the studios’ main access doors from Park Village East, which will render the studios incapable of use or hire. No compensation is offered from the promoter.
Indeed, this sort of problem has already arisen. HS2 I understand has subcontracted Thames Water to carry out a major utility diversion now. Park Village Ltd has already lost business before the Bill has even been passed. In essence, the statutory compensation code compensates for the loss of property value, but not for the loss of business income or damage caused to business.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Where, as in the case of Park Village Ltd, no land is taken, albeit that the property may be immediately adjacent to HS2’s major construction works with resultant significant impacts, the position is different. The only compensation ordinarily payable comes after completion of the works—in this case, perhaps in excess of eight years and then only in respect of some aspects of the operation of the project—not their construction. Paradoxically, greater loss can be suffered by being adjacent to works than by being in their way.
Relocation of the studios on a temporary basis for short periods of time at HS2’s cost remains a possibility but it is highly unlikely that the promoter or the company would be able to find a comparable location offering the distinctive qualities of the Park Village Studio. Just to give an example, the dry hire business would be lost, for which there would be no compensation; nor would there be any compensation for the disruption to the in-house production part of the business.
The assurances offered to Park Village Ltd set out a regime in which mitigation, but not compensation, might be taken forward, but then only on a conditional basis. What has been offered provides no guarantee that the business will be able to remain in the property on a viable basis. More especially, the company remains rightly concerned that in the event that its expectations are borne out and any mitigation that might be provided fails to enable it to carry on its normal activities and continue to attract custom as now, there is no right of redress or recompense. The promoter now needs to act to ensure that, in the acknowledged special case of Park Village Ltd, this business can continue to operate viably throughout the lengthy period of works.
The special report of the House of Lords HS2 Select Committee states at paragraph 196 that,
“the owner-occupiers of Park Village East are among those who will be most severely affected by the works, and to whom we recommend that the Secretary of State should provide further compensation going beyond what is at present proposed”.
I believe the same should apply to the business at 1 Park Village East but this is not currently the case. In the absence of sufficient consideration being offered by way of an agreement that provides for the reimbursement of business and consequential losses arising from the impacts of the HS2 works, a new clause giving such protection should be included in the Bill on a similar basis to the protection provisions given to businesses in similar circumstances in another example of public works. I have done some research. I found Section 16 of the London Transport (Liverpool Street) Act 1983, which is an example of what I am arguing for. Parliament considered it necessary to do this then; it is open to Parliament to do it again.
Through no fault of its own Park Village Ltd, which is a highly reputable and respected company within the UK’s film and recording industry—it is on its own at the top; it is not in a dead heat with anybody else: it is an incomparable and outstanding company—may unnecessarily become a casualty of HS2’s works and the inadequacy of the compulsory purchase compensation code to provide sufficient remedy should mitigation fail.
If I can go back into the history books, having been a Minister for 16 years without a break and without ever having been sacked, I have immediately to stress that I believe the Government’s reluctance to depart from the statutory compensation code is understandable, but they should nevertheless be willing to deal fairly with a recognised special case. When the Bill was first introduced the then Transport Minister said that compensation should be full and fair. More recently, the current Transport Secretary said:
“Where compensation is due, it’s right that we pay, and that we are generous”.
Park Village Ltd is asking only for fair treatment through me, not generosity. For these reasons, I plead with the Minister to acknowledge properly and substantively that Park Village Ltd is a special case. It is a very important provider of jobs locally and significant on the international scene. As no adequate fallback arrangements have been offered, please would he agree to this proposed new clause, because it would give the company the protection it needs and deserves? I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will say a few very brief words in strong support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I live in Camden. I know the location of Park Village very well. I can quite see how the works associated with HS2 would effectively put the company out of business. That is quite apart from the disfiguring of a particularly attractive corner of what is not always the most attractive borough.
I have also worked with Park Village over two decades or so. My companies and their clients have been enthusiastic users of the studio, which plays an important part in London’s creative industries. It generates significant revenue. It has an international reputation. It contributes to Camden’s creative life and its stock of jobs. London is quite rightly seen as the leading creative city when it comes to advertising and perhaps photography. Park Village Studios is part of this. It would be a very bad idea to lose the studio. It would be a bad and quite unjust idea to lose it without appropriate compensation.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, before I continue there is one point I want to clarify from my noble friend Lord Framlingham that came up in a previous debate. He asked about the purpose of the Grand Committee in relation to the work of the Select Committee. In general terms, a Select Committee in consideration of such a hybrid Bill normally looks specifically and primarily at private interests raised by petitioners, which gives it a very exhaustive opportunity to look at the different options. The role of the Grand Committee is what it traditionally is: to consider the public law clauses of a Bill, not the specific details of a private petition. We have certainly discussed those and I hope my noble friend feels that the issue has been clarified. I thought it was important to clarify that point.
Turning to the amendment, I apologise to my noble friend: I know he has written to me on this issue. I am assured by officials that a letter will be on its way shortly to address the specific issues he has raised in his letters. I hope that what I say will, if not totally, partly reassure him with regard to the concerns he has raised. As my noble friend acknowledged, this issue was considered fully by the Select Committees of your Lordships’ House and the other place. It received lengthy hearings. A number of assurances have already been given to the proprietors of Park Village Ltd regarding the compensation of losses.
Those assurances set out in detail that the Government will aim to avoid or reduce any impacts on the operation of the business and, if it becomes necessary to do so, will compensate losses suffered by the business under a number of scenarios. This compensation, which my noble friend referred to, will be determined in accordance with the compensation code, which, as I believe he acknowledged, is a tried and tested method of establishing such losses. This system has developed over many years and seeks to address the very concerns he has raised.
Notwithstanding those comments, during the recent Lords Select Committee hearings, the Government gave further assurances to the proprietors of Park Village Ltd to manage the impacts from construction works at Euston on the business. Additionally, we will keep open the possibility of relocating the business should that become necessary. In its recent report, the Lords Select Committee noted that the best course was for the proprietor,
“to work with the promoter to find ways of continuing to carry on the business where it is. Only if this proves unworkable should relocation, at least on a temporary basis, be considered”.
This matter is on the Government’s agenda and the Select Committee had specific views on it. I hope that my noble friend is partly reassured by what I have said and the fact that in the determination of the Lords Select Committee on this matter it has been aware of the challenges that the business is facing. Based on those reassurances, I hope my noble friend is minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to my noble friend that his reply to my points raised more questions than answers. While I recognise that he quite rightly quoted from the report of the Select Committee, he did not actually quote the point that the Select Committee made when it said:
“We are sympathetic to Mr Webb”,
but he did raise the point about relocation.
The problem, as I understand it and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also mentioned, is that sadly it is not possible to transport this business easily to another location. Although the Select Committee may well have hoped that it would be possible, I understand now that it is impossible without very substantial cost and expense to a company that could not possibly manage that cost and expense. As the noble Lord pointed out, it has a marvellous location, offering jobs and a business that has been built up and is of international repute. Therefore, there is a need to revisit this issue. I hope my noble friend will agree to hold some further discussions in an effort to find a solution.
With the latest action of Thames Water, the business is effectively going to have to close. Before we allow that to happen, there should be some way of negotiating a solution, and I once again plead with the Minister to see me, Park Village and other noble Lords who have already indicated to me their support for this amendment, to see if there is a way through before this goes back to the other place.
No doubt the local Member of Parliament, Sir Keir Starmer, who has already taken up the cudgels on behalf of Park Village East, will want to be involved in any such discussions. There must be a solution, and perhaps before I move to a decision my noble friend the Minister could indicate whether his door is open.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
One of the problems with this whole Committee today is that there are only four or five of us here who know exactly what happened, what exactly the atmosphere was and how we dealt with particular circumstances. This was certainly one which we spent a lot of time on. It might help take some of the heat out of this question if people actually read through the verbatim report of that day, which I am sure is available. It is just an idea, but I feel as though we are being accused of doing down—
Baroness O'Cathain
There is the suggestion that we should have come up with a solution. But we came up with the only practical solution at that stage and did not rule out there being another practical solution. When it comes to the tenor of the conversation, I am sure other members of the committee will agree with me when I say people should not be too harsh. It happened on one or two occasions earlier in this meeting today and I decided not to talk about it, but I think we were all really striving to deal with this, and I am sure the people from Park Village East realised that. I just wanted to make that point.
Lord Berkeley
Is the noble Lord aware of proposals for altering the routes of the tunnels under Park Village East to try and avoid that awful birdcage structure, which I believe can be done without an additional provision? I have heard that they are looking at it. I do not know enough about it to know whether that improves the situation or not, but I know there are moves afoot, because that birdcage is a very tricky structure to build and could put all those houses and Park Village East at risk due to settlement, because it is a tricky piece of construction.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion he makes, which rather reinforces my plea to the Minister for an assurance that his door is open.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I say to my noble friend and indeed to all noble Lords that doors are always open. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain made a very appropriate and pertinent point in this respect. I deliberately listened in to the live deliberations of the committee and the tone that was set on certain issues, including this one, was not just sympathetic but—I have used this word repeatedly because I have seen it in action not just in writing—exhaustive when it came to considering the concerns raised by petitioners. The Government fully acknowledge the areas of concern that the Select Committee raised. If we can explore other areas further in discussions or meetings with appropriate parties without impacting any of the additional provisions, I am of course willing to listen and hear more—as I say during the passage of any Bill.
I do not want to give false hope that I can give any new commitments, but I reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who also raised concerns, that we are live to the issues of this particular business—other petitions have been raised as well—and we will, as I articulated in my response to his amendment, be looking to ensure that we not only minimise and mitigate the effects but seek to work with the company to address any issues on an ongoing basis. This is not a fait accompli in the sense that the decision has been taken and there is nothing more that can be done.
I reiterate that we will continue to work with the company to ensure that its concerns can be addressed head-on. I asked officials briefly about the issue around Thames Water which he raised and I will seek an update on that. I have yet to sign the letter: perhaps we can reflect on those comments in it as well. I fully accept that my noble friend will not be totally reassured by what I have said, but I hope that at this juncture he will be partly reassured by the fact that the Government are live to this issue and respect the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee in this regard.
Lord Rosser
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has already said, the comments are contained in paragraph 197 of the Select Committee’s report. This follows 196, which deals with a different issue—the owner-occupiers of Park Village East—and recommends that,
“the Secretary of State should provide further compensation going beyond what is at present proposed”.
When the Government respond to the report they are, presumably, going to address the comment the Select Committee made in paragraph 196. In view of what has been said in the discussion about Park Village Studio, and the fact that the Select Committee included a paragraph on this issue, when the Government respond to the report will the Minister also be responding to what is in paragraph 197?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That was also a reflection of the issues raised by the report about residential properties that are impacted. As I said, if the noble Lord will bear with us, the Government’s response will be available in a week’s time.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to my noble friends who sat on the Select Committee. The solution they were hoping for has not proved to be possible and that is why I am so pleased that not only is the Minister’s door open but he is determined to find a solution to the problem that I raised. This will come as a great relief to all those in the area. Perhaps we can now look at all possibilities and, however big his office is, ensure that everyone who is affected is able to hear from him directly on the sort of solution that he would propose. Those of us who are raising this are very strong supporters of the project and I am grateful that the noble Lord who is a director of HS2 has been here listening to the discussion. I would have thought that HS2 itself would want to ensure that a case as special as this is not ignored. In the light of the Minister’s kind agreement to take this further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty to have regard to minimising number of gantries
In exercising its powers under this Act, the nominated undertaker shall have regard to the desirability of minimising the number of gantries to be installed to provide power to the railway, in particular in areas of outstanding natural beauty designated by statute and in other areas of particularly high environmental value and sensitivity, and shall consult local communities when designing plans for gantry installation.”
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I will move Amendment 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson who, as the Committee has heard, could not be here today and speak to my Amendment 28 which is grouped with it. I declare my interests as chairman of the Woodland Trust, president of a local wildlife trust, vice-president of RSPB and a former chairman of the Government’s wildlife adviser and regulator.
Had my noble friend Lord Stevenson been here I am sure he would have waxed lyrical about gantries and the need for the undertaker to ensure that gantry selection is as sympathetic as possible. I shall not try to emulate what he would have been saying so lyrically. I will instead focus on my amendment, Amendment 28, which is about ensuring that the nominated undertaker deals with the commitment made that HS2 phase 1 would result in no net loss of biodiversity, and particularly dwell on HS2 Ltd’s approach to the impact of the project on ancient woodland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out, HS2 is an extremely important infrastructure project—that is my only Second Reading remark—but ancient woodland is pretty important too. To refresh the Committee’s memory of why, ancient woodland is defined as woodland that has existed since 1600. Some ancient woodlands are tens of thousands of years old and they are an irreplaceable resource of undisturbed soils, biodiversity and community that have existed for many centuries. They are redolent with history as well as biodiversity, and they are irreplaceable, as cathedrals are irreplaceable—they are the cathedrals of our natural world. Yet, more than 600 of them are currently under threat from development, and we are now down to less than 1% of the land surface of this country, which used to be substantially covered with wild wood, now remaining as our ancient woodland.
The impact of HS2 phase 1 on ancient woodland is considerable. It damages 34 ancient woodlands directly and 29 are further affected by noise, light or construction impact; there is more than 30 hectares of total loss. HS2’s commitment to no net loss of biodiversity is impossible, because any damage to ancient woodland is irreplaceable, so the Select Committee in the other place directed the promoter to identify an independent arbiter to review the methodology for assessing no net loss, and suggested the Government’s nature conservation adviser, Natural England, which has a statutory role in that respect. Natural England did the review and submitted its report at the end of July. Unfortunately, ongoing discussions with the Department for Transport meant that it was not published until 9 November, which did not leave the Lords Select Committee much time in which to consider it.
The Natural England review had three key conclusions. The first is that ancient woodland is indeed irreplaceable and that the ancient woodland calculation should be taken out of the metric on no net loss. I would applaud that.
Secondly, where loss of ancient woodland is unavoidable, the terms of compensation should be 30 hectares of new woodland created for each hectare lost. That is in line with Defra’s draft biodiversity off-setting metric, which was developed in 2012. That sounds like a huge scale, but it is necessary due to the irreplaceability of ancient woodland. These are hugely rich areas, with their complex networks of biodiversity both above and below the soil level. Providing brand-new wood, which will be thin on biodiversity, not have those complex networks and take decades—centuries even—to come to a respectable level, means that you must provide an awful lot more that you have destroyed to be in even remotely the same ballpark for compensation.
Natural England was absolutely right to have that high ambition, based on the evidence which it had used to help Defra deliver its original off-setting metric in 2012. Apart from that, it would be apposite for HS2 to provide a positive legacy for the natural environment communities along the route. Alas, the current compensation ratio proposed by the promoter is less than five hectares for every hectare destroyed.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and with his permission, I will speak to his Amendment 15, which I support. I must first declare two interests. First, my partner is a Lloyd’s underwriter and is part of the tendering process for the insurance provision for the construction of HS2. Secondly, we live in an area affected by the project.
The amendment raises the issue of the design for the gantries being used in the Chilterns AONB from the point at which it emerges from the bored tunnel and proceeds on the surface to Wendover. My appeal to the Minister is that the promoter and the nominated undertaker should think very carefully about the appearance of these intrusive overhead power lines. In particular, they should explore the possibility of removing as much as possible of this unappealing infrastructure to compensate for the imposition of the railway on the sensitive landscapes of this precious part of our countryside. There is, I accept, a design panel and I am sure it will do what it can to mitigate these unwelcome intrusions of which I speak. But we must all do what we can to protect this rural environment.
I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response and hope that he has it in his power to give undertakings: that sensitivity will be used in design; that local people will be consulted; and that all efforts will be made in the Chilterns AONB to conceal power lines, which currently, on the design presented by HS2, will be attached to towers twice the height of the existing pylons. Of course, the ideal solution would be to bury overhead power lines associated with this project in the AONB underground. Will he indicate whether this would be a possible solution?
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I follow my noble friend’s example. While I fully support her wish to have woodland preserved, I do not know much about it. I think it is a very good idea and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I hope that it will be in the response next week. However, I have problems with Amendment 15. Overhead power lines for railways are a necessary part of making the trains run, unless you use diesels. Diesels are not only polluting, they are very heavy and they do not really like going as fast as is planned for HS2.
Noble Lords may be aware that when the east coast main line was electrified—before my day, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Snape, was around then—it was done on the cheap and the wires do come down with depressing regularity. Network Rail, in electrifying the Great Western, have therefore gone to the opposite extreme and put up some pretty hefty towers, supported on piles in the ground, and the wires will be so strong that they will probably resist a good hurricane. But then the people of Bath said that they did not want wires on the railway going past the beautiful city of Bath. When Bath was built, there was not a railway, was there? But a railway was put through it so that the good people of Bath could get to Bristol and London and other places. They did not want a catenary at all; they wanted a third rail because you would not see it. It would have cost billions to develop a special train to go just there so you would not see the wires. The later idea was that the people of Goring, somewhere between Didcot and Reading, did not like the look of these posts and so they are taking legal action, I believe, against Network Rail to have the posts redesigned.
If we want to move around in a modern way, we need electric wires to move the trains. The further apart you put the posts, the more the wires are likely to come down when there is any wind. There has to be a compromise. Yes, we have railways going through AONBs and other places but if you go to places such as the Swiss Alps, the Austrian Alps or other beautiful parts of the continent, all the lines are electrified and the wires just blend in with the rest of the infrastructure. I would strongly resist HS2 being told to have special architect-designed posts for a particular area. It will not work. It will cost an enormous amount of money. These things will fit in with the surroundings quite well. Frankly, when 40% of the line is in a tunnel anyway, you are not going to have too many posts around to look at.
Lord Rosser
I want to make just one or two comments about Amendment 28, to which my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone has spoken. Obviously, I am aware of the comments that have been made by the Select Committee, which was not, let us say, fully enamoured of the report by Natural England. Equally, as I understand it, it was a report that Natural England was asked to produce in relation to this issue. As my noble friend has said, it has made its recommendations. The Select Committee took the view that it did not feel the reference to a scale of 30:1 was evidence-based. Before I go any further, I accept that I was not a member of the committee and therefore do not know everything that was said when evidence was taken. I do not doubt in that sense that the committee had good reason for making the point it has.
I hope the Government will look sympathetically on the amendment. Certainly, I, too, wish to hear what their response is to the report and the review by Natural England. If their view is that they do not feel they can go down the road of that report, I hope they will set out very clearly what their reasons are and perhaps whether they have alternative propositions to those that have been made. I hope the response will be, at least in large measure if not in its entirety, that they would be willing to accept what was in the report that Natural England was asked to prepare.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I begin with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and supported by my noble friend Lady Pidding. I immediately declare an interest. My full title is Lady Buscombe, of Goring. Therefore, the reference the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made to gantries affects me directly and is one of the reasons why I was very keen to speak to the amendment on behalf of the Government.
As the noble Lord said, we are dealing with an engineering issue that is largely based on safety. While I completely empathise with my noble friend, the number of gantries needed is based on a strict engineering and operational specification. Most of my friends and neighbours in Goring have come to terms with this now, because the reality is that if you have too much distance between each gantry there would be a slack of the line, which can be whipped up by the wind, as the noble Lord said. There would therefore be a genuine safety issue. That is something we have sought to take on board. Any variation in this specification would introduce reliability issues on the railway.
The ability to reduce the number of the gantries is therefore limited. However, the project is committed to mitigating the visual impacts of the railway through, for example, providing screen planting along parts of the railway to help obscure the overhead line equipment where it is likely to cause a significant visual effect. The phase 1 route has been developed specifically to minimise its impact on landscape and visual amenity, and, where possible, to make a positive contribution to it. This includes the decision to keep the railway as low in the landscape as is reasonably practicable. That is something we did not achieve with Network Rail through the AONB known as the Goring Gap. This is a huge step forward in mitigating the sight of the gantries. The use of earthworks and tree planting will help integrate the railway into the landscape and obscure features such as gantries. I hope what I said will reassure my noble friend such that the proposed amendment is unnecessary. I therefore hope that it will be withdrawn.
With respect to Amendment 28, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and supported by other noble Lords, I very much empathise with what she said, but I hope that I can persuade her that this amendment, too, is inappropriate, as it seeks to impose a requirement whose merits were fully examined and rejected by the Lords Select Committee. As noble Lords are aware, toward the end of last year, Natural England produced a report, referenced this evening, that reviewed the Government’s proposed metric to achieve no net loss of biodiversity. The primary recommendation of that report, which was markedly different from its previous standing advice, is that where new woodland planting is used to compensate for ancient woodland losses, 30 hectares should be planted for each hectare lost, as the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, for stealing her thunder in moving Amendment 15 and apologise for the fact that, under the conventions of the Committee, I now cannot speak about my own amendment but have to reply on Amendment 15, if I understand it correctly. I am sure that had the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, been here, he would have been disappointed at the Government’s response to the amendment on the number and style of the gantries, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, is.
I thank noble Lords who spoke in support of both amendments, and the Minister for her thoughtful response, although I look forward to the Government’s response to the Lord Select Committee’s report and hope that, in the intervening period, there may be further consideration of whether there is any scope between the 30 times and the five times compensation ratio for something as important as ancient woodland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“Traffic regulation
Schedule (Traffic regulation) contains provision relating to traffic regulation.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As noble Lords will know, traffic regulation orders, or TROs, are a mechanism for local highway authorities to make temporary or permanent restrictions on the use of highways in their area to control traffic. They can include stopping up roads, restricting roads to one-way operation or restricting roads so that they cannot be used by lorries. Such orders could frustrate the construction of the railway by, for example, putting lorry bans on a road that is needed to reach an HS2 phase 1 construction site or point. We have already seen one example of a road in London that we intend using for construction traffic being made one-way, despite our intentions being in the public domain for more than three years.
The new clause and schedule will ensure that local highway authorities consulted the Secretary of State for Transport before making any orders that affected either specific roads identified for use by HS2 or other roads related to HS2 construction works, thereby avoiding this problem. It also allows the Secretary of State, if required, to make TROs, and to prohibit or revoke TROs that unnecessarily hinder the delivery of the railway. The Secretary of State already has the ability to prohibit TROs under specific circumstances, but this power will make that process less convoluted, which is necessary to ensure we do not create unnecessary bureaucratic delays and associated costs in the delivery of the railway.
Clearly, we hope that the regular meetings taking place with local highway authorities to consult on, agree and monitor local traffic management plans will ensure that there will be no need to rely on this provision. However, given the impact such TROs could have on the overall construction and delivery of the railway, we feel that it is both prudent and necessary for such a power to be included.
While a power in relation to TROs has not been required for previous hybrid Bills, given the scale of the project and the risk of issues that could arise during construction, we believe that it would be prudent for the will of Parliament and its approval for this project to be constructed not to be thwarted by a TRO. Therefore, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for having explained the new schedule, which extends to four-and-a-half pages of quite draconian powers being asked for by the Secretary of State. It is most unfortunate for it to be introduced now, after the Bill has been through the hybrid Bill committee in both Houses, therefore denying the highway authorities the opportunity to petition against it, which I think I can say authoritatively that they would have done. I have been briefed by Camden Council, which says that it would have petitioned against the new clause, and I think the same can be said for Transport for London and various other highway authorities along the route, notably Buckinghamshire County Council.
It is most unfortunate that my noble friend should be introducing four-and-a-half pages of such a draconian new schedule but not allowing the people involved to petition against it. I would also like to know whether the Minister has actually consulted on the new schedule with any of the highway authorities that are likely to be affected by it. My understanding is that no consultation has taken place so far. I also rather wonder what the purpose is of HS2 information paper E13, which deals with the management of traffic during construction and how much of it is now being negated by the introduction of the new schedule. I hope my noble friend will consider whether it is really necessary or whether he might not just drop the whole thing and rely on the powers that the Government already have.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I have had communications from Transport for London, Camden Council and the West Midland Transport Authority, all expressing serious concerns about both the procedure being used and the practicality of what is proposed. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that the size of this project was unprecedented and therefore all these special regulations were needed to make sure you could get along the road. It is bigger than HS1, but not that much. Crossrail, going all the way through London was a pretty major project, too, and had many traffic issues. I was vaguely involved in both of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, that begs the question of why, if this legislation was thought necessary, it was not in the original Bill so that local authorities could petition.
In terms of consultation, I have a letter here from Transport for London, dated 6 January, to the Department for Transport expressing concern that it had a meeting before Christmas where the consultation consisted of bringing up this draft regulation under AOB and that was it. It states that the discussion focused on the removal of vehicles and did not cover the amendments. So there was no consultation. Camden, in particular, must be worried about lorries: the latest figure for the borough is 1,500 per day. We shall probably come to that in a later amendment. It is no good HS2 trying to ride roughshod over TfL’s Safer Lorry scheme or using bus lanes for its heavy commercial vehicles. For a bus user, why should HS2 trucks get in the way of buses? London has to continue to operate. The cycle superhighway network—which I love, of course—is apparently going to be affected. None of these organisations appears to have been consulted.
There is a way forward. All these organisations—and I am sure Bucks county council and others are the same—want to consult and find a solution. I urge the Minister to withdraw the amendment and organise some far-reaching and comprehensive consultations so that, if there has to be legislation, a new draft can be brought forward on Report. If he does not withdraw the amendment, I shall oppose it.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I share the serious concerns that have been voiced around the room this evening. The way in which this is being attempted undermines trust in the whole process. We just heard the noble Baroness go to great lengths to reassure us about the care and concern that has been taken over an issue such as ancient woodland, and we are all very pleased to hear that. However, then to hear that the lives of thousands of residents and many thousands of drivers could be seriously affected by the introduction of changes to traffic regulations that have been subject to virtually no scrutiny and are contrary to the wishes of the local councils and traffic authorities means that the whole approach is unbalanced. I urge the Minister to think again, to reach out and discuss it with the authorities concerned and give them an opportunity to put their case. Some form of compromise can probably be reached. At least they will have been properly consulted. If that is not done, it feels a bit like sharp practice. I dare say that it is the result of people thinking about the need for this rather late, but I also tend to think that it is an overreaction and probably is not needed. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, other big schemes have managed without it.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I will be extremely brief. I agree with the sentiments expressed on both sides of the Committee. My question to the Minister is: why this particular schedule, and why now? I served on the Crossrail Bill. As my noble friend said, many roads in the centre of London were affected. Any of us who have travelled between Westminster and Euston will know the years of dislocation caused by all the Crossrail work at Tottenham Court Road, yet we seem to have coped reasonably well during that time. Now, out of the blue, after a protracted parliamentary process, this draconian measure is put before us. Surely, under his existing highway powers, the Minister could act against any deliberate attempt to forestall proposed works along the route of HS2. If he goes ahead with this, I suspect there will be a further long debate on Report. I cannot forecast the future, but I suspect the Government will lose.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham
I add my voice to those who are asking the Minister to think again. Having served on the Select Committee with colleagues who are now friends, I must say that there was no hint of such a late intervention into traffic management. People should be consulted before it goes ahead.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I add my support the views expressed. Frankly, it does not look as though we will go much further with this because my noble friend Lord Berkeley has indicated that he will object to the amendment and, as I understand it, if the question is put, a single voice against an amendment causes it to be negatived in proceedings in Grand Committee. My noble friend has made his position quite clear, and I must say that I support him and so many others who have spoken, significantly including members of the Select Committee, who are clearly less than impressed by what has happened. I do not think it is misrepresenting the position to say that the Select Committee faced a number of people who were less than impressed by the way that HS2 itself had conducted some of the consultation processes and sought to address some concerns.
The question has been asked why the amendment has come late. I am sure other Members of the Committee have also received the letter of today’s date which has been sent from HS2 by Mr Roger Hargreaves to the leader of Buckinghamshire County Council. He writes: “The need for these proposed amendments arose late in the Bill process, and I am sorry that this did not leave time for the level of engagement with the local highway authorities that we would have liked … Parliamentary convention is that government amendments should be moved at the Grand Committee stage, which unfortunately left little time”. Unfortunately, if the Committee does not like what is happening and one Member chooses to object, that negatives the item. I finish by saying that I sincerely hope that the Minister will take the fairly strong hints that have been given to him during this debate and agree to withdraw the amendment, hold the consultations that have been referred to—which, as I understand it, is what people are really seeking—and come back with it on Report or at Third Reading.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I have always been very respectful of views that are expressed in your Lordships’ House, and today is no different. The Government have outlined their position, which I articulated in my opening remarks, on their concerns about project delivery being held up unnecessarily by a TRO. However, I have listened very carefully to the views of my noble friend who served on the Select Committee in particular, and to those of other noble Lords, and without prolonging debate on this point, I will reflect on the comments that have been made. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Brexit: Economic Impact on North-East England
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact on the economy of north-east England of the outcomes they are seeking from the negotiations on the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
The Government are carrying out a range of analyses which will help to inform our negotiating strategy and have provided a guarantee for all European structural and investment fund projects signed before the Autumn Statement. We have also guaranteed all European structural projects signed after the Autumn Statement and before the UK’s departure from the European Union, provided that they pass the value for money test and are in line with domestic strategic priorities.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detailed information in her reply. The north-east of England has consistently had the most positive trade balance of any region of the United Kingdom, but 58% of its exports are to European Union countries. If the Prime Minister is no longer even trying to secure the fullest possible participation in the single market, what does the Minister think will be the effect of post-Brexit tariff and other barriers on exporting industries, which they will face long before any new deals with non-EU countries can be reached? Who is speaking up on our behalf in the Government?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, we want the deal we strike to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade, as the noble Lord has highlighted, and to operate across the single market. We are going to make the most of the opportunities that our departure presents, getting out into the world and doing business right across the globe, while at home, including in the north-east, building a Britain that works for everyone.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her new responsibilities and I look forward to a number of engagements across the Dispatch Box. Let me begin with a straightforward question. Was the Government’s approach to Nissan and the assurances given to that company the only shaft of light for the north-east at present in terms of Government policy? Was it just a spasm on the Government’s part or do they have a policy for the car industry and manufacturing generally—in fact, for the economy of the north-east? The region has so much to lose because of its commitments to exports to Europe unless the Government get some of these issues right.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As noble Lords will know, I am a glass half full person and I think that the arrangements for Nissan and the automotive sector were a very good day for the north-east. The answer is that our door is always open to talk to the sector to give it the long-term assurances and strategy it wants, and that is what we have said.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Has my noble friend noted the courageous and insightful speech apparently given today by the current leader of the Labour Party in which he has said that Britain can be better off outside the EU? But we do not have to take his word for it because we can ask the heads of Nissan, Toyota, Honda and Ford, all of whom since the referendum have recommitted themselves to this country. Indeed, one can add Apple, Google and Facebook to that list. Were not the people of the north-east absolutely right and can they not be congratulated on voting to clear us out of the sadly failing internal market of the European Union?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I would add Snapchat to my noble friend’s list. The British people are clear that Brexit means Brexit and we on this side are determined to make a success of it. The list that my noble friend has shared with us shows the positive news that we have had since that surprising day, 24 June.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there are very different economies in the different regions of this country? The economy of the north-east is fundamentally different from that of the south-east and London. There are also social challenges that are not found elsewhere in the country. Does she recognise that many people in the north-east feel that the divisions in this country now are as bad as they were in the 1980s and the early 1990s when we lost our industrial base of shipbuilding, coal mining and steel making? What are the Government going to do to address properly the differences in our country, given that they have got rid of regional policy? They have to be addressed, otherwise the people that she has been lauding will feel very betrayed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I recognise the special strengths and differences of the north-east, and I am glad we have this debate about them because I believe in the strengths of Newcastle, Teesside, Northumberland, and so on. The sort of investment we have made in the north-east recently shows how determined we are to try to help. The local growth fund awards have been significant. There is the further £556 million for northern local enterprise partnerships in the Autumn Statement, on top of the existing north-east funding. We are creating enterprise zones; I really welcome those in Teesside and in Newcastle. We are investing in transport, because you cannot improve an area of the country without improving that. Changes to the A1 and so on are absolutely crucial. We need to get on with those and to improve skills in the area. We are doing all that, and I am as determined as the noble Baroness.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to a number of organisations which are relocating to the United Kingdom. How many of those are relocating to London, and how many are relocating elsewhere in the United Kingdom? I draw her attention to the fact that figures produced by her department in the past year show that one-third of all new jobs created by foreign direct investment went to London.
The Minister said in her initial answer that her department is undertaking a range of analyses about the implications of Brexit. Will she consider creating Brexit resilience committees for each of the nations and regions of the UK, so we have real information rather than a London-based analysis?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am surprised that the noble Lord talks about a London focus because I think this Government have actually changed. We have had the northern powerhouse document, which I hope he has read, which we published at the time of the Autumn Statement. We are undertaking an industrial strategy which I look forward to discussing in this House. The importance of place will come through strongly in that strategy. I note the other points that he has made.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend consider looking at a proposal from the North East Chamber of Commerce to create a free trade zone in the north-east to build on the continuing success of the north-east economy?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am glad to hear from my noble friend, who introduced me to some of the joys of the industry of the north-east. I have indeed seen the North East Chamber of Commerce’s manifesto, which makes very interesting reading. In terms of the future on trade and on Brexit, we are carrying out a range of analysis to inform our negotiating strategy, and I shall certainly bear in mind the points that he made. But I think that you need to look at the United Kingdom as a whole.
Social Enterprise
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, this Government have a long history of supporting social enterprises as part of building an economy that works for everyone. Social Enterprise UK estimates that there are 70,000 social enterprises in the UK, contributing £24 billion, gross value added, and employing nearly 1 million people. Just under one-third of social enterprises work in the most deprived communities in the country, and 59% employ at least one person who is disadvantaged in the labour market. We are currently refreshing our own government estimates of the nature and size of the social enterprise market in the UK, and we will publish our research early in 2017.
Lord Bird (CB)
Thank you, my Lord. I was very pleased to hear in the speech yesterday by the Prime Minister on the sharing society that she mentioned social enterprise on 10 occasions—so it looks as though we are in for a bean feast in the future of social enterprise. Unfortunately, the whole system is moving rather slowly. If you carry on at this rate, somewhere towards the end of this century we might be able to have a social enterprise industry that actually gets to the parts of society that big business cannot get to. Is it possible maybe to imitate the Scottish Government’s idea of having a 10-year strategy to look at ways in which to do social enterprise in every conceivable way? I myself look forward to the day when they can offer me a prison, because I would love to run one and I would do it better than Group 4.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Well, I know that the noble Lord has experience, and I would be interested to see him one day when he is doing that. As for social enterprise, we are strengthening it—and we are doing a lot to do that, including the Chancellor, who has increased the social investment tax allowance. I do not think that you can say that it is moving slowly when 1 million people work for social enterprises.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Do the Government have any plans to try to support social enterprise to employ ex-prisoners? This is an area where they fall down in terms of job opportunities. Is this not a unique opportunity? Should not the Government give financial support to setting up such enterprises?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That is a very good idea. The whole point of social enterprises and mission-led businesses, which are not quite the same thing, is to have a particular social purpose such as that one. I agree with the noble Lord that that would be an excellent thing. The Government are trying to enable more private, local authority and charity investment by setting up things such as incubators to do exactly the sorts of things that the noble Lord has suggested.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Does the industrial strategy referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, include a section on social enterprise?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I have not seen the White Paper or the Green Paper. I am sorry, but I cannot answer that at the moment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
When the Minister made his first response, I think he was quoting from Social Enterprise: Market Trends, a publication from BEIS on issues relating to social enterprise. He dwelt on all the good news, but I draw his attention to the bad news, which is that social enterprises,
“continue to struggle with accessing the finance they need”,
relative to SMEs and other businesses. It says that,
“Forty-nine per cent had difficulty … obtaining finance from the first source they approached”,
and that, overall,
“Thirty-one per cent of social enterprises got none of the finance they required”.
What is he going to do about that?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
In order to increase the flows of capital to social enterprise in the United Kingdom we are strengthening the infrastructure of the market; for example, by setting up organisations such as Access that bridge the gap between social enterprises and social investors. We are working to open up social investment products to individuals by setting up an advisory group made up of senior representatives of the investment industry.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister consider extending the scope of the social value Act so that social enterprises could bid more successfully for public sector contracts in goods, as well as for services?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Of course the noble Lord is correct to mention the social value Act. We are undertaking measures to improve that—for example, social value awards, implementation and measurement projects, and a cross-Whitehall paper to demonstrate our commitment to that Act. A panel of external social value experts is providing constructive challenge on the findings and I can tell the noble Lord that final drafting is under way and will be out soon.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, is this panoply of measures we have heard the Minister speak about within the ambit of shared responsibility, is it social enterprise or is it shared enterprise? Which one of the many things we have had given to us by the Government is it supposed to be?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not quite sure that I get the drift of that question.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think the best thing to do is to read the Prime Minister’s speech to the Charity Commission yesterday.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it may be that the Minister is not able to answer this question this afternoon, but it would be very useful for your Lordships’ House to have an update on what has happened to the substantial pool of unclaimed assets which originally assisted social enterprise but which now seems to have been put on the back burner.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Yes, I will have to write to the noble Lord on that because I cannot give him a detailed answer today.
Syria: Refugees
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking to help resolve the refugee crisis in Syria.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has pledged more than £2.3 billion to help millions of people affected by the Syria crisis. This includes more than £1.1 billion to support refugees in the region by addressing their humanitarian needs. The only way to resolve the refugee crisis is a political settlement that ends the conflict and enables refugees to return voluntarily.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that Britain has a responsibility to lead in the resolution of this crisis in Syria? If so, why has Britain, with GDP per capita of more than $40,000, only received fewer than 4,000 refugees since March 2014 while it is content for Lebanon, with less than half our GDP, to accept 1.6 million refugees? With civilian bombing still continuing, does the Minister think we could send more humanitarian aid at this time to Syria?
Lord Bates
Let me say first that I absolutely agree that the United Kingdom should lead by example, and that is exactly what it is doing. It is the second largest donor in cash terms to the region, with £1.83 billion having been given there, helping more than 2 million people. We have given a pledge that we want to bring 20,000 people from Syria to the UK over the lifetime of this Parliament, and we are doing that. At the same time we hosted the London Syria conference in February last year, which was the biggest fundraiser that has happened for Syria and the needs there, raising more than $12 billion. So I believe that on all those counts, including our activity at the UN Security Council, we are taking the leadership that the people of this country expect us to take.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister reassess the arbitrary distinction that is made between those fleeing ISIS in northern Syria and those fleeing the same genocide in northern Iraq, who are excluded from the vulnerable persons scheme? Can he explain why, in a Written Answer given yesterday, the Government said that the affiliation of those resettled under the scheme is,
“monitored but not routinely reported”?
Would it not help the House, and help us all, to understand whether proper priority is being given to victims of genocide if such reporting were to take place?
Lord Bates
We certainly agree that there ought to be wider access from the region. That was of course exactly the outcome which came from the Immigration Act which we passed, and we have set up a scheme to broaden it to the Middle East and north Africa and to bring more children from there. People fleeing genocide are in fear and in need of protection: that is the definition by which they qualify for protection under international humanitarian law and, with the UNHCR, that is what we are working to deliver.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, given the ongoing Syrian crisis, will the Government reconsider their decision not to grant refugee status to resettled Syrian refugees so that they can enjoy the full rights and security of refugee status?
Lord Bates
We give them humanitarian protection, which is broadly the same thing. I know what the noble Baroness will say, but what we have is people in acute need and we want to get them here as quickly as possible. Humanitarian protection is the vehicle by which we can do so. If we first have to go all the way through the route of establishing refugee status for a lot of people who have no identification papers, it means they are at risk for longer. That is why we have chosen to take that particular route, to ensure that we can get people here and give them the help they need as quickly as possible.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, do the Government recognise the regrettable fact that there is no way in which the EU, with or without the UK, can absorb permanently the total number of people who have already arrived as refugees and would-be immigrants, and that the answer must be what two senior members of Mrs Merkel’s cabinet are now exploring? That is to have somewhere else outside Europe—they suggested north Africa—where people can go to be assessed, processed, helped and cherished as far as possible, to resolve the problem. The costs which would be imposed would otherwise be politically wholly unacceptable to the electorates of the countries inside Europe.
Lord Bates
As my noble friend will be aware, this was looked at and examined, but it would require a level of international agreement in this sphere which has simply eluded us in the core area of trying to reach a solution in Syria. We remain absolutely of the opinion that the best way to deal with movement and migration is to get a political settlement. That is why we are hopeful and supportive of the UN Security Council resolution which brought about the current ceasefire, but we believe it needs to work beyond that to provide a lasting peace under the Geneva communiqué.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the most important thing which the Minister has referred to is the host countries in the region and their sustainability under the weight of such numbers of refugees. Can he reassure the House that the Government will commit further support and aid to those economies, as well as to the refugees, which are under such pressure through the violence that has been occurring in Syria? Unfortunately, international development has a bad press at the moment, but this is such a strong case and we should support it.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and £1.1 billion of the money which I mentioned has gone to areas in the region—most notably, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. That money is being focused on economic development, by helping people to find work, and on schools, by helping children who are currently out of school to get into it so that their learning does not suffer. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we should focus on that.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Sheehan
My Lords, may I ask the Minister for an assurance that, should the Kazakh peace negotiations take place, the Government will do their utmost to make sure that Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons are fully considered? While I am on my feet, can I ask him whether he could outline what role the Government hope to be able to play in the peace negotiations?
Lord Bates
We hope to play an active role through the International Syria Support Group, which has the two strands of humanitarian aid and conflict resolution. That meets weekly in Geneva and we are still playing a part in it. We wish the negotiations all success and will of course support them in every way we can.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, would it not make more sense if we and the other western European nations offered to take as many as could come here of the Christian refugees from these troubled areas, leaving it to the Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, which are immensely wealthy and have immense amounts of space, to take their fellow Muslims?
Lord Bates
My Lords, we have said that we recognised that Christians and other minorities face a level of persecution in the region. In fact, my noble friend will be pleased to note that there was a commitment to protect Christians, particularly in the Middle East, in the 2015 Conservative manifesto. We are very mindful of that commitment; of course, anyone who is persecuted, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is eligible for international protection—the type of protection that this Government have been offering.
Southern Rail
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they have taken to deal with strikes affecting services by Southern Rail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, although the current dispute is a matter for the unions and the train operator to resolve, the Secretary of State has been doing everything he can to try to resolve the dispute and limit the impact of the strikes on passengers. Additional measures have been put in place to help people get to work and there is still a huge amount of work taking place behind the scenes to try to get this long-standing dispute resolved for the benefit of all passengers.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, there is chaos on our railways. It is estimated that the Southern dispute alone has cost the Government £65 million and counting, with huge costs, of course, to the economy as a whole. But it is the passengers who are taking the real pain on this, with their daily struggle to get to work. Does the Minister accept that this simply cannot be allowed to go on, and that things are now so bad that it would be very difficult indeed to restore trust between Southern and its workforce? Does he therefore agree that Southern should be relieved of its franchise—which, I suggest, should be passed to Transport for London, which has a very good, proven track record?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure that the noble Baroness can read something into the reaction of your Lordships’ House on that final comment. Let us put the dispute into context. There is no basis left for the dispute. In the case of the conductors who have become train supervisors, 222 of the 223 have signed new contracts. The one remaining one is leaving—so that is 100% compliance. As far as the drivers are concerned, they are worried—rightly, as we all are—about safety on the railways. The Office of Rail and Road—the independent office—has adjudicated that driver-only-operated trains are safe in the context of the Southern network. It put out a report on 5 January. I ask the unions—as the Secretary of State has done, not on one occasion but twice—to come and meet him and call off the dispute. Let us resolve this dispute; it has gone on far too long.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, while the general rule is that Governments should not intervene in industrial negotiations, would the Transport Minister care to research what was done to resolve the impasse that my Minister, Barbara Castle, faced in 1967, when the investment of her predecessor, Ernest Marples, in liner trains was lying idle because of the fears of the NUR about operating them? Mrs Castle went to the NUR’s headquarters without any officials, prepared to talk to the union until the matter was resolved, however long it took. Three full days later, agreement was reached. Will the Minister consider this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
While lessons of history in your Lordships’ House are always valued—I particularly value them—the situation with the railways was markedly different at that time. Here, as I have said before, the dispute is between the train operator and the unions. However, the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister—indeed, the whole Government—have ensured that they are doing all they can in terms of helping passengers and compensation. As I said—I have contextualised the dispute now—there is no basis for this dispute to continue. The Secretary of State has asked both unions to come in and meet him and call this dispute off. It is about time that they complied.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear that, as a result of poor performance and days of industrial action, passengers, staff and—because of the nature of the franchise contract—the taxpayer are incurring financial costs. What is not clear, in the light of the nature of the franchise contract in which the operator is paid for running the service but does not retain the fare income, is what financial penalties have been incurred by Govia, the train operator of Southern, as a result of poor performance over a lengthy period of time and days of industrial action. What financial penalties have so far been incurred by the train operator Govia as a result of, first, poor performance and, secondly, days of industrial action? If no financial penalties have been incurred by the operator, what is the incentive, first, for the train operator to address issues of poor performance and, secondly, to resolve the current industrial relations issues if neither matter is affecting it financially?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Lord is acutely aware, he is quite right that train operators are paid a fee, with the remaining revenue coming to the Government. But the basis of the dispute, which is what we are focused on today, is very much a matter for the train operator. I note that the noble Lord refrained from commenting on the two pertinent issues that I outlined. As far as the issue of the company itself is concerned, as I said, the Government have stood behind it in ensuring that it can provide compensation when necessary. We have called upon and implored both the franchisee and the unions to come together to resolve this dispute.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, did I hear the Minister correctly? Did he say that the vast majority of drivers have already signed up to the new contract to operate the doors?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I was referring to the conductors. There are no job losses. The conductors have now signed new contracts to become train supervisors. Yes, my noble friend heard correctly: all but one have signed up, and that one is leaving. As far as the drivers are concerned, the dispute with the drivers’ union is based on the safety of driver-only-operated trains, and the independent regulator has said that in the context of the Southern franchise they are safe to run. Some 50% of trains, including those on London Underground, are driver-only-operated trains. Trains of a driver-only-operated nature run in Canada and elsewhere in Europe. We are not alone in this. The basis of the dispute is therefore undermined; there is no basis to it. The unions need to get their people back to work and help to resolve this. The noble Lord opposite raised long-standing issues. The Government are also addressing those. As he may have followed in the press recently, there is also going to be £300 million focused on the Southern rail franchise to address the long-standing problems on the track and the issues around Network Rail.
Clerk of the Parliaments
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I wish all noble Lords a very happy new year. We have a busy one ahead.
I informed the House on 1 November of David Beamish’s intention to retire from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 15 April 2017. The recruitment process for David’s successor as Clerk of the Parliaments, as well as any vacancies arising consequentially in the posts of Clerk Assistant and Reading Clerk, has now concluded.
There were six applicants, all of whom were interviewed by a board consisting of myself, the Lord Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and Dame Janet Paraskeva, a former First Civil Service Commissioner. The unanimous recommendation of the board is that Ed Ollard should succeed David Beamish as Clerk of the Parliaments. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in congratulating Ed on his appointment. We will have an opportunity to pay tribute to David Beamish’s career in the House nearer the point of his retirement. In the meantime, on behalf of all noble Lords, I congratulate him on being made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in the recent New Year Honours.
With Ed’s appointment, the post of Clerk Assistant will fall vacant. The board unanimously recommended that Simon Burton should succeed Ed as Clerk Assistant. Simon’s appointment also means that the post of Reading Clerk will fall vacant—we had a busy day. The board unanimously recommended that Jake Vaughan should succeed Simon as Reading Clerk. The Lord Speaker will move Motions to appoint both Simon and Jake to those posts at the appropriate time.
Technical and Further Education Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 January 2017 - (9 Jan 2017)
Wales Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 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 77-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF, 176KB) - (6 Jan 2017)
18:21 - Division on Amendment 81 - Ayes: 90 / Noes: 223 - Amendment 81 disagreed.
Amendment 90 disagreed. - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 0 -
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Bourne, I propose that the House do adjourn for five minutes during pleasure.
“Lending for capital expenditure
In section 122A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (lending for capital expenditure), in subsections (1) and (3), for “£500 million” substitute “£1,000 million”.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise humbly and unreservedly to the whole House for not being here when the business was called.
In moving government Amendments 72A and 143B, I remind the House that I wrote to noble Lords before Christmas to set out the details of the United Kingdom Government’s and Welsh Government’s agreement of a historic new fiscal framework which sets out how the Welsh Government will be funded alongside further tax devolution. This agreement ensures that the Welsh Government have a fair level of relative funding in the long term which is fair to both Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. This is the view of the United Kingdom Government and it is also the view of the Welsh Government, whose Finance Secretary, Mark Drakeford, has said that he regards this agreement as ensuring,
“fair funding for Wales for the long term by implementing the funding floor recommended by the Holtham Commission”.
This agreement also sets out that the Welsh Government’s overall capital borrowing limit will be increased to £1 billion, thereby doubling the existing limit as set out in the Wales Act 2014. This increase is in line with the commitment made by the Government during the passage of the Wales Act 2014 that we would increase the capital borrowing if the Welsh Government took on income tax powers.
The fiscal framework agreement sets out that Welsh rates of income tax will be devolved in 2019, and so government Amendments 72A and 143B seek to put this agreed increase into statute and provide for its commencement two months after Royal Assent, alongside the provisions in Clause 17 that provide for the removal of an income tax referendum. Alongside the statutory increase to the overall capital borrowing limit, the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework also sets out that the non-statutory annual capital borrowing limit will be increased to £150 million a year from 2019-20, which is equivalent to 15% of the overall cap. This limit aligns with that agreed in Scotland as part of the Scottish Government’s fiscal framework. As is also the case in Scotland, there remain no restrictions on how the Welsh Government can use their borrowing powers to deliver their devolved responsibilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have, through their Amendments 73 and 144, which were tabled before the two Governments had made this historic announcement, sought to increase the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing limit to £2 billion. I look forward to hearing the arguments that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have in support of their amendments shortly.
Amendment 143A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Kinnock and Lord Murphy, seeks to make the majority of this Bill conditional on the Secretary of State providing an assessment of the impact of the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework and the effect this will have on differential tax receipts in Wales. Ahead of hearing what the noble Lords have to say, I would point out that as part of the Wales Act 2014 there is already a requirement on the Government to provide an annual report to both Houses on the implementation and operation of the finance elements of that Act. The Government have published two such reports already, the most recent just before Christmas, and the fiscal framework agreement restates this commitment to these reporting arrangements. The next report is expected to be published in December of this year, which I expect to be before the reserved-powers model is brought into force.
In the light of the amendments that have been put forward, I have ensured that as far as the Wales Office is concerned we will seek to provide the information that is being sought here. I remind noble Lords that there is a requirement that Government Ministers in Wales also report on this separately. That would be part of that annual report. We have sought to provide an agreement that is fair for Wales and for the rest of the United Kingdom, as I indicated, so I hope that noble Lords are reassured by what I am saying. I will of course await the contributions that are to be made.
I turn briefly to Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. In advance of his comments, let me indicate that the Government’s thinking is that it is important to have a standard approach throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—across the whole of the United Kingdom. As things stand, because contributions from the private sector in Wales are limited to larger employers, they are smaller than those from the rest of the country, so Wales is a net beneficiary of the way this is organised.
I turn briefly to the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Rowe-Beddoe and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Finlay, on air passenger duty, which we also considered in Committee. The Government’s view remains that there can be no separate powers as things stand in relation to the devolved arrangements for Cardiff Airport. Obviously, I wait to hear what the noble Lords will say on that issue. In due course I will also formally move government Amendments 72A and 143B. I await contributions from the noble Lords on the other issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I wish the Minister a happy new year. It is extremely good news that the Welsh Government were able to come to an agreement with the UK Government on the impact of partial income tax devolution to Wales and the other taxes due to be devolved as a result of the Wales Act 2014. We were all aware that there was no chance that this Bill could be passed if there were no agreement.
As financing of the Assembly is central to this Bill, it is worth pausing on the matter for a while, as it is crucial to the deliverability and provision of services in Wales. I turn first to the effective change in the method of financing Wales as a result of partial income tax devolution. It has long been argued that due to its relative degree of poverty, Wales has been short-changed over a relatively long period, in particular when compared to Scotland, on the basis of the Barnett formula. In this new deal Wales will have access to around £2.5 billion in new tax revenues from the people of Wales. The Treasury will of course be anxious to cut the Welsh block grant to an equivalent amount.
If income tax receipts were to stay constant in both Wales and the UK over the long term, this would not be a problem. However, the fact is that in future years this block grant adjustment will go up or down depending on what happens to revenues in the rest of the UK. Unless Welsh taxes are to grow as quickly as England’s, we could be in trouble in future years. I am afraid that the chances of this happening are quite remote, not because Wales is incapable of raising its game but because it starts off with much lower incomes and does not have the tools to change the situation if the UK Government implement certain policy decisions which may make sense in England but do not make sense in Wales. Fiscal responsibility on the whole remains at the UK level.
To take as an example the UK Government’s policy of increasing the level at which taxpayers start to pay income tax—the personal allowance—this is great news for people on low incomes. But, because proportionately more Welsh taxpayers than English taxpayers are taken out of paying tax altogether, less tax will be collected in Wales to pay for our schools and hospitals, and Wales will have no control whatever over this decision. To be fair to the Treasury, and to its credit, it has recognised this and has agreed to make separate block grant adjustments for each of the three bands of income—so that was a good win for Wales.
I will heap even more praise on the Treasury—which I assure noble Lords does not occur often. It has been agreed that the Barnett floor will be made permanent, which means that Wales should not lose out under this deal either now or in the future. In the past, the system has worked because, ironically, the more public funding is spent in England, the worse off Wales becomes in terms of expenditure relative to England. This led Gerry Holtham to claim in his report that Wales was being short-changed to the tune of around £300 million a year.
However, the fact is that in recent years we have had an extended period of austerity. Wales has also had relatively slower population growth, which means that for every £100 per head spent in England, the Welsh Government now receive approximately £120 per head—higher than Holtham’s suggestion that Wales needs around £115 per head to respond to the needs of the Welsh people. Of course, we are not dancing in the streets in Wales, because this really reflects a reduction in the role of the state—a principle to which we are opposed, not just in Wales but across the UK. We will start believing Theresa May’s rhetoric on the shared society when she stops shrinking the state and starts expanding it. That is worth noting. We are also aware that this situation is likely to change at some point in the future, and we need to focus on this issue.
In accepting that the Barnett floor will be made permanent, Wales will always be assured of 115% funding for its devolved public services. This is extremely welcome news, and I hope that it will go some way towards alleviating the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hain and others expressed in Committee. The slight concern I had in relation to the impact of population change, over which of course the Welsh Government have little say, has been addressed by the Barnett bonus that has been agreed to, which is a 105% multiplier to any Barnett consequentials from 2018.
On the amendments which relate to borrowing powers—my Amendment 73 and government Amendment 73A—we made it clear at Second Reading and in Committee that one of the key requirements, if there should be a partial income tax devolution to Wales, was that there should also be an increase in the amount the Welsh Government are allowed to borrow. We, along with the Welsh Government, are intensely aware of the restrictions that austerity, along with the potential serious loss of European funding, will put on our ability to invest in infrastructure in particular. We are aware that, despite having the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of the UK for the first time ever, low productivity rates are a real curse on the Welsh economy, and that infrastructure investment would go a long way towards improving the situation and increasing the GVA of Wales.
In our amendment we request that the amount allowed to be borrowed should be £2 billion. This is based on the Holtham recommendations, which take into account the fact that Wales has borrowed very little under the PFI initiative compared with other parts of the UK. The amount offered by the Treasury is £1 billion. This is £500 million more than the current amount but £1 billion less than we had hoped.
I have spoken to the Finance Minister in the Assembly and he suggested that, in the current circumstances, as we have to use revenue from the Welsh budget to support any capital borrowing, the amount we can borrow is limited because we would have to divert money from the regular running costs of the NHS, education et cetera to support that borrowing. This underlines how flawed and self-defeating the policy of austerity being pursued by this Government is.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness in addressing these questions. First, let me say how glad I was to see the Minister arriving in the Chamber. I was fearful that we might be losing all the last few months’ work if we stumbled at this last stage.
Before I address the amendment in my name, I would like to comment that everyone must be glad that progress is being made on the fiscal framework and that there has been some agreement, but only time will tell whether that agreement is adequate. One problem is that, over the past 17 or 18 years since the establishment of the National Assembly, there has been a shortfall of more than £5 billion due to the effect of the Barnett formula on the Assembly’s funding, and therefore we are starting from a position where we will have to work very hard indeed to make up that loss. Clearly, the formula now forthcoming may or may not work in the future, but it does nothing to recoup that loss. Also, a central question in relation to the capital programme, which I will talk about in a moment, is the availability of a revenue stream to fund the interest on capital borrowing, and I suspect that that has not been adequately dealt with within the framework.
Amendment 73, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, seeks to raise the Welsh Government’s capital expenditure limits to £2 billion, in line with other devolved settlements. The arguments on this issue are well rehearsed. We know that, as in many other areas, the UK Government have failed to honour the wording of the Silk commission and have given Wales a settlement that is less than adequate when compared with those of the other devolved nations. Therefore, perhaps I may once again outline precisely what we seek in these amendments.
The independent Silk commission, on which the Minister sat, agreed that the Welsh Government should have borrowing powers comparable to those of their Scottish counterparts. As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, taking into account considerations relating to PFI, this would take us to around £2 billion. As noble Lords will know, the recently agreed fiscal framework, which sits alongside the Bill, is seen by some as making progress on this issue, but under the framework £1 billion will be the Welsh Government’s capital expenditure upper limit. The lead amendment in this group—government Amendment 72A—incorporates this figure into the Bill. However, it is difficult to see how that represents anything like adequate progress. The Welsh Government will be short-changed by £1 billion compared with what they should have, and Plaid Cymru Members, both in another place and in the Assembly—regard this as totally unacceptable.
Although the parsimony of the UK Government on this matter is staggering, I am afraid that some of the blame must be laid at the door of the Government of Wales. If the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, who spoke to the amendment, really believes in what it says—that the limit should be £2 billion—why did her Labour colleagues in the Assembly settle on the figure in the fiscal framework? Surely we should be fighting for £2 billion from the Assembly end as well.
That said, I shall conclude my remarks on this amendment by highlighting some rather remarkable comments made by the Minister on Report. He urged us not to push an identical amendment to a vote on the basis that,
“we do not want to constrain the figure in case the discussions lead to it going higher than that”.—[Official Report, 7/11/16; col. 927.]
Was the Minister deliberately leading us down the garden path, or had he himself been led down that path by Treasury officials promising to write cheques which they knew they would never cash? Perhaps he knew that a higher figure was never going to be delivered as part of the fiscal framework—a carrot that in his heart he knew could not be delivered. If that was the case, it was somewhat reprehensible, although I might say out of character. If he himself had been misled into believing that the money was there, he has surely been put into a totally impossible position. Some explanation is needed and some Treasury heads should roll. However, if he was indeed right that such money was available but the Welsh Government made an inadequate case to secure it, then Wales needs to know. Whichever it was, it seems that Wales will not get the resources it needs to stimulate investment-led economic growth and, compared with Scotland, it is getting second-class treatment.
I now turn to Amendment 74, which stands in my name and concerns the apprenticeship levy. The amendment relates to the devolution of the funds generated through the apprenticeship levy and the way in which it will be implemented. It seeks complete transparency surrounding the levy and how it is rolled out in Wales by making separate provision for the levy in Wales in consultation with the Assembly. We debated this issue in Committee and, although I got the impression that the Minister recognised that there were some problems, particularly in cross-border circumstances, he does not appear to have brought forward any proposals to tackle the issue. The amendment seeks greater clarity regarding the implementation of the levy in Wales and how the Government intend to work with the Assembly to ensure that this tax, which straddles not only national boundaries, but also both devolved and non-devolved areas of policy, works in practice. Greater clarity is essential so that the levy works effectively in both countries to provide high-quality, effective apprenticeships.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for his letter, which he sent to all noble Lords on 14 November, attempting to shed some light on the Treasury’s intentions. This confirmed that the agreement would,
“provide the devolved Administrations with a population share of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest apprenticeship levy forecast”,
meaning that the Welsh Government will receive £128 million in 2017-18, £133 million in 2018-19 and £138 million in 2019-20.
“Beyond 2019-20, once the levy is embedded, the normal operation of the Barnett Formula should provide a similar outcome”.
It went on to say that the Welsh Government would then,
“decide how to allocate this funding to their devolved responsibilities”.
I thank the noble Lord for this note confirming the Treasury’s intentions, although this has left it rather late for the Assembly to consult widely and to formulate an apprenticeship policy in tandem with the commencement of the charges being imposed on organisations when it comes into force in April.
However, in the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when questioned regarding the Barnettisation of the levy to Wales, conceded that he was,
“not sure that Barnett would present the right answer”.—[Official Report, 7/11/16; col. 904.]
If the intention of the levy is for companies to be able to “get out” what they “put in”, then this should have been communicated from the start. Now we are left in a position where organisations in Wales are waiting for the Welsh Government to play catch-up and announce how they intend to allocate their revenue in a race against time before April. Due to this lack of communication, several organisations in Wales which will be eligible to pay the levy are still in doubt as to whether or how they will benefit from the levy. There is a danger that some organisations may wish to relocate their training operations over the border to England, where they may have greater certainty and where they will be more certain of securing direct benefit from the levy that they pay.
I acknowledge that some of the blame lies at the other end of the M4, with Ministers in the Welsh Government dragging their feet as to how they intend to use the funds. In a letter to the Assembly’s chair of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee in November 2016, the Welsh Retail Consortium expressed concern that,
“Levy-payers in Wales will not have any opportunity to see a direct return from their contribution to the Apprenticeship Levy”.
The consortium contrasts the situation in Wales with that in Scotland, where the Scottish Government have consulted extensively with stakeholders, whereas the Welsh Government have given very few assurances. It is clear that the UK Government are introducing legislation that has been England-centric in its planning and implementation and as the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, eloquently put it during the last debate,
“This levy has added confusion and uncertainty, and sadly is a terrible example of a non-consultation with devolved Administrations on issues that are fundamental to such Administrations”.—[Official Report, 7/11/16; col. 903.]
I hope that our experience with this levy will serve as a salutary lesson about the need to formulate clear and distinct devolution, where it is transparently clear as to where responsibility lies and not to be fudged, as in this instance. This half-devolved, half-reserved policy is an example of how the UK Government should not conduct their business in future.
Finally, I turn briefly to Amendment 80 on air passenger duty. I support Amendment 80, which is tabled in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—I am not sure whether she will be moving it—the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, who as I understand is indisposed and unable to take part in this debate which is so close to his heart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who I am glad is here with me to support it. On the third day in Committee, we had a vigorous debate on this issue, in which an amendment previously tabled by my party colleagues in the other place was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe. I am glad to see that he has put his name to this slightly narrower amendment. I say narrower because, whereas the previously tabled amendment on APD sought to devolve the whole tax, this amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, stated, would devolve powers over air passenger duty only for long-haul flights. Although I would like to see power over the whole tax devolved, as is the case in Scotland, I can appreciate that this narrower form of devolution for APD was the recommendation of the Silk commission.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 143A standing in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Kinnock and Lord Murphy of Torfaen. The amendment expresses concern about, and seeks an impact assessment on, the problem of differential tax receipts. Over the past few years, as the Minister will know, tax receipts in the UK have increased at a rate three times that of those in Wales. A gulf is opening up and Wales needs to be protected.
After the concerns on these and other matters that I and fellow Labour Peers have repeatedly expressed about the dangers to Wales of being short-changed by the devolution of income tax, I nevertheless congratulate the Secretary of State and the First Minister of Wales on reaching agreement on a new fiscal framework. It seems that they may have found a pragmatic path forward, one which both rejects the status quo and assures Wales of fairer funding for the future—though perhaps not quite as far over the horizon as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, claimed when he announced the agreement. The new framework prolongs the life of the 115% funding floor for Wales, guaranteed in 2015 for the current Parliament. It accepts the assessment of Welsh needs relative to England made by the Holtham commission, while deftly sidestepping Holtham’s recommendation to adopt an entirely new formula for linking funding to relative needs across all parts of the UK. Instead, it embraces our old friend the Barnett formula, and thereby delivers the latest instalment in a long success story. By injecting a new needs-based factor into the Barnett formula and setting a welcome floor under the Welsh budget, the new fiscal framework goes a long way to protecting Welsh needs. I welcome that and I welcome the Minister’s role in it.
The Holtham Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales found the unvarnished Barnett formula distinctly unfit as a means for matching the funding allocated to Wales with Welsh relative needs. It judged it to be unsustainable over the medium term, but it also acknowledged that Barnett, with its modifications, gets the job done, as it is done again in this new fiscal framework. In his covering letter announcing the agreed fiscal framework on 19 December 2016—and we were grateful for notification of that—the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, claimed that the agreement,
“provides Wales with a fair level of devolved funding for the long term”.
Only time will tell whether that ambitious claim proves true. If by “the long term” the Minister means the 40-plus years that the Barnett formula in its various manifestations will have lasted by the time this new fiscal framework comes up for its first review, that will mean that the annual block grant to Wales in the 2020s will be derived from what it was at the end of the 1970s. I wonder how many Members of this House feel comfortable at such a prospect—basing budgets on spending patterns set 40 years ago, albeit with some adjustments along the way.
Let us hope that the Barnett formula, with this new 115% Welsh floor, does not set in stone the definition of Welsh needs regardless of how things change in the years that lie ahead. For example, we welcome the many new residents settling in Wales from parts of England, but they tend to be of a certain age and will create increased burdens for Welsh social care and the health service in the future. Let us hope that the Barnett formula, therefore, does not set this situation in stone.
For all its positive features, the new framework has its limitations. I will mention four. First, I acknowledge that it does respond to the call that I made seven weeks ago, when this House last debated these issues, for clarification about how any funding floor would interact with income tax devolution and block grant adjustments. While it lasts, the 115% funding floor limits the damage that the differential growth in tax receipts that we have seen between Wales and England can do to the Welsh budget. That is a bit like having third-party fire and theft insurance; it is valuable but falls short of comprehensive cover and is subject to change on renewal in the 2020s. The claim in paragraph 32 that the framework applies the same population figures to both tax and spending in calculating changes to the Welsh block grant does not persuade me that the ongoing threat from differential tax growth after the transitional period has been met.
I was also troubled and not a little bemused by the Written Answer given on 5 January by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to my Question:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which the agreement on the government of Wales’ Fiscal Framework published on 19 December compensates for the lower percentage increase in income tax receipts in Wales compared to the UK since 2010–11”.
I remind the House that the UK has seen a 6% rise in tax receipts since 2011. Wales has seen a 2% rise, which is a significant difference. The noble Baroness’s Answer was opaque, to say the least:
“As set out in the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework, the UK and Welsh governments have agreed to apply a block grant adjustment for each band of income tax separately. Doing so will fully account for the different proportions of basic, higher and additional rate income tax payers in Wales and the rest of the UK. This means that the Welsh Government will hold an appropriate set of risks and opportunities regarding their new income tax powers, as part of a wider funding agreement that the UK and Welsh governments agree is fair for Wales and fair for the rest of the UK”.
To be frank, that is Treasury-speak for not answering the Question. Does that mean that the lower percentage increase in income tax receipts in Wales compared with the UK will be specifically compensated for or not? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this crucial matter, which could otherwise see Wales short-changed in this Bill.
Secondly, the framework does not deliver on the grand claims that have been made about tax devolution increasing financial empowerment and enhancing accountability—which is supposed to be what it is all about. The initial baseline adjustment to the block grant in 2019-20 will be set at the receipts that would have been generated by Welsh rates at 10%, whatever rates the Welsh Government actually choose to set. That is what Annex B of the agreement states. If the Welsh Government choose in that year or subsequent years to raise income tax rates by more than 10% and to spend the extra revenue, the effect would be to boost Welsh GDP via the standard Keynesian balanced budget multiplier. But it would distort rather than enhance political accountability, just as central government manipulated council tax for years to deter local authorities from raising council tax to fund extra spending on local priorities.
Thirdly, the new framework shows no sign of having given any consideration to indexing block grant adjustments in Wales to changes in comparable regions in England rather than to England as a whole. Holtham found that the two English regions Wales came closest to in 2010 were the north of England and, perhaps surprisingly, London. Wales’s needs were around 15% above the England average while the south-east of England excluding London had needs that were nearly 15% below the England average. Comparing Wales to England as a whole, including its better-off regions rather than to the closest equivalent English regions, does a disservice to Wales.
Fourthly, the only provision the new fiscal framework makes for updating estimates of relative needs at some future point is to say that things will be looked at again by both the UK and Welsh Governments when Welsh funding begins to reach 115% of equivalent spending in England, expected to be at some point in the 2020s. This will be towards the end of a transition period during which Welsh funding will be deliberately driven down towards 115% from its current 120% level. By the way, it has reached 120% only because Westminster-driven cuts in public spending have converged in line with the Barnett formula imperatives after years of Labour Government public spending rises, and should a future UK Government increase spending, that convergence would resume; hence the need, I believe, for an impact assessment. The Minister helpfully mentioned in his opening remarks that this could be provided in the annual report to which he referred. If he can reassure us on that point, that would give me some encouragement in terms of whether to press this amendment or not.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to Amendment 80 in the group, to which I have added my name. There are two specific categories, the first being the structure of Cardiff Airport itself for taking long-haul flights and secondly its relationship to other airports and the benefits for the region of south Wales.
The Cardiff Airport runway is particularly long, so it is often used as a diversion runway for flights that cannot land at other airports for a variety of reasons. For many years it has received the largest aircraft when they need to come in for servicing. Another advantage is that Cardiff does not have a major crosswind problem because the airflow around the Sully cliffs is not severe enough to cause any difficulties when landing large aircraft. The airport is therefore particularly suited to long-haul aircraft. This narrow amendment poses a question that is different, in that it would allow Wales to determine its future in this area.
The other aspect is Cardiff Airport’s relationship with other airports in the region. It is extremely convenient for people in west and south Wales who face problems in conducting commercial relationships in other parts of the world, so the development of the airport would certainly be invigorating. It would also help areas around Bristol and Hereford. Moreover, the skies over London are very crowded. Anyone who has been on an aircraft going round in circles as it stacks to land, and seeing other aircraft both above and below, knows that that can feel scary. One is aware of just how crowded the skies can be. Aircraft coming in to land at Cardiff Airport do not pass over populated areas because the approach is over the Bristol Channel, thus there are no problems with noise affecting residential areas. Because of Cardiff Airport’s position, passengers can travel away easily along roads that are not prone to congestion or major traffic jams. People can move on to other destinations or approach the airport with relative ease.
I hope that the Minister will think again and I wonder if we could come back to this issue at Third Reading, even if the amendment has to be made narrower still, so that we do not miss a really important opportunity to do what is right for the region and right for air travel, and would meet what was a core recommendation of the Silk commission.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who is heavily engaged in the Moses Room on the High Speed Rail Bill. I therefore stand in her place.
My experience with Cardiff Airport is somewhat limited. I have flown into it only once, in an eight or twelve-seat plane from Harden, in north Wales. In those days there was no gap between the passengers and the pilot. As we came over the hills and the valleys and headed into Cardiff Airport, the co-pilot said to the pilot, “Do you think we will make it?” This did not fill his passengers with a great deal of confidence.
I support, as I always have, the concept of devolving air passenger duty in order to improve the use of Cardiff Airport and to provide a facility for the people of south and mid-Wales. I did a little research this morning on Bristol, because Bristol seems to be the problem, and discovered that it has only one flight that goes any distance: a weekly flight to Cancun, in Mexico, which is not one of the major long-haul trips. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out a moment ago, the major airports in the south of England are overflowing. We are looking for solutions to the planes that are stacked and the passengers who fill the terminals in Heathrow and Gatwick. Here we have the possibility of a facility which will take long-haul traffic. If a proper incentive were given by a reduction in air passenger duty, then I am quite sure that the people of south Wales and indeed of the borders would flock to Cardiff Airport. It is common sense that this possibility should be allowed to develop. Bristol Airport, on the other hand, does not have any longer flights and does not have the capacity for such regular long-haul flights.
We have always supported air passenger duty devolution and I hope that the Minister, even at this stage, will give further thought to it. I do not think we have heard a positive rationale for not devolving it, save its impact on Bristol Airport. Its impact would be nil.
We very much welcome Amendment 22A. The increase in borrowing powers is one of the key points in the agreed fiscal framework. I congratulate the Government and the Welsh Government for coming to a sensible agreement on this before the Bill reaches its conclusion. It seems a reasonable basis for Wales to be ambitious in its capital projects. As for Amendment 73, it is ambitious—perhaps a little bit too ambitious, because, although you can pluck a figure from the air, debts do have to be repaid, and interest on them is a heavy burden and a drag on current expenditure. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We believe that, for the moment, the Government and the Welsh Government have struck the right balance.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene but I am prompted to do so by one or two things that have said. I particularly want to have a word about the much tighter amendment on Cardiff Airport, which shifts my position.
First, I congratulate the Government on the way they have dealt with the fiscal framework. Acknowledgment has been given from around the House to the real progress that was made in reaching what inevitably is a compromise deal but one which represents a very considerable step forward. Yes, things do change with time. When I was Secretary of State of State, long ago, it just happened that the Barnett formula was rather favourable to Wales, so I avoided criticising it. But of course it has changed—and we have heard how things change over time—and the Government, and the Welsh Government as well, deserve some credit for the deal that has been done.
I turn to this more restricted amendment about Cardiff Airport. I suppose that I should declare two matters. Long ago, at Second Reading, I supported the Government and declared an interest as a frequent flyer from Bristol. I did not declare another, even more remote interest—that long ago I was part of a consortium that bid for the management of Cardiff Airport. We did not bid enough, but I like to think that, if we had won, we would never have allowed that airport to be pushed downhill as rapidly as its subsequent managers did. That is the past history, which is very regrettable. I am sad that my noble friend—I always regard him as my noble friend, because he is a very good friend of mine—Lord Rowe-Beddoe, is not here, because he did great work in trying to rebuild the airport from the state in which it has been.
The new amendment would change things. Long haul is a very different matter, and the airport is not in my view a competitor with Bristol, as I feared that it would be in the past. So I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this much narrower amendment. I withdraw the hostility that I previously expressed for the wider amendment and the wider campaign that was originally fought.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
I shall speak to Amendment 74, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to continue to clarify the issue of the apprenticeship levy. I express my gratitude to the Minister for his letter on this issue in November, which was extremely informative and helpful. It spelt out how the Treasury was going to Barnettise the levy, which was very helpful, but I would like to press him a little more on the mechanics of this arrangement. I put this in the form of a question, because it has been hard to get anything factual. Under the Barnett formula before the levy, am I right in thinking that it was the budget of the department for business that was responsible for expenditure on apprenticeships? Are we now going to see an exchange—a replacement of BIS with Revenue and Customs—which is not an addition but just a transfer of responsibility for organising the Barnett formula in relation to apprenticeships? Am I right in thinking that that is the mechanics of this case?
Of course, the apprenticeship levy came out of the blue and without consultation—a point that we made very forcefully in an earlier debate—when the Assembly had already devised a very positive and constructive apprenticeship policy, envisaging no fewer than 100,000 places over the Assembly period and a budget of some £110 million. Now I understand that—and I am grateful if this is the case—as a result of the announcements and the fact that the Assembly knows that some of the apprenticeship levy money is going to be Barnettised, it has increased the present budget from £110 million to £125 million. That is a significant and important additional contribution to the Welsh economy. So on that side, I can welcome what has happened. But alongside that, we still do not know what the cost of the levy will be to the companies, public bodies and major utilities operating in Wales and how much of it they will be able to recover, one way or another. Yet again, I put the point in the form of a question because I have heard of some of these figures only at second hand. I hope the Minister, when he comes to reply, will be able to give us a much more authoritative account.
As I understand it, one assessment has been that the apprentice levy is going to cost the public sector in Wales some £30 million. In fact many organisations, public utilities, public bodies and companies, frankly, are treating the levy as an employment tax. They cannot see how they can retrieve the sorts of sums they are going to be levied with in any form of apprenticeship scheme that is going to be available. For example, what is the cost of this levy going to be to our 22 local authorities? Am I right in thinking that a county such as Pembrokeshire is going to pay some £750,000 a year as a result of the levy, and Powys about £600,000 a year? Multiply that by the 22 local authorities and you wonder how those authorities can possibly reclaim, through the levy, anything like the amounts of money they will pay. Can the Minister clarify and identify for us what the cost will be to a whole range of public bodies, utilities—I am going to refer to utilities in a minute—local authorities, the National Health Service and the Welsh Government themselves, which are all going to pay this levy? I fail to see how, somehow or other, we are going to be a beneficiary of this arrangement.
I raise one other major anomaly. We have very large national utilities that stretch across Scotland, Wales and England. According to one figure I have seen, some 75% of the employees of these major utilities—the energy companies, et cetera—are in the devolved Administrations. That means they can claim only 25% of the apprenticeship levy that they are going to pay through the English voucher system. Again, I would like to know how this is going to be sorted out. The situation is muddled and lacks the transparency the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about. We are flushing out greater transparency but it is still not sufficient, and I hope that we can use the opportunity of debating this amendment to seek much greater clarification.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall follow on from my noble friend Lord Rowlands on the issue of the apprenticeship levy and very briefly and simply make the case for reconsideration of the policy being implemented now by the Government in both the public and private sectors.
I believe that within the formulas currently being employed—and this applies very particularly to Wales because of our substantial local government and public sector, for various historic and structural reasons—there should be better treatment for both private and public employers who are already proven good trainers. There is insufficient discrimination in the way the system is intended to operate now to give higher rebates or greater inducements to improve apprenticeship training, numerically and in qualitative terms, because those who are already good trainers, who have the custom and habit of making substantial provision for the training of new generations of skilled personnel, are simply not getting rewarded as they should for good performance, and for their strong intention to continue with that good performance, by comparison with employers who are and will be levy payers who have a much weaker record of the employment and development of apprenticeship skills. I make that plea in the context of this Bill because it has direct relevance.
There was a time, a very long time ago, in the early 1990s, when I had various obligations in my mid-life crisis of being leader of the Labour Party. We developed an apprenticeship levy scheme that was deliberately constructed in order to reward public and private sector companies and institutions with good records of apprenticeship performance and to finance their bonus, as it were, out of the levy on those with weaker performances. So there was a dual spur of inducement to improve apprenticeship performance in rewarding those who had good records—and intended to improve upon them—and in the minor penalty, but nevertheless a penalty, on those who had no such record of good performance. There was an inducement for them to reduce their levy obligations by improving their performance.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, as a co-signatory to my noble friend Lord Hain’s amendment, I support everything that my noble friend Lord Kinnock just said about the need to review the operation of devolving some income tax to Wales.
I congratulate the Minister and the Welsh Government on producing the fiscal framework. I defy anyone to understand it on their first or indeed second reading of it, but by the time you get to the third you get the general impression that it is an improvement in the finances for Wales over the last number of years. An improvement indeed: I have been living with the Barnett formula for three decades, and there is no question in my mind that the fiscal framework now before us is an improvement. However, there is no point in improving on the block grant if you then start losing out because of the income tax side of it, and that is the point that my noble friends have put. The important issue, as I am sure the Minister would agree, is that in the annual review of financing for Wales the impact assessment of this change will be very seriously examined. I am convinced that the comparisons between Wales and the whole of England mean that Wales could be disadvantaged unless we redress that in some way.
I support noble Lords who have dealt with the issue of Cardiff Airport. My noble friend Lord Kinnock, a former European Commissioner for Transport, put it distinctly: if we could give some advantage to Cardiff with regard to long-haul flights, that would not just be a benefit for Wales; it would benefit a whole swathe of England as well. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Bristol versus Cardiff argument applies in this case. Bristol has no runway capable of taking these long-haul flights. Cardiff has, and it is a very good runway. That could help the rest of the country as well as Wales, and I think the Minister must be persuaded that right across the House today people have said that this is a reasonable amendment that would not affect the Government’s position with regard to air passenger duty generally. I think the Government are wrong on that, by the way; if you devolve it to Northern Ireland and Scotland, you should devolve it to Wales too. Still, if Bristol is blocking this proposal, in the case of long hauls there is no block that the Government can actually agree to.
I hope the Minister will look favourably on all the different points that have been made today because they are made with the knowledge that over the last weeks and months the Government have accepted different points that have been put by Members of the House across the political spectrum. The Government have conceded on many issues, and I see no reason why they could not concede on this small but important point.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the amendments in this group. Much of their contribution has been persuasive and helpful.
I thank those who have acknowledged the progress made in relation to the fiscal framework and the agreement. I stress that the agreement has been made between the UK Government, by the Treasury, and the Welsh Assembly Government, via the Finance Minister and the Welsh Ministers in the Welsh Government. To that extent, this is something that the Welsh Government have welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, in a very fair analysis, said I had welcomed this agreement for the long term, which indeed I have. More importantly, perhaps, it was welcomed for the long term by Mark Drakeford, who said he regards the agreement as ensuring there will be,
“fair funding for Wales for the long term by implementing the funding floor recommended by the Holtham Commission”.
Those are his words. He is yet to give a full analysis, to be fair, but that is the press statement that he put out and it is notable that that is the view of the Welsh Government. I also stress that the Welsh Assembly will of course be having a say on the legislation in general when it considers the LCM, so no doubt we will be giving a view on this important part of the legislation, as well as the rest of the legislation, when it delivers that view. That is something that we anticipate.
I turn to Amendment 143A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Kinnock and Lord Murphy, which all three noble Lords have spoken to very persuasively. As I have indicated, we have a requirement under existing legislation, which we will take forward in relation to this new legislation, of an annual report that happens in November/December each year. We will seek to ensure that the impact assessment—the information that the noble Lords are seeking—is incorporated in that report. As I have indicated, it is partly the Treasury, partly the Wales Office and partly the Welsh Government; all three contribute separately to that report. I will seek to ensure that that information is there because noble Lords have made a very fair point. The Government have already published two such reports, so there is a template. Of course, I appreciate that the significance of the new income tax powers makes the next report somewhat different in nature.
Lord Rowlands
I apologise for interrupting the Minister but can he publish exactly which public bodies, which local authorities and which companies are going to pay this levy and what amounts they will pay?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am sure I can and I will make endeavours to do so. Clearly, this is related to the way in which the levy operates. This is a matter being conducted from Westminster, so I will endeavour to get this information for noble Lords. What I cannot do is indicate how it will be spent. This is a matter for the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales.
I turn now to Amendment 80 on air passenger duty. In doing so, I wish to say how sorry I am that the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, is not in his place because of indisposition. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery. I know that he has very strong views on this issue; I have discussed it with him on many occasions. The amendment was spoken to formidably by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, with other noble Lords speaking in support.
The Government have considered the case and options for devolving APD to the Assembly, as we committed to do in the 2015 St David’s Day agreement. From extensive debates in Committee, noble Lords will be aware that there is an issue about state aid, particularly in relation to but not limited to Bristol. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, correctly indicated a competitive element with Birmingham. There is a competitive element with airports in the United Kingdom which is obviously accentuated with those that are geographically proximate. While we remain members of the European Union there is clearly an issue with regard to state aid rules that cannot be lightly ignored. I assume that that will not be the position once we complete the Brexit discussions and implement it, but that is some way into the future. I put that important issue on one side.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Is it not the case, though, that the state aid argument would apply equally in Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The rules certainly apply equally throughout the EU but you have to establish that there is a competitive element. The distance from Edinburgh to Newcastle, which would be the next nearest airport where there is no devolution of APD, is considerably longer—and, I think, is a considerably tougher journey—than that between Cardiff and Bristol. I think noble Lords would accept that. I suspect that it is longer than the distance from Cardiff to Birmingham as well, so there is that difference. In Northern Ireland there is a different issue. The issue there concerns the presence of an airport in a different member state rather than within the same member state. Therefore, the rules are the same but obviously the geographical issue is somewhat different.
Lord Kinnock
I say to the Minister as a matter of record that I would gladly continue with the situation of the UK being subject to the state aid rules of the European Union, and retain membership, than have any other kind of relationship. That being said, however, the point made by my noble friend is absolutely valid; namely that within the United Kingdom a disparity of treatment is allowed under state aid rules because the authorities concerned have been able successfully to argue—rightly, in my view—that the market is not distorted by having arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland which differ from those in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Given the argument to which I referred in passing about the area to be served particularly by Cardiff if it were able to dispense with the passenger levy, I believe that under the current state aid rules it could certainly be argued that there is no distortion of the market because the form of competition that exists between international airports is not such as to be distorted by the operation of a different levy system in Cardiff.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I think he would accept that it is a case of defining where there is a competitive market. The point I was making is that I think it would be much more difficult to suggest that there is a single market between Edinburgh and Newcastle in relation to air travel than there is between Bristol and Cardiff. I think that, factually, that must be the case. If you live in a suburb of Edinburgh, I do not think you would lightly consider going to Newcastle to catch a flight whereas, if you live in a suburb of Bristol, you might consider going to Cardiff and vice versa.
However, as I say, that is not the only argument that I am deploying. The point about giving a special tax status to Cardiff is the issue here. The Government cannot subscribe to that. However, we acknowledge that we will revisit air passenger duty at some stage. It may be appropriate to do so and decide how we approach it across the whole country as Brexit approaches, and in the light of decisions made on Heathrow and Gatwick. However, in relation to the specific issue, I am afraid that I cannot give any comfort to noble Lords who want me to move further than I have indicated.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
It sounds as if the Minister, in winding up on the airport aspect, is dismissing the arguments we have made that the type of flight going into Cardiff would be quite different from the type of flight going into Bristol. They are not competitive but compatible. Given that, and the arguments we have made, will the Minister undertake to meet a few of us before Third Reading? Listening to the arguments, I do not quite understand why the Government are saying anything other than that they do not want to do it and that that is it—that is what I am hearing—rather than that there is true competition between the two.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, if I may say so, that is a somewhat unfair caricature of what I am saying. I am saying that we want to look at this in the round. We do not want to look at it just in terms of Wales, because there is a broad issue about what we do with air travel throughout England and Wales, and that is part of a much broader consideration. So I am not dismissing it out of hand and saying that this is something that the Government do not want to look at. We want to look at it in the round and not, in this legislation, in isolation, which we cannot undertake to do.
I believe that that has dealt with the mass of the issues here. I thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for his contribution, and particularly for what he said about the fiscal framework and the hard work that has been put in by officials from the Welsh and UK Governments, and indeed the work of the Welsh Treasury as well as of the Treasury here. It is a signal achievement that has been welcomed in the United Kingdom and in Wales—and, noting that we have Governments of different complexions, that is no small achievement in itself. So while it may not be perfect, it is a way forward. Of course, it is subject to review. Some noble Lords perhaps hinted at what happens now. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, indicated that there would be a review once there is convergence to 115%, which is the case, but thereafter there would be one no more than once in every Parliament; we anticipate that that would be looked at within every Parliament. That is important as well, and is something that has not happened previously.
With that, I ask noble Lords and noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, there are a number of huge and very different amendments to be considered in this grouping, so I hope that the House will be tolerant as I address the many key issues that need to be discussed under the broad heading of reservations.
Much of the debate on and scrutiny of the Bill have focused on whether particular subject areas should be devolved and form part of the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. The tussle over exactly what the responsibilities of the UK and the Welsh Governments are is the focus of this Bill. Nevertheless, I am keen not to lose sight of the slightly more abstract and structural issues in the Bill, and of the lack of underlying principles—underlined by the Constitution Committee in the Lords—as to what should be reserved. The failure to have a Bill based on sound constitutional principles has created further complexity rather than simplifying and clarifying the approach, which is what the move from a conferred powers model to a reserved powers model was meant to deliver.
The Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee in the Lords have drawn attention to the broad interpretation that the courts have taken to the “relates to” test. The committees suggested that applying this test to a lengthy list of reservations—far longer than for other regional parliaments—could have significant implications for devolved competence. At best this will lead us back again to the Supreme Court and could reduce the competence of the National Assembly, often in areas where it already holds that competence.
The Minister sought to reassure the House of the impact of the purpose test, which determines whether a matter relates to a reserved matter, but we have no way of knowing how effective this will be. Never before have we seen a reserved powers model with as many reservations as we have in this Bill. My fear is that while many thought that the shift to the reserved model would facilitate the progress of devolution, it might turn out to have the opposite effect.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, we are again dealing with a very disparate group of amendments. Amendments 76 and 77, which stand in my name, seek to ensure that the National Assembly can continue to legislate on ancillary matters. My amendments have a similar objective to that of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, about which she has just spoken and which I certainly support. They are based on amendments recommended by the National Assembly Llywydd, or Presiding Officer, Elin Jones. In Committee similar amendments were tabled and forcefully supported by the former Assembly Llywydd, my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas.
This is undoubtedly a hugely complex, intricate and fundamentally confusing area of legislation. It is so confusing that, as was outlined earlier, we have seen a whole range of answers from a variety of Government Ministers on the issue. In the Commons, my colleagues were initially told that including a provision to legislate in an ancillary fashion would,
“drive a coach and horses through the key principle underpinning the new model”.—[Official Report, Commons, Wales Bill Committee, 11/7/16; col. 87.]
Later they were told that their amendments were simply not needed as they were already provided for.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 78. However, before so doing, I want to say first how delighted we are that the Minister is safe and sound with us. I must say that a doleful bell rang in my memory. In 1968, I was a Minister in the Home Office and on that particular day had Question 77 to answer. I was assured by somebody who might have known better that there was no prospect whatever of it being reached. However, in my nonconformist ignorance, I had not realised that it was Epsom week and that a large swathe of a particular party was disporting itself at Epsom. I still regard other persons as having some responsibility for that. On the other hand, there was a high degree of contributory negligence on my own part. However, we are very delighted that the Minister is with us. I doubt whether any Minister has ever attended a Bill with greater integrity, enthusiasm and candour as has the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in this matter.
I wholeheartedly support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, put forward as a background to the matter my proposed amendment deals with, which is demarcation. It is an attempt to try to draw a clear and understandable line between the authority of this Parliament and the authority of the Cardiff Assembly. As one brought up in the countryside, I have always espoused the adage: good fences make good neighbours. I have no doubt that there is massive truth and realism in that in relation to constitutional matters.
Devolution is both an end in itself and a means to an end. Essentially, what it means to me is that it is possible for a number of communities within the same kingdom and the same sovereign state to be able to share responsibilities of an administrative and, more particularly, legislative nature. That can be done only if there is a clear understanding of where the equitable point of balance—the watershed—exists in relation to the division of the two bodies. How do you find that? You do not find it in any criteria set down by a court of law or in an Act of Parliament; nor, if I may say so, do you find it in the learned writings of eminent jurists. You find it in each case by using instinctive common sense and an understanding of the justice of the situation.
If we look at European sub-Parliaments, there is no clear, consistent rule as to exactly where the boundary is drawn, but they have all espoused a common approach to the problem. It has been an approach that they accept, historically and socially: that there is what might be called a watershed and that certain matters flow inevitably to the general sovereign Parliament, while others inevitably and physically flow to local decision. That is the way that we should approach this matter in relation to Wales.
Of course, that has simply not happened. It is not as if the Government had set out their criteria for deciding what was local and what was general. As far as the outside world is concerned, it is a wholly haphazard ragbag of reservations—197 of them. I have looked carefully at the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland and there is nothing approaching that concentration of reservation in either of those countries. Indeed, it is not just a question of the number of reservations, but the sheer triviality. One could spend many doleful hours going through those lists.
I shall not repeat what I have said on more than one occasion in the House on that, but I will say that the Minister, as an able and distinguished professor of law, will know full well that under certain local public health Acts and local government Acts over the last century and a half, it was possible for local authorities of a modest nature to adopt certain modest rules. They effectively became local law. That happened on scores and scores of occasions. The Minister is probably in a better position to advise the House than anybody else, but interestingly, many of the 197 exceptions that we have would have been included in those very provisions. Is that not a massive irony?
My case therefore is this. The Government, intentionally or unintentionally, have managed to make a thorough and chaotic mess of this situation. There is no rationale as to why certain matters are reserved and others are not. No criteria are suggested at all. In so doing, a very great disservice has been done both to the principle of devolution and to the principle of subsidiarity, if there is a difference between the two. One may very well argue that one is talking about the same central principle. But as the matter now stands Her Majesty’s Government have devalued the whole principle of devolution and trespassed on the noble principle of subsidiarity, cynically reducing it to something wholly ineffective.
The purpose of the amendment is to seek not so much to cure the situation in which we now find ourselves, because that would take something much more fundamental, but to start a process of examining it in detail. The amendment would impose on the Secretary of State for Wales the obligation to set up a working party to report within three years on the operation of each and every one of the reserved matters, and to report to Parliament regularly on such progress. That would not answer the question altogether, but it would be a helpful way of approaching the problem. That working party should represent as broad a social and political spectrum as is humanly possible.
Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the Minister. If the Secretary of State wants to use something off the shelf to address this matter, he could do far worse than ask the Silk commission to sit again and consider this point. The Minister knows more than anyone else in the House about the commission, having for many years been one of its most distinguished members. The commission has reported on two occasions in a mature, diplomatic and thorough manner on Welsh constitutional matters, and it could do so again. On that basis, I urge the House to consider that this amendment is of real constitutional importance. It does not completely cure the problem but it is a hopeful way of setting about resolving it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. As I have told your Lordships before, I voted for him in 1964 when he was a Plaid Cymru candidate. I know that he has recovered from a serious illness to play an important part in this Bill and we are all very pleased to have him with us today. When he talked about the advantages of building a fence between neighbours, I wondered whether he was proposing to build one between England and Wales. I would support him in that—particularly if the English have to pay for it.
In preparation for this debate I spent the new year viewing five or six episodes of S4C’s excellent series “Y Gwyll”—“Hinterland”—kindly provided by S4C at its Christmas party before the break. It is a somewhat grim picture of policing in a rural Welsh community. I had some interest in that because my first five years were spent in Llangollen police station where my father was the station sergeant. His territory covered a large area of rural Denbighshire.
In one of the episodes of “Y Gwyll”, Chief Inspector Matthias has to confront a man armed with a shotgun in a remote cottage high up in the hills. It rang a bell since my father had to do precisely that. As my father approached him, the man shot himself rather than my father. In the denouement of the series, broadcast over the Christmas season, the retired chief superintendent turned out to have murdered the policeman investigating his past while his replacement, the current chief superintendent, murdered his predecessor in turn—which did not accord with my memory of the Denbighshire constabulary of those days.
The series depicts the Welsh language, the people, the way of life, the rural remoteness and the stretched facilities, emphasising the different society and community in which we live. It is not surprising that a significant majority of Welsh people, when asked for the purposes of an opinion poll in connection with the Silk commission, were of the view that the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government should have responsibility for policing in Wales. Indeed, devolution of policing was supported by the Welsh Government, the chief constables, the majority of police commissioners, the Police Federation and other professional police bodies.
The Silk commission reported in favour, although it was careful to say that the devolution of the governance and administration of the police would not involve the devolution of legislative competence for police powers or the criminal law. It also did not recommend devolution of matters dealt with at the UK level by the National Crime Agency—serious and organised crime, fraud, cybercrime and child protection. However, proposed new Section B5 of Schedule 1 to the Bill reserves policing to the Home Office—and that is an argument for another day.
My Amendment 81 deals with subsidiarity, leaving out the reservation of anti-social behaviour to the Westminster Government which the Bill proposes. Anti-social behaviour is essentially a matter for the local community. That is what is reflected in all the parts of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that are specifically reserved in proposed new Section B6 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Under Part 1 of the 2014 Act, which deals with injunctions, applications for an injunction may be made by a list of bodies, the first of which is the local authority. The next one is a housing provider, and only third on the list is the chief officer of police. Other bodies which may apply for an injunction include the Natural Resources Wales body and Welsh Ministers exercising security management functions.
Similarly, under Chapter 1 of Part 4, community protection orders, the initiative to issue a community protection order against an individual or a body lies with the local authority, where it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the conduct of that person is having a detrimental effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality, and that the conduct is unreasonable. It is for the local authority to apply for the order and to take action if the individual or body fails to comply with the notice.
Your Lordships will see that anti-social behaviour is already dealt with at the local authority level. In Chapter 2 of Part 4, it is the local authority alone which may make a public spaces protection order if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that activities carried out in a public place within the authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality and that the activities are unreasonable and of a persistent or continuing nature. Again, the local authority applies for the order, the local authority enforces it.
Under Chapter 3 of Part 4, power to make and exercise a closure notice for premises associated with nuisance or disorder rests with either a police officer of at least the rank of inspector or the local authority.
Part 5 gives power to landlords to recover possession on anti-social behaviour grounds, and Part 6 is headed “Local involvement and accountability” and lays down requirements for the police to consult with local authorities and community leaders in the preparation of community remedy documents, the purpose of which is to require an individual to carry out certain specific actions.
The whole of Parts 1 to 6 of the 2014 Act is concerned with what a local authority, in the main, or a local policeman does in relation to problems within the community. It indicates how localised the legislation is. It is only sensible because other agencies which are concerned with the same sort of thing are devolved—the health service, education, ambulance and fire services, and so on.
The other powers reserved to Westminster in Section B6 refer to dangerous dogs or dogs out of control. It is a perfect example of why this should be devolved—devolution works. I am sure that many of your Lordships will recall the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It was regarded as an example of knee-jerk legislation and has always been thought to be utterly unsatisfactory. After toying with the idea of pet anti-social behaviour orders, an idea first put forward in the satirical political show “The Thick of It,” the Government passed Part 7 of the 2014 Act, which made some patchwork reforms. It is still not satisfactory.
Meanwhile, up in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament passed the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which dealt with the whole question comprehensively and sensibly. The initiative in Scotland lies not with the police but with an authorised officer who is defined as an officer appointed for that purpose by a local authority. Each local authority in Scotland must appoint at least one such officer, skilled in the control of dogs and with the capacity to instruct and advise others in matters relating to the control of dogs. The Act deals with the control of dogs and with the prosecution and punishment of owners of dangerous dogs in Scotland. Why does Westminster want to reserve to Westminster power over dangerous dogs and their control when Scotland has legislated so effectively? We have passed—or, rather, the Welsh Assembly has passed—the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014. If the Assembly can be allowed to legislate for the control of horses, why not dogs?
When I was living in the Llangollen police station, we had a Pembrokeshire corgi called Rex who, having been reared by my aunt, only understood Welsh. He was not one of those brown and white royal jobs—he was a proper dog, black and white with a long tail. During the last election, my wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and myself were canvassing near Pistyll Rhaeadr, the famous waterfall in Montgomeryshire, one of the seven wonders of Wales. She came to me rather disturbed and said that there was a dog in the next farm and that it was a bit snappy. I patted her rather condescendingly on the head, said leave it to me and went through the gate. Sure enough, there was a black and white Welsh collie, which kept jumping up at me. I said, remembering my youth, “Steddwch”, which means “Sit”—and the dog bit me. Surely, that was an issue not for Whitehall but one for Cardiff.
Lord Hain
My Lords, how to follow that? I shall speak to Amendment 90 in my name and in those of my noble friends Lord Murphy, Lord Kinnock and Lady Morgan. I begin by expressing my disappointment that the Minister has not been able to persuade the rest of the Government to think again on this issue and that they continue to press ahead with their transparent move, not simply to go beyond overriding decisions that the Welsh Government have taken since 2011, but deliberately to claw back powers from the National Assembly. From everything the Minister has told your Lordships, and much of what the Bill contains, this is supposed to be a pro-devolution, not an anti-devolution, Bill. But in the way in which devolved public services are configured, and especially their staff relations organised, it is repatriating powers that are already the preserve of the Assembly. Surely, that cannot be right.
When we considered this amendment in Committee, the Minister acknowledged our shared belief that employment law is, and should remain, a reserved matter. He said that,
“the underlying legislative framework concerning rights and responsibilities in the workplace must be reserved”.
I agree with that. He went on to say that the,
“system we have allows workers to be clear on their rights, whether they are in the public sector or the private sector”.
Again, I agree. However, he then said that this,
“is a fundamental principle and I cannot accept that the law underpinning the terms and conditions of public sector workers should be different from the law that underpins the rights of other workers”.—[Official Report, 15/11/16; col. 1384.]
On that point, we diverge.
My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke previously about the fact that the Welsh Assembly has long had considerable powers—for example, over doctors’ pay, terms and conditions. The principle has been conceded and accepted by the Government, ironically, as it has been in this very Bill in another respect. A government amendment to give the Assembly legislative competence over teachers’ pay and conditions has been accepted as part of this Bill. For the Minister to somehow then argue that it is impossible to disentangle fundamental employment rights from the terms and conditions of employees in the devolved public services seems somewhat irrational and contradictory, to say the very least. For the sake of clarity, I hope the House will permit me a short time to highlight the four different elements of this and to unpick a number of aspects that have been conflated during previous debates.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I will confine myself to Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I am not going to repeat my Second Reading speech, in which I complained vehemently of the inclusion of such a huge number of reservations. I welcome the words of my noble friend Lady Morgan on the announced changes by the Government so far in, as I understand it, limiting them. The Wales Office has only limited experience in legislating, in drafting and in fighting its own corner to get its own way with other departments in Whitehall.
In drafting the original Welsh devolution proposals in the 1960s, I faced the same dilemma of how to deal with the self-interest of many departments in Whitehall, for which, “Devolution is all right provided it does not encroach on my back yard”. What we did then was to set up a Cabinet committee, meeting twice a week under the chairmanship of deputy Prime Ministers, and to have seconded to it rising stars from the Cabinet Office to guide it through and ensure that the Minister got his own way. In the fullness of time each of these two gentlemen became Permanent Secretaries in major departments in Whitehall—that indicates the weight of the input. The combination of such people as Ted Short and Michael Foot in turn knocked heads together. We knew what we wanted and got our Bills into shape. My advice on this occasion is for the Wales Office to enlist someone from the Cabinet Office to knock heads together. Regrettably, this Bill has the finger marks of every department in Whitehall trying to preserve its own corner.
It takes a combination of the resolve of a Secretary of State and his advisers to get the right Bill and not succumb to the blandishments of other departments in Whitehall, enumerated by the great number of reservations in the Bill. I fear that the first result will be a field day for litigants, particularly if we have again a trigger-happy Attorney-General. It will not be the end of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, illuminated at least one of the instances where we can face litigation. The second result, as sure as God made little apples, is that we will return to this issue time and again in order to seek a permanent settlement, which we all wish for, for Welsh devolution. Hence, the best line of defence for the Government is a committee, as proposed in Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, to report on the functions and powers and see how we are getting on; whether I and others are right or whether the Government are right. At least, within a period of three years, we shall know and report to the House, possibly for a debate on the developments that have taken place. Then perhaps, after that cooling-off period, as it were, we might have a more mature and resilient approach to Welsh devolution, which will then be a permanent one. That is my hope.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have Amendment 82 in this group. It is a question, as my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan said, of flow. The problem for Wales is the flow of alcohol: Wales does not have the ability to control how that flow starts and how that supply chain moves. We in Wales are lumbered with the costs of alcohol abuse, both direct and indirect. There are direct costs in health and social care and indirect ones in damage to other people, either directly to another person or secondarily, through bereavement and so on. There is a real problem of culture around alcohol consumption in Wales. We should remember that while Scotland has the same culture of drinking, it has been given a degree of control. I fear that it is not always a pretty sight. Things have improved greatly but the Welsh Government does have to have the powers to do something about it.
There is another aspect of this that needs to be considered. We understand very little, really, about the way that alcohol interacts on the brain and on the reward centre, on people developing cravings. It is quite possible that the epigenetics mean that when you have a background culture of a family where there has been drinking, an individual’s reward centre responds differently. It may just be that people in Wales, having been born into a culture of drinking are more predisposed, more likely to develop an addictive tendency towards alcohol. It seems bizarre, when this is such a social problem and when the costs are really all borne at a local level, that the ability to control it is not given to the very Government that have responsibility for dealing with those problems.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about Amendment 90. I will not stray into the internal affairs of Wales but this matter came up in debating the Trade Union Bill last year. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned the need for sound constitutional principles. I think that supporting sound constitutional principles should lead us to resist Amendment 90—which, to use a term of the noble Lord, Lord West, represents mission creep.
The amendment looks fairly innocuous and can be split into two parts. On “Terms and conditions of employment”, we keep hearing how Wales has managed to escape difficulties with doctors and has an excellent education system—although I am not sure whether the recent OECD figures bear that out—thanks to its ability to deal with terms and conditions. But, when you move on to the next bit of the amendment, “and industrial relations”, you open up a Pandora’s box. Given the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill, once you admit that industrial relations in Welsh public authorities are a devolved matter, you open up a huge area of debate as to what constitutes a public authority or industrial relations. For instance, could you have a different minimum wage for public servants in Wales or would you then get disputes between the private and public sectors?
Lord Hain
I acknowledge that the noble Lord represents Conservative trade unionists, which must be a noble and valiant role to play, but the definition of public services is in the legislation passed by this House. It is set in statute; there is no question of redefining it or inventing new public bodies. It is all defined and the amendment repeats that.
Lord Balfe
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I am sure that there would be plenty of room for disputes; this would not end the dispute. Perhaps the Supreme Court is needed to rule on this, but the proposed clause would not help us to go forward in any way. It is a slippery slope. We have a difficulty and clearly it needs to be defined. If this clause were passed and added to the Bill, it would not be the end of the matter; it would actually complicate matters and make them more confused. I make a practice of reading absolutely every scrap of paper that comes to me from the TUC—not a week goes by without something arriving—and, if this were such an important matter, I wonder why no one has asked me to support or even consider supporting this clause. It is sheer opportunism.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, the point is that, under the conferred powers model of governance at the moment, we already have this power. It is in the move to the reserved powers model that we are losing this power. That is why we are so outraged by this move.
Lord Balfe
Well, some see it as that. I see it as a clarification that was needed—something that became quite clear last year. I suggest that we resist this amendment. It will not take us anywhere further forward and I am not sure that it is useful. It will open up many further legal cases and I hope that the House will reject it.
Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will make clear my strong support for Amendment 90, for the reasons that have been made clear on both sides of this debate, and from my own experience as a trade union member and a manager in the public sector in Wales at different periods of my life. I will confine myself, as I have during the course of the Bill, to the constitutional principles—if I may use the term again—rather than discussing specific subjects.
This is where I have to disappoint three of my noble friends. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is a very old friend—I mean old in terms of our association, since I believe I first met him in a Crown Court in Ruthin in the very early 1960s. I hasten to add that I was not the defendant; my father was a witness there. With the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, I had the pleasure of discussing issues as soon as I arrived in the other place as a very young Member of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, of course came in with me at that time. I shall disappoint all three by expressing my considered view that we no longer need working groups chaired by Secretaries of State—although I recognise that a Secretary of State is present at the Bar of the House today, along with one of his ministerial colleagues.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Does my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, accept that whatever might be said about the purity of the principles that he puts forward—principles which the late Professor Dicey might very well have approved of—there is nevertheless a huge gap to be made up between the situation that existed on the day in July 2014 when the judgment was given in the agricultural workers’ cases, and the consequences of the Bill? To my mind, the gap in terms of actual devolution might be 20%, 30% or 40%. It is massive and until that gap is made up the noble Lord’s theory, for all its general attractiveness, does not really apply.
Lord Elis-Thomas
I appreciate being given the authority of Professor Dicey but the real situation is that these issues will be resolved through the public political debate that will continue about the constitution of Wales and all other constitutions, because that is the sign of a vibrant democracy. It is therefore not an appropriate subject for a working group, led by a Secretary of State or whomever—and I would say the same thing about a working group led by the First Minister of Wales or the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly or the Lord Speaker or the Speaker of the House of Commons. The issue is not about how that debate takes place: it is whether we need to place in statute, on the face of the Bill, the creation of a working group that would somehow have responsibility for delivering Wales from any constitutional weaknesses that it has as a result of the Bill.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I speak against Amendment 90 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and other noble Lords. The purpose of this amendment is to devolve in part legislative competence for employment and industrial relations to the Welsh Assembly. The noble Lord and others argue that this is consistent with the Supreme Court judgment in respect of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill. In this instance, the court held that the case related to multiple subjects, and thus fell within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. It should be pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling concerned a situation where the devolved subject of agriculture was specifically in play. Indeed, in another Supreme Court case involving the Welsh Government’s competence in relation to recovery of medical costs, the court followed the same approach as in the agricultural sector but came to a completely different conclusion, deciding that the area in play was not devolved.
It would be unworkable to have different employment laws applying in different jurisdictions in Great Britain. As we have previously pointed out, the Smith commission in Scotland recently considered this issue and concluded that employment and industrial relations law should remain reserved. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has argued that the amendment is not intended to change the reservation of employment law, and we all agree that employment and industrial relations law must remain reserved matters. However, in principle, “terms and conditions” derive from all aspects of employment law—for example, the national minimum wage, parental leave, and dismissal laws—and I believe that there is sufficient flexibility under the statutory framework of employment law for employers to configure their own terms and conditions.
The purpose of bringing in a reserved powers model for Wales to replace the conferred powers model is to bring greater clarity to the respective responsibilities of the UK Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. It is therefore somewhat dismaying that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has told the House that the Welsh Assembly intends to pursue a Bill under the conferred powers model that will only diminish such clarity and cause legal wrangling. My fear is that Amendment 90 will reduce the very clarity that this Bill seeks to achieve. In effect, it could also create a two-tier system, with different employment and industrial relations legislation applying to public, as opposed to private, services in Wales, and, indeed, the whole public and private sectors in England and Scotland. I therefore support the Government in opposing the amendment. There is already a lot of flexibility for employers, but employment and industrial relations law must remain reserved matters to ensure clarity in the free flow of labour across Great Britain.
Lord Kinnock
My Lords, there are many issues on which I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. There used to be more, it must be said, in a different political lifetime, but I greet with some dismay the fact that I have to diverge from him on this issue, simply because he is wrong. I particularly pursue the point made in her intervention by my noble friend Lady Morgan. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, used the term “mission creep” to describe Amendment 90. Of course, that can be employed as a derogatory description of any development. If we put it in the context of devolution, however, we could categorise devolution entirely as “mission creep” because the whole proposition on which it has been based in this country—and perhaps, indeed, in biology, from which it derives—is that there will be an accretion of competences as time passes and the sophistication of devolved Administrations and legislatures takes place.
Lord Balfe
I wonder if the noble Lord recalls our jointly campaigning on the Welsh referendum in the 1970s. We were on the same side, of course, but presumably where he is now is the definition of mission creep.
Lord Kinnock
No, it is the definition of the fact that when confronted with reality, I try to make it work. Consequently, while I retain some reservations about the whole way in which devolution is taking place in the United Kingdom, I am utterly in favour of decentralisation of administration and decision-making, which any democrat must be, but would quarrel with the sectional and selective form of devolution that is taking place. I would argue on another occasion that, had we undertaken in 1979, let alone in the 1990s, the form of devolution that I and some of my colleagues, including my noble friend from Pontypool, were then advocating, there would have been devolution throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Perhaps we would not be confronted with the constitutional mismatches and disequilibria that confront us now, especially when we are faced with the prospect of the disaster of Brexit. I will return to that on a different occasion.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that the accretion of competencies that has taken place is in the nature of devolution. Indeed, the Minister could take justifiable credit for producing a Bill that assists in the clarification and strengthening of the whole devolution process. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will welcome the redemption of the Conservative Party, which, back in 1979, took a view that was almost as enlightened as mine on the issue. The most important point—and it is fundamental to this amendment and this Bill—is that the argument in favour of Amendment 90 is that those powers currently exist and they manifestly work. I am therefore employing, in a sense, a conservative argument in saying, “If it works, don’t fix it”.
What happens in Wales—and has happened for several years past—is that the powers advocated for retention in this current set of arrangements for devolution should remain: not that there should be mission creep, but restoration of the status quo. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that surely, in his changed political prism, he would recognise and wrap his arms around the principle of the maintenance of the status quo that works. It is on that basis that I hope the Minister will give further consideration to these arguments and retain a set of arrangements that work, that are warmly endorsed by everybody involved in Wales, and that do not constitute the difficulty of definition suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in discriminating between public and private employers. The terms on which this measure, if accepted, would be retained, properly describe where the responsibilities and obligations would lie and be exercised. It works now; do not fix it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the discussion on these amendments. I will begin with Amendments 75 to 77 and 79, which seek to broaden the circumstances in which the Assembly could legislate in relation to reserved matters. I will first deal with an issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, concerning the phrase,
“ancillary to a provision of any Act”.
I took him to mean that this was not provided for in the Bill. It is in fact expressly provided for in Clause 3, in subsections (3)(a) and (b) of new Section 108A. It says,
“subsection (2)(b) does not apply to a provision that —
(a) is ancillary to a provision of any Act of the Assembly or Assembly Measure or to a devolved provision of an Act of Parliament, and
(b) has no greater effect otherwise than in relation to Wales, or in relation to functions exercisable otherwise than in relation to Wales, than is necessary to give effect to the purpose of that provision”.
So there is express provision in relation to “ancillary to” and how that would operate, and I hope he finds that of some comfort.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful to the Minister. He will see that my amendment in fact applies to subsection (2)(c) of new Section 108A, in Clause 3, and therefore extends the provision.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I appreciate that, but I think the noble Lord made a broader point about “ancillary to” not being provided for. I shall move on, if I may, to deal with some of the issues that noble Lords raised about this part of the Bill.
The amendments tabled are similar to those debated in Committee where, as has been acknowledged, I provided noble Lords with a detailed explanation of how the purpose test in the new model is intended to operate. As I made clear then, for a challenge of ultra vires under the reserved powers model to succeed, a case would need to be made that an Assembly Act provision was outside competence because its purpose related to a reserved matter. I think it is common ground among noble Lords that that much is appropriate. If such a case could not be made, the provision would satisfy the requirements of new Section 108A(2)(c) and would be within competence, provided that it satisfied the other requirements of new Section 108A.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I want to clarify the important issue of how the Assembly can legislate in a way that is ancillary to a non-reserved provision but affects the law on reserved matters. As I set out in Committee, the purpose test is crucial to determine whether a provision in legislation is within the Assembly’s competence. Only once a provision’s purpose has been determined as not relating to a reserved matter would an assessment need to be made of whether it modifies the law on reserved matters and, if so, whether it is ancillary to a matter that is not reserved. If a provision is ancillary, it will also, as I have indicated, be subject to an additional test of having no greater effect on reserved matters than is necessary to give effect to the provision’s purpose in order to be within the competence of the Assembly.
In Committee I gave the House some examples of how the purpose test might be applied, and in particular how a provision that could engage reservations would be within competence if it had a devolved purpose and was ancillary to that purpose either by being appropriate for the enforcement of such provision or otherwise to give effect to it, or was consequential or incidental. Those examples were hypothetical but included: a requirement for tenants to insure their residence; the creation of competitive tendering requirements for local authorities; an extension to the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for Wales; and information sharing between Welsh schools and Estyn. In each case we argued that, as the purpose of the provision was devolved and the provision could be characterised as ancillary, it was within devolved competence if it had no greater effect than necessary on the reserved matter. Potentially any provision in Assembly Bills about enforcement would engage the reservation for the courts and their jurisdiction, or that for civil or criminal proceedings, but provided that it is required to enforce or give effect to a devolved purpose, such provision will be within competence even though it impacts on the law on reserved matters, subject always to the test that it has no greater effect than necessary on the reserved matter.
Comparisons have been made with the settlement in Scotland and how this “greater effect than necessary” test applies to it but, when considering that, it is important to note that the restriction on legislating about the law on reserved matters in paragraphs 1 and 2 of new Schedule 7B gives the Assembly wider scope to modify the law on reserved matters than the Scottish Parliament is afforded under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998. That is because issues such as private law and criminal justice are reserved in Wales, but we recognise that the Assembly needs to be able to enforce its laws by amending the law in relation to these and other reserved matters.
We have used the same definition of “ancillary” throughout the Bill. If a provision falls within that definition then the Assembly can legislate about England by virtue of the exception to the competence test in Section 108A and can modify the law on reserved matters if it complies with the restriction in Schedule 7B. The Government do not accept the argument that the test of “no greater effect on reserved matters than is necessary to give effect to the purpose of the provision” is of less consequence in Scotland. It is true that Schedule 7A in the Wales Bill contains more reserved matters than Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, but in Scotland this test nevertheless provides an important but proportionate limitation on competence. The large number of orders made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 is in part a result of the UK Government and the Scottish Government recognising how far modification to the law on reserved matters can go in Acts of the Scottish Parliament, and that modifications to the law on reserved matters that fall outside the definition can and should be made only by the UK Government and this Parliament.
Concerns have been raised that defendants will always be able to challenge the validity of Assembly Act provision as a basis for an enforcement action on the basis that this has a greater effect than necessary. We believe that, provided that the response is proportionate, this will not be the case. The frequency of such challenges and their merits will of course depend on how the Assembly chooses to legislate in future, and indeed the view of the courts if these matters were subject to challenge. Nevertheless, we consider that the legislative competence constraints set out in the Bill give the Assembly sufficient latitude to create and enforce devolved policies within the shared legal system of England and Wales.
I turn to government Amendment 78B, which is technical and is proposed in the light of issues raised in particular by the First Legislative Counsel for Wales. Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 6 of the new Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, as inserted by Schedule 1 to the Wales Bill, sought to clarify that the Assembly is able to provide for devolved decisions or orders to be appealable to a court or to require a court order or be made by a court on application. These were included in order to provide helpful clarifications about the Assembly’s powers in respect of the courts, following the removal of the so-called necessity test and the subsequent application of the purpose test. Having examined these provisions in more detail, the First Legislative Counsel has argued that the reservation for courts, including their jurisdiction, might have the effect of restricting the ability of the Assembly to legislate for the procedural effectiveness of a new sort of order, or decision, related to a devolved matter.
The First Legislative Counsel’s analysis identifies paragraph 6(2) and, with it, paragraph 6(3) as unnecessary. Although the provision was intended to address a specific problem, I am persuaded by that very helpful analysis provided that it does not in fact require bespoke provision to address it. I accept the argument that the purpose test would encompass the sort of legislative provision that would otherwise be captured under paragraphs 6(2) and (3) and that, accordingly, they would arguably cast doubt on the breadth of the purpose test. I am satisfied by the First Legislative Counsel’s argument, and government Amendment 78B therefore proposes their removal. In light of that amendment, I think Amendment 79, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, becomes unnecessary, but of course that is a matter for the noble Baroness.
Amendment 78 is an opposition amendment seeking to place a new duty on the Secretary of State for Wales to establish a working group to review Schedule 1 in relation to reservations. I am most grateful for the comments and guidance on that from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who has very broad experience of this as Llywydd and as a Member of this House. We have had bodies a-go-go looking at the area of devolution. I served with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, some 20 years ago on the National Assembly advisory group, and since then there have been other bodies: the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, sat on the Richard commission; there has been the Emyr Jones Pary review; the Holtham commission; the Silk report and the St David’s Day agreement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that at the very least we have reached the end of this chapter and now is the time for us to concentrate on the things that I am sure the people of Wales, and indeed its Assembly Members, want to concentrate on—the delivery of public services and a sound economy. Some powerful arguments were put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments and hope that I would be half as charitable if someone else should appear late as he was to me. I am most grateful for his comments.
I turn to government amendments to Schedule 1, which establishes a clear boundary between the devolved matters that are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government and those that are the responsibility of this place and the UK Government. I can confirm, however, that I intend to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to change the status of the Open University. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is not in her place at the moment, but I thank her in particular for her assistance on this issue. I acknowledge and recognise the important role that the Open University plays in Wales and therefore propose that it is dealt with in relation to devolved areas in the same way as universities and higher education institutions in Wales.
I turn to amendments to reservation M4 on developments and buildings. I will deal first with an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, in Amendment 91 on the legislative competence relating to railways. I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. We propose that planning in relation to railways that start, end and remain in Wales should be devolved. I should also like to bring forward Amendment 91B giving the Assembly legislative competence in relation to the community infrastructure levy. The noble Baroness also kindly acknowledged this. Turning to Amendment 92A—I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, did not speak to Amendment 92, so I will not spend too much time on it—we are proposing that such compensation should be devolved, except in relation to the calculation of the compensation, which I think the noble Lord appreciates.
The noble Lord also indicated that he would not speak to his amendments on water and sewerage, so I will not deal with that area.
Regarding changes to the reservation in Part 1 on Crown property, I will just formally move those amendments, as I do not think they were the subject of debate.
On the issue of anti-social behaviour orders and the provisions of Part 5—which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated he felt should be devolved—I was persuaded by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, in relation to this and to the Dangerous Dogs Act and so on, and by the more general comment from the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, that, where something is working, one should not to seek to overturn it unnecessarily. I think this area is working very well. We are proposing to devolve ASBOs in relation to housing. This has been acknowledged. Elsewhere—and I regret that some noble Lords will be disappointed—we shall not be going further.
The noble Baroness indicated that there has been movement on heating and cooling, so I will formally move those amendments.
The opposition amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, seeks to remove the reservation for the sale and supply of alcohol regulated under the Licensing Act 2003. Section B17 of new Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 in the Bill preserves the current devolution settlement in respect of all matters in the 2003 Act covering the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of regulated entertainment and of late night refreshment. The 2003 Act provides a framework for licensing based on the promotion of four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. As such, alcohol licensing is inextricably linked to policing and the criminal justice system. While they are reserved, alcohol licensing should also continue to be reserved.
The police have a crucial role in the licensing system, including in decisions to grant or refuse applications for licences, to review licences and to close problem premises. The police and criminal justice system bear a significant proportion of the costs associated with alcohol consumption—£11 billion of the £21 billion overall annual cost to society. That said, the noble Baroness is widely, and quite rightly, recognised for her campaigning on the effects of alcohol misuse. Of course, these affect people in England too—in parts of England in a very similar way to parts of Wales. I should like to place on record my enormous respect for the work she does and express the hope that she will continue to campaign on this issue. However, we feel that this is something that should be reserved to the Westminster Government.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for too long. We have spent a lot of time on this group, so I will focus on just two issues.
The first is the matter of ancillary provisions. I thank the Minister for stating on the record that the ability to enforce Welsh laws should be proportionate and not just be the minimum necessary. We need a suite of options to be able to deliver policy. However, that is not what it says on the face of the Bill, and I am sure that lack of clarity will lead in future to problems and references to the Supreme Court. I ask the Minister not to dismiss the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and reassess the impact of that move to being a reserved matter in the future.
We are also disappointed that the Government have not listened on the matter of devolving industrial relations in public services to Wales. We believe that the Welsh Government currently have the power to act in this area under the conferred model and the Government have attempted to claw back this power in the move to the reserved model. This is not acceptable. We have a good track record on partnership working in Wales. We have not had a junior doctors strike and Whitehall has no idea of how health, education and many other public services are run in Wales. It is a great shame that the Minister has not moved on this issue. We shall be pushing this matter to a vote at the appropriate time. With regret, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
“Working group to review reserved powers and functions
(1) The Secretary of State for Wales shall, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, set up a working party to report upon the operation of each and every power and function reserved to Parliament under Schedule 1 to this Act.(2) The working party established under subsection (1) shall, within three years of its establishment, report to the Secretary of State upon the operation of each and every power and function reserved under Schedule 1 to this Act, and make such representations as are appropriate as to whether the continued operation of such reservations is appropriate in the current context of devolution.(3) The Secretary of State shall publish the report and recommendations made under subsection (2).”
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but at the same time I want to—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
Are you withdrawing the amendment, or do you want to speak to it?
Lord Elystan-Morgan
With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“2A(1) Paragraph 1 does not reserve property belonging—(a) to Her Majesty in right of the Crown,(b) to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, or(c) to the Duchy of Cornwall.(2) Paragraph 1 does not reserve property belonging to any person acting on behalf of the Crown or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of any person acting on behalf of the Crown.(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of—(a) the hereditary revenues of the Crown,(b) the royal arms and standard, or(c) the compulsory acquisition of property—(i) belonging to Her Majesty in right of Crown;(ii) belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster;(iii) belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall;(iv) held or used by a Minister of the Crown or government department.2B_(1) Paragraph 1 does not reserve property held by Her Majesty in Her private capacity.(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of the subject-matter of the Crown Private Estates Acts 1800 to 1873.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment and do not intend to say anything further except to state, in reply to the Minister, that an important principle of subsidiarity is involved here. Comments have been made from the very moment this Bill came before the House that the reservations in Schedule 1 are a ragbag of items collected from various government departments. I have commented on this issue of anti-social behaviour, which should really be dealt with at a local level. Accordingly, I seek the opinion of the House.
“ExceptionIn the case of a betting premises licence under the Gambling Act 2005, other than one in respect of a track, the number of gaming machines authorised for which the maximum charge for use is more than £10 (or whether such machines are authorised).”
“Marine licensing and the regulation of works that may obstruct or endanger navigation, so far as relating to searching or boring for or getting petroleum under such a licence.”
“ExceptionsHeat and cooling networks, but not the regulation of them.Schemes providing incentives to generate or produce, or to facilitate the generation or production of, heat or cooling from sources of energy other than fossil fuel or nuclear fuel.”
“The reference to maritime search and rescue does not reserve participation by Welsh fire and rescue authorities in maritime search and rescue responses.”
“The deferral of payment due to a local authority from an individual in respect of costs of, or financial assistance for, meeting that or another individual’s needs for care or support.”
“Terms and conditions of employment and industrial relations in Welsh public authorities and services contracted out or otherwise procured by such authorities.”
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 56, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
“Parental discipline.”
“M1 Registration of land180_ Registration of—(a) estates, interests and charges in or over land, and(b) associated actions, proceedings, writs and orders.ExceptionFees for the registration of local land charges.”
“185_ Compensation in respect of—(a) the interference with rights in land by exercise of a statutory power;(b) depreciation in the value of land as a result of works or land provided or used in the exercise of a statutory power.”
“but only in relation to specified Crown land and specified undertaker land.”
““Specified Crown land” means land—(a) belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown;(b) belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster;(c) belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall;(d) held or used by a Minister of the Crown or a government department.“Specified undertaker land” means land held or used by a statutory undertaker in the exercise of a statutory power that relates to a matter in paragraph 94, 95(f) and (g), 97, 115, 119 or 123.”
“Council tax precepts198A_ This Schedule does not reserve council tax precepts.”
“Energy Act 2008 | Section 100 and regulations under that section.” |
“( ) section 51;”
Northern Ireland: Political Developments
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement about the political situation in Northern Ireland.
As the House will be aware, yesterday Martin McGuinness submitted his resignation as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. This also means that the First Minister, Arlene Foster, also ceases to hold office, though she is able to carry out some limited functions. Under the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended by the St Andrews Agreement Act 2007, the position is clear. Should the offices of First and Deputy First Minister not be filled within seven days from Mr McGuinness’s resignation, then it falls to me as Secretary of State to set a date for an Assembly election. Although there is no fixed timetable in the legislation for me to do this, it needs to be within a reasonable period.
In his resignation letter Mr McGuinness said:
“In the available period Sinn Fein will not nominate to the position of Deputy First Minister”.
I am very clear that in the event of the offices not being filled, I have an obligation to follow the legislation. As things stand, therefore, an early Assembly election looks highly likely. I should add that the rules state that, once an election has been held, the Assembly must meet again within one week, with a further two-week period to form a new Executive. Should this not be achieved, as things currently stand I am obliged to call another election. So right honourable and honourable Members should be in no doubt: the situation we face in Northern Ireland today is grave and the Government treat it with the utmost seriousness.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on how we have reached this point. The immediate cause of the situation we now face is the fallout from the development and operation of the Northern Ireland renewable heat incentive scheme. Under the scheme launched by the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in 2012, which is equivalent to a scheme in Great Britain, businesses and other non-domestic users were offered a financial incentive to install renewable heat systems on their premises. The scheme was finally shut to new applicants in February last year when it became clear that the lack of an upper limit on payments, unlike in the GB equivalent, meant the scheme was open to serious abuse. In recent weeks there has been sustained media focus and widespread public concern about how this situation developed.
The renewable heat incentive scheme was, and remains, an entirely devolved matter in which the UK Government have no direct role. It is primarily the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to take the necessary action to address the concerns that have been expressed about it. But I do believe it is imperative that a comprehensive, transparent and impartial inquiry into the development and implementation of the scheme needs to be established as quickly as possible. In addition, effective action needs to be taken by the Executive and Assembly to control costs. While the RHI might have been the catalyst for the situation we now face, it has however exposed a number of deeper tensions in the relationship between parties and within the Northern Ireland Executive. This has led to a breakdown in the trust and co-operation that is necessary for the power-sharing institutions to function effectively.
Over the coming hours and days I will continue to explore whether any basis exists to resolve these issues prior to my having to fulfil my statutory duty to call an election. I have been in regular contact with the leadership of the DUP and Sinn Fein and with the Justice Minister, Clare Sugden, an Independent Unionist. Yesterday evening I had a round of calls with the main opposition parties at Stormont. I am in close touch with the Irish Foreign Minister, Charlie Flanagan. Immediately after this Statement I will return to Northern Ireland, where I will continue to do whatever I can to find a way forward. Both the UK and the Irish Governments will continue to provide every possible support and assistance to the Executive parties. We do, however, have to be realistic. The clock is ticking. If there is no resolution then an election is inevitable, despite the widely held view that an election may deepen divisions and threaten the continuity of the devolved institutions.
Mr Speaker, over recent decades Northern Ireland’s politicians have rightly earned plaudits from across the globe for their ability to overcome differences and work together for the good of the whole community. It has required courage and risk on all sides. We are currently in the longest period of unbroken devolved government since the 1960s. This political stability has been hard gained and it should not be lightly thrown away. In the 14 months since the fresh start agreement, significant advances have been made in areas such as addressing paramilitarism, supporting shared and integrated education and putting the Executive’s finances on a sustainable footing. This summer’s parading season has passed off peacefully, and the long-running dispute in north Belfast has been resolved. We have also been working intensively to build the necessary consensus to bring forward the bodies to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, as set out in the Stormont House agreement.
I am in no doubt that what Northern Ireland needs at this time is strong, stable devolved government, not a collapse of the institutions. Northern Ireland deserves fair, accountable, stable and effective government. It needs to continue to implement the Belfast agreement and its successors, to strengthen the economy, to ensure that Northern Ireland responds to the challenges and opportunities presented by the EU exit, to build a stronger, shared society in which there is respect for everyone, and to address the legacy of the past in a way that enables Northern Ireland to move forward. We must not put all this at risk without every effort to resolve differences. We must continue to do all that we can to build a brighter, more secure Northern Ireland that works for everyone. I therefore urge Northern Ireland’s political leaders to work together and come together to find a way forward from the current position in the best interests of Northern Ireland. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is, as he said, a grave situation, and it is not where any of us want to be.
This House has a long memory and much expertise on its Benches, and we can remember a time when people across Northern Ireland did not know the peace that we see today. There has been a huge amount of progress that inspires hope in Northern Ireland. This was built on the hard work and compassion of the Northern Irish people throughout the community and a great many people across the political divide.
I pay tribute to Sir John Major for his role in a previous Conservative Government in kicking off such discussions. I also pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Alderdice, for their contribution to the position we have arrived at today. I also thank the many Members of your Lordships’ House who have contributed daily to the good will within the communities and to the peace we have achieved.
For the Labour Party, the Good Friday agreement is one of the greatest legacies of our Labour Government, and the contribution that we made to it was substantial. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen is here, because we all remember his terrific contribution to the maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland.
The situation today is a threat to the institutions that peace and reconciliation are based on. The Labour Party has no hesitation in offering its full support and any help that it can give the Secretary of State and the Government in seeking to maintain political stability in Northern Ireland.
We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is in touch with all the major parties, as well as the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, and that he is in discussion with the Irish Government. We support the aim to facilitate talks and seek a resolution to this impasse before another election becomes inevitable. It may be regarded as a last throw of the dice—as a last resort—but surely, before the seven days is up, the Secretary of State must consider convening a round table of some import with the individuals concerned to have a final go at seizing this situation. However, I totally accept that many people feel that we may be past that point, as the Minister’s Statement made clear.
What discussions has the Secretary of State had about the work that will need to be done to support and stabilise the devolved institutions after the election, if one is called? The Minister referred to the widely held view that an election will change nothing on its own, so what preparation is being made to deal with that set of circumstances and the challenges that might lie ahead?
The Northern Ireland renewable heat incentive scheme was the final catalyst for the events that have brought us here, but the Minister is right to recognise that the situation occurred in the context of existing and far deeper tensions. That context includes a wider failure to resolve issues in dealing with the legacy of the past.
There has been the impression of a political vacuum on this issue in recent months, which has fed instability. I know what goes on behind the scenes, which is not broadcast, but life is about perceptions as well, and the legacy issue has been like a poison feeding into the well of public consciousness in Northern Ireland. I would like to see that work made more visible. What work is under way and what more does the Secretary of State plan to do to earn agreement on a path forward for those coping with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland?
On the renewable heat incentive scheme, what estimate have the Government made of the cost to the Northern Irish economy of the scheme’s failure? Has the Secretary of State spoken to the major parties in Northern Ireland specifically about setting up a comprehensive and impartial inquiry?
We all want Northern Ireland to look forwards to the future, to prosperity and to an enduring peace agreement. Division gets us nowhere. There are modern challenges facing Northern Ireland, not least of which is ensuring the best deal for the Northern Irish people in the UK’s exit from the European Union. We are at a crucial time for negotiation planning, so I must ask the Minister what impact the Government believe this instability, and a possible election period, will have on the representation of Northern Ireland in talks regarding the UK exit?
The world is watching. As has been said, there is widespread admiration for people on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, who have come together to ensure peace. The successes after decades of hurt and violence have earned admiration throughout the world. Any damage to the process of peace and reconciliation on our collective watch would be a great discredit to us and a great disservice to the people of Northern Ireland, who I am sure do not relish the thought of a possible election.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to your Lordships’ House this evening.
As the Secretary of State has said, the truly peaceful society that we all wish to see in Northern Ireland is intricately bound together with politically stable institutions and a strong economy. It is therefore essential that the people of Northern Ireland have confidence that there is a coherent and collective Government in Stormont—a Government who are open and accountable and working in the best interests of the whole of Northern Ireland.
The stability of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland is more important now than ever, given the particular challenges that will be presented by Brexit in the coming months. It is clear that cool heads and calm leadership are needed in order to resolve the current difficulties. It is also clear that the crisis reveals deeper problems than the specific issues that have come to the fore in recent weeks. To that end, will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will convene immediate talks with all the political parties in Northern Ireland? Will he also ensure that such talks do not just focus on the immediate issues in relation to the RHI scheme but look at measures to improve openness and transparency in the Executive, the Assembly and politics, including transparency in party funding in Northern Ireland?
Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s support for a comprehensive, transparent and impartial inquiry, can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the establishment of this inquiry is not delayed by yesterday’s announcement, and that, if the Executive fail to establish an inquiry, this Government will consider doing so?
Lord Dunlop
I am very grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their remarks and, in particular, for all the thanks that the noble Lord expressed to all those who have played such an important part in the peace process over the years. I am also very grateful for the support they have given the Government in seeking a resolution to very difficult issues.
This is a time to come together and work together. Everyone in this House wants the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland to succeed. I have no doubt that this is the view of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and what they want to see. I have seen for myself, as I have travelled around Northern Ireland over the last six months, the huge progress that is being made and the many positive developments that are happening in all parts of Northern Ireland. The Government want to build on that progress and that is why the Secretary of State and the Government will strain every sinew in the short period ahead to work with all the parties in Northern Ireland to see if we can find a way forward. As the Secretary of State has made clear, he stands ready to assist in any way he can.
A number of specific points were raised. The noble Lord asked about an issue that is clear in the Statement I have just made—that an election may deepen the divisions and may not provide a solution. That is why the Secretary of State is so focused in the coming hours and days on finding a solution to the immediate issues. Regarding legacy, clearly it has been a priority for the Secretary of State to build a consensus on how we move forward from the current, very unsatisfactory situation where we do not have a balanced process in place. We must recall that 90% of the deaths that occurred over the period of the Troubles were the result of terrorist activity. He is absolutely committed to building a consensus on a more balanced and proportionate way forward, building on the Stormont House agreement legacy bodies, and he has articulated the priority he wants to give to that because he would like to move quickly to a public phase.
On the cost estimates of the renewable heat incentive scheme, the Northern Ireland Executive itself has estimated a figure of £490 million over 20 years if there is no mitigation. Clearly, one of the issues we need to deal with in the talks that are taking place with the parties over the next few days is how we mitigate those costs. As for the inquiry, that is absolutely something the Secretary of State is talking to the parties about. We need to establish the facts, accountability and ensure that we have a process that can command confidence. On the implications for the UK’s exit from the EU, the Secretary of State and other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, including myself, have been engaging widely to identify the issues that need to be front and centre of the discussions as we proceed towards the negotiations on exit from the EU, and those discussions have included the Northern Ireland Executive. We want to make sure that we get a good deal for Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole, and the Secretary of State is very clear that the voice of Northern Ireland needs to be at the heart of those discussions. Clearly, that would be assisted if there was a fully functioning Northern Ireland Executive.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, first of all, in what way does the Minister think that an election, and indeed the suggestion of a second election, could in any way overcome the impasse caused by the RHI scheme? Secondly, I welcome very much his Statement that the Government will make every effort to support the Belfast agreement, because that is fundamental. I also welcome the Statement that they would like to see an impartial inquiry, and I am delighted that the First Minister in Northern Ireland also wants to see this. Finally, can the Minister confirm that, should these things fail, the Government will in no way repeat the errors of 1985 and go behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland to reach an agreement with the Dublin Government? That would lead to the chaos which my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord King, well recalls and which the late Lady Thatcher subsequently said she very much regretted had occurred. The failure of the Anglo-Irish agreement must not be repeated.
Lord Dunlop
Regarding the election, I think the Statement makes it clear that there is a risk that that does not provide the solution we are looking for and that it would deepen the divisions. That is why the Secretary of State’s immediate priority is to use the period that we have in the coming hours and days—the seven-day period—to see, in active discussion with all the political parties, whether we can find a way through this. However, the legislation is clear. If the posts are not filled within a seven-day period, the Secretary of State has to call an election. It would obviously be premature today to speculate on the precise timing, but he is clear that he has to do that within a reasonable timeframe. With regard to the Irish Government, clearly there has been close contact with the Irish Government Foreign Minister, while of course respecting the constitutional proprieties.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, it has been nearly 19 years since the Good Friday agreement and two years since the fresh start agreement. We have had an Assembly, but it has been a very dysfunctional Assembly. Part of the reason for that are the matters alluded to by the Minister in the Statement—the increased, deep tension and the breakdown of trust between the parties. Having listened to what the Minister said about the past, what are the Government going to do to enable mechanisms for dealing with the past—mechanisms devised years ago by Eames/Bradley—which would enable and encourage devolved government? I say to the Minister that the absence of mechanisms for dealing with the past leaves a reservoir of distrust, and that in part, I am quite sure, has contributed to that tension and breakdown in trust to which the Minister referred.
Lord Dunlop
The legacy bodies that were envisaged by the Stormont House agreement do potentially provide a viable, balanced and proportionate way forward, recognising, as I said, that the status quo is very unsatisfactory. I am sorry for repeating this again, but the reason why the Secretary of the State is so focused on using this period to talk to all the parties to see whether there is a way through these very challenging issues is precisely that we need a functioning Executive to deal with these issues such as the legacy of the past, which has proved so difficult in allowing Northern Ireland to move forward. It has been a priority for the Secretary of the State and he has been in intensive discussions with all the parties to see whether we can build that consensus. He is very conscious that we will get only one chance to do this properly and we need to build that consensus.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, as a former holder of the post, I give my full support to the Secretary of State in every step that he takes to try to ensure that this does not end in the sad and tragic way that it could. It is almost by default, through political incompetence, Civil Service bungling and party posturing in Northern Ireland, which has led us to a situation where 10 years of devolved government since the historic settlement we negotiated in 2007, and 10 years of Good Friday negotiations prior to that, could be destroyed. As he has mentioned Brexit, will the Minister tell us how, if the Supreme Court rules that the devolved legislatures should, as they all requested, be consulted on Article 50, that can be complied with if there is no Northern Ireland Government?
Lord Dunlop
At the risk of repeating myself again, that is the focus of the activity that the Secretary of State will be involved in over the coming hours and days during this seven-day period, to see whether we can find a way through. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we need a functioning Executive to deal with all the very pressing issues that will be of huge importance to Northern Ireland. Yes, there are challenges with Brexit, but there are opportunities as well, and we need to ensure that we exploit those. But be in no doubt that the voice of Northern Ireland will be heard loud and clear and will be at the heart of preparations for these negotiations. The Northern Ireland Office, the Secretary of State and myself have been engaging widely in Northern Ireland to pin down the key issues that need to be at the forefront of our minds as we approach those negotiations. However, as I said, the noble Lord is absolutely right: a fully functioning Executive will be of assistance in that process.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the crisis at Stormont has been precipitated by gross ministerial incompetence, arrogance, greed and opportunism. I regret to say that the seeds of this debacle were sown in 2006, when the Government unilaterally changed the terms of the Belfast agreement on the appointment of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Does the Minister agree that, had the Government allowed proper parliamentary scrutiny of devolution instead of this wretched policy of “devolve and forget”, which we call the Sewel convention, we might not be facing the potential return of direct rule with all the risks that the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, has outlined—on which I entirely identify with and support him?
Lord Dunlop
I note what the noble Lord says about the change in the method of selecting the First and Deputy First Ministers, and I acknowledge his long-standing position on this. However, as the Secretary of State made clear in the other place, the focus now must be on exploring whether there is any basis for resolving the current issues. There is huge support in Northern Ireland for devolution. The point about devolution—a point I have made in this House before—is that when powers are devolved to institutions, we need to support those institutions in discharging their responsibilities. The renewable heat incentive scheme is a fully devolved matter and we believe that the solution to that—with of course the support of the Secretary of State and the Government—needs to come from within the Northern Ireland institutions.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I also welcome the Statement by the Minister. All this started with the renewable heat incentive scheme in the Assembly. But this is not about playing the blame game anymore. I welcome the continuing partnership between the Government, the Labour Party and the opposition parties on how we might resolve this issue, because there is no doubt that it needs to be resolved.
Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland it is not about the renewable heat initiative any more. As the former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland will know, this will grow legs—and I understand that other issues are now coming into the melting pot. They, too, will have to be resolved. The issue is being compounded by other political parties and individuals in and around this. The only way forward is for the politicians of Northern Ireland to come together and resolve the matter once and for all—because here we are again, and we will be here again next year.
I remember the early 2000s; the Assembly fell three times in almost four years when the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists were in charge. So let us stop the blame game and get to a point at which, eventually, all these issues—legacy issues and current issues—can be resolved. Will the Minister tell us whether there are any further initiatives or measures that the Government can bring to the table to resolve this? We have only one opportunity to resolve this and Assembly elections will not do it. We will come back after an election with the same situation, but worse. The Government must redouble their efforts to bring further measures to the table.
Lord Dunlop
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure he is absolutely right that, in this situation, we want the parties working together. The Secretary of State is very focused on doing that over the coming period. The noble Lord opposite made the suggestion that the Secretary of State might issue a formal invitation to a round table, and I am sure that initiatives of that sort will be considered by the Secretary of State as he continues his discussions with the parties.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I was a direct rule Minister for five years in Northern Ireland, and it seems to me that the last thing Northern Ireland wants is a return to direct rule. Clearly, there has been a serious breakdown of trust and confidence between the political parties in Northern Ireland. I also agree with other noble Lords that an election, frankly, would be disastrous. There is one week in which to avoid that. Does the Minister agree that the guarantors of the Belfast agreement and the others that followed are the British and Irish Governments, and that they should work together very closely and carefully over the next week—even to the point at which the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach get involved?
Lord Dunlop
I absolutely agree that we must, as I said in earlier remarks, strain every sinew to find a way forward. Clearly, there is contact with the Irish Government, but we must respect the constitutional priorities. What has given rise to this situation is the RHI scheme, which is a devolved matter. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland is clearly set out in the Belfast agreement and we need to respect that.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, sufficiently provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, I will make one comment on my noble friend’s Statement. While I perfectly understand the importance of keeping the Irish Government informed, this is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, as it has always been—there has never been any question, at any stage, of joint authority, even during some of the most difficult issues and times.
Coming to my feet on this occasion, I cannot help reflecting on that awful couplet:
“To Hell with the future,
Thank God for the past”.
I will not repeat the last two lines, but I can see how easily we could go back to that unfortunate situation. I recall, tragically, that Northern Ireland has been an example to the world of how you can resolve long-standing difficulties. People have been invited from all over the world to visit Northern Ireland to see how competing traditions have managed to work together. That is the particular tragedy of this situation.
I understand that there is no immediate imperative and that if an election is to be called, there is no particular time within which it has to be called. That may allow for a certain opportunity to see whether some agreement can be reached to carry the country forward. It is the responsibility of all those in Northern Ireland. They can have a better future, and everybody in this House hopes that they will achieve it.
Lord Dunlop
I thank my noble friend. As I said, obviously there has been close contact with the Irish Foreign Minister—but, as he rightly points out, we need to respect the constitutional proprieties, and the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is clearly set out in the Belfast agreement. As for the timing, there is a seven-day period, after which the Secretary of State is obliged to call an election. There is no specified time period for that, but he has to do so within a “reasonable” period of time. Tonight it would be premature to speculate on a specific date.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as one who was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee throughout the 2005 Parliament, working closely with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and his successor, one thing that impressed me enormously was the priority and time given by Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Brown. They frequently paid tribute to the wonderful spadework of Sir John Major.
This should now be at the top of the parliamentary agenda in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister should be involved. I was often in the company of the late Lord Bannside, Ian Paisley, and sometimes in the company of Mr McGuinness. I am sorry that he is so ill at the moment. We should appeal to him as well to play a part in getting everyone together. Will my noble friend convey to the Prime Minister that many of us in this House feel that she would be neglecting no duty in putting this at the top of her agenda for the immediate future? She should go to Northern Ireland and sit down with the political leaders there and explain to them what priority we attach to continuing what has been a very remarkable decade since 2007. I appeal to my noble friend to convey those sentiments to the Prime Minister.
Lord Dunlop
Certainly, the sentiments of this House will be heard loud and clear. I hope that it is clear from the Statement that I have repeated today the gravity and seriousness that the Government attach to these matters and therefore the priority that we will give to them. In the discussions that the Secretary of State will have, he will obviously explore all avenues to see what might be helpful in resolving the current situation. We must not rule anything out in trying to seek that resolution.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, for more than 20 years I was a very regular visitor to Northern Ireland and I currently have an exemplary Northern Ireland son-in-law. Why does the Statement assume that an election will change nothing? We all know that power sharing is a very difficult concept to work out in practice, no doubt because of the lack of trust in a still deeply divided society. But, if the electorate wants to persevere with power sharing, they should penalise those who fail to deliver it. In theory, there could be a new coalition between official Unionists and the SDLP, but long-term thinking is also required beyond the present situation. A county council or GLC model might be more appropriate than what we have. At any rate, less emphasis is needed on legacies from the past and far more on positive and co-operative work for the future, based on civil society and local community relations.
Lord Dunlop
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. One can never predict the implications of elections. The Statement simply sets out the widely held view that an election may deepen divisions and threaten the continuity of devolved institutions. Clearly, we need to work and redouble our efforts to find a resolution, as I have already said.
Wales Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 3 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 77-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF, 176KB) - (6 Jan 2017)
“( ) Paragraph 8(1)(c) does not apply to a provision to which paragraph 8(1)(a) applies or would apply but for sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the first amendment in this group, Amendment 106A, is a technical one. It responds to a concern raised by the Welsh Government about the way in which the restrictions on the Assembly legislating on reserved authorities in paragraph 8(1) of new Schedule 7B apply to the seven reserved authorities listed in paragraph 9 of the new schedule.
The Assembly is prohibited from legislating to confer or impose functions on a reserved authority without consent by virtue of paragraph 8(1)(a), and from legislating to confer or impose functions that are specifically exercisable in relation to a reserved authority without consent by paragraph 8(1)(c). Paragraph 9(2) excepts a small number of reserved authorities from the paragraph 8(1)(a) restriction, but there is no similar exception in relation to paragraph 8(1)(c). That could create an anomalous situation where the Assembly could impose functions in devolved areas on any of the authorities listed in paragraph 9(2), but could confer a power on Welsh Ministers to do so only with consent.
To think of a tangible example, the Assembly could confer on Welsh Ministers a power to issue guidance to any of the seven reserved authorities listed in paragraph 9. The authority would be subject to a duty to have regard to any such guidance when exercising its devolved functions. As the Bill stands, the ministerial consent requirement would not apply to the provision in so far as it concerns the duty on the reserved authority to have regard to the guidance. But the ministerial consent requirement would apply to the provision in so far as it concerns the conferring of a power on Welsh Ministers to issue the guidance. The effect of the amendment is that the requirement for UK ministerial consent does not apply if the relevant provision has the effects described in both paragraphs 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of new Schedule 7B. Following our example, the Assembly would not require consent to create a power for Welsh Ministers to issue guidance to an authority listed in paragraph 9 or create a duty on such an authority to have regard to the guidance.
Government Amendments 136 to 141 extend the application of paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to a public authority. Paragraph 6 currently preserves the validity of, and provides continuity for, actions taken by a Minister of the Crown in respect of functions which are transferred to Welsh Ministers by the Bill. This includes actions taken by a public authority exercising delegated functions of a Minister of the Crown. However, there are functions currently conferred directly on rather than delegated to public authorities such as the Oil and Gas Authority and the Marine Management Organisation which are being transferred to the Welsh Ministers in the Bill. Such functions are not currently covered by paragraph 6. At the point of transfer of these functions to the Welsh Ministers, there may be actions in progress which will need to be continued and completed post-transfer. The amendments made to paragraph 6 preserve the validity of actions taken by a public authority before the date of transfer and provide continuity for anything that is in the process of being done by a public authority at that point.
I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on their amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I listened with great interest to the rationale given by the Minister. I will need to read it again in Hansard to comprehend it fully, but I am sure that it does what he hopes it does.
My Amendment 108 was tabled following concerns expressed to us by the Welsh Language Commissioner, Meri Huws, regarding the Bill’s potential effect on the National Assembly’s power to legislate on matters pertaining to the Welsh language. It was raised in Committee, but I am concerned that there appears to be a lack of appreciation of the points put to us by the commissioner, and which have been addressed by the amendments put forward by my colleagues in Plaid Cymru. The commissioner herself is frustrated that the Government do not seem to have engaged with the substance of the case, which she has made to them as well as to us.
The possible effect of Schedule 2 to the Bill is that, when the National Assembly wishes to legislate for the Welsh language, it will require the consent of the relevant UK Minister to confer, impose, modify or remove within that legislation the Welsh language functions of Ministers of the Crown, government departments and other reserved authorities. Under the current settlement, ministerial consent is required only when legislating to impose Welsh language functions on Ministers of the Crown. The ministerial consent provisions of the Wales Bill in relation to the Welsh language apply to a wider range of persons than is currently the case. The new legislation is therefore more restrictive on the Assembly’s powers than is the status quo and this represents a retrograde step.
Let us consider a practical example. The Welsh Language Commissioner is already engaged in the statutory processes that would result in placing a duty on bodies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service, Ofcom and the BBC to adopt Welsh language standards. This amendment removes the requirement for ministerial consent for Acts of the Assembly affecting functions of reserved authorities, public authorities and Ministers in circumstances where the Act of the Assembly relates to a Welsh language function. I am sure that the House will agree that such a provision is fair and reasonable, given that the Welsh language is quintessentially a devolved issue. Allowing Ministers and public authorities based outside Wales to second-guess National Assembly policy on the Welsh language in Wales, a policy area on which they have little if any informed opinion, is a formula for acrimony and dispute and would reopen language tensions which have abated to a significant extent over recent years.
In the House of Commons debate on the Bill, the Government claimed to offer some clarity and reassurance on the issue by saying that there is nothing in the Bill which affects the Welsh language retrospectively, and that of course is true. However, the Minister went on to confirm that if a future Welsh language measure were to be proposed, it would have the effect which we have pinpointed. Consent would be required to add new public authorities other than Wales public authorities. It would therefore affect any future Welsh language legislation applicable to those areas. The Minister’s words offered no reassurance or indeed any justification as to why this Bill should include such a retrograde step.
A briefing paper produced by the National Assembly for Wales research service confirms our fears and outlines that, under the Bill as it currently stands, there will be a loss of legislative power relating to the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. My colleagues in the National Assembly are furious about this, and it is not only Plaid Cymru AMs who feel strongly about the matter. I shall quote from that briefing paper: “Part 4 of the Welsh language measure allows Welsh language standards to be imposed upon public bodies. Some of the bodies captured by Part 4 would be reserved authorities under the Wales Bill. This means that UK Government consent would be needed before Welsh language standards could be imposed upon them”. There is a consensus that this is yet another blatant rollback and a significant reduction in the ability of the National Assembly for Wales to be able to legislate on its own language—a subject matter that is, for very obvious reasons, devolved.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that on item after item that we have raised today, including the industrial relations amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and lost in a tied vote, the Government have not been willing to move one inch to reduce the powers rollback being instituted by this Bill. The Bill started its passage with a lot of good will, in the belief that the Government would seek to find common ground. Failure to do so has led to a growing bitterness across the parties, which I greatly regret. I urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s position even at this late stage and to rid the Bill of this devolution rollback and to accept our amendment today, even if they need to amend it themselves when the Bill returns to the Commons.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 109 provides for the transfer of all functions currently exercisable by Ministers of the Crown—UK Government Ministers—in relation to areas which are within the devolved legislative competence of the Welsh Government to be transferred to Welsh Government Ministers. Let me start by saying that, given the Government’s intention of producing a Bill that will provide clarity and coherence to the Welsh devolution settlement, it is difficult to understand why such a simple provision as the alignment of executive and legislative competence has not been included.
In providing evidence to the Silk commission, the Welsh Government made clear that a move to a reserved powers model should be accompanied by a blanket transfer of all executive functions within the devolved areas. The Silk commission agreed and recommended:
“In order to reduce complexity and increase clarity, we believe that a future Government of Wales Act should include a general transfer to the Welsh Ministers of Minister of Crown functions in devolved … areas”.
I thank the Minister for writing to me and setting out his understanding of the situation and for clarifying the three categories of executive functions. I will start with the area about which I am most concerned: the pre-commencement functions.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for speaking to their amendments, which I shall deal with in turn. I therefore turn first to Amendment 108 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. In beginning my response I should say that I did not recognise the caricature of the Government not listening and not responding during the course of this legislation; I think that that was uncharacteristically unfair of the noble Lord. We have listened very carefully and in many areas have given ground, as he himself has previously acknowledged. Perhaps I may also say in opening that we are certainly happy to engage with the Welsh Language Commissioner, Meri Huws, for whom I personally have massive respect. I do not think that we have failed to engage, but if there is any issue that she wants to discuss further, I will be more than happy to talk to her about it.
The amendment seeks to remove the requirement for an appropriate Minister to consent where the Assembly seeks to amend, remove or impose new functions on a reserved authority or a Minister of the Crown where those functions relate to the Welsh language. I think that there is agreement between us on the intent of the clause in the Bill.
Throughout the development of the Bill, we have given careful thought—absolutely correctly—to the Welsh language and taken steps to minimise the effects of the new reserved powers model on the Assembly’s legislative competence for the language, but obviously there are issues in relation to reserved bodies. For example, while paragraph 197 of new Schedule 7A reserves the functions of authorities named or described in that schedule, we have inserted an exception for Welsh language functions in paragraph 199. This means that, under the new model, the Assembly will be able to legislate to confer Welsh-language functions on particular authorities, such as the BBC and police and crime commissioners, as the noble Lord, I think, indicated in his speech, subject to the consent of a Minister of the Crown.
We would anticipate that this is not going to be unreasonably withheld, but I think the noble Lord will understand that, where we have a process of reserving issues, and in relation to every other area, we have a provision that devolved areas are quite distinct, so we need to make provision for the Welsh language to make sure that reserved authorities are not put in an invidious position. The noble Lord’s amendment would cut across one of the underlying core principles of the Bill: the Assembly should not be able to impose burdens on non-devolved bodies without agreement. This goes to the core of the legislation. To add a specific exception to the consent process for the Welsh language would undermine that principle.
The noble Lord is absolutely right in relation to the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. It does not affect matters that are already settled, but he is right that in so far as there were to be new regulations under the measure, they would be subject to the new provisions of the clause if it is part of subsequent legislation.
Lord Wigley
Am I understanding correctly that the Minister is in fact confirming the fact that, compared to the position when the 2011 measure was passed, there is a rollback of powers as far as the Assembly is concerned in relation to imposing Welsh language conditions on such bodies?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, we are not comparing like with like. There is a significant amount of legislation here that is actually devolving new powers to the National Assembly. As I have indicated, the noble Lord’s analysis of what the legislation is seeking to do is correct; I am not seeking to deny that.
Amendment 109, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, again seeks a blanket transfer of pre-commencement Minister of the Crown functions and prerogative functions exercisable in devolved areas to the Welsh Ministers, an issue we debated in Committee. I hope noble Lords have read my letter of 12 December to the noble Baroness which explained the Government’s approach on this issue. This has not changed.
I will give an outline of what happens next, which I think may provide some reassurance to the noble Baroness. In preparing the Bill we have undertaken substantial work with departments across Government to identify the remaining functions exercised by Ministers of the Crown in devolved areas. Noble Lords will appreciate that most such functions have already been transferred by transfer of functions orders made since 1999. In the light of the existing transfer of functions orders and the outcome of this work, we have concluded that the blanket transfer proposed would not deliver the clarity that we are looking to deliver through the Bill. New Schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, inserted by Clause 20 of the Bill, sets out the Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas that will in future be exercised concurrently or jointly with the Welsh Ministers.
A handful of pre-commencement functions will continue to be exercised by a Minister of the Crown solely. These are set out in paragraph 11 of new Schedule 7B. I agreed in Committee to take a further look at these functions, and as a result we have, through Amendments 107B and 107C, narrowed the range of functions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act that require consent for modification. As a corollary to this, in Amendment 114A, we have added some functions under this Act and regulations made under it to the list of functions jointly exercisable by Ministers of the Crown and Welsh Ministers, reflecting the interconnectedness of decision-making in the Welsh zone.
The remaining Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas will be transferred to Welsh Ministers by order, and we intend to make that order once this Bill has been enacted. I shared a draft list of the functions that will be included in this order with noble Lords before Second Reading, and we are continuing to discuss this list with the Welsh Government so that we can include any further functions that we identify. Any such order will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament, so noble Lords will be able to debate the content in more detail at that stage.
Once we have made this order it will be absolutely clear which functions have been transferred to Welsh Ministers, something that a blanket provision would not achieve. In addition, a blanket provision would not provide the benefits of concurrent exercise of some powers—for example, enabling Ministers in both Governments to give grants. I will write to the noble Baroness about the issue she raised concerning Scotland, about which I am uncertain, and copy that to other noble Lords who have participated in the debate.
The amendment also includes prerogative functions in so far as they are exercisable in devolved areas. On examining the range of those functions, we concluded that none applied to devolved matters, and therefore have not acted on that.
The noble Baroness talked about the 35 more functions identified by the Welsh Government. As I said, we are looking at additional functions as identified by the Welsh Government and discussing those with them. We will consider them in light of the order that will need to be made. As I said, this will be subject to debate.
In conclusion, regarding the Welsh language, I am very happy for the Wales Office to engage with Meri Huws and perhaps provide her with more certainty about how this would be carried forward. I can assure the noble Lord, who knows my approach to the Welsh language, that there is no malign intent here at all. The language is central to everything that happens in Wales, and thank goodness it is no longer the party-political football it once was. The Wales Office, as you can imagine, is at the moment very much wedded to that view.
I will endeavour to update the noble Baroness on the Scotland issue, but I will also write to her and to noble Lords more generally about how the discussion with the Welsh Government is going regarding those functions. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I be clear? There is going to be this transfer after the Bill, but what if we find some more things down the back of the sofa later on? Is there a facility for us to transfer later on the things that we may not have found in this initial sweep-up? It is a big place, the Civil Service.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am trying to speculate what the noble Baroness might be finding behind the sofa at that stage. I hope that the process would have delivered most of the important issues, but in so far as something is discovered later on, I am sure we will be able to engage with the noble Baroness—or whoever else discovers it behind the sofa—and come to some measure of agreement. It is difficult to anticipate what that issue would be, but if it clearly should be the subject of an order, then I do not see any problem.
Lord Wigley
If in fact there is something that has not been foreseen, do we have the order-making facility that can cover matters that have not been specified in the Bill?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is referring to the specific order that would come forward, in which case there would be the ability—subject to affirmative procedure, presumably—to withhold consent, unless we were in listening mode, if that should happen in an extreme position. But if it happens after that procedure, as I have indicated to the noble Baroness, I would be very happy to engage and discuss how we could deal with that. I am uncertain whether there is a particular procedure, but I would anticipate that there is. There must be a way to transfer functions by order, which we have done during the course of successive Governments. So I think the procedure is there, and if I can give that undertaking, I am very happy to do so.
“( ) Paragraph 8(1) does not apply in relation to the funding of police and crime commissioners through council tax precepts.”
“( ) This paragraph does not apply in relation to the funding of police and crime commissioners through council tax precepts.”
“(a) functions of a Minister of the Crown under the following provisions of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967—(i) section 1(3), (4) and (6) (size limits for fish carried by fishing boat);(ii) section 3(1), (3) and (4) (regulation of nets and other fishing gear);(iii) section 5 (power to restrict fishing for sea fish);(iv) section 15(3) (order by Ministers as to powers of British sea-fishery officers for enforcement of the Act);(b) functions of a Minister of the Crown or the Marine Management Organisation under the following provisions of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967—(i) section 4 (licensing of fishing boats);(ii) section 4A (licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish);(c) functions of a Minister of the Crown under the following provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968—(i) section 5(1) and (2)(a) (regulation of conduct of fishing operations);(ii) section 7(1)(g) and (2) (appointment of British sea-fishery officers); (d) functions of a Minister of the Crown under the following provisions of the Fisheries Act 1981—(i) section 15 (schemes of financial assistance);(ii) section 16 (administration schemes by Sea Fish Industry Authority);(e) functions of a Minister of the Crown under section 30(2) of the Fisheries Act 1981 (enforcement of Community rules).”
“4 Functions specified in the table below are exercisable jointly with the Welsh Ministers.
Act or instrument | Functions |
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 | Functions of the Secretary of State under section 6 in relation to strategies for combatting crime and disorder or re-offending in areas in Wales. |
Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 | Functions of the Secretary of State under sections 45, 46 and 47 (preparation, review and amendment of marine policy statement) in relation to a marine policy statement prepared by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers acting jointly (or by the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers and one or more other authorities acting jointly). |
Functions of the Secretary of State under Schedule 5 (preparation or amendment of marine policy statement) that are exercisable jointly with the Welsh Ministers by virtue of paragraph 2(2)(b) of that Schedule. | |
Functions of the Secretary of State under subsection (6) of section 70 (inquiries) that are exercisable jointly with the Welsh Ministers by virtue of subsection (7) of that section. | |
Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1627) | Functions of the Secretary of State under regulation 19 (directions to, and assistance from, public authorities) that are exercisable jointly with the Welsh Ministers by virtue of paragraph (5) of that regulation. |
Functions of the Secretary of State under regulation 20 (guidance) that are exercisable jointly with the Welsh Ministers by virtue of paragraph (5) of that regulation.” |
“8A_ In section 158 (interpretation), in subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert— ““property” includes rights and interests of any description,””
“property | section 158(1)” |
“10A_ In Schedule 3 (transfer etc of functions: further provision), in paragraph 3(2), for “section 58” substitute “section 58(1)”.”
“(8B) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision for applications in respect of which they are the appropriate authority to be determined by a person appointed by them for that purpose.””
“45A_ In section 36C of the Electricity Act 1989 (variation of consents under section 36), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Regulations may provide that, where the Welsh Ministers are the appropriate authority, applications under this section are to be determined by a person appointed by the Welsh Ministers for that purpose.””
“( ) section (Water and sewerage)(2);( ) sections (Water protocol) and (Reciprocal cross-border duties in relation to water).”
Lord Wigley
“ Before making regulations under this subsection, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers and the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales.”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, this is the last amendment on our list today, Amendment 146 in my name, which seeks to ensure that UK Ministers may use regulations to commence a number of provisions of the Bill only after consultation with Welsh Ministers and the Presiding Office of the National Assembly for Wales. Incidentally, harking back to what we were talking about a moment ago, order-making capacity, I understand that unless there is a specific order-making capacity in primary legislation it is not possible to bring forward orders. However, we can look at that outside the Chamber.
From the outset, I concede that this amendment would not, in isolation, achieve what I am seeking to do. It is, broadly speaking, part of a series of amendments that I have tabled at earlier stages, which aim to stop UK Ministers riding roughshod over the National Assembly for Wales by using secondary legislation to commence, amend or repeal legislation affecting our national Parliament without its consent. It is that question of establishing a system of prior consent that is central to this amendment.
The issue that triggered my concerns, and the concerns of many Peers across these Benches, was the inclusion of Henry VIII powers within this Bill. Since the Minister has felt the full force of the former Chief Justice of England and Wales, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, not once but twice on this issue, I know that he is well aware of the arguments. I will therefore keep my comments on this matter to a minimum. However, I want to use the amendment to call on the Minister to hold true to his word, and the word of his colleagues, to create a permanent devolution settlement, which means that the democratic Parliament of Wales in Cardiff Bay has the absolute authority over the laws that it makes.
I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I remind the Minister of the comments made regarding Henry VIII powers in our previous debate. In particular, I remind him of the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to the Minister’s two assurances—that any regulations would be discussed by officials well in advance of coming into force and that the Secretary of State would write to the First Minister and Presiding Officer notifying them of the intention to bring forward regulations. Undoubtedly, these are welcome concessions, although they will not appear in the Bill. However, this Bill, in the Government’s own words, is meant to be about creating a clear, working, legal settlement between two Parliaments. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, noted during our last debate, the Minister’s so-called solutions to our concerns regarding Henry VIII powers are,
“legally ... completely irrelevant”.—[Official Report, 14/12/16; col. 1350.]
I shall shortly ask leave to withdraw this amendment but, before doing so, I ask the Minister to consider once again removing or amending all clauses in this Bill which allow Westminster to take steps that can be interpreted as riding roughshod over the democratically elected Parliament of Wales—in other words, the need for consent, discussion and agreement prior to using powers that can have quite a draconian effect. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for moving the last amendment for business today. First, on the point that he made in relation to orders, I believe that there is an order-making power in Section 58 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 that can be used—but I shall cover that in writing to noble Lords if I might, because there are a variety of issues on which I want to write to noble Lords.
I understand the point that the noble Lord made on the need for partnership working between the two Governments, which, if I may say so, has been exemplified in relation to the fiscal framework, where there has been a very successful partnership which may have confounded expectations. But yes, of course, we need to extend that across the piece so that it does not apply just in relation to that issue, important though it is. It needs to be done on a broader front. The other point is, when we have had parties of different political complexions in government here and in Wales, it has been illustrative of the fact that we have been able to move things forward in a demonstrable way—not always agreeing on everything, clearly, but agreeing on an awful lot, and the way forward in relation to the legislation.
I take to heart very much what the noble Lord said about Henry VIII powers, which certainly need to be limited in scope. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that it was politically astute but legally not worth the paper that it was going to be written on, to be absolutely fair. That was his judgment—and of course he has great authority and knowledge on these matters, as I regularly acknowledge.
The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers and the Assembly’s Presiding Officer before making regulations to commence provisions under Clause 62(4). Clause 62 provides for those provisions which need to be brought into force quickly after the Act is passed to come into force on the day the Act is passed, through subsection (1), or two months after it is passed, through subsection (2). The Assembly will, for example, early on, if it wants to do so, be able to change its name at any time after two months from Royal Assent.
Of course, Clause 62(3) already imposes a duty, which the noble Lord did not mention, on the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers and the Assembly’s Presiding Officer before commencing the new reserved powers model—that is already in the clause—on the “principal appointed day”. That is already there and of course there are good reasons for that. The new devolution model will fundamentally alter the landscape within which the Welsh Government make policy and the Assembly makes legislation. It will require policymakers and legislators to get to grips with a new settlement, framed in a very different way from the current one. It is only right, therefore, that the Bill places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult both the First Minister and the Presiding Officer before bringing the new model into force.
For other provisions in the Bill, we will of course work closely with the Welsh Government, as we are doing, and the Assembly Commission to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible as the Assembly takes on the important new powers that the Bill will deliver. Of course, the majority of these provisions devolve further powers to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers and are intrinsically linked to the new reserved powers model. I anticipate—although clearly this will be subject to discussion with the Welsh Government—that most if not all of them, other than those limited ones I have indicated, will come into force on the same day as the reserved powers model. But that is a matter for discussion.
I believe that a separate consultation on the commencement of these provisions would be unnecessary as it is something that is either provided for, as it is in relation to the important issue of reserved powers, or will be included in that discussion in practice between the two separate Governments as things progress. On that basis I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that considered response. I accept entirely that there are broad-brush consultation provisions in the Bill for when the first steps are taken to bring in the new order that will follow the Bill coming into force. There will, however, be cases that arise from time to time when new orders are forthcoming and when there will be a necessity for there to be at least a notification—I hope there will be a consultation—before that happens. I hope, therefore, that in the initial consultation to which the Minister referred a moment ago, there might be established a procedure—a protocol, if you like—for the way in which such orders will be handled in future, and, built into that procedure, an agreement that there will be advance warning and consultation and that views can be taken on board. That would be a very helpful move forward. Having said that—I note that the Minister is thinking carefully about it, judging by the look on his face, and I will be very grateful if he does—on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.