House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
It is with great sadness that I have to report to the House the death of the right hon. Sir Gerald Kaufman, Labour Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton. He will be sorely missed by his relatives, by his friends, by his constituents and by his parliamentary colleagues, not to mention very large numbers of people across this country and around the world.
Colleagues, before Gerald entered Parliament, and after leaving Leeds Grammar School and Oxford University, Gerald worked as assistant general secretary of the Fabian Society and subsequently as a journalist on the Daily Mirror and for the New Statesman. Thereafter, he was parliamentary press liaison officer for the Labour party, working closely with Harold Wilson.
He entered this House, as colleagues will know, in June 1970, as the Member of Parliament for Manchester, Ardwick, which constituency he represented until 1983. Thereafter, and following boundary changes, he represented Manchester Gorton from 1983 without interruption. He was, as we know, the Father of the House. He served in this place diligently, with principle and utter dedication, for well over 46 years.
Under Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, Gerald served as a Minister with responsibility for the environment and subsequently with responsibility for industry. In opposition, he was a long-serving and distinguished member of Labour’s shadow Cabinet, serving as shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, as shadow Home Secretary and, indeed, as shadow Foreign Secretary. Many people will know that he was a prolific writer and the author of several books, not least, and perhaps most memorably, a book entitled “How to be a Minister”.
After he ceased to serve on the Front Bench, Gerald chaired, initially, the Select Committee on National Heritage for, if memory serves, a full Parliament, and then, when the Committee took its new form—the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—Gerald chaired that Committee for two whole Parliaments.
Since 2010, Gerald has been the longest serving Labour Member of Parliament, and since 2015 he has, of course, been Father of the House. In more recent years, I have been privileged to be supported by Gerald on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, of which he was, if I can put it this way, a highly distinguished ornament.
Gerald was, of course, a passionate, eloquent, relentless, indefatigable campaigner for social justice at home and abroad. I will not pretend that he was always the easiest of colleagues. If you were lauded or praised by Gerald, you doubtless took delight in the experience; if you were attacked or denounced by Sir Gerald, you could be in no doubt on the matter. But there was that fidelity to principle, that commitment to causes and that insistence on doing his duty by his constituents, by his party and by his country.
Gerald will be mourned very widely indeed, and in expressing, I hope on behalf of the House, our condolences to his relatives and friends, I should perhaps just take this opportunity to say to the House that colleagues will have a chance to pay tribute to Sir Gerald later this week.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
If I may, I would like to join you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to the late Member for Manchester Gorton. I was always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing us that it is possible for the children of immigrants to treasure their roots while still embracing their Britishness and the active role they can play in public life. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say he will be deeply missed, and my sympathies go to his family and friends.
One person sleeping on the streets is one too many. All too often, support is provided at crisis point. That is why we are supporting 84 projects through our £50 million homelessness prevention programme—an end-to-end approach to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping.
Paula Sherriff
May I, too, Mr Speaker, associate myself with your comments regarding the late Father of the House? It is a sad day and a sad loss, and we shall all miss him dearly.
Official figures confirm that rough sleeping has more than doubled since 2010, after falling by more than three quarters under Labour. Why does the Secretary of State think that homelessness fell under Labour but has risen so dramatically under the Tories?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady touches on the record of the previous Labour Government. It would be fair to point out that the level of statutory homelessness acceptances was higher in every year of the previous Labour Government, bar one, than it is today. That shows that homelessness, whether rough sleeping or other forms, is a chronic long-term issue that has been challenging for successive Governments. If we can all work together on this and take a more cross-party approach, that can help. The support from Members across this House for the Homeless Reduction Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is a great example of how we can all work together.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Despite the great efforts of voluntary groups such as the King’s Arms project and the Salvation Army in Bedford, Bedford borough is a hotspot for people sleeping rough. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the measures that are coming forward in the areas where people are particularly at risk of rough sleeping are having the impact intended?
Sajid Javid
I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about this issue, which he has raised with me in the past. I reassure him that the Government do take the issue of rough sleeping very seriously. I can point to the recent announcement of the £20 million rough sleeping fund, and also the work we are doing on social impact bonds to find new, creative methods that can also help.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State take the short trip up the M5 from Bromsgrove to the Black country, where he can visit the YMCA’s brilliant Open Door project, which finds stable family homes for homeless young people in the area, and achieves phenomenal results, getting the majority into college, into work, and even into university? Will he come and look at that and consider whether he can fund a similar scheme nationwide, because it really does achieve remarkable results?
Sajid Javid
I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the work of the YMCA in this field, particularly its Open Door project—I would like to learn more about that. It is just these kinds of projects that we want to see more of and provide support for. Our £50 million homelessness prevention fund, which is already supporting over 80 projects, can help in that.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Would not the good efforts of my right hon. Friend’s Department be assisted by a cross-Government strategy on homelessness that would deal with some of the underlying issues such as addictions, in encouraging the Department of Health to support more addiction services, and encouraging the Chancellor to increase the price of super-strength ciders in the forthcoming Budget?
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that my hon. Friend talks again about a cross-party approach to this very important issue. He highlights the need to look at the causes of homelessness. I think that when any Member of the House comes across anyone who is homeless, they will see that their needs are often complex—it can be to do with addiction, for example, or mental health issues. We would all do well to take those issues more seriously.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons that people end up homeless and sleeping on the streets is the action taken by private landlords, very often in houses in multiple occupation? Will he look at what more could be done to regulate the private rented sector to prevent conditions arising that drive people on to the streets?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Lady makes a good point. I do not think that that is the primary cause of homelessness, and nor is she suggesting that, but it is worth looking at it. I hope she will welcome our decision to extend licensing to smaller HMOs, because that can help with the situation.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
While there remains much to do, the Scottish Government have pushed ahead with measures to help those who need it most, including the Scottish welfare fund, which has issued grants totalling £116 million since the scheme was established, groundbreaking homelessness legislation and regulation of private landlords and rents. What similar measures have the UK Government taken?
Sajid Javid
Some similar measures have been taken in England. For example, on the issue of providing enough funding, the last spending review set aside £550 million to tackle homelessness, and I have mentioned the homelessness prevention programme. There is also £100 million for a new programme to deliver at least 2,000 low-cost accommodation places, which I think will also help.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
The Government are committed to building the homes that our country needs. Measures in the recent White Paper will ensure that more homes are planned for where they are needed most and that homes are built more quickly once they have planning permission, and they will diversify the housing market to make sure that it works for everyone.
Stephen Hammond
What actions is the Department taking to ensure that unused public sector land in London is released more quickly for housing development?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the broken housing market in London. I know that he takes the issue seriously and has done much to help in his own area. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who co-chairs the London Land Commission, is working on identifying new opportunities to release public land for housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) may also be interested to know that the last autumn statement allocated £3.15 billion to affordable homes in London. The Government have done their very important bit; I now expect the Mayor of London to step up and do his.
Richard Graham
Gloucester City Council and Gloucester City Homes have put together a strong bid, with my support, to the estates regeneration programme, which will transform the old estates and wards of Matson and Podsmead in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet us briefly to hear our case, and when does he think decisions will be made on the bids?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate of regeneration for Matson and Podsmead; he has talked to me about the issue a number of times and I am pleased that he has raised it again. My Department has received a number of bids for regeneration funding across England. We will make funding announcements shortly, but I would be more than happy to meet him and a delegation to discuss the issue further.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State come to Huddersfield to see how many private sector new homes have been built? Unfortunately they are nearly all for students. Is it not about time that elderly people up and down our country had the right kinds of buildings and homes? Why can more councils not be liberated to build those homes?
Sajid Javid
One thing that might have helped is if Labour-run Kirklees Council had thought about all the different types of people from different backgrounds who live in the local area when it put together its local plan. The hon. Gentleman may be happy to learn that our White Paper sets out further requirements for all local authorities to make sure that they look carefully at the needs of their area, including those of older people.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
May I extend the condolences of the Scottish National party to the family, friends and colleagues of Gerald Kaufman? He made a considerable impact—more than many others ever get to do—during his career, and we will miss his dignity and experience and his contributions to the House.
The right to buy is not just the right to buy, but the right to buy at a discount of up to £100,000. Anne Baxendale of Shelter has said that the
“extension of Right to Buy would jeopardise any potential profit needed for future housebuilding”.
Will the Secretary of State explain why he wants to make it more difficult for people to access truly affordable housing, as built by local government housing companies?
Sajid Javid
The Government believe that the right-to-buy policy, including in relation to council housing and its extension to housing association homes, is very important. We will continue to back it, and where a tenant does exercise that right we expect that home to be replaced.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Neighbourhood plans have incentivised parish and town councils to build and deliver more houses by giving them 25% of the community infrastructure levy. Given that the levy is subject to review, is there a plan to continue providing that proportion for local parishes and towns?
Sajid Javid
I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of neighbourhood plans in getting more ownership of local plans at the local or parish level. That is why the measures we are taking in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill to do just that are very welcome. When it comes to the share of the levy, it is very important to maintain that principle.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State consider bringing forward legislation in this House to end the practice of land banking? My constituents are fed up with seeing developers sitting on properties or places without any sign of their building the new homes that we so badly need.
Sajid Javid
In the year to September 2016, 277,000 planning permissions were granted in England, which is a record high since 2007. I share some of the hon. Lady’s frustration. We want those planning permissions to be turned into homes—people cannot live in a planning permission—and that is why our housing White Paper has a number of measures to deal with just this issue.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Prefabricated dwellings are now built to extremely high standards of both quality and durability. Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to accept an invitation to visit Prestige Park & Leisure Homes in Kettering, which is a pre-eminent manufacturer of high-quality park homes, to see how this sort of dwelling might help him to address the housing problems in this country?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. We want to see more innovation and creativity in house building in this country, and factory-built, modular, custom-built or prefabricated homes—call them what you will—have an important role to play. I have seen examples of factories in England, such as those in Bedford and Leeds, and I would be very happy to visit one in Kettering too.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, from the Labour Front Bench, may I fully endorse the full tribute that you have paid to our dear friend and colleague Gerald Kaufman? Certainly those of us who knew him best will miss him most.
After seven years of Conservative failure on housing, we were told by the Secretary of State that his White Paper would be “a bold, radical plan”, yet when he launched it, he said that his top priority was
“a proper conversation about housing need”.—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 230.]
After new figures showed that new house building actually fell last year, the White Paper was meant to be a plan to fix the housing crisis, so let me ask the Secretary of State a simple question: how many more new homes will be built by the end of this Parliament as a result of the White Paper?
Sajid Javid
Time and again, the right hon. Gentleman gets up at the Dispatch Box and talks about the failure to build homes when the evidence is very different. He never refers to his own track record: we saw housing starts fall to their lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the White Paper and its reception, so let me share with him some responses to the White Paper. The National Housing Federation called it a
“positive step in the right direction”.
The Royal Town Planning Institute said that it welcomed the measures, which it had “long campaigned for”. Another one—perhaps he can guess where this came from—is that
“yesterday’s housing white paper points us in a better direction… the proposals…show some promising signs for Londoners.”
Where did that come from? The Mayor of London.
John Healey
All those organisations will be interested in the question that the Secretary of State cannot and will not answer, which is how many extra new homes will be built as a result of what he calls his new measures in the White Paper? In truth, the White Paper was a white flag on housing, especially on help for first-time homebuyers. Home ownership rose by 1 million under Labour; it has fallen under Tory Ministers since 2010, and it is in freefall for young first-time buyers. Given this, why is Help to Buy helping 20,000 people who are not even first-time buyers, and why is Help to Buy helping over 3,000 people who earn more than £100,000 a year? Will he use the Budget next week to target this taxpayers’ help better and do more for first-time buyers on ordinary incomes?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have taken a number of actions since July to boost home building in this country—not just the action outlined in the White Paper, but the £1.7 billion accelerated construction programme, the £3 billion home building fund, the £2.3 billion for the housing infrastructure fund and £1.4 billion extra for affordable homes. The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of home ownership. As a former housing Minister, he should know that home ownership rates under Labour fell from a peak of 71% to 64%. I have another quote—from him—about the decline in home ownership which, word for word, is that
“I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing”.
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
In the past few weeks, the Government have reaffirmed our commitment to the midlands engine, announcing two new midlands enterprise zones—one in Brierley Hill in Dudley, and the other in Leicester and Loughborough. The first ever midlands engine trade summit will take place in Birmingham on 9 March.
David Mackintosh
Will my right hon. Friend outline how the midlands engine will help Northampton?
Sajid Javid
As a midlands MP, I am pleased to see a strong and successful midlands engine, as well as the economic benefits it will bring throughout the region. In Northampton, small businesses will be eligible for the £250 million midlands engine investment fund, which will open shortly. In addition, Northampton will benefit from more than £5 billion of investment in midlands transport infrastructure.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
London gets shedloads of money for public transport and Manchester has far more miles of tram network than the urban west midlands. As a west midlands MP, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Secretary of State for Transport on extending the tram network massively in the urban west midlands?
Sajid Javid
As a local MP, the hon. Gentleman will know about some of the work that is going on, especially around Birmingham, to extend the tram network, which could make a big difference. He will also know about our recent announcement of £392 million of local growth funding for the region. There will be more detail shortly, but a large part of that will go to transport projects.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Our recent housing White Paper underlines the Government’s continuing commitment to the green belt. Local councils should remove land only in exceptional circumstances, and the White Paper clarifies what that means: when they can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting housing need.
Mr Nuttall
When a plan proposes large-scale development on the green belt, as in the case of the Greater Manchester spatial framework, will my hon. Friend assure me that he will carefully assess how realistic the various projections and assumptions are for things such as population growth and household size?
Gavin Barwell
I assure my hon. Friend that the approach that is taken will be robustly tested by a planning inspector in public, and that he will be able to give evidence. My hon. Friend is right that before councils think about releasing green-belt land, they should consider brownfield land, surplus Government land, density and how their neighbours can help to meet housing need.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Plans to build on the green belt in Bury are part of the Greater Manchester spatial strategy, which also affects Flixton in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that Greater Manchester councils should look at using brownfield and other sites in preference to green belt, as he says, and perhaps at increasing density when possible?
Gavin Barwell
I very much agree with hon. Lady. The White Paper sets out clearly what “exceptional circumstances” means. It is a phrase in the national planning policy framework that has not been defined previously. This is about looking at brownfield land, surplus public sector land, density and what neighbouring areas can do before precious green-belt land is released.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Small builders tell us that the two key constraints that they face are access to land and finance. Our home building fund includes £1 billion of short-term loan funding for small builders, and our recent White Paper will ensure that councils make small sites available.
Mark Pawsey
I thank the Minister for that answer, because the time it takes to get a site through the planning process is often a challenge for small builders, who are less able to bear the risk involved and the funding required. Will he continue with the reforms he is making to the planning system to ensure that local planning authorities can deal speedily with small sites?
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is right to raise the challenges that small builders face. We plan to boost the capacity of planning authorities by allowing them to increase planning fees. With regard to the designation regime, the Government will take action when councils are not taking sufficient decisions within a certain timescale. I also draw the House’s attention to the new permission in principle regime, which is a way for small builders to find out the planning certainty for a site without their having to do the full preparation work.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
My local authority of Flintshire, which is just over the border from England, is building 500 new council homes, which are being constructed by small builders. Is not this approach, which is putting people into housing and creating jobs in the private building sector, a good way forward?
Gavin Barwell
The White Paper is very clear on this point—we absolutely want councils to get back into the business of building homes. There is a huge need for more housing and the more people who are involved in the building of homes the happier the Government will be.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Our recent housing White Paper sets out measures to increase the use of modern methods of construction in housebuilding. The key is to provide a pipeline of work to encourage suppliers to invest in new plant. We will do that through our accelerated construction and home building fund, and through the growing build-to-rent and custom build markets.
Robert Courts
Does the Minister not agree that custom built homes, which can often be built more quickly and cheaply, and often to a higher standard than other types of housing, have a real part to play in solving housing supply issues?
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only can homes be built more quickly and with a better environmental performance, which means that they are cheaper for people to live in when they move there but, in terms of the real skills challenge we face if we are going to build many more homes, that is a way of getting new people involved in the building of homes.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of meeting one of the partners of Waugh Thistleton, the architects behind a new housing development at Dalston Lane in Hackney, which uses more timber than any other project in the world. Is cross-laminated timber on the Department’s radar, and what are the Government doing to help to support architects who are exploring this very sustainable material?
Gavin Barwell
It is absolutely on our agenda. The term “modern methods of construction” covers a wide range of different techniques. The key policy area is our home building fund, which provides £1 billion of loan funding for people who are innovating. Too many homes are still built in exactly the same way as they were 100 years ago. We are determined to change that, and I am very happy to hear about the example provided by the hon. Lady.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not good enough just to get new homes built. They need to be built well and to stand the test of time. Building inspectors check to ensure that building regulation requirements are met, but we are also considering the recommendations in the report of the all-party group on excellence in the built environment.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
At the weekend, we learned that Bovis Homes is to pay £7 million in compensation for poorly built new homes. Will the Minister tell the House what he will do to improve the quality of new homes, including those built by new methods of construction, and to ensure they are built in well-planned communities with appropriate infrastructure? Unfortunately, while the housing White Paper had warm words, it lacked any substance whatsoever on quality and place-making issues.
Gavin Barwell
Despite what the hon. Lady says, there has been a very warm reaction to the housing White Paper from right across the housing sector. I have spent the past week travelling around the country and holding meetings with housing professionals, including, interestingly, Labour councillors, who are very keen to get behind the Government’s agenda to build the homes that Governments of both colours, over 30 or 40 years, have failed to build.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
For reasons best known to themselves, about two years ago Reading Borough Council and West Berkshire Council challenged the Government’s policy of assisting brownfield development via vacant building credit. Will the Minister update us on whether the Government are still committed to vacant building credit to release more residential homes on brownfield land?
Gavin Barwell
We are certainly absolutely committed to trying to get a greater proportion of the homes we need built on brownfield land. The White Paper sets out a huge range of different things that we will do to achieve that, but I will happily write to my hon. Friend about the details of the issue he raises.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to new construction methods, but will he confirm to the House that the Government’s commitment to starter homes, which are designed to encourage home ownership, remains undiminished?
Gavin Barwell
Absolutely. Starter homes are an important part of the way in which the Government are going to try to help people to get into home ownership. There are a number of different schemes—[Interruption.] We are not proceeding with a statutory obligation because that reflects the view expressed to us by large numbers of people. Starter homes go alongside shared ownership and the Help to Buy scheme. None of these schemes existed when the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was housing Minister and did nothing to reverse to the decline in home ownership.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
Our devolution deals will support economic growth across the country by devolving powers and, more importantly, funding from this place so that they can be determined by local people. By May this year, 33% of England’s population will have gone to the polls to elect their directly elected Mayors.
Tracy Brabin
As the Minister no doubt knows, two years ago West Yorkshire council agreed a devolution deal for the Leeds city region. Why has there been no progress? What plans does he have to give West Yorkshire the devolution deal it wants, and why the delay?
Andrew Percy
We have made good on the city deals we negotiated with the Leeds city region. The problem on broader Yorkshire devolution, given that this is a bottom-up approach, is that there has not been agreement across Yorkshire about what form it should take. Some of the hon. Lady’s colleagues have not helped in recent weeks by proposing solutions on a boundary of a nature not within the legal framework.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that—to paraphrase President Kennedy —it is not so much what the Government can do to assist devolution deals, but what devolution deals can do for themselves through strong leadership following the election of effective Mayors?
Andrew Percy
Absolutely. For an example of the sort of leadership we will require in these mayoralties, my hon. Friend need look no further than the west midlands, where Andy Street is a fantastic candidate who I am sure will be a strong mayor and champion for the west midlands.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his continued efforts to keep the Sheffield city region devolution deal moving forward. I understand that the mayoral election will be postponed until next year but that it might be possible in the meantime for local authorities to access the £30 million on offer if they agree to appoint an interim mayor. Will he confirm that that is the case? If so, what criteria will he want to see in place for it to happen?
Andrew Percy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his unwavering support for the South Yorkshire and Sheffield city region deal. It is a good deal that will deliver funding and powers to South Yorkshire to help to drive forward its economy. We can look at interim mayors if necessary. I assure him that the Government are absolutely committed to the deal and will try to bring it forward as quickly as possible, but with the agreement of the four local authorities in the Sheffield city region.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
In recent weeks and months, we have of course introduced the first northern powerhouse strategy and, more importantly, put £556 million behind it through the local growth funding allocations, with the north receiving the largest proportion from the broader £1.8 billion fund.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the Minister for his recent visit to Pendle and the Government for the £4 million investment that will create more than 1,100 new full-time jobs on the Lomeshaye industrial estate. We have seen strong growth in small and medium-sized enterprises across the north of England in recent years, but what more can we do to help them to grow?
Andrew Percy
It was a delight to visit the Lomeshaye industrial estate on a wet Lancashire day—is there any other kind?—only the other week, and I thank my hon. Friend for his support for that. On his specific interest in small and medium-sized businesses, just last week I joined other funding partners in launching a £400 million investment fund for northern powerhouse businesses. This will provide loans to businesses of between £25,000 and £2 million, and support our wonderful small and medium-sized businesses across the north.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Small businesses form an important part of York’s economy as part of the northern powerhouse, but businesses are struggling with the new deal on business rates. Overseas landlords are pushing up rents, and that is then pushing up rateable values. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury so that in next week’s Budget we will see a fair deal on business rates?
Andrew Percy
I was in York just last Friday to speak to Make It York and celebrate our funding for the York Central enterprise zones. As the hon. Lady will be aware, business rates bills across the north will be falling, but as the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made absolutely clear, we are committed to supporting further those businesses that are hardest impacted by rises. Across the north more generally, however, we will see falls in business rates.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As the Minister knows, the Humber local enterprise partnership was recently allocated £27 million under the growth fund. The two local authorities that serve the Cleethorpes constituency are also members of the Lincolnshire LEP. Will he enlighten us on when their settlement is due?
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we recently allocated £27 million to the Humber in the growth deal. It is important to remember that, on a per-head basis, that is more than has been received in large parts of the south of England. We will announce in the coming weeks the Greater Lincolnshire LEP allocations that also cover North and North East Lincolnshire as part of the £392 million package for the midlands.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
Business rates are based on valuations carried out independently of Ministers by the Valuation Office Agency. My hon. Friend may be reassured to know that the change in average business rates in Dover is largely a consequence of the significant increase in the rateable value of the English side of the channel tunnel.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my right hon. Friend for that very helpful answer. Can he confirm that leaving aside the channel tunnel, which has done very well in recent years and has gone up an awful lot in value, business rates across the Dover district as a whole are down 8%? Will he also look at the case of small businesses and transitional relief as they leave business rate relief?
Sajid Javid
I can tell my hon. Friend that as a result of the recent revaluation, the English side of the channel tunnel has seen its rateable value more than double to £35 million, which accounts for roughly a third of the local ratings list. If this were excluded, average rateable values in my hon. Friend’s local authority would fall in line with those in the rest of Kent.
Mr Speaker
With exclusive reference to Dover, given that the Dover road does not go through Hackney.
Meg Hillier
It is not just the Dover district that is having these problems but businesses up and down the country, particularly in London and the south-east. I met small businesses in Hackney—not that far from Dover—on Friday. The reality surely is that the system is bust and that small businesses with a small turnover are being hit with huge and unsustainable bills, so what is the Secretary of State going to do to make life better for businesses in Dover, Hackney and around the country?
Sajid Javid
I think the hon. Lady deserves an answer to that, Mr Speaker. First, transitional relief is in place—it is worth some £3.6 billion—to help businesses across the board, including smaller businesses. Secondly, the extension of small business rate relief will mean that 600,000 companies will pay zero in business rates from April this year. I am sure that the hon. Lady would join me in welcoming that.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
As we set out in the recent housing White Paper, we will consult on options for introducing a standardised approach to assessing housing requirements. We will do this at the earliest opportunity, and the outcome will be reflected in changes to the national planning policy framework.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that now that the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk has an excellent local plan in place, it will not be overruled on appeal, so long as that plan is followed? Can he also confirm that the White Paper means that inspectors will now apply uniform criteria when calculating five-year land supply?
Sajid Javid
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any particular plan that is in front of the inspectors, but we do want local authorities to put in place up-to-date robust plans, and we want to incentivise them to do so. Once adopted, we want plans to be respected and adhered to. My hon. Friend will know that having that five-year supply in place enables local authorities to protect their areas against unwanted development.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The North East Lincolnshire local plan includes an estimated 13,340 additional homes that need to be built up to 2032—an average of 702 homes a year. The number of homes classified as affordable that are being built in England has fallen to its lowest level for 24 years. Last year in North East Lincolnshire only 150 of those homes were completed, compared with 220 back in 2010—a fall of a third. Can the Secretary of State please explain why after seven years under this Government, affordable housebuilding is at its lowest—
Sajid Javid
We have put record amounts of investment into affordable homes, and we have listened to housing associations and asked them to clarify what will help them to deliver across the country, including in Lincolnshire. One thing they have asked for is more flexibility in the types of affordable homes that can be delivered, and we have provided just that.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Is it not vital that key decisions on housing targets in a local area are made by councils elected by local people?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my right hon. Friend. When it comes to planning in this country, it is a very important principle that the key decisions around allocating land for development and making decisions on planning permissions should be led by local areas.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Every area needs housing that is affordable to those on low incomes, but the building of social housing for rent is at a record low. In 2009-10, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was housing Minister, there were 40,000 new starts, but last year there were fewer than 1,000. Why is there next to nothing in the White Paper that will increase the amount of social rented housing, and why will the Minister not let councils borrow in order to build an adequate amount?
Sajid Javid
The Labour Government has form in this regard. The number of units available for social rent declined by 410,000 during their 13 years in office. Under this Government we have seen record levels of investment, including the £3.15 billion that was allocated to London alone in the last autumn statement.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
Rateable values are, of course, set independently of Ministers. The approach to the valuation of pubs has been agreed with all five bodies representing the pub sector, including the British Beer & Pub Association and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers.
Gill Furniss
Twenty-nine pubs are closing every week, and the industry estimates that it will need to increase prices by 30p per pint to deal with the £421 million rates increase after the revaluation. All small businesses—many of them in my constituency—are in the firing line. Given the public outcry from local businesses, local authorities and even his own Back Benchers, does the Minister agree with Labour that there should be a full review of the operation of business rates?
Andrew Percy
Pubs and pub-restaurants in Yorkshire and the Humber will see a 4% cut in their rates overall, and many will also benefit from the doubling of small business rate relief. However, as I said in response to an earlier question, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor are continuing to look closely at what further support can be made available to those most affected by rises.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Pubs appear to be the net losers from the revaluation in my constituency. The Government have done an awful lot to protect pubs in recent years. Is this not another example of the need to get a grip on the Valuation Office Agency? It seems to be defying what the Government are trying to do by carrying out rate revaluations which are driving important companies that we value out of business.
Andrew Percy
As I said a moment ago, the guide for agreeing valuations—I have it in my hand—was agreed with all five groups representing pubs. The picture will vary across the country, with many pubs seeing a reduction in their rates. As I have said, however, we remain committed to trying to help further those on whom the impact has been heaviest.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
As it is nearly a decade since the current needs assessment formula was looked at thoroughly, we are currently undertaking a fair funding review to consider how to introduce a more up-to-date, more transparent and fairer formula.
James Heappey
I warmly welcome the review that the Secretary of State has announced. I share his enthusiasm for it, and that of councils in Somerset. What will be its likely structure, and what is the minimum time that it may take to complete?
Sajid Javid
As my hon. Friend will know, I was in Somerset only last week, helping to launch the excellent election manifesto for that great county, and fair funding was one of the issues that came up. Our plan is that the new formula will determine the baseline funding allocations as we implement the 100% business rates retention programme planned for 2019-20.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that one of the local authorities in my constituency, Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, is in dire financial straits. It has run itself incompetently, with the result that, with a revenue budget of £7 million or £8 million a year, it now plans to have an annual deficit of about £1.5 million. That is small in the great scheme of things, but in local terms it is hugely important. I know that my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), have been looking into the matter, but will my right hon. Friend take a special interest in the council’s management to ensure that council taxpayers are not being mistreated?
Sajid Javid
I share the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend. He has written to me and talked to me and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local government about this, and I can assure him that we are both taking a special interest in this.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
We are investing nearly £250,000 in Colchester and Tendring to identify those at risk of rough sleeping and support them into accommodation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for the role he played in the Homelessness Reduction Bill and join in his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
Will Quince
I thank the Minister for that response. May I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), whose Homelessness Reduction Bill will play such a large part in tackling homelessness? As the Minister said, from having sat on that Bill Committee and seen cross-party working in action, does he agree with me that it is by taking party politics out of this issue and working on a cross-party basis that we will tackle homelessness?
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is right, and the Secretary of State said exactly that earlier in our questions. There is a real need not just to invest more money in this crucial area, but also to change the law, to ensure both that we have a full safety net and that we intervene earlier to prevent people from becoming homeless, rather than just at the point of crisis.
Sir Simon Burns
Does my hon. Friend agree that the work that Chelmsford City Council is doing to tackle the totally unacceptable problem of rough sleeping in Chelmsford is both innovative and positive?
Gavin Barwell
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I thank him for his personal commitment to this issue and say to him that the work that Chelmsford is doing is being supported by nearly £1 million from the £50 million that the Secretary of State referred to.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
If the Department for Work and Pensions cuts housing support, that immediately adds to homelessness pressures for the Department for Communities and Local Government. Does the Minister think that the DWP should go ahead with cuts to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds in a month’s time, and if not, is he making representations to his colleagues in other Departments to stop it?
Gavin Barwell
This Government have increased discretionary housing payment to £870 million across this Parliament; that is a 55% increase, and thus far 60% of—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says it is nowhere near enough; 60% of local councils have not taken up their full allocation.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
We are supporting local growth through the £1.8 billion local growth fund, £31 million of which was recently announced for my hon. Friend’s local enterprise partnership in the Solent.
Mr Mak
I thank the Minister for his answer. Solent LEP has played a key role in delivering the Havant business support fund and the Dunsbury Park business park. Will the Minister continue to support LEPs so that Members of this House, councils and businesses continue to reform to work together to drive economic growth?
Andrew Percy
Absolutely, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in securing the funding for the Havant business support fund. LEPs are playing an important role across the country; they are helping to drive economic growth, and they continue to have our support.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
In the past month the Local Government Finance Bill has passed its Report stage and the Neighbourhood Planning Bill has almost completed its passage through the Lords. Our housing White Paper has been published and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has been touring the country sharing its bold vision, and I am continuing to meet councillors and council leaders from across the political spectrum to see how we can work together to shape the future of local government.
Mims Davies
Councils are rightly using their powers more broadly and competitively. May I ask the Secretary of State and his Department to keep looking at the issues in my constituency, where Eastleigh Borough Council is using commercial sensitivity, public works loans and exempt business to hide behind a deficit, or debt, of £240 million by 2020 and buying unneeded former banks to become libraries? Can the Minister confirm that these details will not be kept from those who voted the council into office?
Sajid Javid
I am glad that my hon. Friend is shining a light on these issues, which are of concern. She will know that transparency is the foundation of local accountability. We have made councils publish data—for example, on spending, procurement and contracts—online and any councillor who hides information from the electorate should be wary of the power of the ballot box.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
With 1 million-plus adults in England with unmet care needs and the head of the NHS warning of the impact the social care crisis is having, does the Secretary of State now agree with, among others, the Chair of the Health Committee today that the Government can no longer ignore the funding crisis in adult social care?
Sajid Javid
What I agree with is that we must constantly look at what more we can do to support the most vulnerable and those who rely on adult social care. That is why I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the £3.5 billion that was allocated at the last spending review and the announcement that I made a few months ago of an additional almost £900 million for the adult care sector across England.
Mr Thomas
No one will be surprised by the lack of urgency in the Secretary of State’s response, not least No. 10, so let me ask him another question. The Local Government Association estimates that, taking into account social care, there will be a funding gap of almost £6 billion for critical local services for the people of England by 2020. What is the Secretary of State going to do about that funding gap?
Sajid Javid
The £3.5 billion that was allocated in the last spending review was more than the Local Government Association set out at that time. Despite that, we have acted, as demand has grown, with the announcement of the additional £900 million. As I have made clear a number of times at the Dispatch Box, this is not all about money; it is also about reform and especially about promoting more integration between the work done by local authorities and the health sector.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
The White Paper sets out a number of measures that we are taking to deal with that situation. First, we have the £2.3 billion infrastructure fund that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement. Secondly, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), we are giving local authorities real power to intervene to ensure that schemes get built out. We cannot just plan for the right number of homes; we need to ensure that they also get built.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Waste collection and processing is currently regulated and underpinned by the EU waste framework directive and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local government takes on a great deal of responsibility for waste management and has invested significant sums in bins, fleets, staffing and processing centres to meet those obligations. What certainty can the Secretary of State give to local government on this and on future waste investment plans?
Sajid Javid
I should like to assure the hon. Lady that we take this issue very seriously. It is a national issue. I have discussed it a number of times with my colleagues, and we want to see how we can take further action. I would be more than happy to write to her about this.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Sajid Javid
I can share with my hon. Friend the fact that this issue was identified back in 2010 when there was a change of Government. The Cabinet Office has already done a significant amount of work to make it easier for small firms to win procurement competitions, but there is more that could be done. I hope that it will encourage my hon. Friend to learn that, as we go through the process of leaving the EU, we will be taking a clear look at many of the EU rules that can cause those challenges.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
No, I do not agree with that. We have been absolutely clear in our commitment to maintain EU structural funds up until 2020. That commitment could not have been clearer. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is British taxpayers’ money anyway, at the end of the day.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Councils in my area require a definition of housing supply. They do not really worry about the methodology; they just want to know what it is. Could we have some clarification on that? Also, could the Secretary of State tell me whether he thinks the Liberal Democrats are wholly supporting the Government, because no Liberal Democrat has been in the Chamber until three minutes ago?
Mr Speaker
Ministers have no responsibility for the whereabouts of Liberal Democrat Members—or those of any other party, for that matter. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own way, with force and alacrity.
Gavin Barwell
Thank you, Mr Speaker. All I can say is, “Thank goodness for that!”
On housing supply, we are measuring the total size of the housing stock, and local authorities are being asked to plan for not only the necessary number of homes but, as was clear in the discussion we had earlier, the right mix of homes for the changing demography of their area.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Why is the Minister abolishing the requirement for Parliament to approve the local government finance settlement through the Local Government Finance Bill? Is it because the Government have inflicted so much damage to local government services through cuts that they want to hide that and not be accountable to Parliament?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is referring to some of the measures in the Local Government Finance Bill. When we move to 100% business rates retention, all local councils will be fully funded, so there will be no legal requirement for an annual settlement because no money will be forthcoming directly from central Government.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Some London authorities have an average of 40% more spending power than somewhere like North Yorkshire despite often having younger, wealthier populations. As part of the fair funding review, does the Minister agree that future allocations should be based on the cost drivers of need and the cost of delivering services?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my hon. Friend, who spoke eloquently on this issue in the local government financial settlement debate last week. He highlights the need to look again at the outdated formulae, which are not transparent, and to ensure that funding is allocated on a needs basis.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The chief executive of Centrepoint recently said that the Government’s plan to axe housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds
“could cost the taxpayer more money than it saves”.
In the light of cross-party support for the Homelessness Reduction Bill, will the Minister scrap that damaging policy and focus instead on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that our young people need?
Gavin Barwell
I can certainly commit to the last part of what the hon. Lady asked for. In London, the Government are providing £3.15 billion of funding to the Mayor, who has been generous enough to say that that is the best ever settlement for affordable housing in London. On the other matter, we need to ensure that private landlords still have the confidence to let to younger people and we are considering that issue.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As important as the funding formula debate is, does my right hon. Friend agree that the way in which councils organise themselves is also important to ensure the maximum bang for the taxpayers’ buck? Against that backdrop, I hope that my right hon. Friend will give Dorset’s innovative proposals the thumbs-up, because they are the best way—indeed the only way—of securing services for local people.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend highlights that we have rightly encouraged councils to be creative and innovative as they deal with challenges, and some have come forward with proposals to reorganise. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any particular one at this stage, but we will consider those proposals carefully and seriously.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Leasehold Advisory Service should play an important role in providing advice to leaseholders. However, the current chair Roger Southam has extensive previous business interests with freeholders and has even boasted of maximising ground rent opportunities for them. Can Ministers not see how that looks? In order to regain leaseholders’ confidence, will Ministers agree to an urgent review into the suitability of Mr Southam to continue as chair?
Gavin Barwell
I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman’s passion for this issue; he spoke powerfully in a debate on this matter a few weeks ago. I recently announced that funding for LEASE will continue to come purely from the Government so that no one can be in any doubt that its job is to stand up for the interests of leaseholders.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Local authorities come in for a bit of stick in this Chamber from time to time, but the Secretary of State will be fully aware of the tremendous work that North Yorkshire County Council did in Tadcaster over the past year. Will he take this opportunity to thank North Yorkshire and David Bowe in particular, who did so much great work in ensuring the restoration of the bridge? Will he also thank the local enterprise partnership for its help?
Sajid Javid
I was pleased to join my hon. Friend and many of his great constituents at the reopening of Tadcaster bridge. It was lovely to see so many young people celebrating that moment. I am more than happy to join him in congratulating the county council and the local enterprise partnership on their work. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on all his work to help bring that bridge back to life.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
We always want to make sure—we saw this in the debate on the local government finance settlement—that local authorities are funded adequately to deal with the challenges they face. If Labour Members are so concerned about local government finance, it is interesting that only four Back-Bench Labour Members bothered to turn up and speak in last week’s debate.
Mark Pawsey
Does the Secretary of State agree that, by virtue of their closeness to residents, district councils continue to be the most effective tier of local government and have a strong future?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my hon. Friend that district councils are hugely important to local democracy. Alongside other councillors, district councillors are the bedrock of local government, and they have the full support of this Government.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Last week I met Lakeside Energy from Waste, a company that is enabling local authorities in my area to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. As the Secretary of State knows, the plant is due to be knocked down as a result of the creation of the third runway at Heathrow, yet Lakeside Energy from Waste is anxious because there is no reference to the plant’s future in the national policy statement. Will he or one of his colleagues meet me and Lakeside Energy from Waste to discuss how we can ensure that this important plant is re-provided?
Sajid Javid
This may well be an issue for the Department for Transport, but I would be more than happy if the right hon. Lady wrote to ask me to take a look.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Can the Minister say what plans he has to introduce a new homes ombudsman?
Gavin Barwell
I said in response to an earlier question that the Government are currently looking at the report from the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment. The Government are determined to build the homes that this country needs, but the homes must be built to a sufficient quality, too.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I will be brief. I have elicited three positive responses about the possibility of a Belfast city deal. Instead of a fourth positive response, can we have a meeting?
Sajid Javid
I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I will make sure that a meeting is arranged. I am keen to see what my Department can do to work across and help all regions of the United Kingdom including, of course, Northern Ireland.
New Member
NHS Shared Business Services
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the loss of confidential NHS correspondence by NHS Shared Business Services.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
On 24 March 2016, I was informed of a serious incident involving a large backlog of unprocessed NHS patient correspondence by the company contracted to deliver it to general practitioners’ surgeries, NHS Shared Business Services—SBS. The backlog arose from the primary care services GP mail redirection service that SBS was contracted to run between 2011 and 2016. However, in three areas of England—the east midlands, north-east London and the south-west of England—this did not happen, affecting 708,000 items of correspondence. None of the documents was lost and all were kept in secure storage, but my immediate concern was that patient safety might have been compromised by the delay in forwarding correspondence, so a rapid process was started to identify whether anyone had been put at risk. The Department of Health and NHS England immediately established an incident team led by Jill Matthews, who heads the NHS England primary care support services team.
All the documentation has now been sent on to the relevant GP surgery, where it is possible to do so, following an initial clinical assessment of where any patient risk might lie. Some 200,000 pieces were temporary residence forms, and a further 500,000 pieces were assessed as low risk. A first triage identified a further 2,500 items that had potential risk of harm and needed further investigation, but follow-up by local GPs has already identified nearly 2,000 of those as having “no patient harm”. The remainder are still being assessed, but so far no patient harm has been identified.
As well as patient safety, transparency for both the public and this House has been my priority. I was advised by officials not to make the issue public last March until an assessment of the risks to patient safety had been completed and all relevant GP surgeries informed. I accepted that advice, for the very simple reason that publicising the issue could have meant GP surgeries being inundated with inquiries from worried patients, which would have prevented them from doing the most important work—namely, investigating the named patients who were potentially at risk.
For the same reasons, and in good faith, a proactive statement about what had happened was again not recommended by my Department in July. However, on balance I decided it was important for the House to know what had happened before we broke for recess, so I did not follow that advice and placed a written statement before the House on 21 July. Since then, the Public Accounts Committee has been kept regularly informed, most recently being updated by my permanent secretary only last Friday. The Information Commissioner was updated in August, and the National Audit Office is currently reviewing the response. I committed in July 2016 to keeping the House updated once the investigations were complete and more was known, and will continue to do so.
Jonathan Ashworth
Let us be under no illusions: this is a catastrophic breach of data protection. More than half a million pieces of patient data—including blood test results, cancer screening results, biopsy results, and even correspondence relating to cases of child protection—were all undelivered, languishing in a warehouse, on the Secretary of State’s watch. It is an absolute scandal.
Time and again this Health Secretary promises us transparency; today, he stands accused of a cover-up. The Department of Health knew about this in March 2016, so why did it take this self-proclaimed champion of transparency until the last day before the House rose last summer to issue a 138-word statement to Parliament? That statement said that just “some correspondence” had not reached the intended recipients. When the Secretary of State made that statement, was he aware that it amounted to more than 700,000 letters? If so, why did he not inform Parliament? If he did not know, does that not call into question his competence?
What guarantees can the Secretary of State give us that no more warehouses of letters are yet to be discovered? Was the private contractor involved paid for the delivery of the letters? If so, what steps are being taken to recover the money? How many patients were harmed because their GP did not receive information about their ongoing treatment? Do patients remain at risk? The Secretary of State talks about NHS England’s ongoing investigation into 2,500 items; when are we likely to know the outcome?
We understand that Capita now has the contract to deliver these services. What scrutiny is the Secretary of State putting Capita under so that it does not happen again? Is it not better that, rather than this relentless pursuit of privatisation, we bring services back in-house?
Two months into 2017 and the Health Secretary lurches from one crisis to another: hospitals overcrowded and waiting lists out of control. He cannot deliver the investment that our NHS needs; he cannot deliver a social care solution; he cannot deliver patient safety; and now he cannot even deliver the post. He has overseen a shambles that puts patient safety at risk. Patients deserve answers and they deserve an apology.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is reasonable and sensible, but sadly those commendable sides to his character have not been on display this afternoon, not least because I answered a number of his questions before he read out his pre-prepared script. He said that there had been a catastrophic breach of data protection. Let me remind him that no patient data were lost and all patient data were kept in secure settings. I know that it is a great temptation to go on about the privatisation agenda, but may I gently tell him that, since SBS lost this account, this particular work has been taken in-house? It is being done not by Capita, but by the NHS—so much for the Government’s “relentless pursuit” of the private sector.
More seriously, the hon. Gentleman is quoted in this morning’s edition of The Guardian as saying:
“Patient safety will have been put seriously at risk.”
As he knows, patient safety is always our primary concern, but if he had listened to my response he would have heard that, as things stand, there is no evidence so far that patients’ safety has been put at risk. [Interruption.] Well, we have been through more than 700,000 documents, and so far, we can find no such evidence. We are now doing a second check, with GPs, on 2,500 documents—so a second clinical opinion is being sought—nearly 2,000 of which we believe will not show any evidence, and we are now going through the remaining ones.
Let me say that it was indeed totally incompetent of SBS to allow this incident to happen, and we take full responsibility as a Government, because we were responsible at the time. None the less, the measure of the competence of a Government is not when suppliers make mistakes—I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that that did happen a few times when Labour was running the NHS—but what we do to sort out the problem. We immediately set up a national incident team. Every single piece of correspondence has been assessed, and around 80% of the higher risk cases have been assessed by a second clinician.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to suggest that the Government have been trying to hide the matter. If he had listened to what I said, he would have heard that I did not follow the advice that I got from my officials, which was not to publicise the matter. I actually decided that the House needed to know about it. It was only a week after I was reappointed to this job last summer that I not only laid a written ministerial statement, but referred to the matter in my Department’s annual report and accounts. He said this morning that I played down the severity of what happened, but what did that annual report say? It said that a “serious incident was identified”, and it talked about
“a large backlog of unprocessed correspondence relating to patients.”
It could not have been clearer.
This Government have always cared about patient safety. We have listened to the advice of people—as the hon. Gentleman would have done had he been in office—who said that if we had gone public right away, GP surgeries could have been prevented from doing what we needed them to do, which is making detailed assessments of a small number of at-risk cases. That was why we paused, but as soon as we judged that it was possible to do so, we informed this House and the public and we stayed absolutely true to our commitment both to patient safety and to transparency.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
This is undoubtedly a very serious incident, but I welcome the detailed and thorough steps that the Secretary of State has taken to protect patient safety. However, he will know that there are ongoing problems with the transfer of patient records. GPs and hospitals spend endless hours chasing up results, investigations and letters on a daily basis. Is it not time that patients were given direct control of their own records, and will the Secretary of State provide an update on that to the House?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her sensible contribution. She is right that, although the process of sending on these particular documents has been taken in-house, other parts of the contract were taken on by a company called Capita—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) cannot stop, can he? Let me repeat that the work in question has been taken in-house. The other work, which is being done by Capita, has had some teething problems, of which we are very aware. We know it has been causing problems for GPs. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) has been meeting Capita and people relating to that contract on a fortnightly basis to try to identify the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is right that the aim in the long run is to give people control of their records. I am proud that, under this Government, we have become the first country in the world to give every patient access to their own records online. From September, people will be able to do that without having to go to their GP’s surgery.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I am sure that everyone across the House is glad that these 750,000 incidents have not, so far, resulted in patients suffering. Frankly, that is luck, rather than plan, for which we should all be grateful. This is yet another situation similar to that of Concentrix and others we have seen. When we are outsourcing and taking on these companies, what is the basis of the contract and what is the governance? The Secretary of State mentioned the other incidents of transferring data when a patient moves to another GP’s surgery, and that has also been an issue. When will data in England become more digital so that things are not sent by post? We have not used that method for several years in Scotland, and it is holding back the entire primary care and hospital system here. When will the Secretary of State’s vision for that come about?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is always very good at telling the House things that Scotland does better than the NHS in England; there are, indeed, some. She is a little bit coyer about things that Scotland does less well than the NHS in England. If we put aside those issues, I think we can both agree that the sooner the NHS across the whole UK goes electronic, the better. That has been a big priority for this Government, and we have made big progress. More than two thirds of hospital A&E departments can now access a summary of people’s GP records, and we are going further every month.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
As the affected patients could have moved anywhere in the country, will my right hon. Friend assure me or let me know, either today or by writing to me, whether any of my constituents in Bury North have been affected?
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I raised my concerns about the contracting out of the patient record service to SBS back in 2011, and I was told by the Secretary of State’s predecessor that this was about saving money. Will he tell us how much money has been saved, given all the problems, and how many of the 708,000 patients affected are in the south-west?
Mr Hunt
The south-west was one of the regions affected, as I mentioned in my statement. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman to tell him exactly how many patients I think were affected in the south-west. I gently say to him that the use of the private sector was championed when his Government were in office and when he was a Health Minister. I know that this is not very fashionable in his party at the moment, but on this side of the House, we think that if we want the NHS to be the safest and best in the world, we should be open—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is shouting noisily from a sedentary position. I cannot imagine that that is an offence that I would have committed when I sat on the Opposition Benches. I just do not think it would have happened. I do not know what has happened to standards.
Mr Speaker
Objection to the manner and content of a ministerial response is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
There have been cries of privatisation from the Opposition. Is not the truth that in 2007, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs lost the entire collection of child benefit records, affecting 25 million people? Is not the point that all data holders, whether in the private or public sector, must hold our private information securely?
Mr Hunt
That is absolutely the point. What people will be wondering is, when we were faced with this issue, which was indeed serious, did we react as quickly as we could to keep patients safe? I believe the answer is yes. Did that happen under the last Labour Government? I will leave the House to draw its own conclusions.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Secretary of State just stated with great authority that no patient data were lost. I would be interested to know how he can be so certain, given that all these data were missing for a long time without anybody noticing. What controls are in place now that were not in place then that mean he can make that statement with such confidence?
Mr Hunt
I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. I do not know whether she has done a Health question with me before, but let me say to her that we are assured that the data were not lost: they were kept in a secure setting, which means they were safe, they were not breached and they were not accessed by anyone else. What should have happened, but did not, was passing on the data to the right GP surgery, and that is why we have taken all the steps we have to try to make sure patients are kept safe.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may recall times when we found ourselves in opposition and hoped we had a huge success on our hands, and the image that springs to mind at present is of foxes and shooting them. Does he agree that the Department he so expertly guides now needs to focus its attention on using electronic data for all our citizens and patients, rather than dealing with spurious Opposition problems?
Mr Hunt
As ever, my right hon. Friend is thinking extremely intelligently about the problems we really face. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) asked about the security of the data files, but the security of electronic files is the issue we are going to have to think about much more seriously as we give everyone access to their electronic records, and because of the known issues around hacking. This is an issue we are taking very seriously and doing more work on.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I wrote to the Secretary of State on this subject on behalf of the Jubilee medical centre in Croxteth, in my constituency, on 13 January. I have not yet had a reply from him, but perhaps he could respond today to the point I raised about staff safety. We have had the issue of patient safety, but what about the potential danger to staff from these records not being available about patients?
Mr Hunt
I would like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s question in a bit more detail rather than giving an instant answer, because, to date, no one has brought to my notice particular issues about staff safety, but that is always something we take extremely seriously. We are aware of the extra administrative pressure on staff caused by needing to go through records where there is a higher risk of harm to patients—indeed, we have given GP surgeries extra resources to cover that additional time—but I will look into the issue the hon. Gentleman raises.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Since at least 2015, it has been a statutory requirement to use a unique and consistent identifier on health and social care records. Given that that would, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, help with putting data electronically on health and social care systems, will the Secretary of State update the House on the issue?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy to do so. Clearly, when we are all able to access our health records electronically, there are potentially huge benefits for patients. In particular, people with long-term conditions who use the NHS a lot would be able to take more control of what happens and also to spot mistakes, which sometimes happen in medical records—that is one of the big findings from the US, where people have had more widespread access to electronic records for longer. The issue is the security with which people access those records online, and we are looking very closely at the systems used by banks, for example. Those are pretty robust, but we are looking at whether we can have systems that are even more robust, because it is very important that patients have confidence that only they and those they give permission to can access those records.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Secretary of State tell us a little more about which areas in the east midlands have been particularly affected? Given the opaque and byzantine structures of the NHS, can he specifically tell the House which member of his ministerial team had the job of keeping watch on NHS Shared Business Services?
Mr Hunt
The Minister responsible is the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. This case happened before she was in post, so I took personal responsibility given it was such an important issue. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with more details about how the east midlands has been affected.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that we move towards a fully paperless national health service, but that it will be very difficult to do so as long as national health service trusts cannot talk to each other electronically? Radiological images, for example, are often not available when consultants see patients, who therefore have to have the test again, which is contrary to all the precepts of good practice in the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a very big part of our transformation plans for the NHS. Where the NHS does well internationally is in out-of-hospital records; our GP records are among the best of any country’s. GPs have done a fantastic job over the past 15 years in keeping all their records electronically, and they provide a lifetime snapshot of a patient’s history. Where we are less good is in our hospital records, where one can still find paper records in widespread use. That is not just very, very expensive but—he is quite right—unsafe at times.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I used to work in a pathology lab, and it absolutely pains me to think of those results generated by the hard work of pathology staff languishing in a warehouse somewhere, unseen by anybody. If GPs do not get lab results, they will ring the laboratory and ask for them, so has the Secretary of State made any estimate of the time wasted in phone calls from GP surgeries to pathology labs?
Mr Hunt
I am sure that, regrettably, because of what happened extra work was created for GPs. However, because of GPs’ commitment to their patients, it appears that in the vast majority of cases patient harm was avoided. When results do not come through that a GP is expecting, the GP chases them to make sure that the right thing is done for patients—but of course, as the hon. Lady rightly says, at the cost of extra work.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that had the then Labour Government not made such a catastrophe of implementing the NHS computer system, such records would have been digitised many years ago and problems with storage of paper records would not have impacted on the patients who are currently suffering?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks wisely. Many members of the public will be faintly amused to hear Labour Members say how important it is that we move to electronic health records. The NHS IT project was an absolute catastrophe, costing billions of pounds. The intention was right but the delivery was wrong, and that is what we are trying to sort out.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand that large numbers of patients in north-east London were affected by this failure of the service. How many of my constituents were affected, how many of them were cancer patients, and how many would have been subjected therefore to an inordinate delay in receiving referrals for treatment? Can the Secretary of State give that itemised breakdown to all Members of Parliament who will have constituents affected by this?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy to write to hon. Members in the areas affected with any extra information that we are able to provide. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that to date we have not been able to identify any patient in any part of the country who has come to harm as a result of what happened.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a shame that the synthetic outrage from Labour Members was not apparent when they were calling for a public inquiry into deaths in Mid Staffordshire, or, officially, the worst ever IT white elephant disaster, with £12 billion of costs uncovered by the Public Accounts Committee in 2013. Has not my right hon. Friend observed the appropriate parliamentary accountability protocols? He not only employed clinical expertise but came to the House in July, his officials updated the PAC in September, and he came here again today? There is no cover-up.
Mr Hunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he rightly points out, this was a judgment call, because going public at a very early stage about what happened risked overwhelming GP surgeries, with GPs being unable to investigate the most serious cases as quickly as possible. That is why I received very sensible advice to hold back, but I did decide that the House needed to know before the summer break, which is why I made the effort.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
A number of GP practices in Wirral West have made clear to me their concerns about Capita’s handling of confidential patient records. There have been cases of patient records being delayed when they move to another practice, and in some instances confidential records have not arrived at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) has said, there is also concern that, if a patient is a risk to a doctor because of a mental health issue, that has not been flagged up to medical staff. That is a very serious risk to put staff under. Does the Secretary of State share the view of the chair of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, who said that this is
“an example of what happens when the NHS tries to cut costs by inviting private companies to do work which they don’t do properly”?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady makes very important points about the need for the rapid transfer of records when people move GP surgeries. I gently point out to her—I am sure she was asked to ask her question—that the reality is that, because of the failures of this contract, we have taken this work in-house. It is not about the Government pressing on with privatisation irresponsibly, or whatever it is that she is trying to say. This work is now being done in-house.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
We have an excellent Secretary of State and the Government seem to have taken the appropriate action. My only concern is what he said about his Department’s officials recommending that this House not be informed. Under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, I remember that we would get 80-odd written statements on the last day of term. May I gently suggest to the Secretary of State that it would have been better if the written statement had been made earlier in the week so that Members could have considered whether an urgent question was appropriate?
Mr Hunt
In ordinary circumstances, my hon. Friend’s point would be completely fair and reasonable. He may remember that certain other things were happening at that time last year and, as I have said, it had been only a week since I had been reappointed to my post, so there were a number of other issues. However, my priority was to make sure that we did not go away for the summer without the House being informed of the situation.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that he has paid people—I assume that they are GPs—to clear the backlog. How much have you paid the GPs, and do you intend to recoup that money to the NHS?
Mr Speaker
I have made no such payment and I have no plans to recoup anything, but the Secretary of State might have.
Mr Hunt
I regret to say that the £2.2 million has not gone to you, Mr Speaker, but it has been paid to GPs for the extra administrative work that needs to be done. That is fair payment for the extra time that they are taking. It is, indeed, a cost to the taxpayer, but it was the right thing to do.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that appropriate staffing resources have been made available throughout to deal with the backlogs, not just nationally but in the east midlands?
Mr Hunt
We have always been concerned to make sure that, because of the extra administrative work involved in going through more than 700,000 records, other patients using the NHS do not find that their care is delayed. We made extra resources available for GP practices so that they could do that without interrupting the ordinary work that they have to do for their patients.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely the Secretary of State agrees that if everything were going swimmingly in the NHS, if we were investing in it like our European neighbours and if people were confident that their A&E departments and trusts were safe and that the whole health service was not in trouble, with privatisation biting into it, this issue could be put in perspective. But the NHS, under his watch, is in chaos. That is why we are so worried about this issue.
Mr Hunt
Let me gently remind the hon. Gentleman that, because of the decisions this Government have taken, we are actually now investing more than the European average in the NHS, which would have been much more difficult to do if we had followed his party’s spending plans. He tries to characterise our approach as one of suggesting that the NHS does not have problems. We think the NHS has some very big problems—it is working very hard to tackle them—but we are providing more doctors, more nurses, more funding and more operations than ever before in its history.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I commend the Secretary of State for his response to the situation once he was told about it and welcome his pledge to provide constituency-wide data to the House? However, my constituents in Kettering will be amazed that, for five years, no one spotted that 700,000 records had gone missing. How was that discovered, and why in the three areas did such a large amount of data in effect disappear from public view?
Mr Hunt
I wish I could give my hon. Friend the answer to that question. I think it is completely extraordinary that for such a long period it was not noticed that the data had gone missing. It was discovered towards the end of the SPS contract. There are lessons for the NHS—this relates very closely to what other hon. Members have said—about the dangers of over-reliance on paper rather than electronic systems, with which it is much easier to keep track of what is happening. [Interruption.] Let me say to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who continues to make comments from a sedentary position, that when it comes to making the NHS electronic, people will compare his Government’s records and ours and will say which is better.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I am sure all Members will be able to identify with people with anxiety caused by waiting for test results or diagnoses—I certainly can—so does the Secretary of State concur that it is scant consolation to those 700,000-odd people to be told that their letters were not lost, but are residing in a warehouse somewhere?
Mr Hunt
It is a completely unacceptable lapse of efficiency, and this supplier is no longer performing that job for the NHS. Of course it causes many people frustration when the information they are waiting for does not reach their GP’s surgery. However, the most important thing, as the hon. Lady and I would agree, is the safety of patients. That is why our biggest priority has been not the administrative inconvenience, frustrating though it is, but making sure we understand whether any patients have actually been put at risk.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
This morning, I was very pleased to tour the new clinical assessment unit that was opened last month at Crawley hospital. That was made possible partly because the hospital used to store paper records in that space, but has now moved to electronic records. May I commend the Secretary of State for increasing the drive to using electronic rather than paper records, and urge him to redouble his efforts?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy to follow my hon. Friend’s advice in that respect. I think we all know that although the proper use of electronic records creates huge opportunities, we have to carry the public with us and make sure they are confident that the data will be held securely. That is why we have introduced the new post of a National Data Guardian, Dame Fiona Caldicott, who is the patients’ watchdog in this area.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
NHS Shared Business Services Ltd exists for one reason only, which is to deliver £1 billion in savings by 2020. The results of this Government’s ideological obsession with savings and austerity have surely now been laid bare for all to see, and we are quite lucky that this did not, quite literally, kill anyone. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet the Chancellor urgently to discuss increased funding for a health service that is being starved of the resources it needs to run effectively?
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As the Secretary of State is aware, patient safety is paramount. For the benefit of my constituents, will he confirm that patient safety was throughout the process and remains his primary concern?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that has been our primary concern. It needs to be our primary concern as we examine the lessons that need to be learned in both the setting and the monitoring of contracts with the private sector, which were clearly deficient in this case.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State was responsible for the entirety of the contract, yet has come to the House to respond to the urgent question and told us that he does not know how the situation came to light to NHS England, and that he has no answers. Mr Speaker, do you think he should have been better prepared today? What assurances can he give us that he now has controls in place to monitor any future contracts?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady should have listened to the facts when I told her. When this came to light, more than 700,000 records were checked: 2,500 of the higher-risk ones are being checked by two clinicians—80% of them have already been checked. A huge amount of work has been done to clear up the situation. I completely agree with her that it was unacceptable that it happened in the first place, but I gently say to her that we are not the first Government to be let down by suppliers.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
A few moments ago, the Secretary of State alluded to teething problems with the Capita contract. I must tell him that GP practices in my constituency told me only a couple of weeks ago that those problems not only continue but are worsening. How much longer will the Secretary of State give Capita to perform under the contract it has with the Department of Health? If it cannot perform, how quickly can we expect the Secretary of State to decide to take that work back in-house?
Mr Hunt
If Capita does not perform what it is contracted to do, we will take all necessary measures, including ending the contract. The hon. Lady is right that there have been a number of problems with that contract in its early days. We believe that the situation on the ground is beginning to improve, but a lot of progress still needs to be made.
Points of Order
Philip Davies
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Friday, after the debates on private Members’ Bills, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), to whom I have given notice of this point of order, left the Chamber and briefed on social media and the media at large that my speech on the Istanbul convention—the Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill, which was first on the Order Paper—stopped her Bill, the Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill, from being debated, and that I had in effect blocked it, despite my telling her that I supported her Bill. That led to my office receiving widespread, unjustified and terrible abuse, to which my staff should not be subjected.
The hon. Lady’s Bill was the eighth to be considered on Friday. You have a better memory of parliamentary proceedings, Mr Speaker, and perhaps you could tell us the last time the eighth Bill on Friday was reached for debate. I have asked the House of Commons Library to find out. In the time the Library has had so far, it has gone back 12 years and found not one example of when the eighth Bill for debate was reached. Clearly, we would still not have reached the eighth Bill had I not spoken at all. By that logic, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) should be blamed for blocking the Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill by choosing to debate her Bill on Report, which would be ludicrous. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to a point of order for me, but equally he must be heard, and will be.
Philip Davies
The Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill could still have been nodded through at the end of the day. It was clearly blocked by somebody, but not by me—I was not even in the Chamber at that time. Could you confirm, Mr Speaker, that no reasonable analysis of proceedings could lead anyone to think that my speech on the first Bill prevented a debate on the eighth Bill from taking place; that I cannot have blocked the Bill because I was not in the Chamber when somebody else objected to it when it could have been nodded through; and that I am a rather straightforward kind of person who, if I say I support a Bill I support it—I support the Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill—and if I say I oppose a Bill I oppose it? Finally, can you make it clear that it is irresponsible for Members to give the public a false picture of our proceedings, and that it is dangerous to do so because it encourages vile abuse of our staff, which is not justified and can have dangerous consequences?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for advance notice of it; I thank him for raising the matter with me. Let me confirm the following. First of all, nothing disorderly occurred on Friday. Secondly, although I absolutely understand the disappointment of the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) at the failure of her Bill to progress, it would in my experience be extremely unusual for the eighth Bill to make progress. Thirdly, I think the record shows that, when moved, the Bill was objected to at the point at which business was interrupted, namely 2.30 pm. I have been informed by the hon. Gentleman, and I do not dispute it for a moment, that he was not present at that point and therefore could not have objected to it.
Let me conclude by saying this in response to the hon. Gentleman. He has, on a number of occasions, very explicitly blocked Bills, possibly by shouting “Object” and certainly by developing his arguments at a leisurely pace and in detail, which he thinks have required his forensic scrutiny. In other words, he has, by one means or another, blocked many Bills. He did not block this Bill. Simply as a point of fact, because I believe in the intelligibility of our proceedings and people not running away with the wrong idea, he did not block the hon. Lady’s Bill.
The last point I would make—I make it to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members—is that I really think it would help if Members in all parts of the House treated each other with courtesy. I do not want to be in the position of having to arbitrate in matters of this kind, but where I have been asked factual questions I have given factual answers. Having heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and responded very fully to it, I think it only fair to hear from the hon. Lady, if she wishes to speak.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for advance sight of his comments.
There is never, ever any excuse for people to abuse Members of Parliament and the hon. Gentleman’s staff certainly should not have had to wade through such messages. Feelings around animal cruelty run very high. People are very passionate about it, but there is never any excuse for abuse.
I would like to make a point of clarification. First, I was very clear, in what I put out to the media, that it was the Tory Whips who ultimately blocked the Bill. Secondly, this is my first private Member’s Bill, and I had had positive conversations with colleagues on the Government Benches who were very encouraging of it and were, even up until that day, discussing the possibility of it going through. It is a matter of record that the hon. Gentleman spoke for over 90 minutes on the first Bill. Everyone in this House needs to be aware of the consequences of their actions on Bills further down the Order Paper, whether they agree with them or not.
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Lady says. I do not think I should adjudicate on that, because the hon. Gentleman was perfectly in order in speaking as he did, but she has made her point and some people will agree with her.
With reference to what she said about the Whips having objected, I must admit that at that point I was not here. I was here to see the success of the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill. Thereafter I had to go to my own constituency, so I was not present. The hon. Lady tells me that the Whips objected. Well, Whips do tend to do these things. It is quite commonplace. It is what they think of as one of their functions from time to time, among other miscellaneous functions—sometimes subterranean functions, but we had better not dwell on that. [Interruption.] I certainly would not make such a disobliging remark about Whips. I always had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding: I did not trust them and they did not understand me.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a written statement last Thursday, which was published without notice, Ministers announced restrictions on eligibility for the personal independence payment. Over the weekend, a Minister referring to those restrictions made comments which belittled the needs of people with mental health problems. Have you, Mr Speaker, had any notice of a request from a Minister to come to the House to explain to us the changes to PIP entitlement? If there has not been any such request, can you advise us on how we can ensure that Ministers answer questions on what they are doing and why, given the great importance of these matters, which I know you understand as well as any other Member of the House?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting me in the picture. I understand that there was a written statement on this matter last Thursday. It may be that that does not satisfy his palate or that of other Members, but that is where matters stand at present. I must not lead the witness, but he is an experienced and assiduous Member of the House, and if he is dissatisfied and wishes to use a parliamentary vehicle to shine further light on this matter, he must deploy his wits and sagacity to ensure that he has that opportunity. I get the impression he feels that insufficient attention has been paid to the matter. I am not aware of insulting or disobliging remarks having been made, but I am sorry if they have. I cannot adjudicate because I am not familiar with those points, but I hope that he will pursue the matter further, if he wishes to do so, through the use of the Table Office and such mechanisms as are provided for in the Standing Orders of the House.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) is not present to elucidate his views and that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has potentially inadvertently impugned them, by convention should he not have given my hon. Friend notice before impugning or misquoting him in anyway?
Mr Speaker
As I have just been advised, and as I would have been inclined in any case to say, in this case the answer is no, because there has been no imputation of dishonour against a particular individual. The requirement to notify applies where a personal attack is intended to be directed. Where there is a more generalised complaint, no such prior notification is required. That would have been my view, but in any case, thanks to a speedy swivelling around by the Clerk of the House, I am fortified in my conviction by his advice, which is based on his 40 years’ experience in this place. Nevertheless, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his legitimate concern.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My constituent Shiromini Satkunarajah is due to be expelled from the UK tomorrow and sent to Sri Lanka, from where she and her family, who are Tamils, fled here from the war when she was just 12 years old. In three months, Shiromini could complete here degree in electrical engineering at Bangor University and would be expected to get a first. Her head of school describes her as “exceptionally able and diligent”. There is a worldwide shortage of graduates in her subject. Despite following the immigration regulations meticulously, she was called to Caernarfon police station last week, arrested, detained in a cell for three days and then transferred to Yarl’s Wood. I have contacted the Immigration Minister repeatedly to ask him to exercise discretion in her case, which has widespread support among the public—30,000 people signed a petition this weekend alone—and from Members of the House, but so far he has not replied. She is due to leave tomorrow. What advice can you give me, Mr Speaker, so that I, as a Back Bencher, can hold the Government to account on this scandalous case, and do so in good time?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. He has spoken with his customary eloquence in support of his constituent. He will understand that this is not a point of order for the Chair, but his remarks on this serious and pressing matter will have been heard—and noted, I hope—on the Treasury Bench. My advice is that he seek today to contact the Immigration Minister—from memory, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill)—personally.
Estimates Day
Future Flood Prevention
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to open today’s estimates debate on the future of flood prevention. Flooding is one of those issues that is rarely considered until it actually happens. When the weather is dry, we talk about drought, and as soon as it starts to rain we have to deal with floods. In the round, we have to deal with both. Because of that, it can be tempting for the Government sometimes to disregard flood defences and resilience measures when the weather is much drier and budgets are under pressure. I believe, and the Select Committee believes, that this would be a grave error.
Effective flood defences, both hard and soft, are a vital part of this country’s infrastructure. With the UK’s experience over the years of more severe storms as climate change continues, flooding is likely only to get worse. We have recently seen the high tide that came down the eastern side of the country. Fortunately, this did not cause massive flooding, but it might well do in the future. I was flooded back in the ’80s and particularly 1981, when we lost a lot of sheep after huge tidal floods in the west of the country. When the barriers are overcome, we must have the right infrastructure in place.
In November 2016, the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published its “Future flood prevention” report. We found that flood prevention work in the UK is fragmented, can be inefficient and sometimes ineffective, and has let people down. The winter of 2015-16 broke rainfall records, and storms Desmond, Eva and Frank disrupted communities across northern parts of the UK, particularly Cumbria and York. Storm Desmond alone cost the UK more than £5 billion, but the impact is not just economic. It is very much about individual businesses, individual residents and all those hugely affected by flooding—and sometimes about the amount of time it can take to get people back into their homes or to get their businesses up and running again. Many communities live in fear that a disaster is just one downpour away.
There is no doubt that we are now encountering long periods of dry weather, followed by a huge amount of rain—200 or 300 mm in just 20 or 30 hours. Believe it or not, I do not blame the Minister or the Government for that amount of rainfall coming down so quickly, but we do need to be aware that it can happen and we need to be ready to try to mitigate some of the worst of the disaster that happens when we get these very high levels of rainfall occurring over a very short period.
I personally understand the concerns of many parts of the country that experience being under water for perhaps many months. We need to reflect only on what has happened in the past. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) will talk later about what happened in Somerset, when a huge amount of water fell and remained for up to three months, devastating not only property, but the land. A huge amount of debris was created, and the vegetation and much of the wildlife was lost. This was a disaster not only from a residential and farming point of view, but from a conservation point of view.
While frontline staff and rescue service workers worked tirelessly to support those affected, our system for managing flood risk can and does fail on occasions. That is why I want to talk about the importance of the recommendations that our Select Committee made in our “Future flood prevention” report. I shall touch briefly on the Government’s response and on what action DEFRA has taken to date. I shall conclude by outlining what the Committee believes the Government must do to improve the situation further.
What, then, were our recommendations? We recommended to the Government how to reduce the flood risk to 5 million people and we looked into the “one in 100 years” flood and how to deal with risk. One problem is that, if we are not careful, people living in an area with a “one in 100 years” risk which is flooded are inclined to think that they will be safe from floods for another 99 years. Of course, that is not the case. An area with a high flood risk will continue to have that risk until better defences are created or resilience measures are introduced, and it will probably always be a pretty high-risk area.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My hon. Friend is bringing back a great many memories of those terrible floods. Does he agree that communication is very important? One of the points made in the Select Committee report was that perhaps we should stop using the “one in 100 years” terminology. We should adopt a way of warning people about how serious floods are that does not involve years, because the current terminology is misleading.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence that the Committee took, and what we heard from people who came to talk to us, suggested that it is very helpful when communities are able to get together and warn each other about exactly what is happening. The Environment Agency and others can give the warnings, and the agency, the fire brigade and local authority staff are there to help, but the flooded communities themselves have built up a resilience that will help them in the future.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to flood wardens? Earby, in my constituency, was badly affected by flooding, and is now waiting for three different schemes to be introduced by the Environment Agency this year. Flood warnings, local flood plans, floodgates, and all the work that those volunteers do is extremely important to the response when flood waters start to rise.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is right. Local authorities, the Environment Agency and the drainage boards can do a great deal, but when local people come together, they know exactly what is happening on the ground, and flood wardens can react very quickly.
In Axminster, a shopping trolley went into a culvert and became full of wood. The whole place flooded, including three or four bungalows. If someone local had been there to hoick—I am not sure whether that is a word in the English language—the trolley out of the culvert, the flood would have been stopped. Such actions also ensure that resources go further. We are learning all the time.
One of the Committee’s most important recommendations was for a more holistic approach. It sounds obvious, but we need to work with nature rather than against it. If we slow the flow of the water by using natural remedies such as planting more trees, restoring wetlands and improving soil management, we are likely to see more and better flood prevention. We must allow water to flood fields naturally sometimes if they are on a natural flood plain rather than in an urban area. That would be a much cheaper and more cost-effective way of preventing floods.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as we think about how we ought to spend our farming subsidies in the wake of Brexit, we should look to them to address the issue that he has mentioned? They could perhaps enable farmers to allow their fields to be flooded sometimes as a form of natural flood defence.
Neil Parish
I think the hon. Lady must have X-ray sight, because the next paragraph of my notes refers to how we deal with farming and farmers. Now that we need not follow the common agricultural policy exactly, we have an opportunity to introduce a cost-effective measure to allow farmers to store water when they are able to do so. If they have to store it for a short period and it is on grassland, it will probably have very little effect on their crops and profitability, but if it has to be stored on arable land for a long period, they will require more compensation. We need to consider that in some detail, and I believe that we shall have an opportunity to do so.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s speech. Is he familiar with the practice undertaken by some local authorities of diverting floodwater from roads on to farmers’ fields without permission, thus washing away topsoil of the sort that I think he is about to touch on, and also potentially introducing pollutants into sensitive sites?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are going to allow water to go out on to land in order to save a town or a village from flooding, the landowner first needs to know about it and, secondly, needs to be able to manage it properly, and it has to be done by agreement. Sometimes, naturally, these things are done in exceptional circumstances, but, once done, there needs to be a plan if that needs to be done again in the future. Agricultural land can be very useful for storing water, but we must remember that it is also used for growing crops and keeping stock, and therefore we have to be sure that the farmer can farm that land, as well as manage it for water. That is why we need to deal with this by agreement.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, we had severe flooding in the Ribble valley and throughout Lancashire in 2015. He mentions agricultural land: on Friday, along with the Woodland Trust and the Ribble Rivers Trust, I planted some trees along one of the river banks. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look again at the number of trees being planted, and the usefulness of planting trees in stopping soil erosion and, indeed, holding a lot of the water that otherwise would go to the ground?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point, because it is not just about planting the trees; it is also about where we plant them. If we plant them along the edges of the fields or the banks of the streams and rivers, we can hold back the water and hold back the soil. Very often, the soil and debris being washed from the field is also contributing to the flood. So this is not just about the number of trees; it is about making sure we are smart in where we plant them. The way we plant them is important, too. We visited the north of England, and when the old Forestry Commission was planting trees it turned the soil up and put it up into a furrow and planted the trees on the top of it. The only trouble is that there are then two gullies either side of it, which then allow the water to run down very quickly if the trees are planted on a slope. Therefore, over the years there are many things we can do, but my hon. Friend makes a very good point that this is about planting trees, holding that soil back and holding the water back long enough for the major flood to go through, and that was what much of the work was done on.
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend is talking about soil, and I cannot let the moment pass without intervening to stress that soil is a very important part of our ecosystem. Does my hon. Friend agree that we lose it in floodwater at our peril, because it is the lifeblood that we use to grow our crops?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend will also be very aware that many fields only have so much topsoil on them, and it is the topsoil that is fertile and that we grow our crop in. Therefore, if farmers lose much of their topsoil to the streams and rivers, they have lost a lot of the very fertile soil in their fields. I think most farmers, when presented with a plan that can save their topsoil and the way they manage their fields, can see a big advantage in this, but we have to work with the farming community, rather than, as perhaps has sometimes been the case, just imposing our will upon them. If we can persuade them that there are many good reasons for managing soils in a slightly different way, we can perhaps get a lot further with that. We can sometimes use carrots, and not necessarily sticks. I am sure our Minister has many carrots to offer today, and we will be interested to hear about that when she sums up the debate.
We also need to take a closer look at development in built-up areas affected by flood risk. Naturally, we have laws that we hope will restrict most building on floodplains —sometimes it is breached, but on the whole it is not. When an area is flooded, very little of the water has actually landed on the flooded area. It usually comes from higher up. Rather than stopping building in flood-risk areas, we need to think when building developments of several hundred or 1,000 houses about capturing the run-off water from everywhere on those estates, including the roads. It could be captured in ponds or in reservoirs or tanks underneath some of the homes. Building in resilience measures to ensure that the water from a development could be held would make the situation better rather than worse. We can build developments, but we do not always give enough consideration to what is going to happen further downstream.
Mr Nigel Evans
A lot of house building is going on in Whalley in my constituency, and one of the conditions was that tanks should be put in before the houses were built. Sadly, the houses seem to be being built and occupied before the tanks have been put in. Does my hon. Friend agree that developers need to take planning conditions seriously and abide by the rules and regulations set down by the local authorities, because of the misery that flooding can cause if they do not get these things right?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes another good point. Planning conditions can be flouted, and they are sometimes not properly enforced. It is sometimes claimed that resilience measures cannot be put in place because of the economic situation, but we must ensure that houses are not built unless those measures are taken. I am sure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister present will pass on that point to her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, because this is a planning matter. If we are going to plan for the developments that we need, we must plan them properly. I do not think that any of us are against development, but we must have the right kind of development and hold the water back. Indeed, if we could make a feature of those measures, we might also create some leisure facilities as well. That would be a planning gain.
The recommendations in our report also include the need for a new governance model to deal with flooding. As part of our inquiry, the EFRA Committee visited the Netherlands to learn how that low-lying country manages flooding. We learned that 25% of the land there is below sea level, and that half of its 17 million population live in flood-prone areas, so they know a lot about flooding. The threat of flooding led to local government and water management being administered hand in hand from as early as the 13th century. As the threat of flooding in the UK grows, we need to borrow some ideas from the Dutch and to mirror their focus on dealing with floods locally and nationally. The fens in this country were drained by Dutch engineers, as was the part of Somerset where I still have my farm. They know exactly how to deal with water, because if they did not deal with it, they would not have a country. It is as simple as that.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that many of the things in this very useful report from the EFRA Committee were being discussed in this House a dozen years ago and have still not been implemented? An example is the recommendation about “building back better” that appears in paragraph 60 of the report. I discussed that matter with the Association of British Insurers in, from memory, 2006, but we have made almost no progress on it. Since then, the Labour Government and the coalition Government have cut spending on flood defences.
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have tried to ensure that the report is not party political. Under the last Labour Government, the spending on flooding went down in dry times and up in wet times. The same thing happened under the coalition. We can argue about the figures, but they very much follow that same pattern. The report recommends learning from what has happened and putting in the proper resilience measures.
As I said, the report discussed the Dutch system. The idea would be to set up a regional flood and coastal board and then involve local authorities and local drainage boards, where they exist, and then landowners and businesses in order to have a broad catchment basis. As such, the Government should completely overhaul flood risk management, to include a new English rivers and coastal authority that is accountable for the delivery of flood protection. The Netherlands has a flood commissioner who is answerable to the Dutch Parliament and at a local level, which provides real focus. We may not need a full management system like that of the Dutch, but we can learn many things from it, such as how to alter the system through the Environment Agency and others to make it more answerable to Parliament, local authorities, drainage boards and landowners. I am convinced that, until we get a system that works from the top down and from the bottom up, we will not make the best use of our resources, because they will always be pressed. The commissioner would be able to hold those carrying out flood prevention work to account for their performance, because we have to get the best value for money.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The report states that firefighters provide a vital “first-line service” to flooded areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should go further towards making that a statutory duty? That has been asked for throughout the past 12 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) said. Why can we not do this? Scotland has done it, Northern Ireland has done it, and I think Wales is about to do it. Surely it must happen.
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady makes a good point. I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is behind her, will be making some good points about the fire service. The Committee took evidence from the fire services, and their work on flooding and the time they put in are not always recognised. The Environment Agency has large pumps that can move huge volumes of water over short distances, but the fire services can pump out people’s properties and deal with things on the ground. That is not recognised enough within the system, and there is work to be done on that. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply to that point. By overhauling the way we manage the whole system, we can go a long way to minimising the devastating toll of flooding on local areas and local people.
Unfortunately, the Government’s response, which was published last month, was a little disappointing. It was not up to standard and addressed our key recommendations in only a cursory manner. We then asked for more information from Ministers in time for this debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the Committee on 16 February. We welcome her commitment to record and report, from 2018-19 onwards, on how many schemes include natural flood management. That will be important, because we must ensure that more such management is carried out. We welcome that step, but we also welcome the commitment to refresh the national flood and coastal erosion management strategy for England, which we hope will reflect many of our inquiry’s findings.
The report recommended some actions and, to be fair to the Government, DEFRA has made progress on some of those issues, including on catchment scale approaches and embedding natural flood management more firmly in flood management plans. Local partnerships have also made progress on co-ordinating action in some river basins. I think the Government agree with the Select Committee that not all flood areas fit neatly into local authority boundaries and that we need to introduce catchment areas to hold the water. We will need to speed up the water in some areas to get it out to sea, and in other areas we will need to slow the water down by introducing leaky dams to hold the water. Some areas will need to be dredged or desilted—whatever language we want to use—to get the water flowing more quickly.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech. Does he recognise the work of the Environment Agency along the Medway river and its excellent work, as he rightly says, on bringing together stakeholders from across the area so that we have a theme of continuous progress, rather than the bittiness where one area is fixed only to flood an area further downstream?
Neil Parish
I welcome the Environment Agency’s work on the Medway, where the water can move quite quickly. If we are not careful, the water will move too quickly and flood areas further downstream. Such work is essential.
Throughout the inquiry we saw that one size does not fit all. Some areas need the water to be slowed down, and other areas need it to be speeded up. We have to deal with it catchment area by catchment area. Of course it is fascinating that, before too long, we will probably move into more of a drought situation and will be talking about how to use our rivers to move water around so that we have enough water. For my first two years in this House, between 2010 and 2012, the Select Committee talked about nothing but drought. It was only when it started raining in 2012 and did not stop for two years that we talked about floods.
On funding for flood risk management, the Government have committed to a six-year programme with a capital budget of £2.5 billion. Although welcoming that increased funding, our report noted that it is unlikely to deliver sufficient protection in future decades. We stated that, by the end of 2017, the Government must publish their 25-year ambition for flood risk reduction and the cost of securing that reduction against different climate change scenarios. Disappointingly, the Government rejected that recommendation. The public need to know how their communities will be affected in coming years, and plans need to be put in place to ensure that they will be protected against flood risk. Flood risk comes not only from freshwater that falls in the form of rain but from coastal flooding, too.
We initially recommended that catchment scale measures be adopted on a much wider scale, and DEFRA is doing more to promote such approaches by, for example, trialling natural flood management measures—such as installing leaky dams, planting trees and improving soil management—alongside other measures. We welcome that, as well as the additional £15 million of funding in the autumn statement.
However, we need more detail on how much of the £2.5 billion capital programme for flood risk management will use natural flood management. The Minister’s commitment to include that indicator in reporting from 2018-19 is therefore welcome, but we would welcome more information on how she plans to ensure that every catchment area uses natural flood management to the maximum extent appropriate to its river basin. We saw that the Netherlands has re-meandered some rivers and is storing more water in the rivers, as well as on farmland.
I look forward to Members’ contributions to the debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s summing-up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call Mary Creagh to speak, I should say that twice the number of Members wish to speak in the next debate as in this one, so I suggest an informal six-minute limit for speeches by Back Benchers. We will see how we get on with that, but there really are twice as many Members who wish to speak in the next debate, so without a limit their speeches will be squeezed by an even shorter time limit.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I rise to speak on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has published a report on flooding. We found a lack of long-term strategic planning for flood risk and that the Government had not been doing enough to ensure the resilience of nationally significant infrastructure. Crucially, there has been a stop-start approach to flood defence funding and a lack of support for local councils. Our report called on the Government to take a proactive approach to funding and to make companies that operate key digital, energy and transport infrastructure report on their preparedness levels for flooding and their resilience targets. We called for more support for councils to prepare plans to deal with the risk of flooding, and for the Government to publish a 25-year plan for flooding alongside the long-awaited and much delayed 25-year plan for the environment, for which, yes, we are indeed still waiting.
Before I discuss the detail of our report, I wish to say a few words about climate change. Flooding is the greatest risk our country faces from climate change. As hon. Members have said, the risks are already significant and will increase as a result of climate change. Even if global temperature rises are kept below 2°, the UK faces a rising threat from surface water as a result of the intense rain patterns, from coastal erosion and tidal surges, and from fluvial flooding. It is important to stress that cities such as Hull face all three of those threats—some areas are much more vulnerable than others.
Sea-level rise forecasts vary from 50 cm to 100 cm by the end of the century. That will make tidal surges bigger. We saw how exposed is our North sea coast on the east of England in January’s storm surge, when the coastal town of Jaywick in Essex, which suffered so grievously in the 1950s, had to be evacuated by the Army. It is good to see a faster response time from the Government in such fast-moving, life-and-death situations, but we need to be able to scale that up if the North sea surge happens simultaneously along the whole eastern coast.
Various predictions, including the forecasts in the Government’s national flood resilience review, say that monthly winter rainfall could be 20% to 30% higher over the next 10 years, so as well as planning for the next 80 years, for our children’s lifetimes, we need to be thinking about the next 10 years. There are risks to all nations and all sectors of the economy. In its latest risk assessment, the Committee on Climate Change said:
“Current levels of adaptation are projected to be insufficient to avoid flood and coastal erosion risks”.
We are not yet doing what we need to do to match the scale of the risk.
Rob Marris
I hope my hon. Friend shares my disappointment at the slow rate of progress. The adaptation measures in the Climate Change Act 2008 are the direct result of a private Member’s Bill I introduced around 10 years ago. As she points out, we have made almost no progress.
Mary Creagh
There has been some progress, but we need to move much further and faster as the scale and nature of the risk becomes more apparent and as the science develops. My concern is that Government policy is not changing fast enough to meet the changes in the scientific forecasts.
Kerry McCarthy
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it was found that when the floods hit Cumbria and other areas at Christmas 2015 the Government were not using the most up-to-date modelling? Surely the most important thing is that we try, to the very best of our ability, to predict what is going to come next.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has joined me on the Environmental Audit Committee, and her expertise on this subject has been invaluable.
The Committee on Climate Change warns that increased flood risk affects property values and business revenues, and, in extreme cases, threatens the viability of some communities. A much worse scenario is set out in the climate change risk assessment: if global temperatures rise by 4° above pre-industrial levels, the number of UK households predicted to be at significant risk of flooding will double from 860,000 today to 1.9 million in 2050. Those are very stark and very concerning figures.
I know from my own constituency the misery that flooding can bring. In the 2007 floods, 1,000 homes in Wakefield were flooded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) said, successive Government have cut funding over the years, and 2007 was one such year—it was Labour that cut the funding that year. Our flood defence programme was cut, and I lobbied very hard to get that money reinstated. We got £15 million for flood defences to protect our cities. Thanks to those defences, which were completed in 2012, Wakefield managed to escape the worst of the 2015 storms. That was really, really important.
Nationally, the Government have taken a rollercoaster approach to funding. During the previous Parliament, flood funding was initially cut by 27%. The money was then reinstated after the 2013-14 floods. Mark Worsfield’s review of flood defences, which was published by my Committee, showed that those Government cuts had resulted in a decline in the condition of critical flood defences. It showed that the proportion of key flood defence assets that met the Environment Agency’s required condition fell from 99% in 2011-12 to 94% in 2013-14. Therefore, in three years we had a pretty large decline in the condition of mission critical flood defence assets, which posed an unacceptable risk for communities—I am talking about those communities that think that they have their flood defences in place and that they can sleep easy in their beds at night when it is raining. The more flood defences that the Government build, the more they need to increase the maintenance budgets. We cannot keep spending more on capital and then cut the revenue budget.
The failure of the Foss Barrier in York shows what happens when critical flood assets fail. It was built on the cheap in the 1980s. It was not built to the correct height and it had just two mechanisms. Once one of those mechanisms failed, the water overtopped its banks and reached the electrical switch rooms. Local flood engineers were left with no choice but to raise the barrier with very little notice, which led to hundreds of homes being flooded. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) will have a great deal to say on that.
The Government are talking about spending more on flood defences. One mechanism they are using is the so-called partnership funding. My Committee looked into the sources of that funding and found that 85% of it was coming from public sector bodies. Therefore, the Government are cutting funds centrally, and then putting pressure on hard-pressed local councils, which have seen their budgets fall by 30% over the past seven years, to boost their flood defence assets. When they say, “Do you fancy stomping up for some flood defence assets for your town or city.” those councils are left with no choice but to say yes. Just 15% of the money is coming from the private sector. Of course, it is not a level playing field, because any private sector company that gives the Government money for partnership funding gets tax relief on that so-called donation.
At the start of each spending review, the Government announce how much they will spend. In 2015, they allocated £2.5 billion for flood defences, but after storms Desmond, Eva and Frank, the Government announced, in Budget 2016, that the funding was not adequate and that they were going to invest an extra £700 million. Once again, we have this stop-start approach—cut when it is dry and spend when it is raining. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who was then a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that the extra money would be spent according to a “political calculation”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Let me point out that we have increased our budget, not cut it.
Mary Creagh
The coalition Government in 2010—I know that the hon. Lady was not a Minister then—cut the flood defence budget by 27%. Of course, the way in which the Minister is raising the money—the extra £700 million that was announced in the Budget in March 2016—came from a stealth tax: an increase in insurance premium tax. That raises £200 million a year and goes on every insurance policy in the country, so car drivers and people who own pets are paying for flood defences. We can argue about whether that is the most transparent way of raising money for flood infrastructure.
I will talk about the Committee’s report and the criticisms that we have made, particularly about infrastructure resilience. Storm Angus caused landslips and ballast washaways on railway lines in Devon, Cornwall, the north-east and Scotland before Christmas, bringing travel disruption—as storms always do—as we saw last week with Storm Doris. Last winter’s floods, particularly those in Leeds, which the Committee visited, showed that key energy, digital and transport infrastructures are not well protected. Let us not forget the bridge being washed away in Tadcaster. The replacement bridge has only just reopened, over a year after those floods. Roads and railways going down have a huge impact on the economics of an area.
The Government’s national flood resilience review, published last summer, found that 500 sites with nationally significant infrastructure are vulnerable to flooding. During the winter floods of 2015-16, nine electricity sub-stations, and 110 water pumping stations or sewage works in Yorkshire were affected by flooding. Keeping the water supply going and the sewage under control is vital. My Committee recommended that the Government mandate energy and water companies to meet a one-in-200-year flood resilience target for risk. I am afraid that the Government’s response was hugely disappointing, simply saying, “We don’t think that’s the best way of doing it”, but not saying what the best way is. I am interested to hear that. Our strategy cannot just be tumbleweed—listening for the wind and hoping that it is not coming our way.
Minimum standards for energy, transport infrastructure and digital telecommunications companies are vital. Let us not forget that the railway lines were flooded out of Leeds. The police Airwave response radios went down, so West Yorkshire police were unable to work out where to send their blue light emergency response vehicles in the middle of a civil emergency. That is simply not good enough. If that had happened not on Boxing day, but on a normal working day a couple of days later, tens of thousands of people would have been stranded in Leeds city centre with nowhere to spend the night. There would have been a much bigger civil emergency response.
The Government’s long awaited national flood resilience review was published in September. It was good to hear about some of the things that are happening, such as the mobile flood defences. However, the Committee thinks that flood defences are essentially a sticking plaster solution: they are good as far as they go, but fail one third of the times they are used, so they work only twice in every three times. The review said nothing about the risk from heavy rainfall overwhelming sewers. No one likes to talk about sewage, although some people might think that a lot of it goes on in this place, Madam Deputy Speaker, but clearly not in this debate and under your excellent chairmanship.
The Government need a comprehensive long-term strategy properly to deal with some of the granular issues around flood risk, none more important than the way in which local authorities have to deal with flood planning and prevention. Some 30% of local authorities in September 2016 simply did not have a complete plan for flood risk, and a quarter of lead local flood authorities did not have a strategy. How are the public and Members of this place meant to scrutinise whether the plans and responses are adequate if they simply do not exist?
The Environment Agency provides advice to local councils about where new housing developments should be built in order to minimise flood risk, and the Committee heard that such advice is usually followed. However, almost 10,000 homes were built in high flood-risk areas in 2013-14. The extent to which the Environment Agency’s advice on where or whether to build homes is systematically monitored, reported or followed up through the planning system is simply not known. There is nothing wrong with building new homes in flood-risk areas, as long as those areas are adequately protected—Southwark and this place are at risk of flooding, and people are obviously still building new homes in London because there is a thing called the Thames barrier—but the situation is not being systematically monitored. We would therefore like to see much more help going from DEFRA and the DCLG to enable councils to adopt local flood plans and then actually follow them up.
In the wake of the winter storms in 2015-16, the then Prime Minister appointed two Ministers as flood envoys to co-ordinate the response to flooding in two areas: the hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) in Cumbria and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) in Yorkshire. A question was raised about whether those posts transferred under the new Government and the new Prime Minister. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in July. She responded in September, saying she was thinking about it. Finally, on 7 January, we got a reply saying, “Actually, they are still in post.” It should not take six months for the Secretary of State to reply to a Committee Chair of this House to let us know whether, in the event of a flood, those two Ministers are still co-ordinating the response. What would have happened if flooding had taken place in Jaywick? That is simply not acceptable.
Finally, on insurance, last winter’s devastating floods cost over £1.3 billion in insured losses and about £5 billion across the whole economy. As I said, my Committee visited Leeds, and we had particular access to insurance. We had people coming across from Calderdale, where 70% to 80% of businesses were affected by the flooding—they have been affected almost annually by fluvial flooding and surface flooding. The floods cost small and medium-sized enterprises an estimated £47 million, with indirect costs totalling £170 million.
The floods in Leeds were the worst since 1866. Leeds University, which has done some research into this issue, told my Committee that 60% of local businesses have been unable to obtain a quotation for insurance since last winter’s floods. We heard of one business whose excess had risen from £1,000 to £250,000 after the floods. We heard of another business whose buildings insurance premium rose 60%, to £10,000, and whose excess increased 40%, to £10,000, but it would get the insurance only if it stumped up £400,000 to build new flood defences. The Committee on Climate Change says that the economic viability of some areas is being threatened, and the way insurance companies are failing to rise to meet this risk and failing to stand with communities is putting whole parts of our country at risk of becoming economically unviable.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Has the hon. Lady taken a cursory glance at the other report we are discussing, which asserts that there is no market failure when it comes to providing affordable insurance for businesses at risk of flooding? If these excesses are not market failure, I wonder what is.
Mary Creagh
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is market failure in these areas. Businesses are encouraged to shop around, and there are some excellent community Flood Save schemes, where people try to get together to use market power to purchase insurance collectively, and one of those schemes is now up and running in Calderdale, but it should not have to come to that. We want to see insurance companies standing alongside communities. The insurance companies lobbied long and hard to mitigate their risk from climate change, and the Government set up the Flood Re scheme —another insurance tax on contents premiums and buildings premiums, with every homeowner in the country stumping up for the access risk so that the insurers do not have to pay it and can transfer it to the Government. Insurers need to cut businesses some slack and rise to meet some of these challenges.
Mr Evans
A few businesses in my area have been hit. One of them is relatively small, but it has been hit a couple of times by flooding, so the insurance premium is now running way into the thousands. The premises is also a mixed hereditament, which makes things more complicated, because people live where the business is. Surely, if Flood Re kicks in to help domestic premises, it should kick in for businesses as well. If there is a market failure, which I believe there is, and if it is suitable to have that sort of pooling of risk for houses, it should be the same for businesses.
Mary Creagh
It is important that we do not end up with every taxpayer subsidising the private sector. The Government need to look again at the use of different, innovative mechanisms that do not place yet another burden on the already hard-pressed householder or car driver who has seen their insurance premiums go up as a result of mitigating and pooling some of this risk.
Failing to fund flood defences adequately is playing Russian roulette with people’s homes and with people’s businesses. I have talked about my Committee’s concerns about rollercoaster funding instead of steady-state funding; vague targets; vulnerable transport, energy and digital infrastructure, where again the Government simply lack the political will to work with companies across Government to get them to have flood-resilient assets; and local councils left to just get on with it by themselves. The storms may have receded for the moment, but the clean-up in some areas of Yorkshire, and in other areas across the country, is still going on. The lessons that we draw from this debate and these two Committee reports will shape our winters and our summers for decades to come.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
The financing of flood defences is of absolutely paramount importance to my constituents, as my borough has been hit by flooding on a number of occasions, most notoriously the devastating North sea flood of 1953, which breached the old Canvey Island sea wall defences and caused the loss of life of 58 residents and the evacuation of the entire remaining population. To avert a similar catastrophe, the island is now protected by a concrete wall that runs along its entire 28 km to protect the population of 40,000 from tidal surges. This wall is still judged to be good for a one-in-1,000-years event. I note that the residents of Canvey Island were not encouraged to evacuate because of a threatened tidal surge when those of Jaywick were. The wall is judged to be sound right up until the end of this century provided that there is regular monitoring and maintenance. The concern of my residents is to ensure that the money is always there to make sure that we are upgrading the maintenance.
Notwithstanding how good the sea walls are, Canvey Island and other parts of my borough, including South Benfleet and Hadleigh, still remain subject to a serious risk of surface water flooding, as occurred dramatically in the summer of 2013 and again in 2014, when homes right across the borough were flooded, including 1,000 homes on the island alone. Despite the great sea defences, this is a serious problem for an island that remains 1 metre below sea level at high tide and is entirely flat. It presents a particular problem for effective surface water drainage. There was an absolute outcry in 2014 at the second significant flooding event in less than 11 months. That led to calls for an investigation into whether this could be dismissed as a mere act of God or whether much more serious defects in the water management system were at fault, and what measures were needed to be put in place to assure residents that it would not occur again. I was extremely grateful to the then Cabinet Office Ministers and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who agreed to an investigation by the Government chief scientist, Sir Mark Walport, to establish the facts and make recommendations for the various agencies locally. His report found that the coincidence of extreme rainfall, problems with the performance of the drainage system, a power cut, and pumps overheating and tripping out were all foreseeable, although unusual, and many could be avoided in future. Sir Mark made a number of recommendations, the majority of which, I am pleased to say, have already been acted on.
Since those last floods, an extraordinary amount of work has taken place right across Castle Point, with considerable amounts of money spent on improvements and mitigation measures. The Environment Agency has invested large sums in improvements to its eight sluices and 13 pumping stations. In this financial year alone, it has invested over £500,000, including £89,000 on the Benfleet and East Haven barriers, which are key to protecting South Benfleet as well as the island. Webcams have been installed to monitor pumps and ditches. Some £620,000 has been spent on refurbishing 28 floodgates, and the remaining six will be completed by the end of this year.
The county council and Anglian Water have worked hard to map the drainage network underground and to make thousands of repairs and remove blockages in the system, as well as identifying the most serious faults. Anglian Water has invested millions since 2014 and has also been highly proactive in a public awareness campaign locally to raise the critical importance of maintaining free-flowing water courses. The county council is undertaking a huge rolling programme of property-level protection, with grants of up to £5,000 for homes affected by flooding previously.
The improved partnership working of Essex County Council, Anglian Water, the Environment Agency and the Essex fire and rescue service, as recommended by the chief scientist, is exemplary and has even resulted in a national award. Although the investigation focused on the island, improvements in multi-agency co-operation have had real benefits for the entire borough and it is now an exemplar for the rest of the UK.
The partnership has concluded a comprehensive urban drainage study of the problems underground and to model any future problems, to help make sure that this does not happen to my borough again. Proposals include the creation of additional storage ditches on roadsides and open areas, green roofs, water butts, porous paving and increased pipe sizes. It will shortly submit bids for some of those projects to the South East local enterprise partnership and central Government.
Previously, DEFRA Ministers have supported our bids. I hope that the Government will continue that support, acknowledge the economic importance of those bids and stress, not only to my LEP but to others, the importance of flood alleviation schemes in ensuring that communities remain economically viable. It is absolutely essential for the continued economic regeneration of my borough that it is recognised as protected from non-tidal surface water, as well as from tidal flood risk, especially given the increased likelihood of future events.
My borough is grateful for the introduction of the Flood Re scheme, which means that residents are not priced out of insuring their homes. It is not, however, available to businesses in my area. I hope that more work can be done in that regard, because a lot of them suffer great hardship. Nor does the scheme apply to new builds. I urge the Government to do more to ensure that there is better defence of our floodplains from developers and to press planning departments to incorporate more surface water mitigation for developments. Perhaps they could even reverse developers’ current right to connect surface water to the sewerage system, as it does not incentivise them to consider sustainable drainage systems.
I am conscious that time is short, so I will end by encouraging the Minister to visit Castle Point, if she can find the time in her diary, to see the incredible work that has been done in Benfleet and on Canvey Island, and to meet local agencies to discuss what more is needed and how we can further help the borough.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
My interest in the issue of flooding started in 2007, when south Yorkshire was badly flooded. Of course, those events led to the Pitt review, which recommended better and more co-ordinated planning, improved resilience and more strategic planning decisions by local authorities with regard to water and its potential impacts. However, weaknesses have materialised in the delivery of the Pitt review and, on top of that, the flooding challenges remain.
Peak river flows could be more than twice their current levels in some English regions by 2070, and some 5 million people in England alone are at risk of flooding. The national flood resilience review established, through Met Office modelling, that it is plausible that over the next 10 years we could experience rainfall that is between 20% and 30% higher than usual. It was always likely, therefore, that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, would return to this all-important topic. That decision was accelerated by the 2015-16 floods, which impacted so badly on Cumbria, Yorkshire and Somerset. The need to look again at the issue became imperative, especially in the context of the Government’s own flood resilience review.
I want to focus on one particular aspect of the Committee’s recommendations, namely the strategic approach that this country needs to take to flood risk management, with a special focus on the need for catchment-scale planning.
I was a member of the delegation that visited Holland, which was critical to framing the Committee’s recommendations. Our report focused heavily on that fact-finding visit, and every member was impressed by the rigorous approach taken by the Dutch to risk management. The Dutch system is clear and accountable—locally, regionally and nationally—and I am mightily disappointed that the Government were so quick to dismiss our recommendations, especially given the evidence we received that too much of what we do in England remains badly disjointed.
The Dutch model is particularly impressive in placing water at the heart of the country’s approach not just to water supply, but to strategic, spatial and economic planning. In other words, in Holland water—its management, its uses and its maintenance as an essential environmental resource—is seen as a No. 1 priority in the country, and so it should be in the UK. A start would be to have more of a catchment-scale approach to planning for flood risk management. That would involve integrating the widest possible range of both hard and soft engineering measures, including natural flood management.
Evidence presented to the Committee underlined that point. Some witnesses considered that the Environment Agency relied too much on constructing defences at the point of flood impacts on town centres, and did not give adequate consideration to preventing flood waters from building up at source and along the river path. The Government’s own advisory bodies, the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change and Natural England, told the Committee that downstream flood prevention and resilience measures must be accompanied by action upstream.
All the evidence is that the Government are not taking sufficiently seriously the need to consider larger, catchment-scale investment. For instance, their flood resilience review encourages bids for its core cities pilot, which refers principally to
“financing flood resilience in urban areas, harnessing private investment to design new defences while delivering economic development and regeneration for the local area.”
There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the need for a catchment-scale response.
In that context, Sheffield is developing its own scheme. Although it is worthy in some respects, it nevertheless fails to provide a robust mix of hard and soft measures. For instance, it provides no evidence of how it will make its water storage proposals work, and it provides no evidence that landowners will co-operate with it. References to natural flood management measures, such as tree planting and catchment restoration at source, are perfunctory. More than anything else, there is nothing in the scheme that would cover Barnsley, Doncaster or Rotherham, so it is not a catchment-scale scheme. If we do not stop or slow the flow in Barnsley, what is the point of putting in place measures in Sheffield, because all we will do is push the water further downstream to Doncaster? The Don is the spine of the South Yorkshire water network and it would be ideal for a catchment-level response.
I will conclude by making the point that I do not blame Sheffield for the approach it has taken. It has been encouraged to take such an approach by the Government, who seem more interested in leveraging in private finance for the purpose of delivering traditional, narrowly focused flood risk management schemes and in finding other pots of money than in taking the holistic view emerging from all the evidence presented to us on the Select Committee. I call on the Government to think again, and to support our recommendation on the need for large catchment-scale schemes that would go with the grain of all the emerging evidence.
I would have liked to talk about other aspects of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, such as resilience and the role of sustainable urban drainage systems in managing flood risk, but time is very limited. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that she and the Government will think again about the need to consider proper catchment-scale responses to this issue and the need for a more integrated approach to flood management in this country.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I took part in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee flood prevention inquiry and was involved with the Environmental Audit Committee’s flooding report. I very much welcome the recent focus on what is a very serious area, as we know only too well in Taunton Deane, where we have experienced such serious flooding in recent years.
The Government have been somewhat under attack, but I must start by saying that they have committed an incredible £2.5 billion to flood relief work, and I applaud the excellent schemes under way or in place that we have heard about. Indeed, this represents a real-terms increase in capital investment, which is up from £1.7 billion during the last Parliament and from £1.5 billion between 2005 and 2010.
I want to raise some of the issues addressed in the inquiries, but I begin with Somerset. We are used to winter flooding on the Somerset levels—it is natural—but not to the degree witnessed in those severe weather conditions in 2012, December 2013 and January 2014. The whole area effectively turned into an inland sea. It is my home area and I witnessed that at first hand. An incredible 11,500 hectares of land were under 65 million cubic meters of water, largely owing to the build-up of silt in the rivers and drainage channels, which was not effectively dealt with over the many years since the channels were engineered in the 1960s.
The knock-on effects were enormous. Utter disruption and despair was caused to people in their daily lives. The economic impact assessment estimated that the floods cost the local economy £147 million and that 50% of businesses were affected.
I welcome the Government’s reaction, and we are looking ahead optimistically to never having to suffer such serious consequences again in Somerset. They committed £20 million to flood defences to protect properties—£4.2 million was focused only on the Somerset levels and moors. Every £1 spent on flood defences gives a benefit of between £4 and £9, so it is definitely money well spent.
The Government oversaw the establishment of the Somerset Rivers Authority. It was set up to work with many organisations and still exists, and will go on to run and manage the area. It is funded through a precept on council tax bills—initially, the Government committed £1.9 million to start it up. I welcome the Government’s continuing work with the SRA on its long-term funding arrangements. I urge them to find time to give the SRA a statutory basis. It is such a good model that I believe it could be copied elsewhere. It will do both dredging and the wider catchment work about which so many hon. Members have spoken. It involves a range of organisations, which I must praise, including the farming and wildlife advisory group, and the Royal Bath and West Society, which has raised money to help to advise farmers on their forward planning. It is essential that we enable the SRA to continue to operate.
Many hon. Members have referred to the wider catchment approach. I held one of my popular environment forums in Taunton Deane. We were delighted and honoured to have my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) to speak to a cross-party gathering, when we discussed a holistic approach to flooding, which went down exceptionally well. Minister, there is an awful lot of positive feeling about engaging that approach much more widely, with leaky dams, more tree planting and better soil management, which has been referred to. There is a raft of traditional and modern environmental techniques, working with science to slow the flow of water into the rivers and reduce flooding. It will not work everywhere, but it will help—it can be part and parcel of everything else.
With Brexit heading our way, we have a marvellous opportunity to have a new think about land management. I was heartened to read in the response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee second report on flood prevention that the Government are thinking of a catchment-based approach in DEFRA’s 25-year environment plan. That is a good direction to work in.
We need to consider how much public good is achieved from flood protection work. I urge the Minister to do some early work to calculate how we can value work so that farmers know how much it will cost them if they store water on their land for the short or long term, what it will achieve, what the forgone effect is of not growing crops but storing water, and how much we should pay them. I declare a slight interest in that I come from a farming background and family. Farmers are cautious folk. They do not want to flood their land if there is not a good reason to do so, or no good results or consequences. If we can prove that there will be good results, I am sure they would do it.
I urge the Minister to look at running a large-scale catchment project, another recommendation from the Select Committee’s inquiry, to gather evidence on a wider scale. There are many very good small-scale projects—we have heard many examples today—but we do not have a large-scale project that is able to demonstrate what really works, why it works and what we should do. I therefore urge the Minister to consider running such a project.
Another issue raised in the Select Committee report is whether it is possible to engage water companies more in this approach to handling flooding. After all, they deal with our water day in, day out. I note with interest that the recently published “Natural Capital Committee’s fourth state of natural capital report” recommends natural capital catchment-based approaches by encouraging Ofwat in particular to get involved. This is definitely an idea that has come into the public domain.
I want to touch on housing. We are seeing a huge and necessary increase in house building to address the housing shortage, but let us ensure that those houses are not exacerbating the flooding problems. Sustainable drainage systems and green infrastructure such as ponds can contribute to protecting communities from flooding. It is welcome that the Government recognise that and I urge other Departments to work them into their plans, too. Water has no boundaries, so we need to look at all aspects of its impact on our lives.
Finally, I may have sounded rather biased towards Somerset, but much accumulated knowledge on flooding has now been gathered, including a comprehensive real-time system devised by the Met Office for feeding in rainfall data and river levels. Will the Minister consider applying this model elsewhere?
The Government are committed to tackling flooding. I know that because of all the money they have already committed to it. However, there is so much more that we could do. Brexit offers an opportunity to look again at how we manage our land, and how we could have a whole new and effective approach to flooding to benefit us all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. May I just remind hon. Members that the guidance on time limits for speeches is six minutes, not nine minutes? It just bites into the next debate.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I found what she had to say to be genuinely fascinating.
The impact of the 2015 Boxing day floods are still being felt in Rochdale and Littleborough, after water devastated over 500 homes. For many in my constituency, the recovery is still ongoing. Local businesses were also hit very hard. Their operations were severely disrupted, with many losing stock and trade. I worry that the fear of future floods and the cost of insurance will force some of those businesses to close or relocate.
I am grateful for the assistance given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so far. In particular, the flood resilience community pathfinder has provided support for the most vulnerable throughout this stressful time. I hope that efforts to increase resilience in these communities will continue. Likewise, I commend efforts by Rochdale Council to address the problems caused by heavy rainfall in November 2016. Fortunately, far fewer people were affected than in the previous year’s floods. Nevertheless, Rochdale Council, under the direction of council leader Richard Farnell, was quick to provide emergency funds to residents and undertake a program of extensive gully clearing.
I welcome efforts to alleviate the suffering of those affected and to quickly resolve emergencies, but it is clear that real protection from flooding must be delivered. This means preventing flooding in the first place. In Rochdale, we all know the main threat to our community remains the River Roch and its tributaries. I am pleased that Rochdale Council and the regional flood and coastal committee are committed to managing and reducing flood risks caused by the river. They both want to see a successful flood alleviation project delivered as soon as possible, and have worked closely with the Environment Agency to put together a plan for the borough. They have already committed £7 million of their own money towards the project, which will protect at least 800 homes and 400 businesses. In addition, the council has already finished opening up the river in the town centre and completed a flood storage scheme in Calderbrook, yet it needs more support from central Government. Funding from Whitehall would allow us to build more badly needed storage sites.
I appreciate the Government’s commitment to investing in flood defences across the country, and I am grateful for the support given by DEFRA to projects in Rochdale so far. I have raised this issue with the Minister previously, and I am grateful for her response, but I am somewhat dismayed that rather than offering financial support, she asked me to find further partnership funding. Rochdale Council has worked extensively with the Environment Agency to maximise partnership funding, and I am sure that such efforts will continue, but I believe that such an urgent scheme as the one in Rochdale should be eligible for more central Government funding.
We also need some momentum. An early decision on committing funding for this scheme is essential. Such programmes are complicated and have a long lead-in time. For it to progress further, we need a decision from the Government on future investment. I hope that DEFRA and the Treasury will bear this in mind and ensure that Rochdale is given the priority it deserves. Last year, many in Rochdale had anticipated extra funding to tackle flooding in the town in the Chancellor’s autumn statement but were left disappointed. I hope the Minister will act now to ensure that the fears of residents and local businesses are no longer prolonged.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I start by thanking the Government for listing this estimates day debate so conveniently—it follows on from the monumental event of my second flood forum in Sandilands on Friday evening. I hope to be able to help the House with the conclusions drawn from that important event.
The reason I hold flood forums in my constituency is that it provides a chance to bring experts together so that local residents can raise issues with them and so that together we can find solutions. Flooding is a real risk in my constituency, both along the magnificent Lincolnshire coastline and further inland in the beautiful Lincolnshire wolds. Sadly, that threat was demonstrated only too keenly on Friday 13 January, when a state of civil emergency was declared along the Lincolnshire coastline, weather forecasts having suggested that a tidal surge could overtop the already substantial sea defences and put many tens of thousands of lives at risk.
As soon as the state of civil emergency was declared, more than 30 local and national organisations pulled together to ensure that residents were kept as safe as possible. I am extremely grateful to the Minister here today and the Armed Forces Minister for putting together a plan to bring more than 200 soldiers from Catterick to Louth and the surrounding area. They knocked on more than 1,000 doors in 72 hours to ensure that the most vulnerable people were offered the option of evacuation if they wanted it. I had better also mention the Burma and Quebec Company of 2nd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, because they have been very good on Facebook.
We also had an incredible response from our emergency services. Fire officers, police officers, the ambulance teams, as well as volunteers, including from LIVES and the Red Cross, all played a vital role in our response. Emergency rescue centres were set up in a matter of hours. I had the pleasure of visiting the one at the Meridian centre in Louth to see for myself the comfort that vulnerable residents were receiving there. I also had the privilege of visiting the gold command centre in Lincoln, led capably by Chief Superintendent Shaun West, on that Friday night to see all the teams working together as they happily reached the decision locally and nationally that the weather had turned and the risk had been averted. I place on the record my thanks to everyone involved in that huge effort. I am proud that Lincolnshire showed the rest of the country how to respond calmly and professionally to such threats when they arise. It is better to be safe than sorry in those circumstances.
Today, however, we are talking about future flood prevention. I am grateful to the Government because for the last five years to 2015, more than £50 million has been provided through grant in aid to protect more than 23,000 households from flooding along the coast. I am delighted that this scheme is continuing under the current Government with a £39 million programme of grant-in-aid capital to extend protection to a further 14,500 households.
When it comes to flood prevention on the coast, the future is an interesting one. We discussed in the flood forum on Friday night the possibility of building groynes into the coastline, which can provide in turn marinas and interesting environments for tourists to enjoy the wonders of the Lincolnshire coastline even more. Both smaller investment schemes and the full flood protection scheme are important. For example, £1 million is being spent on replacing the Saltfleet pumping station and £385,000 is being used to refurbish Theddlethorpe pumping station. All these measures play their own vital role in making sure that my constituency remains resilient to whatever threat the sea throws at us.
What of inland flooding? Not many people know that Lincolnshire has hills. Indeed, the Lincolnshire wolds have some beautiful hills. Sadly, though, with that beauty comes some rainfall, and the market towns and villages in the wolds have to deal with fluvial flooding from time to time. That is why the new flood alleviation schemes in Louth and in Horncastle are overwhelmingly welcomed by the local communities. This is particularly important as developers seek to build yet more houses between the wolds and the coast. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is concentrating on this issue, too.
I add my own to the voices of colleagues who have urged the Minister to encourage insurance businesses in considering insurance policy protections not just to look at households, but to extend those protections to businesses. This is critical to small businesses in my constituency, including pubs and restaurants that rely on the beautiful architecture of their market towns to entice people to visit them. We need this insurance to protect businesses as much as to protect homes.
I am extremely grateful for having had the opportunity to share the delights of my constituency and the thoughts of constituents from the second flood forum in Louth and Horncastle. I look forward to holding many more of those forums. I am going to develop a rolling programme of them over the years, so that my constituents can come to me with problems—and if we cannot sort them out, I will write to the Minister in the hope that she can do so. I express the wish that everyone in my constituency and everyone living in flood risk areas will stay safe and dry for the rest of this year.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). I do not want to speak to the whole report or the Government’s response. I shall focus rather on our Select Committee’s recommendation 15 on the statutory duty for the fire and rescue service. This recommendation is consistent with our other recommendations 16 to 21, which all raise concerns about governance, command and control, structures and relationships. The evidence the Committee heard led us to the conclusion we reached. Sadly, however, the Government disagree.
Under recommendation 15:
“We recommend that the Government places a statutory duty on the Fire and Rescue Service in England and Wales to provide an emergency response to flood events and commits the necessary additional funding and staff resources to support delivery of this responsibility”—
a point to which I shall return later. The Government’s response states:
“Fire and Rescue Services in England already have the discretionary powers they need…A Statutory Duty would potentially reduce flexibility with a one size fits all approach, and there are clear advantages to a permissive regime”.
That sounds like civil service and ministerial double-speak or euphemism if I ever heard it.
I am grateful to Pat Strickland in the House of Commons Library for its briefing, “Should Fire and Rescue Services have a Statutory Duty to deal with flooding?” It outlines that the 2008 Pitt review into the 2007 floods said that there should be fully funded national capability for flood rescue
“underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty”.
In a written answer in December 2015, the then Minister with responsibility for policing and fire said that the good response of the fire services to flooding in that year suggested that there was “no need for review”. The Labour Government had arrived at the same conclusion in 2008, but we have seen more and more serious flood events since then, so the situation is changing.
The briefing paper details the law as it stands:
“The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 does not place a statutory duty…to respond to floods, although there is a power to do so…the Act sets out the statutory ‘core functions’ of FRA…to provide for…fire safety…fire-fighting…rescuing people and protecting people from harm in the event of road traffic accidents”—
or road traffic collisions in 21st-century jargon. The law in Scotland is different. There has been a statutory duty since 2013, and the Pitt review took a similar view to the one that now exists in Scotland:
“The Review believes that clarifying and communicating the role of each of these bodies would improve the response to flooding. However, we are concerned that the systems, structures and protocols developed to support national coordination of multi-agency flood rescue assets remain ad-hoc. We believe that the Fire and Rescue Service should take on a leading role in this area, based on fully funded capability. This will be most effective if supported by a statutory duty.”
That is essentially the core of recommendations 15 to 21 and, as I say, nothing much has changed.
The Library briefing goes on to examine the history of the proposal and the debates in the House. I would like to focus on the history of the fire and rescue service’s statutory duties. Colleagues might expect that the fire service has always had a duty to attend fires, but it was partly the fire that destroyed most of this Palace of Westminster in 1834 that led to the creation of the London Fire Brigade, which celebrated its 150th anniversary last year. Most colleagues would also probably expect that the fire and rescue service has a duty to prevent fires, and I suspect most would consider the role of the fire service in dealing with road traffic collisions to be a statutory duty. That is not the case. On fire, the statutory duty was created only in 1938. On fire safety, it was the Fire Services Act 1947 that created it. As for road accidents and road crashes, it was the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 that created the statutory duty.
When the Government say that the fire and rescue service will deal with floods because it has, it does and it will, that was also the case for fires, fire prevention and road traffic collisions until the prevailing wisdom decided that an expectation was not enough and the Government had to do more than just expect. There not only has to be a legal requirement for a duty; it has to be resourced and paid for, and the Government need to legislate for that outcome.
The Select Committee report makes the case for changes in structures. Part of our recommendations for better preparedness, better governance and stronger resilience is to confer a duty on the fire service to boost all those elements. The Government clearly do not want to proceed in that direction at present.
Rob Marris
Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion that the Government’s refusal to create a statutory duty for the fire and rescue service in this regard is driven principally by their desire not to commit resources to this area of endeavour?
Jim Fitzpatrick
My hon. Friend perfectly anticipates my next point. I was about to quote a statistic to demonstrate that the Government do not want to proceed in this direction—because staff reductions in fire and rescue services since 2010 have been significant, with nearly 7,000 jobs having been lost. By my estimate, that amounts to 20% of the British fire service disappearing since 2010. Those numbers are very worrying.
Furthermore, the transfer of responsibilities of the fire and rescue service to more and more police and crime commissioners, and budget pressures on both the police and the fire services suggest that there is real fear of further reductions. The fire and rescue service needs to be able to maintain the staff and equipment necessary to continue to play a prominent role in dealing with floods, preparing for them and mitigating them. To achieve that, they need recognition in law. The Select Committee believes that that needs to be done. It is an issue that is not going to go away. I suspect that at some point—perhaps not now—the Government will get the message.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 453 residential properties and 174 commercial properties in York were flooded following Storm Eva, yet we know that in extreme flooding that could rise to as many as 7,200 properties. The city is therefore saying, “What is going to happen next?”
Just last month, York’s own flood inquiry produced a report containing about 90 ambitious recommendations, but no framework to govern their implementation. We need to look back on what has happened after each flood. Resources dry up, and then we do not seem to move much further forward. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), services should operate between floods, dealing not just with the issue of flooding itself but with issues of flood literacy, prevention and resilience. The fire and rescue authority would be well placed to address such issues. In that context, I was disappointed by the Government’s response to the excellent reports from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees.
The Bellwin scheme provides an immediate response, but it does not take account of the need for resilience measures to be taken during the dry seasons. I should like to hear from the Minister how the scheme could be used more proactively to provide incentives for such measures, and how the Government will work with Flood Re and the insurance industry to ensure that resilience is built into properties when the sun is shining, rather than waiting for the next floods to occur. I should also like to hear what plans the Minister has to review the Flood Re scheme. It has been in place for nearly a year, but we know that there are a number of problems. Some properties, such as leasehold properties and properties built after 2009, cannot gain access to the insurance,
We continue to call for a proper scheme for businesses, for which there is such a need. We believe that it is possible to create a matrix model for that purpose. What progress has the Minister made in considering the opportunities for such action? I know that the British Insurance Brokers Association has instituted a scheme in the interim, but businesses have still not heard about it. What is the Minister doing to promote it?
In York, emergency improvements are being made to the Foss Barrier, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). A total of £17 million is being spent on an upgrade which should have taken place over the last 30 years. I am grateful to the Minister’s predecessor for ensuring that we would be able to shift the water—50 tonnes a second—from the river should the barrier need to be used. However, people in our city are saying that more needs to be done. I am not talking about the £45 million that is being spent on building defences; I am talking about catchment management.
The Environment Agency has told me that we shall have to wait for 2021 and the next comprehensive spending review. The Government response boasts about £15 million being spent, but I must say to the Minister that that is a drop in the ocean—or in the flood water—when it comes to building resilience measures. We need proper investment, now, in mapping out catchment areas and working out what needs to be done for the future in relation to, for instance, the “slow the flow” measures. The Government have shown a lack of ambition in respect of the national tree-planting programme, but they need to think about how agroforestry can play a major role in catchment management.
I am interested in the work being done by the University of York on the management of soil and the moorlands. I urge the Minister to commit herself today to full funding of the second phase of the university’s research. Better land management is essential. More water needs to be absorbed upstream rather than running downstream.
I was disturbed to read in the Government’s response that all the action that is needed will appear in a 25-year environment plan. It would be great if we could see the plan, but it is already eight months late. Will the Minister tell us when it will be published—or have I misunderstood the title? Perhaps it refers to the 25 years that it will take to write the plan. We really do want to see what it has to say. I hope that next week’s Budget will contain measures to ensure that proper investment is made in proper catchment management now, rather than our having to wait until 2021. I trust that the Minister will move that forward.
I want to say something about governance. York was left with no plan for managing the floods, and was badly let down by the lack of action from the city council. There was also poor governance from the Environment Agency when it came to risk management. What governance structures is the Minister introducing to ensure that local authority plans are subject to professional oversight, and are risk-assessed to establish that they are robust and fit for purpose? We cannot expect local authorities to mark their own homework when lives could be put at risk. Planning for resilience is vital, and it should be done in the dry seasons. Authorities should not wait to test the plans until the rain and the floods.
I ask the Minister to tell us what further steps she plans to take now, to ensure that we have a flood-resilient nation.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
This debate follows major inquiries into the social, economic and environmental impact of flooding in England which were undertaken by the Environmental Audit and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committees. I participated in the EFRA Committee’s inquiry, and I took a close interest in the development of the Committee’s conclusions and the preparation of the final comprehensive report, which focused heavily on the future management of flood risk. That report called for the UK Government to strengthen policies to protect communities in England from increasing flood risk.
Last November, when the EFRA Committee published its report, we criticised the UK Government’s fragmented, inefficient and ineffective approaches to flood risk management. I should make it clear that the report was not an academic exercise, but the product of a great deal of work and time spent visiting areas of England that had been badly affected by poor and inadequate flood prevention, and also the Netherlands, where we sought out a number of governmental organisations and inspected world-class flood prevention measures to understand how prevention was managed in a country where it is considered absolutely critical.
The evidence that we collected in the Netherlands stood in stark contrast to the evidence collected in England. When visiting communities in England that had been badly affected by storms Desmond, Eva and Frank, we observed a great deal of activity directed towards the purchase of large displacement pumps and the implementation of risk management systems that could only sensibly be described as reactive. There was nothing new, novel, innovative or insightful in any of the activity that I observed in England, and I was left with the impression that communities shared my disappointment and lingering concerns. In England, a predominant view that emerged was that flooding represented a failure to deliver an adequate emergency response at a time of crisis.
In the Netherlands, the situation could not have been more different. Our detailed conversations with the Delta commissioner, the special envoy for international water affairs, and many other internationally renowned experts were insightful, and highlighted many new, novel and innovative methods of proactively managing and controlling the flow of water to eradicate the risk of flooding. The people of the Netherlands would view a flood as a failure of water management governance arrangements.
The contrast is perhaps best explained by the fact that the Netherlands views flood prevention as a social issue that requires a determined and co-ordinated strategic political approach to guarantee effective water management and the protection of life and property. The approach implemented by the UK Government’s Environment Agency suggests that flooding is considered to be a largely unpredictable but occasionally inevitable consequence of extraordinary weather conditions that require an effective emergency response.
The EFRA Committee did not focus on the purchase of more or larger displacement pumps, but proposed a new and innovative governance model to recognise flooding as a social problem. Like the Netherlands, we advocated a strategic focus on co-ordinated, efficient action to deliver flood prevention. We recommended that the UK Government establish a new national floods commissioner for England, to be accountable for the delivery of strategic, long-term flood risk reduction outcomes agreed with the Government. The commissioner would deliver the strategy through new regional flood and coastal boards to co-ordinate the regional delivery of national plans, in partnership with local stakeholders. The boards would take on current lead local flood authority and regional flood and coastal committee roles, and a new English rivers and coastal authority would assume the Environment Agency’s current role in focusing on the efficient delivery of national flood risk management plans. That governance model would streamline organisational responsibilities, co-ordinate resources and pool expertise to allow each body to deliver their unique role, with funding firmly linked to outcomes, including financial outcomes.
Our recommendations were intended to deliver the following: first, the adoption of catchment measures on a much wider scale, including sustainable drainage systems; secondly, simplified flood risk communications; and, thirdly, improved organisational and resource resilience in all its forms, including spatial planning, building regulations, insurance and emergency response. In addition to shifting the UK Government from a reactive approach directed at flood management towards a more informed and insightful proactive approach focused on flood prevention, the Committee’s recommendations were designed to make better use of financial resources and to recognise the negative impact of fluctuating funding.
The UK Government’s pattern of spending is as unpredictable as the pattern of flooding. Indeed, funding arguably fluctuates reactively in correlation with unpredictable flood events, with budgets topped up above planned levels. The 2016 Budget, for example, committed an additional £700 million in response to the winter 2014-15 floods. The Environmental Audit Committee criticised this for “political calculation”.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s initial report was followed by a very disappointing response from the UK Government. Indeed, the UK Government’s response is summed up in one sentence:
“We do not agree that there is a need for substantial change to the existing national and local governance provisions for flood risk management.”
When challenged on the inadequacy of this response, the EFRA Committee received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), which noted:
“Although we do not agree there is a need for substantial structural change, we are always looking for ways to improve and adapt the way we work to meet current and future needs.”
How bizarre—the UK Government want improvement, but just not the improvement recommended by two Select Committees.
By ignoring the considered and detailed reports of two Select Committees, the UK Government are missing opportunities to act on a wide range of recommendations that would improve and adapt the way the Government work to meet current and future demands. The failure to improve and adapt existing reactive models of operation is not only wasting money, it is leaving households, communities and businesses across England at risk of disaster. The Government’s response continues to fall far short of the recommendations.
This debate takes place as part of the supply estimates process, a means through which the UK Government technically seek Parliament’s authority for spending plans. These are known as “estimates days”. In practice, these debates are three days of general debate when the one thing that is not discussed is the actual estimates, and generally there is no vote. In fact, this House has largely abandoned all opportunities for direct control of public expenditure by means of debate and vote on the estimates presented to the House.
This is particularly important to Scottish MPs, because the former Leader of the House repeatedly claimed that the estimates process provides an avenue for Scottish MPs to scrutinise the financial implications of Bills from which the English votes for English laws procedure excludes us. I conclude by noting that the arcane estimates process fails to function as an effective method of scrutinising UK Government expenditure, and that is to the detriment of everyone.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
To follow on from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), I have not seen this produced today, but I have in my hand the estimates book. The estimates for DEFRA, which we are supposed to be debating today, are contained within it. I must admit to feeling somewhat confused by today’s proceedings. As if Fridays in this place were not strange enough, today has been a real eye-opener. I have not heard any discussion surrounding the figures estimated for DEFRA, and I have heard no critical analysis of departmental spend within those figures. As my hon. Friend acknowledged to me and made clear, this is the stage at which we as Scottish MPs are supposed critically to analyse the estimates to deal with the consequences of policy and UK legislation, but there appears to be little, if no, discussion. However, I want to discuss a few points from the estimates within the books today, which I assume will be in order.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am afraid that, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not in order. I ask him to discuss the subject for debate stated on the Order Paper, which has been chosen by the Liaison Committee. This issue arose when the estimates were debated last year. I will be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman moves on to the subject that is on the Order Paper.
Richard Arkless
I was not here the last time the estimates were discussed. Am I not allowed to discuss the figures within the estimates; is that what the Chair is telling me?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Today we are specifically discussing flood prevention, not what is in the book to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are discussing flood prevention, which was chosen by the Liaison Committee. The point the hon. Gentleman makes was raised last year, and I am sure we can find other avenues to discuss it further, but right now the topic for debate is just flood prevention.
Richard Arkless
Needless to say, we will be taking these points to the appropriate arena, when done.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you give some clarification? The title of the motion on the Order Paper is, I accept:
“Supplementary Estimate: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Subject for debate: Future flood prevention)”
However, the text of the motion states:
“That, for the year ending with 31 March 2017, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £420,838,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 946”,
which is the document that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) was speaking to. Is the ruling of the Chair that, in fact, the contents of HC 946 as they relate to DEFRA are not for debate in this estimates debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Yes, if the hon. Gentleman looks again at the Order Paper, he will see that the notes below—which are in very small print—state:
“This Estimate is to be considered in so far as it relates to future flood prevention (Resolution of 21 February).
The Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the above Motion will be deferred until 7.00 pm on Tuesday 28 February”.
That is the critical element in this regard.
Richard Arkless
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In common with many Members, I represent a constituency that is susceptible to flooding and has flooded, quite dramatically, twice over the last three years. I have been interested in many of the points made by hon. Members; it has been a well-informed debate, with lots of excellent, pertinent points made.
The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is no longer in her place, talked about the stop-start nature of the process of flood management across the rest of the UK and about a lack of strategic planning, which has become apparent in this debate today. She talked about businesses being affected by flooding, and there are some specific issues that I questioned the Minister about before and to which she gave some helpful answers, which I will touch on later in my speech.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) support my calls and express some concern about the availability of affordable insurance to small businesses; I will mention that later. We know that the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) has a passion for trees and everything horticultural, and she talked a lot about land management and the contribution that land management techniques can make to reduce the risk of flooding.
One of the major debates in my constituency has been the extent to which land management techniques can significantly mitigate the risk of flooding. When towns in my constituency have flooded, we have found it very difficult to find an expert who could say that felling the trees, tidying the riverbanks or dredging a river would have made a significant difference to the risk of flooding. It appears that the one thing that contributes most to the risk of flooding, which is not really in the public’s mind, is the huge amount of rainfall. There is some way to go in the debate about, and public consciousness of, the things that contribute to the risk of flooding and the things that can mitigate it.
I was interested, as always, to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). She rightly talked about bringing people together, and all MPs with constituencies susceptible to flooding will have been impressed by how stakeholders and members of the public came together. It was humbling to see that in action. But I must say that she broke the House of Commons record for plugging her constituency and praising her Front Bench, all within a six-minute speech—that girl will go far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross made an excellent speech and gave the House an excellent summary of the report. He focused on the contrast between the Committee’s experiences in Holland, which adopts a principle of proactivity and strategic management and regards flooding as a social issue, and the strategy in the UK, which seems unpredictable and tends to concentrate on managing consequences in emergencies. That tactic needs to change.
The Select Committee’s report is one of the relevant documents listed on the Order Paper—to which this debate is restricted—and there is a section on page 23 on business insurance. In many of the towns in my constituency, there are perhaps 30 to 40 small businesses on either side of the high street, which might on occasions be flooded. When those businesses try to get affordable insurance, they can often get a policy with manageable premiums but the excess is completely unmanageable. It is often £15,000 or more. If that main street were to flood again, none of those businesses would be able to pay the excess.
I am concerned to see the assessment on page 23 of the report, which states:
“Defra does not consider there to be a market failure in provision of appropriate business insurance for those located in flood risk areas.”
The report talks only about the cost and availability of policies; it does not discuss the excesses. Were manageable excesses among the criteria that the Department considered when it made the judgment that there had not been a market failure? I was surprised to read the figures from the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations that thought that only a small percentage of businesses had these problems. That is not my understanding of what is happening in my constituency. This is a very difficult issue that has the potential to put swathes of our high streets out of business. I accept the argument that participants in the Flood Re scheme should not be made to pay for businesses, but some other kind of scheme needs to be made available. There is a clear market failure here and it needs to be dealt with.
The approach in Scotland is not perfect, but it seems to be more advanced than in the rest of the UK. We have a statutory basis for our flood management plan. We passed the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act in 2009, which compelled all 32 authorities across Scotland to come up with flood management plans. They have all done so: 42 flood defences are in the pipeline and 80% of the money has been committed by the Scottish Government. Four of those schemes are in my constituency, and I look forward to the conclusion of the process in 2022, when all those flood defences will be built and we will be looking at the next round of strategic planning in Scotland.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
This has been a really interesting debate. It was admirably opened by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who gave the House some really interesting information from his Committee’s report. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, who talked about the huge impact that climate change is having on our communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) spoke knowledgeably about the importance of catchment planning and about the Dutch model. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) used his experience of working with the fire and rescue services to show why a statutory duty is needed to deal with flooding. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) shared her considerable experience on this issue and stressed the importance of funding the research being carried out at universities such as York.
Making communities truly flood resilient is one of our greatest challenges. Flooding varies greatly. The flooding in Somerset was not the same as the floods on the east coast, which in turn were very different from the flooding in Cumbria. The House will be aware of the devastating effect that Storm Desmond had on my community last winter, as well as the previous significant flooding that we suffered. Flooding is not just about water. In Cumbria, it roars down the fells, carrying everything in its path. Drains back up and overflow, and huge amounts of rocks, gravel and trees race along in the water. Floods are incredibly destructive. We have had roads and bridges completely destroyed.
So what should we do? As has been discussed today, we need to look at the whole river catchment. We need to invest in sustainable drainage systems. And I believe that we need to stop talking about flood prevention. We cannot prevent flooding, but we can manage it and make our communities properly resilient. People are nervous and frightened, and it is time we took seriously the effect of flooding on mental health. Every time it rains heavily—in Cumbria that is not exactly rare—people are scared that the flooding will happen again. The University of Cumbria is carrying out a survey into mental wellbeing. This is an important piece of work on understanding better the effect of flooding and repeated flooding on our communities.
We also need to look at how we improve emergency planning right across the country. Flooded communities always pull together in an extraordinary way in a crisis, but they feel that there has been insufficient progress due to a lack of leadership, both locally and nationally. We have local flood action groups with a wealth of knowledge and experience, but they feel that they are being kept out of the loop when it comes to decision making and information sharing. That is deeply frustrating for smaller communities, who feel that they are not important because of their small populations. Why should areas such as Barepot and Hall Park View in my constituency be left out because they have only a few homes?
There have been calls in the Committee’s report for a national flood authority, and perhaps that is what is needed, but, if so, local communities must have a clear route into it. Can the Minister assure me that local flood action groups and communities, including local farmers, will be properly consulted and listened to when we develop the truly holistic approach to flood management that we need? After the floods in Cumbria, the Environment Agency told me that the flood defences that were installed after the 2009 floods did what they had been designed to do. Indeed they did, but they were insufficient for the scale of the floods in 2015. This was also the case in other areas, such as York. They made a big difference in some areas and to some families, but that was little comfort to the many people made homeless at Christmas time.
The Government have promised more funding for defences, but the costs for Cumbria alone are estimated to be £500 million, and the solutions we need are about much more than building higher and higher walls. The water has to go somewhere, and if we are not careful we will build flood defences that protect one area but damage another.
We also have to look at planning. There has simply been too much building on flood plains over the years. The Government say that this is no longer a problem as the law was changed in 2009 to prevent building on flood plains, but I have visited two separate areas where houses that had never flooded before were flooded after a new housing development had been built close by. We have to consider the potential impact of all proposed developments on other properties. Maybe the solution is a revised flood impact planning regulation.
Gravel also causes huge damage to infrastructure, farmland and river banks. Parishes and landowners used to keep watercourses clear of silt and debris. This regular management has stopped, however, and local farmers and residents tell me that that has raised the height of the rivers and that bridges have huge deposits of gravel around them. Bridges can be extreme pinch points and end up acting as dams as they become clogged with debris, which backs up the water again. There are also huge deposits of gravel on the farmland next to the rivers. One farmer I know had a bill for £35,000 to clean up his land after the 2009 floods, and he was faced with exactly the same bill in 2015. How will the Minister ensure that proper river management takes place? Is she prepared to look at an incentive scheme to pay farmers to allow the storage of flood water on farmland to reduce flood risk?
Household insurance has been mentioned a lot in the debate. Often it is offered either with huge excesses or not at all. Flood Re is welcome, but is in its infancy and does not work for everyone. I welcomed the new British Insurance Brokers Association schemes to cover businesses. They are something I had been pressing for in Parliament and with Ministers, but they too are in their infancy and need to be closely monitored. Business flood claims tend to be for loss of trade, which can be significant, and the consequences for small businesses, which might not be able to get insurance again after previous flooding, can be catastrophic. We need to get to grips with this, or bankruptcies will increase and businesses will close.
After the 2015 flooding, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that money was no object. The Government must honour that, and provide the resources needed to tackle flooding and the resilience that communities are so desperate for. Since the floods, we have been promised additional capital expenditure but unfortunately little in the way of spades in the ground. We do not have time to waste. Flooding is not going away. We need a comprehensive plan in place for every community at risk of flooding, covering the entire floodplain and the drainage basin. There is no one-size-fits-all solution; decision makers must talk to the people on the ground. Local communities have so much experience—farmers often have land knowledge that dates back generations—and it would be criminal not to use the expertise that is at our disposal. If the Government do not act immediately, we face the severe risk of communities, such as those in my constituency, becoming ghost towns.
Finally, will the Minister assure me that the necessary funds and resources will be made available, and quickly, to every community at risk? Will she also consider supporting the many excellent recommendations in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on opening the debate and thank the many hon. Members who have contributed, often using direct constituency experience or a broader view from their role on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I welcome the elevation of the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) to her new position as shadow Secretary of State; it is a pleasure to debate such matters with her. It was also a pleasure to be in her constituency during the recent recess when I visited the toy shop on the high street of one of her principal towns.
Flood and coastal risk management is a high priority for this Government. Compelling evidence suggests that climate change may lead to increases in heavy rainfall and increased risks from fluvial and surface water flooding by the mid-century. Both present significant risks, so we are putting in place robust, long-term national strategies to protect the nation. I am very aware of the impact that flooding can have on a community. In the worst cases, flooding can lead to loss of life, and even moderate flooding can cause significant damage to property and disruption to transport, communications infrastructure, businesses, schools and hospitals. I have certainly supported my constituents in Suffolk following flooding in recent years, and I am fully committed to reducing the impacts of flooding and coastal erosion. To that end, I thank Councillor Andy Smith, who is responsible for coastal management in my area and is chair of the coastal special interest group around the country through the Local Government Association. Together with the Environment Agency and councils, that sort of experience is leading to good local decisions.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
House building in areas such as mine will add to the flooding problem. Will the Minister press the Environment Agency to ensure not only that it demands that enough provision is made for new houses, but that some retrofitting is done? Previous new developments have led to far too much surface water.
Dr Coffey
I recently met my right hon. Friend to discuss that matter. I also met several other people who have not spoken in today’s debate to discuss the challenges of flooding in their areas, including the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), who now wants to intervene.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Will the Minister look at the major builders, such as Redrow? They connect new homes into the system knowing that they should include one-way valves and so on, but they do not. That causes the system to flood, leading to water bill payers paying the cost. Developers should be paying the bill, not putting new homes at risk.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady speaks with passion on this matter because it has affected properties in her constituency. I stress to her and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that the Environment Agency does work with local councils. The guidance for new developments in the national planning policy framework is clear. Not only has the Environment Agency’s advice been accepted in 98% of applications, but there is a clear duty to consider the risk to existing housing stock. I am aware of the specific situation to which the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) refers, and I have passed it on to the Department for Communities and Local Government so that it can consider how to make things clear both in planning permission and in planning enforcement.
Angela Smith
I am pleased to hear about those representations to the DCLG. Will the Minister also make representations about making the use of sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments?
Dr Coffey
Councils are expected to do that for developments of 10 homes or more, and I hope that the hon. Lady will see progress in her local area. She referred to the situation in Sheffield earlier, and I can assure her that that was not what I heard when I met businesses and people to talk about the potential future scheme in Sheffield. However, one outcome of the national flood resilience review is that we want Sheffield to be a pioneer in how we bring in private investment.
Dr Coffey
I will not give way because I need to make progress and to discuss other important matters to which other hon. Members referred.
Returning to funding and the estimates, this Government continue to play a key role in improving the protection of those at risk of flood. The historic £2.5 billion over six years to better protect more than 300,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion is an important increase. A key change is that, instead of the annual budget and the hand-to-mouth existence whereby the Environment Agency was not sure whether a project would be finished, a long-term approach to spending allows the Environment Agency to do the appropriate planning and get on with work instead of guessing how long something will take. We have also increased maintenance spending in real terms over this Parliament to over £1 billion.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred to partnership funding. I want to point out that it used to be that a scheme would either get all the funding or nothing. There was no way for a wider range of schemes to be covered. I recognise what she said about the extent of other public sector sources of money, but it matters that LEPs can and have made bids in order to increase economic development and are able to partner that funding. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) said and I will follow up on the issue he raised.
I welcome the support for the use of natural flood risk management and the catchment-based approach that we are developing to prevent floods or to mitigate them where they do occur. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton welcomed the fact that we are introducing a new reporting measure on natural flood management in future spending years from 2018-19. We have allocated a further £15 million specifically for natural flood management schemes. I have not yet seen the candidates for those schemes, but the Environment Agency is working them up and I am aware of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s recommendation of one catchment scale to test out the principles. That approach is already being used in some flood prevention schemes, but it is right to have appropriate criteria for measuring.
On planning for future resilience, the hon. Member for Wakefield referred to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report and the House should be aware that we are now better prepared to deal with such issues. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that I am unable to change the weather—I am certainly not divine in that regard—but we are working hard to ensure that the lessons of previous floods feed into the national flood resilience review. I have chaired weekly meetings, which have only just finished, to get progress updates on what is happening with the different infrastructure providers. We have also re-established the inter-ministerial group on flooding, which meets quarterly for a broader response to flood prevention.
We have allowed the Environment Agency to invest in mobile flood defences. It now has 25 miles of temporary defences and half a million sandbags located across seven key areas, and it can deploy them flexibly around the country. The Army has also been made available. Troops were deployed in Lincolnshire and Norfolk at the request of the local resilience forums, but Suffolk and Essex decided that they did not need the help of the armed forces in the recent coastal surge. Overall, the country will be better protected and services for our communities will be more resilient to flooding. Over the next year, we intend to focus on surface water, which is a significant source of flooding, particularly in cities and urban areas. Again, that will involve collaboration between the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, the water sector, and other stakeholders with an interest in managing the risk.
On working together, we all recognise that flooding affects many aspects of our lives. We carefully considered the report’s recommendations on structures, but we do not agree that there is a need for substantial change—that does not mean to say that there are no ways to make it work even better. The local flood risk management action plan, which the Government published on 24 January, is a good example, and it aims to promote best practice and enable all lead local flood authorities to carry out their responsibilities as effectively and efficiently as possible. Eight councils have not started their plan, and I have written to them indicating that, if some action is not undertaken by the end of March, we will use our powers to get the plans going for them.
We should recognise that the current system means that, since 2005—stretching back into the last Labour Government—more than 500,000 properties are better defended today. I want to get it across that, right now, structural change would get in the way of delivering the flood prevention, resilience and other measures that will be undertaken over the next few years. Again, I am not convinced that just changing the name of who does what will improve the way that different bodies work together.
On the fire services, to which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred, I can reaffirm that the Government have no plans for a statutory duty to deal with flooding. Fire services already respond to flooding as part of their general duties under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and in response to the risks set out in their integrated risk management plans. I pay tribute to those fire authorities that moved around the country following the recent coastal surge. It was well done, and in particular I saw the firefighters from Hampshire who came up to help Suffolk and Norfolk. That shows that the system is working well.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I recognise that the Government do not intend to move on this matter this instant, but does the Minister accept the statistic I quoted that the number of firefighters in the UK has reduced by 7,000 in the past seven years alone? There is no statutory duty, so responding to flooding is not a role that the fire service legally has to carry out. Will she keep that under close review and talk to her colleagues in the Home Office about making sure that numbers do not fall any or much further? Otherwise the fire services will not have the wherewithal to do the job that we all expect them to do.
Dr Coffey
I am cognisant of the fact that, certainly in my own area, there are fewer firefighters than there were some years ago. I do not have a single full-time firefighter in my constituency of 300 square miles, and this is an opportunity to pay tribute to the retained firefighters who help their communities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been conversations with the DCLG and, now, the Home Office.
I have covered the point that we expect sustainable drainage in new developments. On governance, I flag up the role of the regional flood and coastal board, and a lot of that work is covered by the regional flood and coastal committees, which comprise a number of different stakeholders.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of insurance. The Flood Re scheme has been a good success, but I recognise what Members said about businesses, which is why we have worked hard to get the British Insurance Brokers Association to bring a product to market. I encourage all hon. Members to make businesses aware of that fact. If people feel that, having been offered a quotation for a specialist policy, they are still struggling, I would like to be made aware of it. I want to look at that in detail, but I am not able to promise today that we will have another Flood Re for businesses because the basis of Flood Re is that it is time-limited. It is a principle of general taxation that we share resources across the country and, to some extent, that is what has been extended with the Flood Re scheme, through which every insurance policy carries a premium to help with flooding.
I recently visited Mytholmroyd in the Calder valley, and some businesses there are moving. Admittedly they are moving about 200 yards, but they are moving and appropriate defences are being established.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Minister asked for examples. Topcliffe Mill in my constituency is a development of 12 apartments that currently has an insurance premium of more than £30,000 because of flooding. Although I can understand that commercial schemes are seen to be a market opportunity for commercial insurance companies, in many cases they are not. Topcliffe Mill is a case in point. I would be delighted if she looked at that particular case.
Dr Coffey
The point about leasehold properties is that they tend to be owned by the freehold or management company, which is why they come under the commercial area. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me with more details, I will look into it.
Of course I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris)—I have met many other Members. It is good of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) to point out the role of emergency services in her area. I hope that I have answered some of the queries raised by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about businesses. I might not have answered them to her satisfaction, but I point out that Flood Re did not apply to businesses after 2009 because that was when all the rules came in to discourage building on floodplains, and we should not reward them with flood insurance as a consequence of doing that.
In answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), we have a statutory basis for the flood management plan in this country, too.
Dr Coffey
I will not.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the estimates procedure.
Finally, the hon. Member for Workington will be aware that the Cumbria flood action plan was supported by many local communities. I have met, for example, the Keswick flood action group three times since becoming the responsible Minister, and I have to admit that, at times, I have encouraged a little less conversation and a little more action from the Environment Agency. It is important that we get on with some of these schemes, recognising that we are not going to please everybody with every single design. All I know is that people will be better protected than they were this time last year, and that that will continue right across the country.
I commend the estimates in the name of DEFRA to be supported in the votes tomorrow night.
Neil Parish
I welcome the fact that the Minister has asked the Environment Agency to talk less and do more, which would be great. In fairness, I pay tribute to the work of the agency and its staff during the floods. Our report states that we need action from top to bottom.
I also thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for the contribution of the Environmental Audit Committee, and I thank the members of the Environmental Audit Committee, the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and all other Members who have spoken today. It is important that we get flood protection right, because when it rains homes and businesses flood. We have to ensure that every £1 spent centrally and locally is spent well. Local drainage boards, local authorities and local landowners can do a great deal more to alleviate floods, and farmers can do more to hold water.
I look forward to all of us working together in this House to deliver better flood protection.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Health and Social Care
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Today’s debate on the supplementary estimates and the financial position of health and social care matters, first and foremost, because of the impact of that financial position on patient care. I start by paying tribute to our health and care staff across the country and, at this particular time, by noting and thanking those who have come from across the European Union to work in this country.
The current financial position is of great concern. As a result of the wider economic downturn, we are now in the seventh year of the longest financial squeeze in the history of the NHS. Although the Department of Health’s budget has been protected in relation to many others, we cannot escape the fact that over the previous Parliament the average annual increase in its budget was 1.1%, which is far lower than the increase in demand and, of course, far lower than the historical increase of 3.8% since the late 1970s. All that is in the context of an extremely challenging position for social care. Between 2009-10 and 2014-15, there was a 10% real-terms reduction in social care spending by local authorities.
All that has taken place in the face of an extraordinary increase in demand, because of not only a rising population but our changing demographics. To put that into context, over the decade to 2015 there was a 31% increase in the number of people living to 85 and beyond, and we estimate that over the next 20 years we will see a 60% increase in the number of individuals who rely on social care. Over the years there has been an abject failure of Governments to plan for that, although it was entirely predictable. We absolutely cannot just keep ducking the question. We need not only to address the immediate financial problems that face health and social care, but to come together as a House to address the problems for the future.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
It occurs to me that this is not a uniquely British problem; it is in fact a global one. I have been trying to find out where in the world social care is best delivered and whether we can learn anything from those countries.
Dr Wollaston
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are all looking forward to the publication of the House of Lords report on future sustainability, because of course we have much to learn from other systems. I pay tribute to the Public Accounts Committee, which today published its report on the financial sustainability of the NHS. We have also seen the final position of trusts at the end of the previous quarter, so we now know that 135 providers ended that quarter in deficit. We are on course for a financial deficit across trusts of between £750 million and £850 million at the end of the financial year.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The seriousness of what we are talking about is demonstrated by how, as the hon. Lady will know, over the past five decades there was a downward trend, with falling death rates, yet new research shows that that trend has reversed since 2011, and that approximately 30,000 more people died in 2015 than in 2014. With such deaths occurring in the context of a massive disinvestment in health and social care, does she agree that the financial cuts are likely to have been implicated in that unprecedented rise in death rates?
Dr Wollaston
I have seen the study to which the hon. Lady refers, and I think the Department of Health needs to look at it very carefully.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
We should look at it in general terms. For example, a local authority cannot deal with bed-blocking because it does not have the resources to provide social workers. The NHS as a whole in Coventry and Warwickshire has to find cuts of £250 billion, which is a tremendous amount of money. If we are not careful, we will create an insoluble problem.
Dr Wollaston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, although I think we should use the term “delayed discharges” rather than “bed-blocking”, because the latter can make older people who are in that position feel as if somehow they might be to blame. Nevertheless, I take his point.
The estimates memorandum seeks a transfer from the capital departmental expenditure limit of £1.2 billion to prop up revenue. It also seeks a £23 million transfer from Her Majesty’s Treasury reserve, a £58.5 million transfer from other Government Departments, and a £6 million transfer to capital from other Departments. Again, we see an unsustainable position, as pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am following closely my hon. Friend’s remarks, which are, as ever, wise. Does she share my concern that if we are to transfer money from capital to revenue, the sustainability and transformation plans, most of which imply a certain level of capital investment in order to save revenue in the long term, will not be possible?
Dr Wollaston
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and will discuss that later.
The point about the raids on capital budgets over the years—this is the third year in which we have seen transfers from capital to revenue budgets—is that we are talking about the money required to keep facilities up-to-date, and for essential repairs and the roll-out of new technologies. Putting off such repairs and investments means they cost more down the line, so it is a false economy. It is simply an unsustainable ongoing mechanism. The Department of Health has indicated that it would like to see an end to the practice by 2020, but both the Public Accounts Committee and the Health Committee have called for it to be stopped immediately because we feel it is, as I say, a false economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) pointed out, it is about raids not only on capital budgets, but on the sustainability and transformation fund. It is increasingly becoming all about propping up the sustainability part rather than putting in place the essential transformation.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. The sustainability and transformation plan for West Yorkshire will take around £1.1 billion out of our health system over the next four years—£700 million from the NHS and £400 million from social care services—as a result of which centres such as the King Street out-of-hours health centre are set to close, putting even more pressure on over-pressed A&E departments like the one at Pinderfields, my local hospital. Does the hon. Lady agree that, by forcing even more pressure on A&E departments, such plans give the words “sustainability and transformation” a bad name?
Dr Wollaston
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. It is undermining public confidence in sustainability and transformation plans. I shall discuss that in more detail later.
The financial position is starting to create a perfect storm of delayed discharges, rising waiting times in A&E, and rising so-called trolley waits for patients waiting to be transferred to the wards, which has quite serious implications for their safety. There are unsustainable levels of bed occupancy, and increasingly we are hearing stories of not only routine but urgent surgery being cancelled. Worryingly, there have been two cases in which urgent neurological procedures did not take place, resulting in the deaths of two patients. That is extremely serious.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we look at the formulae for the distribution of money via councils, we cannot look only at deprivation, which tends to be highly weighted? It is an important issue, but in more affluent areas such as mine we have an even bigger problem with people living a very long time; although that is good news, there is far more demand for services because they live for so much longer.
Dr Wollaston
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point: it is about not only the overall budget but the distribution. I think we would all agree, on both sides of the House, that deprivation must be properly weighted, but he is absolutely right that age and the resulting need for services is one of the key drivers of need. That is probably not adequately reflected in the way resources are currently distributed.
There is undoubted evidence of the impact of the financial position on patient care. Unfortunately, this whirl of hospitals having to cancel routine procedures has a further impact on their ability to meet their financial targets, because of the reduction in their income. I hope Ministers will not simply consider this as a short-term issue; more importantly, they must look at how we can fund these things sustainably in future. They must not look at health and social care in their separate siloes but see them as a single system and genuinely look at how we are going to take things forward.
If we do not address this problem, we need to be honest with our constituents about the consequences. People talk about a collapse in the NHS. I do not believe that that will happen, but what we will see is a continuing deterioration in performance, with a real impact on the quality of care, which will put lives at risk. The safety, which is essential to our patients and which the Department of Health has prioritised, is increasingly in danger of slipping.
A number of Members have commented on sustainability and transformation plans. In principle, they are extremely important as a way not only of acting as a road map for the Five Year Forward View, but of enabling us to return to a much more logical way of planning for integrated health and care. Hopefully, they will enable us to get away from endless contracting rounds in the NHS and move towards genuine planning. I am afraid that what has undermined them has been inadequate local consultation, inadequate working with local authorities, and, crucially, inadequate funding. If we do not have the funding to put in place the transformation of services, we will see these plans fail. Increasingly, those plans are being seen as a vehicle for cuts—
Dr Wollaston
I say to the hon. Lady that, genuinely, these plans offer us an opportunity to produce a transformative process, but they are being undermined by a number of critical points, and we should address them.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key pieces missing from the STP plans is the bit that enables that double running, so that we can move from the existing system to the new system? There is no money anywhere for any transition and double running.
Dr Wollaston
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. As she will know, in our area, we are seeing not only the closure of four much-loved community hospitals, but, on top of those 44 beds lost from community hospitals, the local trust wanting to cut 32 acute beds, at a time when its bed occupancy is already running between 92% to 94%. Unless we have that double running and the communities can genuinely see the change, those plans will be seriously undermined. Too often, the NHS plans for hoped-for demand, rather than actual demand.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for listening to me on a number of occasions when I have been worried about the situation in Horton general hospital. She has been kind enough to talk me through some options. One of the difficulties with the consultation process is that lay people—of whom I am one—are not given sufficient evidence to enable them fully to engage with the system and to have trust in the trusts that are seeking to engage them.
Dr Wollaston
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the evidence is available not just to us, but to the local communities. There should also be a sense that consultations are a genuine process. As I have said, it is about the co-design of new services. Time and again, we have reports from the NHS that demonstrate that co-producing new services results in a much better service in the long run, so I thank her for her point.
We are talking about the cuts not only to the trusts, but to the clinical commissioning groups. What we are seeing now is that CCGs are being asked to hold back £800 million of their budgets to offset deficits in trusts. Again, this is about patient care that is being cut back. Alongside that, we have seen cuts to Public Health England and to Health Education England. The idea that we have an NHS that is on a sustainable footing is, I am afraid, simply not the case. I ask Ministers to be realistic about the current position, and I ask our Chancellor, in his forthcoming Budget, to address this matter by urgently giving a lifeline to social care, because that will benefit not just social care, but the NHS. In addition to announcing that lifeline, which I hope he can do by bringing forward the better care fund with new money rather than a transfer from the NHS, I hope that he will promise a genuine review of sustainable future funding covering both health and social care. I call on Members from across the House to agree that, rather than our having the usual confrontational debates, we should see this as a generational challenge that will face whichever party is in power over the coming years. We should all work together, for the benefit of our constituents, to produce a sustainable future for the NHS and social care.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Meg Hillier.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
May I pay tribute to the Chair of the Health Committee for her sterling work in this area and to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee? Our three Committees are united in the view that we need to bring the agenda of how we fund health and social care to the front and centre of this House and this Government. It is important that we work together on that. It is quite unusual for three Select Committees to co-ordinate in such an effective way—at least we hope it is effective. Ultimately, the proof will be whether this view will bite with Government.
We are clear that integration of health and social care is vital. In fact, we rushed to the Chamber from Committee Room 6 where we were debating the first phase of the better care fund, which had been used as a way of taking health money to prop up the social care budget. Amazingly, the head of NHS England and the Department of Health, who were appearing in front of us, denied that there was any failure in the better care fund. They said that there were not really any targets; it was all about taking money from one pot to pay for another. If that does not underline the challenges that exist in the many initiatives that are coming forward and the lack of sustainability for long-term funding, I do not know what does. I echo the comments of the Chair of the Health Committee that we need a long-term generational shift in how we are going to deal with this matter. We cannot just keep lurching from crisis to crisis and funding situation to funding situation.
My Committee looks very closely at accounts for many Members of this House. It may not be the most enjoyable bedtime reading, but we lap up the accounts of different Government Departments. We were disappointed that the Secretary of State laid the NHS accounts on the last day of the parliamentary term in July. When we opened them, we realised why: those NHS accounts were within target only by a smoke and mirrors approach and a series of short-term, one-off measures to ensure that they balanced.
I remind the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), that last year the Public Accounts Committee, of which he is a former member and therefore is doubly thoughtful on this subject, gave the Department a yellow card warning that, if in 2016-17, these similar one-off measures and a similar approach to the Budget were carried forward, we would be giving it a red card. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Amyas Morse, issued an unprecedented warning in those accounts, which had been audited by the National Audit Office, and laid out his serious concerns. As he told us, he walked down Whitehall to talk to the permanent secretary at the Department of Health to make it clear that he was concerned about those one-off measures.
To help the House, I will lay out how it was that, by some miracle, the Department managed to balance its books last year. First, £2.14 billion was set aside for sustainability and transformation funding, £1.8 billion of which was used to cover hospital trust deficits. The Department of Health did not notify the Treasury of the additional £417 million of national insurance receipts that it had received. It said that it was just a one-off reporting error. I am heartened to see that, in the current estimates, such a practice does not recur.
There was also a one-off super dividend of £100 million for the Department from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. That large cash balance was put into its capital departmental expenditure limit budget, which helped it to reach a final balance. Critically, it seems that this is becoming a long-term strategy for NHS budgeting—I hope the Minister will take this seriously and respond. As the Chair of the Health Committee has highlighted, we are seeing a trend of capital funding being pushed into revenue to keep the system going. That is not sustainable. Last year, in 2015-16, the Department of Health transferred £950 million of capital to revenue. The supplementary estimate that we are debating tonight shows that the Department will transfer some £1.2 billion of capital to revenue funding this year—so £250 million more than last year.
Bill Wiggin
I am particularly interested in the private finance initiative element of the capital funding, because certainly, for all the years that I have been a Member of Parliament, the PFI burden on Hereford hospital has always held it back. Has the hon. Lady’s Committee had a chance to look at that?
Meg Hillier
We have not looked at that directly, but we know that the biggest revenue cost for hospitals is staffing, which is followed, for some hospitals, by servicing a PFI deal. Early analysis suggests—I would not want the House to lay too much on this, because it comes from conversations I have had with auditors—that the challenge is that the cost of refinancing those PFI deals can swamp the potential savings. Perhaps Ministers could look into that further. A lot of technical work has been done to attempt it. The British Medical Association tells me that spreading the payback period over a longer time would reduce the day-to-day resource costs for hospitals, so that might be a way forward. However, I speak from work I have done outside the Committee Room, rather than strictly through the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office.
The supplementary estimate this year is worrying. The trend is going in the wrong direction for taking money out of the capital spend. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) highlighted, a lot of the transformation in the NHS will require the reconfiguration of buildings and estate. Those sorts of capital expenditures are important to save money in the long term, so the estimate really is very short-sighted.
If we look at how NHS trusts are managing with their deficits, again we see a worrying trend. At the beginning of this financial year—2016-17—NHS Improvement committed to ensuring that the provider sector deficit did not exceed £580 million at the end of the year, which is now in a month’s time. However, NHS Improvement forecast a deficit of £644 million in quarter one. Its forecast declined further to a deficit of £873 million in quarter three. That pledge did not amount to very much, and it is moving very much in the wrong direction. NHS trusts have been overspending by approximately £300 million a quarter throughout this financial year. If that trend continues into the final quarter of the year, the overspend will be close to £1.2 billion. I have laid out the reality very starkly by picking out uncertain elements in the Department of Health’s consolidated accounts.
We hear a lot of discussion about how much money the Government are putting into the NHS. The Committee had an unedifying experience at a hearing on 11 January, in which the head of NHS England came before us on the very day that anonymous briefings in the national press from sources at No. 10 criticised him and NHS England. He defended his position in the Committee but, frankly, patients do not want anonymous briefings from people to save face when the Committee is actually looking at saving lives and treating patients. They do not want to see a ding-doing about the money. They need to know that the people running our health service, and the Government overseeing and channelling taxpayers’ money into it, are committed to long-term patient care and tackling future long-term challenges.
Let us be clear that protecting the NHS England budget is not the same as protecting the health budget. As the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned, Public Health England and Health Education England are being squeezed, and social care budgets—although not a direct national health cost—went down by 10% in the last Parliament. There are some clever measures by Ministers, saying, “Put up your council tax precept and it’ll all be fine.” That is still taxpayers’ money being found from somewhere to go some way towards solving the problem, but it will not solve it in the long term. Unless we tackle social care and health together, we will have an unsustainable future. There is too much robbing Paul to pay Paul—shifting money from one bit of the budget to another in a clever way that is not transparent to most people out there because it is buried in big numbers.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and evidence-rich speech, as always. One issue that is not often talked about, but that appeared in the media again today, is the rise in physical attacks on NHS staff. The budget of NHS Protect, which deals with a lot of security issues, is also being cut. That is part of creating the perfect storm, with evidence that a lot of perpetrators of such attacks are those with mental health issues. Unless we have the resources for an environment in which we keep NHS staff safe, the issue could get worse.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend makes her point well. It is important to protect staff. I echo the comments of the Chair of the Health Committee that staff cost more than anything else in the NHS and provide the direct patient care that is so important to its long-term sustainability. I will touch on workforce planning in a moment.
Mr Jim Cunningham
There is another dimension, which is that some people with mental health problems turn up at A&E units because there is no other place for them to go and they cannot get any other accommodation. The views and voices of the carers who look after these people are very often not listened to. I get many complaints about that.
Meg Hillier
That is one reason that we need to be really clear that we are looking at a long-term integrated health and social care system. Social services support should be there for people—whether they are a frail older person, someone with a particular disability and need, or someone with a mental health challenge—when they need it to prevent them from going to A&E in the first place.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. I am disturbed when I hear that the Government are putting more money into mental health, yet I have just received the figures on Vale of York CCG mental health funding, which will be cut in the next financial year. The budget is dropping from £46 million to £45 million next year in a city that has real challenges around mental health, which shows that services are not catching up with what the Government insist is trickling down into the system.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend puts a face on the real challenge faced by many trusts and commissioners: they are having to make choices about where to spend the money. Despite the pledges about parity of esteem, there is a squeeze on mental health funding nationally.
The reality of the overall picture is that growing demand is outstripping the ability of the NHS to supply needs, which is having a direct impact on patients. There are now longer waiting times for GP appointments. I alert colleagues to the Public Accounts Committee’s hearing on GP services next week; any thoughts from hon. Members’ areas are welcome. People are waiting longer to see specialists, with the 16-week target being breached, and A&E targets are being breached too often. There is a real challenge.
NHS Improvement is a welcome body for trying to encourage best practice, because there is regional variation. It is quite right that any body as large and expensive to taxpayers as the NHS looks to perform as efficiently as possible but, once again, we are seeing NHS Improvement mask what look like cuts. A 4% efficiency savings target is once again being imposed. It was imposed in the previous Parliament by the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and was acknowledged by the head of NHS Improvement, Jim Mackey, as particularly challenging. Worryingly, the reality was that everyone in the system knew that the target was too challenging, but there is a real lack of a culture of whistleblowing and calling it out in the NHS. It is difficult for people to speak truth to power, as we see over and over again. The head of NHS Improvement again acknowledged to our Committee recently, as mentioned in our report, which was published today, that the 4% efficiency savings required as part of the transformation programme are “challenging.”
Our report also describes a worrying correlation between the financial performance of trusts and their Care Quality Commission ratings, stating:
“Trusts that achieved lower quality ratings had poorer average financial performance, and the 14 trusts rated ‘inadequate’ together had a net deficit equal to 10.4% of their total income in 2015-16.”
That is a real issue.
I will touch on workforce planning before beginning to draw my comments to a close. We hear a lot about the cost of locums. Very often in the national debate, I worry that we fixate on smaller issues when we really need to look at the bigger picture. We often hear about the very high rates per hour or per day paid to individual locums. That certainly is a problem—paying someone several thousand pounds a day or a shift seems ludicrous—but the key issue is the sheer volume of locums needed.
Each year, the trust structures are set to meet the budget sent down to them from the Department of Health—our tax money, but not enough of it. From the beginning, they are just not set up well enough to meet demand. Trusts have to buy in locums to meet the needs of their populations, but that is not sustainable in the long term. There were challenges, with a reduction in the number of nursing places in the last Parliament, which is coming through now. We have recently seen the loss of the nursing bursary, which we hope does not mean a reduction in the number of nurses in the future. However, many women, particularly lone parents, in my constituency welcome the opportunity to better themselves and contribute to our NHS by taking that on. I hope the Minister will give us an update on the numbers of people going into nursing training now and, crucially, on whether the people taking those training places will stay and work in our NHS, especially given Brexit and immigration issues.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
My local foundation trust, Northumbria NHS Trust, has taken to training its own cohort of nurses so that local people who want to join the nursing profession will be able to do so knowing that they will be able to work in that local trust, which has a great reputation and which is leading the way on the financial and medical changes we need to see.
Meg Hillier
I agree with the hon. Lady. My own hospital does the same, taking on healthcare assistants and bringing them up through the system. The challenge is: how many people will be put off without that bursary payment? We need a clear answer from the Minister about what analysis was done of the impact on the workforce of that change. The amount of money involved is relatively small compared with the challenges and problems of not being able to provide a health service if we do not have enough nurses.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The early figures that have come out from NHS England suggest a 23% drop in applications. Obviously, that is a significant change.
Meg Hillier
The key thing, of course, is how that figure comes through the pipeline and how we fill the gap. While the Minister is on his feet at the end of the debate, it would be helpful if he said what analysis the Department of Health has done of the impact of Brexit and any changes it may herald for our NHS workforce, because a high percentage of them are from Europe. We are hearing the right sounds from the Government, but we have not yet had any action on securing the future of those European citizens currently resident in the UK. If the Minister is able to give us any comfort on that, it would be very welcome.
I am heartened that so many Members are in the Chamber to discuss this important issue. I should mention that the Public Accounts Committee has also been working with the Procedure Committee to try to ensure that the House can discuss the financial details of estimates rather than just the general principles, although I have obviously strayed into those, too. Hopefully, we can base these debates on the figures we have spent so much time looking at in the Public Accounts Committee. It is unedifying for the public to hear anonymous briefings and public argument; that does not wash with them. We need to be on top of this issue so that we hold the Government’s feet to the fire and make sure that, every step of the way, they know we are watching the budget. We will not let you get away, Minister, with raiding the capital budget to fund the accounts this year.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very interesting speech. One thing we should make much greater use of is pharmacies, especially to try to take some of the pressure off GPs. We should also ask GPs to go into pharmacies and to be located in them.
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I visited one of my local pharmacies only a few weeks ago and saw at first hand the work it does to help ease the pressure on GPs, where people are waiting a long time for appointments, and on A&E. The Minister has taken a keen interest in pharmacies, but there is nevertheless a cut to their base budget. While we are on that point, it is interesting to note that that base amount allowed them to have the certainty to employ a member of staff to conduct appointments directly with patients. If they rely just on the revenue income they get from selling products, they cannot be sure that they can maintain that salary every year. That solid base of funding was important in a constituency such as mine, where, for all sorts of reasons—culture, language and convenience—people often find their local pharmacy more readily than they do their GP practice, and they find it very useful. The Minister therefore has questions to answer on that point as well.
A cross-party group of us recently met the Prime Minister, and I was heartened that she at least acknowledged the need to look at the long-term issues around health and social care. She has made a pledge that her adviser at No. 10 Downing Street will meet a cross-party group of MPs to discuss this issue further. I hope that heralds a change of attitude in the Government that will see no more anonymous briefing and silly bickering, but a strong, concerted effort to make sure that we future-proof our NHS for us and our children and that it is the beacon to the world that we all believe it is.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak this evening. Of course, we have plenty of time, but it is limited. If hon. Members take a self-denying ordinance and speak for no more than nine minutes, everyone who has indicated that they would like to speak will have an opportunity to do so. I hope not to have to apply a formal time limit, because nine minutes is actually a very long time: if you cannot say it in nine minutes, you have to go away and practise. I know that no practice is needed by Anne Marie Morris.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Let us be clear: estimates are a serious business; they must be realistic. Every year, Parliament votes on how much can be spent. If excess is needed, Departments have to go back to the House, so getting estimates right is mission-critical.
The challenge I have with these estimates is that I have little faith that the assumptions they are based on are realistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, there is an assumption that demand will go down. As the population increases, and as immigration increases, that seems a very unrealistic view to take. The Government need to look long and hard at the assumptions they have made, because I for one am not convinced that they have got them right.
We also need to look at what these estimates assume in terms of the negatives. They assume we can keep on course if we reduce public health spending. If we start reducing that spending, which prevents the need for NHS intervention—the most expensive form of intervention—will we really save money? It seems to me that we will not. The other assumption made in these estimates is that central administration will be cut. We should bear in mind the complexity of what is going on at the moment, with 44 STPs coming on board, as we all hope they will, and I agree with my hon. Friend that they are a good concept, although I have some real concerns about delivery. Overall, I am concerned that these estimates are not based on realistic assumptions, and Ministers will need to seriously address that.
As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who leads the Public Accounts Committee, and my hon. Friend have said, the estimates must take into account what we need for health and social care. If we cut spending on social care, or do not adequately fund it, we will increase spending in the NHS.
However, underpinning all of that is the need to have measurements in place across the whole system, as my hon. Friend indicated, so that we know what the full scope of the demand is. We must measure the results achieved by the resource we put in and the outcomes for the population as a whole. We all talk about measures around A&E and the NHS. We all talk about waiting times, and the targets that are set are all around waiting times. However, nobody is looking at what impact that has on primary care—on our GPs—or on social care. If an estimate is to be right, therefore, we need to look at the whole system of measurement.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making powerful points. At my local district general hospital, West Suffolk, winter preparedness plans included a 5% uplift in demand—this is exactly the point she is making—but there was a 20% increase. I have exactly the same thing in social care, where my social care providers tell me people are older and more poorly. We have increased demand across the piece for that reason.
Anne Marie Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful example. She is absolutely right.
If we look at the whole measurement system—this was acknowledged in one of our Public Accounts Committee sessions by the Department of Health—we see that there is limited measurement, and that there probably should be more. When I challenged the individual concerned on whether the Government would be looking at that, he stood from one foot to the other and could not give us much of an answer. These estimates have to be based on proper measurement of need, on what is operationally put into practice, and on the outcome for patients, but that simply is not the case.
We need to look at the differences between the NHS and social care as regards how the money is allocated. In the NHS, we have some ring-fencing, while in social care we do not, but because the two are inextricably linked, unless we look at the way in which each of those pots is managed, never mind how much is in them, we give rise to problems for the future. Social care is not ring-fenced. I am sure we are all grateful for the additional moneys that have been provided, but frankly they do not go far enough. The first chunk of money might cover the living wage, and the ability of local authorities to increase the precept by 3% is welcome, but as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said, that is taxpayers’ money.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does she share my concern about the 3% precept, as shifting the cost of health and social care away from general taxation on to a property-based tax has obvious problems—not least, that it will disadvantage communities that are less well off?
Anne Marie Morris
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I have one of those constituencies where communities are not very well off. Many of the facilities that are there to provide social care are failing because we do not have the more affluent individuals who can ensure that some of our care homes, particularly nursing care homes, are alive and well. I am now down to just three for a very large constituency, and that is completely inadequate.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I both have constituencies with a large proportion of elderly people. Indeed, Worthing has the highest proportion of over-85s in the whole country. This is a double whammy, because people who are over 85 tend to require a great deal more healthcare, stay in hospital for longer, and have multiple problems in hospital that cost more—we are looking after them well and need to look after them better—and the social care side when they do come out of hospital, too often delayed, is costly as well. Those are the growing pressures that the estimates appear not to take proper account of.
Anne Marie Morris
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He is right that the cost of ageing is not adequately taken into account. The way the Government measure health outcomes is predicated on the number of births and looking at the lifespan of the population. Because people live longer in areas like my constituency in Devon, it is assumed that we therefore have better health outcomes, but that does not allow for the fact that we have a low number of live births. Many people move into our lovely area when they are much older, and so the level of improvement is small. There are some basic, fundamental flaws in the way the Government—not just this Government; it has gone on for years—estimate the need in an area. As my hon. Friend rightly says, one of the biggest challenges is age.
Integration is expected somehow to be the solution to all our problems, but there is no transition funding to allow for double running, and there are, as far as I am aware, not many pooled budgets. As we have heard, these plans make certain assumptions about the recruitment of individuals, but we cannot recruit at the level we need now, never mind what we will need for the future. There is also a lack of training in the specialisms that we are going to need. Specifically in some of our more rural areas—we have talked about the ageing population—we need more specialist generalists. That is agreed by most of the royal colleges, but it is not being put into practice. So many issues will impact on the effectiveness of integration that I doubt that it is really going to be a way forward in reducing costs. I am concerned that the integration model, while very welcome, has not been fully thought through. The barrier to its being successful is that there will be unbudgeted costs. There is no evidence for the assumption that demand will decrease, and so no evidence that integration will deliver savings. It therefore seems to me that these estimates cannot really be sound. Real cost estimates are needed.
We have failed to address the element of social care that is paid for privately. I refer here to the Dilnot report and the Care Act 2014. We are talking about how the Government’s money—the taxpayer’s money—is to be shared out between the two systems, but we should never forget that social care is means-tested as opposed to the NHS, which is free at the point of delivery. If we do not try to ensure that the necessary savings are made by individuals taking responsibility, with or without the Government stepping in, we will find that the demand on the NHS is simply too great for the system to succeed and for these estimates to be valid.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Communities and Local Government Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the funding of social care. We have not produced our reports yet, so anything I say should be taken not as the Committee’s considered view but as some of my own reflections on the evidence we have heard so far. I hope it will not be too long before we can provide a report for Members to look at on the immediate issues of social care, and then, in due course, we will go on to look at the longer-term issues as well. We have taken evidence from a variety of different organisations, including councils, care providers, directors of social care, the Nuffield Trust, and the King’s Fund. Carers and care providers, as individuals, have related their personal experiences to the Committee.
As a constituency MP, it is not terribly surprising to have heard what I have heard today. Unfortunately, as an MP, like everyone else here, I am sure, I see only the tip of the iceberg of problems. Cases about the nature, and number, of social care failings have undoubtedly been increasing in my surgery, my postbag and my emails in the past two or three years. Some of the cases are quite horrific. A council that has to cut its budget on social care does so by going out to the private sector, or agencies, and substituting their services for the service that the council used to provide through directly employed staff. The way in which those services are delivered—often the simple failure of people to turn up and provide the care when it is promised—causes real and increasing problems that I am certainly seeing as a constituency MP.
This is not surprising. The Chair of the Health Committee referred to the fact that we have had a 7% cut in real terms in spending on social care since 2010. Local authorities’ grants from central Government have been reduced by 37%. Councils have tried to prioritise social care—the evidence for that is absolutely clear—but they have not been able to protect it completely from the cuts. That is the reality. On top of that, not only has the money been going down but the number of elderly people requiring care is going up. We heard evidence that although the Care Act was great legislation in principle, all was not delivered in practice. The extra measures are welcome in trying to reward staff properly for the excellent work that many of them do in social care, but the increase in the minimum wage places additional costs on the system.
Amyas Morse, who wrote a very good article and made a good speech the other day about the relationship between health and social care, said that for a long time local authorities had been very successful in doing more for less, but have now got to the point of doing less for less, which is impacting on the people who received the services.
We should not blame local councils for failing to provide a certain standard of service. Simon Stevens told the Communities and Local Government Committee that even if every council did as well as the best, there would still be problems in the system. I challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), to say whether there was a crisis in social care. He did not want to use the word “crisis”, but he did say that the system was “under stress”. Although we cannot agree about the word “crisis”, I think we can at least agree that the stress is obvious for all to see. An estimated 1.2 million people do not receive the care they need. That figure is 40% higher than it was in 2010.
We took evidence from people who were not getting the same amount of care as they had received in the past and others whose needs were increasing but whose care was not. We talked to care providers who were handing contracts back or pulling out of the service altogether, and to local authorities that are sacking care providers because the contracts were not being delivered properly. We also heard that people who pay for their care in care homes are subsidising local authorities because they cannot afford to keep increasing their fees. There is a cross-subsidy in the system, which does not seem fair to many people. At the same time, the turnover rate for care staff is 27%, so they do not have long-term experience and are not being trained regularly over time to deliver care. Those are all problems that we learned about from the compelling evidence that our inquiry received. The Committee will reflect on its conclusion, and I am sure that eventually we will, as always, come to an unanimous view in our report.
In the short term, of course the Government have done things, including the introduction of the council tax precept. I welcome the fact that, by and large, local authorities have taken that up, because the situation is so serious. There are problems, of course, with the fact that the council tax precept raises much more money for some local authorities than for others, and the better care fund, which is meant to stabilise the situation and help authorities that raise less, is back-end loaded. The new homes bonus cut and the additional grant are welcome for social care, but that causes real problems for some small district councils that are not social care providers and suddenly find that their budget position is fundamentally altered.
In his article, Amyas Morse described how the Government simply were not thinking through what would happen in the long term. They moved money—it is often a lack of money—around between social care and health without giving any real thought to the end result. Government officials, and sometimes Ministers, took decisions without any real understanding of what happened to the money at the end of the line, when local authorities faced with very difficult choices had to make decisions about the cuts that were being passed on to them. Those are just some of the issues on which we will reflect in our report.
Clearly, the link between health and social care is very important. We ought to join them up better and it will be interesting to see what comes out of the Manchester example, given that both services have been devolved. There is a clear link between the two, and not just with regard to delayed discharging; there is now virtually no money in the system for preventive social care. The only social care funding available is that for people with the highest need. If people do not get it in the early stages, that means that they are more likely to end up in hospital and cost the whole system much more. That is another thing that we learned.
I was pleased to sign, along with the Chairs of the Health Committee and of the Public Accounts Committee, the letter to the Prime Minister saying that we need longer-term arrangements. It is right, however, that the Government should respond to the here and now, because that is important. To put it bluntly, if we do not deal with the here and now, some people will not be around to see the long-term arrangements being put in place.
When the Communities and Local Government Committee went to Germany, we learned that it solved this problem 20 years ago. Those involved sat down on a cross-party basis and agreed a long-term solution. It might not be the right solution for this country—it is based on social insurance, because that is what the German health system, as well as its pensions system, is based on—but that is what they decided to do. It is interesting that it has stood the test of time for 20 years. They have recently decided, with cross-party agreement, to increase social insurance and there has been virtually no public opposition, because the system is seen to be reasonable and fair. The German system is not purely funded by the taxpayer—there are private contributions as well—but it is an example. For heaven’s sake, let us sit down on a cross-party basis, as the Chair of the Health Committee has said, and work out a solution that stands the test of time, whichever Government comes to power in the future.
Dr Murrison
There is much in the hon. Gentleman’s speech with which I agree. Does he agree that the fundamental issue is that countries such as Germany, France and Holland, to which people here would reasonably compare this country, spend a great deal more money through either the Bismarckian system that he describes or others—this country’s system is based on Beveridge—and that somehow or another we are going to have to close that gap, as it is highly likely that the difference in mortality, morbidity and outcomes generally in this country compared with those aforementioned countries is causally related to the amount of money that we put into healthcare?
Mr Betts
We heard quite a lot of evidence that, as a percentage of our national income, we do not spend as much as several others on health and social care combined. The Communities and Local Government Committee will reflect on that. Of course, it is not simply a question of asking for more public funding; I would not come to that conclusion, although I might personally believe it. There is, however, an issue with where we get the private funding from, because nobody has argued to us so far that the whole of social care can be publicly funded. There will be private contributions, so how do we raise that private money? Should it come from individuals who simply need care at that point in time, or should we ask people to pay more into an insurance system? How do we put in more money from the public sector? Indeed, can we rely on local authority funding alone, particularly if it comes largely from business rates, which will not grow at the same rate as the number of people who want social care?
Kevin Hollinrake
It was a pleasure to join the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Select Committee on that visit. Does he agree that the German example is all the more pertinent given that its system was also funded by local authorities prior to the change to social insurance in 1995? It discovered 20 years ago that that system was not fit for purpose and moved to a new system that, as he says, has cross-party support and is a long-term, sustainable solution.
Mr Betts
I just want us to have a process that gets us to a similar position. Even if local authorities remain part of the funding solution, we cannot assume that the increase in business rates and council tax will keep pace with the level of demand.
I know that you have encouraged us to keep to a time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I ought to say that, as the hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of a Select Committee, I do not apply the time limit as strictly to him.
Mr Betts
I have gone two minutes over time, so I had better not stray too far. Of course, health and social care need to work closely together. It is going to be very interesting to see how Manchester develops. It is not, however, a panacea; it is not going to solve all the problems.
I agree with the Chair of the Health Committee: the sustainability and transformation plans are an interesting way forward, but unfortunately they are seen as a way of making cuts. They will need some pump-priming to make them effective. They have not been done properly, with full co-operation, in every local authority area. If they are done properly and consider how we can better plan and pull together health and social care for the future, I think they will make an important contribution. Ultimately, however, we have to acknowledge that the process is going to take time and that it will need up-front funding to make it work.
We also have to acknowledge that there are big differences between health and social care. There are not many differences in culture, but the funding arrangements are different. Health is provided free at the point of use, whereas social care is not and probably will not after any changes are made. There is also a fundamental difference between the two on accountability: social care is accountable to directly elected local councillors, whereas health is ultimately accountable to the Secretary of State. If Members want to see the problems that creates, they should read the evidence that the former Health Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), gave to the Communities and Local Government Committee about his understanding of accountability in the Manchester system. It shows that the Government have not worked it out in such a way that they could flick a switch tomorrow and get it all operating smoothly. We have a lot of work to do. The Select Committee will consider all the evidence we have received and will produce reports on a range of issues.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts).
Notwithstanding the issues that have already been brought to the House’s attention, it is worth putting on the record the increase in the money—the extra £10 billion by 2020—that the Government are committing, with the 11,400 more doctors and 11,200 more nurses in the system, as well as the near eradication of mixed-sex wards and the huge reduction in hospital infections. I also note that health spending in England is nearly 1% higher than the OECD average.
Dr Murrison
I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend so early in his speech. Does he agree with me that the OECD average is probably a specious comparator? It covers countries—such as Mexico and Turkey, and former eastern bloc countries—whose health economies, laudable though they may be, are not ones with which most people in this country would wish ours to be compared.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I will outline some areas in which I think more spending is necessary.
I want to start by focusing on an individual case—it is not from my constituency—which highlights many of the issues that have been raised so far. It concerns a 98-year-old lady who was admitted to a hospital in one of our major cities on 22 January. Unfortunately, she died in that hospital on 31 January. It was made clear to the hospital on 25 January that the nursing home she had come from—she had been in its residential part—had nursing facilities, and it would have been able to take her back and deal with the deterioration in her health. Despite that, no action was taken to remove her back to the nursing home, which resulted in an extra six days’ stay in hospital.
The relatives who drew this true case to my attention asked me to raise two points. First, they thought it was not really good enough that the hospital concerned did not have a good knowledge of the fact that in addition to the residential facilities, the nursing home had facilities that would have been able to care for the elderly lady and thus free up a hospital bed. Secondly, they were disappointed that because her period in hospital spanned a weekend, they were told by several of the nursing staff that no doctor was available to make a decision about moving her back to the nursing floor of the home she had come from and where she had always wanted to end her days. That story illustrates some of the issues—I know Health Ministers are aware of them—of making sure that there is knowledge of what residential and nursing facilities are available in the community for elderly or frail people who go into hospital, and of making sure that there is weekend cover so that appropriate decisions can be taken and beds are not unnecessarily taken up in hospitals.
A couple of weeks ago, I sat down with a number of social care providers covering both residential and domiciliary care in Bedfordshire, and I asked them what they thought they needed to attract enough people into care provision. As the Chair of the Select Committee has just told us, there is a 27% turnover rate, and I learned that the providers cannot always attract people of the calibre they would like. For domiciliary care, I was told very clearly that the ability to offer a salary—perhaps of £16,000 to £18,000 a year—rather than paying people on an hourly basis when they provide care, would go a very long way to attracting the right sort of people into this profession.
That domiciliary care provider, which is one of the better ones in my area, pays 30p a mile for travel costs. All of us, as Members of Parliament, get paid 45p a mile when we travel in our constituencies. Frankly, I find it an affront that there is a division between rates for travel within the public sector. Social care staff do an incredibly important job and, frankly, it is not right that they are lucky to be offered 30p a mile, when Members of Parliament get 45p a mile. I am not just asking local authorities to put up what they pay to such a level straightaway. We must be realistic, and I fully recognise that that would come with a price tag that would have to be provided through taxation. However, having a salary of £16,000 to £18,000 a year, rather than hourly rates of pay that do not include travel time, and having travel properly paid for—it is currently paid for at a very miserly rate compared with what other people in the public sector get—would go a long way.
One of the issues that has not been highlighted so far in the estimates is the revaluation of the NHS litigation costs. There has been an increase of some £8 billion, which is a fairly large figure. It is worth focusing on that because litigation costs mean a couple of things. First, they mean that patients have not got the right quality of care first time around, and secondly, they mean that money is going out the door of the NHS, often to lawyers, that could be better used doing the job correctly the first time.
In that regard, I make no apologies for again drawing the House’s attention to the Getting it Right First Time initiative, which seeks to embed quality in clinical care across the NHS. I often find that we do not focus sufficiently on that in this House. Variability in the rates of infection and of the revision surgery that is required are significant across the NHS. If we could raise the quality of clinical care to the level of the best across the NHS, we could get the amount for litigation down substantially.
I was pleased to join a meeting that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), held a couple of weeks ago on the “Manifesto for a healthy and health-creating society”. It was led by Lord Crisp, the former permanent secretary of the Department of Health, with colleagues in the House of Lords and others. Although that may seem a long-term approach to the acute problems we face today—the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee is right to say that we need action now to get the preventive issues right, because not everyone will be around in the longer term—it is incredibly important, none the less, that we take a lot of the ideas in the report seriously to try to reduce the strains on the NHS and to create a healthier population in the years to come.
There are already some very good examples of such ideas. The St Paul’s Way transformation project in Poplar in the east end is doing sterling work. The Well North initiative, which is supported by Public Health England, is focusing on 10 cities in the north of England that have poor health outcomes and bad levels of health inequality. It is all about creating what it calls vibrant and well-connected communities to deal with issues such as debt, jobs, training, missed educational opportunities, poor housing and loneliness. Our late lamented colleague Jo Cox focused on the issue of loneliness, and many of us in the House are determined to carry on her work in that important area. Such long-term preventive work to increase the resilience and health of society is absolutely fundamental to all the issues we are talking about tonight.
On the sustainability and transformation plans, I have spent time with both GPs and hospital staff during the past couple of weeks, and I observed that clinicians in hospitals often point to the work that they thought should have been done but had not been done by GPs, while GPs pointed out that they do quite a lot of work that in the past they would have expected hospitals to undertake. As we move forward with the sustainability and transformation plans, there would be some merit in making sure that those in time turn into accountable care organisations, so that we get a proper join-up between the different parts of the system and such finger pointing between different parts of the health system becomes a thing of the past.
Finally and briefly on the issue of beds, I totally understand the Government’s correct focus on shifting more care to the community, but we have 8,000 fewer beds than we had five years ago, while the occupancy rate has increased from 84% to 87%. At times, operating theatres stand idle because of delayed discharges for care. I should like Ministers to reflect on that.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Department of Health explanatory memorandum on the supplementary estimates sadly has the feel of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The estimates and the reports highlight the extensive range of issues facing the NHS. My involvement in health issues in West Lancashire, from individual constituents’ cases to the commissioning of multimillion pound contracts, tells me that my constituency is a microcosm of the questions to which the multitude of bodies within the NHS need to find answers. My constituents can wait up to a week for a telephone conversation with a GP to assess whether they need an appointment—they then have a further wait for the appointment—so is it any wonder that people turn to A&E and minor injuries units?
Clinical experience at the top is laudable and to be welcomed, but there is a shortage of GPs and lost capacity because of the time GPs spend on clinical commissioning group governing bodies. In West Lancashire, CCGs have handed community health and urgent care services contracts to private providers, potentially threatening the future of Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust by removing services and essential financial turnover. The chair of the CCG is a local GP who spends three days a week on CCG business. Five further GPs have executive lead responsibilities. Apart from the loss of capacity, there are the financial considerations of GP remuneration for their work on the governing body. One GP earns more than £100,000 a year for that three-day week, while the chief accounting officer is also on approximately £100,000.
There is a fundamental lack of direct accountability of CCGs, which I understand are the responsibility of NHS England. GPs hand out contracts to private providers in the face of significant and substantial local opposition in West Lancashire, and there is no mechanism for meaningful accountability for how those GPs spend taxpayers’ money. My constituents did not get to vote on who represents them on a CCG, and they have no means by which to replace them if they do not believe the GPs act in their best interests.
The question arises whether NHS England and NHS Improvement have enough resources to deal with the increasingly complex contracts and structures they are supposed to supervise within the NHS. Threats to the smaller acute trusts come both from local GPs and from the sustainability and transformation process, the name of which is increasingly a misnomer. The plans were quietly generated by small groups of people without the involvement of most of those who need those services or their public representatives both locally and nationally. Some of us miss strategic health authorities. I would be interested to hear from Ministers whether the STP process will provide capital resources to enable hospital trusts to develop transformational change projects.
Increasingly, NHS Improvement and NHS England cannot agree on the current state of NHS finances. NHS Improvement’s forecast for this financial year has worsened in each financial quarter. Currently in quarter three, it forecasts a deficit of £873 million, while NHS England appears confident that the final deficit figure will be no more than £580 million. I took a deeper look at the figures for quarter three. A huge question appears when we look at the sustainability and transformation fund moneys the Government have given to trusts. Admittedly, trusts retain the allocated funding only if they achieve certain financial targets at the end of the financial year. If they do not achieve those targets, the extra funding disappears like snow in July. The system deficit could therefore be much greater.
The Department of Health’s funding of the NHS has a consequential impact on services, but we are also witnessing savage cuts to local authority budgets. As the provider of social care, Lancashire County Council is perilously close to being bankrupt in the next five years based on current funding projections. We talk about health and social care as if they are absolutely intertwined, yet the Government allow the competitive existence between the two services to continue. As both systems seek to survive financially, each body makes decisions to seek to minimise their expenditure. The social care system is unable to get people out of hospital, while hospitals seek urgently to discharge medically fit patients. I have a great fear that, as each day passes, the struggle for survival owing to the ever-tightening financial strictures imposed by the Government, and their lack of solutions, means that patients are getting lost. Organisational form and financial considerations mean that patients are a distant third on the priority list.
I do not know whether creating chaos and turmoil within the system is part of a longer-term strategy to lead us to a new healthcare system of private providers and health insurance—the Secretary of State will have to answer that one. What I see from the estimates provided for the transfer of moneys between budgets is that we are just tinkering at the edges of a system that needs to be properly financed. We cannot just shove a few pennies into the left hand while taking pounds from the right. Our NHS and our constituents deserve so much better.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), who made some interesting points, particularly about fundamental reform of services, which I will address later in my remarks.
Members on both sides of the House have alluded to the fact that this debate is set against the background of hugely increasing demand and, in many ways, decreasing supply, particularly in adult social care, to which I will restrict my comments. I was interested to take part in the Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry, to which the Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), referred. On increasing demand, there was a 33% increase in the past 10 years in the population who are aged 80 and over. There is a projected 100% increase in that population over the next 20 years, and a 50% increase in 65s and over in the same period. Interestingly enough, there will be only a 4% increase in the population who are below the age of 65 over the next 20 years. That is an interesting dynamic when we think about who will provide the care that will be needed for all the people who are getting older.
An area of adult social care we can sometimes forget—it has not been mentioned—is care for those with learning disabilities. That population is increasing rapidly and will increase again over the next 20 years, which means more profound challenges for our health and adult social care services.
On the backdrop of the decreasing supply of provision, everybody has to take part in ensuring that the books balance. We are reducing the deficit from £156 billion a year in 2010 to around £68 billion this year, which is no mean feat. We must understand that there is no bottomless pit, and that we have to make difficult decisions on allocating our spending.
Local authorities have borne the brunt of the 37% reduction in overall spending—it is a 25% reduction after council tax increases. Adult social care accounts for around 33% of local authority discretionary spend. It is therefore inevitable that that will be a focus when local authority managers try to balance the books. There are other competing pressures, such as the national living wage, which soaks up a lot of the extra money allocated to adult social care. It is not just about local authorities: providers are also under huge pressure. Some 59% of care homes are below the profitability threshold. Homes are closing and some providers are returning their contracts to local authorities.
There are other elements relating to the provision of what we would call a well-functioning health and social care service. Other reductions include a 28% reduction in the number of community nurses, who provide the key services that stop people going into the health and social care system. In my constituency, simple things like sitting services, local dementia clubs or something called Kurt’s Club in my hometown of Easingwold have either closed or had services reduced in recent weeks and months. Again, that puts more pressure on the system.
Delayed discharges also have an impact on the NHS. Hon. Members who spoke earlier know far more about this than I do, but when Simon Stevens gave evidence to our Committee he estimated that the NHS spends up to an extra £1 billion due to delayed discharges. There is an impact on the whole system.
The Government have responded with £2 billion more since 2010, with the adult social care precept, the better care fund and the adult social care grant adding between £3.5 billion and £4 billion by 2020. There is no doubt, however, that all the evidence we have heard from a number of different sources—the King’s Fund and the like—points to an investment shortfall of between £1 billion and £2 billion.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
On the shortfall, does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to bite the bullet and increase social care funding? Does he agree that doing so in the short term would provide the financial headroom to enable trusts like mine in Gloucestershire to achieve the meaningful reconfiguration of services through the STPs that will reflect the changing health priorities and demographics? It is a sprat to catch a mackerel.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. I do feel that we need more money now. I am sure the question of whether more money might be available is taking up some of the Chancellor’s time as he works on his Budget calculations for 8 March. In the short term, we need more money to plug the gap. In the longer term, we need a cross-party conversation on how we solve this problem.
The Select Committee has been an excellent forum through which to explore this issue and many others. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Committee Chair, mentioned in his remarks, we went to Germany to examine its system. It was very enlightening. In 1995, Germany moved from one system to another: from a local government-funded system that just did not work—they clearly saw this coming before we did—to a social insurance system. They are more used to that system in Germany, which has similar systems in place for health, pensions, unemployment and accident insurance. It works very well. It is cross-party, seems to be apolitical and takes a salary contribution of about 1.175%. It is a bit like auto-enrolment, but it is compulsory—it is a mandatory scheme. It means that when people need care they have a pot to call on. Needs are independently assessed, so they receive the level of provision that suits them. It can also be used to provide domiciliary care. Money coming back out of the system at the right time can go to help family members look after the person who is ill, so it has a social benefit as well as being a sustainable system that works in the longer term. We should look at that model. It is not the only one, but I reiterate—I know Members on both sides of the House feel the same way—that we should look at this issue in a cross-party way to ensure long-term sustainability.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that the current method of local government funding does not help? There is a ward in my constituency where 9% of the population are aged over 85. Demographics are not properly reflected and the challenges faced by coastal communities in particular, as opposed to some of the more traditional challenges here in London, are not reflected in funding schemes.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The evidence clearly shows that the current methods of funding adult social care do not correlate with the needs in those areas. We need to take a strategic look at that. The Government are moving toward a different way of funding local authorities by 2020. A key part of business rates retention is the consideration of the allocation of funding. It is critical to put need first and foremost, so that need and the cost of delivering services are the cost drivers. Having a fair and transparent system is fundamental.
On adult social care and learning disabilities, one of the most heartening examples of how to deliver them in a different way, rather than looking at them from a single viewpoint, is the Botton Village “shared lives” concept, where people look after each other—co-workers and people in need of care alike. It is a fantastic and inspirational scheme.
Finally, I will touch on a couple of very small points. We should look at how people are charged for domiciliary care. Financial assessment for domiciliary care is different from that for residential care. I think money could be taken out of the system—it does not make much sense to me that the Government fund one thing one way and another thing another way—or people could contribute, if their houses are taken into account in their domiciliary care assessment.
My final point relates to co-terminosity. There are so many different services provided by so many different agencies working in different geographical boundaries. Co-terminosity works well in Sheffield, where all the agencies work together very effectively. In my area, it is completely different. There is a real mish-mash of different providers and geographical areas, which makes it difficult to provide a joined-up service.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Often, the NHS estimates day debate is a rather perfunctory affair, but this year, five years into the reign of the present Secretary of State, we are entitled to ask what on earth is happening to our NHS and social care system. Can we any longer afford the extraordinary complacency of this Government? As an Opposition MP, I sometimes worry that, either by design or simple neglect, they will finally fulfil our worst fears that the Tory party is destined to destroy the NHS.
Steve McCabe
I don’t think I need any lectures on cross-party dialogue from the party of the death tax and the £8 billion financial fib.
In Birmingham, we have seen £28 million cuts to the social care budget, bringing the service to its knees. Elderly people are being treated like cattle, lying around on trolleys, waiting in corridors and dispatched from hospital in the middle of the night. Everywhere we look, we see our hospitals, GPs and social care services collapsing under the strain.
This Secretary of State is quite happy to flex his muscles when it comes to bullying junior doctors, but it is always someone else’s fault when it comes to resources, management and administration of the NHS. There was a time when the deal was simple: in return for the red box and a ministerial salary, Ministers took responsibility —the buck stopped with them. But no more. I have lost track of how many parliamentary answers begin with the words, “The Department does not collect that data centrally,” or “It would not be cost-effective to provide information in that format”. Basically, Ministers do not know, do not want to know and do not want us to know what is really happening. They no longer preside over a genuinely national health service. Whether it is the postcode lottery that characterises the provision of IVF, with clinical commissioning groups ignoring NICE guidelines and making up their own criteria as they go along, or children’s dentistry, where there is a growing crisis and a heavy reliance on hospital emergency surgery because of the lack of provision and monitoring of proper dental services for children, all this Government want to do is hide behind and blame others for their shambolic decisions.
The latest disaster is the business rates revaluation, which in Birmingham is estimated to see a rise for University Hospitals Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital from £2.8 million to £6.9 million per year—talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul! And yet Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health have not even met to discuss the problem—although I note that private hospitals get an 80% reduction because they are registered as charities.
In my constituency, we have been fighting a battle to save our Katie Road walk-in centre for several years: we have had stop-go consultations, money wasted, explanations and excuses that vary from month to month, consultations announced and then scrapped, and now we have a sustainability and transformation plan that sadly, as acknowledged, has turned into a secret strategy drawn up by non-elected bureaucrats from which the public and their elected representatives have been largely excluded. It seems that Katie Road is now caught up in this fiasco. With its contract scheduled to finish on the 31st of next month, we still do not know what is happening, although if rumours are true, even more money that ought to be spent on healthcare in Birmingham is about to be siphoned off to rescue bankrupt neighbours.
Only the other week, I discovered that the contract for South Maypole GP services was to be cancelled. It is apparently no longer cost-effective—not cost effective to provide GP services to the sick and elderly! Only under this Secretary of State could the NHS have come to this.
Kevin Hollinrake
In my remarks, I talked about a cross-party conversation. I could easily have pointed out that between 2011 and 2014 there was an 8.6% real-terms drop in health spending in Wales, under a Labour Administration, while there was a 4% increase in England, but would it not be better to have a constructive conversation about how we take the NHS and social care off the front pages of the tabloids and to sit down and work out a solution together?
Steve McCabe
It is always desirable to have that conversation when the Tories are in power. When Labour is in power, we talk about death tax campaigns and we hear about £8 billion funding fibs. It is funny how the argument always changes when they are responsible.
As I was saying, the contract for South Maypole GP services is about to be withdrawn. I found that out not when the CCG, which it turns out has been ruminating on this since November, told me, but when I was contacted by anxious constituents who had just found out they had eight weeks to find a new GP. Many of them are elderly people, and some have long-term conditions and rely on regular medication, but they are dismissed as if they do not matter. The loss of their GP service is treated like the closure of a local hairdresser or petrol station. They are told to shop around. Apparently the CCG thinks there are enough GPs in the area—enough at any rate to satisfy their little diagrams and tables on their secret little plans. Reducing demand for acute care is one of the Government’s plans to ease pressures in the NHS. Exactly how do we achieve that by closing walk-in centres and GP surgeries? Is that not the fastest route to our already overstretched A&E departments?
It is not just the estimates at issue here, but a proper long-term plan for the NHS and social care. This Secretary of State has failed us. His stewardship is a disaster. Rather than accepting more of it, the House should be calling for a motion of censure. The Government and the Secretary of State are presiding over the steady dismantling of the country’s greatest peacetime achievement. It is a total disgrace.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I would like to start by paying tribute to the many thousands of health and social care workers who every day support some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
We are talking today about how to balance the books. The NHS “Five Year Forward View” identified that, if the trajectory of healthcare spending continued at the same rate as just a couple of years ago, an extra £30 billion would be needed by 2020. It also stated that over £20 billion could be identified in savings and efficiency measures over that period, which is why the Government have allocated an additional £10 billion to 2020-21. We can quibble about whether it is £8 billion or £10 billion, but it must be recognised that NHS England asked for £8 billion and that the Government are delivering it.
To some extent, what has not happened yet is the other side of the bargain: finding the savings of £22 billion. Perhaps it was never possible. Perhaps the timescale for delivery was too short. Next year we celebrate 70 years of the NHS. So to change how it worked in less than five years was probably too big an ask. That said, in many areas of the NHS, change is happening and savings are being made. But it takes time. I want to give a couple of examples to illustrate where savings can be made. They might involve upfront costs but for long-term savings.
Prior to being elected to this place, I spent a lot of time and energy promoting diagnostic tests that could be carried out at a patient’s bedside, in a GP surgery or even in a patient’s home—possibly also in community pharmacies. Such testing is used extensively in Scandinavia and other European countries, but we are lagging behind. If we adopted such tests more widely, many savings could be made, but, more importantly, it would better for the patient, which surely should be the key determinant.
One example is the point-of-care test measuring a protein called C-reactive protein. The protein is raised when someone is suffering from a bacterial infection but not if the infection is caused by a virus. Without the test, patients might be prescribed unnecessary antibiotics, which is not good for the patient or the NHS budget, and in some instances, patients might be admitted to hospital unnecessarily. Yet all that is needed is a small device and a drop of blood. I know all this from personal experience: had such a test been readily available for GPs to carry out in surgeries or patients’ homes, it would have saved my mother a five-day hospital stay. Not only would that have saved the health service money, but my mother would have been far better off staying in her home at the time of her illness. We cannot continue doing as we have been and expect different outcomes.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks a lot of sense. Does she agree that the NHS should not make the mistakes of the past by going down the route of more disastrous private finance initiative deals? As she might know, my local CCG is developing a business case to bulldoze Huddersfield royal infirmary, replace it with a small planned care unit and move everything else to Halifax, including A&E, and is coming forward for £285 million. If it does not get that from the main funds, it will go down the PFI route, but the trust is already crippled by the disastrous PFI at Halifax, which cost £64 million to build but will eventually cost £774 million.
Maggie Throup
I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent comments. I did my training as a biomedical scientist at Halifax general hospital and the royal infirmary in Halifax, so I know the area very well. Yes, we must not go down the route of more disastrous PFI agreements.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
On the hon. Lady’s point about tests that are not being deployed, but which could save money, I have long been concerned that many areas do not issue women at risk of ovarian cancer with the CA 125 test. It is not a definitive test, but it can help identify the cancer early, which can save money. Does she agree that we need leadership from the top of the NHS on such clinical issues to ensure that short-term savings decided by an individual CCG are not putting patients’ health at risk?
Maggie Throup
The right hon. Lady makes a very good point, and we could have an entire debate on the topic of prevention and screening.
The spending of the NHS budget affects social care, and the spending of the social care budget affects the NHS. As we have heard from other hon. Members, the two are linked, but are funded in different ways. All too often, these budgets are costed only in silos.
Taking the treatment of stroke patients as another example, there is a new technique available called mechanical thrombectomy. I recently met a young man who was fortunate enough when he had a massive stroke to be near one of the few centres in the UK that carries out that procedure—if a young man in such a situation can be viewed as fortunate at all. As a result of the procedure, the young man can lead a full life rather than being disabled for the rest of his life and possibly dependent on social care, too. However, the procedure cannot yet be rolled out across the country due to the limited funding available to train specialists to carry it out and to fund the procedure itself. What are the lifetime costs, mainly imposed on social care, for those patients who do not get that procedure or other such procedures, irrespective of the personal costs to the individuals?
There are great examples of integrated working between the NHS and social care, but it is far too slow to spread new and best practice. Locally in my constituency, Erewash CCG is a Vanguard site. One of its actions is to carry out what are classed as “ward rounds” in residential and nursing homes. There is already strong evidence to show that that is reducing hospital admissions for elderly people. However, it is not being rolled out quickly enough to other areas.
I do not believe that continually throwing more money at the NHS and social care is the answer. If we want different results, we need to do things differently. That is what the sustainability and transformation plans aim to do. I have read the Derbyshire STP in depth, and while I applaud the aims of the plan, there appears to be very little indication of how it will be implemented. My concerns are around workforce balance, transitional costs to implement the STP, capacity in the community and stakeholder buy-in.
I hope I am wrong with my analysis, because better integration and bold action are what are really needed. It is important for us not to shy away from the hard and difficult decisions that lie ahead.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who has made a characteristically well informed and thoughtful speech.
You do not need to be a brain surgeon, Mr Speaker, to have worked out that the NHS and care system are currently under enormous pressure. Anyone who has recently visited a hospital, sought a GP appointment or tried to arrange support for an elderly relative will tell you that the whole system is struggling. Inadequate funding, a workforce crisis and a failure to reshape services quickly enough to meet the needs of our ageing population mean that the men and women who care for our loved ones are simply running to stand still. This winter, we have seen the front pages of national newspapers covered by images of frail, older people stuck on trolleys in hospital corridors and a poorly toddler led on plastic chairs pushed together to create a make-shift bed.
If you happened to watch BBC2 on a Wednesday night in January or February, Mr Speaker, you would have seen the documentary “Hospital”, which showed the reality of people working on the frontline and taking really difficult decisions about patients, beds and operations in a big and busy hospital. It was captivating viewing, which left me, as a politician, feeling sad and frustrated that we are failing to create the conditions in which the NHS can thrive.
Many of the current problems plaguing our health and care system relate to a lack of money. It is not the only problem, but it is the major one. While the NHS budget has inched up in recent years, it has been outstripped by rocketing demand. Next year, NHS funding per head of the population will fall in real terms. Social care budgets have been slashed, meaning that the support available to the elderly and disabled in the community has been reduced. Even with the changes that the Government have made to the better care fund and the social care precept, the Local Government Association still predicts a shortfall of £2.6 billion by the end of this Parliament.
We cannot escape the fact that our population is growing and we are ageing. There are now more retired people in the United Kingdom than there are children in our schools. As the decades pass, medicine advances. We keep more babies alive when they are born with complicated medical conditions; we successfully treat more and more people who have cancer; we perform ever more complex operations which can give people many happy years of life, but which contribute to the fact that as we age, many more of us have underlying frailties and multiple health needs.
This situation has not come about overnight, and it is one that all recent Governments have had to manage, but the present Government are not managing it, and that is the difference. This Government’s head has been in the sand. Between 1997 and 2010, the Labour Government increased real-terms spending on the NHS by an annual average of 5.7%. The equivalent figure for the coalition Government was 0.8%, the lowest increase under any Government since world war two. Under the present Government, the figure is 1.75%. The Government may talk a good game on NHS spending, but the truth is that we are in the middle of a decade of austerity, and when we add to that a slash-and-burn approach to local government and the social care services for which it is responsible, it is little wonder we find ourselves in our current predicament.
So what now? As we heard from the Chair of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), we must be honest about the scale of the challenge. When it comes to NHS spending, this year is meant to be the year of plenty, the one year in the current Parliament when there is a relatively significant increase in available funds, but those funds have already been used to pay off last year’s debts. Money that was meant to be used to repair buildings and buy new equipment is, in effect, being used to pay salaries, and funds that were meant to transform services are being used to deal with the flow of people turning up at A&E. Hospitals are likely to end the year in deficit again, more clinical commissioning groups are overshooting their budgets, and NHS England is struggling to stay within its spending limits for specialised services. So-called efficiency savings really equate to the freezing of staff pay.
People who work in the NHS and social care system need to be honest about their ability to cope. The junior doctors were honest about it last year, and now it is time for others to do the same. NHS managers need to be honest about the time that it will take to transform services, and about the funding that that transformation requires. Hospital beds cannot be closed if services in the community are not already up and running, and have been proved to reduce the demand for in-patient care.
We need to be honest, but we also need action. The Government must provide direct support for local authorities, with funds for social care, in the Budget. How they pay for that is obviously for them to decide, but they cannot continue to shove partial solutions on to local government and wash their hands of the problem. If they do not address the long-term problems in social care, they will be leaving the NHS to pick up the pieces.
However, even if the Government are persuaded of the case for additional funds, we must think carefully about where the money would best be spent. It is tempting to say that it should simply be reinvested in what has been taken away—that there should be more comprehensive care packages and social care for a wider group of people, and the cuts affecting community health nurses and mental health trusts should be reversed—but I think the position is more complicated than that.
The current short-term fix of taking money from the capital budget to prop up revenue is wrong. New scanners are less likely to need repair than old ones, which means cutting waiting times and improving outcomes. Well designed, well maintained buildings can improve productivity and efficiency. Those who compare the new Guy’s cancer centre with the buildings at the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow will not believe that the two are in the same country. We should invest in new step-down care facilities for people who are well enough to leave hospital, but for whom care in the home has yet to be arranged.
There is also a massive need to invest in staff and build careers that people aspire to. This will take time as well as money. Perhaps we need to consider new roles in community health services that provide holistic care to older people in the home. Perhaps we need more GPs who are paid to dedicate time to residential homes, spotting problems among the elderly which would otherwise end up in a hospital admission. Perhaps the social care workforce needs a wholesale rethink. I will never forget the conversation I had with a senior A&E nurse who told me that the half-term holidays always result in more older people coming into hospital because the mums who do the part-time, zero-hours jobs in home care were looking after their children instead.
I fundamentally feel that the whole system needs to focus on how we provide care, in the broadest sense, to older people—the one in four people in a hospital bed with dementia, and the three in four people in care homes with dementia. We should focus on the real weekend effect—the one where if we happen to be in hospital on a Friday night, we are unlikely to make it out until Monday lunchtime at the earliest. Why do doctors talk of how it takes three minutes to admit a patient, but three days to discharge them?
I end by saying this: the Government might be absorbed by the complex task of trying to take us out of the European Union, but if they do not do something to address the scale of underfunding in the NHS and care system, the public will not forgive them. We need real answers to the real problems, and we need them quickly.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), although she will not be surprised to learn that while I agree with some of the points she made, I do not agree with all of them.
In the time that I have, I want to cover a few points; I do not want to repeat much of the excellent statements many Members across this House have made, but I do want to go over a few issues.
While I welcome the Government’s extra funding, and the £6 billion this year in particular, with the changes in national insurance contributions and pension contributions, the costs of running the NHS are going up all the time, so the extra money is being swallowed up without it necessarily going to frontline staff. I particularly agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) when she said that in an estimates debate we should not just be talking about the money we need to spend, but also need to look at the demand and the type of services that we need to fund. There is no doubt that the demand for NHS services and social care is increasing, so even by providing extra funding we are really just standing still in terms of the services we are providing.
We know there is an increase in numbers across the country. We know, as has been said, that there are new treatments that need to be provided. We know that patients are changing, too; they often have multiple co-morbidity, so whereas in years past they would have been admitted with one illness, treated and gone home, now when they are admitted they have many illnesses that are not so easy to treat, and that is often why discharges are delayed.
From NHS England’s own data, we know that there is around a 7% increase in demand for services across the board. There is also a 7% increase in the number of ambulance calls made. There is a 3% increase in the number of A&E visits. We know that the Tuesday after Christmas was the busiest day ever in the history of the NHS, and it takes extra money to be able to deliver that service. We know that there is a 6% increase in diagnostic tests, and consultant-led treatments are up 6%, too. So demand is rising, and although the extra money is welcome, it is not dealing with the level of service that is required.
I want to make a plea, as someone who still works in the health service and sees, and works with, colleagues across the NHS on a regular basis. While the services are under a lot of pressure and there is a lot that we can be concerned about, some amazing work is going on in our NHS, and I welcome NHS England’s announcement only last week that it is again going to start to fund second stem cell transplants. We have had debates in this place about how important that is to those patients whose first transplant fails. We also know that there are going to be new drug treatments for kidney disease and for pulmonary hypertension. All those announcements are really welcome, and we must recognise that there is great work being done on the frontline.
I am particularly pleased that the Department of Health has given £1 million to the British Heart Foundation to provide defibrillators up and down the country. That will make a tremendous difference, given that 12 young people a week die from cardiac arrest in this country. Innovative, ground-breaking work is also being done in cancer care. My old hospital, the Royal Marsden in London, is making strides in cancer research that are not only innovative in Europe but making breakthroughs worldwide. We should never forget that we often lead the field in research at a global level. We should be extremely proud of that.
In response to the Health Committee’s report, the Government made a number of recommendations on tackling the problems facing the NHS and social care, and I want to touch on two of them. The first dealt with the need to arrive at a degree of financial discipline in the health service. For years, there have been problems of financial mismanagement. As someone who has worked in the health service, I know how heartbreaking it is to see money being squandered. We have talked about the PFI deals, which have affected many parts of the country, but we must also remember the IT system that cost billions of pounds but never saw the light of day. It was supposed to move us away from paper records to a paperless system. Today, the NHS spends huge amounts of money on the storage of paper notes in offsite facilities. Hospitals have to pay to store those patient records. The agenda for change, which was introduced many years ago, was supposed to reconfigure the staff pay structure and improve patient productivity, but it never really worked. It just rearranged the deckchairs on the ship. It was a huge wasted opportunity that cost the NHS millions of pounds that could have been used to give staff a well-deserved pay rise.
Financial discipline is important. There are two big general hospitals near my constituency. They have the same financial settlement and a similar group of patients to look after. One of them is in special measures and struggling to cope with its discharging, while the other, less than five miles down the coast, is rated as outstanding and is able to provide excellent care. This has to be about more than the amount of money that is given out; it is also about what is done with that money. We need to look at that, and hospitals need to share best practice. It cannot be right that one hospital is able to manage its budget while another one is not. My experience of 20 years working in the NHS is that there are lots of opportunities in this regard. Financial discipline should not be about top-slicing; it should be about using the available money as wisely as possible. If Ministers want suggestions about how to make financial savings, I would recommend that they speak to the healthcare professionals. They often have the answers, and if they were only asked on a more regular basis, they would be able to provide some fantastic solutions.
The other recommendation that the Government want to take forward relates to reducing demand, which is easier said than done. I started by saying that demand was increasing by about 6% a year. For too long, we have focused on hospitals and—I say this with no disrespect to doctors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is sitting next to me—we have been much too medically focused in the way we manage our NHS. We have missed the opportunity to look at what other healthcare professionals can offer.
Pharmacists, for example, are highly educated, experienced and qualified individuals, and there is ground-breaking work happening out there in community pharmacies. This can involve simple things such as the scheme in Scotland in which patients have to register with a pharmacist as well as a GP. That would make a tremendous difference to patients’ lives if we were to introduce it here. Why are pharmacists not contacted on discharge, as GPs are? I was recently talking to a pharmacist who said that around 30% of readmissions are caused by patients not taking their medicine properly. If pharmacists had a list of chronically ill patients whose medicine they were in charge of, we could easily avoid so many readmissions. We heard earlier about nurse practitioners who are doing blood tests to predict bacterial infections and work out who does and does not need antibiotics. We need to upskill those healthcare professionals so that they can take on more roles. Some paramedics in the community are going to people’s homes instead of those people going to A&E, for example.
This is an estimates debate about how we use the money, but we need to forecast demand properly, use existing resources better and look at best practice to share the good work that is happening in our NHS.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Four Back-Bench would-be contributors remain, and I am keen to accommodate all of them. It might be helpful if I explain that I would like to call the Front-Bench winding-up speakers, of whom there are three, no later than 9.28 pm and slightly earlier if possible.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be part of this debate among so many informed Members. Members may not realise that the debate is timely because the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, published today our “Financial sustainability of the NHS” report, upon which I will base many of my comments. At the beginning of the report, we ask for an end to the years of arguing in public about the level of NHS funding and for the Department, NHS England and Downing Street to start working together in the interests of patients instead of bickering about funding levels.
I want to highlight two issues. One is about the work that has been done behind the scenes on the NHS accounts. You are a keen supporter of the work of Select Committees, Mr Speaker, but today’s debate was secured with the help of not only the Health Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee, but other contributors alongside Parliament. I thank the National Audit Office for the support that it has given to me and many other hon. Members to help us understand and interrogate this year’s accounts, including a meeting in a very quiet Portcullis House in the middle of August—perhaps when other hon. Members were on a beach somewhere. Helping Members to understand the accounts and what they mean for our constituents is an important and oft-neglected part of what the public hear about Parliament.
The NAO’s report on the accounts was unprecedented, and it is worth looking at what the Comptroller and Auditor General said about them. Several one-off actions were taken this year to bring the Department within its expenditure limit, some of which were worrying and some of which were just incredibly fortunate. Given the rigour involved in the accounts, the Department’s inability to find the extra £417 million that had been incorrectly given from the national insurance fund was quite extraordinary. There were the £100 million super-dividend from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and many central readjustments, and the capital-to-revenue transfers have been discussed. I also draw attention to the guidance that NHS providers were given by Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority—I use the word “guidance” carefully. That and the transaction reviews commissioned by the Department, whereby two accountancy firms undertook a review of accountancy policies and how they were adopted, happened so that provider results came out much more favourably than they perhaps would otherwise have done. Again, that demonstrates the incredible lengths that the Department and all its bodies went to this year to bring the accounts barely within the expenditure limit voted for by the House.
From whistleblowing accounts, reports from health and care conferences, the board papers that some of us read, discussions with chief executives, and reports in the specialist media, it is clear that the pressure on individuals within the service is immense, which is not good for anybody. I praise staff in all parts of the health service and the Department’s work, including clinical staff and managerial staff, of which I was proud be a part for many years, but the pressure, particularly on finance directors, to produce the right result and the right answer is deeply worrying due to the effect on safety. Only a few weeks ago we had the intervention of Sir Robert Francis, who, based on his previous work, raised concerns about clinical safety in our health service.
The international comparisons on funding have been mentioned, and they are very clear. We are probably spending the money to be like Mexico, not France or Germany. My constituents expect to be treated in the same way as their European opposites. Whatever the right level of funding is, there must be agreement on that level and, crucially, on what it can provide. Over the past year, the Public Accounts Committee has held 11 or 12 sessions on what the service has promised to deliver for the money available, which takes me to my second point.
We are now in the realm of political choices, which is our responsibility as MPs. The taxpayer, the voter and the patient are not different people; they are one and the same, and they are wise. They understand that we get what we pay for, but they have to be informed. Currently, the scrappy, ill-informed public debate and the unedifying blame game are not informing them but letting them down.
It is clear to me and to many hon. Members that the Government are not inclined to fund the service to the standards that we have become used to, that we expect, that the NHS constitution gives us the right to expect and that our European neighbours have, so the Government need to be honest about the trade-offs and choices. The STP process allows that to happen. I have listened carefully to the debate, and particularly to Conservative Members. They cheer when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health say that they have increased the money given to the NHS or that the NHS was given what it asked for, but they then make passionate pleas for their own community hospital or for the various services in their area, as is their wont.
The STPs bring into sharp focus the trade-off between finance and quality, and I define quality in terms of patient experience, clinical effectiveness and efficiency. The STPs have given us a clear trade-off between the money and the mandate, and I hope the refresh of NHS funding that we expect from the “Five Year Forward View” in March, as discussed in the Public Accounts Committee, will be clear and that the public will be able to have that information at their fingertips.
Currently, patients do not have the information, and they should. They should know where the best-run and the worst-run hospitals are. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) that it is unacceptable that hospitals a few miles apart with virtually the same population are operating completely differently. Patients need to know where the outcomes are best. It is not good enough to hold that information nationally and hide it from patients, or to leave it to well-informed people to interrogate board papers, and so on, to find out the answers.
The way forward is clear: waiting times will continue to increase; we will go back to the long waiting lists of the 1990s; access to GPs and other professionals will continue to decrease; the service will become largely an emergency one; the family, where there is one, will increasingly bear the cost and responsibility of social care; and access will continue to be restricted. The Government now have to be honest not just about the costs but about access. They have to be honest that there is no more money, if there is not going to be any, and they have to be honest about what that means for expectations, particularly with regard to the NHS constitution.
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). We are here to debate the financial sustainability of the health and adult social care sectors. Although health and adult social care are almost inseparable, I will focus on adult social care for brevity’s sake.
Although the acute care and adult social care sectors face similar unprecedented pressures, adult social care is different in one important way. Unlike the NHS, which has the ear of the Chancellor and the Treasury, adult social care certainly does not. All the evidence in recent months has served only to confirm that. The Chancellor’s decision not to make one extra penny of new money available in his autumn statement was met with almost universal criticism from across the health and local government sectors, and his recent decision to introduce the adult social care precept is damning evidence that a desperately outdated view of funding remains strong in the Treasury.
Adult social care is delivered locally by local authorities, so the Chancellor views its funding as a locally devolved issue. The Government’s decision to pass the blame to local councils and to underfund adult social care is nothing short of moral cowardice. They are deliberately underfunding adult social care in my home city of Bradford.
What is most desperate is the Government’s abandonment of the hundreds of thousands of older and vulnerable people who are reliant on vital adult social care services, day in, day out. We are talking not about hypotheticals but about the care happening today, right now. Real people are struggling to get by in my constituency of Bradford South. Bradford is a relatively young city; nevertheless, the number of people in Bradford over the age of 65 has grown substantially. Between 2012 and 2015, an extra 4,500 people were living in the district, and the number of people in Bradford with complex physical disabilities has grown by 400.
My local council, Bradford Council, agreed its budget last Thursday. Like many others, it had the task of agreeing swingeing cuts to scores of community services. In recent years, it has reduced its budget by more than £218 million, and a further £82 million in cuts will have to be made by 2020. Adult social care, as the biggest service overseen by Bradford Council, faces the lion’s share of the looming budget cuts. A further £19 million of cuts will fall on the city’s adult social care sector. The Government are washing their hands of any responsibility. By 2020, the revenue support grant, which is the primary source of central Government funding to Bradford Council, will drop to zero—zilch; absolutely nothing.
The Government’s half-baked answer is the adult social care precept. In the next two years, the precept is expected to raise an extra £6.6 million in Bradford, but that extra money is dwarfed by the huge cuts to Bradford Council’s revenue support grant. More to the point, the extra £6.6 million is not even enough to meet the increased cost of adult social care that will flow from the Government’s so-called national living wage. Because of the unprecedented increase in demand, such bruising budget cuts are only the tip of the funding shortfall. It is expected that the cost of supporting increasing numbers of older people, coupled with larger numbers of working-age people living with disabilities, will mean Bradford Council will have to shoulder an extra £1.5 million, each and every year.
Judith Cummins
I am nearly at the end of my remarks, and the hon. Lady has had her turn to speak.
What is beyond doubt is that the Chancellor must act in the upcoming Budget. He faces his greatest test in this Parliament. I hope that he and his Government do not disappoint. Time will tell.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who spoke with great feeling about her constituents’ needs, as she always does.
If my constituents were here and saw the estimates, they might be a bit disappointed. A few weeks ago, we had an interesting public meeting. They said to me, “Helen, it’s marvellous: because of Brexit, we’re going to get £350 million extra for the NHS every week, and our A&E department can be reopened.” There seems to be no mention of that in the estimates.
Under our local sustainability and transformation plan, there is a proposal to close the A&E department at Darlington hospital, which would be an unutterable disaster for my constituents. We are continually told that the purpose of the STP is to improve services, but I really wish the local NHS managers would stop pretending. They have also told us that by 2020 there is going to be a funding shortfall of £281 million, so nobody believes it is about improving services; everybody believes it is about managing on limited resources.
I appreciate that pressures on the health service are increasing because of the ageing population, but this level of austerity in the health service is unnecessary. The British economy is bigger now than it has ever been; it is 14% bigger than it was in 2010. Other hon. Members have pointed to the disparity between spend in the UK, which is $3,235 per capita per year, and in Germany, which is $4,800 per capita per year. In the UK, there are 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people, whereas in Germany, the figure is 8.3. It does not need to be like that.
I wish to focus on the needs of rural communities, which we have not spoken about this evening. Were the A&E department in Darlington to close, it would be an extremely serious problem for the people to the west of Darlington, and at the top of Teesdale. People are already travelling 30 miles to get to hospital. The response times of the North East ambulance service are not what they should be. People often wait 20 or 30 minutes for an ambulance to arrive, which means that it could be an hour before they get into the hospital.
One of my local councillors has done an absolutely brilliant piece of analysis, looking at the journey times that would be needed were people to have to go to the James Cook university hospital in Middlesbrough. At the moment, someone living in Bishop Auckland would take 25 minutes to get to hospital. It would go up to 39 minutes. If they live right up in the top of the dale, the journey time is 39 minutes. That would go up to 64 minutes. The STP managers running the review say that they want to treat cardio-vascular and trauma patients in specialist centres where a critical mass of staff can maintain their skills. That sounds reasonable enough, but my constituent Judy Sutherland asked them, “What proportion of emergency journeys are not cardio-vascular or trauma cases?” The answer was 94%. So, for acute asthma, adrenal crisis, anaphylactic shock, appendicitis, diabetic coma, meningitis and renal failure—the list goes on—there would be no benefit to being in a specialist centre.
The extra mortality from the longer travel time goes up quite dramatically. In Bishop Auckland, it goes up by 2.4%, Barnard Castle by 3%, and in Middleton in Teesdale by 3.2%. That is why the pretence that this is about improving the quality of healthcare is not believed by my constituents. They are tired of being told that services should be nearer to home when, in fact, they are being pushed further and further away. There is a question mark over the Richardson community hospital in Barnard Castle. The A&E and the maternity services have been taken out of the hospital at Bishop Auckland. When that was done, we were told that it would be absolutely fine, because people would be able to go to the Darlington A&E, but now that A&E is under threat. People in rural communities are facing this constant process of attrition.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I have similar challenges in my rural constituency of North Devon. The STP is looking at the same issues that the hon. Lady is raising, and they, too, will lead to long travel distances. As Ministers know, that is something that I have raised with them and brought up in this House on a number of occasions. Does the hon. Lady agree that the challenges that the STP is trying to address have not happened in the past 18 months or the past six years; they have built up over many years and over many different Governments?
Helen Goodman
The proposal to close Darlington A&E has come up only under this Government. It was not proposed under the coalition Government or the previous Labour Government. This Government must take responsibility for what is happening now.
On Saturday, I went to Alston in Cumbria. The people there are also running a campaign to stop their local hospital closing, because they will then have to go to Carlisle, which is 34 miles away. That is a long way, especially in Cumbria, where the weather is absolutely terrible and the road is often blocked. Ministers need to take more account of this big rural issue. People in Alston are also worried that there will be a cynical saving—the hospital in Copeland—and that they will face even bigger cuts. Perhaps the Minister will give us an assurance about that. The interaction between health and social care is well understood. We all know that cuts to social care mean a worse quality of care and less time for individuals.
Helen Goodman
I would rather not because of the speaking limit.
Cuts also mean pressure on the NHS. Durham has faced really big cuts to social care. Between 2011 and 2017, it has had to make £186 million of savings. Child and adult care services comprise 63% of the total budget in the area, and adult social care cuts have been £55 million. The much vaunted precept raises only £4 million, and we have another £40 million of cuts to come. Even taking into account the better care funding, cuts by 2019-20 will come to £170 million. That means that there will be no social care in whole villages in my constituency. We are told that the Chancellor is minded to do something about it. Will he make up the full £4.6 billion that was cut in the last Parliament?
We have discussed the long term, which we do need to think about. The discussion about social insurance is important and significant, but we should also think about which institutions we would be asking people to put their money and their savings into. A lot of private sector organisations are, frankly, ripping people off with fees of £600 and £900 per week, even in my constituency in the north, where costs are not the highest. With fees like that, we do not even see highly trained people with expertise in dementia, but the same workers on minimum wages with low levels of training. We need to look at a stronger mutual approach and cut exploitative private sector contractors out of adult social care.
Mr Speaker
I remind the remaining speaker that the Front Bench wind-ups need to start at 9.28 pm, so speeches need to conclude relatively promptly.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I do not intend to detain the House for desperately long. The debate has been filled with trepidation and anticipation as Members, and perhaps the wider public, wait to see whether the House will actually debate any of the estimates before us. To pay tribute to hon. Members, we have not done too badly. The estimates document, HC 946—all 748 pages of it, at three and a half inches thick—and the Order Paper give us an estimate of £8,716,216,000 for the NHS. That takes up pages 137 to 151 of the document, but the only line that actually includes expenditure for health and social care is for the
“Health and Social Care Information Centre (known as NHS Digital)”
on page 151, which has £151 million of resources. That might have made for a considerably shorter debate, if hon. Members had not used their ingenuity to quite the extent they have.
We have debated the 10 detailed reports from the Health Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. I congratulate the Chairs of those Committees on securing time from the Liaison Committee, but even that raises the question of why 10 reports are squeezed into a three-hour debate that is supposed to be about supplying the Government with the resources needed. I congratulate the Committees on securing that time, but perhaps those reports ought to have had more time to themselves.
The NHS is one of the biggest areas of Government spending, second only to pensions. Adequate funding of aspects of the NHS is a constant major feature of political discourse, as it has been today, but there are no means to seek to amend any of this in any meaningful way through the estimates process. All we can do is table amendments that might lower the amount, but the theme of the entire debate seems to have been that the NHS in England needs more money, not less. Of course, any change to the NHS budget in England has some sort of Barnett consequentials in Scotland. I wonder whether, at any point today or anywhere in the Supply estimates book, we can find out what those are. I suspect we cannot.
Nevertheless, a number of important points have been made. The Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Health Committees spoke in detail about the different budget lines and departmental spending lines and about the important long-term consequences of the transfers from the capital budget to the revenue budget. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) spoke about the need to ring-fence certain lines. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who is no longer in his place, made important points about the disaster that PFI has been in the health service, and that is true north and south of the border.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) rightly asked where the £350 million a week for the NHS was. It certainly is not in the Supply documents brought to the House by the Government today. There is, in fact, a systematic underfunding of the NHS in England under this Tory Government, and that has serious implications for the NHS across the UK as a whole. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, that environment will only become more challenging as the population ages and demographics continue to change.
The Scottish Government, as I am sure we will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on the Front Bench shortly, are focused on these challenges and on building a health service that meets the demands of the 21st century. They are not just investing in the NHS but reforming it—integrating health and social care, and engaging with communities and the medical workforce, to bring about sustainable and positive NHS reform, as opposed to pressing ahead with the hasty cost-cutting exercises that seem to be the priority of the Tory Government.
However, perhaps it suits the Tory Government to have an NHS that is in the crisis described by Labour Members, because that gives Ministers an excuse to bring in private capital and private management and to outsource services to private providers. That, in turn, would have major consequences for the NHS budget in England and consequentials for the devolved budget, which brings us back to the inadequacies of the estimates and Supply process in this House.
The former Leader of the House promised us that these Supply days and estimates days were our chance to scrutinise the Government on things that we were otherwise excluded from during the English votes for English laws processes.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he is a distinguished ornament of the Procedure Committee, which has deliberated upon this matter? The question of the character of debates on the estimates has been, at this point, decided by the House, and the hon. Gentleman should not use his opportunity to speak in this debate, which he should guard jealously, to dilate on his disapproval of the process. What he ought to do is to focus on the subject which has been chosen. [Interruption.] It is no good him grinning at me like a Cheshire cat—I trust that that means that he is acquiescing in the judgment that has been reached. We always look forward to the mellifluous tones of the hon. Gentleman, but they should focus on the subject that we have chosen and not on that which he would prefer to have been chosen.
Patrick Grady
Indeed, Mr Speaker. I do not intend to detain the House very much further. What I have been trying to demonstrate is how the health and social care budget in England and Wales affects the health and social care budget north of the border and the overall Scottish Parliament budget. We have precisely proved the point that we do not have the appropriate opportunities to scrutinise those things in this debate, so the Government have to live up to their promises, and then we will see whether they are prepared to allow Members of this House a proper say over spending on the NHS and social care or on any of the other budget lines or Departments included in the estimates.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I certainly welcome the fact that, in recent months, since the hearing of the Health Committee, the Secretary of State for Health has stopped using the £10 billion figure and has recognised the £4.5 billion figure, which is much closer to reality. Spending is normally allocated on the basis of health spending, not just NHS England spending. The increase in NHS England spending was at the cost of significant cuts to public health, even though we all recognise the need for prevention, and cuts to Health Education England, despite the attempt to have 1,500 extra doctors every year, extra nurses and 5,000 extra GPs, which is therefore rather a challenge.
As has been said, last year was the good year before we come to the lean years. I am not going to go into details of the pockling that was required to get anywhere close to the required outturn, which was missed by £207 million, as that has been so clearly explained by those on the Public Accounts Committee. That results in what the Auditor General has described as short-termism—people simply working to meet the bottom line instead of lifting their chins up and looking at what the real challenges are.
There are three big challenges. We have talked about the ageing population, we recognise that we have significant workforce challenges, and we all know that money is tight and does not grow on trees. Those three things create a conflict. People are sometimes putting in a short-term patch that will actually cost more money in the end. Providers across England can be recognised for getting their agency costs down, although they are still more than twice what they are in Scotland, but what is lying ahead? How will we meet the challenge of providing the workforce after Brexit—not just the challenge of people leaving, but of how we recruit in future? The turnover at the level of nurse and social care worker is about 25%, and we need a constant stream. A Government Member mentioned the tiny proportion of population below the age of 65—of working age. That is exactly why we needed immigration in the first place. Are we going to end up with more agency workers, or will the Government take action to make sure that we can attract nurses, doctors and social care workers from Europe?
A lot of these problems are blamed on an ageing population. In fact, Scotland’s demographics are worse than England’s, and going through the hard winter that we have all faced, we did not meet our A&E target either. However, in Scotland the A&E department four-hour achievement level was 92.6%, while in England it was 79.3%—the worst level since records began. That shows that there is a real crisis. This is not meant to be a measure for us to attack each other with. In general, this has been a great debate compared with what some of our debates are like. Rather, it is meant to be a thermometer to take the temperature of the whole system—not just the whole hospital system from A&E to discharge, but from home to GP, to A&E, to hospital, to getting back home again. The problem lies in the significant cuts made outside the Department of Health but within social care. Obviously patients require the support to be able to get back into the community, and preferably even back to their own homes.
Why are we are managing, despite our demographics, to keep our nostrils above water when NHS England is not? It is partly because in Scotland we have focused absolutely on integration rather than financial competition. The convoluted system that now exists between CCGs and outsourcing contracts, bidding and tendering is estimated to take £5 billion to £10 billion out of NHS England’s budget. That would be enough to cover the deficits—to plug the social care hole—and yet the Department of Health does not even keep data on it, so it is not keeping track of how these administration costs are growing. There is no possibility of a cost-benefit analysis of bringing in outside providers and causing this fragmentation instead of people being able to work together.
In Scotland, as I have said before, we have gone down the route of integrated joint boards between health and social care, taking money from both sides so that we do not have the argument over whose purse is funding a patient. We have used other innovative approaches such as community pharmacies, which we have debated here previously, and minor ailments units within community pharmacies. As a result, in the past five years attendance at A&E in Scotland has increased by 3.4%, while in England the figure is 11.8%—three times our attendance rate.
The situation with admissions is similar. Our emergency admissions have increased by 4.6%, while those in England have increased by 14%. That is all because the effort is not being made in the community.
There is a lot of talk, all the time, about the five year forward view. Frankly, we are halfway through the five years, so we are left with a two-and-a-half year forward view. That does not look far enough ahead. Scotland did “2020 Vision” back in 2011, and we are now working on 2030, by which time the number of people aged 85 and over will have doubled. That is what we need to think about: how do we design not only our social care services, but out health services around the ageing population?
Our Cabinet Secretary is focused on what keeps people independent. Members may think that that is because I represent the Scottish National party, but I am talking about people being independent and living high-quality lives. What is it about? It is about hip replacements, knee replacements and eye surgery. If someone cannot see or walk and they are stuck in their house and lonely, we are going to have to look after them. Therefore, we have invested in—this is often laughed at here—free prescriptions so that people take medication to control chronic illnesses. We have also invested in giving free personal care to people in their own homes so that they do not land in hospital and get stuck there. That is why last year our delayed discharges went down by 9%, while here they went up by between 25% and 30%.
People also laugh at free bus passes. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned loneliness, an issue that was championed by Jo Cox. It is as big a killer as diabetes. Older people in our community are out and about. They are taking day trips and going shopping, and they love it. They are not stuck in their houses. This is about starting with looking at that population.
STPs are the best change going forward, but at the moment they are being handed a bottom line and told to work back from it. It cannot be budget-centred care; it must be patient-centred care. All of us across the House can recognise that place-based planning for a community will provide the best service to those patients and our constituents. That is what we should be doing. We need to get real about public health and preventing chronic ill health in later life, and that means addressing health in all policies. It is really bad that, day by day, this House considers individual decisions that completely contradict each other. We should always ask of every decision, “Will this make the health and wellbeing of our citizens better or worse?” If it makes it better, in the end it will save money. That includes poverty—the biggest cause of ill health.
I call on Members to consider the systems and how we do things, but we need to provide the care in the community before we take it from the hospital. Let us also think a little more broadly in some of the other decisions that we make.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I thank the Chairs, members and staff of both the Health Committee and the Public Accounts Committee for their work on the reports under discussion. I also thank the two Chairs for their excellent opening speeches.
The Health Committee noted a tight financial situation for health and the fact that deficits were growing and widespread. The King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust reported in November 2016 that there was a net deficit of £2.5 billion for NHS trusts in 2015-16. Furthermore, they said that the 1.3% funding increase for the NHS in 2017-18 would largely be absorbed by deficits. We have heard many useful contributions on the issues with trust deficits. NHS funding increases will be 0% in 2018-19 and 0.3% in 2019-20. Those are seen as “inadequate” and not enough
“to maintain standards of care, meet rising demand from patients and deliver the transformation in services outlined in the NHS five year forward view.”
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) that we are now halfway through the five year forward view, so in fact we have only a two and a half year forward view. If the opinion is now that the view is inadequate, we have got some issues.
On social care, the Health Committee has said that increasing numbers of people with genuine social care needs are no longer receiving the care they need because of a lack of resource, and we have had very many contributions about that. The Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), talked about increases in demand for social care. The King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust have said that six years of “unprecedented” budget reductions have led to a 26% fall in the number of people aged over 65 accessing publicly funded social care, which is
“imposing significant human and financial costs on older people, their families and carers and”—
as we know—
“exacerbating pressures on the NHS.”
They also estimate that the publicly funded social care system faces the prospect of a £1.9 billion funding gap next year, and one of at least £2.3 billion by 2020.
As we have heard in this debate—it has rightly focused on this—the cuts mean that 400,000 fewer older people now receive publicly funded care packages than in 2010. An Age UK report shows that nearly 1.2 million people do not now receive the care and support they need with essential daily living activities. It is worth breaking that down further: nearly 700,000 older people do not receive enough help for their daily care needs; and 500,000 people receive no help, not even from family and friends. Taking into account tasks such as shopping and taking medication—the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) mentioned the important factor that older people need to be reminded to take their medication—Age UK says that 1.5 million people are not getting the help they need day to day.
It is shocking that nearly one in eight of the entire older population now lives with some level of unmet need. Of course the impact on the NHS of the crisis in social care funding is important—I will come on to delayed discharges—but the real impact, which we must never forget, is on all those older and vulnerable people living without care. Cuts to social care budgets also hit the 6.5 million unpaid family carers and the 1.4 million people in the care workforce who provide care. The impacts on those groups are often overlooked. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked about the terms and conditions for the care workforce, and he was right to raise that point, but cuts hit those 1.4 million people as well. There have been dreadful cuts in terms and conditions; providing care is an important job and that should not happen.
The Government responses to the social care funding issues in the Select Committee reports are inadequate. The responses talk about the social care precept and the additional funding in the better care fund, but most of that funding is proving to be a problem because it is back-loaded to 2019-20. The King’s Fund has described using the social care precept as an
“inadequate response that just passes the problem to local government”.
That is a key factor. There is also the question of whether the precept is adequate or otherwise. The precept raised £382 million in 2016-17, and it will raise £543 million in 2017-18. In both cases, that is less than the cost of the national living wage to be paid by care providers.
Sadly, this Government’s inadequate funding of social care was made worse by measures in the local government finance settlement. Having passed the problem of extra funding for social care on to the council tax payer, Ministers went on to make the problem worse by announcing the creation of the £240 million adult social care grant, with funding recycled from the new homes bonus. One third of councils providing social care will be worse off next year as a result of this inept settlement. My own local authority, Salford, will have £2.3 million less in its budgets for social care, and Tower Hamlets Council is set to lose £3.3 million. Where does the Minister think we, with such notice, can find £2.3 million in one local authority budget? Sadly, the answer will be rationing, which is not where we should be.
The Public Accounts Committee has published a report on discharging older people from acute hospitals, but the situation has got worse since the Committee’s report was published. In 2016, a record number of hospital bed days was lost as a result of problems with social care. The number of days lost has increased by over 400,000 in the past year. Over a third of those days were lost as a result of social care problems, and we must take into account the fact that the proportion attributable to social care problems has been increasing. Given the funding cuts, we should not of course by surprised by that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
“Delayed discharge is damaging the health of patients and that of the public purse.”
Unnecessarily long stays in hospital can affect patient morale and mobility, as well as increase their risk of catching hospital-acquired infections. In 2014, Professor John Young said of the mobility effects of long hospital stays:
“A wait of…seven days is associated with a 10 per cent decline in muscle strength”,
which is clearly not desirable.
The funding crisis in social care is a theme in many of the reports we are debating. The Public Accounts Committee report on personal care budgets expresses concerns that
“funding cuts and wage pressures will make it hard”
for local authorities
“to fulfil their Care Act obligations”.
That is serious. The legislation was passed only in 2014, but councils now find it hard to fulfil their obligations. On underfunding, the Local Government Association said in its recent Budget submission:
“Without bolder action the Government will need to re-evaluate its offer to residents and consider whether the set of legal rights and responsibilities contained within the Care Act are appropriate and achievable.”
The Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee mentioned that.
The Public Accounts Committee report on improving access to mental health services described the ambition to improve services as “laudable”, but, given the current pressures on the NHS budget, it said that it is
“sceptical about whether this is affordable, or achievable”.
The Committee rightly said that achieving parity of esteem between mental and physical health is a task
“for the whole of government”.
I trust that that includes the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who heads the No. 10 policy unit, and who said that disability benefits should go to “really disabled people” rather than those
“taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety”.
I should say that that has been mentioned already today, and that I have informed the hon. Gentleman of my intention to mention it this evening. Comments such as those reinforce stigma about mental health rather than reduce it. They are profoundly disappointing coming from someone who was until recently a Health Minister. They show just how far hon. Members and the Government have to go on parity of esteem.
Underfunding of mental health services by commissioners has dominated many debates in the House. The Government have failed to deal with the problem that funds intended for mental health services have been used by the NHS for other priorities. In their response to the Committee’s report, the Government say they accept all the recommendations and have implemented them, but I question that. The Government response says that the mental health five year forward view dashboard published in October 2016 monitors key performance and outcomes data. In December, the Royal College of Psychiatrists released compiled figures on spending by CCGs on child and adolescent mental health services, which are vital and which we often discuss in debates in the House.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the scale of variation that came out of the Royal College of Psychiatrists figures, because the range was from £2 per child per annum to £135 per child per annum, which is a disturbing variation. They have been told only that the CCGs were reporting the data on their spending differently. I say to the Minister that it hardly helps transparency for CCGs to report on their mental health spending differently.
I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). From her response, I understand that further guidance has been issued to CCGs. I would be grateful if, in the Minister’s response, he told the House whether we can expect that the actual spend and planned spend on mental health services reported will be accurate and comparable. Hon. Members have mentioned in the debate their local CCGs decreasing spending on mental health. We hear that that is not the Government’s intention, but we cannot track what is happening if CCGs do not report accurately. We know that one in four young people who need mental health services are being turned away. The Government should therefore do all they can to ensure that young people can get that access. Extra funding prioritising mental health should be spent as intended and not spent on other NHS priorities.
In its report on NHS specialised services, the Public Accounts Committee said:
“Accountability, to both patients and taxpayers, is undermined by the lack of transparency over NHS England’s decision-making”.
The Committee recommended that NHS England should
“improve the transparency of its decision-making”.
I note that 30 charities from the Specialised Healthcare Alliance wrote to the Prime Minister recently to raise the issue of NHS England restricting and rationing treatment because of underfunding, especially for patients with rare and complex conditions. The charities say that this has taken place without sufficient public scrutiny. Lack of transparency in decision making is a serious issue and I ask the Minister to address it in his response.
There are many issues raised in the Committee reports relating to funding for the NHS and social care. Media reports say that the Chancellor is considering a short-term, ring-fenced cash injection for social care worth hundreds of millions of pounds for councils, but I hope the Minister will convey to the Chancellor that adult social services directors say they need an immediate injection of £1 billion for social care to prevent the weakening and collapse of some parts of the sector. As I have said, the funding gap in social care will be between £1.9 billion to £2.3 billion by 2020. I hope the Government are not going to try a quick fix in the Budget that is too little. The hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people who need social care certainly deserve better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who speaks for the Scottish National party, described this as a great debate. I agree that it has been a very good debate. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with a great deal of passion and, in general, with a great deal of knowledge. A number of clinicians, as well as three Select Committee Chairs, have spoken. I join the shadow Minister in thanking the Select Committees for the reports we are discussing today. An awful lot of comments have been made by Members and I will do my best to respond to the majority of them.
The Government accept that these are challenging times for both the NHS and social care. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Health Committee Chair, talked about this at length. The demographics—both the number of people and their age—are uncompromising. I was at a Health Check conference recently and one of the speakers described the process we have been through. We have been very successful at elongating quantity of life. Until now, however, quality of life has not kept up. Increasingly, older people are living with multiple long-term conditions. Having one long-term condition is becoming unusual, whether it is diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart disease. This is a fact we all have to face. One reason why we are so keen for the STPs to address this issue is that 70% of total expenditure on the NHS is spent on long-term conditions. Frankly, if we were starting with a blank piece of paper, we would not start with the NHS we have now. Instead, it would be organised around those long-term conditions, meaning more work in the community and all that goes with that. I will come on to talk about the STP process and how we are trying to achieve that.
We know, therefore, that there is an issue with demography. I think it was a Public Accounts Committee report that said that, in 1948, 50% of people lived to be over the age of 65. In 2017, only 14% die before they are 65. That is a massive demographic change and we all need to step up to the mark to meet it. We will try to do that. Drugs and treatment are becoming more expensive. They can do a lot more, but we have all heard the discussions around the cancer drugs fund. The third driver is that patients’ expectations are, rightly, higher than they were decades ago.
The Government response in the spending review was a front-loaded £10 billion injection into the NHS budget, representing an 8% or 9% increase, depending on how it is counted. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that we should not bicker about these amounts. We can argue about whether it is enough, but the facts are that this is a real increase over the course of this Parliament. There is a discussion to be had on whether that real increase is enough—I accept that. What I do not accept is what we have heard about cuts from some of those on the Opposition Benches. There is a valid discussion to be had about whether an 8% or 9% real-terms increase is enough—I gently remind the Opposition that at the last election they said they would not be in a position to fund more than that—but it is not right to talk about it in the context of cuts, as some Opposition Members have done.
Barbara Keeley
We get into this repeatedly. The Opposition have no plans to cut £5 billion from social care or to cut the budgets of local councils. That is the difference between us and the Government. Given that we have talked mainly about social care and cuts to social care, the Minister ought to take that into account.
David Mowat
I will come on to social care. We have covered the NHS, which this Parliament will get a real-terms increase of 8% or 9%. Let us accept that and move on. On social care, a 5% or 6% real-terms increase has already been made available—that is not the Budget; I do not know what is in the Budget. Again, we can argue about whether that is enough, given the demographics, but we cannot argue whether it is true.
I want to spend a little time on the international comparisons, about which we heard some discussion earlier. According to the OECD, in 2014 this country spent 9.9% of its GDP on health. The OECD average is 9%, so that is 1% more, but it is true that the OECD average includes countries such as Mexico with which we would not necessarily wish to compare ourselves. The average for the EU15, which by and large does not include the newer states in the east, is 9.8%. So in 2014 we spent more than the EU average. It is true that we spend less than some of our comparator countries—we spend less than France and Germany—but it is completely wrong to say that there is a massive gap between us and the EU.
Dr Philippa Whitford
I thank the Minister for giving way, but 2014 was three years ago, and are we not heading towards a figure of less than 7%, which will put us 13th out of 15 among the EU15?
David Mowat
No. The 2014 figures are the most recent available—and they do not include the comparatively large settlement on healthcare and the front-loaded money in the spending review.
The Government spend 1.2% of GDP on social care—we spend another 0.6% privately. That is more than countries such as Germany—the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee talked about Germany—which spends 1.1%, and more than Canada and Italy. Again, it is less than some countries—Holland, an exemplar country in this respect, spends considerably more; I accept that there are choices to be made—but it is wrong to pretend that we are massively out of kilter with the sorts of countries we would regard ourselves as equivalent to.
Heidi Alexander
Does the Minister accept that if we continue on current spending rates as a proportion of GDP, by the end of this Parliament we will be spending less than countries such as Costa Rica and Iceland? Is that the sort of health service his constituents aspire to?
David Mowat
There are assumptions in that—to do with our GDP growth, their GDP growth and everything else—so it is a difficult question to answer. I would just refer again to the latest OECD figures, for 2014. Those figures are accurate. There is a valid debate to be had about whether they are enough, given the demographics and all the rest of it—that is fair—but it is not fair to imply that there is a massive disparity between us and our EU neighbours.
David Mowat
I have given way to the hon. Lady once already, and I need to make some progress.
Patrick Grady
Some Conservative Back Benchers have suggested—not in today’s debate but at other times—that some of the 0.7% gross national income aid budget could be used to fund health and social care. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to that target? By reading out the proportions of GNI spent on health and social care, he has shown how small that budget is in comparison.
David Mowat
The 0.7% budget for overseas aid is not being discussed here today and it is not my ministerial or my Department’s responsibility. I am proud that we are one of the few countries in the world that meets that commitment, and many of the other countries among our EU partners that have been mentioned do not make that commitment. However, I shall not be diverted any further down that road today.
We have of course had a difficult winter in the NHS. We know that A&E targets are on about 86% rather than the 95% we expect; and ambulance targets are at 60% rather than the 75% we expect. As we have heard, delayed transfers of care—not “bed blocking”—have probably doubled over the past three years. In response, I make one point that I am always keen to raise in these discussions: we do not talk enough about cancer. There are cancer metrics, and we should be proud of the fact that NHS England, is meeting seven of our eight cancer metrics. The trend is towards meeting them more easily than in the past. We have heard quite a lot this evening about how well they are doing in Scotland. In fairness, to redress the balance that we have heard about in respect of A&E, I make the point that Scotland is doing somewhat worse than we are on those cancer metrics.
Karin Smyth
I regret to say that it has been a disappointing response thus far. We have had a very informed debate, so we do not need to have the figures regurgitated to us as if we have not. Will the Minister address my comment that the money is what it is, but is it sufficient to deal with the programme of care and support in the NHS that has been promised? That has been the subject of the Public Accounts Committee’s report for every single month since last January. Is the money enough to do what has been promised?
David Mowat
The money is what we were asked to provide by NHS England’s senior management, and we provided it. At that time, the chief executive said that the Government had listened and acted. That is what we did, and that money is now available. That is not the same as saying that we do not accept that the system is under pressure in certain ways. Again, though, we talk about the money that is being spent in France and Germany. In Munich, 15 of the city’s 19 hospitals stopped taking people in over this winter. Right across the world—this is the point—there are challenges in national health systems, and we need to work to ensure that money is spent as effectively as possible. We know that £120 billion will be in our health system in 2020. What this Government have to do and what this ministerial team is doing is ensure that every penny is spent as effectively as possible.
We have talked about the five year forward view, and I accept that we are two years into it, but we know that the health system must tilt back towards community health, and the STPs are part of making that happen. We know that we need to get better than we are so far in terms of mental health and parity of esteem.
Mr Betts
I think the STP approach is capable of being a good one. The problem is that when I go to the chief executive of the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sir Andrew Cash, who is respected in government as well, he tells me that the process of transferring resources to the community will not work unless there is some transitional upfront funding for the whole process. We cannot stop doing what is being done in the hospitals and simply transfer it to the community.
David Mowat
He is right about that. NHS England is evaluating the STPs at the moment and during March and April, and it will decide which STPs are high priority, which will be invested in and which will be taken forward at speed. We heard the phrase “accountable care organisations” used earlier, and it is the Government’s intention to ensure that those high-performing STPs that we proceed with—it will not be all of them; frankly, the standards are variable and locally driven—will in time become accountable care organisations.
The shadow Minister asked me to talk about social care, and I will do so. During the present Parliament, accessible funding for social care has risen by 6% in real terms; it fell during the last Parliament. Last year 42% of councils increased their social care budgets in real terms, and in December £900 million was provided in new homes bonus payments.
David Mowat
The Care Act 2014 was introduced by this Government, and it has transformed social care, although we accept that the system is under pressure. The number of delayed transfers of care in Newcastle, St Helens, Bedford and Nottingham is nil. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), said that she had been told by Simon Stevens that if the top-performing councils—in terms of delayed transfers—were emulated by all the rest, the consequence would be very small. The truth is that there is a 30 times difference between the top 10% of councils and the bottom 10%.
David Mowat
No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice already, and I need to finish my speech in two minutes.
We accept that there are challenges and pressures in social care, but we also know that we need to make progress in mental health care, and we are doing so by working towards parity of esteem. By 2020, there will be 5,000 more doctors in general practice and 2,000 more pharmacists. We have talked about the need for more pharmacists. I visited a pharmacist’s practice in Perivale on Friday, and I know that we can transform the way in which general practices work. There will be 3,500 mental health therapists as well.
Nearly 3 million people work in healthcare, in the NHS and care sectors. Many of them are remarkable people doing remarkable things, and they deserve our support. It is important for us not to weaponise this entire discussion. It is important for us not to produce election leaflets about dead babies, and all that that means. Our healthcare system and the NHS deserve our support, and the Government are committed to ensuring that they receive it. I commend the estimate to the House.
Meg Hillier
I was going to say that this had been a good-natured and thoughtful debate. It is a shame that a Minister who is usually thoughtful has resorted to seemingly blaming NHS England for the present situation. I think it important to be clear about the budgetary position: NHS England asked for a certain amount of money, which the Government have stretched over an extra year. Money that was meant to cover five years has actually covered six, and I think it important to put that on the record.
Members of all parties have made it clear that there are long-term financial challenges to our health system, and that we must have a long-term national debate about how we are to fund a health service that is fit for the 21st century. Last year, a series of one-off extraordinary measures allowed the accounts—just about—to balance, but today Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention to the movement of the departmental expenditure limit from the capital to the resource side of the budget. According to the estimate, the limit is projected to increase to £1.2 billion. An awful lot of money is being taken out of the long-term future of the NHS to pay for day-to-day problems. That is not sustainable, and it is a great shame that the Minister did not address it. I hope that the Government will view it as one symptom of the long-term challenges of funding.
This sticking-plaster will not solve the problem, but I hope that we can move forward on a cross-party basis, despite the Minister’s final comments.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).
Business without Debate
ICL Boulby Potash Mine
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is appropriate on this day, the 117th birthday of the Labour party, that we debate mining, miners’ welfare, health and safety and the issues around the Boulby potash mine in my constituency—a constituency, of course, that has a proud heritage of mining in East Cleveland, primarily around the ironstone mines and villages such as Guisborough, Slapewath, Skelton, Boosbeck, Loftus and Brotton, to name but a few—and the history of men such as Joseph Shepherd, who was the first Cleveland miners association union representative back in the 1870s, and who helped to establish the Labour movement in those mines among the Primitive Methodists in East Cleveland and north Yorkshire, who primarily made up the workforce there. As the Labour party is a party of miners, it is appropriate today that they be talked about on our party’s birthday.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate an issue that matters to me and so many of my constituents. I hope to raise questions about the recent accidents on site, which my constituents still need answers to, and to highlight the challenges facing the mine in the future.
Mining has both a proud past and, I believe, a viable future in East Cleveland. Ironstone mining was, as in other areas of the country, the original foundation of the local economy in East Cleveland. The booming mines of the late 19th and early 20th centuries drew in workers from across the country and led to the struggle for improved wages and conditions that shaped the Labour tradition of which we on these Benches are humble representatives today. However, mines from Charltons to Skinningrove closed throughout the last century due to the quality of the ironstone they were mining and imports coming in that had less sulphur, but mining was not lost and Boulby potash mine in my constituency is still in operation.
Despite this decline, my constituency still currently, and proudly, has the highest number of miners in the UK. The potash mine at Boulby has been an important part of East Cleveland’s economy since it was sunk in the 1970s by ICI. Families’ destinies have been dependent on mining, and Boulby mine at its height employed over 1,000 people in high-paid and high-skilled jobs—jobs that, unfortunately, are all too rare in the Tees valley.
About 80% of the mine’s workforce live within a 12 mile radius of the site. It is not only the people of East Cleveland that the ICL site serves; it also serves this country’s farmers. Potash is mainly used in fertilisers, and the Boulby mine supplies over half of the UK’s potash. However, the site is not without its problems, and I want to go into the history of the safety concerns, some of which are recent.
The mine’s safety record is chequered to say the least. It is a deep mine and is a dangerous place to work. Some places go two miles under the North sea and temperatures can be as high as 50°C. There is huge heavy equipment, with massive vehicles, and in the potash section it is a very different type of mining from the traditional methods of coal mining where seams are cut out of the coal seam. Potash is a much harder material, especially polyhalite, the new product that Boulby is mining.
In 2007, a worker at the mine, Darren Compton, was killed by a falling rock. In 2012, an employee at the mine suffered broken ribs and a punctured lung after a hose burst and threw him against a skip. Months later, an employee was seriously injured by falling debris. In 2013, the site’s mines rescue technician and co-ordinator was fired after failing to ensure that enough employees were trained rescue workers and that safety equipment such as breathing apparatus was working. Worryingly, he claimed at his tribunal that this was “accepted practice” at the site and that he was unaware of the safety requirements he had broken.
In 2014, there was an underground collapse in the mine, but fortunately no one was hurt. In 2015, some 220 redundancies were announced and 140 contractors’ posts were abolished. In February 2016, a miner tragically took his own life in the mine. In April, an underground fire at the mine hospitalised seven employees. In June, a popular employee who was well respected by colleagues and managers, John “Richie” Anderson, was killed in a gas blow-out on the site. In August, a further 140 redundancies were announced, with more planned, and a contractor on the site was airlifted to hospital after suffering life-changing burns following an electrocution. In December, a mine tunnel flooded, although thankfully no one was injured.
The mining industry is difficult and dangerous, as the miners at Boulby know only too well. As these examples show, the mine’s safety record is not an unblemished one, and the nature of the mine—the second deepest in Europe—makes it a difficult place to work and manage. It will continue to be difficult. Everyone—the workers, their families, ICL and myself—wants the mine to be prosperous and to succeed, but there are actions that must be taken on these safety issues by both ICL and the Government in order for that to happen.
In one particular case, fire broke out underground. I cannot go into detail, because legal action is taking place, but the men involved escaped with their lives only due to their own actions. There was no health and safety process in place. Many of the men had written their wills because they believed that they would not leave that mine. At some point, I would like to go into more detail about that case. I cannot do so now because of the legal action that is pending, but I wanted to put this on the record.
Workers at the mine must ultimately have confidence in the safety procedures that are in place, and they should be able to have a say when they have concerns. ICL must have a closer working relationship with the unions that represent workers at the plant, especially in relation to safety at the site. Giving the unions input into the process will build confidence in procedures and give workers a better opportunity to voice any concerns.
There are also questions that the Government and, in particular, the Health and Safety Executive must do more to answer. How have the recent redundancies affected safety at the mine? I understand that work patterns have been altered and lengthened to compensate for the redundancies, and the Health and Safety Executive accepts that longer shift patterns increase the risk of errors, accidents and injuries. I am also concerned that some of the workers injured in these incidents have returned to work before they are fully recovered due to the inadequate sick pay they receive while off work, thus potentially increasing the risk of further accidents. Furthermore, the Government need to revisit the funding that they give to the HSE, especially in relation to COMAH—control of major accident hazards—site workplaces. However, even if those steps are taken and safety at the site is improved, more needs to be done to ensure the future of ICL and the good jobs that it provides.
The main threat to the future of the mine is the falling potash price. It has roughly halved since 2012, although prices stabilised and recovered slightly from the end of 2016. ICL has taken action in response to the change in prices, slowing potash extraction and turning to the innovative product polyhalite and other minerals vital to fertilisers. ICL is competing with other producers of potash around Europe and the world. Some, such as Russia and Belarus, are not concerned about fair trade and have sought to undercut the world market. Others, such as China, use their power to force prices down.
As with so many British industries competing in a globalised world, the UK potash industry’s future will depend on our post-Brexit trade arrangements. I have said before in this House that although I welcome the Government’s commitment to free trade, I am concerned that their desire to remove trade defence measures post-Brexit will leave our industries exposed not to free competition—which all industries understand is a reality of a globalised world—but to unfair dumping and market manipulation. We have seen that the Government are unwilling to stand up to China on steel dumping and that they seem willing for industries to pay the price for any trade deals post-Brexit. I hope that they will consider the miners of East Cleveland and ensure that any new post-Brexit trade deals provide the ICL Boulby potash mine with a level playing field on which to compete.
As well as the supply of potash, polyhalite, and the rock salt used to grit our roads, the mine is important for several cutting-edge research projects via the Boulby Underground Laboratory. The mine is 1200 metres deep, meaning that it is among only a handful of locations that offer the opportunity to conduct ultra-low background and deep underground projects, including experiments relating to dark matter and radioactive substances. As well as contributing to our position as world leaders in science research, that could have applications in the defence and environmental industries. Indeed, given the depth of the mine and its closeness to Hartlepool nuclear power station, the site has potential to be used for a joint American-British defence project on the monitoring of nuclear proliferation and potentially threatening states.
The ICL Boulby potash mine is not just the only remaining part of East Cleveland’s proud mining tradition, but a business that provides well-paid jobs to my constituents. However, it has challenges, most obviously and urgently around safety. The loss of John “Richie” Anderson and the hospitalisation of other workers in the mine demand further action by ICL and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that everything is being done to keep the people of East Cleveland safe. While the fall in the pound has no doubt helped potash exports, Brexit also poses challenges, not least because it has the potential to increase the mine’s exposure to unfair international competition. There are opportunities in linking the mine’s future to a sector plan for the agriculture sector as part of an industrial strategy, strengthening protections against unfair trade post-Brexit, and potentially improving market conditions. I hope that the Government will do everything they can to help my constituents, whose communities are so linked to the future of Boulby potash mine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) on securing this debate on such an important matter and on his work, which I read as part of my preparation for this debate, over several years to draw attention to some of the issues that he has raised tonight, notably the worrying health and safety record of the Boulby mine over recent years. I will return to health and safety later on.
The Government recognise the importance of the potash industry to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and to the wider region. It is inextricably woven in the industrial fabric of the north-east but, as he said, the Boulby mine has faced difficult market conditions in recent years. Revenues and profits in the industry have been hit by low global potash prices, mostly as a result of greater competition in the global market, but some of that competition has not been what we would call free and fair. According to analysis by the market experts, IBISWorld, exports currently form more than a quarter of the industry’s revenue, so UK miners are exposed to global price volatility. The situation has been exacerbated by over-supply, which is unlikely to go away in the short term.
The job losses at the mine since 2014 have clearly come as a major blow to the employees concerned, their families and the communities in which they live. The rapid response service has delivered a number of redundancy briefing sessions to Boulby employees to help get workers back into employment as quickly as possible. In addition, the National Careers Service delivered support with CV writing, digital job searching, interviewing skills, and one-to-one appointments for rapid response funding applications.
However, with the production of polyhalite emerging as a key product of the UK industry, output from the UK is expected to expand in the next five years. I am pleased that ICL, which operates the Boulby mine, is now planning over the next five years and beyond to expand its output of polyhalite—a naturally occurring and highly sought after form of potash seen as a superior fertiliser. I understand that Boulby and the areas to the south have a near monopoly on this mineral resource, and I hope that that will be a great advantage for the area in the coming years. In fact, polyhalite is expected to overtake potash as the key product of the industry after 2018, and I hope ICL’s long-term commitment will result in a brighter long-term future for the mine and its employees.
Tom Blenkinsop
The Minister is correct that the industry is looking at polyhalite overtaking potash as the main product to sell to the market. Polyhalite is an incredibly hard material and is much more difficult than potash to mine. Extra help to market the product is therefore needed as the industry adapts to it. Has the Minister taken on board my comments about how polyhalite can be incorporated into the industrial strategy and marketed as an industrial product to the world’s agricultural producers?
Margot James
I certainly have taken that point on board. I appreciate that polyhalite is mined only from a layer of rock more than 1,000 metres below the North sea, below the potash seam at the Boulby mine, making it very much more difficult to access. I would welcome the industry’s contribution to discussions on how the industrial strategy that we are developing with the north-east in mind could benefit this emerging sector. It is a challenger sector and very much deserving of our attention as we roll out the industrial strategy.
I have quite a lot of information, so I will be selective. I was shocked by what I read about the health and safety concerns. I have spoken to the Health and Safety Executive, and we have a representative among the officials in the Box this evening who has travelled down from Bootle for this debate.
The Government take health and safety at work very seriously and fully support the HSE’s efforts to ensure that Great Britain remains one of the safest places to work in the world. There have been six significant incidents at the mine in the last two years—although, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is a longer record of safety concerns—resulting in the fatality he mentioned, three serious injuries and 14 workers being placed in potentially life-threatening situations. The HSE has found inadequate risk assessments, poor procedures and a failure to implement procedures designed to tackle the root causes of the problems.
I take this opportunity to express my heartfelt condolences to the family of Mr John Anderson, who was tragically killed while working at the mine on 17 June 2016, and to the other workers who have been injured or distressed as a result of accidents or incidents at the mine in recent years. All the incidents have been, and some are still being, thoroughly investigated by the HSE’s mines inspectors, whom I know the hon. Gentleman has met, and the HSE has called on additional specialist input, such as on human factors, where necessary. I assure the miners that the appropriate action either has been taken or will be taken. Should the HSE’s current investigations provide evidence of the management’s actions falling short of legally required standards, the HSE will not hesitate to prosecute ICL. Indeed, I believe that the HSE is preparing to launch prosecutions relating to the trapping incidents in April 2015—that is one example.
The HSE and the industry will continue to work together to improve safety performance. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of trade unions, which I understand have been very constructive and very dedicated to improving safety standards, and they will be a vital partner in that process.
Tom Blenkinsop
We cannot go into detail on the cases because they need to be taken through the official legal channels before we can speak about them in any way. My main concern is that, due to the pending legal action, the sick pay period ran out for the miners involved in these cases and they felt forced to go back to work in order to have an income. My worry is that some of those miners may have been in a state of post-traumatic stress, placing other workers in potential jeopardy, but had to go back to work because they are the breadwinner for their family. Will the Government review the legislation to ensure that, pending the legal action, workers in such workplaces can seek sick pay for an elongated period?
Margot James
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable request. I cannot give him a direct answer from the Dispatch Box, but I am certainly prepared to take that request back to the Department and ask officials to review the matter. I shall write to inform him of any progress I am able to make on that issue. He describes a bad situation being made worse, potentially putting others at risk; that seems to be something we ought to review.
The health and safety law that covers underground mining was brought up to date by the Mines Regulations 2014. All the previous relevant law, some of it 60 years old and drawing from even earlier requirements, was modernised and replaced without reducing any necessary protections. That was no small task, and would not have happened without the co-operation of the industry and, as I just mentioned, the unions representing Boulby’s workers. The law is now more straightforward and, together with the associated guidance, which was also modernised, duty holders should be aware of and understand what is expected of them when it comes to operating a safe mine.
The new law places clear duties on mine operators to ensure that sufficient and effective systems for the management and control of risks are in place and being followed. We now have a single set of regulations to cover the major hazards associated with underground mining, including ground control, shafts, winding equipment and operations, inrushes, and fire and explosion, as well as effective arrangements for escape and rescue if controls fail. Those hazards are far from new, and they are well understood by the underground mining industry. As such, it is unacceptable that some standards have not been applied consistently in the management of the Boulby mine. The Government and the HSE will work together to ensure that duty holders recognise the potential for those hazards causing major harm and that they control the associated risks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the underground fire. I understand that improvement notices were served on Cleveland Potash Ltd, after which improvements to underground safe havens and improved communications facilities and water availability have now been put in place.
The HSE has an intervention plan for every underground mine in Great Britain, and each reflects the specific inherent hazards and the mine’s previous health and safety performance. The Boulby plans for 2016-17 and 2017-18 reflect the outcomes of the investigations into the recent incidents. HSE inspectors will base their regulatory interventions and their oversight of the mine’s health and safety performance on those plans, which I know that the hon. Gentleman has discussed with the HSE.
I have probably said all that I can about the health and safety aspects of running this mine. As I have told the hon. Gentleman, I have talked to the HSE about the issues that he has raised, and also about my concerns when I read the individual case notes of some of the people who have had terrible injuries and who have been in fear of their lives. It was clear to me from reading those notes that several of the incidents could have been avoided, and certainly could have been reduced in their effect had proper and robust safety procedures been observed and implemented at all times.
I was encouraged by the response that I received from the HSE with regard to new management at the mine as it has a far more robust outlook and is well informed by the HSE, the trade unions and the hon. Gentleman himself. I think that we can be optimistic that the future of Boulby mine, both economically and, even more importantly, from a safety perspective, will be brighter. We must get everything right for the even more risky accessing of the new mineral source, which has so much to offer his constituents and the mining community that is so important to his part of the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2017.
I apologise at the outset for the rather dull nature of today’s debate. I generally do dull quite well all on my own, but today I will not even have to try very hard.
The draft order will make minor technical changes to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which remains in place and which continues to set out the overall framework and maximum amounts that can be charged for immigration and nationality functions, as agreed by Parliament last year. The draft order does not itself set fees; those are set by regulations that are updated annually. The regulations for the 2017-18 fees are due to be laid before Parliament in March.
The technical changes made by the draft order include express provision for the Secretary of State to charge for an approval letter in respect of applications for entry clearance to the Isle of Man as a tier 1—exceptional talent—migrant, and amendments to bring fees for entry clearance to the Channel Islands within the scope of the 2016 order. This change is being made following the extension of provision in the Immigration Act 2014 to those jurisdictions by way of Orders in Council, the effect of which is to enable the Secretary of State to set fees in relation to them. It will ensure that the scope of the charges set under the 2014 Act for above-basic Border Force officer services, such as attendance at premium airport lounges or port-owned fast-track services, is broadened to meet future demands, for example to cover above-basic services provided at sea.
The draft order will also permit a charge to be set for providing information, in addition to the current services, which involve providing advice, training and assistance. We consider that that change will better reflect the nature of the information and services provided. It will not affect the Home Office’s basic status checking services, for example those provided to employers or landlords in the United Kingdom, which will continue to be provided free of charge; the in-country service, for example calls to employers’ or landlords’ helplines or the nationality helpline, which will continue to be charged at local rates; or the availability of information for sponsors and educators. The services provided in this category, in respect of which the draft order makes provision, relate to the international service only. Customers using these services are able to access more detailed information than that relating to the basic operation of the service, which is available online. There is a standard free-to-use service available on the gov.uk website in all cases.
We are also changing the way in which the fees for certain information and advice are structured, adding scope for a fixed fee in addition to the per-minute fee currently provided for in the 2016 order. This is to accommodate likely changes to the overseas contact centre services, where a new service provider, which will assume responsibility for the service in May 2017, may offer and charge for web-chat and email services in the future. The proposed maximum amount that can be charged for these new services is based on the per-minute rate set out in the 2016 order. There are no plans to increase the per-minute fee charged for accessing telephone services overseas under the new contractual arrangements.
Finally, the draft order will also update the description of an electronic visa waiver so that it accurately matches the process and policy intent, as set out in the immigration rules. This service enables visitors from Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to travel to the UK without a visa.
I emphasise that we do not seek to change the overarching framework for immigration and nationality fees or the maximum fee levels that were agreed by Parliament and set out in the 2016 order. As I mentioned, the immigration fees regulations, which are due to be laid in Parliament in mid-March and will come into force in April, will remain completely within the parameters agreed by Parliament and in line with the impact assessment published with the 2016 order.
It is important that we strike a balance between the economic interests of the UK and the need to maintain a sound immigration system. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be reassured that the Government will ensure that fees for immigration and nationality services enable the UK to retain its position as an attractive destination for work, study and visits. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
In contrast to the Minister, who seems to be satisfied with dull and boring, I aim to spice up your life. In that vein, just to be controversial, I will say that there seems to be an irony in the fact that we can so easily discuss this order affecting the Channel Islands but we were unable to extend the same attention to tax evasion involving those very same islands in the Criminal Finances Bill that is passing through Parliament. However, the Opposition are by no means opposed to the measures.
The amendment to the 2016 order and the extension of measures to the Channel Islands are both sensible and proportionate. We particularly welcome the setting of a maximum fee. The cost to individuals and families has become extortionate. Although we recognise the need for fees, we must also acknowledge that anecdotal evidence has shown that we are losing students and tourists, particularly to other European countries. Those groups would contribute massively to our economy and it must be argued that their loss is owing to the level of fees and the complexity of the visa system. Nevertheless, we will not oppose the order today.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Business Impact Target (Relevant Regulators) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Business Impact Target (Relevant Regulators) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to support regulatory bodies in the UK to create a healthier business environment by making regulation more proportionate, transparent and accountable. The Government are committed to ensuring that regulation supports growth and does all that it can to unlock productivity in the UK. Better regulation is central to the Government’s desire to make the UK the best place in the world to start and to grow a business. It is a key part of their commitment to driving economic growth and boosting productivity.
During the last Parliament, the Government made significant progress through programmes such as one-in, two-out and the red tape challenge, which were instrumental in delivering savings of £10 billion to business over the lifetime of the last Parliament. Those programmes encouraged a cultural shift in Government Departments towards more proportionate and smarter regulation. That approach was formalised through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which provides a transparent framework for assessing, managing and reporting on new regulatory impacts to business—known as the business impact target.
Regulatory functions carried out by, or on behalf of, UK Ministers are already covered by the business impact target. Under the Enterprise Act 2016, we extended the target’s ambition through the power to include the activities of a range of other regulators that are legally separate entities to Ministers. The regulations, which list such regulators, will support us in achieving a further £10 billion of deregulatory benefit for UK businesses during this Parliament.
The extension of the business impact target will support a positive shift in how regulation is delivered. It will help to reduce the regulatory burdens that hold businesses back and that prevent them from getting on and doing the business. The result will be another significant step towards ensuring that regulation supports growth and that Britain is the best place in the world to start and to grow a business.
The regulations specify the individual regulators that will be brought within the scope of the business impact target. The regulators listed will be required to assess the economic impact on business of changes to their regulatory policies and practices that come into force or cease to have effect during the Parliament. The assessments must be verified by the Regulatory Policy Committee and the savings or burdens that are imposed on business incorporated into the Government’s annual report, outlining their performance against the target.
The rationale for that is clear: businesses consistently tell the Government that the actions of regulators are as important as the content of legislation in determining their experience of regulation. The cost to business of regulatory activities should therefore be actively assessed and transparently reported, and the regulations deliver that. When impacts on business are imposed by changes in regulatory activities, those should be transparent. In addition, businesses should have confidence in Government estimates of that impact.
The changes do not in any way undermine the core purpose of regulators, which provide vital protections and help to ensure that markets function effectively. Regulation has important economic, social and environmental goals. For those reasons, regulation should be proportionate and at the minimum cost to business necessary to achieve the outcome required. Including further regulators in the business impact target will help regulators to make the move to smarter regulation that delivers outcomes with the minimum overhead. That will be good for British business and will contribute to a more consistent regulatory process.
The Government consulted between 11 February and 17 March 2016 on the proposed list of regulators to be brought within the scope of the business impact target. We received responses from a range of stakeholders, including businesses, regulators, trade associations and other organisations. The majority of respondents were supportive of the proposal to bring the regulators specified in the consultation within the scope of the business impact target. One respondent stated that the business impact target would result in regulators
“having to design their services, policies and procedures in a way that suits the needs of business”.
Respondents did not suggest any further regulators be brought within the scope, while a handful of regulators questioned their own inclusion. We have reviewed those responses and are satisfied that it is appropriate to bring the regulators listed in the instrument within scope of the business impact target. We have also paid close attention to issues raised around proportionality, and the Government have been working collaboratively with a wide range of regulators to design a process for implementation that minimises burdens on regulators.
The business impact target plays a central role in the Government’s agenda to improve UK regulation. It supports a positive shift in the way regulation is delivered by reducing the regulatory burdens that hold businesses back and prevent them from getting on with business. The measures are an important step towards creating a healthier business environment by making regulation more proportionate, transparent and accountable. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I have not done so before, and I look forward to it. The Minister has very briefly set out the Government case for the regulations, and I will raise a series of concerns and challenges, to which I would like her to respond.
The Minister went over the Government’s one-in, two-out approach in the last Parliament, yet here we are, adding regulation to the regulators. At first glance, it looks like more regulation, not less. A long list of regulators that will see additional claims on their time and effort is included in the regulations. The Government’s claims to want to see less regulation do not always stand up to challenge, but that is not the main point. We have debated the impact of quarterly reporting before, and I am sure we will debate it again. Time, bureaucracy and cost are associated with the requirement for businesses to report their tax affairs every three months. The Federation of Small Businesses estimates that the proposal will create £2,600 a year of extra cost. We have extra regulation and extra costs to business from a Government who say they want less.
I turn to the matter at hand. A number of concerns emerged in going through the regulations. The challenge is to balance properly the short-term requirement on regulators to reduce the amount of work they are doing with the long-term impact. Has that long-term impact been measured? Has the impact assessment adequately looked at what some of the challenges, concerns and impacts may be, especially when we are talking about public safety and health? A number of the regulators concerned, including the Care Quality Commission, the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water and the Food Standards Agency, cover one if not both of those areas. Those are three examples; I could mention many more where public safety and health are paramount.
The concern must be that, in the Government asking or requiring regulators to reduce their impact on business, corners are not cut and that public health and safety are not put at risk. Can the Minister answer this simple question: what is the mechanism to avoid an increase in risk in any of the agencies referred to in the schedule and the papers in front of us? The Financial Conduct Authority is included in the regulations, and we are all acutely aware of the important lessons of the financial crash. What is the mechanism for ensuring that the reduction in the requirements on the FCA will not lead to additional problems in the financial sector, such as the crash from which some would argue we are yet to recover? That is a great concern, and that was expressed in the consultation. The point about caution and the analysis made by a range of these agencies needs a detailed answer from the Minister. I am sure that she will have that answer by the time I have finished.
I move on to the wider financial elements of the regulations. It is apparent that savings can be quickly made by reducing the activities of the regulators, but will those savings lead to longer-term costs? What work have the Government done to ensure that cost concerns and economic concerns, as well as concerns about health and safety, are being considered for the longer term? What would be the point of making short-term savings? The Minister and her colleagues in her Department and across Government are rightly committed to long-term growth, and they are happily now committed to an important industrial strategy, which was not the case with some of her predecessors. How can we be sure that the reductions in regulation will not lead to longer-term cost?
I will give an example that was raised in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). She talked about the challenges of getting environmental regulation right. She quoted evidence that suggested that the benefits of environmental regulation—some of which can be quantified straightaway and some of which take longer—cover the costs three times over. The implication of that analysis is that, if environmental regulation is reduced, costs increase in the long term. How will increased costs to the economy and to business be avoided by reducing regulation, whether that is for the environment or the range of other areas covered by the organisations listed in the schedule?
If the Minister could answer those questions, I would be extremely grateful. I am sure it is not the Government’s intention to lose out in the long run just to make a short-term gain and to get some headlines on reducing red tape. We on the Opposition Benches fully support the need to reduce big business regulation, to improve conditions for business, to make the economy more vibrant and to create fair markets. If changes to regulation can help to achieve those objectives, that is absolutely the right way to go, but if they reduce the potential for a stronger economy in the long run, that cannot be right.
It came up during the consultation that a request from business is absent from the draft regulations. Tax accounts for a large amount of regulation that causes huge cost to business and which businesses object to massively, so why are HMRC and other bodies responsible for tax not covered by the regulations? That would be an obvious place to start and an obvious way to reduce regulation, bearing in mind the absolute purpose of reducing the cost to business. I am curious to hear the Minister’s answer to that question, which was raised in the consultation, and I look forward to her other answers. Perhaps I will pursue certain issues further through interventions as she responds.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ryan. I have a few questions for the Minister. In the context of regulatory change, are charities distinguished from small businesses? If not, why not? Are regulations being scrapped to create this one? If so, what specific regulations are being scrapped and can she provide an impact assessment for each of them? On the scrapping and replacing of regulations, will that have a behavioural impact on business? I am puzzled—the Minister has provided an overview of the regulators listed in the schedule, so can she provide information on how the change will impact on different bodies? Specifically, how would the Gambling Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have to operate under the regulations?
I hope that we are not in danger of conflating smaller and smarter regulation with deregulation. That is a bit of a worry. The Scottish National party would not want to see a tax-haven style economy, which is completely incompatible with a welfare state. The removal of regulation could open the door to manipulation, so I would like an answer to that point today. Finally, has any consideration been given to how Brexit will affect the regulations?
Margot James
I will start by clarifying the purpose of the regulations, in response to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. The measures do not direct regulatory bodies to reduce regulation. They are about bringing them into the scope of the Enterprise Act such that the regulators listed will be required to assess the economic impact on business of their activities that qualify against the target. That assessment will be verified by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee, so there are safeguards in place. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
On the questions asked by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central, we agree that we are not after more regulation with these provisions. This sensitive approach to regulators brings them into scope such that they have to assess the economic impact of the regulations for which they are responsible. It is not a directive to the regulatory bodies to reduce regulation. Our concern in respect of regulators is that the regulations are designed to ensure that business benefits from reduced costs in complying with regulations. That does not mean they might receive less regulation, but we want them to be given every opportunity for reduced cost in compliance with regulations, so there is greater emphasis on reporting and transparency among the regulators that have been brought into scope through the regulations.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, tax is exempt from the target and therefore exempt from the regulations. I reassure him that HMRC is subject to a separate target of reduced regulation as regards the tax regime. Its target is that it should reduce the impact of tax regulations by £400 million by 2020. So it is subject to a reduced regulatory target, but that is not part of the business impact target—there is a separate target for which it will be held to account.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but it baffles me. At the start of my remarks, I mentioned quarterly reporting and the estimate by the Federation of Small Businesses of the average cost—£2,600 a year—to businesses. If HMRC is increasing costs to millions of businesses across the country in that way, it really is going to struggle to hit that target—unless she can tell me something I have completely missed.
Margot James
It is always difficult when one is talking about a measure that is currently under discussion. The requirement on businesses to report quarterly and digitally to the Revenue for their taxes will be introduced, but the exact mechanics of that proposition are still under discussion and review. The FSB, which I met to discuss the issue, accepts that this is not set in stone yet. It is, in fact, quite encouraged by the response it has received from the Treasury on the threshold below which businesses would not have to comply with the regime. I think it does accept that in the long run this new quarterly approach and the digitisation of tax returns will save business money, while it does not dispute that it will perhaps have a regulatory burden effect on some businesses in the short term. As I said, it is a bit premature to be bandying figures around when we do not know the exact shape of the new digitisation of tax and quarterly reporting requirement.
I will move on to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised about regulators such as the Food Standards Agency and others in health and safety—Public Health England and so forth. I draw his attention to the exclusions; there is a list of exemptions from what we are debating this afternoon. The exemptions include any regulations relating to civil emergencies and relevant to the delivery of large infrastructure projects. He also mentioned the FCA, and there is an exemption to any provisions relating to systemic financial risk. There is a large number of exemptions and that is how we have tried to allay concerns such as those he expressed.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful for that explanation, but who will determine what is in and out of scope? Many people will be extremely concerned about all those points but, to take the FCA as an example, who will make the determination? How will we know in advance whether something will contribute to a future financial problem or indeed a crisis? Is there not a danger it will be too late? What is the mechanism for avoiding that happening?
Margot James
Each regulator has to provide an assessment of where it sees the impact of its regulatory activity being. That is then assessed by the Regulatory Policy Committee and, ultimately, Parliament can hold Ministers to account. The scope is designed to ensure that agencies ensure that the impact of their regulations is fully transparent. The environmental regulation impacts are included in that.
I am confident that savings are not going to lead to additional long-term costs. We are not necessarily reducing regulation. The measure is about minimising the cost to business to achieve the outcome that the regulations require.
I thank Members for their comments in Committee. The business impact target plays a central role in the Government’s agenda to improve the quality of regulation in the UK. Businesses tell us that the actions of regulators are as important as the content of legislation in determining their experience of regulation. The draft regulations will provide greater clarity and transparency for business about the impacts of the regulatory activities of Government and independent regulators. They will do so without undermining the core purpose of those regulators, and they will help to deliver smarter regulation, creating a healthier business environment, which will be good for British business.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017.
These regulations were laid before both Houses on 12 January. They provide the details of a new benefit—bereavement support payment—that was first considered by this House as part of the Pensions Act 2014. Bereavement support payment will replace bereavement allowance, widowed parent’s allowance and the bereavement payment for those who lose a spouse or civil partner on or after 6 April 2017. The regulations set out the amounts to be paid, the duration of payments, payments for those who are prisoners, and the territories in which a person must reside in order to receive the new benefit. I am satisfied that this instrument is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
Losing a spouse or civil partner is a tragic occurrence; bereavement benefits provide important financial support during this deeply distressing time in a person’s life. Previous reforms have tended to be limited and in response to specific pressures. No one had really considered how this support fits in with the wider changes to the benefits system and, indeed, to the social landscape as a whole. Consequently, the current benefits are out of date, difficult to administer and hard to understand. Reform is essential to simplify and modernise the system.
The history of bereavement benefits is rooted in the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925—a time when most women were wholly dependent on their husband’s income. Then, if a woman was widowed, her sole source of income would disappear completely, so it was considered necessary to provide a replacement for that income in order for her to survive. Thankfully, that is no longer the case. Women as well as men are active participants in today’s workforce, and many households are now made up of and benefit from dual careers and dual incomes.
Where the loss of a spouse equates to the loss of the sole breadwinner, income-related benefits are available to make sure that nobody is left without sufficient money to live on. The bereavement support payment is designed to be significantly simpler than current bereavement benefits, with a uniform payment structure and a single contribution condition. The aim is to provide targeted financial support when it is needed most, without affecting access to additional forms of support available through other parts of the welfare system.
The reform of bereavement benefits has been welcomed by both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Select Committee on Work and Pensions; the latter heralded many of the changes as long overdue. In addition to the scrutiny provided by those two bodies, the bereavement support payment was also the subject of a public consultation exercise that was launched in 2011. Responses to the consultation played a major part in the design of the bereavement support payment, including the carefully considered decision to structure the payments as a series of instalments as opposed to a single lump sum, and the decision that the bereavement support payment will not be subject to income tax. The evidence from our public consultation exercise found that the financial impact of spousal bereavement is particularly acute in the early months. The bereavement support payment will therefore provide a significant cash lump sum for people when they need it most. It will be a single payment followed by 18 monthly instalments.
Recognising that those with children need greater support, a higher rate will be paid to those who are pregnant or who have dependent children when they are bereaved. The duration of the payments is not intended to equate to the period of an individual’s grief; nor is it intended to provide ongoing income replacement. The fundamental design principle of the new benefit is that, as a short-term payment, it aims to address the additional costs of bereavement, rather than contribute to everyday living costs.
As the bereavement support payment is clearly distinct from income replacement benefits, we will disregard the payments for the purposes of universal credit and legacy benefits, as well as discount them from the calculations that count towards the benefit cap. This will clearly benefit the least well-off, as they will for the first time be able to receive payments of bereavement benefit in full, alongside any other benefit entitlements. Let me be clear that this reform is not about saving money; it is aimed at providing targeted financial support when it is most needed. Analysis shows that, overall, over half of new recipients will be better off after the reforms.
Looking at the welfare system as a whole, I believe that the best way to provide meaningful support to those who have been bereaved is through a shorter-term payment of bereavement benefit, combined with longer-term means-tested benefits if needed. As I have already stated, losing a spouse or civil partner is a tragic occurrence, the effects of which are likely to be felt for many years after the event. We need to keep in mind that the support we provide should be more than just help towards the initial costs; we also have a responsibility to help the bereaved to adjust to their change in situation.
For those who are not in work or who have given up working in order to care for a terminally ill spouse, part of the process of adjustment is making plans to return to the workplace. It is well known that prolonged periods away from the labour market can have a negative effect on a person’s financial, emotional and psychological wellbeing. Growing up in a workless household is known to have a detrimental impact on children, affecting everything from socialisation to educational attainment. This responsibility needs to be balanced with the need for the surviving parent to be able to spend time with their children to help them to process their grief.
In keeping with current bereavement benefits, the bereavement support payment has no work-related requirements attached. Universal credit claimants who are bereaved are exempted from work search requirements for six months. After that period has passed, we will take a flexible approach to conditionality, allowing it to be tailored to the individual. This progressive reform to bereavement support is an important aspect of the system; by providing greater flexibility and tailoring conditionality in this way, we are seeking to make it far more sympathetic to people who have suffered a tragic loss.
The bereavement support payment should not be seen as just the latest in a list of reforms to bereavement benefits. It is a brand-new approach to helping those who have been bereaved. First and foremost, it is about providing fast and direct financial help in the crucial months following the loss of a spouse. Secondly, it is about helping widows and widowers to rejoin the labour market and providing them with the right level of support to make that a reality. It is a new approach with the interests of the bereaved, of families and of children at heart. With that in mind, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. As the Minister said, the draft regulations will enact provisions in the Pensions Act 2014 introducing a new single payment to replace bereavement payment, bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance for those whose spouse or civil partner dies on or after 6 April this year. There is tremendous merit in simplifying the approach. The Government argue that they are acting with the benevolent intention of modernising the provisions and increasing simplicity for those who are bereaved and seeking support. It must therefore be merely a matter of chance that the measures proposed in the regulations make a significant saving for the Government of approximately £100 million a year. I hope that the Minister and the Chancellor have recovered from their shock at that substantial bonus for the Exchequer.
Despite the Government’s warm words, this is a further austerity measure that is to the detriment of grieving families. We have serious concerns about the proposals. Although we recognise the need for simplicity and change, we do not support these reforms, and we have committed to reversing them under the next Government as the first step towards a wider review of support for the bereaved. Our direct concerns include questions about the shortened timetable; the impact of universal credit conditionality after the initial six-month grace period; the bizarre decision not to uprate support in line with inflation; and, finally, cohabiting couples. Let me deal with each concern in turn, beginning with the shortened timetable.
Under the current system, widowed parent’s allowance is paid to a bereaved parent until their youngest child leaves full-time education. The thorough and helpful analysis provided to hon. Members by the Childhood Bereavement Network has found that the median claim made was for between five and six years’ support. There is clear logic and an evidential basis for providing social security support to bereaved families while children are growing up: given the emotional distress that they will have to process, the child should be protected as well as possible from the financial implications of the tragic event of a parent’s death. Evidence suggests that there is a late effect of bereavement, with some children showing new and greater difficulties two or three years after the death of a parent. Indeed, the same study, which analyses the most robust longitudinal survey available, found that the availability of the consistent, nurturing presence of the surviving parent was one of the strongest predictors of bereaved children’s emotional health and behaviour.
The regulations have the potential to compound the grief that children go through, as well as that of the surviving parent. Let us face it: parenting is hard enough at the best of times. I can only imagine what it is like for people who are left behind, particularly with children, never mind putting financial pressure on top of all that. In 2015, the current support helped 40,000 children who had lost a parent; it is estimated that the regulations reduce the average award by £17,000. Is that really what the Government and the Prime Minister mean when they talk about helping hard-pressed families?
The Government originally planned to provide only 12 months’ support, but increased that to 18 months’ eligibility at the behest of the Work and Pensions Committee. That is welcome, but we question the basis for drawing the line at 18 months—a much shorter time than is currently provided for. Would it not be better for the length of support to remain the same, to ensure the best possible outcome for the child in this tragic and distressing situation? That would seem a sensible way of using the savings that the Government are making, given that they argue that this is not an austerity measure.
The Government have so far ignored our calls to scrap these cuts, preferring to pocket the £100 million that they happen to be saving from this measure. Perhaps the Minister would at least consider adjusting the Government’s actuarial assumptions and extending the period of eligibility for support, but paying it at a slightly lower amount.
On the interaction with universal credit, the Government have argued, and the Minister has said, that bereavement support is not an income replacement but a lump sum, followed by monthly instalments, to address the additional costs of bereavement. This appears to be a very murky distinction. I would like to see the Minister try to draw us a diagram—a Venn, perhaps. Nevertheless, this justification allows the Government to point to universal credit as a mechanism that kicks in to support bereaved families following the now much shorter period of social security provision. The Government have agreed to exempt the bereaved from work search requirements for six months in the light of their circumstances, and to take what they regard as a “flexible” approach to conditionality thereafter. In practice, as I understand it, this flexibility means that claimants can request an additional month every six months for the two following years.
We do not believe that obliging parents to return to work six months after a bereavement is in the best interests of the parent or the bereaved child. If the Government accept that the risk of serious distress remains high for up to two years more, why place bereaved families under the pressure of continuously having to prove themselves? This is a further example of the original policy taking a more compassionate approach. Most bereaved partners retain work, or return to or enter it after 18 months. If the Government press ahead, surely a more pragmatic compromise would be to exempt bereaved families from conditionality for that period, and not just for six months as is proposed. Given the evidence, will the Minister not just scrap this policy now, or at the very least commit to looking again at the period of initial exemption from universal credit, and consider an extended exemption?
On uprating, it was confirmed in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock that the Government do not believe that the bereavement support payment should be uprated in line with inflation. The Minister in the other place suggested that as, in the Government’s view, this is a grant payment rather than a social security entitlement, there was no precedent for uprating the amount paid in line with inflation. At first glance, this seems odd from the Government. Usually, social security rises in line with inflation to ensure that vulnerable groups and those on the lowest incomes do not find themselves ever worse off as time goes by. Surely no one in this House wishes to see support for those suffering grief become insufficient, so why will the Minister not agree to meet the relatively small additional cost of uprating?
Finally, I turn to the point regarding cohabiting couples—another unfairness that bereaved partners have raised with MPs—which was also debated in the other place. Under these regulations, the children of couples who are married will be eligible for support, whereas those whose parents cohabit will not. Estimates by the Childhood Bereavement Network suggest that this could leave as many as 2,000 families ineligible for support. That seems a very archaic distinction and grossly unfair. It penalises bereaved families for their decision not to get married. For decades, the principle that children should not be disadvantaged by the choices of their parents has played a central role in Government policy making, and contributed to our society’s sense of fairness and social justice.
Here, yet again, we see the Government cast that principle aside in favour of an arbitrary value judgment. I cannot see any justification for why a bereaved parent who lived with a now-deceased parent should not receive the same entitlement as he or she would have had the two been married. Indeed, the Department for Work and Pensions family test includes cohabiting couples within its definition, which has prompted the Social Security Advisory Combmittee to call BSP “incompatible” with the Department’s own framework. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.
The armed forces pension scheme successfully uses a definition of “eligible partner” for entitlement to pensions, while tax credits and means-testing can account for cohabiting couple claims. It does not, therefore, seem beyond the administrative capability of the Government to include families with cohabiting parents within eligibility for bereavement support. Doing so under the BSP system being introduced in April would cost about £21.6 million a year—a fraction of the saving being delivered to the Treasury. Labour has committed to reviewing how cohabiting couples can be included in support for the bereaved. Will the Government start by ensuring that they are included here?
In conclusion, Labour Members believe that the reforms only serve to worsen the position of those suffering bereavement, for the many reasons I have outlined. If the Government do not want to accept what I say, perhaps they will accept the words of eight-year-old Sam, who wrote to his MP:
“I am writing to inform you that reducing the money of the widowed will cause panic and worry. The Widowed Persons Allowance is paid for by the person who has died.”
Sam goes on to say that he still feels flooded with sadness, four years after his father’s death, and describes how the WPA enabled his mother to get back to working as a teacher after two and a half years—something that would not have happened under the proposed new scheme. He says:
“WPA means that mum can still do my drop offs and pick ups at school. She can talk to my teacher if I am feeling sad or poorly.”
Out of the mouths of babes, Mr Hanson.
Those failures must be resolved by the Government if we are to provide a strong social security system for those suffering the intense financial and emotional distress of bereavement. If there is no action now, Labour will commit to scrapping the measures as a first step towards a review providing justice for the bereaved. I ask the Minister to consider again the issues I have raised, in the best interests of the bereaved families who need our support in facing the future.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
What a pleasure it is, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I do not intend to delay the Committee for long, but I want to comment on three main points.
I would imagine that everyone on the Committee knows a family in which there has been a bereavement. Sadly, I know quite a few, and none of their circumstances are identical; they all have their unique characteristics and needs. My first point, therefore, is that the Government’s proposal strikes me as very naive. It seems to imply that every bereavement can be caught by simple and fairly crude rules, such as a maximum payment period of 18 months. What would be much more appropriate is what currently exists: a payment that recognises aspects of the life cycle, rather than being subject to an arbitrary time limit. A payment that goes on until the youngest child leaves school recognises a particularly important stage in the life cycle, but imposing an arbitrary 18-month period does nothing. What is that supposed to mean for families in different circumstances?
The Government assume that the maximum period in some way encourages people back into employment earlier, but that fails to understand the geography of the United Kingdom. A bereaved person living in a city might well feel that they can seek work and still be there for a child returning from school, but would the Minister like to put people who live on the islands of Scotland in that situation? Will she reflect on the circumstances of a family living in Skye? An individual might have to travel —that is, motor, because there is no public transport— 40 miles or thereabouts to get employment and 40 miles back. The notion that they could easily fit that in while caring for their children, who may be attending school, is preposterous. They are in a completely different situation from those living in inner cities. It strikes me that the Government have come up with a proposal while thinking as though everybody lived in a city. They do not. The demands on people are very different.
On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North about cohabiting couples, why are the Government choosing to single out that arrangement for punishment? Where is the justice in that? What is that doing for the children while they are growing up? As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the needs of children after bereavement do not neatly fit into the first 12 or 18 months after that point. Educationally, the behavioural challenges created often come out three, four or five years later. The challenges to the family can often be difficult and more severe, and the Government’s proposal fails to meet them.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I did not intend to speak today, but I started thinking about losing my father in my mid-20s. Even though I was a grown man at the time, it took me a long period to overcome that loss.
I think of the young children who tonight may have lost a parent, and how devastating that must be for their family. Suddenly the mother or father has to provide parental care and also meet the emotional needs of that child. We debate and talk about bereavement support payments, but to the Department, it might be an accountancy exercise or a measure that will save hundreds of millions, as we have been told in Committee. Tonight we have to think before we vote. I ask Government Members to think about how they would have felt when they were 10 years of age if they came home to find that their father was not coming home, or that they would never see their mother again. These are real issues that people have to face when they are bereaved.
The Minister has said that the legislation is old and came in during a different period, when women were reliant on their fathers and partners. I agree with the Minister that thankfully that is not the case any more, but what is lacking is an understanding of what comes with bereavement. The world feels as though it is spinning at 100 miles an hour, and you just want to get off that carousel. The world has stopped. There is so much to think about. What deeply concerns me is that we are reducing the payment from 20 years to 18 months. For so many families, that will be devastating. Some 75% of widowed parents will be worse off. I always quote figures—we all do—but for those 75%, this is the most important thing in the world. When someone needs support, they need to know that financial support is there.
The Government have said that the measure is not a cost-saving exercise, but we cannot overcome the fact that £100 million a year will be saved. Politicians and parliamentarians of whatever party should support the most vulnerable in society, and there is nobody more vulnerable than somebody who has just lost a parent.
The BSP will not automatically be uprated in line with inflation. Over time, its value for families will be cut in real terms because the cost of childcare and other expenses always go up. It costs more to bury someone than it did 30 years ago. The average cost of clothes and food keep going up. We hear all the time about people who are just about managing, even though the Prime Minister has said that she does not like that phrase any more. When someone is bereaved, they are not just about managing; they are struggling to cope. I ask the Minister to look again at this policy, to look at adding to the list of benefits, to have an annual review, and to uprate the payment in line with inflation. I understand that she wants to cut the period from 20 years to 18 months, but she should ensure that the link is not broken, because so many families are depending on this.
Caroline Nokes
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. As I have already stated, the Government are absolutely committed to supporting those who have lost a spouse or civil partner; financially in the shorter term by way of these payments, and then practically, if and when it is appropriate, to return to employment.
I express my appreciation for the consideration that hon. Members have given to these regulations, in what I see as the first step to ensuring that we align bereavement support with other welfare policies. I want to respond to comments made by hon. Members and the shadow spokesman. We do not believe—nor could we—that the period of payment should be equivalent to the period of grief following spousal bereavement. We heard from several hon. Members that grief is not linear; it impacts different people in different ways and at different times.
We learned through the consultation process carried out with SSAC and the Work and Pensions Committee, as well as the wider public consultation, that grief will impact at different times in different ways. It will particularly impact on anniversaries. That is one reason we listened to the comments of the Work and Pensions Committee and chose to extend this provision from 12 months to 18 months, so that there would be no coinciding with the anniversary of the death.
It is right to put on the record that we considered providing a simple, lump sum payment at the moment of bereavement, which could be described as a death grant. However, the consultations said that was not wanted and that there should be some level of ongoing support during those critical first few months.
Bereavement support is designed to support people with the additional costs associated with bereavement, rather than to provide an income replacement. That is a really important distinction to make. Income-based benefits are more suited to provide the longer-term assistance with everyday living costs. By investing an additional £45 million, the Government are seeking to provide financial support for the acute period to facilitate the process of readjustment.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister heard the quotes I used from young Sam, who tells us that he is still hurting after four years. People can hurt with bereavement after almost a generation has passed. Surely there is some concession to be made by the Government for the likes of Sam, whose mother took two and a half years to get back to work and still needs some support to drop him off and pick him up from school.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was going to move on to refer to Sam’s comments. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have seen a copy of the letter that he sent to his MP, and there are some important reflections on that. On universal credit, it is important to note that the conditionality can be lifted or someone can be completely exempted. It is important to recognise in the arena of universal credit that we want a much more tailored relationship between individuals and their work coaches.
Alex Cunningham
Will the Minister explain how somebody can be exempted unconditionally into the future?
Caroline Nokes
By discussion with their work coach. That is simply the way we expect that to happen. People will be able to develop that relationship and ask for that exemption. That is really important, reflecting what the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Islwyn and Sam have told us: grief can strike at any time. It is not linear or necessarily over in the first 18 months, and we are not suggesting that it is.
Alex Cunningham
I have not seen anything offering guidance to work coaches. Will the Minister publish guidance to work coaches in the Library so that we can understand the advice that people are getting and how they can ensure that they get the support they require?
Caroline Nokes
We will be happy to publish that guidance when the legislation has been debated and completed.
Extending the provision of bereavement support payment to cohabitees was discussed during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014. Indeed, the eligibility criteria of a legal marriage or civil partnership with the deceased form part of that Act. The eligibility of cohabitees was therefore fixed in the primary legislation and is not a matter for these regulations, but I am happy to explain the decisions that Parliament took on eligibility in the Act. Marriage and civil partnership are legal contracts that are associated with certain rights, including inheritance and recognition in the tax system. Extending eligibility to cohabitees would not only increase spend but be complex to administer. Having to prove cohabitation at a time of bereavement could be a lengthy and complex process and might cause additional distress, which we seek to avoid.
Critics have suggested that those who choose not to formalise their relationship might be treated unfairly, since they can be treated as a couple for income-related benefits but not for contributory benefits. However, income-related benefits serve a very different purpose: the ongoing day-to-day needs of a household, irrespective of whether the relationship is formal. When assessing entitlement to income-related benefit payments, the state rightly assumes that couples have joint outgoings and share resources such as earnings or other income, whatever the legal status of their relationship. The position is different for bereavement benefits because they are contributory benefits; the founding principle of the contributory benefit system is that all rights to inheritable benefits derived from another person’s contribution are based on the concept of legal marriage or civil partnership.
Alex Cunningham
Surely if a man and a woman live together, have children together and are on the electoral register together, they are a couple for all intents and purposes. Why on earth are we penalising the child? I cannot understand why we can make the exception in some areas of benefits but not in this one.
Caroline Nokes
As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, that question was discussed and debated during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014, in which the eligibility criteria for contributory benefits are clearly set out.
Alex Cunningham
I am sorry to be such a pain to the Minister, but if the person who has died has been a contributor throughout their working time, surely his or her children are entitled to something from that contribution.
Caroline Nokes
Which indeed is a point that the hon. Gentleman could have made back in 2013 when we debated the 2014 Act. As I said, it is a long-established principle of that Act that contributory benefits are based on the concept of legal marriage or civil partnership, and this Committee cannot change that.
The draft regulations will make no changes to conditionality. Like the bereavement benefits that they replace, bereavement support payments have no work-related conditions; any obligation to participate in any work-related activity will come from claiming other benefits. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, it is well known that long periods out of work can have a negative effect on an individual’s prospect of future employment. The Government therefore think it important that people are encouraged to maintain a link with the labour market. Recipients of the bereavement support payment who also receive universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance will be able to access Jobcentre Plus on a voluntary basis from three months after bereavement and will not be subject to conditionality for a further three months. Those exemptions can apply even when there is no entitlement to bereavement support benefit. At the end of the six months, advisers will use their discretion to ensure that individuals’ capabilities and requirements are taken into account, as the hon. Member for Stockton North and I have discussed.
The hon. Gentleman raised uprating. Bereavement benefits are uprated by annual social security benefits uprating orders. The basic component—bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance—must be uprated annually at least in line with price inflation, but there is no requirement to uprate the bereavement payment, which has been frozen since 2001. Bereavement support payment is a grant paid in instalments rather than an income replacement benefit, so it is treated in a similar way to the current bereavement payment: it is reviewed annually on a discretionary basis. Section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides for the rate of bereavement support payment to be reviewed annually. Regular review would allow the value of the benefit to be increased if that is considered necessary. Any decisions on future changes will be taken as part of the annual fiscal process in the context of wider public finances.
The Government have already committed to reviewing the 2013 impact assessment. We will do so when sufficient evidence is available to assess all aspects of the policy, including its effectiveness.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Since the regulations were laid before the House in January, what consideration have the Minister and her colleagues given to developing cost-neutral proposals that could spread the payments over three years to those with dependent children? The suggestion was made by the Childhood Bereavement Network as a way to work with the grain of the Government’s proposals while allowing families to receive the benefits for a longer period.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the right hon. Lady for that suggestion. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes, and for Thornbury and Yate, who wrote to me on behalf of their constituents Heather Smith and Sarah Metcalfe to make exactly that point. I am conscious that the suggestion comes from the Childhood Bereavement Network, which has been in touch with me personally over the last few weeks.
When we considered the proposals, as I said originally, we considered making a one-off grant at the outset, but that was rejected by both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee. They suggested a period of 18 months, on which we consulted the Childhood Bereavement Network. I can see the merit in considering changing it to three years, but that would halve the monthly payments in the first 18 months. We did not think that gave families the best chance of lessening the fiscal impact of losing a spouse’s income. We considered it, but we came to the view that we should adopt the Work and Pensions Committee’s suggestion of 18 months.
Alex Cunningham
I do not know whether the Minister has acknowledged the £100 million saving, but surely it would go some way toward providing the extension to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referred.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that over the first two years of the proposed reform we will spend an additional £45 million. Any savings will be for future Governments to reinvest as they choose.
It is important to emphasise that nobody in receipt of the current bereavement benefit stands to lose out as a result of the reforms. Recipients of the current benefit will continue to receive it for the natural lifetime of their award. Furthermore, households with dependent children will receive higher payments in recognition of that fact. Analysis shows that more people stand to gain than lose from the changes, particularly the least well off, because bereavement support will be paid on top of any income-related benefits that the household receives.
As I said, we are disregarding bereavement support payment in the calculation of other benefits, which will ensure that the immediate additional costs of bereavement are met while those requiring further support will be able to obtain it from other parts of the welfare system that are better placed to provide longer-term, means-tested financial assistance. As various Members have mentioned and I have confirmed, conditionality can be tailored through the ongoing relationship with Jobcentre Plus according to a claimant’s personal circumstances.
I meant to mention Sam—apologies for not having done so. I was particularly moved by his letter and thought that he conveyed his situation both movingly and incredibly intelligently. One can only feel for a child who has lost their parent. I must emphasise that families such as his, which are currently in receipt of the benefits as they stand, will not lose. Nothing will change for them. That is an important distinction to make. As I said, it was a benefit system meant to recognise widows—women, not men—way back in the 1920s. It is important that we heed the words of the Select Committee, which said that this reform and modernisation was well overdue.
In conclusion, I reassure hon. Members that this Government have the welfare of the bereaved and their families at heart. There can be absolutely no question but that the loss of a spouse is tragic, and it is doubly so for families with children. There can be no time limit on grief for such a loss, and nor is there a pre-defined way in which grief will manifest itself, but where we can help, we will do so. We remain committed to supporting widows and widowers to adjust to their new circumstances and to providing financial help in the difficult months following their loss. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Petition
Closure of Belgrave Library and Lunch Club at Belgrave Neighbourhood Centre, Leicester
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 1 month 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
Attacks on NHS Staff
(7 years, 1 month 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
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 176138 relating to attacks on NHS medical staff.
It is a pleasure to make these introductory remarks under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The petition highlights the rising problem of attacks on NHS staff, an issue with which I am very familiar from my constituency work. Indeed, local GPs recently raised it with me in my surgery in Radlett. I pay tribute to listeners of London’s LBC radio, who backed this petition as part of the Guard our Emergency Medical Services—GEMS—campaign. Their support for the petition helped to push the number of signatures well over 100,000, which the Petitions Committee usually takes as a benchmark for triggering a debate in this place. I also thank the Royal College of Nursing and the many other representative organisations that have contacted me to highlight the scale of the problem. It is clear that the petition has struck a chord with the public and hon. Members.
The raw facts speak for themselves: there were more than 70,000 recorded assaults on NHS staff in England in 2016—an increase from nearly 68,000 in 2015 and 60,000 in 2004. In the NHS trust serving my constituency, there were more than 1,000 recorded assaults last year. A recent RCN members’ survey found that 56% of nurses had experienced physical or verbal abuse from patients, and a further 63% had experienced abuse from relatives of patients or members of the public.
Those statistics tell only one side of the story. Since I agreed to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I have been inundated with examples of the scale of the problem. I will cite just a few, which were compiled by 38 Degrees. An NHS staff nurse said that in her
“20 year nursing career I have been spat at, punched, kicked, verbally abused…and even had a cardiac monitor thrown at my head!”
Another said that she works
“in an A&E department as a staff nurse. On a daily basis I see some sort of aggression whether this is physical or verbal towards staff. I can’t recall a day that has gone by where we’ve not had to have security or the Police in the department.”
Perhaps more worrying is evidence given to the Petitions Committee by the Royal College of Nursing, which suggests that some female nurses fear that they are seen as “fair game” for sexual assault. I am sure hon. Members find that appalling.
This problem does not just affect NHS staff working in hospitals and GP surgeries. Concerns have been raised about the safety of lone NHS workers—for example, nurses visiting care homes. Such violence against NHS workers is clearly completely unacceptable, and all Members of the House agree that we must not stand for it. This debate is an opportunity to highlight the problem and send a clear signal from this House that it cannot be tolerated. It is also an opportunity to consider measures to tackle it.
The petition calls for higher legal provision and protection to be extended to NHS staff, making it a specific offence to assault them. As the petition makes clear, that protection is already afforded to police officers under section 89 of the Police Act 1996, and my research indicates that it is also a specific offence to assault prison and immigration officers. It is also an offence to assault doctors, nurses and midwives in Scotland. I raised that point with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions, and I know from both the response I received subsequently from her and the Government’s response to the petition that they take this problem seriously.
I understand that the current position is that, first, to ensure that prosecutions are brought forward once a charge has been made, the code for Crown prosecutors makes it clear that a prosecution is more likely if the offence has been committed against someone who was serving the public at the time, which includes NHS workers. Secondly, at the sentencing stage, the fact that an offence was committed against a person working in the public sector is an aggravating factor, which means that it is considered as adding to the seriousness of the offence, thereby meriting a longer sentence within the maximum penalty available. In addition, current sentencing practice indicates that custody is used as a starting point for assaults on public servants.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Although what the hon. Gentleman said about aggravating factors, which are set by the Sentencing Council, is important, the argument for having a specific offence rests on the fact that medical staff often deal with people in stressful and sensitive situations, so they deserve a better level of protection equal to that afforded to police officers.
Oliver Dowden
The right hon. Gentleman makes an apposite point, which I was just about to come on to.
I welcome the progress that has been made as a result of the petition. I understand that the Government have committed to updating the protocol on tackling violence in the health system, which will involve the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on that in his concluding remarks. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I urge the Government to keep an open mind about creating a new specific offence.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on a subject that is close to many of our hearts. I pay tribute to all those who work in the NHS and do a wonderful job. I wish to raise an issue that my police and crime commissioner raised with me, which affects all those who work in the emergency services—that of spit guards. The PCC has written to the Home Office to ask it to research this issue further and to hold a public consultation. What is my hon. Friend’s view on how we can stop people spitting on people, which is just as much of an assault as thumping someone? Perhaps the Minister will inform us how far down the road we are on that issue.
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and hopefully this debate will provide the opportunity not just to discuss a specific new criminal offence but to look at preventive measures. Certainly, spitting at NHS staff is completely unacceptable, and any measures we can take to prevent it would be most welcome. Like him, I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s reflections on that point.
Returning to the argument about why we need a specific offence, I understand the Government’s point that existing measures already prioritise prosecuting and sentencing assaults on NHS workers. All assaults are unacceptable, but the fact that we have created specific offences for police, immigration and prison officers, but not one for NHS workers, might amount to a discrepancy. It is important that we send the strongest possible signal from this place that such assaults are unacceptable, and creating a specific offence is one way to do that.
It is important to stress that a new law is not a panacea. This debate provides an opportunity for a wider examination of safety issues surrounding NHS workers. I have a number of issues to raise, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed them in his remarks. Concerns have been that only about 10% of physical assaults result in criminal sanctions. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government’s promised review of the protocol will look at how that low level of prosecution can be addressed. In addition, the consultation that the Petitions Committee held on this debate suggests that there is scope for more effectively training security staff at NHS facilities in how to deal with violent behaviour to ensure that difficult situations do not escalate.
Further work can be done on preventive measures. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) mentioned spit guards. Other possibilities mentioned to me include the provision of lone-worker alarms for NHS staff visiting care homes on their own and better designed environments that make it harder for violent offences to be committed. There is, however, concern about the future of NHS Protect, so will the Minister provide some clarity on that?
A wider question concerns changing attitudes towards NHS staff. The Petitions Committee received evidence that some people have an entitlement attitude—“We’ve paid our taxes”—which is sometimes used to justify aggressive behaviour towards NHS staff. That needs to be stamped out. I rarely cite Wales as a good example of NHS practice, but it has had a campaign on zero tolerance of violence against NHS staff, which I believe has worked well. Perhaps that is something else the Minister will consider.
I am conscious that other Members wish to speak in the debate, so I will conclude. I hope that the NHS staff listening to the debate will be reassured by the seriousness with which Parliament treats the issue of violence against NHS workers. I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity to consider what further measures we may take to protect nurses, doctors, paramedics and all other NHS staff, to whom we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for his introduction to the debate, which is on an important issue about which I feel very strongly as an ex-employee of the NHS and a former workplace trade union rep in the NHS.
Hospitals, clinics and health centres, by their nature as public buildings, have to be open to everyone. That brings particular security risks to the staff who work in them. Risks are also encountered by community staff who visit people in their homes. Those risks were clearly explained to the Petitions Committee in its meeting with the safety reps from the Royal College of Nursing. Better liaison and sharing of information between the police and the NHS regarding people who present a risk are clearly needed.
Although I appreciate the spirit of the petition and am sure that no one would argue that our NHS staff do not deserve to be protected while going about their work, there is a degree of confusion over what the petition aims to achieve. First, some clarity is required. The petition should cover all NHS staff, not only medical staff. After working in the NHS for many years, I realise that “doctors and nurses” is used as shorthand for all NHS staff, but given that there are about 400 different job roles in the NHS, it must be made clear that our concerns are for all NHS staff. Among many others, the porters, the cleaners, the healthcare assistants, the allied health professionals and the many volunteers are the unsung heroes of our NHS.
Secondly, the Government’s response to the petition stated:
“The fact that the victim is providing a service to the public is listed as an aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines”.
Therefore, is there a need to toughen up the law? Most people would say that there is in order to send out a clear message that to attack any member of NHS staff is totally unacceptable.
Richard Drax
I am listening to the hon. Lady closely, and she is making an excellent speech. Should the Government consider an automatic prison term, with the period of detention obviously depending on the circumstances of the assault?
Liz McInnes
I will go on to talk about the special circumstances in which NHS staff work, which include working with patients with mental health issues, so I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on a blanket prison sentence. One size does not fit all, I am afraid, and I will expand on that later. However, I thank him for his intervention.
Scotland has a law to protect NHS medical staff. According to the House of Commons Library, that law seems to have reduced the incidence of assaults on staff, although the number is still unacceptably high.
Thirdly, many assaults on staff are committed by patients who have mental health issues such as dementia. The accounts given by the RCN safety reps highlight the problems in dealing with those patients, such as whether they are capable of realising the harm that they have caused. That goes some way towards explaining my response to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). There also seems to be a feeling, certainly among the RCN reps, that the police are rather too ready to dismiss cases in which the assailant has mental health problems. That subject deserves further exploration and I hope the Minister will comment on it.
My constituency is served by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, in which the number of cases of physical violence against staff by patients has, unfortunately, gone up from 169 in 2014-15 to 240 cases in 2015-16. The trust had been doing good work on training staff in conflict resolution and had managed to bring the figure down from 251 assaults in 2012-13. Sadly, reported assaults appear to be on the rise again. A spokeswoman for the trust informed me that the most recent rise was due to increased awareness and reporting, but I remain slightly unconvinced of that. I am informed that many staff are still reluctant to report assaults because they do not feel that any action will be taken as a result. The RCN safety reps highlight that the onus on staff to report attacks can act as an obstacle to reporting, so employers should provide more help and support to staff in such situations.
Assaults do not happen only when staff are on duty. There have been many incidents of assaults and muggings of staff at Pennine when they are in hospital car parks. In my days at Pennine, I can clearly remember that a member of staff suffered a serious assault—she was stabbed —when returning to her car after a shift on the Rochdale site. Fortunately, she survived that serious assault. We must make it clear that assaults on NHS staff are unacceptable at all times, not just when they are on duty.
This weekend it was announced that the Government are calling for a complete smoking ban on all English hospital sites. That is very laudable, but who will police it? In my experience of the NHS, a member of staff telling a patient or visitor that they cannot smoke in a particular area is likely to lead to a flurry of verbal abuse. I therefore hope that if the Government are serious about the move, they back it up with funding for trained security staff and do not simply expect already hard-pressed and stressed NHS staff to take on yet more responsibility for enforcement.
Where do we go from here? Without doubt, this is a serious issue and action on it has the support of a great deal of the public, including 161 of my constituents. Undeniably, our NHS staff are under a great deal of pressure at the moment, with long waiting lists, patients waiting on trolleys in corridors and staff having to deal with angry relatives as a result. The Government’s handling of the NHS appears to be creating a perfect storm of unrest and discontent among patients and relatives, which is likely to exacerbate tension and ill feeling. The Government must take some responsibility for that.
In summing up, I return to the Government response to the petition. It states:
“A protocol to tackle violence and anti-social behaviour in the NHS by shared actions between the Police, Crown Prosecution Service and NHS Protect was signed in 2011”,
which, importantly, sets out steps
“to improve victim and witness support. This protocol is currently being updated”.
This debate is therefore very timely. It is my hope that what is said in this Chamber today will be taken note of and fed into that update to ensure that our wonderful and dedicated NHS staff are afforded the highest standards of safety while they go about their daily, and nightly, duties to us, the British public.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
May I join colleagues in saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray? I hope that right hon. and hon. colleagues from across the House are familiar with my “Protect the Protectors” campaign, and I am truly grateful to the many who have lent it their support. As part of that campaign, I have lobbied for protections that would cover all emergency service workers and NHS staff. I will outline what needs to change and how we should go about it.
My campaign started last summer after I spent a Friday evening in August on patrol in my constituency with West Yorkshire police. I joined PC Craig Gallant, who was single crewed and responding to 999 calls. When a routine stop quickly turned nasty, I was so concerned for his safety that I rang 999 myself to stress just how urgently he needed back-up. Thankfully, other officers arrived at the scene shortly afterwards to help manage the situation. Although, amazingly, no injuries were sustained on that occasion, I saw the dangers for myself and understood just how vulnerable all emergency service workers are, especially when they are out on their own.
Since being elected in May 2015, I have spent time shadowing all the frontline services in my constituency to understand the work they do and the pressures they are under, and to inform my work here on their behalf, but I confess that I am also the daughter of a retired police sergeant and a nurse. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thanks very much. Both my parents were subject to abuse in their roles as public servants, so I feel very strongly about this issue. I have done shifts with the emergency services—the police, the fire and rescue service, and paramedics—and spent time with doctors and nurses in A&E. I also spent a Friday night with out-of-hours mental health services and I will spend a day with the local search and rescue team in the next few weeks. May I take this opportunity once again to pay tribute to the work that they all do? Behind their uniforms, they are incredibly brave and dedicated individuals who, regrettably, face risks almost daily that they simply should not have to face.
Our emergency services and NHS staff routinely go above and beyond their duties to keep the public safe, and the law must convey in the strongest possible terms how unacceptable it is for someone to set out deliberately to injure or assault an emergency responder or NHS worker. As we have already heard, NHS Protect figures show that there were 70,555 assaults on NHS staff last year—a significant increase on the year before. A report published just before Christmas by Yorkshire ambulance service revealed that its staff face violence and aggression weekly. There was a 50% increase in reported incidents of verbal and physical attacks on staff, with 606 incidents reported in 2015-16. Richard Bentley, a paramedic in Leeds, told the BBC that he had faced three serious assaults in five years. He had been bitten, head-butted and threatened with a knife.
I sought to do something about that unacceptable violence directed at our most dedicated public servants by drafting a ten-minute rule Bill, which I presented in the Chamber earlier this month. The Crime (Assaults on Emergency Services Staff) Bill would extend protections to all emergency service workers and—crucially in relation to this debate—would cover paramedics, doctors and nurses.
The petition, which was launched on 22 December by LBC presenter Nick Ferrari—I commend Mr Ferrari and LBC for their role in this campaign—calls on the Government to make it
“a specific criminal offence to attack any member of NHS Medical Staff.”
However, in consultation with several bodies representing all the emergency services workers with whom I have spent time, I agreed that it would make sense to seek to amend existing legislation to make assaulting an emergency service worker or NHS worker an aggravating factor in existing criminal charges, for several reasons.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. It goes without saying that assaults on NHS staff are appalling, but does she agree that our NHS staff want to know that any changes will make a meaningful difference to their safety and to enforcement? Given that the maximum penalty for assault of a police constable is six months, which is the same as the maximum penalty for common assault, I query whether a change in offence would actually make a difference. The key is enforcement. People want to know that if they are attacked, the police will come around, make arrests and throw the book at the people who did it.
Holly Lynch
I will come on to some of the problems that we identified with the stand-alone assault police charge, which led us to seek to amend existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I will come on to in more detail.
The petition states that for
“twenty years it has been a specific offence to attack a Police officer conducting their duties”
and refers to section 89 of the Police Act 1996, which deals with assault police charges. However, although that section sets a precedent for making assaulting a particular sector of public servants a stand-alone offence, it was precisely because of that legislation’s shortcomings that we sought to do things differently and more comprehensively.
Assault police charges are summary only, so are triable only in a magistrates court. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the maximum custodial sentence for even the most serious assault police charges under section 89 —so-called category 1 offences—is 24 weeks, with offenders more likely to receive a fine or community order. Even if someone is given a custodial sentence for a category 1 offence, the sentencing guidelines for section 89 offences propose three questions:
“Has the custody threshold been passed?…if so, is it unavoidable that a custodial sentence be imposed?…if so, can that sentence be suspended?”
To me, none of that reinforces the seriousness of the crime or, more crucially, acts as a deterrent. I have seen examples of repeat offenders who, due to the problems with the assault police charge, have effectively collected suspended sentences. I share that information simply to explain why I have arrived at my proposals, which I believe would make our emergency services and NHS workers safer in their roles.
My Bill would make offences including malicious wounding, grievous or actual bodily harm and common assault aggravated offences when perpetrated against a police constable, firefighter, doctor, paramedic or nurse in the execution of his or her duty or, significantly, against someone assisting such persons in the execution of their duty. It would therefore cover NHS staff more broadly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) mentioned. The Bill would ensure that tougher sentences were available to the judiciary when sentencing someone convicted of assaulting an emergency responder or NHS worker. As I said, the sentences handed down to offenders convicted of such acts must reflect the seriousness of the crime and, more crucially, serve as a tough deterrent to dissuade others from even considering committing such violence towards NHS workers in the first place.
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady makes a really interesting point, but the maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm with intent is life imprisonment in any event, and judges have sufficient sentencing powers to reflect the gravity of the aggravating factor of the attack having been on a public servant. Given that judges already have certain sentencing latitude, how would she change things?
Holly Lynch
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is perhaps just an issue of clarity and the weight that comes with such uniformed service roles. Perhaps the problem is as simple as someone who is particularly angry and comes into an A&E department and lashes out at an NHS worker, not understanding that deterrent. We must explore how to ensure that that deterrent is understood by people who arrive at A&E departments.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am not a lawyer, but in response to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), although it is quite true that someone could get a life sentence, most judges use a scale that depends on the seriousness of the crime. As far as I am concerned, six months is too low to be a deterrent for such crimes, whether they are committed against national health service workers, policemen or public service workers. The sentence should be higher, and judges can be guided on that—the scales can actually be altered.
Holly Lynch
My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly my concern with the assault police charge, which I have explored in detail through my “Protect the Protectors” campaign. The maximum sentence for that charge does not seem to reflect its seriousness. We have to look at all the options available for sentencing.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Hon. Members have mentioned that Scotland already has the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, under which the maximum sentence for common assault is 12 months and the maximum fine is £10,000. That is about twice the general range in the rest of the UK. In Scotland, serious assaults like some of those that the hon. Lady describes are charged not under that Act but as serious assault, GBH or attempted murder, so the Act is very much for common assault.
Holly Lynch
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Again, in assault police charges we found that people were being sentenced under other crimes, which distorted the collection of information on frequency and prevalence of people committing those acts and brought into question the need to have a stand-alone assault police charge, if it is not effective in that regard. I approached the matter by asking what is the best way to sort out some of those charges, and what can we do? In putting together my Bill, it seemed like this was the best option.
One of the other aspects of my ten-minute rule Bill —it has been touched on already—would require someone who spits at or bites an emergency service or NHS professional to provide a blood sample to determine if that professional is at risk of contracting a communicable disease and would require antiviral treatment. If the Government were to adopt my Bill, it would become an offence to refuse, without reasonable excuse, to undergo such tests, much in the same way as it is to refuse a breathalyser test. That could save someone potentially unnecessary and invasive treatments as well as months of uncertainty and anxiety about whether they have contracted a potentially life-changing disease.
That anyone would assault or spit at an NHS worker is an absolute disgrace. The work that they do, often in the toughest of circumstances, should be met only with gratitude and admiration, never with violence. In seeking to protect them and all emergency service workers and NHS staff, my ten-minute rule Bill aimed to send a strong message. However, while it had cross-party support and proceeded unopposed, I am not naive about the nature of ten-minute rule Bills presented by Opposition Back Benchers; nor am I under any illusions about where we are in the parliamentary calendar. I therefore urge all MPs and campaigners to explore every opportunity to take action and bring about the changes we would like to see.
The spirit of my Bill was to say loud and clear that the public and elected representatives as legislators are on the side of NHS workers, and anyone who deliberately seeks to inflict injury on our medical professionals will feel the full and unavoidable force of the law. I wholeheartedly support any and all means of doing just that.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. As many people in the Chamber know, I spent 33 years working in the NHS, and I have been on the receiving end, as other Members may have been.
I remember a particular incident in a breast cancer clinic. I was warned by the nurses before I went into the room that the husband was very angry, not at anything I had done but at something on the way that had upset him. That is often the situation. It is not necessarily someone who would normally be violent or worked up. They are frightened for the person they love. That can be in A&E, where they have been sitting for hours and people are going past them, or it can be in the situation I had. What I had was a man about 6 inches from my face with both fists clenched. Because the staff knew about it, they were not seeing anyone else and had their ears at the door. The problem for me was that I could not afford to fall out with this man, because the pale woman sitting in a chair had breast cancer, and I knew I would have to work with the two of them afterwards.
The challenge of de-escalating such situations is enormous. NHS staff can become very good at it, but if they are under time pressure—we have seen that this winter in accident and emergency—it can pour petrol on the flames. Someone is saying, “Excuse me! Excuse me! Can I speak to you? My wife is ill,”—or “my child is ill”—and people are running past all the time. Eventually, a gasket blows. It is not always someone with tattoos of “love” and “hate” or whatever, making it obvious that they are trouble; it can be someone who is frightened. To de-escalate that requires training, support and back-up. More than anything else, it requires time, so that when we spot that something like that emerging, we can put the time into that person to explain their situation and what will happen next and to look at what they are worried about. If everyone is rushing to someone who is more ill, that situation will spiral out of control.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) mentioned people who work on their own and providing them with lone-worker devices. I agree with that. However, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) talked about someone responding to 999 calls in an ambulance on their own, which is probably not altogether appropriate. In particular, if we have a patient in the community who has been noted as being violent or aggressive in the past, social care workers and others should not be sent to that person by themselves.
In my health board, we have a service where someone who keeps being violent or aggressive in primary care is removed from that practice. Specialist primary care has been developed to provide care for people who have anger issues or violence issues so that care can be given in a protected way, not—we keep hearing about the seven-day NHS—by a female GP at half-past 7 at night when there is hardly anyone left in the practice. Some of the issues need to be thought about in advance. We need to think about how we set up the system and how we organise things in particular so we do not always end up with a kettle whistling shrilly, which is what we have seen over the past winter.
It is quite difficult to get accurate or comparative data. In England data are gathered through NHS Protect. It sends a bad message that a consultation is starting this Wednesday at the end of its contract—it is due to finish at the end of March—with NHS staff none the wiser as to who will protect them or collect the data. That is a terrible message to send out in the face of such escalating numbers across NHS England. In Scotland we have Datix information, which is the same as we use for any non-standard occurrence in a hospital or medical situation.
Members have mentioned the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which was updated in 2008 to ensure that it extended to all community workers—GPs, mental health workers, social workers, social careworkers and people assisting them—and many of the points made by the hon. Member for Halifax about her ten-minute rule Bill are covered by that Scottish Act.
That Act did not of itself bring the numbers down; as in England, they were climbing. The turnaround seems to have been five years ago in 2011-12, and part of that was because we, too, started to have practically a zero-tolerance campaign. People who walked into accident and emergency saw posters that said, “This is not acceptable behaviour and it will not be accepted.” It was easier to do that when we could say, “This was so important that we made a separate piece of legislation to protect all emergency careworkers.” The Act includes coastguards and lifeboat volunteers at the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—they are all covered in Scotland. That is a really important message to send out for a zero-tolerance campaign.
In the past five years our numbers have decreased by 10% and the number of violent offences taken forward by the police and prosecuted has decreased by more than a quarter. It does therefore appear to be having an effect, although the numbers are still shockingly high and something that we should not see.
In response to the Government’s comment about a new charge being unnecessary because it is covered by the offence of assault, we must remember that people in other businesses, and even in other public services, can bar someone and walk away. A healthcare worker cannot walk away. We have a duty of care no matter how aggressive, no matter how rude and no matter no violent someone is being, particularly if they are ill.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) mentioned that she would not support an automatic custodial sentence because many of these people have mental health issues. However, the NHS Protect data show that even when we exclude people with a medical cause or medical excuse for violence, ambulance staff report half of the assaults on them, but the acute sector—that includes acute wards and A&E— and mental health sector report fewer than 5% of all assaults. Creating an offence can encourage people to report.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
That is an important point, because part of the prosecutorial decision is whether prosecution would be in the public interest. The Crown Prosecution Service published some useful guidance three years ago about how many cases perpetrated by someone struggling with mental health issues were discontinued, or not advanced, on the basis that to pursue them would be against the public interest; so that criterion already exists. While the 5% figure represents what could be reported, prosecutors often decide not to pursue a matter on the basis I have set out. That does not go against the strong argument for a stand-alone offence.
Dr Whitford
The NHS Protect data clearly separate out the assaults with no medical cause, and then focus on what percentage of those are reported. The number is remarkably low.
The data that we are capturing in Datix, which shows high numbers in Scotland as well as in England, include verbal assaults and racist comments. Sadly, with some of the reaction after the EU referendum last year, we have seen horrific reports of people from the EU who work here—and make up a significant proportion of medical and nursing staff—being racially abused by the people they look after. As every Member of the House has tried to do in debates since the referendum, we must send out the message that that is unacceptable. An Act relating specifically to all types of emergency worker, both in the community and in hospital, would send a strong message and would have an effect. The fact that staff cannot turn away must be taken into account.
Just because a patient has a mental health issue, a learning disability or, particularly, dementia, it is not any less distressing for a member of staff to be punched in the face, have their glasses broken, or be cut or scratched deeply by someone’s nails. That comes back to how situations are managed. It should be possible, as soon as any incident occurs—or any perception arises of a patient beginning to develop violent tendencies—for a social careworker not to be sent in alone to deliver personal care to them; planning for the patient’s care should be done in a responsible way by the team, for both the patient and the staff member.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. We have plenty of time left, and, slightly unusually, I intend to call one further Back Bencher before the winding-up speech by the Opposition spokesman. I call Alex Chalk.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who made a powerful speech. The starting point, although it is perhaps obvious, bears emphasis. Assaults on NHS staff are appalling and people watching the debate will find it astonishing that they are so prevalent. The hon. Lady seemed to suggest that they are an occupational hazard, and that fact is as serious as it is appalling. Everyone in the House, as well as people beyond this Chamber, will share my consternation.
Another point that is obvious but bears emphasis is that the law must come down hard on people whose conduct is so despicable. However, it is important that the debate should not lead NHS staff, including those in Cheltenham general hospital in my constituency, to feel that what is proposed is mere window dressing. I imagine that they would want what I certainly want on their behalf: concrete action to improve enforcement and, picking up on a point made just now, to create a culture of zero tolerance. There may be any number of offences on the statute book, but without the resources to investigate them and the will to prosecute them, they are of no more than academic interest. We should focus resolutely on creating measures that will make a meaningful difference and inculcate the culture of zero tolerance.
I mention that because, as I said earlier, the offence of assaulting a police constable carries a maximum of six months in prison. That is the same as for common assault. I remind hon. Members that common assault is a battery where the harm that is caused is merely “transient or trifling”. If it is more serious than that, it becomes assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with a maximum penalty of five years. That can apply to a police officer or a person in the street, in the normal way. However, in my time in practice, when I was prosecuting offences of assault PC, the message that often came back from police officers was: “Our concern is that this offence is not taken seriously enough or prosecuted enough.” It was not so much that a defendant had been prosecuted for assault PC rather than for common assault; the question was whether assaults on police officers were taken seriously by being investigated and by charges being brought. It is the same in the case that we are considering. We must be clear: if we create a further offence, will it mean that the people in A&E think there is a better chance of securing justice? Shiny new legislation will not in itself achieve that. What is needed is the will and resources to make it happen.
That is the simple point that I wanted to make. Those who go out of their way to work in our public services, and who, notwithstanding the fact that they are abused, assaulted and jeered at, come back to show compassion, need to know that law and order are on their side. By all means let us consider creating another offence if that is what we want, but it should not be a fig leaf for the fact that there is something more important: when a member of staff in A&E has cause to make a complaint to the police that she has been spat at or abused, the police should turn up, arrest the individual and throw the book at them. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said, ultimately the sentence must be a matter for the court, and in a fair society we would not have things any other way, and nothing we do here should diminish that key priority of enforcement.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on the eloquent and powerful way he introduced the debate on behalf of not only the Petitions Committee but the more than 115,000 people who signed this extremely important petition. He took us through some of the many figures and gave us a clear overview of the issue. I also found some of the stories he told us compelling, such as that of the NHS worker who had been spat on, punched, kicked and verbally abused, and the other who said they could not recall a day going by without police or security being called to their department. Such personal tales add weight to the plethora of figures, which I will repeat, to some extent.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere correctly identified the fact that sentencing guidelines acknowledge that it is an aggravating factor when assaults are made on public servants in the course of their duty. It is right that that is so, but the general thrust of his speech was that the Government should consider a specific offence, and he identified the fact that there is such a specific offence for other public sector servants as a discrepancy. Clearly, the speeches today suggest support for tackling that discrepancy.
It is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) that, despite the many demands on her time, she took a considerable period of her own time to shadow many frontline public servants in her constituency. It is telling that her experiences led her to introduce her ten-minute rule Bill. I congratulate her on her work on that Bill to make it an offence to assault emergency workers. It is due for Second Reading on 24 March. I hope the Government will find time to support it, although I think my hon. Friend was realistic enough to acknowledge that it may not make it and become legislation. However, that does not mean the campaign will end there. She clearly set out some of the ways in which current legislation falls short and why she believes her Bill should make it on to the statute book. I hope the Minister will be encouraging about it.
The Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), clearly set out, from her own experience, the immense challenge that healthcare professionals face in balancing the need to give patients the right advice against the need to de-escalate highly charged situations. It is interesting that she said it was not only legislation that led to improvement in Scotland; it was also the sending out of a clear message that there would be zero tolerance of assaults on staff. I think that is something that we can all agree on and do our bit to deliver.
As always, it was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who brings many years of experience of working in the NHS. As she rightly said, many assaults are occasioned by patients with mental health issues, and she made the important point that those factors make it difficult to come up with a blanket sentencing policy. We certainly need to reflect upon how we balance those sensitive issues with the need to send out a clear and strong message, as most hon. Members have said. She also made a pertinent point about the risks that NHS staff will face in enforcing a blanket no-smoking policy. I think we can all envisage the difficulties that asking our frontline staff to enforce that will bring.
I am pleased that we had time to hear from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). He made the important point that NHS staff need to see us taking this seriously, and that we need to follow that through with resources. There is an awful lot we can do that does not require the statute book. I will return to that later.
We are all rightly proud of everyone who works in the NHS—not only the doctors and nurses, but the midwives, porters, healthcare assistants, cleaners, receptionists, care workers, paramedics and many others who make up our national health service. None of us could have missed the many troubling reports over recent months about the pressure that the health service is under. I have said it many times before, but I do not think this is something we can ever say too much: each and every Member of the House recognises and values the incredible commitment our health service staff give to their job. I have no doubt that the current difficulties that we have all heard about would be even more significant were our wonderful staff not continually prepared to go the extra mile.
The petition relates specifically to NHS medical staff. If I was to make one slight amendment to it—this was also suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton—I would broaden its definition to include non-medical NHS frontline staff. Like many Members from across the House, I have heard worrying reports of attacks not only on medical staff but on reception staff in both hospitals and primary care settings. We need to take firm action on that. All our frontline NHS staff are public servants. They work long hours, often in very difficult circumstances, and they help and treat our loved ones as if they were their own. They are the reason why we are so proud of our health service, and they deserve our respect, admiration and gratitude.
However, it is not enough for us to simply state our support for NHS staff in these debates; as the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, we have to demonstrate it in a meaningful way. Those staff dedicate their lives to caring for us, so it is right that we should also care for them. Sadly, the warm words that we hear are not always reflected in reality. The truth is that NHS staff are working longer hours in a system facing much greater pressure, they are being paid less in real terms and, most worryingly of all, as the subject of the debate shows, they are more and more likely to be attacked while simply doing their job. The impact of attacks on individual members of staff cannot be overstated. Violence and aggression can leave staff traumatised both emotionally and physically. Many need to have a significant amount of time off work, and sadly some have to leave their profession altogether.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to one example I was given of a 35-year-old ambulance technician from Cornwall, who was punched in the face while at work by a drunk and aggressive woman. She sustained a broken jaw. She has had at least 12 surgical procedures since and is still suffering from symptoms. She had a titanium jaw implant put back in in September 2016, but has had to have two further procedures since and cannot open her mouth wider than finger width at the moment. She was attacked in 2006; that is more than a decade of agony and suffering. We owe it to people like her—and everyone else who has been attacked while just doing their job—to stand up and send a message: that attacks on NHS staff are contemptible and we will do everything in our power to stop them.
While the incredible human cost is all too apparent from such examples and others we have heard today, we should also be mindful that, in addition to the individual impact on staff and their families, those incidents have a significant financial impact as well. The Royal College of Nursing reports that the estimated cost to the NHS of healthcare-related violence exceeds £69 million a year, which is equivalent to the salaries of an additional 4,500 nurses.
We have heard from hon. Members about the indisputable rise in attacks, but it is also important to note that the increasing likelihood of attacks on staff is not a long-term, gradual rise, but seems to have increased markedly for the worse over the past six years. Looking back at some of the figures we have heard, a decade ago, in 2005-06, there were 43 attacks per 1,000 staff, while in 2009-10, it was at a similar level of 44 attacks per 1,000 staff. However, as we have heard, by 2011-12 there were 47 attacks per 1,000 staff, which rose again to 53 attacks per 1,000 staff by 2015-16.
As alarming as those figures are, they may actually understate the position. As we heard from the hon. Member for Hertsmere, a Royal College of Nursing survey found that 56% of its members had experienced physical or verbal abuse from patients, with 63% experiencing that from relatives of patients or members of the public. The most recent figures show that there are 193 physical assaults on NHS staff each and every day. When we hear figures like that and of some of the experiences of staff, it is no wonder that every day someone is called to the department. Will the Minister indicate whether he feels there is any particular reason for such a significant increase in recent years? Is he also prepared to undertake a candid and detailed look at the reasons behind that rise and to report back to the House in the near future?
Much of the focus has been on attacks in accident and emergency, but as hon. Members have said, it is clear that assaults occur in every part of the NHS—hospitals, pharmacies, GP surgeries and in the community. One such example I was told about was of an occupational therapist working in Ipswich who was conducting a relaxation therapy session with a service user. We would expect that to be a fairly calm environment, but suddenly and without warning, the service user grabbed the therapist and attempted to strangle her, during which time she fell unconscious. The attacker has now been charged with attempted murder.
That example demonstrates that the risk of physical assault is higher for staff working alone; indeed, the figure for lone workers suffering injury is about 9% higher. Another example is of a paramedic in the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust who was instructed to attend a call alone. During the visit, she was physically attacked with a claw hammer. The assailant attempted to strike her on the head, but the paramedic managed to deflect the blow, sustaining serious injuries to her right hand in the process. We do not know what would have happened had she attended with someone else, but there is at least a reasonable chance that, had she not been alone, the attack would not have occurred.
The Minister will also be aware that, along with the medical factors that we have discussed today, such as mental health issues and substance abuse, the acute shortage of staff across departments and lengthening waiting times has been cited as a common factor behind many assaults. I appreciate that he is not a Health Minister, but I would welcome any comments on what the Government are doing to ensure safe staffing levels in the NHS, and that lone working is kept to a minimum. Having considered the rise in attacks and their impact, the Opposition support new, specific criminal sanctions for assaults on NHS staff. I am prepared to give an undertaking that we will assist the Government in ensuring that any legislation of that nature receives a swift passage through Parliament and on to the statute book. I would appreciate it if the Minister could indicate whether the Government have any plans to bring forward such a Bill in Government time.
While we support the introduction of new criminal sanctions, the creation of a new offence alone is not a panacea, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere said. He suggested many improvements that could be introduced alongside new legislation, including lone-worker alarms, well-designed environments and conflict resolution training, all of which have been called for by the Royal College of Nursing. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister indicated what steps the Government are taking to follow up such initiatives. Until such legislation is introduced, we need to use all the tools available to improve safety. I know that NHS staff find it to be a particular injustice that just 10% of assaults not related to a medical condition result in criminal sanctions. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on why he believes that figure is so low and whether any steps can be taken to increase it.
I would like to press the Minister on the worrying reports about the future of NHS Protect, which other Members have mentioned. Various media reports have suggested that the security and violence function will cease to exist on 31 March 2017. That would be a retrograde step and would send out totally the wrong message about the value of NHS staff and our commitment to protecting them. Can the Minister confirm today whether the Government will be making any changes to the vital role of NHS Protect?
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the NHS is one of the country’s greatest assets and that the people who work within it are by far the single most important component of its success. If we want to ensure that that asset continues to be a source of great pride for the people of this country, we have to value the staff who work within it, respect them and, above all, protect them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for introducing this debate and all hon. Members who have spoken. I also extend my thanks to LBC for its campaign on the assault of NHS staff, which has raised awareness of the issue.
I will start with where we all agree with the petition: any attack on NHS staff is completely unacceptable. More than 1 million people earn their living in the NHS. They are committed to providing health services and work incredibly hard in a high-pressure environment. They should not expect or experience aggression or violence at work. Patients and members of the public should respect NHS staff and must not be abusive or violent towards them. I will begin by looking at what we can do to ensure that assaults on NHS staff are dealt with seriously, much in the vein of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said. I will focus on prevention, better law enforcement and prosecution.
As with any kind of crime, the best and most important solution to violence against NHS staff is to prevent it from being committed in the first place, through measures to protect staff and by managing potentially risky situations before they escalate. Employers in the NHS are responsible for assessing the risk of violence to their staff, taking action to address those through prevention work and pursuing legal action when assaults do occur.
The NHS has introduced a range of measures to combat workplace violence, such as conflict resolution training and guidelines for lone workers. Again, as with any other crime, if NHS staff are attacked, the next solution is effective law enforcement. The NHS is working with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that even low-level violence is treated seriously and that offences are prosecuted. Rigorous enforcement of the current law sends a strong message about the unacceptability of violence and makes staff feel safer and more confident to do their job.
What effective law enforcement means in the large and complex situation of the NHS is encapsulated in the joint working agreement on tackling violence and antisocial behaviour in the NHS between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the NHS, signed in 2011. It sets out steps to improve the protection of NHS staff; strengthen the investigation and prosecution process by improving the quality of the information exchanged; and improve victim and witness support. That protocol is currently being updated—for instance, to include aide-mémoires for the police, the CPS and NHS staff. The revised version is due to be in place in the coming months.
There is, frankly, a lot more we need to know about the circumstances of attacks. We have heard a number of examples in this debate, but what we do not know about all of those is, for example, whether the person was actually prosecuted. Are we talking about cases where someone’s elderly grandmother with dementia wakes up confused and lashes out against an NHS worker? We need to do a lot more work on what is going on. Centrally, we do not know who the assailants were in all cases, whether they were patients or members of the public or, if they were patients, what they were suffering from and what was happening to them at the time of the incident.
To delve into that further, I would like to extend an offer to convene a meeting between my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, the Solicitor General and Lord O’Shaughnessy, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. We can then explore how to better build the evidence base.
I will now look at the appropriate law enforcement response in more detail. First, there should be no hesitation in involving the police as needed. To support that, the joint working agreement or protocol sets out guidance and best practice on contact and liaison between NHS staff and the police, incident reporting, the police response to incidents, investigations and victim-witness communication. Before we look at having a specific law, we need to ensure that the protocol is working as effectively as it should.
The next stage of the law enforcement solution to attacks on NHS staff in the criminal justice process is prosecution. At that point, and throughout the process, there is a particular emphasis on the seriousness of assaults on workers serving the public, including in the NHS. All cases referred by the police to the CPS are considered under the code for Crown prosecutors. Under that code, prosecutors must first be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is, prosecutors must then consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. The relevant section of the code for Crown prosecutors says:
“A prosecution is…more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public.”
The protocol states:
“In all cases, the fact that an offence has been committed against a person serving the public will be considered an aggravating factor. There is a strong public interest in maintaining the effective provision of healthcare services and the CPS should always consider whether the individual incident has further aggravating features that may influence a decision on disposal.”
If the evidence is there and the code is satisfied, the CPS will prosecute.
When an offender is convicted, sentencing guidelines specify that an offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public is an aggravating factor. Courts have a statutory duty to follow those guidelines and, as such, offenders who assault someone providing a service to the public could face a higher sentence than that imposed for assaults committed in different circumstances. In response to the petition, I have been in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that where these cases appear before the courts, the status of a frontline public sector worker is clearly drawn to the court’s attention as an aggravating factor.
Alex Chalk
May I thank the Minister for what he said about bringing that fact to the court’s attention? A victim impact statement can be provided to indicate the impact that a crime has had on the victim. It is critical the court understands front and centre that if the victim is a public servant, the court must treat the case more seriously and punish more severely as a result.
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes a forceful point. That is precisely what the engagement with the Director of Public Prosecutions is meant to achieve, and I would like to involve my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere in those discussions.
Prevention and effective law enforcement, through collaboration between the NHS, the police and the CPS, are the best solutions to the problem of attacks on NHS staff. This debate is about a specific criminal offence. As has been mentioned, there are already comprehensive provisions in criminal law for dealing with a wide range of attacks and assaults. The relevant offences include common assault; assault occasioning actual bodily harm, where the injuries are more than superficial; wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm; and wounding or causing GBH with intent. All those offences cover every victim, whatever their occupation. Depending on the particular offence and the seriousness of the criminal conduct, the penalties available to the courts range from a maximum of six months’ imprisonment, a fine or both for common assault, through a maximum of five years for ABH or GBH, to a maximum of life imprisonment for wounding or causing GBH with intent.
Given the current offences framework and sentencing guidance, which make provision for an increase in sentence to be considered where an assault victim is a public sector worker, I am not persuaded that there is a need to create a specific offence for this group of workers. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere pointed out, some specific offences of assault apply to particular occupation groups, such as police officers. As the Minister responsible for prisons, I am aware of the specific offence of assault against prison officers.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Can the Minister clarify why prison officers and immigration officers warrant that extra protection, but healthcare workers looking after patients do not?
Mr Gyimah
That is a very good question. The first point I would make is that even in the case of prison officers, where there is a specific offence, the most important thing is better law enforcement. The fact that a specific offence exists does not on its own lead to an increase in prosecutions. What is needed is the better law enforcement that I have outlined. There is also a wider point. It is recognised that, by the very nature of the roles that have been mentioned, the individuals working in them are likely to be assaulted in the course of their duties. That is why the law provides specific protection. The law currently makes a distinction between those occupations and others serving the public, although, as I have said, if there is an attack against someone serving the public, that is treated, and should be treated, as an aggravating factor in law.
Dr Whitford
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he not accept that 70,500 attacks on NHS staff means that they, too, face the likelihood of being assaulted at work?
Mr Gyimah
The evidence clearly suggests so, but let me come on to my other point and the point about Scotland, which the hon. Lady mentioned. All the occupation-specific offences have the same maximum sentence—six months’ imprisonment, a fine or both—as common assault. As I have already said, where the offending behaviour is more serious, more serious offences and penalties are available. Having the specific offence does not change the sentence that someone can receive.
Gavin Robinson
The first step that the Minister mentioned, with the Director of Public Prosecutions, is an important one, but has he carried out any analysis with the Lord Chief Justice to see how much greater the penalty is for someone found guilty of common assault on someone in a particular occupation? Does he think that there would be benefit in saying, in the round with this type of offence, that although the penalty would have been three or four months, because of the aggravating factor of the victim’s occupation, there will be an additional penalty that is clearly spelt out by the courts, so that the factors that will deter a person from attacking someone whom we want to protect are clearly defined and outlined? If such analysis has not been conducted, I suggest that it should be.
Mr Gyimah
As I said earlier in my speech, a piece of work does need to be done on who is doing the assaulting and what has happened. I gave the simple example of a grandparent suffering from dementia who wakes up confused and lashes out. It is not as simple as saying that they have assaulted a member of staff in the NHS and therefore they should go to court, be convicted and get a long sentence. The key point, when people make this argument, is the belief that the creation of a new offence of assaults on health workers would deter such attacks and so offer better protection for NHS workers or result in more prosecutions than occur under current legislation.
Mr Gyimah
I would like to develop my point. I am aware that in Scotland there is a specific offence of assaulting health workers on hospital premises. Sadly, however, the number of assaults on NHS staff in Scotland has continued to grow since the legislation was introduced. In 2010, the Scottish Government stated:
“There is no clear evidence that the 2005 Act has been a success in acting as a deterrent.”
Mr Gyimah
I need to develop my argument. The Scottish legislation raises a number of other points, some of which I have touched on. Would the offence, as in Scotland, apply only to attacks on NHS staff on hospital premises? There are many other NHS locations. Would it apply to attacks by patients or also to attacks by visitors and family members? How would “NHS staff” be defined? Many people work in the NHS without being employed by it. Would the offence apply only when staff were on duty, or when they had left the premises and were at a bus stop outside the hospital? However those questions were resolved, every specific circumstance applying to a new offence would be an additional element for the prosecution to prove, over and above a charge of common assault.
Dr Whitford
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I wanted to intervene again to point out that in 2008, the maximum sentence for the offence in Scotland was changed to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a £10,000 fine, so it is not exactly the same as for other common assaults. The protection is not just for staff in hospitals. The 2005 Act already covered blue-light workers, their assistants and particular classes of people, and in the 2008 renewal of the Act, it was extended to all, including volunteers and assistants, so it is not just about hospital staff. As I said in my speech, it includes lifeboat, coastguard, ambulance and fire service workers—all emergency workers.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady’s question points to precisely that definitional issue. As we have gone through the debate, the definition of “NHS worker” has expanded with each speech we have heard.
I will bring my comments to a close where I began. Any attack on NHS workers is unacceptable. It is right that the House is debating this issue today, and right that LBC raised it. I would like to pursue, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, a way of ensuring that the joint working agreement actually works; that we have the right evidence to understand what precisely is happening; and that, where what we are discussing should be treated as an aggravating factor by the CPS and the courts, that is indeed happening. I strongly believe that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said, we need to act urgently to ensure that the law, as it stands, is implemented properly, so that NHS staff are protected. That is the best way to ensure that they can go to work and not have to suffer some of the violence that they have suffered.
Oliver Dowden
Thank you again for your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that everyone agrees that this has been a useful debate not only in drawing out the powerful experiences of NHS workers suffering assaults, but in getting greater clarity about the extent to which a new offence is needed and what that offence might look like.
I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement. I hope that this is the beginning of a process. A lot has been said about zero tolerance. Certainly the experience with drink-driving was that we managed to move from a situation in which drink-driving was commonplace to one in which it was completely socially unacceptable. We need to go along a similar path with assaults on NHS workers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 176138 relating to attacks on NHS medical staff.
Written Statements
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competitiveness Council: Post-Council Statement
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
My noble friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior) has made the following written statement:
The Competitiveness Council met recently in Brussels. I represented the UK at the meeting.
Council began with the approval of the legislative and non-legislative ‘A’ items.
The Council then reached agreement on a general approach for the proposed text on enforcement in the consumer protection co-operation regulation. Alongside most other member states, the UK supported the text of the regulation.
The next item was an exchange of views as part of the regular competitiveness check-up on the EU economy. This focused on investment in intangible assets. The Commission presented evidence to show that the gap between the EU and US on investment in intangible assets is growing, and highlighted its own efforts to help small and medium-sized enterprises. In the following discussion, member states shared best practice and identified areas where they felt the EU could add value.
The Council next discussed actions to modernise public procurement in the context of the European semester. The Commission set out its views on the state of public procurement across the EU as published in its annual growth survey 2017. Member states emphasised their efforts to promote environmentally friendly and socially responsible procurement, as well as ensuring access for SMEs.
Over lunch Ministers were joined by two guest speakers Markus Beyrer (Business Europe) and Hariolf Kotmann (Clariant) to debate the competitiveness of European industries. Member states were asked to consider the appropriate balance between pan-European, national and regional initiatives. Issues of investment and innovation capacity were also discussed. I explained the approach we are taking to development of the UK’s new industrial strategy and that we are seeking to address the cross-cutting, geographical and horizontal issues which impact businesses, rather than focusing on a purely sectoral approach.
The afternoon session began with a presentation from the Commission on its start-up and scale-up initiative (published last autumn). The Commission emphasised that the key challenge is supporting SMEs to scale up to become larger, job-creating enterprises. In the discussion, measures promoting access to finance received the greatest praise from the Council which perceives this as a key barrier to scaling-up. Some member states requested a single EU-wide definition of a “start-up”. Others emphasised that there was a barrier to scaling-up beyond national borders as the single market is not, in fact, a reality.
Next the presidency gave a progress report on the negotiations of the revised regulations on type approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles. The European Parliament has recently agreed on a text. The presidency said it hopes that an agreement in Council will be possible at the next Competitiveness Council meeting in May. The Commission reiterated its message that swift progress on this file was imperative in order to respond to the Volkswagen scandal and fix the systematic failures of the type approval system. Most member states supported the Commission’s proposal, although some had reservations about some of the provisions in the text.
Next the Council took note of information from the Commission on the European defence action plan. In November the Commission adopted the European defence action plan, which is the industrial pillar of the EU defence package. The Commission highlighted the need for more competitive defence technology. It outlined that it does not seek to replace member state action in this area, but is looking for a dialogue on where support is needed. Several member states supported the Commission’s plan.
The next item was information from the presidency on the implementation and entry into operation of the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Commission echoed calls for signatory states to ratify the agreement without delay, pointing out the barrier to innovation caused by the currently fragmented patent system. I updated the Council on the domestic processes required for entry into force of the UPC in the UK and the progress we are making.
This was followed by information from the Commission on its recent services package. Several member states, including the UK, welcomed the Commission’s package and called for rapid and ambitious consideration of it by the Council. Other member states expressed concerns about aspects of the package.
Next the Council discussed a joint paper from nine member states on the competitiveness of the single market. The group was concerned about potentially burdensome new regulatory measures, particularly on minimum wages, introduced at national level by some member states. They feared these measures discriminate against workers and businesses in other member states, reducing their competitiveness. This could lead to single market fragmentation, with the road transport sector particularly affected. The Commission, after taking note of the discussion, stated it would publish its road package later in the year.
Council concluded with an update from the presidency on the regulation on cross-border portability of online content services. The presidency expressed delight at having reached a full political agreement on the regulation. This will see subscribers able to take their subscriptions to online content abroad with them when they travel around the EU. The presidency declared this as an important step towards modernising copyright for the digital single market, removing some of the existing licensing and commercial barriers. The presidency thanked member states for their hard work and co-operation.
[HCWS504]
Justice Update
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
Earlier today, I notified the market via the London Stock Exchange group that I would today lay a statutory instrument to change the discount rate applicable to personal injury lump sum compensation payments, to minus 0.75%.
Under the Damages Act 1996, I, as Lord Chancellor, have the power to set a discount rate which courts must consider when awarding compensation for future financial losses in the form of a lump sum in personal injury cases.
The current legal framework makes it clear that claimants must be treated as risk averse investors, reflecting the fact that they may be financially dependent on this lump sum, often for long periods or the duration of their life.
The discount rate was last set in 2001, when the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, set the rate at 2.5%. This was based on a three year average of real yields on index-linked gilts. Since 2001, the real yields on index-linked gilts has fallen, so I have decided to take action.
Having completed the process of statutory consultation, I am satisfied that the rate should be based on a three year average of real returns on index-linked gilts. Therefore I am setting it at minus 0.75%. A full statement of reasons, explaining how I have decided upon this rate, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The statutory instrument to effect this change has been laid today, and will become effective on 20 March 2017.
There will clearly be significant implications across the public and private sectors. The Government are committed to ensuring that the NHS Litigation Authority has appropriate funding to cover changes to hospitals’ clinical negligence costs. The Department of Health will also work closely with general practitioners (GPs) and medical defence organisations to ensure that appropriate funding is available to meet additional costs to GPs, recognising the crucial role they play in the delivery of NHS care.
The Government will review the framework under which I have set the rate today to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in the future. I will bring forward a consultation before Easter that will consider options for reform including: whether the rate should in future be set by an independent body; whether more frequent reviews would improve predictability and certainty for all parties; and whether the methodology—which in effect assumes that claimants would invest only in index-linked gilts—is appropriate for the future. Following the consultation, which will consider whether there is a better or fairer framework for claimants and defendants, the Government will bring forward any necessary legislation at an early stage.
I recognise the impact this decision will have on the insurance industry. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will meet with insurance industry representatives to discuss the situation.
[HCWS503]
Grand Committee
Technical and Further Education Bill
Monday 27th February 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 86KB) - (27 Feb 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dear) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 12
“International students and staff
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to encourage international students to attend further education providers covered by this Act.(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that no student who has received an offer to study at such a further education provider shall be treated for public policy purposes as a long term migrant to the UK, for the duration of their studies at such an establishment.(3) Persons, who are not British citizens, who receive an offer to study as a student or who receive an offer of employment as a member of academic staff at a further education provider, shall not, in respect of that course of study, or that employment, be subject to more restrictive immigration controls or conditions than were in force for a person in their position on the day on which this Act was passed.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it is fair to say that the question of international students is, to put it mildly, a somewhat thorny one. I do not want to draw parallels too closely with the higher education sector, but there is no reason why the further education sector should not seek to attract more students, and indeed staff, from overseas. The debates that have taken place on the Higher Education and Research Bill suggest that the Government do not fully appreciate the value to many institutions of the contributions made by students from abroad, and I am not just talking in financial terms. The financial contribution is of course important to the further education sector, but no less so is the general contribution made by the presence of students from other countries. Despite the result of the referendum, we do not—and, I would say, must not ever allow ourselves to—live in a world of our own, unwilling to acknowledge or embrace the benefits that flow from interacting with those from other countries and cultures.
There is not a consistency of view regarding the value of those benefits. The Foreign Secretary is a man with whom, I must say, I rarely see eye to eye, but I was at one with him when he said in a recent speech that overseas students should be excluded from the immigration statistics. That is certainly the position of the Labour Party, and I know that it is shared by many others across your Lordships’ House and much further afield. Of course, Mr Johnson was not espousing government policy and he was overruled by 10 Downing Street, but on this occasion certainly he was right. It is common sense to treat international students as a benefit to, and not a burden on, this country.
Amendment 12 would place the onus on the Secretary of State to encourage international students. She could of course delegate that role, and might usefully do so, to the institute. Some further education colleges already reach out and have a presence in other countries—some more successfully than others, it must be said—so this is an area in which there is surely room for expansion. It should be made widely known, particularly when government Ministers are abroad, that applications to further education colleges by young people or by those who want to teach in FE colleges would be welcomed. Students may use this provision as a means to gain the qualifications needed to enter higher education, or teaching staff may use it to broaden their expertise, but whatever the reason, as we close the doors to the European Union, we should be opening them wide to many other countries. This amendment offers a means of doing so by highlighting what further education providers have to offer internationally, and I hope that the Minister will accept it in that light.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment and entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the importance of signalling to international students and staff that they are welcome. Not only are they welcome, they are invaluable in providing teaching skills that we are unable to provide from UK citizens and in bolstering student places in both quality and quantity.
Through this Bill, we would hope to send out positive messages to those from other countries that we are open for business, that we shall honour any commitments to staff or students and that we shall minimise the immigration conditions for all bona fide students and staff who wish to come to our further education colleges or providers. These measures are particularly important now in respect of EU nationals, who play such a significant part in the success of our further and higher education institutions and who are feeling particularly beleaguered and undervalued at the moment, but they are important too for the much wider international community. I hope that the Minister is able to accept this amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of this amendment. I want to remind your Lordships and the Minister that FE colleges come in a number of different guises and there are some specialist FE colleges for which this is particularly important. I am particularly a fan of the Ada Lovelace College—the newest college, I think, to be given FE status by the department—which is the National College for Digital Skills, based in Haringey. We have an acute shortage of digital skills throughout this country, including here in London, and there is a massive demand for them. If we can allow more international students to come and take advantage of studying at that college, we would do our economy and some of those young people an enormous service. I urge the Minister to listen carefully, as is his wont, and to be sympathetic to this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be aware that this issue is already being considered as part of the Higher Education and Research Bill. As a Government, we will want to consider our position across the board, and I can assure noble Lords that we are doing this. This topic is best discussed in the context of the Higher Education and Research Bill, where there will be ample opportunity to consider the issue during the forthcoming Report stage. However, I will briefly address the more specific points of the amendment.
While there are some further education colleges that have centres of expertise or offer higher level study that attract a significant number of international students, such as the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, as a whole the number of international students in FE is much smaller than for the higher education sector. Courses are on average shorter, and delivery is more locally focused and reflects local economic priorities. Where colleges take significant numbers of international students, the issues will parallel those that have been considered through proposed amendments to the Higher Education and Research Bill.
I do not propose to repeat the arguments that my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie made during that debate. I do wish to emphasise that we have and will continue to set no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come here. The controls in place are there to prevent abuse of the system and ensure that the reputation of the UK educational sector continues to be internationally renowned. The immigration statistics are controlled independently by the Office for National Statistics. It is not up to the Government to create the statistical definitions. Our responsibility is to set the policy, which in this case places no limit on numbers of students.
As I have said, there will be an opportunity to debate these issues further as part of the Higher Education and Research Bill, which is the more appropriate forum. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the two noble Lords who contributed to the debate and the Minister for his response. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about the positive message that this sends. That is what I was trying to get across in moving this amendment.
Equally, I accept the Minister’s use of the term “abuse of the system”. No one would be tolerant of that at all. There were such situations in the past in the case particularly of language schools. Some of them had been—to use about the kindest adjective that could be applied to them—“bogus”. Very largely, these have been driven out of the system. I would not say that there is no abuse, but there is not a great deal. Opening up the further education sector does not necessarily increase the likelihood of such abuse.
I take the Minister’s point that the Higher Education and Research Bill is the place to deal with that. Fortunately for him, he will not have to do that, but I will be returning to these subjects next week. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that, hopefully, the further education sector has the opportunity to broaden its scope a bit. Whereas local provision is what it is mainly about, there is scope to expand that and I hope that the sector will take the opportunity to do so and will not be prevented from doing so through the inability to bring students in from abroad.
With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
“Apprentices as qualifying young persons for the purposes of child benefit
(1) The Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 are amended as follows.(2) In Regulation 3 (education and training condition)—(a) after paragraph (2)(a) insert—“(aa) is undertaking a statutory apprenticeship as defined under section A11 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (only statutory apprenticeships to be described as apprenticeships);”;(b) in paragraph (4) after “(2)(a)” insert “, (2)(aa),”.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, this proposed new clause may not at first sight seem as if it is appropriate for this Bill or for the scope of the Department for Education. I would concede the second point, but not the first, and I hope that I can demonstrate that that is not a contradiction in terms. The new clause would enable families eligible for child benefit to receive that benefit for children aged under 20 who are undertaking apprenticeships.
The landscape of apprenticeships is changing, and from April the introduction of the levy will mean a greater focus on giving young people key skills and up-skilling current employees. Apprenticeships are receiving greater support from government than for generations, and the numbers of young people starting them are increasing exponentially. So it felt odd to read in a survey that more than 90% of 18 to 24 year- olds were not interested in starting an apprenticeship. It seems that apprenticeships still have a significant image problem. The survey results showed that not just young people but two-thirds of people aged over 55 thought that going to university would always be a much better career option. The biggest reason for this was said to be poor careers advice being given at school.
That is not the only reason why young people may be discouraged. In some cases, their parents may actually prevent them taking up apprenticeships because of the economic consequences. In one sense at least, apprentices are treated as second-class citizens, with those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds being denied thousands of pounds of financial support that is available for college and university students, according to a survey carried out by the National Union of Students. The research, which that body carried out in conjunction with the Times Educational Supplement, revealed that apprentices are also excluded from a number of means of support available to their counterparts in further education institutions.
In April, the apprentice national minimum wage will increase by a whopping 10%—I am sorry, I wish it were by that, but it is by 10p to £3.50 an hour. A college student with one child could be eligible for more than £10,000 a year in financial support and their families could receive thousands more. Apprentices, including those on the minimum wage earning as little as £7,000 a year, are not entitled to any of this. As well as being ineligible for Care to Learn childcare grants—again, unlike further education students— some apprentices also miss out on travel discounts, council tax exemptions and student bank account packages.
The reason is that apprenticeships are not classed as approved education or training by the Department for Work and Pensions. This means that, in the case of apprentices who live with their parents, their families could lose out by more than £1,000 a year in child benefit. Families receiving universal credit could lose more than £3,200 a year. Why should families suffer as we seek to train the young people desperately needed to fill the skill gaps in the economy? University students receive assistance from a range of sources, from accessing finance to discounted rates on council tax. Apprentices currently receive none of these benefits. The system must be changed so that both are treated equally and there is genuine parity of esteem between students and apprentices.
A large number of examples of apprentices being unable either to take up their apprenticeship or to complete it have been reported by further education colleges to the Association of Colleges. I would like to highlight one case involving a young man aged 16 at the time, who was enrolled in a full-time carpentry and joinery programme at New College Durham. He came from a disadvantaged area within County Durham, where he lived with his mother, a single parent, and his half-sister. From the outset of the programme, he made it clear that he was very keen to transfer to an apprenticeship and enquired weekly at the apprenticeship office about possible vacancies. Within a matter of weeks, he was offered a work trial with one of the employers with whom the college worked. The employer told the college that he was pleased with the commitment and work ethic demonstrated by the young man and offered him an apprenticeship, which was enthusiastically accepted. Soon after starting it, though, the college received a phone call from the employer saying that he would not continue to employ the young man, as his mother had been in contact to say that she would lose her housing benefit due to her son being classified as employed. Despite his disappointment, the young man continued on the full-time programme and completed his level 1 diploma but, understandably, the employer was disgruntled due to the wasted time and effort and stipulated that he would not again interview a potential apprentice from a welfare-dependent background. That really is a sad story.
We need to bear in mind such situations when we think about the extension of apprenticeships. Barriers surely should not be put in the way of young people who genuinely want to start an apprenticeship and see it through, better themselves and help the economy in broader terms. As the National Society of Apprentices said in its submission to the Public Bill Committee in another place, “It seems inconsistent—to put it mildly—
“that apprentices are continually excluded from definitions of ‘approved’ learners, when apprenticeships are increasingly assuming their place in the government’s holistic view of education and skills (which this Bill itself represents through unifying apprenticeships with technical education)”.
To repeat, there should be genuine parity between all educational and apprenticeship routes.
The risk of losing out financially can and does deter some of the most disadvantaged young people from becoming apprentices. The Government need to act to close this loophole and, although I accept that it is not within the Minister’s gift to do so, I suggest that he might at least signify his understanding of the position in which some apprentices find themselves—many of them from the kind of backgrounds where we are trying to attract more apprentices than is currently the case. That would help to reach the Government’s target of 3 million apprentices by 2020 and to ensure that every young person attracted to starting an apprenticeship was not prevented from doing so for financial reasons. I beg to move.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, I know personally several young people who will probably have to pursue a course much less suited to them than an apprenticeship because their welfare-dependent families will otherwise lose too much in benefit. That seems wrong. The Bill is surely not entirely about getting us a skilled workforce; it also has a social purpose—rescuing children from unsuitable parts of the education system, places where they will never learn what they need, when they really need to be in a decent apprenticeship. Finance must not stand in the way, but stand in the way it will—nobody wants their mother to lose housing benefit—unless we can find a way around this issue, which I suggest is by treating people in apprenticeships as if they were in further education.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, while equally recognising that benefits are not directly a matter for the Department for Education.
There are anomalies in the way in which we treat young people. For those in approved education or approved training, child benefit continues until the child 20 years-old. Reading the list of what counts as that, it seems even more incongruous that apprenticeships are not included. For instance, it includes A-levels, Scottish Highers, NVQs up to level 3—which, of course, can be closely linked to apprenticeships—a place on the access to apprenticeships scheme, foundation apprenticeships for traineeships in Wales, the Employability Fund programmes and places on Training for Success. There is a whole raft of education and training courses on which young people continue to get their benefits, but they lose them for apprenticeships.
We know that only 10% of apprenticeships are taken up by young people on free school meals, which is surely an indicator that that is a disincentive, particularly for families, because they will lose out on additional benefits when a child goes into an apprenticeship. An apprenticeship salary on minimum wage may be barely over £3 an hour, so the loss of child benefit and tax credits may be a significant penalty for that family to bear.
The National Union of Students said:
“If apprenticeships are going to be the silver bullet to create a high-skilled economy for the future, the government has to go further than rhetoric and genuinely support apprentices financially to succeed”.
We urge the Minister, in the interests of joined-up government, to talk to his colleagues in the benefits department to see whether something can be done to ensure that disadvantaged young people do not feel that this is a major disincentive to taking up apprenticeships.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I spoke on this issue at Second Reading, so I just reiterate what my colleagues have said. It seems strange that benefits are available to young people until the age of 18, so we can have a university student who has a couple of lectures and a couple of tutorials a week, if they are lucky, who gets the benefit, and a young person doing an apprenticeship, where 20% of the time should be for training, who loses that money. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Garden, only 10%—let us underline that—of apprentices come from those entitled to free school meals. If we really believe in social mobility, we should be asking why it is only 10% and whether finance is a handicap.
The National Society of Apprentices said in its written evidence:
“It seems incongruous to us that structural barriers exist to disincentivise the most disadvantaged from taking up an apprenticeship”.
We need to take those comments on board. I realise this is slightly beyond the scope of the Bill, but it would be helpful if, in his reply, the Minister could suggest that we meet his colleagues outside the Committee and talk about this issue because if there is a resolution, it would really help those people in society whom we must support.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the points that have been made. I shall speak on one narrow issue. I was surprised to learn that an apprenticeship is not an approved form of learning. I assume that, when the Institute for Apprenticeships recognises these apprenticeships, they will automatically be an approved form of learning along with all the others. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will cover whether an apprenticeship is an approved form of learning and whether, when the Institute for Apprenticeships recognises the range of apprenticeships, they will come into that category.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment. It would be very useful if the Minister were prepared to meet separately with my colleagues to see whether a solution could be found. I want to reinforce a point about the challenge of transport costs for apprentices. They can be extremely irksome and difficult for them. The proportion of a very small income going on getting to and from work can be way beyond anything that we, as adults, have experienced.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I, too, support the amendment. Like other noble Lords, I recognise that this is not something that is easily in the Minister’s gift, but it is a major issue and has been for some time.
Apprentices are employees and they should be employees, so they are different from full-time students, but it is also important to recognise that they are not skilled workers, which is why they are apprentices. That is why it is also important that there is an apprenticeship wage, but that apprenticeship wage is very low. This is a major issue and has been a major issue for a while, but, curiously enough, the improvement in the quality of vocational training and the drive to improve vocational training and to make sure that young people go into apprenticeships rather than into some form of quasi, not-real apprenticeship has made the problem worse, because more parents are now faced with the situation in which they tell their children, “I can’t afford for you to take the apprenticeship”.
This is a major issue, and it cannot be beyond our capacity to do something about it. I add my voice to those urging the Minister to see what can be done to prevent young people from the most deprived families feeling that there is a serious barrier to them taking up an apprenticeship.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall make one additional point in support of the amendment. I was one of the founding members of the Low Pay Commission. When it was first established, its job was to create the infrastructure around not just the minimum wage but the wage for apprentices and how that would play out in the world of employment. It was 19 years ago that we first grappled with these issues, so the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is quite right that this has been a problem for quite some time. It is a structural issue.
I know that the Minister is very good at leaping over barriers to try to solve problems. I know it is not easy, but he can see the broader pictures and can try to bang heads together on an issue which will not go away unless something positive is done.
I fully endorse what my noble friend Lord Blunkett said. The Low Pay Commission had to agree to a very low wage not only to get a unanimous report but because we were pioneering and wanted to be absolutely sure that we were not going to damage the economy. When we look at that low wage, as it still is, and the transport implications, to be honest it is a miracle that anybody whose family receives benefits goes in for an apprenticeship at all. Far from being the group that needs the least motivation—we are trying to tackle the fact that the education system is failing that group at the moment—these people require the most motivation to keep going.
This is a plea for the Minister to do his Superman act—he is about to take his jacket off, so I am feeling much more optimistic—and try to find ways of breaking down barriers and breaking through this structural anomaly, which we all want to do.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint, but Superman is not responding to this amendment, and I am certainly no Superwoman.
We welcome the sentiment behind Amendment 12A tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, that young people should not feel financially disadvantaged by taking up an apprenticeship. However, I hope I will be able to persuade noble Lords who have taken part in this debate that sufficient safeguards are in place to support this aim. In saying that, the amendment focuses on child benefit rather than the broader issue of all other benefits, which are not part of this Bill. Therefore, it is very difficult to widen my response in that regard, but let us see what we can do.
One of the core principles of an apprenticeship is that it is a genuine job and is treated accordingly in the benefits system. A young person on an apprenticeship will receive at least the national minimum wage, which is now £3.40 per hour for apprentices following a 3% increase in October 2016. Of course, these figures do not remain static—indeed, I am moving a Motion on an SI tomorrow on upgrading the figures—and most employers pay more than the minimum. The 2016 apprenticeship pay survey estimates that the average gross hourly pay received by apprentices in England was £6.70 per hour for level 2 and 3 apprentices.
The purpose of child benefit is to support parents financially with the extra costs of raising a child—for example, with the cost of food, clothing and other necessities. If a young person is undertaking an apprenticeship, or is in training or education by virtue of a contract of employment, their parents are no longer eligible for child benefit for supporting that young person. However, parents can still receive child benefit for other children and qualifying young persons in their family.
An apprentice has to work only 6.1 hours—less than one full day’s work—on the minimum wage to earn the equivalent of the weekly child benefit amount for the eldest or only child, or four hours to earn the equivalent of the second and subsequent children’s amount. In that sense, there is more than a catch-up there. So I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance that the wages from an apprenticeship, even if paid at the apprenticeship minimum wage, will more than offset any household income reductions through the loss of child benefit.
Noble Lords talked also about the loss or reduction in housing benefit, credits and so on. As I said at the beginning, that is not within the scope of this Bill. Noble Lords have said they would like an opportunity to talk to my noble friend the Minister about this issue before Report. My noble friend is very happy to meet, but it is not within our gift to make a difference on this. The point has certainly been well put by noble Lords, but within the confines of this Bill it is very difficult to look beyond what we are already able to do for apprentices.
I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
Is there not a fairly simple way of bringing this within the scope of the Bill, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Young? All you have to do is get the new Institute for Apprenticeships to design apprenticeships that count as further education, attract child benefit and do not interfere with benefits in the same way as a child in normal sixth-form education would? Is that not the short way home? I wonder what my noble friend Lord Young thinks.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I was going to ask the Minister to address that point. If the apprenticeship is approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships, is it an approved form of learning? The apprentices are in training for the most part. They are released at least one day a week. I would welcome some guidance on that.
Baroness Buscombe
The difficulty is that the institute cannot change the definition of an apprenticeship. However, my noble friend will meet with noble Lords who would like to discuss this issue further following Committee.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
If the institute cannot change the definition of an apprenticeship, who can?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the difficulty is that the definition of a job is a question for Parliament.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for her response and all colleagues who have spoken in the debate. I particularly welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey. One of them mentioned social mobility, which is an important point. It is within the scope of the Government’s overall objective to increase social mobility; it is mentioned often enough. I do not see how it can be outwith the scope of the Bill, as the Minister said, because we are able to discuss it today.
There is no point in repeating a lot of the points that have been made, but I certainly take the issue about an approved form of learning, which my noble friend Lord Young mentioned; it needs to be clarified. Will the Minister write to noble Lords on that point?
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, perhaps did not fully hear my noble friend Lord Blunkett when he asked whether we could meet with the Minister separately to discuss the issue. It was not just with the Minister but with his opposite number in the Department for Work and Pensions as well to see what might be achieved on this. I accept the Minister said that more or less nothing could be achieved, but we are going to meet, so let us broaden the meeting so that we have somebody who has experience of those matters and we can go into them in greater detail.
My noble friend Lady Donaghy has a great deal of experience in these matters, as noble Lords will know. However, I am not sure that her metaphors stand close scrutiny of the very urbane Minister—leaping over barriers and banging heads together is not quite his modus operandi, and I will not go anywhere near the Superman reference. However, I think the Minister can at least open up channels for discussion on this. We would certainly need to have those discussions before Report.
At this stage, it is our intention to return to the matter because, at the end of the day, we want to increase the number of apprenticeships from all backgrounds. We need to increase the overall number, but many are being put off for reasons that will not be assuaged by the figures quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and we have to find a way round this. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) In the exercising of its functions, the Institute must cooperate with—(a) Ofqual,(b) Ofsted,(c) The Office for Students,(d) The Skills Funding Agency, andany other body identified by the Secretary of State as having an interest in the delivery or monitoring of apprenticeships.””
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, at the heart of many of our debates so far there has been a desire to ensure that there is clear accountability for ensuring that at the end of the day we see the development of high-quality apprenticeships. Given the number of bodies involved and the complexity of the organisation and regulation of apprenticeships and technical education, I do not think there is any surprise that we see some ambiguity around this area. The question raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about the definition of an apprenticeship and how to change it showed some of the complexities that we are struggling with.
The Minister very kindly sent us a chart showing where current responsibilities lie. In summary, they seem to be as follows. The Education Funding Agency funds provision for pre-19 students. The Skills Funding Agency funds provision for students over 19, plus apprenticeships, and operates the apprenticeship service. Ofqual regulates the qualification and awarding bodies, including certain apprenticeships. The Institute for Apprenticeships determines the scope of technical education, sets the criteria and awards licences for the delivery of technical education qualifications; it approves and reviews standards and ensures they are upheld through contractual arrangements. Then there is Ofsted, which inspects the quality of training for level 2 and 3 apprenticeships. The information from the Minister is that HEFCE’s role in relation to levels 4 and 5 is still to be determined.
On any reading, that is a pretty complex picture. Is any one of those organisations responsible, in the end, for high-quality apprenticeships? Which of those bodies does the Minister hold ultimately accountable? For instance, which would be called in by the Education Select Committee, or, as I suspect, would they all be because no one is actually going to take ultimate responsibility?
What about the actions of employers? We know that some apprenticeships fail because of a lack of commitment from employers. My noble friend Lady Cohen described this very eloquently on our first day in Committee. What enforcement powers can be taken against employers who, for instance, undermine the apprenticeship schemes which their employees are on, for one reason or another? Ultimately, if the institute is the nearest we have got to an oversight body, does it have enough clout to ensure that it can influence all the other agencies involved? If the answer to the question is Ministers, what mechanisms do they have to give strategic direction and oversight? My noble friend doubted whether the noble Lord liked to bang heads together. I assume he does like to, but can he and how is it going to be done?
The amendment is a modest but, I hope, useful contribution to this. I have borrowed the concept from health legislation, where we are used to having a number of national bodies—either quangos, quasi-independent or to a certain extent independent—which are under a statutory duty to co-operate with each other. It might be useful to have a similar concept in relation to apprenticeships and technical education, given the diffusion of responsibility among many different organisations. The amendment is modest, but behind it lies the plea that, in the end, there is some organisation that can clearly be held to account for the quality of apprenticeships in future. At the moment, I have some doubts as to whether we can actually do that. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have a couple of questions to add to those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is important that a single organisation should keep a list of approved qualifications. At present, it is unclear whether this is going to be IFATE or Ofqual. I hope the Committee can have an answer to that. Secondly, I am unclear how far IFATE’s remit goes into the world of commercial qualifications: the sort of things where a commercial training provider will persuade an industry that this is a particular bit of training they should have for their staff; it has some sort of qualification name attached to it but is completely outside the government-funded system. Will IFATE have any influence in this area, or is it entirely outside its remit?
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I will focus on just one area because, as I understand it, the various bodies set out in the amendment each have a different role. When we debated this on the first day in Committee, the Minister told us that the body that was going to look at the quality of apprenticeships was Ofsted and that it was going to work on a risk-based approach. I told him that I understood the approach but would welcome some clarification of how it is going to apply. He said that he would get back to us on that. As far as I am concerned, there are two things here. I support the thrust of the amendment, in that we need to be clear about the roles and responsibilities, but my overall concern is ensuring that we deliver quality apprenticeships so that the brand has a good reputation among teachers, potential apprentices and parents. If the Minister has replied to this point, I have not yet seen it. Is he in a position to tell us how this risk-based approach will apply to apprenticeships?
Given that we are looking to drive up the number of SMEs involved, the risk will not be with the larger organisations with well-established reputations, such as Rolls-Royce, BT, British Aerospace and a whole host of others that have been mentioned before. We know that people who go into those organisations will get a quality apprenticeship. That is not the problem. The problem will be in small and medium-sized concerns. Given that the success of this enterprise in driving up significantly the number of apprenticeships will depend on ensuring that we embrace more of those organisations in providing apprenticeships, a lot more than currently do, this is not an insignificant issue.
Lord Storey
My Lords, this is a very important amendment. The Government have set an ambitious target of 3 million apprentices, and it is good to have a target to work towards. However, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young, those have to be quality apprenticeships. In a sense, I would rather have 2.5 million apprentices, knowing that there was real quality in the education and training.
I went to look at the apprenticeship scheme run by the BBC. I was struck by the diversity of the apprentices and the quality of the training and education component of the scheme. Young people deserve quality education and training. It is not enough to say, “Here are some books—go and sit in that corner. Here is a day off—go and learn that”. Somebody has to direct the training and education. If a scheme is to work, we need to make sure that somebody is responsible for that quality.
I hope the Minister will not mind me saying that, when we met before the Bill, I raised this question with him. He said then that Ofsted would be “sampling” some of the providers. To me, that is not good enough. We have to be absolutely sure that every apprentice gets only the best.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
I support the amendment. I feel that, in all this, there is tension between what the Bill would like to see and what the Bill will be able to achieve. I keep looking for measures of enforcement, and not just because I am a native head girl or predisposed to police-type solutions. The history of apprenticeships in this country shows that they have mostly failed because of the employers. Indeed, why would it not be because of the employers? They are in charge; they are the ones with the power.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Hunt, for this amendment. I could not help but notice that the moment the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, made the very inappropriate comparison with Superman that I appeared, according to the annunciator anyway, to be in two places at once, as was pointed out to me by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I am not sure that even Superman managed that, but at least I am back now.
It is essential that all the public organisations that have a role in the delivery of apprenticeships and technical education, as elucidated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, work together to ensure a coherent system which delivers a high-quality result.
The noble Lord asked the perfectly fair question, “Who is in charge?”. The Government will work to ensure that the system works and will keep this under review via the accountability statement, which we will share with noble Lords.
The noble Lord asked what the Minister’s role in this was. I guess, if the system does not work, Ministers will intervene to change the system, but individual bodies are responsible for their individual part of the system. The strategic guidance document will ask the institute to carry out a leadership role—a co-ordination role—across the system.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on quality versus quantity, I repeat a point I made on the first day of Committee that our target is 3 million. We believe it is a realistic target, but quality must come first.
Paragraph 10(1)(b) of Schedule A1 to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which will be inserted into that Act by the Enterprise Act 2016, will allow the Institute for Apprenticeships to co-operate with any organisation that it deems necessary for it to carry out its specific functions. It is therefore unnecessary to include the requirement in the Bill.
The Bill includes a data-sharing provision to allow the named organisations freely to share data and information between them, to ensure that they can all deliver their functions properly. This, in addition to the legislation referred to above, is all that is needed in primary legislation to allow those bodies to work together.
In addition, the amendment would require the institute to co-operate with the named organisations but, without a similar requirement on them in return, the effect would be unbalanced. However, that is not my main point.
It is in the interests of all of the organisations named in this amendment to work well together to enable them to fulfil their statutory duties. Past experience demonstrates such a willingness. As the legislation will permit this, we see no need for a further requirement. In preparation for the launch of the institute in April this year, these organisations and others are working together to agree an accountability statement which sets out each of their separate roles and responsibilities in relation to apprenticeships. There is a very positive working relationship between them and a palpable desire to ensure the institute is a real success.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, about how Ofsted will carry out its risk assessment approach, I am meeting Ofsted later this week and will discuss this with it in some detail and write to the noble Lord and copy my letter to other interested Peers. I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured enough by what I have said to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. We always thought that he had super powers and are glad to have confirmation of it. This debate has been helpful.
The Minister has promised an accountability statement and it would be helpful to have that before Report. He said that Ministers will intervene and, importantly, that the institute will have a leadership and co-ordinating role. One question is whether it would be helpful to have that backed up by some legislative provision to reinforce it, which is perhaps something that we can come back to.
On the question of the 3 million and quality, I hear what the Minister says. I take his point that 3 million is deliverable but that quality comes first. The question I would like to ask him is whether the Treasury and No. 10 Downing Street share that view. My experience is that, when push comes to shove, the key indicator on which his department will be held accountable will be the 3 million, rather than the quality indicator. Essentially, we are trying to give some cover to the Government to say that at the bottom line quality is more important than the numbers.
I take the point about the drafting of the amendment —that the duty should have been reciprocal—and we can probably come back to it, but this has been a very helpful short debate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) After subsection (6), insert—“(6A) In performing its functions, the Institute must make provision to ensure that those undertaking education, training or apprenticeships as specified within subsection (6) have representation within its structures, which may include but shall not be limited to establishing—(a) a panel of persons undertaking approved English apprenticeships to inform and advise the Board of the Institute; and(b) a panel of persons undertaking study towards approved technical education qualifications to inform and advise the Board of the Institute.””
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 16 and 18, which deal with the issue of representation within the structures of the institute.
Apprentices should be able to influence the way in which their training is developed and delivered. From the front line, they know what has been and is being helpful to and successful for them and, equally importantly, what is not. I hope that the Minister, who has been clear in his support of apprenticeships and apprentices, appreciates that point. The National Society of Apprentices has said:
“At the moment, apprentices have no real opportunities to improve their education. Although most students going through the ‘traditional’ education system at college or university are able to give feedback through their class representative system, similar structures do not exist for apprentices”.
I might add that students can also give feedback through the National Student Survey.
The panels that we know are to be established for apprentices and technical education students were the subject of considerable debate in another place, in the Public Bill Committee. The Minister of State for Skills, Mr Halfon, was clear that he was in favour of them. He gave assurances related to them and the assurances were taken on board. As things stand, they will not be enshrined in the legislation.
We believe that to ensure that a future Secretary of State or Government less welcoming to the needs of those groups of young people cannot sweep away their right to a channel of communication, which is what it is, rather than representation, they are entitled to representation in some form. The rationale behind this amendment, at its most basic, is that it is better to have and not need than to need and not have. The concerns of those directly involved should have a means of being conveyed. At the moment, other than those panels—and we do not know how and when they will be established—nothing else is on offer.
Amendment 18 concerns the need to have a wide range of types of employer involved in setting the standards for the 15 occupation routes. The fear is that, because only employers with a wage bill in excess of £3 million will pay the apprenticeship levy, they will be the most prominent employers involved. Certainly, they will be spread across the sectors and the 15 occupations. That is self-evident. The question is what types of employer—not just the largest—there will be.
What about small and medium-size enterprises? They are very prominent in providing apprenticeships. Many of them feel that they have been marginalised in the current drive towards expansion. Whether that is the case, that is how many view recent developments. Whether the Government achieve their target of 3 million apprenticeship starts will ultimately depend on how many SMEs contribute to meeting that target. They are a vital part of the economy and should not be undervalued by government. If their needs are not factored in and they feel their voice is not being heard in the corridors of power, particularly when standards are being prepared, we can legitimately ask how they can be expected to play their part in this brave new world with enthusiasm. We might also say that of our other major employers—local authorities, for instance. They will be playing a significant role, I hope, in this, and they have to be borne in mind. It is about widening the base of employers involved in setting standards.
Referring to the Government’s proposals for reform of the sector, in giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers stated:
“Reform proposals may not currently be giving sufficient weight to the input of stakeholders and the concerns of and about learners, which must be rectified by the inclusion of stakeholder representatives on the Board of the Institute”.
I am never quite comfortable with the word “stakeholder”, but I get the point that the association is trying to make.
I therefore supported in principle the amendment similar to this amendment that was submitted by the Opposition in another place. The arguments made then stand now, because although we are not advocating a place on the board of the institute—we would, if we thought it was achievable—we are seeking that a duty be placed on the institute to allow representation within its structures for those directly involved in delivering apprenticeships and technical education. If the institute’s foundations would be shaken by such representation, the foundations are by no means sufficiently robust. I beg to move.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
This is an important amendment. I very much enjoyed the exchange at Oral Questions today in which the noble Lord, Lord Prior, responded for the Government on the importance of employee engagement. I felt he really understands how important it is in the private sector and, in some ways most surprisingly, in the public sector, particularly from his comments about junior doctors. In that spirit, obviously I hope that apprentices—who, as we have discussed this afternoon, are employees—will enjoy employee engagement with their employers, even though they are apprentices. It is equally important that the institute feels that it is accountable to learners and that the accountability of the institute is not more upwards to the Government than it is to employers and learners.
As I said last week in this Committee, I have general concerns that the dynamic, rapidly changing nature of the labour market presents ongoing challenges to the institute. I was set a challenge by my noble friend Lord Hunt to come up with a solution to some of that before Report. I have been mulling on that and may have at least the beginnings of a solution, but I shall wait to surprise the Minister with it at some future date. The point remains that, if the institute does not have within its structure a way of listening acutely to the learner experience, of assessing the relevance of the qualification in the labour market for learners not only while they are going through their apprenticeship but in the months immediately after they have completed it, and of being accountable to employers of all sizes, as my noble friend pointed out, I worry that our efforts in this Committee to try to help and advise the Government in making the institute a success will be in vain because it will too quickly become out of touch and out of date.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 36A, which is in my name and has been placed in this group. It is also about accountability, but a rather broader form of accountability which links the Government, who are encouraging young people and adults to enter training, and the changing environment, which means that many of them are put at risk in a way that was never the case before.
The amendment relates to Clause 13 and asks that any,
“training provider offering publicly funded apprenticeship training or offering publicly funded education training for students aged 18 or over”,
should be included in the requirements of that clause—in fact, what I would like to see is that extended through the whole chapter.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I support the principle of Amendment 16. It is right and important that the institute should have regular input from those actually undertaking apprenticeships and technical education. That will be essential if they are to have a state of awareness about what is actually happening.
I also support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, in relation to training providers. Whether or not they are involved with student loans, they will still be involved in providing apprenticeships and, allegedly, in ensuring that those young people whom they recommend to employers are in a state of preparedness to undertake those apprenticeships.
My recent experience of one provider, which I will not name, leaves me with a great deal of doubt because the not-so-young person concerned—I think this one may have been 22 years old—arrived with little or no understanding of what was required of her when undertaking an interview. She arrived without us being supplied with any CV. We decided to stick with this organisation to see whether it had improved the next time we used it, after it promised us that that was an oversight—and the next time it still did not provide a CV until, on the morning of the interview with the next potential apprentice, it emailed one to us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is quite right to bring it to our attention that a significant amount of government money goes into these organisations and they ought to come under scrutiny. I was assuming that Ofsted has some sort of role in scrutinising training providers, but it was probably an unwarranted assumption on my part. When the Minister replies, it would be welcome if he covered this point.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
I too support the amendment, although I think I may have got out of my depth with training providers. I should remind the Committee that I am involved with the BPP group and that we not only have a university but are training a lot of 16 to 19 year-olds. However, we are not providing all the training. If an employer comes to us and says, “Will you train our apprentices?”, then we do that. That is not the same as training apprentices to be interviewed; they have already been interviewed and are the employer’s pigeon. Indeed, I had barely heard of these training providers who are leaving people in a mess.
However, this inclines me the more to support the amendment because there is very little in the Bill about who students should complain to. Hopelessly, I asked my son, who lives in Germany and is a veteran of German apprenticeships, who German apprentices complain to. The question meant absolutely nothing to him because they do not do that. Apprenticeships work there because they have worked for 20 years, and I think you would be drummed out of the local CBI, or hung or something, if you abused your apprentice in any way. I am not thinking of physical abuse but of people being given a broom or a photocopying machine rather than proper training.
I do not know, and do not think that the Bill says, to whom the learner or student may complain if the employer is not doing its bit. I think they know to whom they can complain if the trainer is not doing its bit—they can complain to us, for a start—and we know that structure. However, we do not know the structure for what to do if an employer is looking after an apprentice very badly and not offering proper training. I do not think that this amendment totally resolves that. Input from students would be very useful but, again—and I feel as if I am banging on a bit—enforcement will matter in this area. Can the Minister tell me what that will be?
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I want to make a couple of points on these amendments. First, as I said at Second Reading, I very much welcome the desire and requirement to have learners themselves represented in the governance of the institute. I welcome also the fact that the Government have announced an apprentice panel for the institute, but I think it would be good if that was a statutory requirement in the Bill.
Secondly, it is important we ensure that the bodies creating the standards are employer-led but, at the same time, represent a cross-section of organisations. However, there is a further point to make on that. Yes, we should have SME representation, but that is easier said than done. Most SMEs find it hard to devote the time, resource and energy to being involved in these quite complicated standard development processes. I am very interested to hear the Government’s thinking on how the views of SMEs—which, after all, deliver more than half of all apprenticeships—can be represented in a way that is comparable to the others that will be represented.
I very much agree that independent training providers need to be subject to accountability and scrutiny, and that learners need to know who they can complain to. However, at the same time, I believe that independent training providers deliver a very substantial proportion of the training needed for apprenticeships, and we should be rather careful that we are not killing that golden-egg-laying goose. It is very important to have the right balance. Again as I said at Second Reading, I have a feeling that the role of independent training providers, including commercial training providers, is not very well reflected in the Bill as it stands. It is a key role and we should make sure we understand how it is going to be delivered in a way that meets suitable standards and scrutiny.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. FE Week seems to be getting quite a few mentions. I came across a piece on training providers by Peter Cobrin, who runs the Apprenticeships England Community Interest Company, which is important to highlight. He says that training providers feel,
“vulnerable, unrepresented, unsupported, unprotected, exploited and undervalued”.
Let us not forget that there are some very good training providers, just as in higher education there are some very good private providers and colleges. However, quite frankly, some need examining carefully. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, it is important to remember that many of the people who go to these private providers take out big loans, and if that private provider collapses or reforms, they are left. That is not good enough. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said it is important that accountability catches up with them. I hope that, following her wise words, we might look more carefully at this area between now and Report.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I support these amendments and the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. Equally, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and my noble friend Lord Storey say about getting the balance of this right. That is important.
I have one small thing to say on Amendment 18. I agree that it is almost impossible to get SMEs to participate meaningfully in these sorts of activities, however much you wish them to do so. The federation can sometimes be helpful in providing for somebody to speak, but individual SMEs very seldom have the time or interest to take part. In Amendment 18, proposed new paragraph (b) refers to, as well as employers,
“at least one person engaged in delivering relevant education linked to the standard being assessed”.
It is important that this group of people includes trainers and awarding bodies, who bring a dimension to these affairs. To have a broad range of people within this group would be particularly important.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, for their two amendments relating to issues of representation for the Institute for Apprenticeships.
With regard to Amendment 16, the institute should obviously understand the views of those people undertaking this training to ensure that it is meeting their needs, because it is the organisation responsible for apprenticeships and technical education. Section ZA2 of the 2009 Act, inserted by the Enterprise Act 2016, already requires the institute to have regard to,
“the reasonable requirements of persons who may wish to undertake education and training within”,
the institute’s remit, and to other interested persons. The institute is also required to engage interested groups as part of the review of standards and assessment plans.
The institute has purposely been established as an independent organisation, with high-level responsibilities set out in legislation but with the freedom to decide how it delivers them. It is essential for the credibility of apprenticeships and the wider apprenticeship reform programme that the institute retains as much autonomy as possible. Government can provide the institute with advice and guidance about how it could carry out its functions. It has to have regard to this advice and must provide justification if it chooses not to follow it. The Government recently consulted on a draft of their guidance to the institute for 2017-18, which includes a request for the institute to establish an apprenticeship panel to advise the board. The shadow institute has already committed to doing this by the time that it is launched and good progress is being made. Members for the first apprenticeship panel have already been shortlisted and an initial meeting is planned for March.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
On that point, can the Minister say how this was done? Were applications invited?
Lord Nash
I will have to write to the noble Lord about that.
As well as advising the board, the first panel will decide how the panel will be run, including how future members will be recruited. The proposal is for the institute to take on responsibility for technical education from April 2018. I can confirm that it would be our intention to include a request in its guidance for 2018-19 for a panel to represent those undertaking technical education.
Amendment 18 would stipulate the make-up of the group of persons whom the institute could approve to develop a standard. In particular, it would require that the group includes a range of employers and at least one provider. I agree that it is essential that the standards that form the basis of reformed apprenticeships and new technical education qualifications are of high quality, and meet the needs of a wide range of employers and learners, but I am not convinced that this amendment is necessary. I have already explained that the institute needs to be independent from government to be able to undertake its functions with credibility. It will be well placed to make decisions about who can develop a new standard, based on a range of factors, and it is right that it should be given the flexibility to do so without the constraints that this amendment would impose.
However, in my remarks on the preceding amendment I referred to the strategic guidance providing a vehicle for government to advise the institute. The current draft of the guidance includes the recommendation on who should be able to develop standards and makes it clear that we will expect the institute to continue to ensure that standards are developed primarily by employers, but with input from others with the relevant knowledge and experience, such as professional bodies, other sector experts, providers and assessment organisations. If the institute decides not to follow the government guidance it must give reasons in its annual report, but it is crucial that, as an expert, independent organisation, it retains the ability to make decisions itself about delivery, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. We believe that our approach strikes the right balance. I hope that, on the basis of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel reassured enough to withdraw this amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for her Amendment 36A. I am sure it was prompted by concerns for publicly funded learners who may find themselves without a place to complete their course in the event that an independent provider shuts down. I share her concerns but just as with FE bodies, the likelihood of independent training providers becoming insolvent is low. The Skills Funding Agency has a robust entry process in place to ensure providers are capable of delivering a high-quality learning offer to loans learners. Once providers have met the entry criteria and are eligible to offer loans-funded provision to learners they are subject to a range of further measures and controls, including review of their financial health, audit, and assessment of their qualification achievement rates. Providers are also required to comply with robust funding and performance rules. A small handful of providers is facing difficulty, but the numbers affected by these cases represent less than 1% of providers operating in the advanced learner loans programme.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
If it is not necessary to have protection because not very many people get affected, why is it necessary to have it for further education colleges, which also do not fail very often?
Lord Nash
I will come to that in my explanation. These are private companies and it is not our role to interfere. I will elaborate in a moment.
In cases where independent providers delivering publicly funded training courses have closed down, our first priority is to support any publicly funded learners affected, ensuring they can continue their courses with minimal disruption. The SFA works closely with the SLC to ensure that, wherever possible, we identify a suitable alternative training provider or college where individuals can complete their learning. We have been doing just that in a recent case, which received a certain amount of publicity, when a provider went into liquidation in November: we have matched all the learners to alternative provision.
However, these are private companies, and it is not for the Government to involve themselves in their financial matters any more than those of other private companies. This is, essentially, the point I made in answer to the noble Baroness. We will always work to support learners affected in cases where the provider fails and it is right that we do so, in the way I have outlined. But as to whether we should have a special administration regime, we cannot make the same special and complex arrangements, which will often involve significant and additional public funding, where a private company has failed. This is, and must remain, a matter for the company and its creditors and shareholders. I hope the noble Baroness will agree, and will therefore not press her amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I asked how they are subject to scrutiny and accountability for the quality of service they are providing, never mind the financial side. I gave the Minister an example where I thought they would. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that there are some good examples of training providers, but who scrutinises the quality of service they are actually providing? That was what I wanted to know.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
I am happy not to press my amendment, but I would like some clarification on why a private company which is often entirely dependent on public funding should be in some sense exempt from any requirements. This does not seem to be consistent with much of what goes on elsewhere in the public sector and what it requires of people.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I think the Minister has sat down now and that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is very pertinent. From what has been said over the past half-hour or so, it is likely that we will return to this subject on Report. I have no doubt that the Minister and his officials will be looking at this in greater detail because the question of accountability is very important. Whether or not these are corporations, they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, dealing with public money.
My noble friend Lady Cohen asked what recourse students have if they are dissatisfied. The Minister did not answer that point. Again, this comes down to accountability. People have to have some come back if they do not get what they thought they were getting. I am talking about situations that fall short of the provider collapsing into insolvency. Many people may feel that they are getting an inferior product and that has to be something that can be followed up.
I take the Minister’s point in respect of Amendments 16 and 18 about the institute being independent and having the freedom to decide how it delivers. However, he went on to say that there would be two panels: one for students and one for apprentices. That is what our Amendment 16 asks for and it goes no further, other than to say that it need not be limited to those two panels. The Minister has conceded the point, as did his colleague Robert Halfon in another place, as I said earlier. We knew that, but it would be helpful to have a commitment because—we say this in respect of many pieces of legislation—we may get a commitment from Ministers now, but what about the Ministers or Government who follow them? There is nothing to fall back on should views change. That is why it is important on occasions such as this to have it written into the legislation.
The same could be said about Amendment 18 on employers. The Minister said—I wrote it down—that there would be a range of employers. We are asking for almost the same wording,
“a number of employers who, taken together, comprise a broad range of employer types”.
We are surely talking about the same thing and I do not understand the reluctance. The Minister clearly wants to see a broad range; so do we.
I think we might want to revisit these matters because we are capable of reaching a situation where both sides are satisfied. We want to make sure that this works and works well: that the boards are representative and that the standards set are proper and reached with the full support of the sector. They have to be acceptable to employers within each of the 15 occupational groups and seen to be representative of their needs. We have a bit of common ground but there is some ground yet to be made up before we reach what either side might find a satisfactory outcome. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group. I remind the Committee that I am associated with City & Guilds, which obviously has an interest in what happens under this part of the Bill. I will leave remarks on intellectual property, as far as I can, to the next group, which seems to focus on that subject.
As part of the Sainsbury review, we have a proposal that each of the 15 routes that it suggests should have a single awarding body allocated to it and that those awarding bodies should be subject to review every seven years. The Department for Education took a long time thinking about this structure in regard to GCSEs and decided against. It decided to keep the current three and a half, as it were, awarding bodies available for every subject and I think it did that for a very good reason. A single awarding body is a single point of failure. If it goes wrong, we are stuck.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. We have no pattern of a single awarding body which has been a success in any shape or form. With GCSEs, O-levels and all previous exams there was always a choice of learning styles, and each of the vocational awarding bodies brought something different in the material they used or type of learning style that lead to the final qualification. It was always up to the trainers, the teachers, to decide which awarding body they felt best met the needs of their students. Provided the standard is set, so you can guarantee that the same standard will be reached, there is immense benefit in having variety among awarding bodies and competition.
It is slightly ironic that whereas in higher education the Government seem to view more competition as the virtue above all others, in the Bill they are moving to a single source of awarding bodies. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we need to be very cautious before destroying some worthwhile and reputable organisations and qualifications, not just in this country but internationally.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
My Lords, I must rise to defend the position of the Sainsbury review, as I was a member of it and signed up to it, after a great deal of debate. No one in the group moved easily to the position where we recommended a single qualification for the college-based route—not, I should add, for all apprenticeships. Nothing in the Sainsbury review says that employers do not have a choice at that level. We did so for historical reasons and for comparative reasons. Historically, the model described by the noble Baroness served us quite well, but it is pretty much unique. Other countries have a single set of national qualifications. They do not have competing awarding bodies.
Historically, the Government set out consciously to destroy any near-monopoly in the vocational area. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, although there was no formal monopoly for City & Guilds, for example, none the less, construction awards were City & Guilds. If you wanted to train as a nursery nurse, you did NNEB. These were extremely well-known and well-respected qualifications. Since then, we have had repeated attempts to break that situation open and instil standardisation via standards. The result has unfortunately been in many cases a clear race to the bottom and, worse, the disappearance of any qualification which is clearly recognised and therefore has a brand and market value. This was, in a way, a slightly sadder but wiser recommendation.
When I wrote the vocational education review for 14 to 18 year-olds, I did not recommend a single awarding body. I hoped at that point that a regime within the Department for Education, which had clear standards for a qualification passing muster, would lead to a serious improvement in the quality of the vocational awards and the assessment, and the emergence of recognised market leaders. It really depresses me that that did not happen. We have a real problem at the moment: the old recognition has gone and the modified regime, which was brought in in the middle, does not seem to have done the trick. We have a gigantic number of qualifications on the books, many of them taken by tiny numbers of people, with no clear recognition at all. This area is by necessity very different from GCSE, where the Government really do not give awarding bodies much freedom any more. The degree of freedom which you have in the key areas of English or maths is pretty notional. The decision not to go ahead with the single awarding body was not because of a belief that we should not have one but because of Ofqual’s well-justified conclusion that it would not merely disorient the whole system but so destabilise it that we might have a national disaster.
There is a real issue in how the institute does its licensing, but it is not true that a body which holds a licence does so forever. Clearly, nothing will prevent the institute varying its regime in future years. However, I feel we are now in a situation where if we do not make a clear attempt to create a recognised, national qualification for each of these routes, people will not take them. They will feel that everybody knows what an A-level or a BTEC is, but we still have 15 of these things and do not know what any of them mean. So for once, unusually, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. The Sainsbury review was right to feel that a single licence for these classroom-based routes is what we have to do now, in 2017.
Lord Lucas
Yes, it is perfectly possible to do that but does the noble Baroness not think that we need a decent level of staff in IFATE in the middle of that? If she is saying that it will be the repository of this qualification and will maintain quality, integrity and innovation down through the years, can that be done on two and a half people, who seem to be all that are left to spare?
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
I hope that with the licensing situation there will be a chunk of time when it is worth investing. There are issues relating to the licensing system, which we will get to later in the Committee, but we are not asking the institute to run the qualification. We are saying that there should be a licensed awarding body but that if the situation is not restored to where there is one clear, recognised qualification for a route, the qualification will have no brand recognition. The Government also tried repeatedly to kill off BTECs and they failed, because people value and need something that is known. In the current situation, we have created something of a desert with a few rather feeble weeds.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I must admit that I am torn now between the two positions, having heard what both sides have said. I must admit that my fear is that while I understand the point the Sainsbury review came to, that there are too many qualifications and there is a need for rationalisation, I have a sinking feeling that the baby could well go out with this bathwater—I cannot think of another cliché. To describe some of these well-known qualifications, whether they are City & Guilds, HND or HNC as bathwater seems unfair, but they are recognised brands with good reputations. As I understood it from previous debates, it was not absolute that they would go.
I accept the point that if you have too many qualifications, that creates confusion. I welcome that bit of it but I would welcome hearing some analysis from the Minister which says that we need not worry about these well-established brands which I have referred to and that if they go, so be it.
I cannot help but feel that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right to issue a word of caution about putting all our eggs in one basket. It will take time to establish a new brand—we know how difficult that is. The idea of these debates is to probe, and this is an area where we need to be sure that we are heading in the right direction.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am a patron of an awarding body, ASDAN. Also, as a Minister, I spent three years building a clear, recognised qualification in the form of diplomas, which then got killed off after a huge amount of time, effort and money were spent trying to develop them, although some of them certainly seemed to be well received—engineering comes to mind.
I paid close attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said. I respect the work that she and the Sainsbury commission did. I certainly agree that we need these to be clearly recognised qualifications, but there are a number of ways to get to that point. I remember well the SATS marking crisis through which I had to navigate as a Minister. We had a problem with the company carrying out the marking. We ended up having to dismiss it from the contract and had to re-let the contract. We found that there was only one awarding body with the capacity to do that work. Edexcel effectively had us over a barrel. Happily, it was a responsible organisation and did not want to exploit the monopoly position in which it found itself, but it is really dangerous if you find yourself without the competitive capacity for different people to respond as and when circumstances change.
I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has done by raising this issue and giving us an opportunity to explore it. Clearly, there will be general capacity if different awarding bodies are awarded the contracts for different groups, but there would remain issues about their specialism in the subjects attached to each of those groups. My instinct is that the Sainsbury review might have got it wrong in this case. It may be that I just do not understand well enough what the department has in mind in terms of the model. I may not understand the extent to which it wants to specify the inputs into the qualification, how much it is concerned with the outcomes, how detailed it wants to be, how much it wants to specify the pedagogy, or whether it is thinking that these are wrappers in which you could put other qualifications, so that there is a single overarching contract-awarding body. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me in his response or in some other way.
As the Committee has discussed, we must put quality first. As I keep saying, we must ensure that we have agility. The time it takes to develop qualifications reduces agility, and a seven-year contract makes me very anxious about how that agility can be preserved as skills needs change in the economy. I am particularly keen that we embed in the design the potential for innovation in assessment and awarding. I see innovative practice going on around the world, particularly by employers using digital badges that can have wrappers put around them to keep up-to-date with skills and the value of an employers’ own qualification, with a meta-qualification on top through the wrapper mechanism. It is crucial that we allow for that. The notion of a single contract for these qualifications, thereby reducing competition, makes me worry profoundly about innovation. I find myself, as a Labour Peer, arguing with a Conservative Government that we want competition. I hope that the Minister will revert to instinct, listen and agree competition is good to improve delivery and agility in the system.
Lord Storey
I remember that my nursery nurses were terribly upset when their NNEB qualifications went and they became NVQ level 3. They were devastated, so there is something in a name and perhaps in a bit of tradition. I am a bit torn. I understand the Sainsbury review and the Government saying: let us create and agree a standard for the different pathways and maintain it. That is the qualification we will have so, presumably, various organisations can bid for it and, if they win the contract, the Government will ensure that they maintain the quality and standard.
However, as has been said, there is something about having competition. You have to look only at GCSEs, where the Secretary of State at the time wanted to have a single provider. There was a sort of rebellion against that and it did not come to pass. Schools and young people themselves can choose which awarding body to go for. Different awarding bodies suit pupils for different reasons—the content may match their study. We must think carefully about this. It is important for parents, young people and employers. Getting the name right is important but sometimes people also like letters after the name—there is a later amendment from my noble friend Lady Garden about that. I am caught on this, but I hope that we can explore the best way forward.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
I am responsible for 2,000 degree-level apprentices and about the same number of others. At the moment, we do what the employer wants. If the employer arrives and says: “I would like the formal training to have these outcomes”, we say, “Right”, then we discuss it and bid for it. I had been assuming that we could adjust to the new regime. If the Institute for Apprenticeships stated the outcomes that it wanted, we could teach to those outcomes because that is what we do. We would be able, in essence, to do a wraparound to suit a particular employer, which would include the vital bits that the Institute for Apprenticeships wanted. I am a little puzzled if we are to be told that we all have to teach the same thing on, say, the finance course by the bit of the Institute for Apprenticeships that is working out finance training. At the moment, let us say that KPMG tells us how it wants us to do finance training. We would do that but if someone else wanted it to be slightly different, our competitive advantage over the years has been built on adjusting to do a different sort of finance training.
I am not quite sure where I am going with this, but are we providers still to be allowed variation in any way if an employer asks us to do it slightly differently, provided we include a certain number of outcomes and standards, as set out by the institute? To take an example from my experience, with our graduate law course we made our name by introducing a City law course that the City wanted. “Wait”, we said, “we’ll do that”. Of course, it is all the same law but it was specialist. We did that and not some other bits of law. I can imagine that being the outcome still: some City firms want varieties of law taught that nobody else cares about, as in shipping law, and some accountants want things that nobody else much cares about taught, as in shipping finance. Are we to end up with an agreed set of standards to which we must adhere, but around which we can wrap something that employers might want, or not? I am arguing for a setting of outcomes and standards by the institute but with a little deviation allowed, provided those apprenticeships include the basic standards and outcomes. Will the Minister tell me about that?
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, I share the concerns that have been expressed about a single awarding body. I would have thought that the idea would be to have the sort of single recognised qualification that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is looking for, but delivered in slightly varying ways by two or three highly qualified, well-regulated and well-managed organisations. Having all one’s eggs in a single basket worries me from the point of view of what happens if it does not work and what happens if you want to change the franchisee.
Amendment 17 would require,
“at least one recognised technical qualification”,
in the outcomes. I very much welcome the fact that standards are to be employer-led. That should ensure that they are focused on skills for which there is a market and which will lead to jobs, but it is also very important to ensure that the needs of the learner or trainee are properly reflected. One of those needs is to acquire portable skills and attainments that are transferable to the different jobs or activities that trainees might move into. Having recognised technical qualifications included in the standards is a way of doing that. Many of those qualifications already exist in the form of NVQs, diplomas and what have you; new ones will no doubt emerge under the new process.
When I used to run employability training programmes for young Londoners not in employment, education or training, we quickly learned the value of including recognised qualifications in our programmes. Many of the young people we worked with had what you might call relatively chaotic lives and did not necessarily follow what might be considered a well-organised career trajectory. The fact that at the end of the programmes they could demonstrate achievement of some specific qualifications, whether in English, communications, basic employment skills, or ASDAN qualifications, which we also used, or health and safety or creative skills, gave them something to work with when it came to taking a new and possibly quite distinct step into a job or a career.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, mentioned that her courses are geared to what employers need, but the employers which tend to be predominant in defining those needs are the larger employers. Very often the requirements do not necessarily reflect the needs and realities of SMEs and the sort of young people seeking jobs in SMEs, as I define them. For that reason, there is great value in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, this is an important part of the Bill because this is how the Government clearly intend the institute to instil some rigour in technical qualifications and apprenticeships. The method they are using is set out fairly clearly. There are two words which need clear definition in this part of the Bill: one is “standards” and the other is “outcomes”.
On standards, as I understand it, you have to choose your occupation. Let us say it is plumbing. The institute would then say, “We are going to do plumbing today”, so it would get a group of plumbers together to determine what the standards should be. Are the standards likely to have labels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5? I assume that the department has worked out what a standard would look like. Could the Minister give us an example or write to us about it? It does not look as though the department have prepared them. It would be interesting to know what a standard would look like. That is not clear from the Bill.
Then there are outcomes. Can the Minister give us an example of what an outcome would be? Is it the same as on the next page of the Bill, “an approved educational qualification”? What will the outcome be of this operation? Will the institute say, “We have studied all the plumbing qualifications and we think the one from BTEC is the best”? “Outcome” means a specific something so that someone can say, “That is the end of it all”. It would be very helpful to have some explanation of how this system is to work.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in saying that, at heart, we want to hear how this will operate, because that will inform our future debates. Like my noble friend Lord Knight, I have no problem at all with competition where it can drive quality and innovation. However, that depends on the nature of the market and the capacity and nous of the commissioning body. Frankly, my concern is that government procurement has not usually shown itself able to have the agility that my noble friend asked for. The constraints put upon public sector procurement drive you to award tenders on a crude price basis. Ministers always sign up to concepts of value for money and outcomes, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said. But as anyone dealing with the Government will know, the reality is that it always comes down to price. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, made a very convincing argument on the principles, but the real question is on the practice of procurement and licensing.
There was a tension in what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. He had two worries: one was that the franchising system envisaged would allow too little time for a provider to invest morally, intellectually and financially in the very long term; equally, the other was that because of the single-provider approach, there will be little competition at the end of the franchise period. I suppose he would say the risk is that we end up with the worst of all worlds, with low-quality provision and a provider that is not interested in the long term, and the institute having no choice at the end of the day.
It comes down to capacity. We are talking about an institute with 80 people. I hope that most of their time will be spent overseeing standards, because I for one simply do not trust the approach that is being taken. How can we rely on employers, given that their record in this country is so dismal? I hope the institute will have people who can talk to and challenge the panels. But who will be left to oversee these contracts? The record of government and public sector bodies in procurement is dismal.
My other question is to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. In its deliberations, did the review look at the ability of the public sector to commission in a sensible, grown-up way, rather than the usual crude way that is taken? My noble friend Lord Adonis is in his place, and I am tempted to invite him to talk about some examples of that in rail franchising. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned this at Second Reading, and clearly there are a number of examples of where the Department for Transport has gone for a bid that was overambitious from the company concerned and has had to come to the rescue. There are also examples of the argument around whether a franchise can be extended to enable the train operator to invest in the future development of services. I hope that the Minister’s department will look at that experience before getting into this sort of system. For me, it is not so much about the principle but about the capacity of the institute to handle what could be a very difficult issue.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend Lord Lucas, for this very helpful debate on these amendments. My task is to try to reassure all noble Lords that we are on the right page and that we are not talking about what we have had in the past, which was all about a race to the bottom. That was the reason the Sainsbury review was set up in the first place. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we are trying to achieve the right thing, and I shall explain in more detail how this is going to work.
On Amendment 17, good-quality standards developed by employers and other relevant experts are at the heart of the apprenticeship and technical education reforms, and we must ensure that they are fit for purpose. In future, standards will form the basis of both apprenticeships and technical education qualifications in the reformed system, and they must be appropriate for both pathways. One of the cornerstones of the apprenticeship reforms has been to move away from a qualifications-based system—in the past, apprentices have collected a number of small, often low-quality, qualifications throughout their apprenticeship—to a single end-point assessment that tests all-round competency in the occupation.
By mandating, as the amendment proposes, the inclusion of a technical education qualification in each standard, we would be moving back towards this system, and reintroducing something which was a significant factor in the decreasing quality of apprenticeships in the past under the framework model. There may be some cases, such as degree apprenticeships, where including a qualification is appropriate, but we should not require it in every case. The purpose of the apprenticeship reforms is that they are employer led, so employers and other experts should have their input for each standard.
In addition, this approach may also blur the lines between the two pathways, which are intentionally different. For those on an apprenticeship, the individual primarily gains the knowledge, skills and behaviours set out in the standard through learning on the job and 20% off-the-job training, which is then tested through a single end-point assessment. A technical education qualification is taught largely in a college environment, often supplemented by a work placement and other steps leading to the new TE certificate. By including a technical education qualification in all apprenticeships—which would be the effect of the amendment—we would lose the essential flexibility of standards developed by employers and others and limit the breadth of skills that can be obtained through an apprenticeship.
I noted that a number of Second Reading speeches, particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, were very strong on this point of flexibility. Several noble Lords have touched on this this afternoon. We do not want to lose flexibility through this process, and we must have some clarity.
The apprenticeship end-point assessment is the equivalent of the technical education qualification for those who have undertaken an apprenticeship, but also captures a wider range of skills and behaviours as well as knowledge. It needs to be given time to gain the value and worth with employers that many currently associate with qualifications. Including a technical education qualification would undermine this by narrowing an apprenticeship so that the measurement is more focused on a knowledge-based qualification and less on occupational competency.
I can, however, reassure the noble Lord that our apprenticeship system is flexible and that qualifications can be included in apprenticeships where that is what employers need, in circumstances, for example, where failing to include a qualification would put the learner at a disadvantage in the workplace or where it is a statutory requirement. We do not believe that technical qualifications should be included in all apprenticeships.
Amendments 26 to 30 relate to copyright. I understand the concerns my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised on copyright, and I hope that I might be able to provide an explanation that will put his mind at rest. My noble friend has proposed that the institute should retain the copyright for standards and common qualification criteria rather than for relevant course documents. Amendments in the Enterprise Act, due to come into force in April, already make provision for the copyright for standards to transfer to the institute upon approval. It follows that the institute would own the copyright for any common qualification criteria that it has produced. By common criteria, we mean design features of the qualifications that are the same, irrespective of the route studied.
The qualifications system in England is unique. Qualifications that attract public funding are developed and supplied not by the Government but by awarding organisations. Our reforms will see the institute taking responsibility for ensuring that only high-quality technical qualifications that match employer-set standards are approved by the institute. This will see the institute working with employers and other relevant stakeholders to set the content of qualifications. There will be a number of people involved in this, on the different panels, including ex-apprentices.
While we recognise that it is a departure from the current system, the transfer of copyright for relevant course documents is an important feature of the reforms. The scope of the licences for the delivery of qualifications and the details of relevant course documents will be established in due course. These may well include a specific technical assessment design specification, as well as other documents that are key to the make-up and assessment of a qualification. We would expect the institute to work closely with key stakeholders, as we propose to do, to make sure that the detail is right. This will, of course, include the organisations that develop qualifications.
If copyright for relevant course documents does not reside with the institute, we could end up with a technical education system where any innovation and employer needs are undermined by commercial interests. While we believe absolutely in competition, we want competition to raise quality and standards. If an organisation other than the institute holds the copyright for a particular qualification indefinitely, this would effectively create a stranglehold that would make it difficult for other organisations to enter the market. This would clearly not be in the public interest or fair value for the taxpayer.
However, we do not want an inflexible system. The institute will be able to grant a licence to an organisation or person for use of documents for which it owns the copyright. This could include granting a licence back to the organisation that has developed the qualification. There are also important safeguards provided for in new Section A2DA.
Amendments 28 and 29 seek to clarify that the institute may grant more than one person a licence or be assigned a right or interest in any copyright document. I would like to reassure noble Lords that it is precisely our intention that more than one person may be assigned a licence if in particular circumstances this is appropriate. I would also like to draw noble Lords’ attention to Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978. This stipulates that, unless it is clear that there is a contrary intention, wherever there are words in the singular these include the plural and vice versa. This means that the institute may grant a licence, right or interest in any copyright document to more than one person, should this be appropriate.
I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring noble Lords. In addition, I would like to touch on one or two of the questions—all of them if possible. If I do not reassure everybody, I would be very happy to write to noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Lucas questioned this single route, but each route will include a number of qualifications, each based on a cluster of occupations. If an awarding organisation fails, the institute’s copyright arrangements will allow another awarding organisation to step in. What is important is that this primary legislation does not tie our hands. Panels will be starting work this summer on the detail of the different courses. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who is, sadly, not in her place, has explained in detail why the commission decided to depart from the existing system and say that it is much better to have one organisation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With the greatest respect, that is a ridiculous comment, and I do not know why the noble Baroness said it. We have not heard whether the institute, with its 80 staff, has the capacity to handle what looks to me like a very complex procurement situation. In fact, we have heard very little about the institute’s capacity, when it must also be concerned with whether the panels producing the standards are doing the right thing. I have yet to hear any explanation of why the contracting process that has been undertaken will ensure that quality is at the forefront. What I said was that public sector procurement tends not to go down that route. If the noble Baroness wants an example of what the Government are doing at the moment—I must declare my interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association—I would say that many of the current procurement processes in health are very much about price at the expense of quality.
Baroness Buscombe
I respect the noble Lord’s response, but 80 employees is quite a lot of people, and that is not where it will end. The number will rise by another 30 later this year as the process is introduced and developed. It is also important for noble Lords to appreciate that we want to use the expertise and interest of outside individuals who understand the needs of employers and what it was like as an apprentice and so on to support the institute so that we have a flow of expertise seconded, in a sense, to the institute, to work with it. So they are not the same individuals who are stressed and stretched at the number of 80.
The noble Lord does not look content with that answer, but is very important that price is not the point here.
My noble friend Lord Baker talked about standards. I am pleased to say in response that a number of standards for apprenticeships have already been published and are in use. We can, of course, send examples to noble Lords, but there are not enough completions to share outcomes yet. That will follow.
Lord Baker of Dorking
I understood the Minister to say that an outcome is not necessarily an educational qualification. Is that correct?
Lord Baker of Dorking
Then what is an outcome? I think that at some stage in her speech the Minister said that it was a level of knowledge. She then went on to say that it does not necessarily mean competence in applying that knowledge. When it comes to plumbing, I am all in favour of knowledgeable plumbers, but I want plumbers who can fix things.
Baroness Buscombe
I agree entirely with my noble friend. Forgive me if, when talking about knowledge, it seemed as though that was the end of the story. We are looking for occupational competence. That is the key to certification: that people are absolutely prepared and competent to enter the world of work as a fully-fledged employee in that area.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I want to be sure I understand this. If we stick to the example of plumbing, I am assuming that the individual would have carried out an apprenticeship that met the occupational standards that have been determined by the panel of employers. That may or may not include a technical qualification. I hope I have got that right. There are 15 routes, and panels have been set up under the categories of employers—there may be other people on the panels—and they are going to set the occupational standards that will form the basis of the apprenticeship. When an individual reaches the end of their apprenticeship, they should have met all those standards and there will, I hope, be some assessment outcome that will prove to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that they can do a Yorkshire fitting and a compression joint. I would like an example of where the noble Baroness feels an apprenticeship would not include a technical qualification.
Baroness Buscombe
Off the top of my head, I cannot give a particular example. The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, talked about shipping law. Perhaps a technical qualification is not so appropriate for that.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
A lawyer’s qualification would be required, but it does not necessarily have to be called “shipping law”.
Baroness Buscombe
Surely that is a good example.
I have been talking plumbers with officials so that I can understand what we are trying to achieve here. The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is about achieving occupational competence. However, if that panel decides, through time and through outcomes, that something is not right, we do not want the hands of the institute to be tied. The point is that the primary legislation will allow flexibility so that those standards could be changed in the light of any perceived failure or lack of occupational competence through practical application of the examinations of the qualifications. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
This is surely what awarding bodies are doing all the time—they are awarding qualifications but if things change, they adapt the qualifications as they go along. I do not quite see why we need this supra-body in the form of the institute to oversee work that goes on all the time with vocational qualifications.
Baroness Buscombe
That goes back to the core reason why we are doing this. There were multifarious organisations rather than one overarching body to say that the standards are just not good enough and the qualifications are not preparing x or y for the world of work. This is why the review was set up: there was no consistency in the standards and those bodies were allowed to fail the apprentices. That is what this legislation is all about. As noble Lords said at length at Second Reading, for too long we have failed apprentices and allowed them to be second class and ignored. The same rigour has not been applied in further education as in the higher education system, and that is what we are seeking to put right.
Noble Lords have asked some important, incisive questions this afternoon, and I am sure they will continue to do so throughout the passage of the Bill, about how we do this and what the process is. I reassure noble Lords that this legislation is a framework. It is not intended to prescribe the detail of what the institute will do going forward. The point is to set the framework to allow the institute and excellence to thrive. It will ensure standards of competence so that young people going out into the world of work have something in their hands which means something to all employers and which they can rely on for their future employment.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, providers will need to make sure that they include the core outcomes approved by the institute and developed by employers and others. However, they can add additional elements to meet employers’ needs. In a sense it could, as the noble Baroness suggested, be bespoke for a particular employer’s requirements, as it is currently. For technical qualifications at level 2 and 3, the content will be the same wherever it is taught. That is key: it gives employers a sense that they can trust that a person turning up with a qualification has something which is recognised and will provide what they are seeking. However, colleges will be able to tailor wider programmes of study to meet local needs.
I hope I have gone some way to reassuring noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary. On that basis, I ask—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I think I am clearer now on the standards. In the last part of her contribution, the Minister referred to technical qualifications. The Bill is very prescriptive on the institute’s control of approving and licensing technical education certificates. How does that leave the current technical education qualifications? The Bill says that:
“The Institute must maintain a list of approved technical education qualifications”.
How does that impact on existing technical education qualifications?
Baroness Buscombe
In essence, I am assured that it will lead to new qualifications. Is that any help to the noble Lord?
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I would welcome a letter clarifying that situation. What happens to the existing ones? We have mentioned these brands almost ad nauseam. Will there be some transition process?
Baroness Buscombe
I would be very happy to write to the noble Lord but, in essence, the current qualifications will become obsolete and the funding will be removed. There will, obviously, be a transitional process.
Lord Baker of Dorking
We are learning a lot as we go along. It was quite interesting, although it was not very specific in the Bill. When all the existing qualifications are binned and new ones emerge, the awarding bodies which have lost will almost certainly challenge it under judicial review. This is going to be a lawyer’s paradise. If you are now going to decide that it is going to be City & Guilds for plumbing, BTEC will want to know exactly why you have said that and why its plumbing qualifications are no good. That is for the lawyers to decide is it not?
Baroness Buscombe
I reassure my noble friend that there will be a proper tender process for this. Through it, the current organisations can apply for a licence to continue what they are doing now as an awarding organisation.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I want to pick up on the very interesting point that the noble Lord raises. If you have a single relationship with a provider, when it comes to renewal you are in quite a perilous place, given the closeness that the organisation will have had to government, in terms of being assured that the retendering will be as fair as can be—and not just in terms of capacity. The Minister said what she said about copyright. I have some concerns about how much valuable work you will get from awarding bodies if they are going to hand over their IP to government, but I will park that worry to one side. Given this closeness to government, how are you going to make sure that the reprocurement will work?
Baroness Buscombe
First, it is not being handed over to the Government but to the institute, which is funded—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, there is no such thing as independent bodies in this area. All the bodies listed are going to be in one way or another under the heavy influence of government. The very fact that we are legislating for it means that, in the end, Ministers will take responsibility for what the institute does. There is no other way the Government can discharge accountability. Clearly, the Government will use the usual public sector tendering approach, which is a dead hand and will not, in my view, allow for innovation.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is going to do, but one thing that has struck me about the meetings we have had so far is that we have not really met the institute or its acting chief executive or the board members. I think it would be invaluable to listen to them to understand how they are going to take this process forward. We have not been convinced that the institute, to which I assume all the usual public accountabilities will apply, will have the actual capacity to handle the kind of sophisticated tendering that is required. That seems to me to be the problem.
Baroness Buscombe
I am sorry that the noble Lord seems to be taking quite a negative approach to this. As I said earlier, this Bill is for primary legislation to set a framework. Of course, there may be a situation where Ministers may have to have oversight, but the reality is that we want this to work as charged by the Sainsbury review. We are responding to a situation where we want to turn around something that has clearly not worked, and has clearly not been successful or provided the best outcomes for young people going into the world of work. We are trying to change that.
All I can say at this point is that we are happy to write to noble Lords to explain in more detail what we are trying to achieve through this process. As I said earlier, the legislation will not tie the hands of the institute. Flexibility and quality are key words in how this will develop.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her lengthy explanation. The main thing I would like to ask her is that, between Committee and Report, we have the chance to sit down and discuss this, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says, with the people who are going to deliver this, as far as we can find them, so that we can get a real understanding of how this process is going to work.
I am delighted that my noble friend uses the word “flexibility”, but I cannot see how a seven-year provider four years into a contract is going to react when faced with an industry which says that it wants things changed because the technology or the requirements have moved on. The provider is going to ask, “How am I going to do this? It takes two years to change things and then I have a year to get my money back on this. What’s the game?”. I cannot see why, within the structure the Minister has described, two or three awarding organisations would be a problem; I can see why a single awarding organisation is a very deep problem in terms of the power transfer from government to the organisations.
I do not think that anybody who has spoken is opposed to the Government trying to make things better. We all have a sense of what is wrong with the current system, but we do not see that what is proposed answers that. That is not because the structure cannot answer it but because, to do the things that is asked of it, IFATE has to be a much stronger organisation. Alternatively, we need an arrangement, as we have with GCSEs, where below IFATE there is a layer or organisations that have a long-term commitment to and belief in improving things—they may be competing with each other but, essentially, they will work in partnership with IFATE and should expect to be there for the long term. That is better than a circulating body of people who are there and not there on a seven-year cycle, given that education cycles are so much longer. We would like to get an understanding of that and I very much hope my noble friend may be able to organise a meeting for us.
Baroness Buscombe
I am very happy to say that a meeting on the basis my noble friend suggests would be welcome between now and Report.
Lord Lucas
I am very grateful for that, and I am sure that other Members of the Committee would be delighted to come. I do not think there is any virtue then in continuing my peroration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(1A) A technical education qualification approved under this section, which is undertaken by a person over compulsory school age but under 19, must support the person’s entitlement to the core entitlement under section 17C of the Education Act 1996 (the core entitlement).”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, Amendment 20 is designed to ensure that 16 to 19 year-olds in danger of an endless cycle of resitting maths and English GCSEs have the right to a full technical course in those fields. The background to this is the decision of the Government that, from August 2014, all students aged 16 to 18 who are starting or have already started a new programme of 150 hours or more and do not hold a GCSE at grades A to C in maths and English, or the new GCSE grades 9 to 4 equivalent, are required to study those subjects as part of their study programmes in each academic year. In 2015, this was changed so that the requirement applies also to all those with a grade D in those subjects—I am not quite sure who I am addressing at the moment on this; usually one addresses hot air, but there we are.
One can understand why the Government went down this route, but the problem is that figures released in August 2016 by the Joint Council for Qualifications show that almost 122,500 learners aged 17 or above did not get at least a grade C in maths, while 93,000 failed to secure at least a grade C in English. I looked at the comment of Mark Dawe of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, who said:
“this is evidence … that hitting students over the head with the same form of learning and assessment is not the way forward. Functional skills, designed to develop core maths and English skills but with the learning contextualised and relevant, is proven to engage and motivate these learners, particularly those who have been turned off these subjects by their school experience”.
Anyone who has come across teachers who have to teach and meet these students, resit after resit, will know that it can become a totally depressing exercise for everyone involved.
This was discussed in the other place and I note the comments of the Secretary of State, Justine Greening. She said:
“We have been clear that we do not want children to be left behind by not getting a GCSE in maths or English when they could have achieved one, so we want those who score a D to take resits. For others, however, there is the option to study for functional skills qualifications, and it is important for employers that we make sure those functional skills qualifications work effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/16; col. 41.]
I understand that the Minister, Mr Halfon, has pointed out that the Secretary of State has directional powers over the institute to achieve this.
No one doubts the need to ensure that relevant literacy and numerical skills courses are available to young people aged 16 to 18 that clearly support further technical education and apprenticeships. Clearly they are an opportunity to get employment. There is, however, a real concern that at the moment too many young people are having to go through a very dispiriting process of repeating studies that they have already failed, and which many of them will continue to fail.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the Government are looking again at this area, in parallel to Sir Adrian Smith’s study into the feasibility of compulsory maths being continued for all pupils to the age of 18—the two very much run together. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 24 and 25 in my name in this group. I pass on apologies from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She has had to leave for an emergency meeting and has said that she will bring her Amendment 23A on Report.
Amendments 21 and 25 deal with issues of copyright. The Minister addressed issues of copyright in the previous group and I have been left somewhat confused. Issues of copyright were not referred to in the skills plan. It appears that the Government wish to retain copyright and intellectual property rights of qualifications, thus enabling them, if they should so choose, to transfer delivery of qualifications from one awarding body to another. It is not clear why the Government should wish to do this. It is hard to think of another market in which a supplier would freely cede ownership of copyright of its product for no material benefit. The model offers no incentive for any provider of regulated qualifications to enter into a market or take the responsibility for developing and supporting a qualification for which the copyright ownership has been transferred to a third party.
The issue of copyright is complex. The policy intention here seems to be one of control and safeguarding delivery of a consistent qualification should the Government wish to remove a supplier from the market. Surely adding further complexity to intellectual property ownership is not the best way to meet this policy objective. There is no detail on how the process might work. A lack of clarity in this area, especially if export earnings were put at risk, could be a further disincentive to awarding bodies to engage.
If the proposal is that the qualification should be wholly owned and developed by government, we would counsel some detailed research into previous forays by central Government into the vocational qualifications market space, including individual learning accounts or as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has mentioned, the 14 to 19 diploma. I bear the scars of the development of GNVQ, which nearly bankrupted BTEC when the Government came up with a new design of the qualifications, and it was not at all clear that any promotional material had gone into convincing the public, pupils, teachers and learners that this was a good qualification. GNVQs did some good things, but they had such rotten publicity that they never had the chance really to get off the ground. A great deal of time and money were spent in trying to promote those. If we are to learn anything from the past, surely it is that qualification and assessment ownership, and design and development work, are better left to professional bodies with specialist expertise in qualification and assessment rather than being controlled centrally by civil servants or quangos or, dare I say, even by politicians.
Government ownership of qualifications is not a feature of other qualifications, or of undergraduate or postgraduate qualifications offered by the higher education sector. No evidence base has been provided to support the proposal to move to nationalisation of qualifications, nor any assessment of the intended benefits, costs or risks of any such model. If an awarding organisation did not wish to hand over its intellectual property, it would be in a position where the institute would not approve its qualification for use in the funded market. This effectively closes the 16 to 19 market to awarding organisations which do not wish to relinquish their intellectual property.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, most of what I want to say has been said very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I have a couple of questions to add. First, some of the existing awarding organisations have quite substantial overseas businesses in the qualifications that they currently run. Is it the Government’s intention that these should be destroyed? I cannot see how they could be continued under the proposed IP arrangements. Secondly, how do the Government propose to deal with the incorporation into their regulated qualifications of qualifications whose IP they cannot hope to own, such as a CompTIA or Cisco qualification? In other words, if an apprenticeship can have four or five of these qualifications stuck in it like a currant bun—which is very much what employers want—presumably no transfer of intellectual property is involved. If this is the case for CompTIA, why should it not be the case for any existing awarding organisation?
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I remind noble Lords of my fellowship of the Working Men’s College. I support Amendment 20, not only for all the reasons so eloquently expressed by my noble friend but because it also offers a much more solid opportunity for young people from the Gypsy and Traveller communities to enter apprenticeships and to gain qualifications. These people have often dropped out of secondary school. A high proportion do so, for a variety of reasons. High among them are bullying and discrimination, and there is also a degree of alienation. However, these young people want to earn a living. They live in a work culture, an entrepreneurial one even. Their traditional trades—tarmacking, tree-lopping and scrap metal dealing—now need a high enough standard of literacy and numeracy to understand quite a lot of documentation, such as safety regulations and all sorts of papers. They do not often acquire these at school, so the implementation of this worthwhile amendment could result in many more such young people gaining a credential and raising their earning potential, so allowing them to join a society which, in the past, has tended not to be sympathetic.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
I support Amendment 20. I had hoped that one of the most important things we were doing in the Bill was providing a route to employment that did not involve crossing apparently insuperable academic barriers, which some children seem to have no way to get through. These are children who, for some reason or another, have been unable to follow conventional education paths, such as the Travellers of whom my noble friend spoke, or who have suffered parental negligence or have been in care—those children have a notoriously poor track record in conventional education; or are children whom I did not know existed until I was in my 20s who learn not from books or from being told things but through their hands.
We had a nanny for my children who, after six years decided to leave us to train as a nurse, but she could not muster the necessary two O-levels to become a state-enrolled nurse. With the aid of very good references, we managed somehow to persuade the Royal Free to take her for that training. She passed third in the hospital because she was one of the people for whom, if your hands can do it, she can write it down and explain it.
I so hope that this will be another group of children who will be rescued, if you like, from misery in conventional education by the way out of an apprenticeship. I do not want them retaking their GCSEs. I want a special provision, and I hope that the Institute for Apprenticeships will be able to make it, while, by all means, if they need it, providing for further maths or other education. By the way, this proved a very successful way of integrating some of our immigrant population who do not have an academic background but are well capable of undertaking apprenticeships. The more enlightened jobcentres have been pointing them in exactly that direction, but you have not to disqualify them before they start. That goes back to the point that we were all making earlier about the benefit trap: many of our children will be unable to access an apprenticeship without paying an unaffordable financial penalty.
The Bill must be about rescuing many of our young from insuperable barriers to employment, and I very much hope that we can manage not to put any more in their way.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I support the amendments and shall speak specifically to Amendment 20. When I ask employers what they value most about young apprentices, the qualities are what I often hear referred to here as soft skills, but they are not, really they are essential skills. They are the skills of being able to turn up on time regularly, work as part of a team, show enthusiasm and so on. Often, ironically, the complaints that you get from employers are about those who are technically well-qualified but lack those essential skills. This amendment is about creating flexibility and recognising that there are young people who will, for a variety of reasons explained today, find it difficult, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, to go through the demoralising impact of resits for qualifications that will not assess their innate capabilities, as my noble friend Lady Cohen described. I hope that we will get a constructive response.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 20. Yes, it is absolutely right that we do all in our power to ensure that young people are numerate and literate. It seems reasonable to say that we want them to get to a certain level in mathematics, but that should not be a barrier to everything else. Special needs have not been mentioned. Are we to insist that children who have particular special needs or an aversion to numbers are to be included? We would not expect children who are dyslexic to get to certain standards in literacy because of the severity of their dyslexia.
We have heard about Travellers and immigrants, but there are young people for whom the system—perhaps poor teaching—has not helped them to get it. We then have this whole re-sit culture, and they get more and more fearful of failing and we do not want to label people as failures. I enjoyed the argument and think the word “flexibility” is so important. I know young people who have been taken on by employers, and the employer has said: “Well, they’ve got problems with numeracy and literacy, but they really sparked at this particular job”. Some of them have gone on to take some qualifications later. Let us not label people, let us have flexibility and do all we can to make sure that young people get to a certain level—“C”—in mathematics, but that should not be the be all and end all.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the amendments and welcome the opportunity to debate them. I fully understand why the noble Lords, Lord Watson, and Lord Hunt, are supporting Amendment 20. Having a sound grasp of English, maths and digital skills is fundamental to getting ahead in work and life. Raising literacy and numeracy levels at all stages of education, including post-16, is essential and remains an absolute priority.
We recognise that current requirements are still low by international standards, and we believe that individuals should have higher aspirations. In the longer term, as the quality of pre and post-16 English and maths teaching and associated learner outcomes improve, the Government should raise maths and English requirements to reflect those of higher-performing international technical education systems.
Since we made it a condition of funding, all 16 to 19 year-olds beginning a study programme who have not achieved an A* to C GCSE in English and maths must continue to study these subjects until they do so, unless specific special educational needs or disabilities prevent them. I will repeat that to underline it: unless specific special educational needs or disabilities prevent them from doing so, so there are exceptions. This has resulted in thousands more students securing these GCSEs by the age of 19. The OECD has commended us on our reforms and, working with schools, colleges and employers, we will build on them.
We will do so by implementing the Sainsbury panel’s recommendations on English and maths. We have accepted the panel’s recommendation that there should be a single set of English and maths exit requirements governing college-based technical education and apprenticeships, and we will continue to require all 16 to18 year-olds to study English and maths if they have yet to achieve GCSE A* to C in these subjects.
The Government consider that English and maths requirements should be included as steps towards occupational competence. As well as good literacy and numeracy, everyone needs an essential set of digital skills to succeed in the modern workplace. Digital skills requirements should be tailored and groups of persons will be in the lead to specify digital skills that are required for entry into particular groups of skilled occupations.
We believe that there should be a minimum level of English or maths which all individuals must achieve ahead of securing technical education certification, as is already the case for apprentices. We will work with the institute to ensure that occupation-specific English and maths requirements are incorporated into each route.
Before I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I repeat the point about exceptions. We are talking about people with special needs and so on, where it may be just too difficult. The noble Lord spoke about the resit culture, and we absolutely understand that. However, in an environment where we are offering young people the opportunity through apprenticeships for genuine employment in the world of work, there is a hope and desire that those people should understand that basic core skills in English, maths and digital skills will be essential for their future. That is not least because we all know that, in the current world of work, people change jobs a lot and are not necessarily going to follow the same role for ever. Therefore, they need that basic requirement to support themselves into their future.
Lord Storey
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply, but how will these exceptions be decided? Will they have to have an education healthcare plan or will they be notified by the school? What will be the mechanism for exceptions?
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Lord raises a good question. I do not know the answer, so I will write to him on that.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I want to make sure that I understood what the noble Baroness said. Nobody would dispute that these young people should carry on learning English and maths—I certainly would not—but I would like clarification. Is the noble Baroness saying that if they still did not get a grade C, that would be a barrier to them undertaking an apprenticeship? We all agree on the importance being attached to the basic skills of literacy, numeracy and digital skills, but what if an individual did not achieve that, having made real and determined efforts? Suppose they managed only a D when they reached the age of 18, would that be a barrier to them undertaking an apprenticeship, assuming that the employer would be willing to take them on?
Baroness Buscombe
I hope that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Young. That would not be a barrier to an apprenticeship. We are saying that they would have to continue to study through the apprenticeship and stay in that process in order to receive their certification.
Lord Storey
That is very helpful. So it is not a barrier to them doing an apprenticeship but they would be studying for their GCSE maths at the same time. Would the family then be entitled to tax credits because the young person is studying maths?
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, makes an interesting point, but I certainly would not want to commit on that. Let me clarify: they would study and do these resits, as we have been calling them, through the apprenticeship process—they would do them at the same time.
I want to attempt to reply to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who asked what would happen if awarding organisations have business overseas. The answer is that the institute can grant a licence back to the awarding organisation for use of the qualification documents—in other words, for use abroad. If there is an existing qualification for an awarding organisation that is out of the institute’s scope then the institute holds no copyright on that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for tabling Amendments 21 and 25. I appreciate why she has put forward these amendments, which would allow awarding organisations to retain ownership of the copyright of documents under the new reforms. However, with respect, I cannot agree to them for the following reasons.
First, the qualification is to be approved by the institute, so it is right that the institute is the ultimate owner of the copyright. This will ensure that it can carry out its functions, including awarding licences for the delivery of the qualifications. Also, as there are likely to be multiple contributors to each qualification, the amendments are likely to make it impractical for the institute to carry out its functions to approve the new qualification. All contributors are likely to want a say in matters that relate to their particular part of the qualification. The institute should have the final say if the qualification is to be approved by it.
Secondly, the amendments would be likely to stifle competition once the licence comes to an end. Those awarding organisations whose documents have been approved by the institute would be in a far stronger position than those who were unsuccessful to rebid for a licence. Of course, the authors of documents that make up a technical education qualification should decide whether to give their consent to the copyright being transferred to the institute before the qualification is approved. If they do not, the institute can remove that document from the qualification. That is provided for in the Bill: I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the provisions in new Section A2DA which provide safeguards for both the institute and the awarding organisations.
Furthermore, awarding organisations do not have to submit a bid to the institute for the new approved qualifications if they do not like the arrangements offered. Under the reforms, it is expected that awarding organisations will go through a comprehensive procurement process before being granted a licence to deliver a qualification for an occupation or group.
Baroness Buscombe
I just want to reassure the noble Baroness that we absolutely understand that the market must be attractive for awarding organisations to operate—I wonder if that is what the noble Baroness wanted to touch on.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Yes, that is the gist of it, but the question that both I and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised was: what possible incentive is there for awarding organisations to put a whole lot of their expertise into developing materials towards qualifications if they will all be snaffled by the institute?
Baroness Buscombe
It is not a question of their being snaffled by the institute. This happens in other sectors where people develop something but the copyright is retained by someone else. It is not peculiar to this sector, a first in this area or unique. If we are to have a single organisation that is to retain and underpin the standards and quality which we all want, and have flexibility without compromising the students, it is really important that we have one body that retains the copyright: the institute.
I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from: people feel that because they have created the content, they should hang on to it. However, the point is that we are changing the system so that the copyright will be with the institute, but those who have created the copyright can bid, along with others, for the licence. It is clarifying for awarding organisations what part of copyright should be retained by whom.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I wonder whether we could have a meeting on the copyright issue, because I find what is proposed incredibly confusing, and I do not think I am the only one around the table who finds that. It would be helpful if we could see how this ends up being a win-win situation for the awarding organisations and the institute, because at the moment it seems to be lose-lose for the awarding organisations.
Baroness Buscombe
I am perfectly happy to have such a meeting between now and Report. I re-emphasise that the whole point of this is not to undermine those who produce the copyright but all part of developing a new ethos, so that the best can be retained and be consistent across the board for all those who bid for the licence for those qualifications. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am feeling very disoriented here. A Conservative Government are arguing for nationalisation and against competition while I am arguing for more civil servants. This is not where I expected to be. My noble friend did not answer my question about external qualifications, such as Cisco or CompTIA, being embedded within apprenticeships or FE qualifications. Am I right in assuming that the Government are quite content under those circumstances to have no copyright whatever over those qualifications?
Baroness Buscombe
Yes, that is right. It would be absolutely outside the scope of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, with two completely separate discussions. On the issue of copyright, a meeting would be helpful. I am puzzled, because the Government are saying they would encourage those people who wish to bid for work to be innovative in the bids they put forward, but actually the reward for innovation is to be stuck in a competitive tendering exercise—and, by the way, at the end of the tendering period we will nick your ideas. That does not seem to be quite what we want. Surely we want some partnership here and some commitment from the private sector to commit to R&D and innovation, but they must have some share of the proceeds. The idea that they can get that back in the short tender period that is going to operate is, at the least, problematic.
It seems that the Government are relying on the institute to be the innovator and then to tender that out. Okay, if that is the way it is going to work then we should be explicitly told that, but I do not think they can have it both ways. It would be interesting to have that debate.
On Amendment 20, regarding resits, I take what the Minister has said—that many of those young people who resit their GCSE maths and English as a result of the new policy introduced in 2014 now have grade C —and that is a good thing. However, we know there are thousands and thousands of young people who resat but are never going to get their GCSE maths and English. My point is that this can be a very discouraging process for both students and teachers, and I am looking for a more imaginative approach. I acknowledge it is important that someone going into employment can add up and understand percentages and percentiles, but this does not necessarily mean they have reached the GCSE qualification.
Some clarification is required as there is a point I am not entirely clear on. Is it the case that for someone who goes on to an apprenticeship under the auspices of the institute and continues to resit, and can satisfy the employer at the end-point assessment, because they do not have their GCSE maths they are not going to be able to qualify as an apprentice? I may have got that wrong, so having a letter in response to that would be helpful—I am certain I have got it wrong because officials are telling me so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It is. I look forward to getting the letter. I think this has been an extremely useful debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(b) about permission for the use of the DfE logo and standard wording on technical education certificates.”
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, we now move on to the question of certificates, which has been raised already this afternoon. There are quite a few questions to be asked about the institute’s power to issue technical education certificates. This is another significant proposal and was not canvased in the skills plan. The proposal potentially removes any continuing link between the awarding organisation and the qualification that it has produced.
The amendment seeks clarity on the relationship between the issuing of the proposed certificates and the qualification certificates issued by the awarding organisations. Will these technical education qualifications be alongside the awarding organisation certificate? The Minister said that employers would pay for this certificate. Does that mean that the submission for it would come from the employer, the training provider or the awarding body? What assessment has been made of the resources required by the institute to authenticate, print and send out the 3 million apprenticeship certificates to meet the government target? Will the institute require the addresses of all the candidates, or will they be sent to the employer or training provider to distribute?
Government issuing of certificates is not common procedure at qualification level in any other area of the education and training system and would appear to bestow unnecessary cost, duplication and complexity on the Department for Education and/or the institute. Would it not be simpler if the certificate issued by the awarding organisation also carried the logo of the institute or of the Department for Education? The amendment proposes the much simpler solution of adding the backing and status of the institute or DfE to a certificate which has already been validated, processed and issued. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, and the Labour Benches support the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. She has a great deal of experience in the field of technical qualifications, so I have little meaningful to add. In earlier debates on the Bill, I have said that I hope to see a situation develop which leads to a small and relatively focused group of technical education qualifications. GCSEs and A-levels are instantly and universally recognised and accepted; I want to see something similar for technical education certificates. The current plethora of qualifications means that too few are understood, far less valued, and that diminishes the hard work that young people put into gaining them. How dispiriting it must be to emerge successfully from the end-point assessment only to find that the qualification gained is not widely recognised or transferrable to other employers.
Allowing the use of the DfE logo and consistent wording would standardise the technical education certificates issued, make it clear that they are overseen by the Department for Education and thus have a value transferrable throughout England. That measure is long overdue.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 32. I am trying to follow up on Second Reading and make a couple of suggestions to the Government which I hope are helpful.
First, if they have got this system of issuing certificates, they should make sure that, at the same time, they get the ability to communicate with apprentices. If I were in government, I would use this as a means of making sure that quality was being delivered, by sending questionnaires out to apprentices as a means of improving the quality of apprenticeships by asking what needed to be done better, particularly by asking them a couple of years after their apprenticeship what, with the benefit of experience, might have been improved. I would also use it as a way of getting information with which to celebrate the schools that apprentices went to. Schools pay far too little attention to the apprentices they have educated, mostly because they do not know anything about them. With university it is there; it is easy; it happens immediately. Apprenticeship information is not gathered in the same way; it is not celebrated by schools or made available to them. There are lots of things that the Government could do on the back of having the ability to communicate and I encourage them to give themselves that.
Secondly—I am echoing what is being said in Amendment 31—let us give these young people something really worth having, something to which they can put their name. The point of GCSEs and A-levels is that they are recognised. If we are taking away the plethora of sometimes well-valued names that attach themselves to technical qualifications, let us create a name and be able to give young people some letters to put after their name, such as BA—I do not actually know what these letters should be, but they should be something that say that the young person has done this and have got the right to this. I am not a wordsmith to create this, but once they are not an apprentice they are nothing—they are a former apprentice; it is like being a former priest, something suspicious. We should give them something that celebrates what they have achieved, in the same way that we do for people who have followed the academic path.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
My Lords, I support both amendments. I add—and would venture to do so only in Committee—a private loop around the question of naming and how apprentices get to be made more important. On further consideration, I do not like the title of the Bill: “Technical Education” does not seem to cover it. I have no idea how this could be done, but I wonder whether we could consider changing the name of the Bill to the “Professional and Technical Education Bill”. Among the groups named in the Bill that will be considered are lawyers, accountants and other variants. We tend to refer to ourselves as professionals. It would cheer up apprentices in those fields no end to know that they were recognised as professionals. In fact it would cheer up apprentices generally if it was not just about a technical education, but about a professional one, indicating that they will be a professional in their field. I am thinking also of some of the nursing and auxiliary qualifications that would sound a lot better if they were named as the professional qualifications that in fact they are.
Lord Baker of Dorking
We are learning such a lot this evening, and it is really very interesting. Clearly, the Government are taking draconian measures—and perhaps they should—to clear out a vast number of technical qualifications. That would be the consequence of this particular Bill finding its way to the statute book.
As a result of the process of establishing, with the help of industry, standards and outcomes, the Institute for Apprentices might apparently come to the conclusion that one particular technical qualification, for example in plumbing, is best done by City & Guilds. That seems to be the purpose behind what we are doing in this part of the Bill. The other awarding bodies would presumably not think it worthwhile to attempt to replicate that and have another plumbing qualification that is different, because that is the one that has the real stamp of approval with the Institute for Apprentices. Presumably, someone who is apprenticed to be a plumber will actually work for that qualification and hopefully get it.
This is a different system from that which has operated so far, but it is authoritative. If it is so perfect, are the Government intending to do this at GCSEs? If this wonderful system of technical awards is developed, should it not also be done for maths, English, history, geography and French? If what the Government are going to do is so wonderful and perfect, why should one stop with just technical subjects? If they are really persuaded that they have the best system for determining the best qualification in a technical subject, surely they should be able to decide what the best is in maths. If you are going to standardise things to this level, it might be GCSEs that would be the most effective. We must try to appreciate how thorough and complete a transformation will occur as a result of this.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I want to follow the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. At the beginning of the first day of Committee, I said I hoped at the end of this to have a clearer understanding of the organisational chart and who was responsible for what. The longer the discussion has gone on, the more I am clear that this will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, a fairly draconian change, which may be for the better.
However, I offer a word of caution. Some of us have lived through the birth, life and death of the Council for National Academic Awards or CNAA, some of us through the B Ed, and some of us through the area training organisations. At one stage, one of my roles at the former Institute of Education was to look after 48 teacher training colleges, which were training 26,000 teachers. It had a central and, it has to be said, very bureaucratic system of recognition for teachers at the university to ensure that they were all of the right standard and that all the institutions were offering the right quality. I emphasise that we had a complex and inadequate system. In trying to do something which is much needed and replace one system with a better system, we should not make some of the mistakes that we have all made—all Governments have made them; I am not trying to make a party- political point—by creating a structure which turns out to be Frankenstein.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I shall not make any general assertions of what may or may not happen. I take the “all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds” approach to this. However, is the institute going to issue an apprenticeship certificate? The schedule refers to the:
“Power to issue technical education certificate”.
We heard some examples of where there could be an apprenticeship without a technical qualification, so is the institute involved in that?
I want to address the point the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made that on the completion of an apprenticeship there should be a stamp of approval, so that you have something to show. In the old days, you got a beautifully illuminated manuscript. I was not assuming that the Government would go that far, but I remember that the master bricklayer who lived across the road from me had an exceedingly impressive document from his apprenticeship. I am not expecting that but I want to know what this actually includes. Can we be assured that every apprentice, on completing their apprenticeship successfully, will get a certified stamp of approval?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for tabling these amendments relating to certification. While I appreciate the intention behind the proposed changes I hope that after I have outlined my concerns, they will withdraw or not press these amendments.
The primary purpose of a technical education certificate is to enable individuals to demonstrate to employers that they have obtained the knowledge, skills and behaviours necessary to undertake their chosen occupation. Those completing either an apprenticeship or a technical education course will receive a nationally awarded certificate from the Secretary of State. This will confirm that they have attained as many of the key skills and behaviours as the institute has deemed appropriate for a particular occupation. To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, the Secretary of State will issue the certificate but it will be branded by the institute. For a technical education certificate, this is likely to include confirmation of maths and English qualifications, successful completion of a work placement and other route-specific qualifications. This will provide clarity for employers and support the portability and progression value of the qualifications.
The organisation or consortium of organisations which the institute has approved to deliver the technical education qualification will, however, be entitled to issue its own certificate for that qualification. It is therefore right that responsibility for issuing technical education certificates should be retained by the Secretary of State. This will also ensure that certificates for technical education align as closely as possible with certificates for apprenticeships.
Amendment 31 would allow this function to be delegated to individual awarding organisations. To do so could lead to unequal status or recognition of the value of certificates. It is also right that the Secretary of State should be able to determine whether to charge for the initial technical education certificate or further copies and, if so, how much to charge. Likewise, it will be up to the organisation to decide whether and how much to charge for issuing a certificate confirming that an individual has successfully completed their qualification. I will come on to questions when I have finished speaking to Amendment 32.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and to all noble Lords who have spoken. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, we have had some interesting discussions this afternoon on various aspects of the Bill.
I am not sure that my questions about certification were entirely answered. We had a lot of experience with this when NCVQ came in. I realise that my memory is longer than others’. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, some of us go back a bit too far. There was never any problem about putting that brand on the certificate along with BTEC or whatever else it was. Awarding bodies are quite used to having a national branding on their certificates alongside their own award. The Secretary of State is going to have his job cut out issuing all these certificates to people. I would be interested to see the detail of how that is going to happen. The duplication of certificates is not necessarily helpful and will not help employers.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, on getting her idea of “professional” at least agreed to be thought about. It would be something if we could add that word to the title of the Bill, because many of us are a bit concerned about its narrowness.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, brought up the business of post-nominal letters. When I worked for City & Guilds, I set up the senior awards department there, which was rationalising post-nominal letters for levels 4 to 7, some of which had been awarded for over 100 years. Because of the royal charter, we had to get Privy Council approval to do an additional one. It always struck me how much it meant, particularly to the level 4 people who got a licentiate award and could put the letters “LCGI” after their name. They often went into being small business people, and it raised their spirits and gave them status and standing to know that they could have LCGI after their name on their cards. I went on to get robes designed for them, but I am not suggesting that we do that for apprenticeships. Post-nominal letters are an issue. I am not sure how it would work with the institute to get approval for them, and I entirely take the Minister’s point that it can be more confusing to get a whole range of post-nominal letters that people do not understand. In our case, we were starting with 100 years of people having understood some of our City & Guilds post-nominal letters.
I am still baffled about quite how the mechanics of issuing all these certificates is going to happen and what the benefit is to the students and people who have succeeded in getting one certificate from the awarding body and a duplicate one from the Secretary of State, however prestigious that might be. I would welcome a little bit more clarity on quite how this is going to work but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.
““40AA Sharing of information by or with the Institute(1) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education may disclose information to a relevant person for the purpose of a relevant function of that person.(2) For disclosure of information by the Institute for the purposes of its own functions, see paragraph 10 of Schedule A1.(3) A relevant person may disclose information to the Institute for the purpose of—(a) a function of the Institute, or(b) a relevant function of that person.(4) In this section “relevant person” means—(a) Ofqual,(b) the OfS,(c) Ofsted, or(d) a prescribed person.(5) In this section “relevant function” means—(a) in relation to Ofqual, the OfS or Ofsted, a function of that body, so far as the function relates to England;(b) in relation to a prescribed person, a prescribed function of that person, so far as the function relates to England.(6) In this section—“Ofqual” means the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation;“OfS” means the Office for Students;“Ofsted” means—(a) the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, and (b) Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills.(7) Regulations under this section prescribing functions of a person may prescribe all of the person’s functions.”
Lord Nash
My Lords, these government amendments will allow the Secretary of State to make sure that the data-sharing gateway in new Section 40AA remains fit for purpose through regulations. The regulations can include persons to whom the institute can disclose information or who can disclose information to the institute, and the functions about which the information may be disclosed. New Section 40AA will establish data-sharing gateways between the institute and Ofsted, Ofqual, the Office for Students or any other person set out in the regulations. There is already a separate provision for the institute to share information in relation to its own functions.
The bodies with which the institute is likely to need to co-operate and share information to do its job effectively are expected to change over time. That is particularly important given the reforms in higher and technical education. For example, the Quality Assurance Agency will not be named specifically in legislation and the quality arrangements in that area may change over time. It will be important to ensure that the institute can work effectively with whatever body is designated in that case, as well as any other bodies which take on roles in relation to education and training. All the disclosures under the gateways take precedence over any non-statutory restrictions, but they would be subject to all the important safeguards in the Data Protection Act 1998.
I reassure noble Lords that I am, however, absolutely mindful of the need to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny each time the Section 40AA power is used. Although not common in relation to similar regulations, where the negative procedure will be used, it is proposed that these regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In view of this, I hope that noble Lords will accept this amendment.
Lord Lucas
Will the DfE be able to access this data, for instance to try to understand what history at school leads to what sort of performance in technical qualifications and apprenticeships?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I welcome these amendments and want to say just a brief word about them, and in particular about Amendment 33.
On Report in another place Labour raised the issue of introducing the Quality Assurance Agency as a body to whom the institute can communicate information. The Minister, Mr Halfon, resisted at that time, saying that it depended on developments in the Higher Education and Research Bill. That Bill is still under way, but things have clearly moved on and the Minister has had second thoughts because we are pleased to hear that the Government now want to empower the institute to exchange information with all bodies with which it might need to do business, apparently without worrying about data protection legislation.
I would like one point of clarification on that. The amendment to Schedule 1 refers to “a relevant person” —we understand that a “person” is an organisation—and lists Ofqual, the OfS and Ofsted and then “a prescribed person”. The Quality Assurance Agency would be a prescribed person. When the Minister replies, will he specify the difference between somebody who is “relevant” and somebody who is “prescribed”? Presumably a prescribed person is not irrelevant but is not relevant.
The Minister and his colleagues are adopting the Opposition’s wider view of the role of the institute. Will he say which persons or bodies he and his colleagues have in mind to add, apart from the QAA, to which he referred? An obvious one is local government which can provide a bridge between school education and the world of work. Local government still retains various statutory duties for 16 to 18 year-olds, including duties under the Education Act 1996 in respect of ensuring education and training for persons over compulsory school age and of encouraging employers to participate in the provision of education and training for young people. The Minister may be aware that local authorities have duties in respect of young people with special educational needs and disabilities for whom the local authority maintains an education, health and care plan and for care leavers up to the age of 25. I should have said the Minister will be aware; it is a bit unfair to say he may be.
I also note that government Amendments 48 to 54, which we shall consider on Wednesday, make the local authority director of children’s services a person who must be informed about the insolvency of an FE college because, according to the Government’s explanation, such colleges will be educating care leavers, and the local authority needs to know to ensure that the local authority–appointed personal advisers to the care leavers know of the insolvency.
There are numerous reasons for local government to be involved. Perhaps the Minister will make a statement—I will be perfectly happy for it to be on Wednesday—about the anticipated roles of the local authority and the institute and how they will interact.
Lord Nash
If I may answer my noble friend Lord Lucas’s point, the answer is yes under a separate provision in the Bill. On the point about the difference between relevant and prescribed, a prescribed person is somebody set out in regulations and a relevant person is set out in the Bill or in regulations.
“27A In section 40D(3)(interpretation of Part 1A)—(a) the words from “affects” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) after that paragraph insert— “(b) authorises the disclosure of any information in contravention of any provision made by or under any Act which prevents disclosure of the information.””
“29A In section 262(6)(orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(aza) regulations under section 40AA;”.”
“Records etc
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—(a) the delivery to the registrar of companies of documents that relate to the insolvency of further education bodies;(b) the registrar’s function of keeping records of information contained in such documents under section 1080(1) of the Companies Act 2006;(c) the publication of, or access to, those records or related information.(2) The regulations may, in particular, provide for any provision made by or under the following sections of the Companies Act 2006 to apply (with or without modifications) in relation to those documents or records.
Provision of Companies Act 2006 | Description |
sections 29 and 30 | copies of resolutions etc to be forwarded to the registrar |
section 859K | registration of enforcement of security |
sections 1077 and 1079 | public notice of receipt of certain documents |
sections 1081, 1084 and 1085 to 1091 | keeping and inspection of register of companies |
sections 1093 to 1097 | correction or removal of material on companies register |
section 1104 | documents relating to Welsh companies |
sections 1112 to 1113 | supplementary provisions |
Lord Nash
My Lords, we have tabled this amendment to ensure that should an FE body become insolvent, there will be an accessible public record of documents relevant to the insolvency procedure for that body. FE bodies that are statutory corporations are exempt charities and not companies. As such, they are not subject to filing requirements with any particular regulatory body, although they are required to keep audited accounts and to publish them, for example on their websites.
When the Bill was originally drafted, it was thought that we could rely upon certain provisions of the Companies Act 2006 so that an insolvency practitioner could file documents required by the court as part of any insolvency procedure, including education administration. However, it is now clear that specific provision is needed within the Bill to ensure that an accessible and workable file for insolvent FE bodies may be created and managed by the registrar. This amendment therefore creates a new clause to provide for exactly that and allows the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the delivery of documents about the insolvency of FE bodies to the registrar, about the registrar’s function of keeping records of information within those documents and about the publication of and public access to such records or information.
The power in the new clause also allows the Secretary of State to permit the Registrar of Companies to make rules relating to filing requirements, such as about the form of documents to be filed. As I hope the Committee will appreciate, this amendment is necessary to permit the paperwork of an insolvency procedure for an FE body to be properly managed. I beg to move that this amendment be accepted and that the new clause stand part of the Bill.
House of Lords
Death of a Former Member: Lord Waddington
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is my sad duty to report to the House the death of my noble friend Lord Waddington. Lord Waddington was one of the leading political figures of his generation. He arrived in this House as its Leader in 1990. By then, he had already had a long and distinguished record of service both as an MP and, at the highest levels of government, as Chief Whip in the House of Commons and then as Mrs Thatcher’s last Home Secretary. After his time as Leader of this House, he continued to serve his country as Governor of Bermuda.
On this day last week, many noble Lords may have had occasion to think of Lord Waddington. His maiden speech as Leader of this House was the last occasion on which the Prime Minister—then Sir John Major—sat on the steps of the Throne. That fact only hints at the legacy left by a great parliamentarian—a man who never abandoned his Lancastrian roots, retaining always a directness of approach, clarity of thought and plainness of speech which enabled him to cut through political complexity with enviable success; many of us wish we had that skill. His service to this House following his period as leader continued to show him at his best: a man of principle and grit; a tenacious and committed servant to the British public who effected real change, leading the charge from the Back Benches on major legislation such as the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, to which he carried an amendment in 2008; a man who always thought of others before himself. It was typical of Lord Waddington that in 2015, he was one of the first Members to retire under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.
At this sad time, we send the good wishes of the House and these Benches to his wife Gilly, to whom he was a devoted husband, and their children and grandchildren. We can only share in their sense of loss, but we can also take this moment to reflect on a career and a life of outstanding public service. Lord Waddington set a standard of dedication and integrity to which we can all aspire, and he will be missed by us all.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords as we have heard, Lord Waddington had a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, a politician, Governor of Bermuda and indeed Leader of this House and Lord Privy Seal. Many in your Lordships’ House today will know him well from his service in the other place as an elected MP and a government Minister, and will know that he was a man of strong conviction. I think he would have relished the description I read of him yesterday as being a no-nonsense politician.
Despite his very strong loyalty to Margaret Thatcher and his long and distinguished service as a Minister, he was surprised to find himself appointed Home Secretary, having himself recommended our Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the position. I was surprised to find that we had something quite unusual in common: as the noble Baroness said, in his case it was during his maiden speech in this House that the then Prime Minister, John Major, listened from the Throne steps.
Like many noble Lords, Lord Waddington’s dedication to and affection for his constituency, Ribble Valley, continued long after his elevation to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that he missed being its MP, given his deep commitment. In some ways he wrote his own obituary when, in an interview in The House magazine some years ago, he said with disarming self-deprecation—I think he was having a joke:
“I would like to be remembered as a decent local buffer who wasn’t all that clever, but in his own way tried to do his best”.
What more can any of us ask than that we try to do our best? On behalf of these Benches I offer sincere condolences to his wife Gilly, his family, his colleagues and his friends.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, unlike many Members of your Lordships’ House I did not know David Waddington personally, although I recall a number of notable speeches that he made from the Benches opposite during my time in the House. It is fair to say he was not one of life’s natural Liberal Democrats, but my colleagues cheered when, as Home Secretary, he referred the case of the Birmingham Six to the Court of Appeal, where of course their convictions were eventually quashed.
The only thing I can really claim to have in common with Lord Waddington is that, like me, he was a proud northerner. He could not help being a Lancastrian but he certainly made the most of it and, as others have said, was plain-speaking and had the characteristics of straightforward behaviour that northerners like to think they share. It is typical of Lord Waddington that he is having his memorial service in Clitheroe rather than across the road; that says a lot about where his priorities lay, and those of his family. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I wish to pass on our good wishes and condolences to Lord Waddington’s wife and family.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, in wishing to associate myself with all the remarks that have been made, I am conscious that, like them, I was not in the House when Lord Waddington was serving here as Leader, although I was here when he returned from Bermuda in 1997.
Time marches on. Only 20 of the current membership of the Cross Benches were actually in the House when he was Leader, reflecting the fact that there is quite a bit of distance between us and that time. My predecessor in the office of Convenor at the time was Baroness Hylton-Foster. The office that I hold now was very much in its infancy, so I do not think she had quite the same warm working relationship that I have with today’s Leader.
I have one advantage, however. I remember sitting below the Bar during a debate at which Lord Waddington was certainly present. It was a debate on the future of the legal profession—a matter in which I am sure that he, as a former lawyer, took a close interest. The Government’s policy was, it is fair to say, not universally welcomed by the profession. It is worth recalling that the Lord Chancellor, who was sitting on the Woolsack at that time, was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. That reminds us of two things: that the Lord Chancellor sat in this House, and that the Leader was not the only Member of this House to sit at the Cabinet table. Those are two things we have lost, and which I am sure Lord Waddington would have valued very much.
When I passed through Gray’s Inn this morning on my way to the House, the flag was flying at half mast, in a very fitting tribute to Lord Waddington, as he was a bencher of that inn. One of his sons, who followed his father to the Bar, is also a member of that inn. To him and to all the other members of the family I would like, on behalf of all those on these Benches, to extend our condolences on their sad loss.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I would like to be associated with the comments already made about the late Lord Waddington, and to add a few words of tribute on behalf of these Benches. Although I came to the House shortly after Lord Waddington retired, I know that his Christian faith was a source of great comfort and inspiration to him. The “Waddington amendment” that bears his name was prompted by his concern that those who sincerely hold traditional Bible-based views on relationships should be able to speak freely under the law. Hansard records that in 1998 Lord Waddington asked Ministers,
“that those responsible for the Church’s forms of worship should not lightly tinker with the language of prayers which millions have learnt in childhood and from which they still find comfort at times of distress and grief”.—[Official Report,12/3/98; col.302.]
I like to think that this morning’s choice of Psalm 46 for Prayers would therefore have been appreciated, not least as a line from this psalm,
“God is our refuge and courage”,
features in the late Lord Waddington’s own coat of arms. Future worshippers at St John the Evangelist, Read-in-Whalley, will benefit from a new stained glass window kindly donated by Lord Waddington, which will be a long-standing and fitting memorial to his care and concern for that community, and to his devotion to public service. I offer my condolences to his wife, children, family and friends. May he rest in peace.
Industrial Strategy: Engagement
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their strategy to ensure that managers and employees are fully engaged and able to deliver the Industrial Strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, we have published a Green Paper that invites people and organisations across the country to contribute to our industrial strategy. The Government are also committed to strengthening the worker voice in the boardroom. The Green Paper on corporate governance reform explores a range of options, and the Government will publish their response in due course after analysing responses they have received.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. The 10 pillars of the industrial strategy cover the processes required to establish the structure against which the strategy’s progress will be measured. There is, however, no mention of the human interaction needed to successfully implement those processes. There is a well-established link between employee engagement and productivity, which in this country lags behind that of France, Germany and the United States. What is the Government’s plan to ensure that companies have in place appropriate training for all levels of management, so that inclusion and employee voice are present, and the effective delivery of the industrial strategy can be measured? I note that the noble Lord mentioned workers on boards—a policy that we support, but which does not deal with employee voice at all levels of a company.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The link between employee engagement and performance, however you measure it, whether in productivity or quality, is proven, so engagement is extremely important. However, I do not believe that just having someone on the board of a company is necessarily the right way of getting that engagement, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Engagement is much deeper than that. It is predominantly the responsibility of individual companies to tackle this. You can see the resulting performance when they get it right.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I have just come from a meeting of the Institution of Engineering and Technology at which it launched its report Skills and Demand in Industry. The one thing it pointed out to everybody was that only 9% of technology and engineering staff are women, yet 15% of them graduate from our engineering schools and in my own university of Cambridge the figure is over 20%. What are the Government doing to ensure that more women become engineers in industry and participate in it, especially through the apprentice route?
Lord Prior of Brampton
It is interesting that only 15% of women graduate in this subject. In the case of medicine, for example, the figure is now well over 50% and is nearly 60%. It is a very good question. Interestingly, I went to Rolls-Royce last week and met a number of apprentices there, some of whom are doing degree-level apprenticeships. That may be one way of increasing the number of women going into this area. It has been a problem for many years and we are only in the foothills of cracking it.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that share ownership can provide the motivation to help employees and managers deliver for their companies and, of course, deliver the industrial strategy? If he does, what more can the Government do to promote such share ownership?
Lord Prior of Brampton
Share ownership can be a part of this but engagement of people in their workplace goes much deeper and is much more of a day-to-day issue than share ownership or board directors and the like. John Lewis and the mutuals have demonstrated the value of mutuality and ownership, so this does have a part to play. However, it is only part of a much bigger picture.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of a public company. Will my noble friend look at the widespread practice among fund managers and large shareholders of contracting out their responsibilities for corporate governance to outside organisations, and encourage them to engage directly with companies involved in the matters which concern the Government, such as executive pay and other matters?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord may have seen the letter that BlackRock sent round to all FTSE 100 companies in which it talked very strongly about the need for long-term sustainable improvements when considering remuneration. I was pretty staggered to see that between 1998 and 2015 the average take-home pay of a FTSE 100 chief executive has gone up from £1 million to over £4 million. In 1998, that represented 47 times the average salary of an employee, now it is over 128 times. Remuneration is a very serious issue and if we want to live in a fair society, we need to address it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister have a look at a Private Member’s Bill that was introduced here twice previously by the now deceased Lord Gavron, who was very prescient in seeing the difficulties arising from the growth in the salary gap between CEOs and their employees? That Bill was supported by noble Lords all around the House. It would be well worth the Minister’s while to look at it. He mentioned that he does not want the Government to interfere in the deals between employers and employees in the private sector. However, the Government have responsibility in a very substantial part of the country’s employment—namely, in the public service. What are the strategy and targets for improving productivity in the public service?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Industrial relations, employee engagement—call it what you will—is much better by and large in the private sector than in the public sector. We are not good employers, if we are honest. Like me, a number of noble Lords in this House were staggered that the junior doctors, for example, were forced into taking strike action. These people are vocationally committed, yet somehow we created an environment in the public sector which is far from satisfactory.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, have a word with the Speaker, the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliaments and ask them to consider how the employees of this place might be involved more in decisions regarding its running?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, a number of our leading companies have very innovative ways of engaging people in their business—for example, Google and other companies like it have installed table tennis tables. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, might consider making way for a table tennis table in this place.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend concede that turning earners into owners and expanding employee share ownership in various forms can, in certain circumstances, be immensely beneficial and a great promotion for industrial competitiveness and effectiveness? Will he bear in mind particularly the case of the National Freight Corporation where a major share ownership by all employees had an enormous effect in improving productivity? It was a project carried forward with great vigour by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—now the Lord Speaker of this House—and me, as successive Secretaries of State for Transport in the 1980s.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I agree with my noble friend that employee ownership can be very beneficial—the mutual is another model that can be beneficial—but it does not guarantee success. There are many other aspects of corporate life that are very important. The Co-operative Bank is an example of an organisation that has not been a conspicuous success in recent years. It can be very important but it is not the whole answer.
Secondary Schools: Funding
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of proposed levels of funding allocated to secondary schools on the quality of education including the teaching of non-English-Baccalaureate subjects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, through our careful management of the economy we have protected the core schools budget in real terms. This means that in 2017-18 schools will have more funding than ever before for children’s education, totalling more than £40 billion. We are also committed to ensuring that all pupils receive a broad and balanced curriculum that includes both an academic core and additional subjects that reflect their individual interests, strengths and characteristics, including arts subjects.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, is not the Minister alarmed by the recent comments of the head teacher of a school in Cheshire, who said that if further cuts—and they are cuts according to the National Audit Office—go ahead then all non-EBacc subjects could be removed from the curriculum, meaning no art, music, drama or design and technology? Arts departments across the country are already bearing the brunt of the current cuts, such as to specialist teachers, provision of materials and ICT. Will the Minister accept that there is simply not enough of a funding cake to go round?
Lord Nash
I am alarmed by the comments because it is quite clear that those schools that perform well in arts subjects also perform particularly well in the EBacc. As the NAO has said, by comparing efficient schools with others, there is plenty of money in the system and we have a number of tools in the department to enable schools to run themselves more efficiently, and those that do have sufficient resources, particularly for the classroom and for their curriculum.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, it must be the case that these cuts will fall disproportionately on non-EBacc subjects as schools encourage pupils to take more EBacc subjects to boost their results. To avoid a ticking time bomb for the creative industries pipeline, will the Government consider including design and technology as well as computer science as part of the EBacc, as proposed by his colleagues in the other place?
Lord Nash
There is no evidence that the take-up in GCSE art subjects has declined as a result of the EBacc. In fact, the New Schools Network found that the number of art GCSEs taken by pupils has gone up since the introduction of the EBacc. We have to remember always that when we started in 2010, sadly, only one in five pupils in state schools were studying a core suite of academic subjects. That is why we focused on the EBacc and have doubled the number of pupils who have these academic subjects, which are particularly important for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says that his Government have protected the main core school budget, but would he not accept that on-costs which schools have to pay, such as national insurance, have ensured that schools have not got the money? In fact, the IFS yesterday reported that, for the first time, there is a real cut in school budgets. Would this account for the fact that there has been a 10.6% decrease in the number of hours given over to creative art teaching?
Lord Nash
The IFS pointed out that over the 20 years from 2000 to 2020, schools will have a 50% per pupil increase in real terms. As I said, we believe that there is considerable scope for savings in schools’ efficiency. We are already on course to save £250 million in academies by next year alone with our RPA scheme substituting insurance costs. We believe that our buying strategy can save £1 billion out of £10 billion a year of non-staff spending.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, quoted a head teacher and I would like to do the same. Last week, the head teacher of the Forest School in Winnersh, Berkshire, resigned her post because of the increasing amount of cuts facing her school. In a letter to parents, pupils and staff, she said:
“The situation with regard to schools funding, both nationally and locally, is bleak: in common with other headteachers, I did not enter the teaching profession to make cuts that narrow the curriculum, or to reduce the number of teachers and increase class sizes, yet my hand has been forced and I see no immediate easing of the situation. Consequently”—
this impacts directly upon the question—
“I feel unable to deliver the quality of education the boys at The Forest so clearly deserve”.
The National Association of Head Teachers says that that is increasingly becoming the situation across England. That is not surprising, as the National Audit Office has reported that there will have to be an 8% real cut in the schools budget up to 2020—this, it should be said, by a party that in its 2015 election manifesto pledged to protect the schools budget. The Government say that the new funding formula—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I am not surprised that Members opposite are unhappy about this, because it is unpalatable. The Government say that the new funding formula is about fairness. How can the funding be fair when it is not sufficient?
Lord Nash
I do not think that time will permit me to respond to that speech. I can only repeat what I said: that schools that run themselves efficiently have ample resources for a broad curriculum. I invite the noble Lord to go on to the department’s website and watch a clip by Sir Mike Wilkins about the curriculum-led financial planning at Outwood Grange. Academically, this is one of the most successful and, financially, one of our most efficient multi-academy trusts.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will not the production of a national funding formula assist the progress of our education system in a substantial manner?
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree with what Professor Brian Cox said when I asked him about the fetishisation of science in the school curriculum? He said that physics has taught us that the world had a beginning and will most probably have an end, but the arts will teach us how to live in the vast expanse of time in between.
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness about the importance of arts. We all know that the STEM subjects are very important, and it is encouraging to see that the STEM intake at A-level has gone up substantially in recent years. However, as I said, there is plenty of room in the curriculum. The EBacc takes only five subjects and on average students now take nine qualifications, with many taking 10 or 11. Therefore, there is plenty of room in the curriculum for arts subjects.
Defence: Industrial Strategy
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their plans for a national shipbuilding strategy and significant investment in the United Kingdom defence nuclear enterprise, whether they intend to develop an overall defence industrial strategy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is actively involved in the cross-government work on an industrial strategy. Many of the themes in this apply to defence, and we do not plan a separate defence industrial strategy. A substantial amount of work is already under way to encourage the growth and competitiveness of UK industry, including as part of the commitment in the strategic defence and security review to refresh defence industrial policy.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, although I like the cut of the noble Earl’s jib, which is not surprising considering his naval pedigree, I am disappointed by the Answer. There is a complete absence of analysis of the defence industrial base and no proper study of its real costs. These were identified in the King’s College study instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, but nothing seems to have been done to focus on them. We know very well the value for this nation of things such as the agile supply cycle, but we also know their value in terms of jobs, through not having to pay welfare payments or unemployment benefit. There are all these benefits, yet we do a simple calculation of costs, which does not make sense. Does the Minister not agree that we have to look very closely at the real cost of equipment and weapons before we decide to buy from abroad, with a loss of jobs, a loss of agility and a loss of ability to keep running our systems here, and that we really must get the balance right rather than taking the simplistic approach of saying, “This costs £4 there and £5 here”?
Earl Howe
I agree with the central thrust of the noble Lord’s proposition. As I said, many of the industrial strategy themes, particularly around removing barriers for UK companies to do business with government are well aligned with our refreshment of defence industrial policy. It is all about updating our terms of trade with industry to continue to deliver the best equipment for the Armed Forces at the best value for money, but in a way that supports UK industry to grow and compete successfully. That is the balance we are trying to strike.
Lord Levene of Portsoken (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of General Dynamics UK. Many years ago now, I was given the task of unscrambling the defence industrial policy, which was centred on so-called national champions. This policy resulted in significant cost overruns and delay in delivery of equipment badly needed by our Armed Forces. Will the Minister please confirm that the Government have no intention of reverting to that policy and remain committed to the policy of competitive procurement which has served the nation well?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord in that regard. The Government remain committed to the principles we set out in our 2012 White Paper, National Security Through Technology, including promoting open competition. We will be refreshing our defence industrial policy very much within that framework.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord West. There is a big difference between cost, which this country has got so used to using as a measure, and value for money. What has been lacking for many years—I know the noble Lord, Lord Levene, feels very strongly about this as well—is a long-term relationship with industry. You cannot expect people to employ engineers, and get thousands of subcontractors and universities involved without long-term relationships. Does the Minister agree that that is a way forward? After all, the United States of America, Russia and China all have huge sovereign industry and it certainly seems to serves them well.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that part of the work we have to do, and are doing, is looking at how we can optimise the strategic interaction between the Ministry of Defence and industry, including how we make defence a more attractive customer for people who do not traditionally supply to the MoD, such as small and medium-sized enterprises. It is about creating simpler processes and a more competitive UK supply chain. Of course, we would like to source from companies and organisations in this country, but we have to make it as easy as possible for them to deal with us.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, last Tuesday, Labour’s shadow defence team, together with my noble friend Lord West of Spithead, held a workshop with representatives of some 20 defence companies. The clear message from that event was that a defence strategy was the best way to streamline procurement and give a clear vision for the future to the defence sector. Have the Government had similar discussions with industry experts on the need for such a strategy? If not, may I suggest that they do? They may learn something.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not think we need to get too hung up on the word “strategy” as opposed to “policy”. The key questions, it seems to me, are how we can make UK industry more competitive, how we can drive innovation, how we can drive skills and, as I have said, how best to ensure that industry can engage productively with government and that government itself is a more intelligent customer. These are the questions we should address and I am sure they are the ones industry wants us to address.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, what are the considerations when making decisions about the maintenance and growth of the supply chain, particularly on issues such as the availability of British skilled workers, the current defence industrial locations in the UK and the impact on local economies of buying overseas?
Earl Howe
In the industry consultation that we carried out, a number of areas were highlighted, all of which we are looking at in the refresh exercise. They included how we make our processes more straightforward for non-traditional suppliers, the improved use of early market engagement, and communicating our approach more clearly to industry at an early stage. Those things will all play into the issues that the noble Baroness recited.
United States: Immigration Policy
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Afshar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the decision by President Trump to limit immigration to the United States, what steps they are taking to secure the rights of Iranian-born British citizens visiting the United States to return to the United Kingdom and not be sent to Iran.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, we gained assurances that measures enacted by President Trump’s executive order of 27 January do not affect British passport holders irrespective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport. We are closely monitoring any changes and would consider intervening with the relevant authorities if necessary. Standard US policy is that visitors who are denied entry to the US are returned to the country from which they have travelled.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
I thank the Minister, but what measures have the Government taken to ensure that, at the point of entry into this country, passport controls focus on the legitimate passports of individuals and do not ascribe an assumed identity to visitors in terms of their dress code, assumed nationality or religion?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, with regard to visitors to this country, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. With regard to the access of visitors to the United States, its guidance says that those same factors should not determine the decision that is made: the decision is made on an equality basis.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments, but can she reassure the House that on the executive order that we expect either this week or next week, the department will be prepared to offer proper advice immediately and the Foreign Secretary will not waste any time in seeking urgent clarification, unlike the last time?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did seek urgent advice the last time. The difficulty was that there was some confusion in the United States’s systems, as was evident from the changing nature of its travel advice online. Therefore, early engagement by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in this country and by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister meant that we were able to get the earliest advice to British passport holders that they would not be adversely affected.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, can I flag up the astonishing position whereby the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, who was born in Iran and is a former professor of politics at the University of York and much else besides, might herself be at risk in Iran and not welcome in the United States? Does the Minister agree that we should never go down that road, and that both countries are missing out, potentially, on an absolute treasure?
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, what steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that British Iranian nationals are recognised as such by the Iranian Government?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, that is an extremely important question because of the problems, as we have discussed over the past six to seven months, which ensue when one country does not recognise the validity of dual nationality. Iran is just such a country. We continue to have discussions at ministerial and ambassadorial levels with Iran to try to resolve some of the consequences of its refusal to accept that one can ever revoke one’s own Iranian nationality. Iran is not the only country involved and we continue those negotiations with other countries, too.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, what representations is the Foreign Office making to the American embassy on cases such as Mr Miah, the maths teacher born in Swansea who was accompanying his class to go to the United States? It seems that he was blocked in Reykjavik from boarding a plane for no other reason than that he is a Muslim. He was denied entry and then humiliated; he said that he “felt like a criminal”. Are these sorts of cases being monitored and followed up, and what representation is being made about this outrage?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
With regard to the particular case of Mr Miah, who was removed in Reykjavik from a flight to New York, he has not been given a reason for the entry refusal by the US authorities. On the wider question, naturally when we were advised by Mr Miah of his position we gave consular assistance in position, in Iceland. More broadly, a really important issue underlies the noble Baroness’s question: namely, that we are not always notified when somebody holding a British passport is denied entry or, indeed, detained upon entry. We can only be sure of knowing about it if they notify us, given that the US does not commonly hold those records and there is no international rule that any country must do so.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill
Monday 27th February 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 View all Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 February 2017 - (24 Feb 2017)
Business of the House
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That, in the event of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill having been reported to the House at the conclusion of its proceedings in a Committee of the whole House, Standing Order 40(1) and (4) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 7 March to enable the Report stage to start before oral questions and the Question for Short Debate in the name of Lord Truscott to be taken between the Report stage and Third Reading.
Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations and Orders laid before the House on 12 January and 16 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 21 February.
Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Judicial Pensions) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2017
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 21 February.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 27th February 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 View all European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 103-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (27 Feb 2017)
21:21 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 136 / Noes: 299 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I think that one of the themes of these two days in Committee will be that there are no easy answers to the dilemmas we all now face in the United Kingdom. There are upsides and downsides to every option for Brexit and the country’s future. That includes membership of the European Economic Area.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that we can retain our membership of the single market without membership of the EU only through maintaining our membership, which of course we have already, of the EEA. To spell it out, membership of one or the other is required; that is, either of the EU or of EFTA. That is why I need to say a little more about how we would work within EFTA, which currently comprises three countries: Norway, Iceland and the Duchy of Liechtenstein. We cannot, as we sometimes seem to be doing, rule out all of the options before us, and certainly not rule them out prematurely. Rather, we should look at the pros and cons of each, as has been done in the outstanding report of the joint sub-committee of the European Union Select Committee on Brexit and trade options, chaired by my noble friend Lord Whitty.
We were members of EFTA from its inception in 1960 until we joined the EEC in 1973. I declare a retrospective interest, having chaired the last meeting of the EFTA consultative committee, which was made up of national employers and trade union organisations in consultation with the Council presidency. The meeting was held in Vienna in December 1972. The EEA has a two-pillar structure: the EU on one side and EFTA on the other. They meet together in the EEA council at government level, with various joint committees on particular points, along with a joint parliamentary committee and the EEA consultative committee.
The substance of consultations with the EU depends to an extent on the weight of the member states involved, but I am told by contacts in Norway that these are not without value, and I think that something like this was also the burden of the message sent by the Norwegians who gave evidence to parliamentary committees in both the Lords and the Commons. On the objection to this approach, there is of course the constant complaint that plan B, C or D falls because, “We would not be at the table”. I have to point out that the famous 52% asserted—or supposedly asserted, if they knew what they were doing, which we assume they did—that, without equivocation, they did not want us to be at the table. So that can hardly be a drawback to where we go from here: end of story, full stop. Surely we can all agree that we have to balance influence on the one hand and freedom of action on the other.
EFTA has its own court of adjudication on issues such as interpreting the EFTA treaty and its application of rules of origin, technical standards et cetera. So we will be bound by the rules of EFTA consequent on the relationship with the single market, but obviously there is a great deal of legal alignment with the EU. The four freedoms can themselves be interpreted in different ways. For its part, the Commons Select Committee noted in paragraph 122 of its report that the Secretary of State for Brexit had indicated on 1 December last year that the Government,
“give very high priority to both tariff-free access and access without tariff barriers … that may or may not include membership of the single market”.
The Lords committee report stated in paragraph 82 that in trade terms, becoming a non-EU member of the EEA,
“would be the least disruptive option”,
providing free access to the single market in services and partial access to it in goods. The trade agreements are often negotiated advantageously by EFTA itself. I believe that there is a score of such agreements rather than agreements with individual member states.
I turn now to freedom of movement, border controls, work permits et cetera. Every facet of this debate has now been opened up more than it has been for many years—and by “open” I mean open and not closed down in advance. There is a considerable degree of variance among EU countries on how free movement is interpreted. In Belgium, there is a requirement for a job to go to, it is necessary to pay the rate for the job and no job advertisements can be placed in eastern Europe without being placed also in Belgium. Our Secretary of State seems to have come up with a new form of words about the guarantees for people who are already resident and working in this country. I would simply say that this is an area where we all know that constructive thinking needs to go ahead on a bipartisan basis.
Regarding attitudes in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein towards our application to become members once again, which have to be thought about, it is fair to say that we have very close relations—with a possible question mark in the case of Norway about something that happened 1,000 years ago—notably because of the North Sea energy fields from Shetland through to Aberdeen and further south, in particular in the north-east of England and down the east coast. This is true for the UK as a whole in a great variety of ways, including through the activities of the Norwegians’ well-managed, energy-based sovereign wealth fund, which is now worth £250 billion. A lot of that investment is deployed via London, as we were told in a recent briefing by the fund.
Without being presumptuous, and while recognising that EFTA would change its internal dynamics and, to some degree, its character and profile, the advice generally is that one would not expect hostility in Norway—the largest of the three—to any hypothetical application from the UK to rejoin the association. Positives would also arise from this for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, compared with the alternatives. This is becoming more and more obvious as the weeks go by.
In paragraph 58 of its report, the Lords committee observes:
“Various studies had shown that from the EU’s perspective, ‘the EEA is the most preferred model’ of association for third countries”.
That is not a consideration to be underestimated, and it may influence attitudes among the EU 27 countries. These options for trade, investment, tariffs et cetera have to be the subject of not just theoretical argument but practical experience, such as was given by a Mr Emerson, who pointed out in evidence reported in paragraph 70 of the report that the advantage of the EEA option is, inter alia:
“It is a system that exists, offers legal clarity and actually works. It is closest among other options … to the status quo in economic terms and it would avoid uncertainty and thereby minimise damage to the UK as a destination for foreign investment aimed at the EU market”.
These are among the reasons why it would be counterproductive to leave the EEA, certainly prematurely. I know that going down the route I am advocating would entail Ministers eating some words. But I am sure that their digestive systems will be up to it once they have all run a few times around St James’s Park. I beg to move.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend as a way to probe aspects of the Government’s approach to our future trading relationship with the European Union. The EEA was created when the UK, Denmark and Ireland changed from being members of EFTA to members of the EU, but the scale of their commercial relations with the other EFTA countries made it necessary to abolish customs barriers between the two groups of countries. A similar imperative will operate in the current situation as far as the UK market is concerned, given the scale of our trading with the EU. Obviously, in many ways the EEA would not be my preferred option because I would prefer to be in the single market—indeed, I would prefer to remain in the EU. However, given where we are after the referendum, I certainly think it is worth the Government considering and responding to the points that have been made.
My noble friend referred to the excellent report by the European Union Committee on Brexit: the Options for Trade and the fact that paragraph 5 of the conclusions says:
“EEA membership would be the least disruptive option for UK-EU trade, not least because it would maintain membership of the Single Market for services”.
I specifically ask the Minister whether this paragraph of the report, highlighting the importance of services to our economy and the way that that can be handled within an EFTA-type solution, has been discussed with the City of London, and what kind of response was made by the City to the point in the report.
Obviously, we will have a further chance to look at the report when it is discussed in this House on Thursday, but it is very germane to the discussions this afternoon, both on the EEA and on the single market. Therefore, it is quite right to highlight it today and I take this opportunity to do so. Certainly—this point has been made many times—whatever people voted for in the referendum, we are all pretty sure that they did not vote to make themselves poorer. As a result of that, exploring the best deal possible, in looking at all the possible options, is going to be vital. I believe that the Government need to take the amendment and the report very seriously.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I agree very much with my two noble friends, who have set out very well the purpose of the amendment. I, like them, feel that it is a disaster for our country to leave the European Union in any circumstances, and that the economic costs have not begun to be properly assessed in this country, although as every week goes by we become more aware of some of them. However, I think it is common ground, even with those who think that we should leave the European Union and who voted and campaigned for that, that there are economic costs and even they would accept that those economic costs are very serious.
The economic costs essentially affect manufacturing, particularly areas such as automotive and aerospace where there are a large number of supply chains in the European Union going across countries, with parts and components and so forth going back and forth more or less the whole time. That business will be very severely affected by our leaving the customs union and the single market, particularly where we would have to pay tariffs, as we would do in the case of motor cars, for example. The other area is financial services, which accounts for 10% of the gross national product of this country, as we all know. The City at the moment is the financial capital of the European Union but that is likely to cease if we left the European Union. It is very difficult to imagine how it could continue to be that unless we had some way of remaining in the internal financial market.
The great thing about the EEA is that it is a way of avoiding some, if not all, of the economic costs—there would be a loss of investment in many areas and as time went by there might be threats to our competitiveness as a country, both in services and in some of the manufacturing areas I mentioned. Nevertheless, it would mitigate and very much reduce the economic costs, which everybody is agreed are considerable and serious. Therefore, it seems extraordinary that the Government have not even bothered to consider or negotiate the possibility of our remaining in the single market by virtue of becoming again a member of EFTA or otherwise.
The Government have very reluctantly conceded that there should be some parliamentary process in this procedure of leaving the European Union. They have very reluctantly conceded that they should report to us at least as much as the European Commission does to the European Parliament on the progress of negotiations. They have very reluctantly exposed to us some of their thinking on some of these points, which have been dragged out of them in different ways—and we have to go on doing that.
However, as we begin to get clearer sight of what the Government are doing, it becomes more and more curious because we observe that they are actually breaching some of what one had always thought were the golden rules of negotiation. They are behaving in a way that is clearly irrational. No normal person gives up an option unless he or she gets to the point when they have to. There is no point in giving up an option in advance so why did the Government state in advance they were not interested in becoming a part of EFTA and remaining in the single market on that basis?
Secondly, the Government have said that their priority is to prevent freedom of movement or stop freedom of movement in future so far as this country is concerned. We now hear from Mr Davis that he does not expect any significant reduction in immigration from the rest of the EU or anywhere else for the next few years. In other words, the benefit for which the Government are apparently prepared to pay this enormous economic cost is much less than it was always made out to be. That is very clear.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
On the subject of giving away an option in advance, is my memory playing a trick on me in recalling that the noble Lord and others on the remain side during the referendum campaign argued that membership of the EEA would be the worst possible option because we would be bound by all the rules but have no say?
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord is uncharacteristically inaccurate; he normally does his homework before intervening in this way. He is quite right that I and many on the remain side argued against the EEA being the right solution but he is quite wrong to suggest that any of us argued that it was the worst solution. On the contrary, throughout the campaign I always said while it was a very bad solution, it was the least bad solution of all those on offer. I am on record as saying that and probably said it in debates in which the noble Lord took part. Indeed, that is my strong view today and is the case I now argue.
I wish we could stay in the EU—period, as the Americans say, or full stop—but if we cannot we must try to mitigate the enormous damage. That is the argument I have been making. The way to do that is to try to find a way to stay in the single market, and one way we could certainly do that is to rejoin EFTA, as my noble friend Lord Lea set out. It is extraordinary that the Government have excluded that possibility and I now come to their extraordinary behaviour.
The Government have not only revealed that the benefit for which they are prepared to pay this high cost is nothing like as great as it was always made out to be, but not even considered negotiating on the single market regime provided by the EEA and using that as a basis for trying to get some concessions on freedom of movement. My two noble friends suggested a way forward that might be possible. I do not think that we on this side of the House will be able to take over these negotiations but we want to know—it is important that everybody in the country knows—why the Government did not even think it worthwhile to sit down with our European Union partners and say we would like to stay in the single market but we would also like to curb freedom of movement at least to some extent. We could have a negotiation on that basis.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Could my noble friend refresh the House’s memory on what success the previous Prime Minister had in having this as an objective in his renegotiation of our terms of membership of the European Union?
Lord Davies of Stamford
I think the previous Prime Minister was a completely incompetent negotiator. The way to make progress in European affairs—it is extraordinary that after all these decades the Tory party has not learned this—is to adopt a communautaire approach and the language of one’s partners, to say that what one is seeking to do is in the interests of everybody and not purely in the selfish interests of this country, and certainly not just to get a good headline in the Daily Express or Daily Mail. We make it clear that we share the long-term objectives of our neighbours and partners for the future of western civilisation, as well as for prosperity, competitiveness and employment and these important economic but ultimately subsidiary objectives. Then we say pragmatically, as we have a reputation for being pragmatic, “Would it not be a good idea to do X, Y and Z which would strengthen our common purposes and take further forward our common ambitions?”. That is the way to make progress but it is the opposite of the confrontational approach the last Prime Minister adopted. It is not surprising that he did not get very far.
I am glad that my noble friend made this brief intervention because it enables me to say that I am extremely worried—I am not alone in this—that the Tory party has learned nothing at all from this experience or from any other experience over the last 40 years of the European Union and so will make the same mistake again. It will find itself not achieving what it ought to in the national interest in these negotiations. They will be a disaster, and a largely avoidable disaster, precisely because the Tory Government have not learned the obvious lessons of the past which my noble friend was kind enough to give me the opportunity to remind them of this afternoon.
If you have somebody negotiating on your behalf—a solicitor, an accountant or some representative, agent, trustee or whoever—and you watch carefully what they are doing, you are entitled to get worried should they do something that goes quite counter to normal human common sense. I pointed out three ways in which the Government are behaving in an extremely irrational fashion. I will repeat them so that the Minister can address them when he sums up. First, why are we pursuing this particular objective with the same kind of intensity and passion when we have acknowledged that the objective that we are trying to achieve—what we are trying to obtain in exchange for the high price of giving up our membership of the single market—is not anything like as great it was previously made out to be?
Secondly, why have we not decided to negotiate on the basis of the available option, which we know exists, of our potential membership of the EEA and see if we can perhaps do a little better and achieve some additional concessions? We have not even tried to do this—why not? Thirdly, why are we proceeding in this negotiation by giving up options in advance, before we have even explored them and before we have even started the negotiations? It is a very extraordinary thing to do.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Labour Party could find room for others in this debate. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Lea, were right that we did not have to go through a process of joining EFTA and the EEA—I do not think that he was, actually—being a member of the EEA means accepting EU laws, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said, without any political representation or influence over them. This would, of course, result in less control for the UK over its destiny, rather than more. That is not what people voted for in the referendum. I oppose this amendment for those reasons and because it is directly inconsistent with the White Paper.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, there are those who say that, since voting to leave the EU was the only question on the ballot paper, it is legitimate to argue that people did not vote to leave the single market or the customs union. They are wrong, but we will deal with that in the fourth group of amendments. Those same people also argue that we can join the EEA and benefit from it while still leaving the EU. I believe that that, too, is wrong and misguided. However, your Lordships should not take my word for it: I will quote from the EEA website. After it describes what the EEA is, who are the contracting parties and when it was agreed, it goes on to say in point 4:
“What is included in the EEA Agreement? The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation in all policy areas of the Single Market. This covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as well as competition and state aid rules, but also the following horizontal policies: consumer protection, company law, environment, social policy and statistics. In addition, the EEA Agreement provides for cooperation in several flanking policies such as research and technological development, education, training and youth, employment, tourism, culture, civil protection, enterprise, entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized companies. The EEA Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Single Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Through Article 6 of the EEA Agreement, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union is also of relevance to the EEA Agreement, as the provisions of the EEA Agreement shall be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court given prior to the date of signature, 2 May 1992”.
Therefore, if we join the EEA, we would, in effect, still be in the EU to all intents and purposes, with the exception of agriculture, fishing, justice and home affairs. All the rest of it we would have, lock, stock and barrel. We would not have control of our borders, our laws, our courts or much of our money. We would thus betray the people who voted to leave the EU, and that is why we should reject this amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I will make four very brief points. Will the Minister assure the House that this amendment is actually within the scope of the Bill? The Bill is about notifying withdrawal: this seems to me, as with many other amendments, to be about something completely different. Secondly, it is not within our unilateral gift. Even if the Prime Minister is instructed to remain a member of the EEA on our behalf, she cannot necessarily achieve this on her own. Thirdly, it is not a good idea to tie her hands in that fashion, and fourthly, even if this amendment succeeded—and the same is true of many others—and it became a part of this Bill, as the two years unrolled, it might prove to be inconvenient and an obstacle. There would be nothing to stop the Government simply repealing, or bringing forward measures to repeal, this particular measure, were it to be added to the Bill.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, surely the problem with the EEA is that it is a waiting room for people who want to join the EU. It was never designed for people who wanted to leave it. I do not quite understand why we have to sit here saying that we must take one of the options on offer from the EU. We are the third-biggest economy in the EU. The EU sells 50% more to us than we do to it. Why can we not have a unique free trade agreement with the EU? Why do we have to go along with any of these things that are on offer from the EU?
Lord Davies of Stamford
Perhaps I may be permitted to correct the noble Lord, who I know is an expert on these matters and normally gets his facts absolutely right. We have sat on European Union committees together for quite a long time. But he is wrong about the EEA being a waiting room for applicants to the EU. Norway had a referendum which decided against joining the EU. It decided not to be a member of the EU but it decided to be a member of the single market and to join EFTA on that basis. For Norway, it is not an anteroom, it is an alternative, as it could be for us if we so wished.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I accept that but it was designed originally to be a waiting room for those who wanted to join and that is why it has been put in place and you have to comply with all the regulations of the EU. But I come back to my point that if we join the EEA, we do not join the customs union so we have all the problems of the customs regulations. It enables us to do free trade deals with others but it has many disadvantages and I still do not really understand why we have cannot have our own unique arrangement with the EU. I am sure that is the ambition of the Government and that is why the amendment should be opposed.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, in declaring an interest—which is really my only qualification for joining this short debate—as a half-Norwegian, I advise the Minister to test the noble Lord’s assertion that the Norwegians are broadly content with their situation. Conversations I have had over the years with relatives and friends suggest that they see all the disadvantages that my noble friend Lord Forsyth so forcefully expressed five minutes ago.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
One of the major difficulties that might stem from membership of the EEA is its implications for freedom of movement. I ask the Minister, when he responds, to give the Government’s assessment of the implications for freedom of movement for the UK of membership of the EEA.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Committee has heard quite enough from me so I will not speak on this other than to say that this will come up when we discuss the single market and I will reserve our comments until then. The Committee will probably know that we will not be supporting this amendment.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendment concerning the European Economic Area, which seeks to ensure that the UK remains a member of the EEA.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister will give way—
Lord Keen of Elie
Not yet, no. While I understand the issues raised and agree with the desire to debate them in this House, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
I wonder if the noble Lord will allow me to make a little progress before he launches into the water. This Bill is about the process of our leaving the European Union. It is not about the Government’s approach. I will happily debate these matters with your Lordships, and I am sure that there will be other occasions on which to do so over the coming months and, indeed, years. But as the other place has shown, this Bill is not the place to put constraints on the Government’s approach.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
What is it that the Minister says? I am obliged to him for giving way. As this is the first time we have heard from the Minister on this subject since the weekend, I wonder if he would care to comment on one of the most significant happenings. A very distinguished Member of this House, who sat through almost the whole Second Reading on Monday and Tuesday—a former Deputy Prime Minister for whom we all have the greatest respect—has said that he is going to oppose his own Government on this. He is completely against Brexit. What is the Government’s reaction? Are they not going to take account of the views of someone so distinguished, someone with such great experience of government and of the European Union? Would the Minister care to respond?
Lord Keen of Elie
Yes, of course. The noble Lord to whom the noble Lord refers is not in the House today.
It is my intention to make some progress with this matter. The Prime Minister clearly set out her vision for the future of the UK post-exit in her speech on 17 January, including our future trading relationship with the EU. She was clear that we do not seek membership of the single market. Instead, we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement. We want the UK to have the freest possible trade in goods and services with the EU’s member states but also to be able to negotiate our own trade agreements. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, observed, we seek our own, bespoke deal.
The United Kingdom has always been a leading voice for free trade, not only in the European Union but globally, and we have been consistently clear that we want the maximum possible freedom to trade for businesses in both Britain and Europe. But we also want to take back control of our laws and control immigration to Britain from Europe.
Being a member of the EEA would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement the four freedoms—in respect of capital, goods, services and people—without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country. It would mean not having control over immigration. EU leaders in the other 27 states have been clear as to their belief in the indivisible nature of the four freedoms, and we respect that. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, not to maintain partial membership of its bodies or institutions. When the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union institutions, they did not intend that we should leave by the front door and rush back to attempt entry by the back door.
As set out in the White Paper, we recognise that we will require alternative forms of dispute resolution once we leave the EU and are no longer subject to the European Court of Justice. But again, these mechanisms are common both to agreements between the EU and third countries and in international agreements to which the United Kingdom is also party, of which there are many examples. Once we leave the EU, the EEA agreement will no longer be relevant for the United Kingdom. It will have no practical effect. It will be an empty vessel. That is because the agreement is defined as covering all EU members and those three EFTA states—Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway—which have chosen to join the EEA. As we are leaving the EU, we will automatically be outside this definition, as found in Article 126 of the EEA agreement. So there is no choice open to us to leave the EU and remain a member of the EEA, which would require a separate negotiation with the EU and the three EFTA states that I have just mentioned. For example, Switzerland, which is also a member of EFTA, has separate bilateral agreements with the EU even though it is not in the EEA. EFTA membership is not, of course, the same as EEA membership.
Although it will have no practical effect after the EU exit, we are considering what steps might need to be taken formally to terminate the EEA agreement as a matter of law, as we will remain a signatory to the agreement. This could be done through Article 127 of the EEA agreement on giving 12 months’ notice, or by some other means, but no decision has yet been taken on that. We have laid out in the White Paper, however, the relationship we are seeking: a new strategic partnership which includes a new customs agreement and an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement. We are seeking the greatest possible access to the single market as part of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to the fact that we would not be at the table. That is absolutely right, and that is not what 52% of our population voted for when they voted leave. It is one thing to have power without responsibility; it is another to have responsibility without power, and that is what we would have in these circumstances. It was suggested that freedom of movement could be open to a variety of interpretations. That is not the view in Europe. It is open to only one interpretation—one which we have been under for a number of years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, referred to the report of the House of Lords committee. I can reassure her that we take the terms of that report very seriously, and we will be taking forward our consideration of it in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, referred to the suggestion that somehow we could keep our options open so far as the EEA is concerned, but that is not the case. EEA membership is not an option that is simply open to us if we leave the EU. As I said, it becomes an empty vessel. We have to face up to the indivisibility of the four freedoms, as insisted upon. It is not a case of going to Europe and saying, “We would like to negotiate out of one of the four freedoms”. We are told repeatedly that they are indivisible, and we have to take that into account.
At the end of the day, we cannot embrace membership of the EEA any more than membership of the EU without freedom of movement in Europe. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment on the understanding that we cannot retain membership of the EEA for the reasons I have sought to set out.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, there is one issue on this question which is very important to the national interest. When the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, came to the Select Committee to answer questions about the Government’s negotiating strategy, I asked him whether—as part of a transitional arrangement—they had ruled out membership of the single market or the EEA, and he said they had not. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s current position?
Whatever the Front Bench opposite thinks, most observers think it will be impossible to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement within the practical 15 months of negotiation that will be available after the German elections. This implementation phase that the Prime Minister talks about is in fact a transition. Are the Government saying that under no circumstances would we consider being members of the EEA, or the single market? If they are, we are facing the most horrendous cliff edge as an economy.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I do not accept that we face a cliff edge—there is no cliff and therefore no edge. We fully intend to negotiate a suitable settlement within the period set out in Article 50 and that is the course of action on which we are setting out at this time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, questioned whether this amendment was within the scope of the Bill. That is a question for others, but clearly it is not related to the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is concerned with process and, if we lose sight of that, we are liable to become rudderless in very difficult waters.
Lord Liddle
Will the Minister give me an answer to the question? It is a reasonable question on such a vital matter of national importance: is this ruled out in a transitional arrangement or not?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, the noble Lord’s question proceeds on a supposition that I do not accept.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, on that last point, I would point out that the Government are very good at demolishing every possible hypothesis that is put up, but at some point they will have to look at them constructively—they will have to look at the report on Thursday, as we have just heard—and consider the costs and benefits of each of them. At the moment, what seems to be happening is that one after another various ideas are brought up in debate, which is what we are here for, and the Government produce a tremendous round of artillery to blow up that particular bridge—that is, that particular idea. However, they have never laid out how those couple of sentences in the Lancaster House speech, reproduced in the White Paper, will work. We on this side are opening ourselves up to the vulnerability of saying exactly what we think might be an option. It behoves the Government very soon, in the national interest, to look at what might work rather than at what might not. We will have to return to these matters and look at the pros and cons of this option as well as all the others.
Instead of the Government just saying what is ruled out, it would be good to hear a bit more about what is ruled in. Instead of concluding, like Mrs Thatcher, that “there is no alternative”, they should see that there are several alternatives to just walking away, but we have not heard about these in any detail. We are getting to the ridiculous position where we will have the so-called great repeal Bill, and this Bill will be on the statute book, but there will be no detailed prospectus at all, on the flimsy grounds that that would give the game away about our negotiating position. This does not bode well for the Government coming back with a satisfactory solution to the serious challenges facing the country. However, that is as far as we can take this today, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Before a notification can be given under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must give an undertaking to negotiate under the process set out in Article 50 to support the maintenance of the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as set out under the provisions of the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and subsequent relevant agreements.”
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Murphy of Torfaen. It will be noted that this is a cross-party amendment by two former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In a few days, the people of Northern Ireland will go to the polls for the second time in eight months, at a moment when Northern Ireland’s self-government is in a political cul-de-sac and unresolved legacy issues and the past, including the prosecutions of long-retired British soldiers, continue to haunt everyone. The settlement in Northern Ireland is built on the delicate balance of the three strands of the Good Friday agreement: relationships within Northern Ireland, between Belfast and Dublin and between Dublin and London. Brexit will test each of these relationships and, if the Government pursue a hard Brexit, they could do profound damage to all three.
When I was Secretary of State in 2005, I flew many miles by Army helicopter from east to west along the mountains and fields of south Armagh that mark the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Knowing what had afflicted that area over so many years, it seemed to me that it had what Yeats called, in a different but related context, “a terrible beauty”.
Frankly, the border was, even at the height of the Troubles with security controls, impossible to police. Then it was dubbed “bandit country”. It is estimated that along the entire 300-mile Irish border there are up to 300 crossings and countless additional paths, with 35,000 people crossing each day and each month 177,000 crossings by lorries, 208,000 by vans and 1.85 million by cars. Since family farms straddle the border, there are goodness knows how many animals on the move, from domestic pets to livestock, conceivably being forced to carry ID tags if they stray either way in future—all because the border will become the customs frontier of the European Union.
Bertie Ahern, who served three terms as Taoiseach between 1997 and 2008 and was a central player in helping to secure the Good Friday agreement and deliver power sharing, was reported in the Observer recently as saying that the establishment of an Irish land border could have devastating results, putting Northern Ireland’s peace process in jeopardy.
“‘I worry far more about what’s going to happen with that,’ he said. ‘It will take away the calming effects [of an open border]. Any attempt to try to start putting down border posts, or to man [it] in a physical sense as used to be the case, would be very hard to maintain, and would create a lot of bad feeling.’”
I would suggest that “bad feeling” is an understatement.
“‘Any kind of physical border, in any shape, is bad for the peace process’, he said. ‘It psychologically feeds badly into the nationalist communities. People have said that this could have the same impact on the nationalist community as the seismic shock of the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement on unionists, and I agree with that. For the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, the Good Friday agreement was about removing barriers, integrating across the island, working democratically in the absence of violence and intimidation—and if you take that away, as the Brexit vote does, that has a destabilising effect.’”
I agree with him. I am particularly aware that the consequences of a hard customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic are potentially immense, and are not addressed at all in the Government’s White Paper. Frankly, I am not convinced that the Government have even begun to grasp the political significance of it.
I, like Tony Blair and my predecessors—my noble friends Lord Murphy, Lord Reid and Lord Mandelson—was utterly non-partisan when dealing with the Northern Ireland parties, even though in the space of two meetings we would be accused by one of being for a united Ireland and by the other of being rabidly pro-union. But I built as close a relationship with Ian Paisley as I did with Gerry Adams, with Peter Robinson as with Martin McGuinness. I remain unaligned today—and that allows me, I hope, to talk bluntly, and some might even say inappropriately, about the politics of Irish republicanism and nationalism.
For these people, an entirely open border of the kind that has operated without security or hindrance of any kind for many years now is politically totemic. It marks an everyday reality to all republicans that progress, albeit in their terms slow progress, has been made, and is being made, towards their aspirations for a united Ireland. It has been as if the border no longer mattered. Citizens resident on either side can and do take advantage of the health and education services nearest to where they live, on a cross-border basis. Northern Ireland businesses invest without hindrance in the Republic and vice versa. The two economies are being steadily integrated: there is even a plan to cut corporation tax in Northern Ireland to synchronise with the low rate in the south.
Of course the island of Ireland has not been united politically or constitutionally—to do that would properly require endorsement by referendum, and the principle of consent is one of the cornerstones of the Good Friday agreement—but it is almost daily becoming united in everyday life. That is welcomed by unionists as well, secure in the knowledge that there can be no change in the constitutional position without their consent. Above all, it is a symbol of the normalisation of relations between the two parts of the island. The Government disturb that at everyone’s great and grim peril.
Those who maintain that because the Prime Minister has said that she does not want a return to a hard border it will not happen should be aware that the Irish Government, who do not want a hard border either, have nevertheless, as a contingency measure, begun identifying possible locations for checkpoints along the border with Northern Ireland in the event of a hard Brexit.
The Northern Ireland peace and stability process is very far from over. The current disturbing breakdown and impasse in the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive is a manifestation of the extent of unfinished business. I do not say that we will go back to the murder and mayhem of the Troubles, but I insist that the process could easily unravel. It requires continuous forward momentum; a reimposed border with any form of restrictions is the very reverse of that. If the referendum means Brexit at any price, it might well be at dangerously high cost for the Northern Ireland peace process.
Apart from the politics, the post-Brexit border issue is fraught with practical problems. The excellent House of Lords report, Brexit: UK-Irish Relations, stated on page 65:
“The only way to retain the current open border in its entirety would be either for the UK to remain in the customs union, or for EU partners to agree to a bilateral UK-Irish agreement on trade and customs. Yet given the EU’s exclusive competence to negotiate trade agreements with third countries, the latter option is not currently available”.
The report added:
“Short of the introduction of full immigration controls on the Irish land border, the solution would either be acceptance of a low level of cross-border movement by EU workers, or allowing Northern Ireland to reach its own settlement on the rights of EU citizens to live and work there … which would require … an adjustment of the devolution settlement”.
In evidence to the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 1 February, international trade lawyer Michael Lux dismissed the Government’s commitments to an open border as “nice words” and warned that Britain’s departure from the customs union would require a significant enforcement infrastructure on the Irish side, possibly including cameras and helicopters. Lux calls for,
“a special status for Northern Ireland”.
In subsequent testimony to the committee, Irish Ambassador Dan Mulhall said:
“I just don’t think it’s remotely possible to think in terms of having a border that would really control every movement of goods and people”.
He also warned that it was,
“essential that Brexit does not affect the Good Friday Agreement, and that the people of Northern Ireland can have confidence that this will be the case”.
Experienced customs officials from both sides of the border have questioned the practicality of reimposing controls. Former UK customs officer Gerry Temple told the BBC:
“The border runs through many properties and it would be impossible for customs to check what comes in the southern side and goes out the northern side. The re-opening of the unapproved roads has changed everything and made the task for customs impossible”.
The Police Federation for Northern Ireland has also expressed concern about the consequences of a hard border.
“We are still operating under what the government says is a severe threat, which means an attack on our members could happen at any time and is highly likely”,
PFNI chairman Mark Lindsay told the Guardian. He added:
“If we are saying in the future that police officers could be deployed to customs posts and other fixed points on a hardened border then they would become static targets. They would in effect become sitting ducks for the terrorists”.
I am assuming that he is talking about the dissident IRA groups.
The outgoing leader of the Alliance Party and former Northern Ireland Justice Minister, David Ford MLA, observed that,
“the issue of the common travel area is not dealt with by people simply saying, ‘The CTA has existed since 1923’, because it had never existed when one jurisdiction was outside the EU and the other within it”.
Your Lordships’ European Union Committee has already highlighted the danger of exacerbating an existing smuggling problem on the border, a judgment that reflects testimony from Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister and police service among others. A hard Brexit risks a double windfall for paramilitaries from increased opportunities for fraud alongside growing political tensions. One wheeze, apparently emanating from the Government, is to have electronic controls of some sort.
“I haven’t found anyone who can tell me what technology can actually manage this”,
Bertie Ahern said. David Ford MLA observed that it was “utterly meaningless” to talk about electronic controls as a preventive tool against cross-border smuggling. He noted that there was already evasion of the different excise duties on either side of the border. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mike Nesbitt MLA, agreed that electronic monitoring of the movement of goods,
“just will not cut it”.
We need maintenance of the common travel area, the right of free movement within it for UK and Irish citizens, and their right to reside and work in both countries. We need the retention of the right to Irish, and therefore EU, citizenship for the people of Northern Ireland. We need a customs and trade arrangement between the UK and Ireland if the UK leaves the customs union. We need reaffirmation by both Governments of their commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and continued support for cross-border co-operation.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I have always been a fervent European. It is an emotional thing as much as an intellectual one. In my own family there are people from outside of the UK. My wife and I make our home not just in Northern Ireland but also in continental Europe. As a former vice-president of the European Liberal Democrat Party and someone always committed to Europe, it is part of me politically; and intellectually, the principles behind the European project have been a driving force in my own way of understanding a better way of doing politics, particularly, of course, in my own part of the world in Northern Ireland.
The border was not the cause of our problems; it reflected problems that were there before but it also exacerbated them. The way that the European project worked for many years provided us with inspiration and a model to change relationships within Northern Ireland, between north and south, and between Britain and Ireland. However, for me, sadly, it was neither entirely a shock nor a surprise when the referendum went the way it did. For some years, as some noble Lords will know, I had been warning that, unless those with influence in Brussels and those of us who are pro-European influenced our colleagues in Europe to change the way that the European project was developing, we would find those opposed to the European Union increasing in number and in fervour, and it would not be good for the project—indeed, it would be destined for disaster if there was no change. I said so in your Lordships’ House on more than one occasion but there was not a preparedness to listen.
For me, the European project was essentially a peace project. It was not about the euro or the single market, and it was not about providing a space at the top table of global affairs for Presidents and Prime Ministers of small European countries. It was a peace project to try to make sure that Germany and France, in particular, and the rest of Europe did not go to war again, but now it has become the focus of division within Europe.
Those of us who are pro-European should have been looking for a long time at why things were going wrong. If a couple divorce after 40 or more years and the one who leaves does not do so in order to go to another partner, the one who is left needs to ask themselves some serious questions about the motivation for the divorce after such a long time. The answer is that the European Union was not developed on liberal principles of freedom, flexibility, organic growth and development, and sensitivity to differences of identity and culture right across Europe, particularly between northern and southern Europe. Instead, it was centralising and focused on itself and on the interests, concerns, preoccupations and beliefs of the elite, with the result that many ordinary people found themselves becoming disenchanted. This is a disaster. We know what happens when Europe becomes divided, but divided it has become, and our job now is to try to find a way of bringing it together.
Before turning to Her Majesty’s Government, I want to refer to our colleagues in Brussels. It is not a one-sided business—relationships require movement from both sides. Immediately after the referendum, Mr Juncker demanded that Britain implement Article 50 straightaway, saying that it was a requirement. It was not a requirement but it was an extremely unhelpful intervention because it was precisely the impression of Brussels talking down to everybody that had produced the problems.
Therefore, through the medium of this intervention in your Lordships’ House I need to say to our friends in Brussels and across the European Union, “Understand that relationships are a two-way affair. You have to be prepared to be flexible too if there is to be change for the better”. It may be too late to do other than have a relationship where the United Kingdom is outside the European Union, and it may be almost too late for some of the other countries, because this is not just a question of Britain. Many other countries are asking themselves these questions and have deeply dissatisfied populations, and this year in particular is likely to see developments of a thoroughly untoward order.
When it comes to the border in Ireland, I hope that people in Brussels understand that it is in their interests to start being flexible over it and not simply to say, “Well, take it or leave it. If you want to do Brexit, here are the consequences”. Rather, they should say, “First, this is a relationship. Secondly, we are a peace project, and we are not about disrupting a peace project that was painfully put together in Ireland. And, thirdly, if there was ever trouble again in Ireland, it would be trouble within the European Union, even if Northern Ireland isn’t part of it, because the trouble would be north and south of the border, as it was before”. But, of course, the amendment is particularly addressed to Her Majesty’s Government. I appreciated the fact that the Prime Minister, as one of her first initiatives, contacted the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, and expressed her appreciation of his positive regard and relationship. I know that, despite the difficulties he is in, he or any successor would be able to have useful and positive contact with the Prime Minister. However, it is not a question just of what we do and say, it is a question of our impulses.
I remember in 2013 when the then Crime and Courts Bill was being debated, one of the first things I did when I realised that problems were emerging in Northern Ireland over the question of whether there would be a legislative consent Motion in the Assembly was to meet the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was responsible for the Bill in your Lordships’ House, and to say to him: “Has the right honourable Theresa May”—who at that stage was Home Secretary—“had a consultation with the Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland? Because the NCA, which is going to be created by this Bill, has border security as one of its fundamental requirements. That is one of the things it is about. The only land border we have in the United Kingdom is with the Republic of Ireland. We have a British-Irish Council. We have a whole series of international agreements. We have meetings of Ministers in every context. Has the Home Secretary consulted the Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland about this question?”. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is a very honest and open man, not given to dissembling. He was clear: it had not even entered their minds to have such a conversation. It had not even entered their minds. It was not nasty, it was not malevolent, it was not a snub or a dismissal; it just had not even entered their minds.
My fear is that now she is Prime Minister, Theresa May is bringing to the office of the Prime Minister many of the attitudes, the people and the approaches of the Home Office. If that is the case in relationships with Ireland, north and south, it will create problems for her and for all of us. So my appeal is to understand that being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is not just about being Prime Minister of England and a few add-on bits. It is about Scotland; it is about Wales; it is about Northern Ireland; and it is about many parts of England that do not necessarily feel entirely at home with the approaches that are taken here in London. That will entail a stretching of imagination and political creativity, it will mean engaging with people and it will not be entirely easy, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to create the kind of environment we need within this United Kingdom and in our other relationships, of which I hope there will be many, not just in the EU but outside the EU. Indeed, goodness knows what kind of EU, if any kind of EU, will still exist by the time we come to March 2019. We have no idea. The world is changing dramatically before our eyes. However, there are some things that we know do cause trouble, even if we are not sure what things cause good to happen.
One of the things that will cause trouble is if people in the nationalist and republican community feel that the progress that was made in relationships, in understanding and in sensitivity are being rubbished because there is no longer the threat of violence. That is why—although I have not put my name to it, and I have some questions about the detailed drafting—I have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which reflects something that was said by the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny. That is that there needs to be an appreciation in the engagement with Brussels that if, as is the case under the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland give their consent and show their wish to leave the United Kingdom—not something I expect in my lifetime at all—it would effectively mean that they would then become part of an Ireland which, in total, would be part of the European Union, if the European Union still existed in the same way.
It does not seem to me that this is in any way in contravention of the Good Friday agreement or any of the other agreements. It is certainly not talking about promoting a united Ireland; it is entirely different from the situation in Scotland, because Scotland would be leaving to be a separate country and then apply, whereas Northern Ireland would become part of a country that was already part of the European Union, albeit an expanded one. It does not affect other things, but it may well be one of those things that can give sufficient comfort to people in the Republic and in the nationalist community to enable us to negotiate in the way that we desperately need to. It is not about us proposing solutions but rather about insisting on the maintenance of relationships that can get us through the very difficult period that stands ahead.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. His description of the difficulties that he saw arising within the European Union and the way in which the European Union has not been governed very intelligently by the people in Brussels was seriously meant and I hope that everyone will reflect on it. But I hope he will forgive me if I go back to the amendment in front of us. It is unnecessary. The amendment asks the Prime Minister,
“to support the maintenance of the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland”.
The Prime Minister does that now. It is in the White Paper, so the amendment is unnecessary for that reason. That is a technical answer to the amendment, but I will move on to a general discussion of the common travel area.
As was mentioned in the debate, the common travel area has existed since 1923. From the mid-1920s onwards, tariff differences existed because tariffs were charged on the Irish border—and those continued right up until our entry into the European Union. So going back to having tariffs is not a new thing for us. Having to have regard to the movement of persons is not, again, a new thing. Noble Lords may not be fully aware that the impact of the common travel area on the free movement of people is not general. It applies only to citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It does not apply to other citizens.
I remember hearing in a news bulletin several months ago that the Irish police had intercepted a car that had just crossed over the unmarked border. Police stopped the vehicle in order to remove from it half a dozen persons who were travelling to work within the Republic of Ireland but had no right to do so. So that is an example of the movement of persons being monitored. How effective that monitoring is is another matter—and whether that monitoring can be done in a more effective way, again, is open. So there should not be any insuperable difference on the question of the free movement of persons, provided that there is serious co-operation between the British and Irish Governments. Without knowing the detail, my understanding is that very active discussion is going on at the moment between the British and Irish Governments about how that could be handled.
If there is a serious problem, it comes with the issue of tariffs. The tariffs that were charged from the mid-1920s to the 1970s were enough to stimulate smuggling. It was a local cottage industry, particularly in South Armagh. If significant tariffs come back, it will create, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned, another line of activity for the boys down there who will profit from it. They might complain about it but they will certainly enjoy the profit and might not be too keen if someone took the profit away. So one has to be aware that there is more than one side to this.
There will be difficulties if there are serious tariffs, but the difficulties will exist mainly for the Irish Government rather than for ourselves. In the paper mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, Mr Lux talked about installations on the Irish side of the border. That is where they will be, because under EU law there is an obligation on countries that have part of the EU’s external border to have installations on that border. So if installations exist they will certainly exist south of the border. Whether they exist north of the border I am not sure; that is a matter for our Government to consider. However, the difficulties are going to be there.
The difficulty for the Irish Government is not just to do with the installations but with trade. Although the Irish have tried to develop their trade in other ways, their largest market is the United Kingdom. A tariff between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom would have very serious implications for them. Incidentally, their second largest market is the United States. Almost all their trade is done with Anglophone countries; they have very little trade with the rest of the European Union.
That actually points to a solution. When we joined the European Union in 1972 the Republic of Ireland joined on the same day; and it did so because of the economic factors I have mentioned. Those factors are still there. The Republic of Ireland is going to have to think very seriously, in a couple of years, about where their future prosperity will lie. At the moment the Irish Government are probably trying to do what they can to educate people in Brussels about the problems that they will face and about the desirability of having tariff-free access. That is also the objective of our Government. They, too, want tariff-free access, and if they achieve that there is no problem—although we should bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Lawson said in last week’s debate: that as things stand, it does not look as though there is much chance of getting agreement on the absence of tariffs. If we do not get that, the Irish Government will have a problem. We would of course want to be sympathetic and do what we can to mitigate matters; but at the same time that is not something that we need as a major element in this debate.
The amendment talks about,
“the open border … as set out under the provisions of the Belfast Agreement”.
Look at the agreement: what provisions? I do not see any. The common travel area was part of the background at the time that we were discussing this, but to say that this is something mandated by or based on the agreement is not correct. It is just a way of hyping up the argument, in the same way that some people suggest that the current peace might be threatened by what is happening here. That is the equivalent of shroud-waving and is not something that we should be too concerned about.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, when the Minister replies to this debate he has a choice. He can focus on the amendment and explain why it is unnecessary—which he can probably do fairly easily. If he does that, but does no more than that, the Government will be losing a very important opportunity, which is to reply to the remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and seek to reassure the inhabitants of Ireland, north and south, about the very real concerns that have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Alderdice and the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Trimble, among others.
I am not Irish, although there are times when I wish that I were; but I have lived in Ireland as a privileged guest of the nation for 44 years. I am a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland and of the Republic. I have been frequently to the north, as well as living in the Republic. I say to the Minister—if he does not know it already—that the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, are not debating points; they are very real. As the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, Ireland joined the European Community when we did. I think that the Irish were always more European than we were; they saw John Bull’s island as between them and Europe and saw their destiny in Europe—and Ireland has benefited enormously from its membership of the European Union, as have we.
The troubles mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, are acute and I am concerned that, whatever happens with the amendment, which I regard as trivial compared with these issues, both in the debate on Second Reading and in the White Paper the Government have shown a disregard for the seriousness of the issues affecting Ireland as a whole. I urge the Minister, if not today then as soon as he possibly can, to make sure that full reassurance is given to the people of Ireland, north and south, about the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. That is far more important than the fate of this amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare two interests as the last surviving member of the Whitelaw commission which led to the Sunningdale agreement in the 1970s and as a long-standing fan of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who in his assessment of the situation in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland speaks for nearly all of us. The only questions for us today are what this has to do with the Bill before us and why this amendment is necessary now. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has just suggested, we are asking for reassurances, I think that we can give them. As my noble friend Lord Trimble has said, the common travel area has been in place since 1923. The trade interests of the Republic of Ireland with the United Kingdom are overwhelming and growing very fast, not only in goods and agriculture but obviously in services as well. It seems to have been largely overlooked that the services element in international trade is rising much faster than the goods element, leading to more and more of the earnings of both the whole of the United Kingdom and the Republic being expressed through digital and data transformation. Indeed, McKinsey has said that it represents more than half the total earnings of international trade. The whole pattern of trade has changed radically in the past 10 to 15 years with digitalisation and it should come into every assessment of the new relationship.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is right to say that the problem lies with the European Union. Will it be able, first, to accept the common travel area—it must because it was there long before the European Economic Community was formed—and will it accept that concessions are needed, or bilateral arrangements of the kind that can perfectly well be organised now between the Republic and the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part? In the low-tariff world we are moving into, indeed a zero-tariff world more generally with 80% of all industrial goods not covered by tariffs—people talk as though tariffs are a wall, but they are not—I think that we can be assured that a practical solution is possible. I imagine that it has already been discussed by Ministers and many officials in Dublin, Belfast and London.
I am absolutely sure that various elements of gluing the situation together can develop, with one that I cannot resist adding being that Dublin is showing an enormous interest in association with the Commonwealth. One of the most lively branches of the Royal Commonwealth Society—I declare an interest as its president—is in Dublin. It is attracting a great deal of interest because the Republic sees more and more that its future lies in its relations with the rest of the British Isles while working within the reforming European system, which is going to be difficult because the EU is going through vast political, economic and social changes. So I see very little problem—I do not say that there is no problem because the noble Lord, Lord Hain, speaks with authority—and believe that it can be resolved through good will on all sides. I see that good will in place and there is absolutely no necessity for bringing this issue into the Bill before us.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, from our perspective here, Northern Ireland is the forgotten part of the UK. It rarely gets a mention in this House and there is little media coverage in the London-based press. I am worried about Northern Ireland, and two or three years of answering for the Government on Northern Ireland issues taught me that politics in Northern Ireland is not as solved as people in England often assume it to be. I am worried about Northern Ireland because it is clearly a difficult time, with the breakdown of power-sharing and the imminent election. Clearly there are difficulties in personal relations that have not always existed in recent years.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak in general support of the issues raised by this group. I have not put my name to any particular amendment but I feel that the issues raised demand proper debate. This is the first time that I have spoken in any of the Brexit debates in this House. I have a personal interest: my mother came over from Ireland after the war and made this country her home. Due to a long-standing personal commitment, I made the start of the Second Reading debate but was not able to take up my speaking slot. Therefore, before coming to specific issues, I will say a few words about my overall position on the Bill.
I voted remain in the referendum. This did not make me a cheerleader for the EU. I could see its current difficulties and challenges all too clearly. Indeed, anyone involved in negotiations on EU structural funds would have been in no doubt about those challenges. However, on balance, I believed that it was clearly in the interests of this country to remain—if you like, a realistic rather than a reluctant remainer.
The referendum result answered one question: whether this country wished to remain in the EU. However, as others have said, it left a whole lot of other questions unanswered. Should we remain in the single market? How can we best secure the future of the United Kingdom, something I feel very passionately about? What should our approach be to EU and EEA citizens? Those are just three examples of questions that we should be debating in these amendments. To want to debate these issues is not the same as wanting to block or delay the Bill. Reviewing, scrutinising and proposing amendments to legislation is, after all, what we are here to do.
Much has been said about the ardent remainers, if I can call them that, being in denial of the referendum result. I have no doubt that there are some—maybe even some in the Chamber—who fit that description. However, my biggest concern is the ardent leavers, who seem to be in denial of the enormous risks that a badly handled Brexit will have for our economic, social and political interests or, indeed, how much we are going to have to give up in order to secure Brexit on the terms currently envisaged. We cannot simply hope for the best and leave these issues to the outcome of the negotiations. The likely result of that approach is that we will be left with Hobson’s choice: vote for a deal that we are deeply unhappy about or face being bundled out of the EU without an agreement. It is much better to discuss, debate and, where necessary, vote on the issues now.
Turning to the amendments in this group, the Government’s Brexit White Paper sets out 12 principles, one of which is:
“Protecting our strong historic ties with Ireland and maintaining the Common Travel Area”.
It rightly highlights the extensive movement of goods, services and people across the border and says that the Government will work with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to find “a practical solution”. What is much less clear in the plan, however, is how this principle will be reconciled with the other principles in the plan and, if they cannot be reconciled, which principle will take precedence.
Paragraph 4.4 of the White Paper says:
“When the UK leaves the EU we aim to have as seamless and frictionless a border as possible”.
So there will be a border. Like much of the White Paper, the clear headline principle at the start of the chapter is undermined by the text. The question is not whether we have a border, it is how seamless it is.
As many have said this afternoon, the issues here go well beyond free trade and free movement. The report of the EU Committee made it clear that the implications of Brexit for Ireland were more profound than for any other member state. Indeed, in my own discussions with the Republic of Ireland when I was head of the Civil Service, the prospect of Britain exiting from the EU and the potential consequences was by far their biggest concern. This fear has now become a reality. It seems clear that the harder the Brexit, the harder the border. It will in effect become an external customs border of the EU. While of course there may be some shroud waving, we cannot ignore the comments of former Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who was after all instrumental to the Good Friday agreement, that Brexit might put the peace process in jeopardy. There must surely be no circumstances in which we could contemplate that happening.
Of course, the EU Commission negotiators have an important role here. I recognise that, but in the end this will come down to the choices we make in the negotiations. What negotiating goal finds priority over another? In my view, our commitment to both the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement must—I emphasise must—stand above most if not all our other ambitions. I sincerely hope that the Minister will confirm this in his response.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Thank you. About 25 years ago, I was a member of the independent Opsahl Commission on the future of Northern Ireland. Through that, I learned a lot about the economic and social problems faced by Northern Ireland and also became acutely aware of how in the rest of Britain these problems, and Northern Ireland, generally were pretty much ignored other than through the lens of the Troubles. Plus ça change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, already noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, quoted from the EU Committee report on UK/Irish relations that the implications of Brexit for Ireland are more profound than they are for any other member state. The report went on to say that the profound issues raised for the island of Ireland are often overlooked on the British side of the Irish Sea. That is why I very much welcome these amendments and believe that there is a role for us to debate them in the context of the Bill. They should not be overlooked by your Lordships’ House. It would be a tragedy if Brexit undermined the Good Friday agreement and the continuing peace process—as many fear it will, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said earlier.
At Second Reading I spoke about some of the human rights implications of Brexit, which are especially profound for Northern Ireland, as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission both underlined. I have just had brought to my attention a speech by a member of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission which raises important questions for the Article 50 negotiations. She asked whether human rights and equality could be mainstreamed into European Council guidelines for a withdrawal agreement, pointing out that,
“the EU is founded in its governing Treaties on stated values including equality and human rights”.
She goes on:
“What this could mean in relation to the concrete content of the negotiating guidelines and the withdrawal agreement we don’t know. Questions that have been asked in the European Parliament in relation to the peace process and Brexit have been met with stock answers pending the triggering of Art 50. But it might be important to remember the primordial status of human rights and equality when it comes to questions such as how human rights can be protected for all rights holders in NI, including those holding Irish or dual citizenship under GFA, and what consideration is to be given to provision for cross-border rights in relation to free movement, welfare rights and mobility, etc. Following from Arts 2, 6 and 21, the principles of human rights and equality should be included as core in the negotiating guidelines”.
So this is important for this Bill when we consider it.
She goes on to say that,
“it is vital that the EU-UK withdrawal agreement expressly protects the Good Friday Agreement. The EC treaty itself is a peace agreement which in its origins in the 1957 treaty resolved to ‘strengthen the safeguards of peace’”—
as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said so eloquently earlier. She said that,
“it can’t be overstated that the exit agreement to be concluded between the EU and the UK must not now undermine the peace that has been achieved in Northern Ireland with such difficulty, perseverance and commitment on all sides. The GFA is founded on a golden thread of respect for human rights and equality. The EU’s external action is … a binding commitment ‘to preserve peace and prevent conflicts’ and the withdrawal agreement must honour this”.
Those are very important words and I would welcome the Minister’s observations on these crucial points regarding human rights generally, and the Good Friday agreement in particular.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I will raise a point that was not raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, but was very much on my mind as someone who was closely involved in the negotiations over Protocol 36, under which the United Kingdom withdrew from a large number of justice and home affairs provisions, and then opted back into the 35 most important ones. This point was raised both at Second Reading, by my noble friend Lord Blair, and in the debate that we had on the new Select Committee’s report on justice and home affairs.
The relevance for the matter that we are discussing today is very real, because those of us who took evidence on that matter know perfectly well that the underpinning of the Belfast agreement, the open border and everything else depends on the strengthening of law enforcement co-operation that has taken place in recent years under EU legislation. The European arrest warrant, the exchange of criminal record information, Europol: this great raft of things underpins, and above all has helped to achieve, the depoliticisation of these law enforcement issues between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
All those bits of EU legislation are now at risk. There is no doubt about that. The Prime Minister herself, who, after all, is well aware of the problems in this area and negotiated very effectively in the case of Protocol 36, knows it extremely well. However, she has said that no deal is better than a bad deal. No deal means that we go over the cliff, as far as all this law enforcement legislation is concerned. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister, when he replies to this amendment—which I am speaking in favour of—just how the Government intend to avoid that situation. They need a better story to tell than they have had hitherto. Frankly, the story has been thin and threadbare so far: it is a statement of assertions, desires and wishes but of absolutely no sense of direction in how to get there. I hope that the Minister will address this issue, along with all the other ones that other noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hain, raised. It is an important one and there is no plan B in this case. If we go over the cliff there are no WTO trade rules that we can fall back on: there is just nothing.
Lord Pendry
My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the amendment so ably and eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Hain. I intend to raise the problems that beset certain industries in Northern Ireland, particularly the largest economic provider in terms of employment and revenue, the agri-food sector. I declare an interest at this point: I served in the 1970s as a Minister in the Callaghan Administration, in particular for agriculture, which experienced enormous problems—problems galore—as a result of the complexities of the common agricultural policy, which affected the north adversely in relation to the south.
One recognises that the Government, at least on paper, are committed to doing their level best to secure the best possible arrangements for a smooth transition to a cross-border solution between the north and south of Ireland during negotiations, and will work closely with the Republic of Ireland in so doing. However, these could be soft words unless meaningful action is taken. No meaningful indications appear to have emerged from the debates in the other place of any positive proposals of a practical nature. I hope that in the course of our endeavours, the Minister in this House will cover some of the positive suggestions that were made in the other place and will give us an indication of how the Government will address some of the problems that will certainly emerge in the weeks and months ahead—indeed, in the next two years. I intend at a later stage to mention one or two of the problems facing the Ulster Farmers Union.
In the White Paper, the Government stated their intention to have,
“as seamless and frictionless a border as possible”,
between Northern Ireland and the Republic, but it is not clear, certainly not to me, that this means anything that we can pin them down to. Once Northern Ireland and the Republic are no longer both members of the European Union, the question is: is a border inevitable? There are concerns among politicians from both the north and the south that the return of a border, even a light customs border, could bring about bad memories of a troubled past. Northern Ireland is distinctly different from Scotland and Wales in that it faces significant challenges from Brexit. The Irish border is a major factor for Northern Ireland, with its high dependence on the Republic. That has to be seen and understood by our negotiators and Northern Ireland needs to be armed with the necessary ammunition to fight its corner during these almost certainly difficult talks that lie ahead.
Although Northern Ireland has an overall high dependence on the EU, recent figures show that, unlike any other country in the UK, over 50% of Northern Ireland’s exports go to EU countries and almost 40% to the Republic in particular. From that it is clear that if barriers were erected, the situation in both the north and the south would be detrimental. Should trade barriers be erected, without question, the agricultural and related industries will suffer.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Perhaps I might give my noble friend a practical example of what he has just said. The EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee recently received evidence that the milk in Baileys Irish Cream crosses the border during manufacturing six times.
Lord Pendry
My Lords, I was coming to that, but may not put it as well as my noble friend did. It is understandable that farmers in the Irish agri-food sector are concerned that their fears will not be heard during these negotiations. Smaller producers especially are clearly worried, and this is where I come to the point that smaller producers and traders—fisheries, dairy farmers and meat producers, for example—cross the border daily to trade. It is of the utmost importance that we work to maintain existing trade connections between the north and the south during the negotiations before we consider withdrawing from the European Union. In both the south and the north, agriculture and the agri-food industries are highly significant to the economy. It is estimated by the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association that the number of jobs in 2010 in the agriculture and agri-food industries was 92,000, including direct employees, farmers and those in the supply chain. The situation, I suspect, has not changed very much since then.
The North/South Ministerial Council in Dublin and the Irish Government have agreed—as, we hope, will the Northern Ireland Executive—that, following the Brexit negotiations, they will work together to ensure that the important north-south co-operative structures are fully protected. Without setting up any new structures to existing frameworks, the current North/South Ministerial Council should continue to be the forum, although it may have to be strengthened in changing circumstances. The overriding aim must surely be that the sharing of information and co-operation between both sides of the divide are protected, as this will prove essential for the smooth running of Brexit.
Having served, as I said, as a Minister in the Callaghan Government, with my primary responsibility that of agriculture, I recognise that there are particular difficulties in so far as at that time the south had a massive advantage over the north. My throat is playing tricks with me, so with those words I merely say that I agree with this amendment and hope that when the Minister replies, he will recognise some of the important issues facing the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I will just make a short intervention. It is many years since I was happily debating, hour after hour, the Northern Ireland police Bill, and it is very heartening to see so many Members of your Lordships’ House show such an interest in Northern Ireland matters. As a recently retired member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I warmly support the amendment. I know how much concern there is about the effect Brexit will have on both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The foundations of the peace process are built on an open and accessible island of Ireland. It is welcome that the Government are committed to ensuring a frictionless border between the north and south, but they have not said how this might be achieved. Can the Minister enlighten us? We must have more clarity from Ministers on the practical implications of Brexit for the 35,000 people estimated to cross the border every day. Can the Government guarantee freedom of movement on the island of Ireland? I would like to think that they could.
This was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, but your Lordships also need to know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is on record stating that the security risks posed to police and border control officers are of great concern. Officers are still acting under severe threat, meaning that an attack from dissidents could happen at any time. There have been recent attempts on the lives of officers in north Belfast and Londonderry/Derry. If police officers were to be deployed to customs posts on a fixed border, as the noble Lord said, they would become sitting targets. What extra measures are the Government taking to ensure these concerns are addressed and that the incredibly brave and dedicated officers and staff of the PSNI will be consulted on any future changes to their functions?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on Irish matters but no one has spoken to Amendment 30, which is grouped with these amendments, or explained the thinking behind it. It has extraordinary implications for Scotland. It says that it should be a,
“priority in negotiations … for the Prime Minister to seek terms that would not give rise to any external impediment to the ability of the people of the island of Ireland to exercise the right, on the basis of the consent of the people of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, to bring about a united Ireland, to be treated as a European Union Member State”.
I assume—contrary to his position—that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, accepts the view that if people vote in a referendum that should be taken as the consent of the people. If so, that suggests—as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, pointed out—that it should be part of the Government’s negotiations to secure the right of Northern Ireland, if it voted in a referendum to become part of a united Ireland, to automatically become part of the European Union. If the Government were to embark upon such a negotiation, I would find it difficult to understand why that would not enable the Scottish nationalists to argue that what was good for the goose was good for the gander, or perhaps it is the other way round. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said that it is completely different because this is part of the United Kingdom joining a state that is a member of the European Union, and not the other way round. I very much doubt if Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond would present it that way.
The main point I want to make is that this is a Bill about firing the starting gun for Article 50. There are many issues, and there is great sympathy in the House for the position of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister has said, in the clearest possible terms, what the Government’s policy is. Frankly, some of these amendments and speeches do not seem to be prepared to take yes for an answer. The idea that we have to amend the Bill in order to hold the Government’s feet to the fire for their policy on something as important as this is pretty extraordinary. We go back to the fundamental point: the President of the Commission, the leader of the Opposition and the then Prime Minister all wanted to implement Article 50 immediately. The Prime Minister is anxious to get on with the negotiations; these issues will have to be considered. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, “We accept that, but we want to know how you are going to do it”. The very worst thing you can do in any negotiation is announce in advance how are you going to negotiate, because then you are committed to that position and the people on the other side will make it very difficult for you, so I worry about Amendment 30 in particular. It illustrates how foolish it would be to amend this Bill—which is after all starting the process. I have no doubt there will be many happy hours for us to discuss those issues of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the future, and the implications for Scotland, the EEA and everything else. But I venture to suggest that this is not the Bill in which to do so.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I remember that at the time of the negotiations leading up to the agreement in Belfast, the EU was there in the forefront being supportive, and indeed EU finance developed cross-border projects and played a significant part in the process.
I want to make two points. First, whatever we think, we know that the Irish Government are deeply concerned about this issue. We are belittling their concerns if we say, “We don’t need to bother about this amendment because it’ll be all right in the end”. We all know that the previous Taoiseach, the present one and many other people are very concerned. We owe it to them at least to show that we are concerned about the situation.
My key point is that I think it would be right to have the amendment in the Bill if for no other reason than that it would send a signal to Brussels. It is all right saying that the Prime Minister will do her best in the negotiations, but I would have thought that in her position she would be much better off if we had the amendment in the Bill; it would strengthen her resolve and she could say, “The British Parliament is so concerned about it that we have put it on the face of the Bill”. That is why we should move forward with the amendment.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I notice that the amendment has been signed by virtually a who’s who of people who have had a high profile in Northern Ireland affairs over many years. For that reason, one has to take seriously what has been put before us. The truth, though, is that today we have really been having a Second Reading debate, not a debate on the amendment. I suppose that in the absence of a Speaker to slap us down, we will probably all be tempted on to that turf.
There are a couple of things I want to say at the outset. I have heard absolutely no one, in any political party or any Government, say that they wish to see a hard border. The closest we came to anyone saying we had to have one was the official to whom the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred. No one wants it. The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which a number of us are associated with, is working to ensure that it does not happen. Both our Governments are working to that effect, and Brussels has openly said it has got the message. With that sort of momentum, I believe we will find means.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to the extent that at this stage I would rule out nothing electronic or technical, or indeed any form of technology. We do not need to paint ourselves into a corner; it all may have a part to play. I am quite sure that it already has a part to play in everyday life, in tracking criminals and so on, so we should not rule out what could be a contributing factor to finding what we all want, which is a solution other than concrete and barbed wire. Why should we rule out one possible solution at the very outset?
The House is greatly adorned by many senior legal figures who have demonstrated their robustness and capability in recent months. I am not a lawyer—I am absolving myself of any responsibility in advance—but we have had two recent cases that I wish to refer to. My fundamental disagreement with the amendment is that it is my belief that we are making a mistake in linking the Belfast agreement with triggering Article 50; they are two totally separate things. That is not just me talking. I refer to the two cases against Brexit that were brought to the Belfast High Court last September, one by a well-known victims campaigner and the other by a group of human rights organisations and Stormont politicians, including the leaders of the SDLP, the Greens and the Alliance and a Sinn Fein former Minister. The premise of each case was that taking Northern Ireland out of the EU would breach the Belfast agreement. The High Court heard both cases together and rejected them on every point.
It is worth a quick run-through of those points to demonstrate how comprehensively the breach has been debunked. The plaintiffs claimed that the constitutional establishment in Northern Ireland was being changed without the population’s permission, contrary to the consent principle underpinning the entire peace process. They said that the nine mentions of the EU in the agreement mean that membership is “inextricably woven” into the law enacting it. However, the High Court in Belfast came to the conclusion that references to the EU in the agreement are “incidental”—the judge’s own word. The Northern Ireland Attorney-General, John Larkin, decided to refer some aspects of this to the Supreme Court because, although he felt there was no link, he wanted to make absolutely certain that there was clarity at the highest possible level.
When the Supreme Court produced its decision in the Miller case—a split decision, although there was a substantial majority—it was unanimous on the issue specific to the Northern Ireland case, and said, without any caveat, “This is not a breach”. That is the highest court in the land. When it came to other treaty issues, such as the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland that deals with the border poll and issues surrounding that which are obviously linked to this group of amendments, it added that nothing about Northern Ireland’s removal from the EU breached any law, any treaty or any part of the constitution.
We were all horrified when the headline “Enemies of the People” appeared before us some months ago and, when the Gina Miller case came to a conclusion, everyone said that we must respect the views of the court and accept that a decision had been made. Here we have the clearest of clear decisions—that there is no breach of any treaty, of any Act or of the constitution as a result of the decision to leave the European Union, whatever we happen to think of that decision. I therefore contend that the amendment is defective, in that it tries to put on the face of the Bill an agreement that is not relevant, when no offence or violence is being done to the constitution of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that one possibility was to devolve immigration powers to Stormont. If we did that, I assure noble Lords that people would need a pass to go from County Antrim to County Down. The last thing we need is to devolve immigration powers to Stormont. Stormont cannot agree a budget; it cannot agree anything at present. Sadly, the place has fallen in on itself again. The idea of giving it an immigration power is fanciful, and would be extremely dangerous.
The concept of special status has been mentioned. That term referred to the special category status of prisoners in the Maze prison—or Long Kesh, as it then was—which led to the hunger strike. “Special status”, certainly to a unionist, means something less than being part of the United Kingdom—and that is exactly what it would be. The fact remains that either we are in the United Kingdom or we are not. When we were trying to design the Belfast agreement—I thank my noble friend Lord Trimble for giving me and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, the opportunity to be part of the team that negotiated it—we found ways, through that agreement, of resolving these very difficult issues.
The problem with leaving the European Union is not breaches of the Belfast agreement; the political problem is leaving the European Union. It may be what is upsetting a lot of nationalists, and a lot of people in Dublin, but it is not relevant to this Bill. There is something I want to say to Ministers about this—something I have raised with them many times, both privately and in this House. When it comes down to it, we need assurances that there are red lines in the forthcoming negotiations, and one of those red lines must be that there will be no internal border within the United Kingdom.
We have been talking about the border with the Republic, and I totally agree about an open free border. I had the privilege of being the Northern Ireland Minister who started up InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland—two of the north/south bodies—and I can say that nobody I have come across wishes to see any border, in terms of a physical construction.
Lord Davies of Stamford
What a depressing afternoon this is. If we in this legislature were trying to get rid of barriers, borders and frontiers between people, what a good day’s work we would be doing, instead of which we are talking about creating new barriers and frontiers between us and the continent, between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and possibly potentially between England and Scotland. Those are all very depressing thoughts.
One of the advantages of Committee is that we can have a debate. It is possible to respond to what other people have said and, if what they suggest is plainly possible, it is obviously very desirable to take it on board. I thought that my noble friend introduced his Amendment 2, which I strongly support, with a brilliant speech. I agree with every word of it except one very important sentence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred in a very powerful speech—namely, it is utterly intolerable and inconceivable that we should have an internal border within the United Kingdom. I regard that as an utterly unacceptable solution. We need two sets of red lines in these negotiations. We must have no borders within the United Kingdom and no border between the Republic of Ireland and the Province of Northern Ireland—between the 26 and the six counties. Those two things should be absolutely immovable desiderata and requirements of the British Government in conducting these negotiations. I hope, and believe, that we would have the understanding of Brussels and the rest of the European Union in insisting on those two points.
I was mystified by one of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said and quite shocked by another. I was mystified when he said that freedom of movement in Ireland, called the common travel area—it is exactly the same thing—has been in place since 1923, so it would be nothing new if it was somehow modified or constrained. The Irish Free State came into being only in January 1922 when the treaty was ratified, so there was never a border before then. Clearly we were then part of the same country. If there has never been a border since 1923, on that calculation there has been only one year in the course of the last 800 years of Anglo-Irish history in which there has been any restriction on freedom of movement within Ireland. That being the case—I believe it to be the case—it would be profoundly shocking and would have a traumatic effect if we suddenly started to introduce one now. What a very sad thing to do after the last 20 years. The thing that shocked me, though, was when the noble Lord appeared to say that if the Irish Republic was observing its own interests, it should leave the European Union. I remind him that the people of the six counties voted very substantially to remain in the European Union only a few months ago. Surely, in all courtesy, we should leave it to the people of the 26 counties to make their own decision on that matter and not lecture them from the British Parliament—a habit which I am afraid has become too bad a habit over too many centuries.
The matter we are discussing is particularly important because during the Bill’s passage we will debate other matters such as the single market. We have already had a go at that and will come back to it. If we make a big mistake in that regard—we know that we may well make some very big mistakes—we shall be the major sufferers. But in this matter we shall not be the major or the only sufferers; the equal or the substantial sufferers—certainly the equal, perhaps the greater sufferers—will be the people of the island of Ireland. Therefore, we should be particularly concerned to get matters right.
Some people, including probably the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, will not like what I am about to say. However, I remind the House that this country’s and Great Britain’s relations with Ireland over the last 800 years have been just about as hideous as relations between neighbours could ever get. Right from the 12th century, the Anglo-Norman invaders imposed on the Irish exploitation and a form of apartheid-type discrimination. In the Reformation that was followed by persecutions of a different kind. We had the massacres under Queen Elizabeth. We had the massacres under Oliver Cromwell of every man, woman and child in the cities of Drogheda and Wexford.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I knew that some noble Lords on the other side would not like this but they are going to hear it. We had the heartless expropriations of Catholic property by Oliver Cromwell, and again in the 18th century, contrary to the Treaty of Limerick. We had a series of broken promises—four major historic broken promises—the Treaty of Limerick itself, the promise made to Grattan’s Parliament in 1782, the promise made by Pitt in 1800 to introduce Catholic emancipation and the promise made by Asquith to bring in, live up to and carry out the third home rule Bill. All those promises were broken.
Even at that point the British Government did not get it. We did not get the Easter rebellion. We tried to impose conscription on Ireland. Even when Sinn Fein won every seat in the November 1918 elections except, I think, for two in the 26 counties, we still did not get it and, within two months, we had the Anglo-Irish war. We know what happened to that. After the treaty, we neglected Irish matters in this House. We allowed Stormont to get away with an absolutely scandalous programme of deliberate job and housing discrimination—job discrimination even explicitly encouraged by a unionist Prime Minister by the way—and other breaches of civil rights, and, of course we did not get it. We did not intervene after the attack on the civil rights march by Paisley’s thugs at Burntollet bridge. We then had the appalling violence and terrorism by the IRA.
In the last 20 years we have had the brightest moment in Anglo-Irish history that we have had in 800 years, starting with the Belfast agreement. It may have been prepared before the Belfast agreement in the great co-operation that took place between our two countries after we both joined the European Union. I remember Garret FitzGerald, a very great Taoiseach, saying to me once over lunch that that had transformed the position of the Irish and the British. After 800 years in which we had been the patronising imperialists and the Irish had been the petitioners, we were equals, involved in the same programme and the same agenda in the European Union, or the European Community, as it was originally, and we needed each other’s support and votes to get our business done. That was the basis on which a new relationship was created. That has been a great asset and great achievement of the last generation. It is now at risk if we gratuitously decide to impose a border upon the beautiful country and proud people of Ireland. It does not matter whether the border is a mechanical border, a human border, an electronic border, an analogue border or a digital border, it is a border, a frontier. That is the important psychological fact and we cannot get away from it. There is no way you can get away from it. It is completely and utterly out of the question. The Government are quite good at saying that we had the discussion on the previous set of amendments about them dismissing the idea of our remaining in the single market through being a member of the EEA. Why do the Government not—as they should—dismiss the idea altogether of being a party to the end of freedom of movement in the island of Ireland, let alone, of course, within the United Kingdom itself?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we should remember Sir John Major and Albert Reynolds and the fact that my noble friend Lord Trimble shared the Nobel prize with John Hume for what they did to create the foundation for a peaceful settlement. No one in this Chamber needs a lecture from my friend the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and a rehearsal of Irish history—a very poor rehearsal as my noble friend Lord Trimble interjects.
We have had some very notable speeches in this debate. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Empey and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord is very welcome to correct me and if I have made a historical error I apologise, but will he tell the House what the historical error was?
Lord Cormack
The noble Lord certainly left out Henry VIII and many other things. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, put the thing beautifully in context and gave a very remarkable speech. We should all be grateful to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for introducing the amendment in the way that he did but I hope he will not push it to a vote. I say that with great respect. He knows I mean that because I had many dealings with him when he was Secretary of State and I had the honour to be the chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place. I had members of seven parties on my committee and we remained unanimous throughout, even though we looked at issues such as organised crime, prisons and many others. He knows how closely we worked together as a committee.
What we need today—and I hope we will get it—is an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the Government truly recognise the importance of the points that have been raised. They recognise that Northern Ireland is not only in many ways the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom but also the most vulnerable. We are not going to strengthen this procedural Bill by hanging this amendment on it. There may well be a time when we return in the context of the negotiations that will follow. There may well be amendments later in this Bill that I will feel I need to support to ask colleagues in the other place to think again, but this is not one of them and I very much hope that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will withdraw his amendment at the end of the debate.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I actually live in Northern Ireland and have lived there for the past nearly 50 years; I have experienced the Troubles personally, having lost a child in a bomb explosion, and having nearly lost a son to a sectarian attack. Article 50 is about taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union—it is not about the Good Friday agreement; it is not about the security of Northern Ireland. To attempt to introduce it in this haphazard and hasty way—with great respect to noble Lords—does not serve the interests of the country. The interests of the security and the economy of the United Kingdom and the security and the economy of the Irish Republic will be best served if these things are dealt with in the course of negotiations, with complete flexibility. We should not, in any way, attempt to fetter the discretion of the Prime Minister. This is not an amendment that would benefit the United Kingdom or any part of it.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I shall speak very briefly in favour of Amendment 2. As has been said by other noble Lords, the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union and there has been a commitment by all to no return to a hard border. The years of hard-earned peace have become an example to the rest of the world and we should acknowledge that this process has in no small part been aided by UK and Irish membership of the European Union and the equality of status that this has granted at European Council and Council of Ministers meetings. However, as the Government have announced their intention to remove the UK from the customs union, the Northern Irish border with Ireland will de facto become the EU’s external border. Under EU law, a bilateral customs union between Ireland and the United Kingdom is not permissible for Ireland as an EU member state unless special status is granted by the EU. The people of Northern Ireland deserve clarity on how this will work in practice before Article 50 is triggered.
I welcome that President Juncker said last week that the EU does not want a hard border. He said,
“we want land borders being as open as possible”.
There has been concern that there is a lack of awareness in Brussels about the complexities involved in maintaining the Good Friday agreement post Brexit. My greater concern, however, is that there is a lack of awareness of these complexities among many British politicians, most particularly among the hard-line Brexiteers, who all too frequently have a very English focus. There are so many unanswered questions on how all this will work in practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, there are 200 crossing points on the border, with 177,000 lorries and 1.85 million cars crossing per month. Since the Good Friday agreement, there are increased shared public services, with school and hospital provision frequently being based on the nearest available services irrespective of the border.
There are unanswered questions, too, about the freedom of movement of people within the EU. How will the promised frictionless Northern Irish border work with the promised curb on the freedom of movement of EU nationals announced in the Daily Telegraph today?
Visiting friends in Northern Ireland last month, I was struck by people’s very real concerns about the future and maintaining the progress made through the Good Friday agreement after Brexit. At the very least, the Government need to give much greater clarity on exactly how they propose to maintain a genuinely open border before they trigger Article 50. The people of Northern Ireland deserve no less.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, I want to comment briefly on one or two points. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his historical analysis of Ireland forgot the Battle of the Boyne. I am amazed. Secondly, he forgot the fact that there used to be no Irish living in Ireland. They invaded the island. The Scotti lived on the island originally. The Irish invaded our island and drove the Scotti out, and they went 20 miles away to a country now called Scotland. That is where it gets its name from—the Scotti who were driven out of the island of Scotia. When the Irish invaded, they changed it to Hibernia. Read Magnus Magnusson’s book on the history of Ireland.
I am the one Member here who lives near the border and I do not want to see a hard border. I want to see the common travel area preserved. I speak as one who was a very active European. I was chairman of the European Youth Campaign in Northern Ireland. I campaigned strongly in the EEC referendum. I then became an MEP for 10 years and, after that, I spent seven years in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Likewise, living near the border, I was very keen on north-south relations at a time when the Dublin Government refused to even recognise that Northern Ireland existed.
When I became chairman of the Young Unionist Council—in the middle of the last century—I said we would meet people in Dublin to see if we could start improving relations. We arranged to have a meeting in Dublin with the central branch of Fine Gael. The Ulster Unionist Party went crackers. They said I would get expelled. We should not do it. How can you talk to somebody who does not even recognise that you exist? We went to Dublin and had our meeting. I looked at the Irish Times three weeks later and what did I see? “Party branch expelled”. I thought, “My goodness”, but it was the central branch of Fine Gael that had been expelled for meeting the unionists. That is life in Ireland.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, who was quite right to say that the southern Irish are petrified about the impact of Brexit. I see it every day where I live. Thousands of people now come every day from the Republic to Northern Ireland for the obvious reason. The depreciation of the pound sterling means that the ladies all come up to our border towns to do their weekly shop. Our border towns are now—“exploding” is the wrong word to use—absolutely thriving, and people along the border who think about the economics say what a great thing Brexit is. However, it is worse for the Republic of Ireland. The largest number of its tourists come from England and, because of the 15% depreciation, tourism is now going into decline.
A second point is that meat cannot be exported from the Republic to Britain because, again, meat prices are down by 15%. Farmers are now demonstrating outside supermarkets in the Republic because of the collapse in the prices. Furthermore, mushroom plants are closing down. Hundreds of people have already lost their jobs for the same reason: they cannot export mushrooms.
Of course, a special status is required for someone but not for Northern Ireland. It is offensive to suggest that it should have a special status. It is the Republic that needs it. We must keep the common travel area there, and we must get Brussels to recognise, as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland has stated, that the Republic will be more seriously damaged than any other nation in the European Union. It will suffer badly. It is suffering already, but what will it be like in two and a half years’ time when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union? The Republic of Ireland needs special status and we should support it in its attempts to get that in Brussels. As one who lives on the border, I say: keep the common travel area.
I was involved in the negotiations on the Belfast agreement and I have an original copy of it here. There is not one mention of the European Union in any of the four articles at the end of the agreement. Of course, human rights are mentioned but that is in relation to the Council of Europe; it has nothing to do with the European Union. I will oppose the amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate lasting almost two hours. I am making a guest appearance at this Dispatch Box as the Minister for Political Development who partly chaired the peace process 20 years ago. When I look around this Chamber—I cannot look behind me but they are there—I see a large number of noble Lords who took part in the talks on that agreement.
I do not accept that the amendments in my name are intended to frustrate in any way the passage of the Bill. Because I am sure that the Minister will give us proper undertakings, it is unlikely that I will move them. However, I think that noble Lords would agree that the quality of the debate and the number of people who have spoken indicate the importance of the subject. I do not think that there has been anything more important in my political lifetime than the Northern Ireland peace process, and the second most significant process is what we are debating today: Brexit—and I say that as a remainer. The interrelationship between the two is extremely important. I see today’s debate as a starter—a reminder to the Government that they have to address huge issues with regard to Northern Ireland and Ireland, and in the few minutes available to me I would like to touch on them.
In the debate in the other place some weeks ago, there was a speech by Owen Paterson, whom I regarded as a very committed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I disagreed with him on the following. He said that he wanted to correct the narrative that the European Union played a key role in the Northern Ireland peace process. When I was appointed as the talks Minister, I was also appointed Minister for Europe. That is no coincidence, because Europe played a huge and significant role in the peace process. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that strands 1, 2 and 3 of the Northern Ireland talks referred to aspects of our membership of the European Union.
I will now comment on the remarks of my noble friend Lord Empey. He said, quite rightly, that it is not the legalities of this issue that matter but what produced the agreement, and it was the politics and the international treaty between the two countries that did that. There was a will on the part of the two countries and, above all, a commitment by all the political parties in Northern Ireland to come to the Good Friday agreement. It was our joint membership of the European Union, as opposed to any legalities or technicalities, that meant that Ministers from both countries were able to meet: the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, Ministers at Council of Europe meetings, and Members of Parliament through the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly or its equivalent in those days. I remember taking the entire Northern Ireland Assembly to Brussels at the invitation of the European Union so that Members could see how important Europe was to the future of Northern Ireland. The excellent report produced by the House’s European Union Committee on British-Irish relations post Brexit says that joint membership has been a “vital ingredient” in those relations. Of course it has.
Money was important, too. Northern Ireland had Objective 1 status, and that was significant to the people of Northern Ireland. As noble Lords have said, there was also the peace money, which was unique in the whole of Europe. Money was designated by the European Union to help the process of making peace in Northern Ireland. However, it was not simply the money itself; it was how the money was distributed. I remember, as Secretary of State, going around Northern Ireland and talking to the groups which received the money from Europe and had to spend it between them. Unionists, nationalists, Catholics and Protestants met to distribute the money—and that in itself broke down barriers in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Hain made a very powerful speech. There is no question that over the last 20 years the border has diminished visibly and psychologically. I believe that the lack of a hard border allowed nationalists in Northern Ireland to develop a sense of common identity with their fellow European Union citizens across the border. In the same way, I vividly remember the meetings at Stormont House when there was a reluctance on the part of the unionist parties to accept devolution in Northern Ireland—that is, strand 1. However, as soon as we had in Great Britain as a whole a Parliament in Scotland, an Assembly in Wales and an Assembly in Northern Ireland, it meant that it was easier for the unionist community in Northern Ireland to accept it. We had to make these compromises.
I am reminded, too, by my noble friend Lord Rooker of the milk travelling from Northern Ireland to the Baileys plant. I remember it vividly because I opened the plant many years ago—although I never appreciated the international nature of the milk. Of course, if you think about it, that applies not just to the milk but to the sheep, the cows and the whole of the agricultural industry, which straddles the border and has no match anywhere in the rest of the European Union.
So the issue of the border is hugely significant, and I know that the Government take it seriously. It is an issue that cannot be allowed to drift—it has to be top of the agenda. The brightest minds in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Dublin and in the Northern Ireland Office in Whitehall, not to mention the officials in Brussels, should be engaged in dealing with this very tricky issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to the Front Bench. He played a hugely important role in negotiating the Belfast agreement and he brings huge authority to this debate. I also thank all those who have taken part in the debate on this group of very important amendments relating to Northern Ireland. All the contributions have been thoughtful, sincere and passionate. I pay tribute to the work of the EU Committee and, in particular, its report on Northern Ireland, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The whole House is very conscious of the political situation in Northern Ireland and the need to provide support to the parties there, with Assembly elections this Thursday and the aim of re-establishing strong and stable devolved government. I am sure that we are all united in this place in our sense of duty to the people of Northern Ireland who support the devolved institutions and want to see the forward momentum of the peace process maintained.
The people of Northern Ireland have seen the benefits that flow from the peace process: a reduction in violence, although it is still far too prevalent; economic and social progress; and the gradual normalisation of everyday life. Around this Chamber, on each side and in every part, are noble Lords who have made significant contributions to the peace process and to the progress Northern Ireland has experienced over the last 20 years or so. I have said many times from this Dispatch Box that we have enjoyed the longest unbroken period of devolved government in Northern Ireland for 45 years, a period that started in 2006 on the watch as Northern Ireland Secretary of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who opened this debate. In our House and in the other place support for establishing, re-establishing and then maintaining the devolved institutions has been a bipartisan effort. The Government recognise and are grateful for the level of bipartisan support that the parties opposite continue to provide. It is for the Northern Ireland parties to work together to form a functioning Executive, and we all have a role in supporting those efforts. Everyone in this House wants and is working for the same outcome.
The Government are very conscious that as we negotiate the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU and secure our position as an open, successful trading nation, we need to make certain that the unique interests of Northern Ireland are protected and advanced. There can be no doubt about the priority the Government attach to the interests of Northern Ireland and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, noted, to providing strong reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech and the White Paper set out the 12 principles that will guide our approach to the negotiations. Two of these refer explicitly to the needs of Northern Ireland. The first makes clear that the Government remain fully committed to the Belfast agreement and its successors as part of securing a deal that works for all parts of the United Kingdom and strengthens the union. The second highlights the importance of protecting our strong and historic ties with Ireland and maintaining the common travel area. Nobody wants to see a return to the borders of the past. The border is clearly a vital economic and trade issue. We recognise that the Northern Ireland economy is deeply integrated with that of Ireland, as well as with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. The issue of milk has been raised very vividly on a number of occasions so I will not repeat what was said.
However, this is more than just an economic issue. It is a social and psychological issue as well. For example, it is about families who use hospital services or are signed on with a GP across the border, or about the coaches of Northern Irish rugby supporters travelling to Dublin to watch Ireland play in the Six Nations. It is about the ease of everyday living and how you feel about the place in which you live. The open border for people and businesses has served us well and none of us wants to see the border issue become a renewed source of tension or division between different parts of the community in Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that goods and people can still move freely across the border and the Prime Minister has been crystal clear that the Government want trade across the Irish and Northern Ireland border to remain as frictionless as possible.
Of course, I recognise that this raises practical issues of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others raised at Second Reading about what specific solutions might be put in place to achieve our desired outcomes. Such questions have been raised again today. As we have said before, and as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, expressed so succinctly and eloquently, this is a straightforward Bill that gives the Prime Minister the power to start the process of withdrawal; it does not concern the wider negotiating process that will follow or the Bills that will come before this House and the other place on such matters as immigration and customs to give effect to what is agreed. To address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, we will look to negotiate the best possible deal to secure practical cross-border co-operation on matters of justice and security. However, we start from a position of shared interests and common ground. The relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland has never been closer or stronger than it is today.
There is a very strong joint commitment from the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government to find a practical solution that recognises the unique circumstances on the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and all the social, political and economic implications that flow from them. I believe that the EU will be sensitive to the specific challenges around the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Only last week the President of the European Commission, following a meeting with the Taoiseach, said:
“During the BREXIT negotiations, the EU and Ireland must look to minimise the impact. We don’t want hard borders between Northern Ireland and Ireland”.
I also welcome Guy Verhofstadt’s comments about prioritising,
“the specific needs of Ireland and Northern Ireland”,
and Michel Barnier’s remarks about doing the,
“utmost to uphold the success of the Good Friday Agreement”.
This reflects, I think, an acute appreciation in Brussels and in other European capitals of the important role the European Union has played in helping to ensure and preserve peace in Northern Ireland, a point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I hope that this will continue.
Before I turn specifically to the amendments I want to address a point raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the even-handedness with which the UK Government deal with the political parties in Northern Ireland. Let me be very clear: the Government recognise the importance of establishing good working relationships with political leaders representing both unionist and nationalist traditions. We have always said that we govern in the interests of the whole community in Northern Ireland. In recent years, two very significant cross-party agreements—Stormont House and Fresh Start—have been reached, which demonstrates our ability to work effectively across the community with the major parties in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to the three amendments. Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would include in the Bill an undertaking by the Prime Minister to support the maintenance of the open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. No such undertaking is necessary in the Bill, as my noble friends Lord Trimble and Lord Howell have made clear, particularly in light of the strong assurances that I have given and our desire to keep this Bill clean and simple.
The Government’s intentions on this matter are already clear and there is no fundamental difference between us on the outcome that we seek. Maintaining the common travel area and protecting the high level of operational co-operation that underpins it will be an important priority for the UK in the talks ahead. As has already been pointed out, there has been a common travel area between the United Kingdom and Ireland for many years. Indeed, it was formed before either of our two countries were members of the European Union and reflects the historical, social and economic ties between its members.
Similarly, we recognise that Ireland is by far Northern Ireland’s biggest trading partner with goods exported worth £2.1 billion and imports of £1.6 billion in 2015. This underlines the strong mutual self-interest that exists. We will work closely with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to find practical solutions to keep cross-border trade as seamless and frictionless as possible.
In finding solutions to the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, my noble friend Lord Empey sought reassurance that we will not create an internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I can give my noble friend firm assurance that this Government are clear that we must do nothing that makes any citizens of our country feel strangers in that country. Our guiding principle as we leave the EU will be that no new barriers to living and doing business within our own union are created.
Amendment 10 would exempt provisions derived from the Belfast agreement. The Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement and the three-stranded approach—which makes clear that the government of Northern Ireland will be determined by consent—is rock solid, including the principles that recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose. The United Kingdom’s departure from the EU will not change that. The institutions, including the North/South Ministerial Council and the six implementation bodies, remain intact. So while the Government do not disagree with the core sentiment lying behind this amendment—namely, unwavering support for the Belfast agreement—there is no need to legislate for it.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I think that brevity is called for so I will briefly respond to clarify the point made by my noble friend Lord Empey. I did not advocate the devolution of immigration to Northern Ireland; I simply quoted from your Lordships’ European Union Committee, which said that that might be one of the issues on the table. The paradox I see is that everyone is actually agreeing with me, or so they say, except that as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, pointed out, the harder the Brexit, the harder the border. I hope that the Minister, who responded very ably and encouragingly, will bear that in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, there is no plan B for the border in that respect. The trouble is that if we get this wrong—and it is enormously complex, as all noble Lords have understood—for the United Kingdom it might be perilous, but for Northern Ireland it could be politically lethal. That is the problem. In light of the Minister’s firm assurances and undertakings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
“( ) No agreement with the European Union consequent on the use of the power under subsection (1) may be ratified unless—(a) it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament;(b) the Prime Minister has obtained authority to put it to a national referendum; and(c) it has been approved by such a referendum.”
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this simple amendment would require the people to ratify in a referendum any agreement reached by the Government pursuant to triggering Article 50, and I thank my co-signatories from across the House who support it.
I set out the arguments for such a confirmatory referendum in my Second Reading speech. Fundamentally, we believe that the people, having initiated the Brexit process, should have the final say. It is clear that the Government’s preferred option is that they should have the final say. Under pressure, and no doubt as a result of votes that we shall have in your Lordships’ House, they will be dragged slowly but inexorably towards giving Parliament a final say on all the options. However, while that is better than the Government simply taking the final decision themselves, it simply will not do.
As we saw with Parliament’s votes in advance of last year’s referendum, the Government’s track record in judging the public mood on this issue is poor. While as a general principle it is accepted that parliamentarians should exercise their own judgment and not simply echo that of public opinion on this issue, Parliament has already said that our membership of the European Union is for the people to decide. Trying to take back power at the end of the process having ceded it at the outset is both devoid of principle and likely to stoke further public dissatisfaction, whichever way the decision goes.
Secondly, and flowing from this, is the fact that in contradistinction to what the Prime Minister asserted in the White Paper, the country is more divided than ever over Brexit. That is largely because those who were in favour of remaining in the EU were relatively passionless in advance of the referendum because they complacently thought that they would win it. They were wrong, of course. Now many of them are angry about the issue for the first time. No small part of that anger is caused by the fact that they believe that many people were decisively influenced in the way that they voted by what they see as a number of misrepresentations, most notably on NHS spending, which were assiduously asserted by the leave side, including of course a number of members of the current Cabinet. They are also angry that, by leaving the single market and customs union, the Government have chosen a particularly harsh form of Brexit. As a result, they believe that the people should have a vote on the final deal, when it will be impossible to conceal the real consequences of leaving the EU—as happened last summer.
At Second Reading, the Minister asked me why such a vote would help to bring the country together. The answer is that such a vote, conducted in the full light of the facts of the deal, would produce a result that could not be questioned, in the same way as last June’s vote, on the basis that the people were misled. I believe that that would apply to the losing side as well as to the victors. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked why,
“those who base their arguments for Brexit on the will of the people are now opposed to consulting the people on the outcome of the negotiations”.
As he said:
“Do the Government regard the views of the British people on the outcome of the negotiations as irrelevant to our departure?”.—[Official Report, 21/2/17; col. 208.]
In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that the Government opposed a referendum on the terms on the grounds that it would dash the certainty and clarity that we need. I agree that we need that too, but nothing would give greater certainty and clarity than the people having expressed the final view on the deal. The Government’s attitude is that if the views of the people were to change significantly against Brexit over the next 18 months, the Government would still ask Parliament to ratify any deal it reached, or simply crash out of the EU. How could that be justified? They are saying in effect that the people are not allowed to change their mind—an approach that is the antithesis of democracy, which is that the people are regularly asked to express their preferences and do indeed regularly change them. This is from a Government with many members who have very publicly changed their minds from being convinced remainers to being cheerleaders for Brexit.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, the noble Lord may be coming to this in his speech, but the first requirement of his amendment is that any agreement must be,
“laid before and approved by”,
both Houses of Parliament. I ask him: if one House says, “Yes, we agree with the agreement that has been negotiated”, but the other House says no, what happens next?
Lord Newby
My Lords, we will spend a lot more time on Wednesday discussing the role of Parliament. The point I make in my amendment is that Parliament will want to express a view before the vote goes to the people again. We will talk in great detail on Wednesday about how it might do that. That part of the amendment is not its most central part.
Lord Newby
Some have argued that if Parliament rejected the Government’s Brexit deal, the will of the people could be tested in a general election. I think that that would be extremely unsatisfactory. We all know that general elections are about many things. For example, any election called by the present Prime Minister with the same leader of the Opposition would not be simply or even primarily about Brexit, but be about who was best fitted to lead the country. We all know the answer to that. If the people are to be consulted, therefore, it must be through another referendum—and the people should certainly be consulted.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The noble Lord was talking about people changing their minds. Given that he campaigned for a real referendum in 2008—in or out of the EU—could he tell us when he then changed his mind to decide that we should not accept the judgment of this last referendum?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am arguing in favour of the principle that, when events change, people change their minds. I do not consider that to be a dishonourable practice. When I look at the Government Front Bench in either this House or another place, I see person after person who apparently had a miraculous change of mind either just before or just after the referendum; I accept that that is sometimes what people do. The noble Lord possibly has never changed his mind, but most people in your Lordships’ House have a greater flexibility of approach, which is to be welcomed. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, although I oppose this amendment, I can imagine two circumstances in which a second referendum might be justifiable. The first would be after we had actually completed the negotiations, left the EU and then people decided they wanted another referendum. That would seem perfectly justifiable.
The second situation where a second referendum would be well justified would be if the original referendum question had been framed in such a way as to say, “Do you wish the Government to enter into negotiations about leaving the EU, and then to put the result of that referendum to a second referendum later on?”. However, that was not the question on the ballot paper. As we have heard endlessly, the question was whether to remain or leave; it was quite unambiguous. It seems that we are slipping into the habits that the EU itself has with referenda. Mr Juncker on one occasion famously said, “If the people vote the wrong way, we must go on voting until we get the right answer”. I suspect that that is the real motivation behind the amendment. We saw this in the EU with the referendum on Maastricht. After the Danes said no, they had to vote again. We saw it with the treaty of Nice: when Ireland said no, we had to have another vote and that reversed the first one. We saw it most blatantly of all with the European constitution, as proposed, which was rejected in recommendations by both France and Holland. In order to avoid a referendum, that was then translated by a device into the Lisbon treaty. We absolutely should not go down that road.
Lord Cormack
If we had a second referendum and the question was, “Do you want to stay out or go back?”, how could that realistically be asked, unless we knew that they wanted us back?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I think that the question of whether they want us back is a very real one. I wanted to come to that very point. At Second Reading I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, as having said that he was firmly opposed to a second referendum. He is shaking his head; if he wants to correct me I will gladly be corrected, although I have three other press reports of where he said a second referendum was not desirable and should not take place: one in the Times on 20 September; a report from Asia House of his speech there on 6 September, together with a second report of that speech; and an article in Somerset Life on 24 June—so I have quite a lot. The noble Lord may have been misreported. If he has been misreported once, I apologise to him, but he seems to have been misreported several times.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
I am content to be misquoted by the noble Lord and I am content to be able to intervene, not least because my words have been used in the past. I shall make an intervention later in which I shall clarify the position.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
We look forward to that clarification. If we wanted to, we could quote many other Liberals, not least Mr Vince Cable, who I am sorry is not in this House. He made it clear that he thought that there should be no second referendum:
“The public have voted and I do think it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say: ‘Sorry guys, you’ve got it wrong, we’re going to try again’, I don’t think we can do that”.
My noble friend Lord Cormack made the point that there is also the assumption that the EU definitely wants us to remain in. There is also the assumption behind the amendment that Article 50 is reversible. As I understand the position, this is legally an open question. The Supreme Court did not opine on it because the two parties to the case, Mrs Miller and the Government, agreed that they would not argue about the issue in front of the court, so it did not take a view. I understand that lawyers are divided on the matter, but it is by no means clear that Article 50, once it has been invoked, is reversible.
Regardless of what the legal argument is, politically it seems difficult to believe that Article 50 could be reversed. Would the EU really want to negotiate with a country that is saying, “Well, we will get some terms from you which we will put back to the people, and then we may come back and ask for a better set of terms if they are not satisfactory”? If my noble friend Lord Cormack and I are wrong about this and the EU definitely and 100% wants us to remain in, it will give us the worst possible bargain, knowing that it has to be endorsed by both Parliament and a referendum. The amendment that has been proposed seems to be opportunistic and it does not have any logic to it at all.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, “the will of the people” is a phrase much bandied around in the wake of the referendum and it has taken on a totemic significance. Anyone who suggests that the country should not now blindly leap off the cliff into the unknown that is hard Brexit risks being accused of trying to defy the will of the people. When the Supreme Court judges examined the Government’s plans to ride roughshod over the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, they met with a disgraceful headline labelling them “Enemies of the people”. Their determination to stand up for the rule of law rather than the rule of the mob was seen as defying the will of the people.
I do not wish to defy the will of the people. Amendment 3, introduced so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, proposes the opposite of defying the will of the people. It is about upholding democracy, not denying it. It simply proposes that once the terms of our withdrawal from the EU are clear, the public should be given the final say on whether to accept them. As I said at Second Reading, I cannot understand why even the most devoted Brexiteers would not wish to give the public the final say on the terms of such a momentous decision unless they feared that the terms might not be acceptable.
The process would demand simply that Parliament should approve the terms by a resolution of both Houses. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it would be the vote of the Commons that was decisive; we know our place in this Chamber. If there is no deal, however, and the Government simply decide to withdraw from the EU, this too should be the subject of a resolution of both Houses. I will support a later amendment that calls for that procedure. I believe it to be absolutely crucial that, if the Government think that they have secured a good deal for this country, that deal should be put to the public in a referendum.
We are a proudly democratic country. We hold elections and we abide by the results even if the majority is wafer thin. The party with the largest number of MPs gets to govern. But the difference between a general election and the referendum is that a few years down the line the country has a chance to change its mind and to think again. People judge the efforts of those whom they have elected and, if they are not satisfied, they throw them out. A Parliament is not for life. However, when the country is now embarking on one of the most momentous decisions ever, a decision that will affect our children and our children’s children, there seems to be a perverse determination to insist that the people have made their bed and that, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, they are jolly well going to lie in it in perpetuity.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
While we are on the subject of being uncomfortable, is my noble friend comfortable with the many press reports following the referendum of her saying that she would use her position in the House of Lords to prevent and reverse the decision taken by the people? Is she comfortable with the idea of unelected Members of this House using procedure to try to frustrate the result of the referendum?
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, I have just said that I have no intention of defying the will of the people; I am giving the people a chance to exercise their will, which some noble Lords may not wish to do. I do not believe that we should not give the people the final say.
When a majority of those voting voted to leave the EU, they had different visions of what that would entail. In answer to my noble friend Lord Lamont, I do not think that the original referendum was, with the benefit of hindsight, drafted as well as it might have been, because I think that people were voting for different things. Some might have favoured an arrangement that continued to give us strong trading links with Europe while others might have voted with a view that we could remain very close to the single market. Some might have hoped that our students would be able to continue their education throughout Europe while others, particularly those in the financial services sector, would almost certainly have been hoping that what they were voting for was an arrangement that would allow their products to be passported into Europe so that they could continue doing business as they do now. That looks increasingly unlikely to happen, with dire consequences for our Exchequer. The one thing on which most voters would surely have agreed is, as others have suggested in this debate, that they were not voting to get poorer.
The most logical solution is that, once the terms of departure are clear, the public should be able to weigh them up and decide whether they want them. Do those who oppose such a suggestion not believe that the British electorate are capable of examining a deal and judging it on its merits? To take that view certainly would be to show contempt for the electorate and I do not. I am not a fan of government by referenda, but nevertheless once one has embarked on that route, it seems that only a referendum can complete the process. This is about listening to the will of the people, not defying it.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but I need to, because so far no one has addressed the specific terms of the amendment that is before the Committee. There is no element of sarcasm in this when I say that that is uncharacteristic of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I asked him a specific question about his amendment. Also uncharacteristically, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has made a speech that is not based on the terms of the amendment. So let me remind the Committee briefly of what the amendment states. Three conditions are set out:
“No agreement with the European Union … may be ratified unless … it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.
I do not know what meaning that has other than that it has to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said is not a problem because we always defer to the lower House. If that is the case, it needs to be in the amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to look at Amendment 32 tabled in my name, which will be debated on Wednesday. He will see that this point is addressed in the proposed new clause by using the phrase “both Houses”. I take the point that the noble Lord is making with regard to “each House”, but does he agree that if the phrase “both Houses” is substituted, the point is made?
Lord Grocott
I am a long way from reaching Amendment 32, but I shall certainly look at it in good time. Before we get to any question of consulting the people on an agreement, which was the thrust of the comments of both the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, it has to clear the first hurdle of being passed, or I should say approved, by both Houses of Parliament. We need to know what happens if one House says yes and the other no, because it occurs to me that there is a considerable possibility that the House of Commons, with a Conservative majority, might well, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, agree to approve the Prime Minister’s recommendation. There is also a considerable possibility that this House, not being so bound by recommendations of Prime Ministers of whichever party, will decide that it does not agree with the recommendation made by the Prime Minister and the Government. That is the question: what happens if one says yes and the other no?
That is the first hurdle that would have to be cleared before there can be a referendum, but there is another. New paragraph (b) says,
“the Prime Minister has obtained authority to put it to a national referendum”.
That would require a Bill and an Act of Parliament. That is the second hurdle that would have to be cleared by the House of Commons and the House of Lords before we could reach the third stage, which is the referendum itself—new paragraph (c) provides that it should have been,
“approved by such a referendum”.
I say to those who have spoken so far that unless there are rather better answers to the question, particularly about the two Houses—
Lord Rooker
On the issue of the two Houses, I agree with the amendment, although I will vote against it.
Lord Rooker
No—the amendment’s flaw is: are we seriously going to attempt to send an amendment to the other place that requires the accession of some 15 to 20 Conservative Members of Parliament to vote with the rest of the Opposition to keep it in the Bill? That is the only audience we have. It is not ourselves or the people; it is the 20 Tories in the other place who would be prepared to vote for what we send. They are not going to vote for this, so why are we going to try to send it there?
Lord Grocott
After the best part of 40 years over which my noble friend and I have been in Parliament, we do not disagree on much. I am delighted to see that we clearly do not disagree on this amendment either. In the absence of any satisfactory answers to the questions I have put, I hope that the House will decide against the amendment, should it be put to a vote.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I intervene briefly in opposition to the amendment. In fact, referring to an amendment coming down the track that I hope will be discussed on Wednesday, I have tabled a new clause that would enable Parliament to direct a referendum. The amendment that we are discussing would require Parliament to hold a referendum. That seems to be fundamentally different in kind. If two years down the track the public mood has changed after the negotiations, I for one believe that the public’s opinion should be tested in a referendum, which Parliament would then decide. Alternatively, if in two years’ time Parliament decides not to approve agreed terms, I fancy that Parliament would decide that its decision had to be underwritten by a referendum.
That is different in kind to this amendment, which would require Parliament to direct a referendum, whether there is a change in opinion or not. That seems fundamentally undesirable, because we know that referenda are profoundly divisive mechanisms. They are the policy of last resort. If there is not a perceptible change in public opinion, or if Parliament is not minded to vote down the agreed terms, I see no need to require the holding of a referendum. This is a mandatory amendment; I am against it for that rather narrow reason.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is one of the most distinguished Members of this House. I gently say to him that I do not think that I have heard him defend an argument in such threadbare circumstances. We have sometimes been lectured on the fact that we have a representative parliamentary democracy. Now we seem to have developed referendumitis. What about the implications of this proposal for Scotland? What would it do to the Scottish nationalist argument? We said that we were having a referendum for a generation. This would open the door to the argument, “If they can do it for Europe, they can do it for us”. That is the second time that that has been mentioned today.
The ball was dropped, if dropped it was, when the referendum Bill came to this House. That was the opportunity to put in a back-up clause to say that we would put it to the test at the end. Speaking for those of us who have had referenda—in our case, the border poll in the 1970s, on the Good Friday agreement in 1998 and the potential for another one—if we are going to do this on an ad hoc basis to suit a party management situation, or a bright idea someone happened to come up with, we will destabilise the whole constitution of the United Kingdom. I caution Members on this. The time to fix this was when we started it. We should have put it in the Bill. If I recall, this House was silent when it came to that question in the Bill. That was the opportunity to do it. The question asked was amended by the Electoral Commission, if I recall correctly, which produced the clarity in the question. There was no caveat or qualification.
If we send Ministers to Brussels to negotiate with Michel Barnier and so on—
Viscount Ridley (Con)
Further to the point that the noble Lord is making, I remember spending long hours discussing the referendum Bill in this place. One of the things that we particularly discussed was the need to make sure that this was a decisive result that was accepted by the losing side as well as the winning side. Those of us who then went into the campaign with all sorts of disadvantages because of the Government’s ability to spend and so on were none the less just about content that, if we lost, we would be able to accept the result. The other side appears not to have come to that conclusion.
Lord Empey
I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps I should rephrase what I said: we were silent on amending the legislation to provide for a second referendum. Therefore, the Electoral Commission changed the wording, which was accepted to get the clarity that we need.
I fear that if we go down the road of trying to send Ministers to Brussels against the backdrop of a number of these amendments, we would not be sending Ministers with whom Brussels will negotiate. We are sending a second 11: we are sending delegates, not Ministers. As someone who has been in a prolonged negotiation, I know that it requires a stretch on the part of both parties. If you were sitting in Brussels and were minded to try to reach an agreement with our Ministers, why would you stretch yourself outside the four freedoms or take a big leap if you thought, first, that you were not dealing with people who could make agreements with you and, secondly, that you would be shot down because there were people in this Parliament and in this country who could undermine you after you had made the effort to reach an agreement? There are a number of amendments along these lines. We need to think carefully of the mechanics and atmosphere around the negotiating table.
Lord Flight (Con)
On the territory about which the noble Lord is talking, I cannot understand, if negotiations have gone on for two years or more and we have finally agreed all the thousands of things that need to be agreed, how we could possibly then put it to a vote. The whole process of negotiating the deal with the EU will not work if we have a vote at the end.
Lord Empey
One way of dealing with it would have been to make it clear that we were going to put things to a vote at the end. But now we are in a position of risking getting any kind of meaningful negotiation from Brussels because we would be sending people there who are incapable of making an agreement. We understand that it has to be approved by Parliament. Let us not forget that the European Parliament has to approve it—anyone who has had experience over there will know that that will not be a pleasant experience. I caution the noble Lord, although I understand what he is trying to say.
Lord Robathan (Con)
But is that not the point of the amendment—to undermine the negotiations and, in fact, reverse the decision?
Lord Empey
I cannot attribute the motivation. The noble Lord has his view. I am simply saying that if we are going to send people to Brussels to do a good deal for us—and whether they can, I do not know—the one thing we cannot do is saw their legs off before they go; otherwise we will get absolutely nothing.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
But the noble Lord will recognise that that is already the case under Section 20 of the 2010 Act. Every treaty has to be ratified by Parliament. If that is true of every other treaty, why not of the present negotiations?
Lord Empey
I am not opposed to the concept, of course. We have already said that it is going to be ratified by Parliament. I make the point that if these amendments are inserted—and there are others on the Marshalled List to be dealt with at a later sitting—we are going to send a team of people to negotiate on our behalf. Clearly people in Brussels will say, “These people do not have the juice to do a deal so why would I take a political risk as a Brussels negotiator to stretch out towards them”—which is what is going to be needed on both sides—“because they know that they have no chance of getting a deal at the end of the day?”.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, we have already seen this afternoon in our very serious debate about the implications of the present situation—let us put it neutrally—for Northern Ireland that the referendum was, in fact, about a matter of the greatest constitutional importance and about the integrity of the United Kingdom, a great worry to any of us who come from Northern Ireland. However, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Empey that we should not tie the hands of negotiators, that a referendum at the end is a bad idea and that one constitutional error cannot be remedied by another constitutional error, nevertheless something needs to be said about the possibilities of no deal or of a bad deal. Those are two realistically possible outcomes. I think that at this stage it should be possible for the Government to say a bit about their plans in the event of either contingency.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, set out the case pretty well. I do not want to go over that ground again about a second referendum. However, I am a strong believer in the sentiment that those who giveth can also taketh away. It seems that that is an underlying principle: if the people have spoken but they are given new information, they can change their views at the end of the process.
I will say a bit about why I put my name on this amendment because the reason is a theme that will keep coming up on some of the other amendments. It will certainly come up on Amendment 8, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Oates. Do we actually trust the Government to conduct these negotiations unsupervised after what we have seen of their behaviour so far? We are entitled to be fairly sceptical. We also have no reason to believe, if I may say so, that in Whitehall—and I speak as an old Whitehall warrior—there is this crack team of negotiators who we are going to send across the English Channel and who are going to do a fantastic job without any involvement in Parliament. We have no reason to believe that they will come up with a solution at the end of this process and we will all sit here and nod very sagely and say, “Fantastic. You have hit every particular button”. The world, on the whole, does not work that way.
We all have views about how to conduct negotiations. Many noble Lords have had a go at conducting such negotiations, and we will all have our own approach. Sometimes I have actually thought it quite useful in negotiations not to have too much flexibility—that I have got a mission that I want to deliver. It is quite good to be able to shelter behind that kind of instruction about the way in which I conduct the negotiations. As a former senior civil servant, I certainly did not want a lot of Ministers telling me to go out there and do my best. I would like to have a bit of guidance. I would have thought the same applies to Ministers. I have been a Minister and wanted to know what the Government and public were likely to accept while I did those negotiations. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in principle with the approaches in the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, knows as well as I do—he has been a Chief Whip—that it is often the case in Committee that we put down an amendment that may be technically a bit defective. We are trying to have a debate about a principle or an issue and we often withdraw them and come back at a later stage in the Bill with a rectified amendment that meets the concerns expressed. That does not mean it is wrong in principle to put these issues before the House and see what people’s views are. I support the amendment. We should think very seriously, as we discuss further amendments to the Bill, about whether we really believe that it is safe to send the Government into these negotiations without any requirements about the involvement of Parliament with that process.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord has made the central case for the amendment: do noble Lords trust the Government and the way that they have used the vote on the Brexit referendum or not? Frankly, we do not, for very good reasons that I shall seek to explain in a moment. That is not to say that we challenge the fundamental decision made in that referendum. Since I have been substantially misquoted on many occasions, let me say what I said on the night of the referendum, because government Ministers have been frequently using this as though somehow or other we had behaved in a way inconsistent with these words:
“I will forgive no-one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken. Whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British people have spoken, you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t”.
Those are my words and I stand by them because we do believe in democracy on these Benches. We accept the sovereign voice of the British people.
Noble Lords may laugh but that is the fundamental question: do we challenge the “yes” or “no” outcome of that referendum? No, we do not, and this amendment does not in any way. We accept the decision that has been taken, and the decision is that we should leave. We are naturally bitter and sad about that, but whatever our personal feelings the judgment of the British people has spoken. However, to say we leave is not the same as the British people providing a mandate unto the solution that the Government choose in order to leave. The Government have actually taken what they claim to be a mandate to leave—which we concede the Government have, of course—and turned it into a mandate for the most brutal form of leaving possible.
I ask noble Lords to look back to the conduct of that referendum, in which many of us took part. I had a number of interesting debates with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and very good they were too. On every single occasion during that referendum, we asked those who proposed Brexit to say what kind of Brexit. Did it mean leaving the single market? Did it mean a complete ban on immigration? Never were we given an answer. I have Mr Hannan, a well-known lion on the Brexit debate, on the record many times: there is nothing about this that says we must leave the single market. If I recall, in the meeting that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—I do not think I am wrong—he too said that it was not necessary to leave the single market.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
What I said, as the noble Lord will recall, was that there was a difference between being a member of the single market and having access to the single market and that those who were arguing for remain were deliberately deceiving the people.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
As I recall, the conclusion that I and the audience reached—but we probably cannot go over this now—was that the noble Lord would leave but it was not necessary not to continue with access to the single market. However, that is what the Government have now said. We accept that the Government have a mandate to leave the European Union, but what mandate do they have to leave the single market or the customs union? None. The Conservative Party manifesto at the last general election committed the party, as a manifesto promise, to continue to stay in the single market. They have taken the British people’s votes—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Would the noble Lord please correct what he said about the Conservative manifesto saying we would stay in the single market? That was in the context of the negotiation that the Prime Minister promised to undertake, and was on the assumption that, as he wanted, people would say “yes” to remain. If the referendum went the other way, it was made perfectly clear that the single market would no longer encompass Britain.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
The noble Lord could have been much quicker if he said, “Yes but we just changed our minds”—which is exactly what the Government have now done. The Government have a mandate to leave but they have no mandate whatever for this brutal form of leaving that will damage this country. By the way, it is not us that has been undemocratic but the Government. They have taken the British people’s vote and hijacked it for their anti-European prejudices. That is why now they need a referendum on the outcome—not a second referendum on “in or out” but a referendum on the deal. Noble Lords and the House will know the enormous difference between the hard Brexit that the Government propose, with no access to the single market and no membership of the customs union, and a Brexit maintaining access to the single market. The difference between these two options is huge for the people of this country, for our influence in Europe and the wider world, and for jobs, industry and our economy. Maybe the Government have got it right in their judgment—their guesswork—that the British people are content to leave the single market, but let them test that. They have no mandate from the referendum outcome whatever for that solution.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
Surely the most brutal form of leaving would be to leave with no deal at all. The problem with this amendment is that it does not say, “We should have another referendum on whether we stay or leave”. It says, “We should have a referendum on whether we accept the terms of the deal”. If we say we do not accept those terms, that does not mean we stay in the European Union. Article 50 is very clear about that. Be careful what you wish for.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
I am grateful that the noble Lord led me on to that because I was coming to it next. The Government say that this is the deal they will do. It will be the hardest possible deal with no access to the single market and huge damage done to our industry, jobs and influence. If they cannot get that, the alternative is to tow this country out into the middle of the Atlantic as some kind of mid-Atlantic Singapore: a total free market with no regulations at all. The Foreign Secretary has been very clear about that outcome. The difference between these two things is basically asking the people of this country and our Parliament to either say “yes” or jump over a cliff. That is not a reasonable option to put. When the High Court said that Parliament should have a say, it meant a real say, not an option between “take it” or “leave it”. That is not the kind of solution that will produce the best outcome for this country. Our proposition is simple. We accept the case that has been made and the judgment of the British people that we must leave. We do not accept that the Government have a mandate for a brutal form of Brexit that will damage our country’s influence and economy. They have no mandate whatever to take this country out of the single market. If they want to test that proposition, let them do so before a court of the British people.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, if we can get back to the amendment—I thought for a moment we had segued into the next debate—it is on a second referendum or ratification that I think initially sounded quite attractive to a number of noble Lords. However, when you actually look at the amendment it is flawed.
First, there is the point made about the two parts of the amendment. Paragraph (a), which says that it must be,
“laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”,
fails to recognise the primacy of the other place. That is not how we have handled this Bill or other issues. On that point, our later amendment on a meaningful vote is a better way to judge parliamentary opinion and for Parliament to deal with this issue.
Demands for a second referendum started even before the polls closed on the first one. An online parliamentary petition called for a second referendum should the first have less than a 60% vote for either remain or leave on a 75% turnout threshold. That set a high bar and it received around 4 million signatures. We do not require that level of support for Governments; the last time we had a turnout of higher than 75% was back in 1992, nearly 25 years ago. This amendment does not seek such conditions. I agree that it would be strange to set new and different conditions for a second referendum from the first one but the point has been made previously in debates that for such a major constitutional issue to be decided by a simple majority has caused concern.
National referendums are rare in the UK. As we know, there have been three UK-wide ones. In 1975, Harold Wilson called a referendum on remaining in or leaving the European Economic Community. In 2011, during the coalition Government, we had a referendum on whether to change first past the post to the AV voting system. Then we had the EU referendum in 2016. I must confess that I am naturally cautious about politicians demanding a national referendum on an issue. If I was a cynic—of course, I am not—I would suggest that we do that rarely on a point of principle but more often because we think it will endorse a position we take and give us the result we want. However, I feel differently when there is public demand for a referendum. I accept that it is not always easy to judge that. Certain petitions and polls are not satisfactory. Yet it becomes clear over time and the polls for the EU referendum were evidenced by the turnout.
Let us look at the public support for these referendums. In the EEC referendum in 1975, 64% voted. That was probably depressed by most people thinking that it was clear the UK would remain. Some 72% voted in the referendum in 2016. Yet when we had the referendum on the voting system, for which there was no real public demand as it was politician-led, it motivated fewer than half our fellow citizens, with a turnout of just 42%. My fear now is that, with no significant public demand for a second referendum at this time, this is being seen as a campaign to challenge the result of the first referendum. That in itself creates a mood of opposition and hostility from the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, reinforced that view in his speech, but in the The House magazine he said it was “implausible” not to grant a second referendum if public opinion shifts in favour of the EU. What if it shifts away and more people are opposed to the EU? Is that still grounds for a second referendum? Not according to his article. Indeed, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, spoke of having a second referendum so people could express a change of mind. That is not solely a reason to have one.
As the previous debate illustrated clearly, the coming months of negotiations will be complicated and complex. We are pressing the Government to ensure that Parliament is kept fully engaged and informed throughout the whole process, and that Parliament has the opportunity for a real, meaningful final say on the exit arrangements or deals. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a good point on this when he said that the Government did not want to engage with Parliament through a vote and had to be persuaded to do so by a court judgment. However, Parliament will now have to make its judgment and the MPs who do so will be accountable to their constituents. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means: taking responsibility.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that his logic is flawed because he and others from his party feel no need to respect the result of the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, just refuted this but I find that hard to accept. I do not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, call the result the will of the people. I am not sure that referendums express that. However, there is a clear result. The noble Lord’s party said that there is no need to respect that result and voted against it in the House of Commons. It is now calling for a second referendum. Is that to be the same, to be seen as advisory, or do we just accept what a second referendum says? I find it hard to see the circumstances in which a second referendum could deal with all of the detail that would be required on the terms of an exit deal and not just be a rerun on the principle of continuing the process to leave or staying in. That is, in effect, the same as the first one.
The final judgment on the exit deal has to be very measured. It is going to involve forensic detail and it cannot just be an appeal to the emotions without hard, actual facts. In the first referendum, we saw different sides campaigning; they lobbied around the principle of staying in or leaving. I am on record as saying that I was deeply unimpressed with both the remain and leave campaigns. I have not yet been convinced that the approach of a referendum works well when dealing with the detail of negotiations over a period of two years. We have to have some faith in our Members of Parliament and in your Lordships’ House to make a serious, factual judgment on the benefits or otherwise of a final deal. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who asked whether we trusted the Government. I have been clear that I do not trust the Government enough to wave them off for two years and come back, and that is why we have later amendments about parliamentary engagement and votes. However, there is no impediment: if, as time and negotiations progress, there is genuine evidence of a widespread public demand for a second referendum, that should be listened to, but at this stage, our priority has to be that Parliament has the final say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the House will be delighted to hear that I intend to speak briefly on this amendment, as I get the sense that many of your Lordships’ minds have already been made up on this issue. I am going to explain why the Government believe that this approach would be wrong in principle and wrong in practice. A number of your Lordships have already made a number of good points, which I will not repeat.
I begin by taking a step back to consider people’s trust in politics today. It is at a somewhat low ebb. For many people, there is a sense that too many politicians say one thing and then do another. There is a sense that Parliament is divorced from day-to-day life, and this frustration and disillusionment with mainstream parties encourage them to look to others to represent their views. This is the backcloth to the debate on this Bill and this amendment.
Let us not forget the democratic path that has brought us here. The Conservative Party promised to hold a referendum and respect the outcome. This Parliament gave people the choice of whether to leave or to remain in the European Union: a choice without caveat or condition. It was a choice that the people exercised, having been told by the Government in the leaflet sent to every household in the land:
“The Government will implement what you decide”.
The majority voted to leave, not to have a second referendum and not to think again. The people have spoken and this Bill delivers on their wish.
My first question to your Lordships is: would it help build trust in politics if we, the unelected Chamber, were to tell the people, “We did not like your first answer; please try harder”? I think not: quite the reverse. When Scotland voted against independence, what was the response from any politicians? I shall quote one:
“You have to abide by the outcome ... I don’t think re-opening old wounds would be good for Scotland”.
Those were the words of Mr Nick Clegg. Whatever the cynical machinations of the Scottish Nationalists today, I believe that what Mr Clegg said was true then as regards Scotland and is true today as regards Europe. We promised a referendum, not a “neverendum”. The government leaflet said the referendum was a once-in-a-generation decision, not a twice-in-five-years decision. We cannot keep asking the question until we get the answer that some want.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
The Minister is making the case against a question that we did not ask, which is, “Shall we have another referendum on in or out?”. We accept that that is not going to happen. We accept that the Government have a mandate for Brexit. Will he tell us what mandate they now have for leaving the single market?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I am sorry to say that the noble Lord is just making my point for me. We had a referendum in which people were asked very explicitly whether they wanted to leave or remain in the EU. The leaflet that I have here said it very clearly, and many people in this House and outside it—on both sides of the argument—made the case that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market. That was the choice, people were aware of it and that was the decision that they made. We are going to come on to this in the next hour or so.
Furthermore, many people on both sides of the argument, leave and remain, are now coming together to make a success of our exit from the EU and to forge a new place for our nation in the world. Why would we want to open up all those old divisions again by holding a second referendum, as this very debate has just shown? Well before last June, a number of politicians argued—
Lord Dykes (CB)
When the Minister talks about the advisory referendum which was giving an opinion, that was the result that we had to respect at the time. Of course, there are comparisons with other European countries; in the process of the European constitution and subsequent Lisbon treaty, it was very interesting that in France, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland, there was always under the compulsory written constitutions a “no” vote in that first referendum. Each one was reversed by their Governments because they knew it was a vote about the unpopularity of internal politics and nothing to do with Europe.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I hear what the noble Lord is saying, but I am sorry to say that that boat, and all this argument, sailed when we passed the referendum Bill. That is just simply the fact.
Well before last June, a number of politicians argued that a referendum on our membership of the EU was needed precisely because Europe was poisoning the body politic. One politician said some years ago that it was,
“time we pulled out the thorn and healed the wound, time for a debate politicians have been too cowardly to hold for 30 years ... Let’s trust the people with the real question: in or out”.
Again, these were the words of Mr Nick Clegg back in 2008. I agree with the Nick Clegg of 2008. Now that we have had that referendum, I would argue that another would put that thorn back into British politics, and rub salt in the wound.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Since this is an occasion for quotations, I remind him that John Maynard Keynes said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”.
Is it the Government’s position that if, after these negotiations, they decide that no deal is better than a poor deal, the Government will not put that to the people of the United Kingdom?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the Government’s position is very clear. We are absolutely going to stand by the instruction given to us by the British people to leave the European Union. That was the decision and that is the Government’s policy, and that is what it will remain.
Lord Spicer (Con)
Is not the real reason people are calling for a second referendum that one side lost and they do not like it? Then, might it not be the case that somebody loses another referendum and we would have to have a third one? Indeed, we might even have to have a fourth referendum to decide which referendum was the real thing.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I agree with my noble friend, and this is why we have the prospect of a “neverendum”.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Does the Minister really think that the British people had any idea at all what it would mean if there was no deal and they ended up in the arms of the WTO and all that that means?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am sorry to say that I dispute what the noble Baroness is saying. The British people voted to leave. There was a very loud and passionate discussion, with lots of people issuing lots of papers about what it would mean to leave, and the British people made a decision.
My noble friend raised the issue of a “neverendum”. This brings me to certainty. One thing we all agree on is the need for certainty. Therefore, let us think of European families here, of British families in Europe and of the thousands of businesses right across this country that are listening to our debate. For them, the prospect of another referendum at some unknown date years ahead, with a Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said—and a question we do not yet know, would simply create more uncertainty.
Let me say here a word about business in particular, given that my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft edited the Wall Street Journal. I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to a report just issued by the Institute of Directors. It recommends:
“A … measure to boost both political confidence and certainty for business would be for all parties to rule out a second referendum over the next parliament—either a repeat on EU membership or on the final terms of the deal”.
The IoD represents 35,000 businesses which employ hundreds of thousands of people. Those businesses are saying that they want certainty.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Perhaps I might press the Minister for clarification. He says that people want certainty. Is he saying that if that certainty is, to a business, “Yes, you must move your headquarters, you must take jobs out of this country”, and to people that, “You will face higher prices and fewer opportunities for your children”, that is what the Government will choose to make the British people live with—and with no voice to challenge it?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Baroness and I have many interesting discussions, but I dispute the grounds on which she is approaching this. We have set out very clearly, to provide clarity and certainty, a view regarding what we wish to achieve in the negotiations. That has provided a considerable amount of certainty and clarity to many of the businesses I have spoken to and in nation states across Europe. That is exactly what we now need to deliver on.
I will turn quickly to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, slightly dismissed. Parliament will be heavily involved in the process of our leaving the EU. This Bill, the Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, primary and secondary legislation, Statements, Select Committee appearances—the list is quite long. On top of that, the Government will bring forward a Motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. So the nub of the matter is very simple. On 23 June people voted to leave the EU. It was a choice that this Parliament gave them and it is a decision that, now it has been made, we must obey. So I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd (Lab)
The Minister has deployed with great moral strength the argument that the people have spoken. I remind him that the majority of those who voted have spoken—but, in fact, barely a third of the potential electorate in Britain voted. The situation is not as absolute as he suggests. I say to your Lordships that this is a very good reason for taking very seriously the argument that the road of referenda is a very dangerous road indeed.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister said a moment ago that the decision will come back to both Houses after there has been an outcome to the negotiation. What if both Houses reject the negotiated settlement that is forthcoming? Does Parliament then overrule the people or do the people have a chance to make the final decision?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Minister is entitled not to wish to answer the question—and I can understand why. I will make just three points. First, I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that I was so hard on him earlier on. I should have welcomed—and indeed do now welcome—his intervention because he has given me some very helpful drafting advice for the amendment that I will be bringing before your Lordships on Report.
Secondly, I have never heard the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, sound so defeatist. If this House took the view that the House of Commons might not accept an amendment that we passed, we would hardly ever pass any amendments. We would certainly not have passed the amendment on tax credits. Therefore, I urge him to take that as a precedent and think that, so impressed by the quality of our arguments, those 20 Conservative Back-Benchers might change their minds in an instant on reading Hansard and that we would get our victory when it went to the other place.
Thirdly, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Empey—a number of noble Lords spoke about the parallels with or differences from Scotland—this is a completely different situation from that which obtains in Scotland. The SNP wants a second bite at the same cherry. We want a vote of the people on a firm proposition, rather than the vote which did take place on 57 varieties of proposition that were assiduously and separately propounded by different people on the leave side. So it is a completely inapt parallel and I cannot accept it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord says that the Scottish situation is completely different. The Scottish nationalists argue that people did not know what they were voting for because of project fear. Surely that is precisely the same argument that is being used by the noble Lord.
Lord Newby
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord but I am afraid that that argument simply does not hold water. The principle that we are putting forward in this amendment is straightforward: who decides at the end of a process initiated by the people? Our view is that the people should decide and nothing that any noble Lord has said this afternoon has made me question that principle in any regard. For today, I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
This would normally be the time when the House would be looking to take dinner-break business. I have spoken to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who has a regret Motion for debate in the dinner hour. He has agreed that we should adjourn that debate to a future day so that we can carry on with the Bill—because obviously there is a lot to talk about. Noble Lords who have expressed an interest have spoken to the usual channels and we all agree that this is the right course of action. I hope that the Committee agrees.
Amendment 4
“( ) Before a notification can be given under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must give an undertaking to negotiate under the process set out in Article 50 on the basis of the United Kingdom retaining membership of the European Single Market.”
Lord Hain
My Lords, Amendment 4 is sponsored also by my noble friend Lord Monks and the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Wigley. Since I hope to divide the Committee later, I will be briefer than I thought I would be before proceedings went on.
The hard Brexit the Government seek will be the worst possible outcome for the United Kingdom, for which the referendum gave them absolutely no mandate whatever. Cutting us off from our largest market and seeking new trade partners elsewhere will cause huge job losses and many business closures. Over the 10 years or so that it will take to adjust to the shock of exiting the single market, we must expect a pound of pain for every ounce of gain.
When the country voted by a narrow margin to leave the European Union, the single market was not on the ballot paper. Voters were never asked about it. In fact, in the run-up to the general election of May 2015, the Conservative Party manifesto promised to,
“safeguard British interests in the Single Market”.
The manifesto said:
“We say: yes to the Single Market. We want to expand the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms”.
There were further contributions.
“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market”,
said leading leave campaigner Daniel Hannan MEP.
“Only a madman would actually leave the market”,
said ardent Brexiteer and Tory ex-Cabinet Minister Owen Paterson MP. Some leave leaders said that the UK could quit the EU while remaining a member of the biggest, richest single market in the world, accounting for nearly half our trade. Others talked variously of Norway, Switzerland, Canada and even, bizarrely, Albania. There was the very opposite of clarity on this issue. I know because I knocked on many hundreds of doors in the referendum campaign and people voted to leave the European Union, not the single market.
Reaching an agreement on withdrawal from the single market within two years of triggering Article 50 will be difficult, if not impossible—and extremely complex. In my drafted speech, I was going to go into the many complexities. It will also need to be followed by subsequent trade agreements, and not only with the remaining 30 EU and European Economic Area member states; new agreements, under WTO rules, will be required with around 52 third countries outside the EU with which we have existing trade deals through the EU.
Trade deal outcomes are about relative economic power and weight. Contrary to breezy and I think complacent claims by government Ministers and their Brexit acolytes, the UK and the EU will not somehow be equal partners in any negotiation of new trade agreements. The UK depends on the EU for 45% of its exports, whereas the EU exports only 8% of its produce to the UK. We have a trade surplus in services, mainly financial, with the rest of the European Union of £17 billion.
Lord Howell of Guildford
At the outset of this debate, the whole focus is on the concept that we have benefited and will continue to benefit from being members of the single market, and that by being outside and only having access to it—like every other country that exports into the European region—we would be vastly disadvantaged. I am afraid I am going to say something that will probably be unpopular on both sides and which asks your Lordships to look more closely at what is actually happening in the patterns of both European and world trade currently. I am not talking about 1990, or the world of globalisation in the last century, but about the fantastic, revolutionary disruption and transformation of the pattern of trade that has gone on for the last five or 10 years. Unless we understand that, and the impact it is having on trade throughout the region and on the relevance and nature of the single market, which has changed beyond recognition from the single market of a decade or so ago, we will not reach very sensible conclusions.
Lord Keynes was quoted earlier. He said many things, but one of the interesting things he said was that his real quarrel was not with those who disputed his economic theories or arguments but with those who persistently failed to see what was actually going on. That is the theme I want to develop. We can expend enormous indignation on asserting that in the single market everything will be okay but that out of it there will be disaster. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has suggested that with great eloquence and clearly believes it to be the position. But we have to grasp what is going on and understand the nature of the flow of trade to see just what the disadvantages would be if, instead of having membership of the single market, with all the standards, regulations, access, tariff-free areas, co-ordination of regulations and so on, we were outside it, although still obviously able to trade into it like any other country.
I start from a rather remarkable statement made by the chief economist to the Bank of England, I think last week, that from his point of view whether we were inside or outside the single market would have no “material” effect on the UK’s growth over the next three years—he put a time on it. That is rather a remarkable statement from a very high authority, not someone known to be biased one way or the other but someone speaking totally objectively. I had to ask myself how he could come to that conclusion. Have we not been told that outside the single market it will all be disaster and we must somehow stay in as full members? This raises all the other issues we have so vigorously debated, including the problems in the island of Ireland and many other issues. If one begins to look at the detail, the answer is very interesting.
I suspect what he has seen, and what your Lordships might possibly turn their eyes to, is that the whole nature of international trade is shifting at record speed in two directions. First, there is the vast growth in services, digital information, data transmission and information exchange, so much so that McKinsey is telling us that more than half the wealth generated worldwide comes from the transmission of data and information and not from goods trade at all. The old world of trade being dominated by containers or great ships sailing out of Felixstowe, or whatever it was, is rapidly disappearing. Services are the huge growth area in every aspect of international trade, including into the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, is quite right that sales of services into the European Union have been large—they are about a third of our total export of services throughout the world—but frankly they are not doing very well. In so far as they have got in to Europe’s single market, services have gone through a bit of a struggle, not through tariffs—because you cannot put tariffs on those services—but through all sorts of local and national regulations and control. They have been pretty flat over recent years because there never was a glorious single market in services. We struggled for 40 years to improve one and got nowhere at all, and the chances are that countries outside the European Union have done rather better with our services and imports into the European Union than we have.
It may be that in future, outside the single market—this may be in Mr Haldane’s mind—we can do rather better with services in Europe. If we cannot do better in Europe—it is very difficult because of the all these local restrictions on how things are set up—we should look to the areas where service developments are growing at a very fast pace. This is certainly right across the part of the world that deals in the English language and has common legal, political, social, ethical and cultural practices, which tends to be a Commonwealth network in English-speaking nations, including the United States of America, which is our biggest export market of all. We have no single market and no free trade agreement with America, but it is by far our largest single market of any country.
That is the first point: services are growing at a phenomenal exponential rate and now dominate world trade and are beginning to dominate our own earnings overseas. Secondly, services know no boundary or tariff barrier, so the services we sell into Europe—this, again, may be in Mr Haldane’s mind—will not be very much affected by whether we are in the single market or not. It is a tough area anyway. We export £89 billion, gross, of services of every kind, including financial services, into the European market and that is about a third of the much bigger degree of service exports all around the rest of the world. It is not a question of tariff barriers. The tariff barriers are anyway extremely low, except for one or two things such as car components, which are at 10%. We would have to think about that, but generally we are moving into a zero-tariff world. It is quite different from 1990, when developing southern and eastern countries were taught that they would have to have high tariffs and heavy investment protection.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I shall just finish this sentence. The culture before 1990 was of high tariffs and protection against foreign investment, which was deemed colonial. The culture of the last 30 years has been the opposite, with low tariffs all around the world and direct investment agreements to encourage more investment. I give way.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am listening to him with great attention, as I always do. He is making the case for certain aspects of the digital services market; he does not say much about whether we are part of the single market or not. Does he not agree that for manufacturing, which is about 10% of our GDP, the imposition of tariffs would be extremely serious? Does he also not agree that for financial services—which, as I have already mentioned in a different context, accounts for about 10% of our GDP as well—the loss of the passports which enable us to trade in the single market would be equally catastrophic?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Although manufacturing is very important, it is a smaller and diminishing proportion of our export earnings. As I think the government White Paper points out, at least 33% of the value embedded in any manufactural product—I think the figure is 37%—comes from services. When you think about manufacturing, you have to think about something that is really not quite a manufacture or a service; it is a product of a service and high technology. A good example for the noble Lord is the Japanese company Uniqlo, which produces garments—not from Japanese manufacturing but from Japanese technology and services. All around the world, this pattern is developing. What I am trying to bring before your Lordships is the realisation—
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Is the noble Lord aware that chapter 9 of the White Paper shows that the fastest growth in goods and services exported from this country is in Liechtenstein, at 40%? In the first 20 of the only 21 countries shown in the White Paper, the United States does not even get a mention.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am not sure I follow the power or logic of that particular point. I am afraid that only three of the 20 fastest-growing countries in the last 10 years, in terms of exports, are members of the European Union—and we are not one of them.
Without delaying your Lordships further, I point out—in the words of the European Commission and their analysts—that “90% of world demand” over the next ten years,
“will be generated outside the EU”.
I suspect at least half or two-thirds of that will be generated from the fantastic, disruptive explosion in the transfer of know-how, information and digital technology of every conceivable kind. This is the world of the very near future: we may have arrived there already. What it means is that there is this apparent cliff edge, as it has been called, disaster, or dividing point between being inside today’s single market and being outside it, but we are dealing with many things that do not have a tariff on them—our services know no national boundaries and can be transmitted regardless of distance whether to a nearby European region or to the other side of the world—and it is becoming a completely new pattern in which we have to operate. To operate effectively, we must think in terms of a vast improvement in skills and a massive acceleration in innovation, and find our way into the gigantic, new growth markets of the future, which I am afraid are going to be largely outside the European Union.
Europe remains very important to us; the bilateral arrangements we have with European countries remain important to us. We are not all sure at the moment—this outlines the absurdity of trying to tie down the Government—whom we will be negotiating with, how much power Mr Barnier will have or what the 27 capital countries will say. I noticed that the Visegrad group—four at the moment—are coming together and have said they want a separate treaty; they do not agree with the approach of the European Commission in Brussels and they are thinking about separate arrangements because they are not satisfied with the general approach. We all heard the day before yesterday one of Mrs Merkel’s chief spokesmen saying that they disliked the whole aggressive approach of Jean-Claude Juncker and the Brussels Commission. We have no idea what is being brewed up as a position on the other side of the Channel to approach us, or whom we will be dealing with. What we do know is that the trade trends I have described are proceeding at a great pace; they are driven by technology that is growing at an exponential pace, with the development of Moore’s law, Metcalfe’s law and all the other aspects we know about; this is what we should take account of.
All I plead is that before your Lordships express too much indignation about whether we are inside the single market or outside it, we might reflect that, as we proceed in this entirely new pattern of international trade, we can do pretty well in dealing with all the aspects—they will be complex—of all the industries and services that will ensure our survival and prosperity in an extremely competitive world.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to address the question of the single market, which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has just been talking about and rather discounted its importance, both currently and in the future. I do not whether he and other noble Lords have noticed but there is rather a tide of protectionism running through the world at present, not least in the United States of America—“America first” has been said a lot of times. Just remember that that is the context in which we are operating. I am not going to bandy too many statistics, but if 42% of our exports are going to the EU, compared with 15% to the United States of America, that is still a lot on both accounts, but you do not throw 42% into some lottery for the future. You hang on to what you have got and you seek to improve elsewhere. I agree with the noble Lord about the need to improve our game and raise our skill level, our innovation level and business investment—which, by the way, is going down because of the uncertainty which surrounds the future of the British economy at the present time, and that is a major worry. We are not innovating to the extent that we should be, and certainly not to the extent that certain other northern European countries are. Chucking that away rather lightly in the hope that we will catch a surfer wave of innovation and become the new silicon whatever-it-is island seems to be a rather fanciful notion.
I am not familiar with what Mr Haldane said—I read it but I did not get the same impression as the noble Lord, Lord Howell—but the Treasury’s most recent forecast is that if we collapse out of the single market, that will cost us 7.5% of GDP after 15 years. I am not an expert and I do not know who is right and who is wrong, but we should bear those facts in mind.
I am not going to speak for very long as my noble friend Lord Hain covered this topic very well and the earlier debate about the EEA, on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lea, covered it too. However, I remind Members of the Conservative Party in particular why they should consider the single market to be important. After all, Mrs Thatcher was, as much as anyone, the originator of the single market. She, with Jacques Delors adding on a social bit, basically came up with the idea of the big single market. I remember, as will my noble friend Lord Lea, Jacques Delors explaining at a TUC conference the conversation that the two of them had had. She said, “I want a big market”, and he said, “You can have one. I’ll do my best”. He added in some helpful social things that the trade unions liked; to be honest, they were about the only reason why we liked the single market. However, we may not like a free-trade agreement that does not have any social protections. A NAFTA-type agreement would certainly not suit us because that becomes a race to the bottom on labour standards, welfare and social considerations.
It was not just Mrs Thatcher, either. My noble friend Lord Hain reminded the other side about the number of people in the referendum campaign who spoke in favour of staying in the single market, not least the current Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, who said he would vote for the single market. He differentiated between the single market and EU membership, and that is what we are seeking to do today with this amendment.
The single market is important for inward investment, which is the point that was so important in the 1980s. It is important for companies’ supply chains; we have heard about the milk in Ireland but there are many other examples where things are going backwards and forwards—the car industry, Airbus and so on. Let no one dismiss those as old technology that the digital revolution is going to make redundant; they are not. They are fundamental to who we are and what we are, the kind of country we are and what it is going to be in future.
The tariffs on some goods will be substantial if we collapse into the WTO system. As for the passporting issues in the City of London, there are already signs of banks establishing extra offices and extra staffing within the EU—at the moment, particularly in Paris. Even HSBC, our biggest bank, is doing so, so we should not be complacent about this issue.
Membership of the single market would of course ease the problems in Ireland, as debated earlier, and would perhaps remove at least one reason for another referendum in Scotland. What is at stake here is jobs, living standards and rights. We should bear that in mind; if we go down the Government’s route, we will be playing poker with people’s livelihoods on a big scale. Are we likely to get that comprehensive free- trade agreement within two years? I have not yet met anyone who knows anything about trade negotiations who thinks that is the case. Before we ditch the single market, we should be very careful. I was disappointed when I heard what the Prime Minister said at Lancaster House, and indeed in the government White Paper: that the Government are moving in that direction. I hope they will keep the scope to change direction.
We should also bear in mind the points that my noble friend Lord Liddle made earlier: could this be an issue on which there could be an interim provisional transitional measure while we negotiate a trade agreement? Is there something that we could put in place that we could continue with? In fact we do not have to put anything in place because it is in place already, so why do we have to give it up? It is in place and we should try to hang on to that, pending the negotiations that the Government seem so keen on.
That is my plea today: we should have a look at the amendment and at keeping our membership of the single market. I would like to see us keep it on a permanent basis but, if that is not possible, keeping it on a transitional provisional basis might just be possible. It might in fact be the only game in town when we get to the end of those two years.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, a distinction is made on purpose between access to the single market and membership of it but most of the speeches made on behalf of remain make that confusion. No one is arguing—or at least I have never met anyone who does—that we should not have access to or do business with the single market, in the same way as they will still want to do business with us. The question is whether we want to be members of it. I so agree with what my noble friend Lord Howell said about the fact that the world is changing now. For a start, the single market is a trade bloc, and it has a long and noble history of being one. It is based upon German technological protection and general French centralisation and protection. That is the foundation of it philosophically. Britain is a high-seas trading nation and, I think, should not be part of that market, but of course it should be trading with it. No one argues otherwise, although of course one has to point out that it is a fairly sluggish market because that is what protected markets are.
Lord Lea of Crondall
On the idea that you can choose between access and membership—membership has some obligations regarding what you have to do on standards and so on—I ask the noble Lord to reflect on whether it is Alice in Wonderland to say, “Oh, we would much prefer to have access but not membership”.
Lord Spicer
Of course not. The choice is there. As has been said today from the Front Bench, the public certainly believe that by leaving the EU we will be leaving the single market as well. Of course we can make that choice, and of course the members of the single market will want to choose whether they want to continue trading with us, but since we are one of the largest markets the answer is likely to be yes.
I turn to my other point: my noble friend Lord Howell is absolutely correct in his diagnosis of the markets changing. The fact is that much of what is now up for grabs in negotiation is outside the terms of the single market. One example, which the proposer of this amendment and I have had discussions about in the past, is the air service agreements. People talk about Open Skies. When I was Minister for Aviation I started to negotiate that agreement, but I did so on a bilateral basis. The ASAs are outside the terms of the single market. That is just an example of what my noble friend was saying about other aspects of trade, services and so on.
I quite agree with what he said both in its detail and in its contemporary context. In its context, it becomes far less important—in fact, unimportant—to be a member of the single market, but of course we must have the biggest trading relationships that we can with it. In my view the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, made the same confusion about access and membership. I really think we have to get that sorted out.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 4, which was so effectively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Amendment 5, which is in my name and grouped with it, covers some of the matters that have already been discussed in the debate on Amendment 1.
The issue here is vital to much manufacturing industry in the UK and I am grateful to the noble Lord who spoke a moment ago emphasising that. The EU market is absolutely critical for manufacturers. This is generally true throughout the UK, but it is particularly true in Wales, where manufacturing represents a significant part of the economy and where the service sector is somewhat smaller than it is in other parts of these islands. I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I respect them, but those arguments do not carry so much weight in Wales, given where we are now.
That is why the Welsh Government, led by Labour First Minister Carwyn Jones, jointly with the official Plaid Cymru Opposition led by Leanne Wood, have taken the unusual step of publishing a joint White Paper, Securing Wales’ Future, which has been endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales as a body. The White Paper calls for us to have,
“a new relationship with Europe”,
so it obviously accepts that, as a result of the referendum, we are leaving the EU as it is presently composed. That is something that I greatly regret, but it seems to be the reality.
The central theme of the White Paper is encapsulated in the following summary paragraph:
“We believe that full and unfettered access to the Single Market for goods, services and capital—including our key agricultural and food products—is vital for the forward interests of Wales and the UK as a whole and we urge the UK Government to adopt this as the top priority for negotiation with the EU”.
The reason for putting so much emphasis on this dimension is simple. When the old heavy industries in Wales declined as a source of employment, the replacement strategy adopted by successive Labour and Conservative Governments in London, and thereafter by Governments of Wales in Cardiff—and central to the highly successful work of the WDA—was to maximise inward investment to Wales by companies from America and Asia wanting to secure a manufacturing base in order to sell to the EU market.
This approach has been the key strategic element that has helped Wales to build a new manufacturing economy over the past three or four decades. I personally saw the merits of this at first hand, having worked before entering politics with three American corporations—Ford, Mars and Hoover, which was at Merthyr Tydfil at that time—and then having helped to set up a small company, Alpha-Dyffryn, which I chaired for nine years. This company was the sprat that caught the mackerel and secured the Siemens factory at Llanberis, which employs some 400 people and was established to sell to the European market.
What I know about all American companies coming to be based in Wales—companies such as Ford at Bridgend—is that they do so in order to sell to a European market of 500 million customers. If such companies had to overcome tariff or technical barriers, they would think twice before locating in Wales—or, indeed, in north-east England, Merseyside or the Midlands. They would certainly think twice about increasing their existing investment. Such unhampered access is equally relevant to key Welsh industries such as agriculture: 90% of our exports of beef and sheepmeat go to the European market.
The Welsh Government are not blind or deaf to the outcome of the referendum. They recognise that two elements that influenced some, though not all, of the out voters were, first, migration levels from the EU to the UK—although this amounts to only 2.6% of the population in Wales—and, secondly, the wish to avoid what some saw as unnecessary regulation. Those two elements may militate against our continuing full membership of the single market—although we note that, as has been mentioned, this is a price that Norway finds worth paying. Indeed, as has also been mentioned, some of the campaigners to leave the EU argued during the campaign that we would be able to seek a Norway-type relationship.
The Assembly White Paper states explicitly that the Welsh economy,
“will continue to need migration from EU countries to help sustain our private sector economy and public services”.
This is true of the tourist sector, of food processing, of the university sector and of much more. It is in the interests both of Wales and of the EU to reach an agreement that allows barrier-free access to the single market in return for an agreement to allow EU migrants to come to Wales to work. I emphasise the words “to work”. That is the key element in the approach of the Assembly White Paper, which explicitly states that,
“freedom of movement of people is linked to employment”.
That is the requirement and it should be acceptable both to EU countries and to ourselves.
What we ask in the amendments is that the Government commit to such an approach in their negotiations with our 27 EU partners. Equally, with regulations that may be needed to avoid market distortion, it should be possible to agree, and for the UK to legislate, for such regulations as may be needed to maintain a level playing field. In fact, the European Union Committee recognises this in its report Brexit: The Options for Trade, which, in paragraph 43 of the summary, on page 76, says:
“The notion that a country can have complete regulatory sovereignty while engaging in comprehensive free trade with partners is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of free trade. Modern FTAs involve extensive regulatory harmonisation in order to eliminate non-tariff barriers, and surveillance and dispute resolution arrangements to monitor and enforce implementation. The liberalisation of trade thus requires states to agree to limit the exercise of their sovereignty”.
In the context of these amendments, that is a very pertinent paragraph.
What is being sought by the cross-party approach in Wales is neither unreasonable nor impractical. Indeed, the wording of the Government’s White Paper leaves a small chink of light that suggests that they may in their heart be amenable to such an approach. Indeed, in paragraph 8.3 of the White Paper they say that a new negotiated agreement,
“may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when the UK and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years”.
Precisely. So why will the Government not accept one or other of the amendments as a token of their sincerity in that approach, or at least table their own amendment along these lines on Report? Industry, business and agriculture would then sleep much more easily—and so would the Government of Wales.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I have no problem in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that a good trade deal, and a fair trade deal, is important for Wales—and, indeed, for all parts of the United Kingdom. My problem with the amendments is that they fly directly in the face of what the people voted for. Since the referendum, many remainers have been peddling the myth that the people voted to leave the EU but not to leave the single market. The single market was not on the ballot paper, they say, so the people could not have voted for it. Apparently they just wanted to leave the EU but to stay in the single market; we heard that point put passionately by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, a few moments ago.
Remainers have accused my right honourable friend the Prime Minister of “opting” for a hard Brexit. I submit that that is nonsense. The Prime Minister is not opting for a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or any sort of squishy Brexit; she is merely attempting to carry out the wishes of the people to leave the EU. That automatically means leaving the single market, because if we stay in the single market we are still in the EU, to all intents and purposes.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Would the noble Lord respond to the notion that the people decided that they wanted access but not membership? So the 48%—let us get this right—wanted membership of the single market and the 52% wanted access? Was that on the ballot paper, by any chance?
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, it would be difficult to respond to that without tying myself in circles, because the noble Lord has got it slightly wrong. But I will come on to the point about people saying we could access the single market. At one point during the campaign, it may have been my right honourable friend Boris Johnson who said, “We could leave the EU and still access the single market”. What happened? All hell broke loose. It is not that we were shot down but the Government and their advisers dropped the equivalent of all their bunker-busting bombs on us. “No, no”, said the then Prime Minister, the Treasury and the BSE campaign. “If you vote to leave the EU, then you are out of the single market. You are out of the customs union. You can’t have one without the other”, said all the government spokesmen. “You can’t have your cake and eat it”, they said. On that occasion that is what the Government said. Opposition Members have quoted various leave spokesmen who have said, “Oh yes, we want to be in the single market and leave the EU”, or, “We want to access the single market and be in the EU”, but the response from the official BSE campaign, the Prime Minister and the Government was, “No, you can’t. Leaving the EU means leaving the single market too”. On that occasion, the remain campaign was not economical with the truth.
Baroness Kramer
I just make the point that the argument that leave made was that the remainers were exaggerating and they were wrong. To their credit, people believed them and voted on that basis. So if you were a leave voter and you had listened to Daniel Hannan, if you were a leave voter and you had listened to Boris Johnson, if you were a leave voter and you were at any one of the many hustings that I went to, you would have heard the leave campaign saying absolutely clearly that you would have identical access; indeed, you would be in the single market even if you voted leave. That happened over and again and there are witnesses to it throughout this House.
Lord Blencathra
If the leave campaign tried that early on in the campaign, it was certainly shot down by the Government, the Treasury and all their spokesmen very early on.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is not the point a very simple one which the noble Lord does not appear to appreciate—that every country in the world has access to the single market? The issue was whether one was a member of the single market, which would mean that all businesses—that is, 90% of the businesses in this country—would be bound by these rules and regulations, which would apply to exporters. That was the distinction made.
Lord Blencathra
My noble friend, as an expert in these matters, is absolutely right. He puts it very succinctly. Please correct me if I am wrong—I am very happy to be shot down on this point—but is it correct that if we stay in the single market, then we have to accept what the EU calls the four fundamental freedoms, including open borders? Is it true that if we stay in the single market, we have to pay into the EU budget to a certain extent? Is it correct that, if we stay in the single market, we have to let the European court rule over us? Is it correct that, if we stay in the single market, we have to accept laws made by a body over which this Parliament would have no say or control? That is not leaving the EU, and those who advocate staying in the single market know it full well. It is staying in the EU by the back door, and that is not what the British people voted for.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Perhaps the noble Lord would explain about the people of Norway who voted to not join the European Union and accepted all the things he said they had accepted.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, the last thing I heard about Norway was in the news last week. I believe that a Norwegian Minister, or former Minister, said, “Whatever you do, don’t join the EEA like we did. It was a terrible mistake”. I am not here to answer for Norway’s decision. I am here to support the decision of the British people—all 17.2 million of them. I was part of the leave campaign, a little junior cog, and after we were successful, some detailed studies were done. Contrary to the public view that everybody voted leave to stop or control immigration, the vast majority of people—72%—voted leave because they said that they wanted to get back control and sovereignty of their country. Only about 23% put immigration at the top of the list. Of course, admittedly, if you are taking back sovereignty and control and putting Parliament in charge, that means Parliament is in charge of immigration and a lot of other things as well. But let us not pretend that people voted leave purely because of immigration or because they wanted to stay in the single market.
I conclude with a comment that I made in my Second Reading speech, when I quoted my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin MP, one of the Government’s foremost remain campaigners, and one of the then Prime Minister’s gurus when thinking about these things. He said in the other place on 31 January:
“I made it … clear … that … an inevitable consequence of leaving the EU would be leaving the single market”,
and leaving the customs union. He continued,
“it seems to me … that the people who voted to leave were voting with their eyes wide open, knowing that the consequence might be our falling back on the WTO”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/01/17; col. 871.]
The Government made it clear at the time that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. There is no excuse now to try to build in this amendment to thwart the decision of the British people.
Lord Oates (LD)
I support Amendment 4. I do so because what the Government are doing is beyond me with their extreme form of Brexit in taking us out of the single market. Why are they doing it? Above all, why are those on the Conservative Benches who supported remain allowing them to do it? It is true that there was an instruction from the British people that we should leave the European Union but there was not an instruction for us to leave the single market, however much the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, might wish there was. That was for the very simple reason that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, pointed out, that matter was not on the ballot paper. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords on the leave side of this argument can speculate as much as they want about the reasons people voted the way they did, and I can speculate as well. However, the truth is that none of us actually knows. All we know is the instruction that was given on 23 June. The referendum campaign did not help much. The campaign on either side, frankly, in terms of getting to the facts, was not terribly helpful. The noble Lord quoted a number of Conservative politicians. That is part of the problem. The referendum campaign was effectively a factional fight between two wings of the Conservative Party, which did very little to illuminate the facts but, tragically, a very great deal to divide and damage the country.
What we do know—however much those opposite may protest—is what all the mainstream parties promised the electorate at the time of the last general election. It was that we would stay in the single market. That was at a time when the referendum was likely. Indeed, it was a pledge in the manifesto of the Conservative Party. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, also mentioned, the Conservative Party manifesto could not have been clearer. To avoid any ambiguity it emphasised its clarity. It said:
“We say: yes to the Single Market”.
There was no caveat in the way that people suggest, so it is unclear to me why the Prime Minister has decided—given that she has no other mandate on this matter than that manifesto—that she is saying no to the single market. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and other noble Lords, including some Ministers, argue that the unambiguous pledge in the Conservative manifesto was somehow trumped by the fact that there would be a referendum and the Government would respect the result. You can respect the result of the referendum and withdraw from the European Union without withdrawing from the single market. Deciding to leave the EU does not mean leaving the single market, however much noble Lords opposite would like it to do so.
As has been mentioned, a number of countries are members of the European single market but not members of the European Union. Norway, in particular, was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Norway sought to negotiate joining the EU at the same time as us in the 1970s. In the end, it had a referendum and voted against but it became a member of the single market. We should be very clear that when Norwegian Ministers were saying it was not ideal, they were not saying, “Don’t be members of the single market”; they were saying, “For goodness’ sake, stay in the European Union”. To suggest otherwise is just nonsense.
It is clear that it is possible to be both outside the EU and inside the single market. The question, therefore, is whether it is desirable. In my very strong view, it is. We know that the issue in world trade increasingly is not tariffs but non-tariff barriers. As the IFS noted in its report on the single market published in August last year, the service sector is particularly important to our economy and to our tax receipts and is particularly vulnerable. The financial services sector is likely to be disproportionately hit by loss of the single market.
For many of us, the decision to leave the EU is a tragedy that goes far beyond economics but it is compounded by the Government’s decision to pursue extreme Brexit no matter the cost to our economy. We have the opportunity tonight to ask them to think again. We should take it.
Lord Green of Deddington
I can be extremely brief. I just want to take up one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, raised earlier. He acknowledged the significance of immigration to the result of the referendum. He did not say that it was the main reason but he acknowledged its significance. So it seems to me that a key question is whether we can stay in the single market and control immigration. He mentioned that other countries such as Belgium have found a way to control immigration within the single market by removing people without a job.
The situation in the UK is entirely different from that of Belgium. We have more than 2 million European citizens working here—which is fine, but we cannot skate over the fact that the whole situation is different. The numbers are much larger. Noble Lords may not know that last year 625,000 EU citizens took out national insurance numbers. They will not all be working; some will be short term. But the scale of it is enormous. We know that net EU migration is 180,000, equal almost to that from the rest of the world. There is no prospect of any serious measures of control if we remain in the single market.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Green. I am going to be brief—I hope very brief. For far too long during the campaign and since we have had the fear of the stranger. The fear of someone who comes from another country and, none the less, comes to this country and wants to play by the same rules. I have no fear of such strangers.
I am not interested really in what was said during the campaign—
Lord Green of Deddington
I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting either that I have such a fear or that I am trying to create it. I am certainly not. For 15 years I have tried to bring to people’s attention the broad facts on the issue and I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge that.
Lord Cashman
I acknowledge that fully and I hope that the record will reflect that I referred to “the campaign and since”.
I am not interested in what was said during the campaign—who said what and where they said it. What matters is now, and how we build on this. It was wonderful to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Howell—and he always listens with such generosity to others—but I am going to take a slightly different approach.
I want also to revisit something that was said by the Minister about people’s trust in politics. He is absolutely right. It was at an all-time low and it is our duty to pull it back up. However, at the root of that is a real fear, and I sense that that fear is growing. People are wondering what will happen to them and their rights when we start to negotiate our way out of the European Union. It is a fear shared by UK nationals living in other countries, such as the more than 1.2 million people living in Spain; it is a fear of others who have come to this country to live, work, study and contribute; and it is a fear that we must address. That is why, I suggest, there is such a large number of amendments to this very simple Bill; they reflect a real, deep concern outside.
I make no apology for my attachment to membership of the single market. It gives social responsibility to the market; it gives rights to consumers and to the people who work within it; and, as I said in my previous speech, it gives wonderful rights of non-discrimination, not least in the workplace and in access to training and vocational training. There is a fear that, when we remove the freedom of movement that quite rightly comes from membership of the single market, all those rights that people enjoy—although they no longer take them for granted—will disappear. That is why I very much support this amendment, as I do the protection of the rights of EU nationals.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
In the light of what the noble Lord has just said, does he share my dismay that the leaders of the Official Opposition appear to have set their face against supporting this amendment? At the heart of the amendment is surely an instruction to the Government to put membership of the single market at the very heart of their negotiating strategy.
Lord Cashman
I promised brevity. I share the noble Lord’s dismay for the very simple reason that when I negotiate and have a vision, it is not for the short term or to pander to public opinion but about where I want this country to be in the long term, generations down the line.
I conclude by saying that my deep concern is that, when we no longer have access to the single market, the rights that are currently enjoyed will not be replicated in their entirety elsewhere. It has been suggested that no deal would give us the opportunity to do whatever we want. That is not the reality. No deal will bring great costs. One of those costs—or benefits, as has been suggested—is that we will become a tax haven. My deep and bigger fear is that we will become an offshore, unregulated sweat-shop of Europe, and I am happy to support the amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to all the contributions on the amendments so far and I feel that I must intervene. I have been deeply troubled in trying to understand why the Government are so set on the idea that no deal is better than a bad deal and that we can contemplate leaving the single market and the customs union with some kind of equanimity. That was brought home to me by the comment of my noble friend Lord Howell about the failure to see what is going on. It brought to mind his eloquent description of how he sees the future of global trade and global business, which is not in manufacturing but in services. But that vision is not shared on other Benches across the House, and nor indeed by me. Indeed, I would argue that it is not shared by the majority of the people in this country. His remarks imply the destruction of our manufacturing sector and of millions of jobs across the country, and I do not believe that that is what the British people voted for.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The implication is not that at all; it is that the patterns and processes of production are now being internationalised on a scale that we have never seen before, so that even different stages in the processes of production are spread through fantastic new value chains right across many nations. Of course production will go on—but it is now very much an international rather than a national affair. That is happening now.
Baroness Altmann
I do not disagree with my noble friend that that is what is going on, but by leaving the single market we are hampering our manufacturing industry and putting barriers in the way that will ensure the destruction of millions of jobs. Unless we get some kind of access to the single market, we are sacrificing the integrated supply chains so many of our smaller businesses depend on. If we believe that no deal is better than a bad deal, we are gambling millions of manufacturing jobs, 10% of our GDP and peaceful developments in Northern Ireland—our debate on Northern Ireland was particularly important this evening—in exchange for the hope that we will achieve the White Paper wish list. My noble friend the Minister did indeed set out what we wish to achieve, but we still have no idea what might happen if we do not manage to achieve that. We are giving up the integrated supply chains and Euratom membership, and leaving the customs union, the EEA, EFTA and the single market in the hope that we can benefit from the growth in services and technology.
We need to recognise that leaving the single market was never put to the British people. I believe that it will be hugely damaging to our economy. Somebody may decide to buy a house and, on the basis of the estate agent’s details, may make an offer that is accepted and decide that they will move there. If they then have a survey done, or their lawyer discovers some unexpected legal small print, they want the chance to change their mind. They do not want to be bound by their original decision if what they end up with is not what they imagined. Therefore, I believe it is the duty of this House to ask the other place to think again on some of the vital issues that are bound up in what is, I agree, a very short and potentially uncomplicated Bill.
Lord Mandelson (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness because, with her sharpness and clarity, she has brought this debate back to earth with a bump. Yes, whether we stay in the single market goes to the heart of the Brexit debate but, much more importantly, it goes to the heart of our future prosperity as a country—the lives, livelihoods, jobs and standards of living of all our fellow citizens—and therefore we should dwell on it.
In the coming negotiations, Britain should have three primary objectives: first, to secure, as far as possible, the continuity of our existing trade in the European Union; secondly, to be in the best position to attract future supply chain investment in Britain by international companies; and thirdly, to optimise our ability to make future trade agreements with other countries. All these objectives would best be served by our continuing in the single market, through the European Economic Area, as Norway did when, in the 1990s, its public rejected membership of the European Union but, seeking the economic opportunities available to it in Europe, decided instead to join the EEA. I believe this very strongly. I have to say this not only in opposition to the Government’s chosen path—what has rightly been called, “Brexit at all costs”, which is both desperate on their part and potentially very damaging indeed to our economy—but also in disagreement with the argument on grounds of sovereignty, made by Keir Starmer in the other place, that staying in the single market through the EEA would make Britain subject to rules that the rest of the EU has made. That is what lawyers would describe as a piece of Nelsonian knowledge. It is what happens when you intentionally place a telescope to your blind eye.
I accept that, hitherto, the EEA shows what small countries such as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein were able to secure when committing to being part of the single market, but Britain is not of the same status, size or type as any of those countries. A British version of membership of the EEA—this is a key point—would retain much more influence and clout in setting the standards for our largest export market. By removing ourselves from the European Union and the single market, we would only theoretically be more sovereign and we would be considerably poorer. I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said:
“A man alone in the desert is sovereign. He is also powerless”.
I respect the result of the referendum, but I part company from the Government in my belief that we now have an absolute duty to obtain the closest and best possible economic relationship with our largest export and investment market after we leave the European Union. Merely seeking a future free trade agreement between Britain and the EU that deals with tariffs and some customs procedures will fall far short of actually being in the single market. Yes, that is the difference between access and actual participation through membership of the single market that the noble Lords, Lord Spicer and Lord Forsyth, drew to our attention. The former—access—we have to beg for; the latter, we have by right. That is a fundamental difference.
If we simply do as the Government are proposing and seek a free trade agreement, I assure noble Lords, as a former Trade Commissioner and this country’s Trade Secretary, that it will give us significantly less trade than we have at the moment, no automatic market rights in Europe and a paltry means of enforcing those rights that we have. Believe me, I have negotiated those things on Europe’s behalf with countries trying to access the European single market. I know how ponderous the European Commission can be when it comes to such negotiations. I know how difficult it is for third countries, which is what we would be, to get access on the terms that they want and need.
A free trade agreement would not cover all trade; it would not cover services as well as goods, which is a fundamental point. The agreement—if we ever get one, given how relations between ourselves and our European partners have gone downhill since the Prime Minister’s October speech to the Conservative Party conference—will take a very long time to obtain and will certainly stretch way beyond the two-year cut-off point of Article 50 itself. That is why John Major was absolutely right to make his speech this evening at Chatham House in which he strongly and in vigorous terms attacked the Government’s approach to Brexit and called, quite rightly, for a little more charm towards our erstwhile partners and a little less cheap rhetoric.
In a number of key national capitals—
Lord Dykes
With his distinguished European background, why does the noble Lord not fight to keep us in the European Union, as Kenneth Clarke is doing in the Commons?
Lord Mandelson
Why am I not fighting to keep us in the European Union? My word! Judging by my email inbox, the noble Lord must be the only person in the country who does not believe that I am fighting for Britain’s continued membership of the European Union. Of course being a democrat, I respect—oh, there is no point his waving his hand in that Edwardian way.
I am afraid that we have had a referendum, but the point is this: we can now make a choice between leaving the European Union and wrecking our economy, or leaving the European Union and making the best economic job that we can of doing so. There is a huge difference between negotiating our future trade relationship from the safety of being a relative insider, which is what we would be as a member of the EEA, as opposed to being an outsider and jostling for preferential access to Europe’s marketplace like any other country—fighting with many others for access at Europe’s border. Of course the single market is not perfect, notably in its coverage of all services. However, almost half of British trade in goods and services takes place in the European market. It should therefore be an absolute priority for us to secure the continuity of that trade we already have.
There is another crucial issue for us, given the nature of our manufacturing sector in this country. Other noble Lords have touched on that. The point is that the single market is not just a huge trading space: it is also a giant factory floor. Among mature economies trade is now increasingly less in finished goods than in part-finished goods moving back and forth across borders, often many times, as part of increasingly sophisticated value chains.
Lord Spicer
If everything is so hunky-dory, why is there such a massive balance of payments deficit?
Lord Mandelson
My Lords, it is not a question of everything being hunky-dory, but of how desperately worse off we would be were we not to remain in the single market. For goodness’ sake, let us apply a little reality to this. Even President Trump may wake up one day and realise that, given the nature of 21st-century trade in the world today, 40% of the content of Mexican exports to the US actually originates in the US. That is the reality of trade and of the single market; that is why I have no hesitation in describing it as a vast factory floor.
Another thing that is changing interests is that while tariffs and customs controls are important, as we will find out, increasingly so are product standards, copyright and intellectual property rules, investment rules and, yes, rules governing data sharing and transfer. The point is that in the single market we have a single rulebook that covers all these things and therefore we have an even playing field across the entire European single market on which our businesses can conduct their business. We will struggle outside it, especially if in pursuit of a US trade deal we choose to comply with equivalent American rules instead of European ones. The more we diverge from European rules, the more difficult we will find it to trade in our own vast home European market.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the amendment and the excellent arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the other signatories, the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Oates. We also support the tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They are extremely convincing. My noble friend Lady Kramer answered the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who said that it was clear that leaving the EU means leaving the single market. That is absolutely not the case. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about the Conservative manifesto of 2015, which said:
“We say: yes to the Single Market”.
He answered very effectively the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
The Government claim they want free, seamless and frictionless trade, at least as possible. Those two words “as possible” have great import and meaning, because it will not be possible to have free, seamless and frictionless trade if we are not in the single market and the customs union. Anything else is very much second best. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, summed it up: it is about integrated supply chains. If it was not important whether we are in the single market and the customs union we would not have had such reactions from successive car firms, such as Nissan and Vauxhall. Now, apparently, BMW is about to move production of electric Minis out of the UK. No doubt it will knock on the Government’s door very soon to try to get a similar comfort letter out of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked about how goods sailing out of Tilbury was passé. It does not seem to be passé to manufacturers in this country. Any alternative to being in the single market and the customs union is more bureaucratic and more cumbersome. In addition, any terms for trading freely with the EU single market will mean compliance with product standards, other regulation and data standards, which were mentioned. That has caused huge problems for non-EU members, including the United States. On this fetish that the Government have to pretend that we have never heard of the European Court of Justice, they will have to face up to the fact that, one way or another, directly or indirectly, we will have to accord with EU law and the rulings of the court. As I said the other day, there will be some sort of smoke and mirrors there.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, stressed how important the single market is to Wales. I pick that up, because my noble friend Lady Humphreys stressed it at Second Reading. Indeed, she mentioned the Airbus factory in Wales, which must have the same integrated supply chain issues that were mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was dismissive of the EU market, which takes only 42% or 44% of our exports. That is three times as much as the US market takes. The point is that the EU is a battering ram to try and open up US and other markets. One of the problems is state-level public procurement in the US and with “Buy America” being reinforced by President Trump, we are going to need all the help we can get from the European base. We are not going to be able to open up those markets on our own.
The other red line, besides the Court of Justice, is the fetish of free movement. It has been made a red line by the Government and, I am afraid, by the Labour Opposition. It became apparent in exchanges we have had in the last few weeks in this House at Question Time that the UK Government do not even know whether they are enforcing the existing restrictions on free movement, and they are refusing to explore the flexibility and change that it might be possible to get across the EU or the EEA. The noble Lord, Lord Green, says that there was no prospect of any serious measures of control. However, what was interesting about the renegotiation of the former Prime Minister David Cameron was the quite extraordinary principle introduced of the possibility to discriminate on the grounds of nationality, which was actually pretty revolutionary.
The Government are not even trying to explore the flexibility there, as well as, of course, ignoring the two-way street and opportunities that it gives the British people. Just throwing away free movement is telling particularly our young people, as well as retirees, that they can dish any plans they had to work, study and retire in Europe. Therefore, from these Benches we fully support the amendment. I hope that the speeches from distinguished noble Lords on the Labour Benches—and even not on the Labour Benches—and the dialogue, will have persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to join these Benches in supporting the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, what a nice invitation to have from the noble Baroness. It is almost impossible to disagree with my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Mandelson, and, indeed, most of the other noble Lords who have spoken, certainly from this side but elsewhere, about the benefit of the single market to the UK’s economic and social prosperity. As many noble Lords know—they have had to hear from me far too many times—my commitment to the EU long predates the creation of the internal market, although it was perhaps more for me the peace project referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in an earlier amendment. I nevertheless believe that the internal market has contributed to these wider objectives in addition to the trade and prosperity that it has helped to generate.
Indeed, the arguments we have heard are exactly those that I used day after day during the referendum. However, some of the speeches today, I fear, were about trying to rerun that argument. Amendment 4 is rather as if the referendum had not happened and the result was not for leaving. The Bill is about authorising the Prime Minister to begin the process. It is not about going over the arguments. What it demands is a statement from the Prime Minister contrary to her White Paper. I think she is getting the approach wrong, but that it different from making it a statement from her, that only at that point could we trigger Article 50 because that statement makes it conditional within the amendment. I think asking a Prime Minister to eat her own words before she triggers it is something that this House probably cannot and would not want to do.
Anyway, our continued membership of the single market once we are outside the EU—that is, back in the EFTA, which we left in 1972—is also difficult as we would have to accept ECJ jurisdiction as well as free movement. I cannot see the problem with the ECJ. I simply do not understand the Government’s horror at accepting an international court. We will need some sort of adjudication system anyway in any free trade agreement with the EU. Whether the Government will then complain about that I do not know.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Let me finish on this particular point. I will give way if I can first make one statement, as I think I am allowed. It would make us mere recipients of rules decided elsewhere, as I found when I worked in the European Parliament. Those were the only words I wanted to add before giving way.
Lord Mandelson
With great respect, we would not be mere recipients. We would be large, senior, influential members of the EEA negotiating our membership of it on terms that would give us significant influence over policy-making and rule-making in the European Union. Everyone accepts that and I cannot understand why my own Front Bench cannot see it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I wish that my noble friend Lord Mandelson was right on that. If it were the case, we might be in a different position but at the moment it is a hope rather than a guarantee.
When I worked in the European Parliament, as any noble Lords who may have been in the Commons at the time might remember, we saved 1000cc motorcycles. We also saved kippers and Scottish Arbroath smokies. As noble Lords may remember, on the 1000cc motorcycles we had those wonderful big bikes going round and round Parliament Square before they headed off to Brussels. I think it was Commissioner Bangemann who had tried to ban 1000cc bikes. Of course, other than in the States they were made only in Britain. Elsewhere they made smaller ones and they came up with this argument that the larger ones were inherently unsafe. Actually, it turned out that they were safer than small bikes, partly because they are ridden by safer riders. Unfortunately, we won not because of the great display of bikes going round Parliament Square but because we had a Minister at the Council of Ministers as well as MEPs. He is not in his place but I think my noble friend Lord Tomlinson was probably the MEP concerned at the time. So we were able to challenge that argument and we won.
It was similar with the smokies, on a smaller issue. Some bright spark in the Commission thought they should be transported only below a certain temperature. Of course, they can be sent by post—in those days, we used to get them early enough for our breakfast. We managed to save those, too, but we did it because we had MEPs in the European Parliament, we had a Commissioner and we obviously had a Minister at the Council of Ministers.
What worries me—and, indeed, what worries me about the intervention just made—is that we would become rather like what we saw a lot there, namely lobbyists around the corridors of Brussels, using others to make the arguments for us. Norway said to us, “We use our Scandinavian friends; we have a very close relationship, for obvious reasons, and they make our representations for us”.
The other issue, of course, that we are all beginning to see, relates to the regulations. These are the regulations that your Lordships’ House will soon have to put into the great repeal Bill. These have all been passed by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, in both of which we are represented as a member of the EU. Once we put those into the great repeal Bill, others will continue to be made. In the short term, there will be no problem, and in the transitional period, membership of the EEA is extremely attractive because it will take a long time before those are replaced. Certainly, if we remain in the customs union, which I very much hope we will be able to do, we will have to abide by rules, even if we have not made them, on those elements with which we trade and by which we export. That, however, is different from being bound by the whole acquis and judged by the ECJ, with no British member, on rules that we have not made, in a Parliament in which we have no seats and in a Council in which we have no vote. That is not what the referendum said.
Therefore, my heart is with the movers of the amendment and with wanting to stay as we were, but I also have time, occasionally, to read books. I am a great fan of Lampedusa’s The Leopard, with its famous advice:
“Everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same”.
Alternatively, in some translations—Italian speakers will know better than I—he says:
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”.
I want things to stay as they are, in that we should continue to trade freely with the EU 27, but to achieve this, we will have to change, and negotiate tariff-free, encumbrance-free access to that single market and it to us. That is what we must aim for. We have a fight ahead of us to keep our position in the customs union, to ensure that tariff-free trade and to work for the three objectives that have just been set out by my noble friend Lord Mandelson and the closest possible relationship with the EU 27. Our task is to persuade the Government that they have set their sat-nav for the wrong destination. That is where our energies must go. However, it is unfair to give people the unrealistic hope that staying in the single market, despite the referendum and our exit, is a possibility. We need to continue to trade as freely as possible with the EU that we have to leave. For that reason, we are not able to support this amendment.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I think that I would like to say a few words, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, says. I sense there is some division. Let me start by trying to mend some bridges—pardon the pun. All of us in this House wish our country to prosper. We all want to see more investment and more jobs. The very simple question raised by these amendments is this: in light of the vote to leave the EU, how can we best do that? I know that the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Monks, and other noble Lords whose names are on these amendments, have long-held views that the best route to achieve that aim is, at least in part, for the United Kingdom to remain within the EU and within the single market. I respect their views and the steadfastness with which they hold them. I will try my best to be eloquent, but I am sure that what I am about to say will not deflect them and a number of other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, from supporting this amendment. But I will briefly set out why the Government oppose the amendment. The first and most obvious reason is that it has nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill has one purpose only: to enable the Government to start the process of negotiation. It is not a means to dictate the terms of the negotiation.
The second reason concerns the democratic arguments. Very briefly, as I said earlier, the Government promised to hold a referendum and to honour its result. Yes, I know that the Conservative Government said that they would protect our role in the single market in the manifesto. But as my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out, the manifesto also promised to respect the result of the referendum—a promise which this Parliament endorsed by passing the European Union Referendum Act.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the debate we have heard tonight has been a rerun of the referendum campaign. As I said earlier, during that campaign, every household was sent a leaflet which spelled out the consequences of leaving as regards our membership of the single market. A number of people on both sides of the argument pointed out that we could not vote to leave and then try to remain in the single market. Criticising the leave campaign, one of those arguing to remain said:
“Some of those advocating British withdrawal suggest that we can have our cake and eat it by staying within the European single market to retain the great bulk of our trade which is with EU countries”.—[Official Report, 2/3/16; col. 855.]
Those are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and he was quite right. The four freedoms are seen by many across Europe as indivisible, and we should respect those views.
Much more than that, as other noble Lords have said, remaining a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement the four freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would almost certainly mean accepting a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union. It would mean still not having control over immigration—relying on enforcement powers rather than creating an immigration system, which this Government intend to build, which allows us to control numbers and encourages the brightest and best to come to this country.
As to the customs union, were we to remain a full member, we would remain bound by a common external tariff, which would greatly limit our ability to strike our own trade deals and our freedom to determine the level of UK tariffs. Were we to remain within the common commercial policy, we would not be able to pursue freely our bold, ambitious trade agenda with the rest of the world. We would instead, as now, be ceding responsibility for this to the European Union. So to remain a member of the single market and to remain a full member of the customs union would, to all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all.
As to the EEA, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that it suffers from a democratic deficit. Once we leave the EU, as my noble and learned friend said earlier, the EEA agreement will no longer be relevant for the UK. It will have no practical effect. But we expect a phased process of implementation to cover our withdrawal from the EU in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements between us. This is intended to give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for the new arrangements. The interim arrangements that we rely on will be a matter for negotiation.
Lord Liddle
Does that mean that the Government are not ruling out EEA membership for the transition?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I have nothing further to add, other than to say that it is a matter for the negotiations. It is a matter for the negotiations and I am not going to go further. I checked the transcript of the Select Committee hearing that the noble Lord so rightly brought me up on earlier and that is what I said. It is exactly consistent with what I have said.
I turn to our approach to trade with the EU once we have left. My noble friend Lord Howell pointed out the intricacies of this. It is absolutely true—a basic point—that across the world countries which are not members of the single market trade with Europe. The single market is not a tablet of stone. As the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, so rightly said, in services, which drive so much of our wealth creation, the single market is incomplete; likewise, on digital services. With that in mind, the Government have a clear aim: to seek an agreement for the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods and services between the UK and the EU. We start these negotiations from a unique position. The EU exports to the UK £290 billion of goods and services each year, and on day 1 we will have exactly the same regulations and standards as our negotiating partners. The focus will be not about removing existing barriers or questioning certain protections but about ensuring new barriers do not arise, and the scale of trade means that it should be in our interests, and Europe’s interests, to come to an agreement.
Lord Hain
My Lords, respectfully, I completely disagree with the proposition that the Minister has just made. Yes, I did say that the European Union was preferable to staying in the single market—that was my belief. That was also what he believed and what the Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron, argued. It is what all of us on the remain side argued—but now our task is very different. Given that we are due to leave the European Union, we have to make the best of a bad job. We have to rescue something from this which will protect jobs and prosperity, and that is what this amendment is about.
It is suggested that this will add delay. No, it will add no delay. The text of the amendment says that,
“the Prime Minister must give an undertaking to negotiate under the process set out in Article 50 on the basis of the United Kingdom retaining membership of the European Single Market”.
It talks about achieving and negotiating—it is about trying to go down that road. This would be a lot easier and quicker than the alternative under the WTO rules and the completely unknown waters that we are about to sail into. We do not know how difficult that will be and how long it might take. If the Minister is concerned about delay, he should support this amendment, because it will produce a much simpler outcome than the one that otherwise awaits us.
I would also say that remaining in the single market would not be against the outcome of the referendum. The referendum was about leaving the European Union. That was the question on the ballot paper; it was not about the single market. If we retain our membership of the single market, there is a much better chance of Scotland staying in the United Kingdom. If we retain membership of the single market, there is a much better chance of resolving the problems that we discussed earlier in respect of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
I do not accept the case put—very eloquently—by my Front Bench that staying in the single market will result in a democratic deficit. The WTO alternative will result in a much bigger democratic deficit than is perceived by those who criticise this amendment. As a very large economy we will still—as my noble friend Lord Mandelson said—have the opportunity to have significant influence; maybe not in the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament because those bodies require a membership of the European Union that we will no longer have, but by having the clout that we will have in the negotiation for future rules and so on in the single market.
I make no criticism of those on my Front Bench—they have done a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. My criticism is of my party leader. I think that he will be judged by history as being on the wrong side of this argument and of forcing us to do something that we in the Labour Party do not in our hearts really believe in. What we will be doing, in my view, is nodding through a Conservative agenda for a right-wing, hard-right Brexit—Trump-like—of deregulation, low-tax, small state, shrinking public services and even more austerity.
Lord Hain
“Hear, hear”, they say—there we have the confirmation. I do not go lightly against my party Whip. In my 26 years in Parliament—in the Commons and in this House—I have only ever done this once or twice. But this for me is a matter of crucial importance to this country and to the future of the people, their jobs and their prosperity. The Minister—with all due respect—is doing a great job on a sticky wicket. But the truth is that he and the Government have no clue where we are going. They have no idea where they are taking us. For the sake of our jobs, prosperity and businesses, it is important to pass this amendment and I therefore wish to divide the House.
Baroness Quin
“( ) Subsection (1) does not come into force until Her Majesty’s Government has laid before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of—(a) withdrawing from the European Union, and(b) Her Majesty’s Government's negotiating strategy for withdrawal,on the economy of the North East of England.”
Baroness Quin
My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It calls on the Government to lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effect on the economy of the north-east of England of both withdrawing from the EU and their negotiating strategy. I say at the outset that this is a probing amendment and I do not aim to divide the Committee on it. However, through this amendment I wish to highlight the situation in my part of the country and the region where I live—the north-east. I recognise that this group of amendments raises a number of other issues about taking various parts of the UK into account in the negotiating strategy. I support many of those amendments, although I am obviously speaking to my own amendment in this instance.
In tabling the amendment, I was conscious of the fact that the north-east of England has a particularly heavy dependency on trade with the EU. Some 58% of its exports are destined for the European Union and its largest trading customers by far are in the European Union. I am proud of the fact that the north-east has a positive trade balance. It is unusual in that respect as compared with other regions of the UK. However, I am also concerned that this situation is very much under threat because of the Brexit strategy adopted by the Government.
In tabling this amendment, I also seek to ensure that the north-east has a voice in the Brexit process and that the Government are committed to taking the interests of the region to heart. I recognise that in many of the other amendments the importance of consulting the devolved authorities is mentioned and I would certainly not argue with those amendments in any way. I also support the amendments before the House that refer to the importance of environmental protection in the Brexit negotiations and those concerned that equalities provisions are not endangered. However, I am concerned that in our current devolved structure the regions of England—particularly the northern regions and the north-east itself—often risk being the Cinderellas of our political and economic system and are easily overlooked, despite the fact that the size of their populations and the importance and potential of their economies should give them a more important say.
My amendment is in line with some that were tabled in the House of Commons, in particular proposed new Clause 31 about the impact on regions and proposed new Clause 163 on the importance of consultation with regions. I echo some of the words spoken in the other place, particularly, as regards the north-east, the comments made by my honourable friends—if I can call them that—Catherine McKinnell MP and Phil Wilson MP. However, the amendments in the Commons overall received little attention and almost no response from the Minister, no doubt in part because of the rushed timetable and the programming that governed the Commons proceedings on this Bill. Therefore, I make no apologies for introducing my amendment and supporting other amendments before us this evening.
My amendment is about process so, given that earlier the Minister kept saying that the Bill should stick to process, I hope that it will appeal to him. Also, it cannot be criticised for giving away the Government’s negotiating strategy in advance or tying the Government’s hands in their dealings with our European partners. Where it tries to tie the Government’s hands is in committing them to a proper structure for dialogue and consultation with the north-east and the rest of the United Kingdom.
In the referendum, some areas of the north-east voted remain—Newcastle in particular—and some voted leave, but I believe that all parts of the north-east would not wish to become less prosperous as a result of Brexit. The Government should bear that very much in mind. The Government have a responsibility to do what they can to create a balanced economy throughout the United Kingdom and to ensure the future economic well-being of all parts of the United Kingdom, including the north-east.
Last month, the IPPR report The State of the North 2016 was debated in this House thanks to my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen, who is in her place. The report expressed great concern about the possible effects of Brexit on the northern regions and it called specifically for a north of England Brexit negotiating committee to identify how the north can thrive post Brexit, given that it is more dependent on trading in advanced goods such as pharmaceuticals and automotives than the south of England.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 6, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. I will speak to Amendment 9, which is in my name and refers to all parts of the United Kingdom and not just the north-east of England. This whole group relates to the impacts of Brexit and the need for there to be assessment before the Government go much further.
It is estimated that around 160,000 jobs in the north-east of England are directly linked to our being part of the single market. That is because 58% of north-east exports go to the European Union, against a national figure of 42%. After 2019, with a hard Brexit there will be no automatic access to the single market, which is the largest free trade area in the world. Therefore, what are the economic advantages to the north-east of England or indeed to any part of the United Kingdom of losing that automatic access? I would like the Minister to explain how the Government plan to protect it.
I understand that the Minister met the North East Chamber of Commerce last Friday following an initiative by my noble friend Lord Beith. Will this be the first of many such meetings? I ask that because there are structures in London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the Government to relate to, but what about the rest of the United Kingdom—the English regions? Regular meetings must be held with those regions to put them on an equal footing with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. For that reason, I think that we need regional impact assessments of leaving the European Union. As an example of the problem, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, emphasised, the north-east of England has a net balance of trade, with total exports amounting to £12.14 billion in 2015. No other region does so well in having such a positive balance of trade. The trade surplus in 2015 was £3.4 billion in the north-east—that is, the north-east local enterprise area and the Tees Valley local enterprise area added together.
It would be a disaster for jobs for this surplus to be lost. Chemicals had a trade surplus of £2 billion and the machinery and transport sector had a trade surplus of £2.3 billion. Some sectors had a trade deficit, which accounts for the overall surplus being £3.4 billion. Such a trade surplus is a very impressive figure for a small region in population terms such as the north-east of England. That is why I have concluded that the Government should establish resilience task forces in each part of the United Kingdom to work with the Government on the problems that will arise if we leave the single market and the customs union.
The abolition of government offices in England has not helped this situation and it has resulted in England being treated as a single entity run out of London. England is not a single entity and its differences should be reflected in the Government’s work on Brexit. In terms of EU funding support, we could look at our universities. The north-east universities are receiving £155 million in EU funding in the current funding period, 2014-20. They stand to lose access to much of that funding once we have left the European Union. Will the Government pick up the bill? Will they guarantee equivalent funding after 2020? In terms of structural funding, the north-east of England, including Tees Valley and the North East LEP, is receiving £590 million in structural funding from the EU in the 2014-20 period. Cornwall will receive £476 million, and Greater Manchester and Leeds City Region will receive more than £300 million each. England will receive £5.6 billion and the UK as a whole more than £8 billion. Will the Minister tell us what the Government’s plan is to make this money available after Brexit?
The question matters because it is the poorer parts of the country that voted more strongly for Brexit, but those are the very parts of the country that are in receipt of much higher levels of EU support. This is the challenge for the Government: have they any plans in place, eight months after the Brexit vote, to make those poorer parts of the United Kingdom resilient in the face of Brexit? The danger is that it is these very areas that will fall yet further behind once we leave the EU in 2019. What are the Government’s plans, in the face of Brexit, to generate growth in the poorer parts of the United Kingdom?
Lord Blencathra
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for attempting to get in before him: I had forgotten that other noble Lords had amendments they might wish to speak on. I must warn my noble friend the Minister that I am very tempted to support these amendments, provided he can give me two firm assurances—first, that these assessments will be carried out by the Bank of England, the IMF and the same geniuses at the Treasury who forecast that by 2030 we would all be £4,322.15 worse off; and secondly, that he will send these assessments to Mr Juncker and Mr Barnier. I can think of nothing more likely to completely mislead those with whom we will be negotiating. Better still, he might get PricewaterhouseCoopers to do it, after its spectacular success at the Oscars last night where it could not count up a few hundred votes correctly.
In all seriousness, when have we ever seen an impact assessment attached to a government Bill which was remotely worth the paper it was written on? They are meaningless rubbish and no one takes them seriously. I did take one seriously when I was asked to chair the joint Select Committee on the original draft so-called snoopers’ charter Bill, which some noble Lords and Members of the Commons served on. We went through that impact assessment in detail and tore it to shreds. It estimated about £900 million as expenditure and our committee calculated that the real figure would be about £2 billion to £3 billion. We all know that impact assessments are not very accurate.
On the other hand, let us suppose that the Government did manage to write a proper impact assessment. We could do that on a sector-by-sector basis for each industry. I suppose that we could get the leaders of all those industries and all the other experts to draw up a proper SWOT analysis where Ministers have a pretty accurate assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to that industry from staying in or leaving the EU. Let us say that those SWOTs were spot-on accurate. Does anyone seriously suggest that we should then publish them and hand them straight over to the EU negotiators so that they can spot all the weaknesses in our position and the strengths that we want to exploit? It would be the height of folly to do such a thing. Indeed, it would be barking mad. If we were to do that, why stop there? Let us send Mr Putin a list of all our defence weaknesses and get MI6 to tell ISIL about any gaps in our security. Will Mr Barnier and the EU give us a paper on their strengths and weaknesses? Will they tell us their impact assessment of Britain? Of course not.
I am not being totally facetious. We will embark on negotiations that will determine the future of this country. The EU is reported to be demanding a £50 billion divorce settlement from us. I hope that we will strongly resist that. But if we are so daft as to publish any weaknesses in our arguments against it, we could end up robbing the taxpayer of billions of pounds. Billions of pounds are at stake.
I am not against impact assessments per se, although I prefer the SWOT analysis. Indeed, I hope that our Ministers and the Prime Minister have them. But I also hope and pray that they are keeping them under a top secret cover and keeping them very close to their chest. The last thing we want is to have them published or shared or laid before Parliament, which is probably even worse than publishing them in the press.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I will be slightly less cynical than the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the subject of impact assessments. I will speak to Amendment 22 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Kerslake. I will take a less cynical view about impact assessments.
For the historical record, it might interest noble Lords to know that when we were negotiating our accession to the European Union, the first thing that we tabled in Brussels was an impact assessment of the European budget on the United Kingdom, which of course had not been part of the European budget until then. It was a very long way different from the one tabled by the Commission in return, but we were actually right. The consequence of being right was a very long negotiation in the 1980s under Baroness Thatcher that resulted in the rebate system. My point is that when we were negotiating with the European Union from the outside, we had no hesitation whatever about producing an impact assessment—and thank heavens we did. Otherwise, we would not have got the commitment from the European Union that if things went as we predicted rather than as it predicted, it would adjust the budgetary burden, which eventually it did.
I want to look forward now and not backwards, because this seems quite odd. We are now a little over eight months from the referendum and it defies belief that the Minister and his colleagues have not conducted impact assessments by now. If not, I am not at all sure what they have been doing—but since I know that he is an extremely hard-working person I can assume that they have in fact quite a lot of impact assessments but are not sharing them with anyone else. It was rather odd, when the Prime Minister spoke at Lancaster House, and even odder when a White Paper was published, that there was not a single blooming figure in either of those two documents—not one. That was a trifle odd. It is not what the Government normally do. It is even odder if they do have impact assessments; it could be that they are so awful that they do not want to tell anyone about them. That also would not be hugely comforting.
I would like to play the game by the Minister’s rules. He has argued several times that to publish impact assessments would be to give the game away and give the people with whom we are negotiating some deadly secrets that they would be unable to get from anyone else. Okay, let us play the game by those rules. In that case, there are two impact assessments that could be published which would not have the slightest possibility of doing damage to us. The first is an assessment of where we would be in terms of our economy if we stayed in the European Union. That is not difficult to do, because the previous Government did it. If he looks at the papers that were published last March he will find it all there.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, seems to place great faith in these assessments or forecasts—but they have almost universally been completely wrong, ever since before the referendum. If noble Lords would like an example, I have from the House of Commons Library some comments on the Treasury:
“In May 2016, the Treasury published forecasts for the immediate economic impact of voting to leave the EU. It forecast for a recession to occur in the second half of 2016, with quarterly GDP growth of minus 0.1% in both Q3 2016 and Q4 2016”.
A second “severe shock” scenario was an even worse forecast.
“In reality, the economy continued to grow at its pre-referendum pace, with quarterly growth of +0.6%”.
That has now been adjusted by the Governor of the Bank of England to close to 2%. Frankly, the assessments and the forecasts are absolute rubbish and there is no point in publishing them.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I remind the noble Lord that the impact assessment he is reading from was of course produced by the Government that he supports—although he seems to have little shame about that now. Moreover, if one looks at government legislation that comes through every day, hundreds of impact assessments are produced by the Government he supports. Is he saying that they are all rubbish?
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the court of Newcastle University. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asks for an impact assessment of the effect of Brexit on the economy of the north-east. When we think about that economy, perhaps our thoughts turn first to the EU funding that the economy receives and then to the manufacturing sector. But the city of Newcastle is deeply enriched by the presence of two first-class universities, and there are 50,000 students in Newcastle. Tomorrow a report will be released to the media which details the extraordinary contribution of Newcastle University to the economy of the north-east.
The university adds £1.1 billion to the economy overall. Newcastle University alone, not including all the other universities in the north-east, is the fourth-largest employer in the region and accounts for 6% of all jobs in Newcastle. In addition, research grants totalling £105 million have helped to support major investment in research projects ranging from research into ageing to subsea and offshore engineering on the banks of the Tyne. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government will assess the impact of Brexit on our universities, and in particular on our universities in the regions, which clearly are major players in our economic flourishing. If universities are undermined by not being able to attract students from this country, Europe and beyond with limitations on immigration and if they are not able, as Newcastle University does at the moment, to go for staff who are at the top of their field and not see nationality as a limiting factor, as well as being able to attract the EU funding referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, it will have an impact on them as world-class institutions and on their contribution to the economy of a place such as the north-east.
Newcastle University, like other universities, is a major player, so I hope that the impact assessment will value the economic significance of universities and the contribution that they make to our economy, as demonstrated by the report to be published tomorrow on Newcastle and the north-east.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak finally to the three amendments in this group tabled in my name, Amendments 13, 14 and 15. These are not about the negotiations or begging the EU for a decent Brexit, they are about the things we have to do here in the UK to make sure we have enough environmental protection for the future.
Amendment 13 would ensure that, in relation to EU-derived environmental protections, the UK judicial system would be ready, following departure from the EU, to perform effectively the enforcement functions currently undertaken by the institutions of the EU. As has been noted by many Members of the Committee, the environmental protections currently guaranteed by our membership of the European Union rely on an established and robust system of monitoring and enforcement provided by EU institutions and agencies. We must make sure that we replace them with something. The most important part of the system has been the strong pressure to implement the law, and to do so within a specified timescale. This incentive to adhere to the law arises from the monitoring role of the EU agencies and the Commission acting as the guardian of the law and responding to legitimate complaints. If the Government are serious in their ambition to be the first to leave the environment in a better condition than that in which they found it, Ministers must give details on how this complex and robust system of legal enforcement will be replaced here in the UK.
Amendment 14 concerns environmental regulators and would ensure that, following withdrawal from the EU, the UK’s environmental regulators and enforcement agencies—that is, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—are adequately funded and authorised to perform effectively the regulatory functions currently undertaken by EU institutions. Again, effective and robust environmental protection relies on well funded and staffed institutions to monitor compliance with environmental law. It also needs powerful regulators and courts to ensure that breaches of the law are challenged.
For the past 40 years this system of environmental enforcement in the UK has been grounded in the institutions of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. So far, we have had only a few offhand comments from Ministers and one line in the White Paper giving no detail about how this important system of checks, balances and safeguards will function once we are out of the EU. The Government are basically asking us to vote blindly and without caveat for a major upheaval in the way our countryside, wildlife and natural environment are protected. We still do not know whether the Government intend to rely on existing regulators to fill the gap after we leave the EU. It is time to be very clear about what we are going to do, because millions of people care about this.
Amendment 15 concerns access to justice relating to environmental legislation, so that the UK Government would remain committed to providing access to justice on environmental issues for citizens of the UK following withdrawal from the EU. The enforcement mechanisms established by the EU legal framework have been sophisticated. If a member state is deemed non-complaint with EU environmental law, the European Commission can bring infringement proceedings that can ultimately lead to large fines. This independent accountability mechanism has proved quite effective and the risk of penalties for non-compliance has been particularly important in motivating Governments to act, albeit rather slowly at times. But there has been little indication so far of what institutional mechanisms would perform this role. Many of us are concerned that there will be no mechanism at all.
I have listened to most of the debate in this House, either in the Chamber or from my office. I want to combat something I heard earlier. Somebody on the Benches opposite said something about the will of people being that the Bill passes unamended. That is complete nonsense. It is a Bill dreamed up by the Government. Although I understand exactly why the Government have made it this simple, it is our duty to amend it because it simply is not enough.
Somebody else mentioned how it is quite anti-European to be talking in these terms. Personally, I am very pro-European. I can manage to get by in two European languages—three if you count English—and I have many friends who are from the European mainland. I want to dispel the myth that what we are doing from these Benches in trying to amend the Bill is in any sense against the will of the people.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, it most certainly is against the will of the people. The noble Baroness is quite wrong. The Bill is about firing the starting gun to bring forward what the people voted for, which is our withdrawal from the European Union. The mechanism the Government have chosen is the use of Article 50. I have some sympathy with some of the amendments, including hers, but these are matters that will become the responsibility of the United Kingdom’s Parliament. An amendment I should like to make is to the Long Title of the so-called great repeal Bill. As a name, I can think of nothing more inappropriate—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Yes, the Short Title; I have been corrected. The Bill’s name is misleading, because it will enable us to bring into UK law all kinds of measures, under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. May I ask the noble Baroness a question: is there any aspect of European environmental regulation that she dislikes?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity. Yes, there is quite a lot I dislike, but that is not for now. There are parts of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy that I dislike very much.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My point is that we have to make sure our standards do not drop, because we as a nation have got used to very high standards. We need not only to transfer the decent things, but to make them even better.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. The noble Baroness has very honestly answered on the things that she would like to see changed. The great news is that, as a result of this, she will be able to persuade this Parliament to do so. Currently, she can make many speeches in this House, as can people in the other place, but we do not have the power to change these matters. That is the great breakthrough. I am surprised that the noble Baroness is tabling amendments to a Bill that is simply starting the process that will enable her to make the kinds of changes that she wants, provided she can persuade a group here. The other bird that can be killed came from a sedentary position. As we heard from the Liberal Benches, the noble Baroness is a leaver. We are all leavers now.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Oh, apparently we are not. Well, I have been listening to speeches from the Liberal Benches telling us that they accept and respect the results of the referendum.
Baroness Ludford
Does the noble Lord accept that there is a difference between accepting the result of the referendum and changing one’s own personal, passionate convictions?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not think we are particularly interested in the noble Baroness’s personal conviction when, in the other place, more than 300 elected Members of Parliament put aside their personal conviction and voted for the Bill to come here to enact the will of the people. We had a very revealing glimpse there of how the Liberals are trying to refight the referendum campaign when we should be following the lead of the amendments put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, and thinking about what our policy should be in the future. However, this is a completely inappropriate place to do it. There will be weeks and months ahead when we can debate these matters.
I want to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, a question. Perhaps I am a bit stupid, but I cannot for the life of me imagine how the Government could possibly do an impact assessment without knowing the results of the negotiation and starting that process. Noble Lords on the Liberal Benches say, “Absolutely”. If they think that it is impossible to do an impact assessment, why are they putting down amendments asking for the Government to do impact assessments? The answer is: because this is a wrecking measure—another attempt to delay the Bill and prevent it going forward. For example, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, lists all the regions—
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I said at the outset that my amendment was a probing amendment to raise various issues that I thought it was important to bring to the Government’s attention. I cannot see the inappropriateness of doing that in this debate.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I suppose then that she will be withdrawing Amendment 6 and I do not need to argue against it any further. As she has always been a doughty champion for the north-east, I completely understand why that should concern her. I simply point out that this is not the Bill in which to make that argument. I have no doubt that there will be an opportunity to discuss these matters when we get the great repeal Bill, as well as in the intervening period. There is nothing to stop people putting down Motions in either of the Houses of Parliament and pressing the Government on any of these matters.
Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, lists every region of the United Kingdom and asks what the impact of withdrawing from the European Union will be. Every penny of regional aid for any of these regions is our money. It is money that we have given to the European Union that comes back. That money is not going to disappear. I remember as Secretary of State being forced into supporting projects that were not priorities for us because we had to get agreement that they were additional and that they represented the prevailing policy at the time of the European Union. The difference will be that we are actually able in this Parliament to decide how our money is spent on our priorities in each of the regions. That is a great step forward. I do not, for the life of me, understand how the noble Lord could expect the Government to come up with an impact assessment of that. It will depend on the negotiations, on how much of our money we get back, and on a whole range of issues.
Lord Shipley
The noble Lord said two things that I do not accept. First, he said that the money that comes from the European Union is not going to disappear. There is a real danger that it will disappear because the country is going to be poorer and the Government’s tax income is going to be less. There is no evidence at all that all the money that is currently used in structural funds is going to carry on in the same volume. I do not accept that the money will simply be there and will be redirected again by the UK Government.
The noble Lord also asked who would do the impact assessments. Impact assessments are being done for London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because there are governance structures in place that can do so. The Government have regular meetings with all those bodies. My point has been that the rest of England is being left out from that process. That is the problem and I hope that the Minister can alleviate my concerns later.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sure that the Minister in his excellent way will respond to these particular details. I am looking at this amendment, which says that we cannot start the process of leaving the European Union until we have,
“Her Majesty’s Government’s negotiating strategy for withdrawal on the economy, investment and regional funding of”,
all these regions. That is ridiculous—absurd. Perhaps the noble Lord put down the amendment just to have a debate and is not proposing to press the matter, but to say to the Government, “You cannot implement what the people voted for until you have done a set of calculations that are impossible to do until you start the negotiations”, looks to me like a circular argument and yet another device from those Benches to prevent us from getting on with what people voted for.
Lord Shipley
Amendment 9 is a probing amendment and I think that the other amendments in this group are similar. There is an issue about whether the Government are prepared to guarantee the levels of funding post-2019 and again post-2020. I very much hope that the Minister will assure this House that the levels of funding will not disappear.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That is not what the noble Lord’s amendment says. It is an interesting argument. When he says that the money is going to disappear because we will be poorer, that brings me to the extraordinary Amendment 22, which appears to be supported by a former Cabinet Secretary. It asks for,
“any existing impact assessments or economic forecasts relating to the United Kingdom’s future trading relationship with the European Union conducted by HM Treasury, the Department for Exiting the European Union, the Department for International Trade or the Office for Budget Responsibility”.
As my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out, the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility told us that we would have a recession and limited growth and that unemployment, interest rates and mortgages would go up, all of which has not happened. We have turned out to be the most successful economy in the G7. This continuing running down of our economy and telling people that we will be worse off is not good for confidence or for the Government and it flies in the face of what people voted for. They listened to all these impact assessments and decided not to believe them, which is why they voted to leave the European Union.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is the noble Lord wishing to intervene? The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants to intervene.
Lord Berkeley
I just wonder if the noble Lord would find it useful if one of the four noble Lords whose name is down on Amendment 22 spoke to it before he responded to it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To be absolutely fair, I spoke to Amendment 22 earlier in the name of the others. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Kerslake will now manage to deal with the aspersions cast upon him.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Except that I have not finished. Finally, on Amendment 22, there is an interesting idea in subsection (2). Ministers have been extremely active in engaging with Select Committees and both Houses of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Bridges has done an outstanding job in talking and engaging with everyone. There is an interesting idea that perhaps it is possible as we go forward with the Bill to find some way of operating with committees of Parliament with some degree of confidentiality, although experience tells me that dealing with Parliament with some degree of confidentiality is not always easy to achieve. I am just about to sit down but I give way to the noble Lord, now that he is awake.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord is giving former MPs in this House a bad name.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I just say to the noble Lord that at least I am not asleep.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I intend to build on the comments made by the right reverend Prelate in relation to universities and to link that subject into the whole debate about leaving the single market. The Indian Finance Minister is in the country and he was asked a question today about free trade agreements between the UK and India. He made it clear that free trade agreements are not just about tariffs and goods; they are about goods and services and people. He specifically mentioned students and the ability of Indian students to study over here.
A report came out on 23 February saying that almost a third of university academics are from outside the UK. If you look at certain areas—engineering and technology—non-UK academics account for 42% of the staff. In maths, physics and biology, 38% of staff are non-UK and most of them are from EU countries. Then you have the statistic—I declare my interest as chair of the advisory board of the Cambridge Judge Business School and Chancellor of the University of Birmingham—provided by Professor Catherine Barnard from the University of Cambridge, who told MPs that her university had seen a 14% drop in applications this year from EU students. There is, therefore, already a worry about the future of EU students and EU academics.
You cannot just say, “We don’t do impact assessments”. That would be foolish in business: if I make a forecast and I get that forecast wrong, does that mean that I stop forecasting in future? I would be foolish not to forecast. You have to keep trying to forecast, even though you might not always get it right. Impact assessments are absolutely essential. It is wrong to keep going on about the will of the people and saying that we therefore do not need to do anything, or to say that the forecasts were all wrong so we can ignore forecasts and experts. We are going to start sounding like Donald Trump complaining about the elites and ignoring the experts. No, we must continue to forecast and have impact assessments. We must look at the concerns of our universities, our academics and our students and at the potential loss of EU students and academics in the future.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 27. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has just said what he did about impact assessments, because I, too, am going to speak about them, but in this case in relation to inequality. I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on impact assessments and other issues. Of course they are not all rubbish; they are for measuring and calling to account. That is what we should be doing.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a basic framework of protection against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation in services and public functions. It provides protection for people from discrimination because they are perceived to have, or are associated with someone who has, a protected characteristic. It extends the provisions related to disability and includes gender pay discrimination, private clubs and new powers for employment tribunals. The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that the impact of decisions on those with protected characteristics is considered, taken into account and debated at every stage of the negotiation process for Brexit. That is all—just looked at and debated.
The word “equality”—and its implications—is curiously absent from documents from the White Paper onwards. Given the various debates that Britain and Europe have had about race, disability, gender, sexuality, employment and so on, it seems amiss not to be screening for discrimination in these and other areas related to equality. We must have regard for such potential discrimination during the process of our deliberations and in the final deal. This new clause would ensure that considerations of equality were at the forefront of government thinking throughout the withdrawal process and would inform the new arrangements. That is necessary to ensure a good deal for everyone and to make sure that any negative impact on those with protected characteristics was presented up front and that steps were taken to deal with potential negative impacts.
The Minister in another place responded to the deliberations on this new clause by saying:
“The Prime Minister has been clear: we want the UK to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, and more united and outward-looking than ever before. We want to get the right deal abroad, but ensure we get a better deal for ordinary working people at home. In the White Paper, we set out our ambition to use this moment of change to build a stronger economy and a fairer society by embracing genuine economic and social reform”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 392.]
What I am seeking in this amendment is a reassurance that practical measures, such as scrutiny of equality implications, and protection will be built into the Brexit process for all, whatever their condition, in all aspects of life.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Quin. Before I do that, I want sincerely to say a word of thanks to the Front Benches on both sides. They have to sit through all these debates—they are obliged to, unlike those of us on the Back Benches. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Hayter, who has had a very difficult job, treading a high wire; she has done it with great skill and good humour and she deserves our thanks for doing so. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. I do not think that under normal circumstances she would have chosen to spend her birthday in this way, but I am sure that we all wish her many congratulations.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the Labour Party was against this referendum. We did not want a referendum. Mr Cameron got us into it in a casual way, without any careful thought of the implications or the impact that it would have. If we had had impact assessments before the vote, we might not have voted to come out. We would have known the implications. That is when we should have had these. We are going to have some very serious impacts in Northern Ireland, as we heard earlier, and in Scotland. The way things are going, we could end up with this whole United Kingdom breaking up, with Northern Ireland opting to be part of a united Ireland and with Scotland as a separate country. That is what David Cameron in his casual way has let us in for. I think that he will go down in history as one of the worst Prime Ministers this country has ever had.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hannay’s Amendment 22. I do so for one simple reason. I have a passionate belief that open government is better government. If we—as those who are in charge, if you like—want people to buy into what we are trying to do, we have to be able to trust them with the information that should be available to them. That is particularly true in relation to Brexit. We know that the referendum campaign was deep and divisive. We reached a point where virtually no one trusted anyone in that debate. That is fundamentally undermining to democracy. There is a growing gap between the governing and the governed, and one response to that is to have transparent government.
We have heard two arguments this evening for why a very simple amendment—to publish the impact assessments that can sensibly be published, which have already been done since the referendum—cannot be made. The first, from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is that you cannot trust impact assessments. Not every impact assessment is good. I might even have been responsible for a few that were not that good. But if that is the argument we are now making—that we will not publish impact assessments because they might be wrong—that way madness follows. What about trusting the people and Parliament to make their own judgment about the quality of the impact assessments? That is what transparent government is all about. If we cannot trust people to make their own judgment about the information, if we worry that they will be depressed because the impact assessments are too downbeat, there is something seriously wrong with our thinking.
The second argument that we have heard is that it might in some way interfere with the negotiations. It is possible that some information published might cut across them, and there has to be a responsible attitude to that, but I worry that that argument is going to be rolled out time and again to keep Parliament and the public in the dark about what is actually happening through the negotiating period to the point where it is impossible to impact the outcome of the process. We have to have a better system than that. I quite believe that Vladimir Putin does not want to publish his impact assessments, but we are not Russia: we are an open democracy and should trust the people to use the information that is made available to them responsibly. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, it is not my job to do this but the House needs to move on. We should hear from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and then go the Front Benches.
Baroness Finn
My Lords, I do not see the need for any requirement for impact assessments in the Bill, because the need does not arise. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said, the Bill is not taking us out of the EU but simply enabling the Government to trigger Article 50. There is no impact to assess from that enabling. This is not the place to get into detail over the negotiations or the structures around them, and it is vital that we do not bind the Government, either administratively or legally, in their negotiations, because that will only undermine their ability to get the best possible deal for the country.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that my noble friend Lord Blencathra was being cynical about impact assessments, but I dealt with a number of impact assessments when I worked in government and was frequently frustrated by their lack of accuracy. This was in part due to the lack of management information in government departments. Non-executive directors of government departments appointed from outside the Civil Service were often shocked by the poor quality of the information on which decisions were based. My noble friend Lord Maude, who I see in his place, made valiant attempts to improve the quality but I fear there is still a long way to go. Just last week, my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin criticised the quality of advice from civil servants, in particular expressing the concern that not enough of their advice was factually based. My concern is therefore a general one about the utility of such impact assessments.
The other point I was going to make, which I think has already been made, is that impact assessments are inherently driven by a number of assumptions and predictions. I do not want to labour the issue, but various predictions made about the immediate consequences of Brexit—not only by Her Majesty’s Treasury but also by the IMF, the IFS, the OECD and the Governor of the Bank of England—failed to materialise. My concern is that impact assessments could well be of dubious quality and accuracy. On that basis, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, I do not know what the Conservatives are worrying about. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, saying the same thing again and again. We need to have open government, as my noble friend Lord Kerslake has just pointed out. We are helping the Government by moving probing amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, has given a direct reply and that should surely be satisfactory. I am not going to waste too much time but will speak about developing countries, because I believe we should have an impact assessment relating to the effects on those countries. I have spoken to the Minister and know that he is kindly going to reply to this. I will be as quick as I can and will not repeat what I said at Second Reading.
Amendment 28 reflects my concern about the effects of withdrawal on the least developed countries and countries recovering from conflict. I have consulted the Overseas Development Institute and Traidcraft, the experts in this field. I know one of the answers the Minister will give is that we really cannot tell what the effects will be in numerical terms at this point. It might be of interest to him that the ODI estimates that the least developed countries could lose approximately £323 million annually if current preferential access in the UK is discontinued.
I accept that there will be pluses and minuses. On the one hand we may be sacrificing the interests of the ACP countries that currently benefit from their association with the EU, especially the smaller states and islands that are vulnerable to climate change. On the other hand, some countries—sugar cane producers, for example—will have suffered from the EU’s protection of its own markets and may well want us to abandon fortress Europe in favour of bilateral agreements through the WTO, or a new version of the generalised system of preferences, and I accept that.
But not yet knowing the maths does not mean that we can take no action. The interests of LDCs have not been mentioned in any of the documents relating to withdrawal. The Government must surely undertake a review of some kind and assess whether these countries will be damaged; how we respond to that must be part of the negotiations. We may well have to introduce or reintroduce aid policies to make up for any losses in trade and investment. Aid agencies generally see fair trade agreements as more beneficial than aid, but they fear that Brexit will mean new free trade agreements or EPAs that could disadvantage poorer countries. They would like to see trade policies which are linked to the sustainable development goals, so crafted that they are lined up with those countries’ own objectives. I quote Sir Simon Fraser’s Tacitus lecture. He said,
“these EU trade agreements are vital for their development goals. The UK will no longer be able to champion their access to the EU market as we have in the past. We have a moral responsibility to address the concerns of these countries, which illustrate how Brexit may have unforeseen repercussions well beyond Europe”.
Finally, I mentioned security and enlargement in eastern Europe, another area in which we may need to use our aid programme to make up for shortfalls left behind. NATO membership will not be enough. If we withdraw from the EU the economies in those countries will suffer. We need to know the effect of our withdrawal on aid programmes as well.
These are my concerns and it is not asking a lot of the Government to say that they need to make some assessment. We have a considerable reputation as a trading and aiding nation and we must take care not to damage our relations with countries that respect our values and traditions, both in the Commonwealth and in the rest of the world.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, it is getting late and I will therefore try to be brief. First, I congratulate the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who put their names to the various amendments in this group, because probing amendments are an entirely appropriate part of our process. Every one of these amendments reflects an underlying anxiety that exists in different sectors and in different regions of our country. People engaged in activities, from universities to working with less developed countries, feel that their issues are not being considered by the Government at this crucial time as they choose to trigger Article 50 and that, if those issues are not considered at this time as the Government consolidate their negotiating position, they will never be properly considered anywhere in this process, so I see this as entirely appropriate.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I fear that this is an entirely spurious argument. We have wonderful Select Committees in this House which have produced outstanding reports; we have had debate after debate on these matters; we have opportunities for many other such debates; and we have other legislation coming. What we have before us is a one-clause Bill. We have had seven hours of debate and we are on only the fifth group of amendments. We have probing amendments which people say they have no intention to carry. There are other fora in this House to have those kinds of discussions. We should get on with delivering what the people and the House of Commons have asked us to deliver.
Baroness Kramer
I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that there is a real difference of opinion within this House. For many, the point at which Article 50 is triggered is one at which they need that reassurance, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board because we have quite a range of amendments that have come forward. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, stands rather separately because it focuses on issues around the regulation and enforcement of environmental protection under whatever will be the new regime. However, nearly all the other amendments call for an impact assessment because there are regions of the country and sectors of our economy that are concerned that the Government have not taken their issues on board and do not understand the impact that the shape of their negotiations will have on those regions and sectors. My noble friend Lord Shipley is exactly right to say that the Government have thought that impact assessments were entirely appropriate for some sectors and regions, including London, the region that is closest to my heart. That does not mean that the same degree of attention, engagement and dialogue is not necessary for other parts of the country and those many varied sectors. As I say, I hope the Government will take that very much to heart.
Lord De Mauley
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, told us earlier of a specific example of where our impact assessment was completely different from that of the EU.
Baroness Kramer
You can have differences, but the point is that those differences become relevant in the process of negotiation. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out that by being clear about our impact assessment we gained strength and opportunity and were able to position ourselves far more effectively in the negotiation. As someone who has spent a lifetime in negotiation, one thing that bothers me is constantly hearing negotiation discussed as if it were some sort of poker game. It is not; it is a grown-up activity. Making sure that our negotiators fully understand where they stand and what the issues are, and that that is done best by transparency, is fundamental. I say to those who simply dismiss the idea that we need to deal with our weaknesses as well as our strengths that that strikes me as just an extraordinary situation. If we do not recognise, discuss and understand our weaknesses, I do not know how we will put together a negotiating position.
I am not going to continue because these are only probing amendments. I look very much to the Government to take on board the underlying message, which is that many parts of the country and many sectors feel disengaged. The Government have said that they have certain priorities. When I talk to those in the financial services industry, they say, “We’ve been guaranteed top priority. Others will be sacrificed for us”. If that is the message, it is one that leaves people genuinely, and appropriately, worried. That discussion has to take place; we need to know on what basis all this will move forward.
Impact assessments are a normal part of a normal process. Transparency around such assessments is also a normal part of that process. I hope that the Government will recognise that and not try to pretend that they are entering into a poker game rather than a mature negotiation.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 22, on impact assessments, seeks to put us on a level playing field with the Government. We want the information that has already been published—the impact assessments that may have taken place, or have taken place, since the referendum in the various departments listed: nothing more, nothing less. Others have commented on other areas of the work of the European Union where we stand to suffer a loss, and they are right to make those comments. They referred to the north-east, the environment, equalities and so on.
In the Commons the big issue was how to deal with confidentiality. We have made provision for that by the subsection of the proposed new clause in Amendment 22 that defines the right of the Government to hold back from publishing anything that they feel would harm our negotiating position in any way, for any reason, and to restrict it to a few wise heads. We do not even define how that should happen. It could be on Privy Council terms or whatever other terms the Government wanted. That seems to me an entirely sensible way to proceed. I shall not detain the House any longer, but I ask the Minister to respond to these requests in the spirit in which they have been made. These are probing amendments, which we expect to be useful, and we look forward to a positive outcome to the discussion.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I, too, shall try to keep things brief. To pick up on what the noble Lord just said, I share the motive that I believe genuinely and sincerely underpins many of the amendments, which is to ensure that Parliament has the means to scrutinise the negotiations as they proceed. Obviously, that is the subject of the next group of amendments, which we want to get on to, but let me say now that the challenge that we—that is, Government and Parliament—face is to get the balance right between providing enough information to enable scrutiny and ensuring that our negotiating position is not revealed.
I would argue that some of the amendments fail that test, as they would expose the Government’s negotiating position. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others spoke about business and business experience, and I have to say that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this point. We have had many amicable discussions but I disagree with her on this. I see it as a cardinal rule of any negotiation not to tell those on the other side of the table how much certain scenarios and outcomes would cost or benefit you—but that is what the publication of an impact assessment would do. I fully accept that Amendment 22, which the noble Lord just mentioned, accepts that an impact assessment could be kept confidential. The whole matter of sharing information is the subject of the next group. All I would say at this stage is that this Bill is not the vehicle to insert conditions on negotiations.
Since the referendum the Government have indeed been undertaking rigorous and extensive analysis work to support our exit negotiations, to define our future partnership with the EU and to inform our understanding of how EU exit will affect the UK’s domestic policies and frameworks. This includes analysis of what it means right across the UK, including regional analysis. I realise that this House and the other place are obviously eager to know more. So let me repeat to your Lordships what I and my fellow Ministers have said before—I am thinking specifically of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when I say this. If and when we believe we can share further information, we will—so long as it does not undermine our negotiating position. We will ensure that our Parliament receives at least as much information as the European Parliament.
Let me now address some specific points that were raised. Amendment 27 refers to the Equality Act 2010 and protected characteristics. We are of course aware that exiting the EU will herald change in a whole host of ways. I can assure the House that all the protections covered in the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010 will continue to apply once the UK has left the European Union. The UK is already well placed to continue championing equality, thanks in part to the legal protection assured by the Equality Acts.
The public sector equality duty requires public authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between people who share protected characteristics and those who do not. We will continue to comply with our legal obligations under that Act.
I agree with the sentiments of Amendments 13, 14 and 15. The UK is fully committed to remaining an international leader on environmental co-operation. As part of the great repeal Bill, we will bring current EU law, including the current framework of environmental regulation, into domestic British law. As my noble friend pointed out, any changes to it would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval. However, this is not the time to set down in statute anything on environmental regulation.
As to the Aarhus convention, this is a United Nations agreement to which the UK is a party in its own right, meaning that the convention will continue to apply to the UK after we leave the EU. Many of those convention obligations are currently implemented through EU law, which, as I say, will be converted into domestic law.
Amendment 28 refers to the impact of withdrawal on the UK’s trade, security and aid policy towards developing and post-conflict countries. As I have said, leaving the EU does not, and cannot, mean the UK turning its back on Europe or the rest of the world. We will continue to face the same global challenges. We want to work with our partners in Europe and elsewhere to alleviate suffering and hardship. Doing so is not just in our national interest, it is the right thing to do. Therefore, we aim to enhance our strong bilateral relationships with our European partners and beyond, projecting a truly global UK across the world. As your Lordships will know, we are one of only a handful of countries in the G20 that has pledged to, and delivered on, spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid, and the UK will continue to be one of the most important global actors in international affairs.
As to trade, to which the noble Earl referred, the UK’s exit from the EU creates a major opportunity to send a positive signal that our markets are open and that we wish to forge new trade deals with nations across the world, both developed and developing. I know that this House and the other place will wish to debate this in the months to come. My door remains open to the noble Earl and others to discuss this. However, once again, now is not the time, and this Bill is not the place, to commit to publishing a report on this prior to notifying under Article 50.
Amendments 9 and 6 call for impact assessments on the individual regions of the UK to be published before we trigger Article 50. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that I and my fellow Ministers in other departments regularly talk to local government and regional organisations about a whole range of issues as we are completely committed to securing a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom. To illustrate that, my Minister of State met the chairman of the Local Government Association in January and will hold further regular meetings. He has held a joint meeting with the Local Government Associations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are monthly meetings hosted by the DCLG, including representation from local government, the local enterprise partnerships, the National Housing Federation and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. On top of that, my Secretary of State is already committed to bringing together the northern elected mayors for a summit in York in the summer, to which the mayors of Liverpool, Greater Manchester, Tees Valley and Sheffield will be invited. So we are very engaged. If the noble Lord or the noble Baroness wish to meet me to discuss this, and have further ideas on how we can do more, I am all ears.
As regards funding, all I can say is that where we can we will give as much certainty as possible. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has confirmed that the Government will guarantee EU funding for structural and investment fund projects, including agri-environment schemes, signed before, and which will continue after, we have left the EU. Funding for projects will be honoured by the Government if they meet the two following conditions: they are good value for money and in line with domestic strategic priorities. However, when considering this amendment, I repeat the point I made earlier that such a publication of regional impact assessments would not serve to strengthen our negotiating position, any more than a general impact assessment would.
While I understand the wish and desire for more information, the Government cannot, and will not, do anything to undermine our negotiating position. We will not accept conditions being attached to a Bill that has a very simple purpose—to deliver on the result of the referendum. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, as I made clear from the outset, my amendment and, I believe, others in this group simply sought to raise issues that we feel it is important for the Government to consider, even at this early stage. I am glad that the majority of contributions to this debate show that that purpose was worth while. I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that I and others would like to take up his offer of further dialogue on these important issues. I hope, too, that he and his officials will look at some of the points raised in this debate that he has not been able to answer in his wind-up speech and perhaps write to us on those important subjects. Having said that, and repeating that it was a series of probing amendments, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Warner
“( ) Within a period between 9 and 12 months from the date of a notification under section 1, the Prime Minister must lay before each House of Parliament for their approval a report on progress on withdrawal negotiations with the EU that covers progress on—(a) future trading relationships with the EU, and an assessment of the implications of likely changes in those relationships for the major United Kingdom industries and sectors;(b) future arrangements for the movement of citizens of the EU and the United Kingdom between each other’s territories;(c) the cost and make-up of the exit charge to be paid by the United Kingdom to the EU;(d) the likely implications of these negotiations for the devolved administrations, especially the border between Ireland and the United Kingdom; and(e) such other matters the Prime Minister considers should be included.”
Lord Warner
My Lords, we come at this late hour to an important group of amendments, which provide for greater parliamentary oversight of the withdrawal negotiations. I support all these amendments but I will contain my remarks to Amendment 8 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Oates.
As I hope I have made clear already, I am not seeking to delay the start of the negotiations but I believe strongly that there must be statutory provision for much greater parliamentary oversight of the negotiations before we reach the end game than the Government have so far been willing to accept. Amendment 8, rather kindly, lets the Government get on with the negotiations after Article 50 is triggered for about half the two-year period provided for in Article 50. That is in part because I am not convinced from what I have seen from both the EU’s and the Government’s likely approaches that much will be settled that quickly.
However, as we approach—if I may put it this way—the half-time period in this game, I suspect there will be more goalmouth scrambles and possibly even a goal, but I am less than sure of the net. Some time after nine months and before 12 months from the triggering of Article 50, this amendment requires the Prime Minister to lay before both Houses of Parliament for their approval a progress report on the withdrawal negotiations. It specifies four key areas that must be covered in the report: future trading relationships for the major UK industries and sectors; future arrangements for the movement of EU and UK citizens between each other’s territories; the cost and make-up of the exit charge to be paid by the UK; and the likely implications for the devolved Administrations. The amendment enables the Prime Minister to add to the report any other aspects of the negotiations she wishes and to decide when within the three-month period she reports to Parliament. But return she must and secure Parliament’s approval of the progress that has been made—or not, as the case may be.
The reason for this amendment is the deep scepticism many of us have about the capacity of the Government to secure a satisfactory outcome from these negotiations that serves the best interests of the UK. As I said on Amendment 3, there are widespread concerns about the Government’s approach to the negotiations, even among those who voted to leave on 23 June. Some of those people are saying to me and to others that they would not have voted to leave if they had realised how the Government were going to go about the withdrawal negotiations, particularly the withdrawal from the single market and the customs union. Announcing that decision up front has only increased those anxieties and concerns and made people wonder what other mischief the Government will get up to in the negotiations.
I believe that there are big question marks over the quality and quantity of the UK’s negotiating capacity. If I may say so, there has been a great deal of swagger and bravado from Ministers and their parliamentary supporters about the strength of their hand and how much the EU needs the UK, together with the glittering array of trading opportunities that await us once we are out of the EU. I have not noticed that optimism being shared by many of the expert trade or EU negotiators. Most of the stories that have appeared have been about the lack of Whitehall’s preparedness for the leave negotiations and the shortage of skilled negotiators available to the Government. There is no crack negotiating team just waiting to be helicoptered over the English Channel in the best traditions of the SAS.
We should be extremely cautious about allowing the Government to effectively bypass Parliament on these negotiations until it is too late to do much about an unsatisfactory outcome other than reject the deal. That is why, when we come to it, Amendment 17 on parliamentary approval of the outcome of the negotiations will be so important, and I shall certainly support it.
However, I suggest that it is not sufficient to rely simply on Amendment 17, important though it is. Parliament needs to be more clearly and statutorily involved in the withdrawal negotiations at a much earlier stage and to be able to sound warning bells if things seem to be going seriously off piste. That is why I hope something like Amendments 8 or 18 will be agreed before the Bill leaves this House. I am not a proud author. If Amendment 18 is liked more, I shall be happy to support it.
I suggest that if I were in the Prime Minister’s shoes—although perhaps that is not a very good metaphor—I would be secretly pleased that a load of parliamentarians were overseeing these negotiations and some of the likely deals that might have to emerge at some stage before the end game. I suggest that that would give her a bit more political cover if things were going a little awry and were not where she wanted them to be. Therefore, I think that this is a helpful amendment for the Government and I hope the Minister will consider it carefully. I beg to move.
Lord Oates
My Lords, given the late hour, I shall speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the amendment he has just moved. Many of us have been deeply shocked by the approach that the Government have chosen to take post the referendum. Clearly, none of us in this part of the House was happy with the referendum result, but some of us thought that with a new Government we had a grown-up as a Prime Minister and that the approach taken would be sensible, measured and thoughtful. However, I am afraid that since 23 June the evidence has been absolutely in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is particularly important that Parliament has a proper role in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, has set out some of the key points of the amendment relating to our trading relationships, the movement of citizens, the potential exit charge and the implications for the devolved Administrations. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has said a number of times, including recently, that the Bill is not the place to constrain the Government’s negotiating position, but I think many of us here want to ensure that Parliament has a role in constraining because we are so alarmed at what has taken place since 23 June. I am afraid that scepticism has been caused by the Government’s actions, and they have only themselves to blame for that. I think the Government, Parliament and the whole process would benefit from proper information being provided to Parliament so that we can assess this process as it goes on and do not just get to a cliff edge at the end, finding the catastrophic position that some people outlined in earlier debates. On that basis, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I support Amendment 18. All these negotiations are going to be complex and long and for the Government to expect a respite from parliamentary scrutiny would be quite wrong. If we have a commentary it will also raise the likelihood of Parliament accepting the outcome, because there is nothing worse than something being sprung on you. My noble—I was going to say my noble enemy, but my noble opponent—the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said earlier that the leavers had actually come round to the thought that if we lost the referendum, we would accept the result, and I think that that is partly because we talked through those things, we actually thought about it. It will be true for the EU negotiations as well that if the Government give as much information as they possibly can then the whole nation is more likely to accept what has happened.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, I oppose this amendment partly on the basis that we do not need to put it in the Bill and partly because I think I have heard my noble friend say on countless occasions that we will have scrutiny after scrutiny in this House and, no doubt, in the other place. We have no legislative requirement at the moment to scrutinise the EU. Does the Minister have at his fingertips, or will he be able to tell us in his reply, how many Oral Questions we have had answered on this? We seem to have one on the Order Paper every day on an EU issue. Half the Order Papers have Written Questions on the EU. We have some excellent Select Committee reports from our Select Committees—we seem to debate one every week—and we have countless other debates. We are having more scrutiny that I think we can cope with.
My worry is that once we trigger Article 50 this House will have nothing much to do next year. The other place will start with the great repeal Bill. All we will have will be the EU retaliating immediately after we have put in our bid and saying, “We are not having any of that nonsense—we want £50 billion, thank you”. We will have German and French elections—the Dutch elections may be over by then—and we will have information coming from Europe which will be from politicians and will not be helpful. All we will have, in the other place and in this place, will be colleagues rushing in, demanding Urgent Questions, putting down Motions here, there and everywhere, demanding ministerial Answers.
Lord Warner
If the noble Lord reads my amendment he will see that the Government will actually have a clean bill of health for at least a year before they need to come back to Parliament on any of these issues.
Lord Blencathra
Exactly what I was about to say was, if we could have these amendments where we will have an annual report, or a quarterly report, I think I would be happier to have that, in a structured form, agreed between the Government, the usual channels and the Select Committees, so we could have proper, structured debates on good nuggets of EU information, rather than the daily panics we are about to have as colleagues from all sides and in the other place, rush in demanding Urgent Questions on every rumour and scare story which comes from Europe. I do not think that we need to put in the Bill that we are going to have scrutiny: we can do scrutiny at the moment—we may be doing too much of it. Let us try to structure it so as to have sensible debate over the next two years.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, oddly, I am in the very strange position of mildly disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but certainly disagreeing with Amendment 18. I commented in my Second Reading speech that I felt that anything that added to uncertainty was very bad news and that uncertainty where commerce was concerned was bad news because that was the root of our prosperity and gave us our services that we need so dearly. I felt that uncertainty for people was particularly bad. We have had lots of uncertainty for people; we talked about the people of Northern Ireland this evening and there are lots of other people as well.
The other thing I said was how powerful our Select Committees are. I sit, as I remind the House, on the European Union Select Committee. We have already delivered, since Brexit, 10 reports for debate in eight months and there are a further seven reports for debate coming along. Tomorrow, I am sitting in a meeting talking about other reports that will come up before the anniversary.
Amendment 18 reckons that there should be one debate every quarter. I cannot believe that that is right. The Select Committees are serving up things for the House at a good rate and we are completely impartial. We are of this House and as and when we identify matters that need to be debated, boy are we down there like a rat down a hole. We make sure that the relevant people come before the House and the full expertise of the House can be brought to bear. Putting in place a structure like this makes the work of the Select Committees more difficult. It makes it more difficult for us to get Ministers, their staff and others before us answering sometimes more than two hours of tough questioning from people who are intelligent and engaged in what is going on. It would shut down opportunity to debate in this House were we to support Amendment 18. We should not fetter the House at all.
It is not only the Select Committees that will keep the Government right. One year after the end of this process, of course, there will be an election. If the Government are not right, they will be flung out. Accordingly, the best way of handling this is not to have formal structures, quarterly meetings or any of the other things in these amendments, but to rely on the strength of our own wonderful system of Select Committees. We should use them and the threat of being thrown out at the next election to make sure that the Government are fully held to account in this difficult process which will require all of us to co-operate.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 24 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lea. In the last grouping, I thought that the response of the Minister to my noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Jones on the issues that they raised was very helpful. As we are in Committee, it is reasonable for us to be able to probe issues of concern to us and I hope that we will be able to continue to do that. Amendment 24 asks the Minister whether the Government have considered what will happen to these 22 different agencies—there are probably an awful lot more—with a very wide remit. We will be talking about some of them such as Euratom on Wednesday. What do the Government think will happen to these agencies? It would still be possible under certain circumstances for the UK to be represented on some of these agencies, depending on the future structure of and our relationship with Europe.
What I get from discussions with many different organisations—some of the ones listed here, particularly the railway ones, but quite a few others—is the uncertainty. Manufacturers and the industry are worried about it. My noble friend Lord Mandelson spoke about this earlier. This is to do with standards and who administers them and it affects whether or not a piece of equipment can be sold or operated within the EU.
I hope that the Government have started thinking about all these agencies. They obviously have about some of them because the medical agency has already decided to leave, which is very sad. But each one is a fairly major agency in its own right and affects a lot of people’s jobs and businesses. So I would be very pleased to hear from the Minister what thought has been given to this. I cannot believe that any of it is really confidential, but I look forward to hearing his comments.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I support this amendment. A good case was made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and my noble friend Lord Oates. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made a very good case for structured scrutiny instead of ad hoc questioning. That is exactly what these amendments do. I cannot see what objection there could be to laying down the parameters for progress reports or access to documents, as proposed in Amendment 18. Today we heard a second former Prime Minister give a very interesting speech. John Major said he has watched with concern as the British people have been led to expect a future that seems unreal and overoptimistic. He urged the Government to be realistic about the timescale and complexity of the huge undertaking that lies ahead. Those are wise words. I thought that the words of Tony Blair were wise, too. It is funny what kind of alliances one is forging in these times.
Such warnings should be heeded. The complexity of the task demands the kind of scrutiny and reassurance that would come from regular reporting. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who contributes so wisely on the EU Select Committee and, indeed, on the same sub-committee that I do. Select Committee inquiries and reports are very different because they are on certain topics and issues. They are not the same as regular reporting on the progress of negotiations and the detail of what exactly our relationship is going to be with all the agencies listed in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
We on these Benches believe that it is very important to lay down an overall framework covering the regularity and content of reports and knowledge of documents. We have heard pledges from the Secretary of State that the Westminster Parliament will not be treated any worse than the European Parliament—a scenario evoked by my noble friend Lord Teverson. There cannot be any objection to the Government agreeing these kinds of parameters.
Lord Lennie
My Lords, in Amendment 18 we seek a quarterly report on the position that the Government have reached in negotiations across the European Union. It is quarterly rather than bi-monthly because the latter was dismissed by the Commons as being rather too frequent—so it was looked at and extended. We want to make sure that we are at least as well informed in this place as in the European Parliament by the provision of the public documents that are available there during this process.
The Government have now said that we will always be as well informed as the European Parliament, so now is the opportunity for them to prove that they mean what they say and confirm that this will be an acceptable way forward. It will not be sufficient to come back at the end of the process with a take it or leave it deal. Much, much more will be needed in the intervening period. The Government should properly recognise the expertise available in this place, which has been contributed partly today and partly in the debate that has already taken place—and which will also be contributed next week.
The technical agencies listed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, are essential working bodies. They are bodies that the Government volunteered to become part of; they exist because of the unanimity about their need to exist in the European Union. It therefore seems perfectly appropriate to ask what on earth happens when we leave the European Union to those affected by the work that these bodies undertake.
These are the two fundamental questions in the amendments and I ask the Government to agree to quarterly reporting and to publish a report about continuing co-operation with the agencies listed in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, restoring parliamentary sovereignty lay at the core of what the British public were seeking to achieve when they voted to withdraw from the EU, so it is right that Parliament must and shall play a key role in scrutinising and shaping our withdrawal. As I said in my remarks on the previous amendment, the issue is one of balance. Parliamentary scrutiny must not come at the price of exposing our negotiating position and jeopardising what is in the national interest. All the evidence suggests that we can find common ground on this issue and get the balance right.
The EU Committee of this House produced a report last autumn that noted:
“Parliament can make a significant contribution to the development of the Government’s thinking, using conventional means such as debates and Select Committee inquiries”.
However, it also got to the heart of the matter when it acknowledged that scrutiny cannot jeopardise our national interest, saying:
“We agree with the Government … that Parliament should not seek to micromanage the negotiations. The Government will conduct the negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom, and, like any negotiator, it will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure a good outcome”.
It is worth remembering that this is something that the other place agreed with overwhelmingly when it was put to a vote on 12 October last year. Furthermore, it should be noted that this approach is shared by the European Commission itself. Its factsheet on EU trade negotiations states:
“A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the EU”.
Before I turn to the amendments, let me set out some of the steps that the Government have taken and will continue to take to ensure that Parliament is able to scrutinise Brexit. I start by answering a question asked by my noble friend Lord Blencathra about what I have done since Brexit. Since 23 June, I have given six Statements to your Lordships; my noble friends and I have taken part in four debates and answered 18 Oral Questions, which shows my willingness—I enjoy every minute of it—to deliver on this commitment. Along with that, Ministers in my department, myself included, have made no fewer than 13 Select Committee appearances. We believe that this approach is better than the one suggested in Amendment 18 for reasons that I will come on to.
We will continue to support and welcome the Take Note Motion debates that will tackle the most difficult aspects of our withdrawal, as well as the debates that emanate from the Select Committee reports referred to by the noble Earl and produced across Parliament. We are also continuing the programme of debates in government time in the other place. DExEU Ministers will also continue to appear at the EU Committee after every European Council and General Affairs Council, in addition to the Prime Minister giving a Statement in the other place, and my noble friend the Leader in this House, after every European Council. Ministers from across the Government will continue to give evidence at Select Committees on a wide range of withdrawal-related issues. Over and above this, we will also deliver on our commitment to ensure that this Parliament gets as least as much information as the European Parliament.
Parliament’s role goes beyond scrutiny, a point that I would say the noble Lord, Lord Warner, somewhat underplayed, for Parliament will also be a decision-maker. The Government will bring forward a Motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. Parliament will also shape the legislation required to give effect to our withdrawal from the EU, including the Bill to repeal the ECA and the legislation that will be required for any significant policy changes. For example, we have said that we expect to bring forward separate Bills on immigration and customs, plus a programme of secondary legislation to address deficiencies in the preserved law. So we entirely accept the spirit of the amendments before us today.
However, there are several reasons why the Government cannot accept them. Some are superfluous in that what they are seeking to achieve while others are prohibitively inflexible or prohibitively broad, but most important of all, none of them is relevant to this Bill which has a sole purpose: to trigger the process by which we leave the European Union. Let me expand briefly on these points.
As regards Amendment 18, I recognise the desire to formalise a timetable for scrutiny of negotiations, but it is much better that the Government should come back to this House at the point at which they have something significant to update noble Lords on, and as I have said, we have shown our willingness to do that. Amendments 8 and 24 will delay us from triggering Article 50 until the Government have reported to Parliament about how the UK will continue to co-operate with some 16 agencies or institutions. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is right to highlight the importance of these agencies. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss them all. They are very important and flagged in the White Paper. But, looking at the words of the amendment, I argue that many people want us to get on with the negotiations. I do not think they want us to hang around while the Government produce reports on agencies such as the Community Plant Variety Office, even though we are a nation of gardeners.
Other amendments are problematic because they force us to reveal what should remain confidential and may well still be under negotiation. Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, requests Parliament’s approval on a report about the progress of the negotiations some nine to 12 months after we have notified. It includes an impact assessment on how trading relationships with the EU will affect UK industries and sectors, and a report on the cost and make-up of the exit charge to be paid by the UK to the EU. It also says that these reports should be made for Parliament’s approval, meaning that the Government could be committed to an outcome from negotiations before we are able to judge what might be deliverable. Plainly, the Government cannot accept such prescription. Doing so would fall foul of the very concern that the Select Committee of this House raised: micromanagement and restricting the Government’s room for manoeuvre.
The Government entirely accept the need for parliamentary scrutiny, but these amendments are unnecessary or detrimental and have nothing to do with the purpose of the Bill, which is to deliver on the referendum result and to allow the Government to trigger Article 50. I therefore ask that noble Lords do not press them.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It does not totally surprise me what his attitude is towards this, but the idea that there is one report back to Parliament half way through a two-year negotiating period hardly seems micromanagement of the Government’s negotiations. Some would say that I have been rather kind in waiting for nine to 12 months before we got that report back. I will certainly read the Minister’s comments and consider what has been said, but there is an issue about how we take an overall look at the negotiations at a reasonable period after they have started, but before we reach the end game. I will talk to other colleagues before Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.