House of Commons
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Yemen is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 21 million people in need of aid. The crisis will lead to famine unless all sides allow immediate commercial and humanitarian access throughout the country. The UK is playing a leading role in the current humanitarian and diplomatic response.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I also welcome them to their position and wish them all the very best.
At the Select Committee on Defence two weeks ago, General Sir Richard Barrons stated that
“intelligent, thoughtful officials like the National Security Adviser are looking at the £62 billion we spend on aid, diplomacy and defence and wondering if they can get a mix out of that.”
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the balance is being struck between the United Kingdom’s tax receipts for sales to Saudi Arabia for it to flatten Yemen and the money that we are spending on development aid to rebuild Yemen?
Penny Mordaunt
We have been very clear that although we understand the coalition’s security concerns, they are not incompatible with allowing food and other supplies into the country. A huge diplomatic effort is being made, led by the Prime Minister, and she is using her visit this week to press further still. There has been movement in getting some aid and commercial supplies through, but that will not be enough. We need to keep pressing, and that is what this Government will do.
Alison Thewliss
The Foreign Secretary met a range of international partners yesterday. Unfortunately, the communiqué from that meeting seemed to talk a lot more about weapons than about getting aid and commercial goods into Yemen. Will the Secretary of State tell me a bit more about what the UK Government are doing to get aid and commercial goods into the country? Aid agencies know that the country needs not just aid but commercial goods. Each day, 130 children are dying in Yemen. We cannot wait any longer.
Penny Mordaunt
The communiqué did speak about what we are doing. In addition to the diplomatic efforts, a large part of my time since I have been in post has been spent looking at the other possible options in order logistically to get what is needed to the people who need it. There are immense problems, but we are looking at plan B—what else we can do. The key thing, and the only way to get the full supplies in, is to open up those two ports, and that is what we are pressing for.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and am delighted to see her there. Given the vital need to get humanitarian aid into Yemen, will she confirm what work the UK Government are doing via the United Nations to secure this access, particularly given our role in the Security Council?
Penny Mordaunt
I have been in close contact with both the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, and the Secretary-General himself. We are all working together to impress upon the coalition the importance of getting in not just aid but, critically, commercial supplies. That has been the main thrust of our argument. Clearly, a political settlement is needed in the long term, and we are pushing for all partners to engage.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The situation for Yemen’s remaining Jews is harrowing, particularly for those outside the capital. What work is her Department doing to support the work of other Government Departments in helping to provide safe passage to other countries for these individuals?
Penny Mordaunt
We are extremely conscious of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East has been doing an enormous amount of work, looking at particular communities. There are enormous numbers of people—21 million—who are in an absolutely dire situation. As well as trying to get the immediate issues resolved, we must keep pressing for a political process and for all parties to engage with efforts of the UN’s Special Envoy.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It does not look as though the Prime Minister is being any more successful on this issue than she is on so many others. It really is a disgrace that although the Secretary of State’s Department is working on the humanitarian aspects by providing food and other aid to Yemen, we continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, which fuels the conflict. Where is the sense in that?
Penny Mordaunt
I understand the right hon. Lady’s concerns, but as I have said, while we do accept there are legitimate security concerns, that is entirely separate from, and should not be conflated with, preventing aid and commercial supplies from getting to a population. We are extremely concerned about the situation; we are extremely concerned that the coalition may be in breach of international humanitarian law, and I would refer her to the statement my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East gave on 7 November.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her new role. I heard what she just said, but on Sunday it emerged that the UK had been providing military assistance to Saudi Arabia to carry out military training as part of Operation Crossways. With the Foreign Secretary hosting Foreign Ministers from the region yesterday for talks, does the Secretary of State think that the UK’s military support and arms sales to Saudi Arabia are helping or hindering a political solution to the simply appalling and worsening humanitarian situation in Yemen?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady and other Members who have welcomed me to my post.
Although the UK military has provided training on targeting, to try to reduce civilian casualties, that has been entirely separate from the Saudi coalition’s actual campaign. We are trying to utilise the military-to-military contacts that we do have, which are deep, as part of our diplomatic process to try and get the coalition to realise that it must let aid into the two ports. We are also providing £1.3 million to help the UN’s verification and inspection mechanisms. If we can supply any practical support to give the coalition confidence that weapons are not coming in with aid, we will do that.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
Since 1988, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has been highly effective in leading international efforts that have reduced polio cases by more than 99%. Only 15 cases have been reported in 2017—in two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan—and we hope the last case will come through at the end of this year or early next year.
Luke Hall
I thank the Minister for that answer. May I also take the opportunity to welcome the leadership the Government have shown in the battle to eradicate polio from the face of this earth? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is exactly the sort of thing the great British public can get behind, support and welcome our aid being used for?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Eradicating polio will be one of the great global public health success stories. United Kingdom taxpayer support since 1988 has helped prevent 1.5 million childhood deaths, and 16 million people are walking today who would otherwise be paralysed. People across the UK can be proud—not least those who support the Rotary movement, because the Rotary movement worldwide has played an important part, and I thank my colleagues in the Sandy Rotary club for their efforts in this regard.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that what has marked out the fight against polio is its international nature, and that we should be pressing this same approach to tackling other diseases at the Commonwealth summit next year?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The use of United Kingdom funds to support things such as the Global Fund, which take part in international activity, and to strengthen global health systems is important. We have to work in partnership with others. The Commonwealth summit will provide a good opportunity to emphasise more of what we can do together.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Department on the work that is being done to help eradicate polio. However, there is a risk that it can return if inoculations do not take place. Will he use the opportunity of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next year to press the case for further inoculations across the Commonwealth?
Alistair Burt
We are working with those who are putting together the Commonwealth summit to make sure there is an ambitious agenda devoted to all aspects of life in the Commonwealth, including global health. My hon. Friend is right on immunisation: through the GPEI, the UK will immunise 45 million children against polio and save more than 65,000 children from paralysis each year, so there will be no let-up in immunisation and the fight to make sure polio is eradicated.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the Minister show the same level of commitment he has shown on the international level to the prevention and eradication of animal and livestock diseases—something that poses a grave threat to very rural constituencies such as mine?
Mr Speaker
Order. That is scarcely even tangentially related to the matter on the paper. What the hon. Gentleman is implicitly saying is, “I don’t really like this question, and therefore I’d like to propose the insertion of another in its stead.” It is ingenious to the point of being cheeky. A one-sentence reply of no more than 20 words from the Minister.
Alistair Burt
I will draw the attention of one of my hon. Friends in the Government to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)
We work continuously to improve the way we design, implement and monitor programmes. Spending money well, wisely and efficiently makes sense both because it is British taxpayers’ money and because it allows us to deliver better education, better healthcare and better nutrition for some of the world’s poorest people.
Lucy Allan
Greater transparency in how and where aid money is spent is vital to ensure public confidence. Will my hon. Friend champion the transparency agenda and ensure that aid to the Palestinian Authority does not fund radicalisation?
Rory Stewart
My hon. Friend’s question on the Palestinian Authority is for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, but the basic principle is clear. This is not just about transparency. Transparency is not an end in itself, but a means to achieving accountability. It is not just about getting the data out there; it is about making sure that people in the developing world can access the data, understand the data and use the data. We can improve only if we are challenged.
Alex Burghart
I welcome the Minister’s comments on accountability. My constituents raise value for money in aid spending with me on a regular basis. Does he agree that accountability to people in poor countries is essential in getting value for money?
Rory Stewart
Absolutely, and the challenge of accountability in the developing world is great. Here in Britain, where there is a free media and a lot of civil society, it is very easy, as we all know, for people to challenge a rail project or what is happening in a hospital. In the developing world, we need to invest in ensuring that we have the right kind of beneficiary feedback, because it is the people on the ground who know more, and we will improve only if we listen.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, the Select Committee on International Development published our first report of the Parliament on global education. I urge the Government to respond soon to our recommendation that we should fully fund replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education and to make that announcement as early as possible.
Rory Stewart
We will be announcing the refresh of our education policy early next year. The key thing, on which we agree absolutely with the Select Committee, is to drive up the quality of education. Attendance is right up, but far too many children are coming out entirely illiterate.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
Ninety five per cent. of all our education spending goes to public education. However, there is a place, particularly in some of the poorest and most remote parts of the world, for recognising that the private sector is filling with low-cost education a hole that the public sector sometimes cannot fill.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
What assessment has the Department made of the value for money of its spending in Bangladesh to help the Rohingya people, particularly given the Secretary of State’s recent visit to the area?
Rory Stewart
Our assessment is that our humanitarian assistance in Bangladesh, which at the moment amounts to more than £40 million, is carefully monitored and well spent. It is focused, above all, on providing shelter and protection, particularly protection against sexual violence in conflict.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
May I first welcome the Secretary of State to her new post? May I also welcome the Moderator of the Church of Scotland to the Gallery?
There is no greater value for money in aid spending than protecting the future of our natural world for generations to come. Following the UN COP23 talks earlier this month, which I attended, it is undeniable that we are reaching the tipping point of no return on climate change, and all nations agreed that we must go “further, faster, together”. Given that the Department for International Development is a major shareholder in the World Bank, which still spends much more on oil, gas and coal than on clean energy, will the Secretary of State give me her personal commitment that she will use all her powers of persuasion with the World Bank to ensure that it invests more in clean, safe renewables than in fossil fuels?
Rory Stewart
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this in the past, and I pay tribute to the work that he does on the environment. We are pressing the World Bank to do that, and that is one of the functions of the new financing facilities that we have established, but there is still a place for non-renewable energy generation, particularly to meet the desperate needs in Africa.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
One of the best ways to spend money is on malaria, as I have seen as chair of the all-party group on malaria. The “World Malaria Report” is released today, and it shows a worrying stalling in progress on malaria. Could my hon. Friend commit the UK Government to ensuring that as much as possible is done to make further progress?
Rory Stewart
That is a very important issue, in which the UK Government are proud to have invested heavily, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the US Government, who have done a lot on this. There is, I believe, an event in Speaker’s House immediately after this to commemorate some of the progress that is being made on malaria, but my hon. Friend is absolutely correct that this is an issue on which we need to do much more, and the fact is that progress is stalling.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role, and I look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State’s predecessor resigned because she was caught trying to give aid money to the Israeli defence forces. Securitisation and militarisation of the aid budget, which is supposed to go to the world’s poorest, seem to be the new normal under this Government. What are the Secretary of State’s plans on spending aid money on military and the police, and will the spending go up or down?
Rory Stewart
It is absolutely central to remember that we must address the root causes of poverty, and a lot of those lie in fragile and conflict-affected states. If we try to separate off the work we do on education, health and humanitarian assistance from the political and military drivers of conflict, we will never resolve these problems. But we absolutely take on board the fact that our prime responsibility is towards the poorest in the world. Our programmes on conflict are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. I would like to ask the hon. Lady: who made the 0.7% target? It is absolutely central that we do these things together.
Kate Osamor
I thank the Minister for his response, but new figures show that in 2016 aid spending on the £1 billion conflict stability and security fund increased by £27 million. That was spent mainly through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on propping up the military and police in places such as Bahrain, Ethiopia and Syria. With no scrutiny from DFID or Parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, how can we measure the impact? Does the Minister believe that this is value for money?
Rory Stewart
I absolutely believe it is value for money. There are currently 23 million people at risk of starvation in north-east Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. The reason why they are at risk of starvation is conflict. These are not natural disasters; they are driven by conflict. Unless we find political solutions to these conflicts, we will have 23 million people continuing to die throughout the world. We will not apologise for our approach, because it is a central part of our development policy.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
The Department is playing a leading role in the cross-government effort to tackle the scourge of modern slavery, and expanding our work in developing countries to tackle this barbaric crime. Our “work in freedom” programme has already reached over 380,000 women and girls in south Asia and the middle east.
Paul Masterton
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and I welcome her to her position. Saturday was International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Given that around 75% of victims of modern slavery are women, will she join me in paying tribute to campaigners and organisations across the country, including the Women’s Aid refuge in Barrhead in my constituency, for what they do to tackle this crime?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be very happy to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents for the work that they are doing. Modern slavery is something that many people across the country are concerned about. We should be proud that our country and our Prime Minister are leading the way, most recently in convening leaders at the UN to launch the call for action to end modern slavery, which now has 40 signatories.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
I have just returned from Bangladesh, where I saw for myself the Rohingya camp and heard from refugees of the horrific atrocities that they have endured. I applaud the generosity of the Bangladeshi Government and the people of Bangladesh, as well as British taxpayers and all who have donated to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal. Although every refugee has expressed the desire to return home, I have made it clear to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina that any returns must be voluntary, safe and sustainable. Those conditions are far from being met.
Stephen Gethins
As in Bangladesh and Burma, the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Yemen is a man-made one. The Secretary of State talked about having influence on the perpetrators of that conflict. With the tax take from arms sales now outstripping the level of aid, does she not think the time has come to stop arms sales to the combatants in that conflict?
Penny Mordaunt
I will say it for the third time: there are genuine security concerns on the part of the Saudi-led coalition, but that is entirely separate from the issue of allowing aid and commercial supplies into ports. We think that they can address their security concerns, and we are prepared to assist them in some measure to do that, but there is no excuse, legitimate though their concerns are, for stopping food and supplies getting to the individuals who need them.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: our NGOs are second to none. If we are going to continue to make our funds deliver, provide value for money and have the impact required, British NGOs still need to be delivering that aid. All this will be part of the negotiations, but I concur exactly with my right hon. Friend’s sentiments.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
Support to protect women and girls, whether in relation to education, sanitation or refugees, has been a significant part of the work DFID is doing. We are constantly in contact with UN agencies about what more can be done both for women in conflict and for women in developing countries, and that is a major part of DFID’s programme.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Alistair Burt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Reducing the transmission of infection is an effective way of decreasing the need for antibiotics. Our approach is to strengthen national health systems to address infection prevention and control, and this includes hygiene and sanitation in health facilities.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Alistair Burt
I am pleased to join the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the whole House, in commemorating World AIDS Day. We have been a long-term supporter of the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and we are the largest international funder of HIV prevention, care and treatment. From the £1.1 billion going into the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, 1.3 million retroviral drugs will be provided through the UK this year. There will be no let-up in the fight, and we are united on that. [Official Report, 4 December 2017, Vol. 632, c. 3-4MC.]
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)
I have recently returned from a visit to Zimbabwe. These are early days, and we need to watch very carefully what kinds of economic and political reforms are introduced by Mr Mnangagwa’s Government. However, if such reforms are forthcoming, there is a great deal that the British Government can do: first, in supporting governance reform; secondly, in supporting the business climate; and thirdly, in getting International Monetary Fund support for the Government of Zimbabwe.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Mr Speaker
Order. I hope the Secretary of State heard that question amidst the clubbable hubbub. It is very important that the question be heard, otherwise the hon. Lady will have to blurt it out again.
Penny Mordaunt
If this answer is not satisfactory because I did not hear the hon. Lady’s question, please will she let me know? We are looking to refresh a number of schemes, including the International Citizen Service, and at what healthcare professionals and other professions can offer with regard to aid while enhancing their own personal professional development.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
We have close discussions with our colleagues at the Department for International Trade. The trade and aid programme has enabled more than 40 countries to put development at the heart of their own plans.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I recently visited young Send My Friend to School campaigners at Sydenham School in my constituency. They spoke with great passion about the need for global education and why greater financing for education matters to them. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that this Government listen to those young people and show leadership by increasing funding for education through the Global Partnership for Education?
Alistair Burt
We were and are the largest founder contributor to the Global Partnership for Education. With 387 million children expected to leave primary school unable to read, there is no doubt that the continuing efforts of the United Kingdom, along with others in the partnership, are important. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, we will publish a refreshed education strategy early in the new year. The hon. Lady can be sure that strengthening education systems around the world, and supporting teachers and children who may be marginalised through missing out on education, will be key parts of that.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I recently visited some schools in Africa where, in classrooms of more than 100 pupils, those with special educational needs, right at the back, had very little chance of accessing education. How will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I congratulate her on her new position—prioritise disability support in education in developing countries?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject, which is very close to my heart. He will not have long to wait—perhaps it will be a matter of hours—for my first announcement on how the DFID budget will support disability.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Damian Green)
I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is abroad in the middle east furthering our interests in a region that is fundamental to our national security and prosperity.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our warmest congratulations to His Royal Highness Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and in wishing them every happiness in the future.
Today also marks the 100th anniversary of the creation of the RAF. The whole House will want to express our thanks for a century of service to this country.
Melanie Onn
I add my congratulations to those of the First Secretary of State to Prince Harry on his engagement.
Thanks to the outstanding efforts of the Labour-run North East Lincolnshire Council, the Government have included the Greater Grimsby project in their industrial strategy document, but we need more than a byline in a glossy magazine to make its potential a reality. When can we expect the Government to put their money where their mouth is, so that we can get going?
Damian Green
I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady welcomes the industrial strategy, as she should do. It will be good for Grimsby and many other communities around this country, particularly those that may feel that they have been left behind in the past. I am happy to assure her that the industrial strategy will come with money attached, as she will have heard in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget statement.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Damian Green
I can see that my hon. Friend is getting the hang of questions already. I am happy to assure him that we are committed to working with him, and indeed with the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, who is doing so much to help develop the area. We want to support him and the South Tees Development Corporation on the work they are doing on the long-term regeneration of the south Tees area. As he said, the Chancellor announced £123 million of new funding in the Budget, because we recognise the significant economic opportunities in the area.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Let me join the First Secretary of State in congratulating the RAF on its anniversary, and in congratulating Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their engagement—that is one Anglo-American couple that we in the Opposition will be delighted to see holding hands. I am sure that Prince Harry, as the patron of Rugby League, will be joining all of us in supporting the England team in the world cup final on Saturday—I, for one, will of course be waving my St George’s flag.
On a much sadder note, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to all those killed and injured in Friday’s horrific attack on the mosque in north Sinai. It is a bitter reminder that the vast majority of the victims of jihadi terror are Muslims.
Before I get on with my questions, can I ask the First Secretary of State about a simple point of principle? Is he happy to be held to the same standards in government that he required of others while in opposition?
Damian Green
Yes, I am. I think that all Ministers should respect and obey the ministerial code, and I absolutely think that is a very important part of confidence in public life. I also echo the right hon. Lady’s thoughts about the terrible events in Sinai. She might find it difficult to wave the St George’s flag, but I will be doing so for the English rugby league team. [Interruption.] As a Welsh rugby fan, I might find it even more difficult than she does.
Emily Thornberry
The First Secretary of State looked rather perturbed at my line of questioning, but he does not need to worry; I really am not going there. I was merely wondering whether he remembered the question he asked at Prime Minister’s questions almost 17 years ago, when John Prescott stood in for Tony Blair, and whether he could answer the same question today. The question was this:
“what percentage of the new nurses recruited in the past 12 months are now working full time?”—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 630.]
Damian Green
I cannot remember asking that question, but I would love to know what the then Deputy Prime Minister answered. I am happy to assure the right hon. Lady that we have more nurses, more midwives and more doctors working in the health service now. The health service is performing more operations now, and certainly more than it was 17 years ago. In particular, in the Budget last week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce more than £6 billion extra on health spending, which will make the health service even stronger in future than it is now.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response, but since he failed to answer my original question, I will do it for him. According to the Government’s latest figures, more than 40% of newly recruited nurses are leaving full-time employment within their first year. It is not just new recruits who are quitting; the overall number of NHS nurses and health visitors is down by 1,500 this year. The numbers are now lower than when this Government came to office. Why does he think that so many nurses are leaving?
Damian Green
There are, as I say, more operations being done, and more nurses, more doctors, more midwives. The health service is expanding. We have got 14,900 more doctors, 1,500 more medical school places each year and 10,000 more nurses on our wards, and we have announced an increase of more than 5,000 extra nurse training places every year. In addition, the Chancellor said in his Budget that we would commit to making sure that the nurses’ pay increase, the action for change—[Interruption.] The “Agenda for Change” staffing covered would not come out of other health spending. So nurses can be reassured that the Government will continue to support them both on pay and in terms of numbers. That is why our health service in England is getting better. If the right hon. Lady wants to look at a health service where things are getting worse, she can look to the Labour Government in Wales, and she does not need to take it from me; she can take it from the public, because public satisfaction with the NHS in Wales is lower than in England. That is the effect of a Labour Government on health services.
Emily Thornberry
I hate to break it to the First Secretary, but there are more nurses in the NHS than just those working in emergency and acute wards, including district nurses, the number of whom has halved under the Tories. And guess who picks up the slack if those nurses are not there? It is nurses in emergency and acute care. I asked why so many nurses were leaving the vocation they loved. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the top four reasons are excess workload, staff shortages, low pay, and worries about patient care. According to the Government’s own figures, the number of nurses quitting because of worries about their finances or health has doubled since the Tories first froze their pay. So let us get on to the question—the question he asked John Prescott 17 years ago. The First Secretary said then that nurses at his local hospital were warning that
“staff shortages are putting patients’ lives at risk”—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 630.]
What are those same nurses telling him today?
Damian Green
Since 17 years ago—and it is interesting that 17 years ago many years of Labour Government still lay ahead, with all the pressures the right hon. Lady has just exposed—the number of nurses in post has risen significantly. I did not quite understand her point about wards—she seemed to go on and off the wards—but we know that we have 10,000 more nurses on our wards, which is where people want to see them. Also, if she is interested in nurses’ pay, I hope that she will find it in herself to welcome the tax cut announced in the Budget—the increase in the personal allowance—which will help nurses, just as it will help workers across the public and private sectors. This is good news for nurses. The Budget was good not just for the health service but specifically for the nursing profession. As I say, I hope that she can bring herself to welcome that.
Emily Thornberry
I notice that the First Secretary did not want to talk about patient care at his local hospital. Could the reason be that his local accident and emergency department, according to the board’s most recent minutes, has
“Severe staff shortages in medical and nursing staff”,
meaning that patient safety is being put at risk, and the only option to tackle those shortages is to cancel outpatient clinics? And it gets worse: there is to be a public meeting tomorrow to consider closing his local A&E for good—in other words, all the things he has been denying. What are you doing to our NHS? It is happening on your own doorstep. Is it not about time he got a grip?
Damian Green
The right hon. Lady’s grasp of the facts is pretty shaky. The meeting tomorrow in my constituency is about the strategic transformation plan. [Interruption.]
Damian Green
I am happy to assure the right hon. Lady that I am entirely in favour of option 1 of that strategic transformation plan, which suggests not just leaving A&E services in the hospital in my constituency, but actually expanding specialist services there. I strongly suggest that she does not try to think she knows more about what is going on my constituency than I do.
Emily Thornberry
I suspect that neither the nation nor the First Secretary’s own constituents will have taken any reassurances from that answer. We have an NHS in the grip of a chronic funding and staffing crisis: GPs are quitting in record numbers; junior doctors are running A&E departments without supervision; our nurses are at breaking point—and all this is before the winter crisis that is coming. So let me finally ask him: what does it say about the Government’s priorities that last week’s Budget could only find £350 million to help the cash-strapped, stretched-to-the-limit NHS cope with the winter fuel crisis? [Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “Keep going.”] Only £350 million to cope with the winter crisis, but it was able to find 11 times that amount to spend on a no-deal Brexit. Is that not the very definition of a Government who are fiddling away while the rest of the country burns?
Damian Green
The right hon. Lady is determined to talk the NHS down. It is a Conservative Government who are increasing NHS funding so that it remains the best health service in the world, as the independent Commonwealth Fund has described it for the second year in a row. It is this party that promised and delivered more money for the NHS in 2010 and 2015, and in last week’s Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor promised it an extra £6.3 billion. That means more patients being treated, it means more operations being carried out by more doctors, and it means more nurses.
The right hon. Lady ended her remarks by saying that the Government were wasting £3 billion on preparing for Brexit. We now know that Labour Members do not think it is worth preparing for Brexit, but they do think it is worth preparing for a run on the pound. That is all we need to know about the Labour party.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Damian Green
I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend, and, indeed, with the wisdom of the Labour councillor who has joined the Conservative party. My hon. Friend is quite right. What we hear from Labour Members shows that a Labour Government would lose control of public finances and hike taxes to their highest ever peacetime level. I have discovered a new quotation—the shadow Chancellor called business “the enemy”. That is what the modern Labour party is about.
Let me also point out that the local councillor may just have moved in anticipation. I understand that moderate councillors are being deselected by the hard left of the Labour party.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I join the First Secretary in congratulating Prince Harry and Meghan on their engagement, and wish them a long life and happiness together? May I also welcome the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Right Reverend Derek Browning, who is with us in the Gallery today?
Will the First Secretary of State now tell the House how much money the UK Government have received from Saudi Arabia as a result of arms sales since the war in Yemen began?
Damian Green
I am afraid that I do not have the figure to hand. However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that our defence industry is an extremely important creator of jobs and prosperity, in Scotland as well as in other parts of the country. Obviously I am aware of the current terrible situation in Yemen, but he should also recognise that this country has one of the most rigorous and robust defence sales regimes in the world, as was recognised in a court case last July—and we are absolutely determined to maintain the most rigorous and robust system because that is the right thing to do, both for our prosperity and to ensure that we keep proper control of arms sales.
Ian Blackford
That was a long time to be unable to answer the question. I can tell the First Secretary that the UK Government have received £4.6 billion from selling arms to Saudi Arabia since the war in Yemen began—a war that has created a devastating humanitarian crisis. Yemen is now on the brink of famine, and UNICEF has said that 150,000 children will die by the end of the year. Does the First Secretary not agree that the best thing the Prime Minister can do in her meetings today is follow the example of the Netherlands and suspend licences for arms sales to Saudi Arabia to stop killing children?
Damian Green
I should correct something the right hon. Gentleman said: that the Government receive the money. It will be the companies that receive the money, and therefore their workers. He can take that position if he wants, and it was the Labour party’s position as well, but that would certainly entail significant job losses.
It is very important not only that we have the robust regime I talked about, but that we continue the humanitarian efforts that we make to try to alleviate the terrible conditions in Yemen. We are the fourth largest humanitarian donor to Yemen, and the second largest to the UN appeal. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the involvement of the Saudis in this conflict came at the request of the legitimate Government of Yemen and has UN Security Council backing. That is why we support it. This is a conflict supported by the UN Security Council, and I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have some respect for the Security Council.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know what a stout champion she is of the people of Taunton Deane. She is right about the housing infrastructure fund as well. We need more homes, but we also need the infrastructure to back them up, and that is why the Chancellor doubled the housing infrastructure fund in the Budget.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Damian Green
I do not recognise the characterisation of Kent County Council’s position that my constituency neighbour has expressed. All local authorities, as all parts of the public sector, have to live within their means, because we have to continue paying down the deficit run up by the previous Labour Government. Kent County Council is an extremely good county council that does many good things in transport and other fields for the people of Kent, and will continue to do so.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for decades now, the richer member states in the European Union have made large contributions to the EU budget because the macroeconomic benefits of belonging to the large free trade area of the single market make it a bargain to pay that share of the costs? Should we not therefore welcome the rumours in today’s press of a possible imminent settlement of the method of calculating future contributions, which may now enable us to get on with the serious negotiations about how we retain the maximum future access to all those benefits of that free trade?
Damian Green
My right hon. and learned Friend has been around long enough to know not necessarily to believe everything he reads in the newspapers, and it would clearly be wrong for me to go into figures now, but he is absolutely right that what we are about, and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is about, is making sure we get the best possible deal at this stage of the process, so we can move on to the trade talks. Britain, as a country that meets its international obligations, of course will, as it exits the EU, meet the obligations and have all the rights that we have in that process, so that we can maintain a deep and special partnership with the other 27 members of the EU, as we move forward in friendship and co-operation after we have left the EU.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Damian Green
I absolutely agree that this place as an institution and all the political parties need to improve complaints procedures and other aspects of the culture of politics to ensure that young men and young women who are interested in politics do not in any way feel deterred from playing an active role in it. There is a place for everyone in this House, on all sides and in all parties, and among the House authorities, to ensure that this is the best possible working environment for young people to come into.
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Many mothers in this Chamber know how hard childbirth can be, but we would never use that knowledge in a veiled threat against a journalist, in the way that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) did when being questioned by a Channel 4 journalist recently. As I assume that the First Secretary is not pregnant, will he please complete the work that that journalist tried to do, by asking the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn to use her influence with her aunt, who is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, whose regime is responsible for the kidnapping of Ahmad Bin Quasem, to ask for his release?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the First Secretary replies, I am sure that the—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) notified the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) of an intention to refer to her in this question—
Mr Speaker
She did not? Well, that was disorderly—[Interruption.] Order. Nevertheless, the question has been asked and it would be perfectly proper for the First Secretary briefly to reply.
Damian Green
Mr Speaker, you and the House will be aware that I can speak only on behalf of the Government. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) that Bangladesh remains an important human rights priority area for the Foreign Office and that we continue to raise allegations of enforced disappearances at all levels of the Government of Bangladesh. I think I should stop there.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government committed a sum of more than £1 billion to ensure that no one’s pension would be delayed more than 18 months from the original period. I am sure that he also, as a reasonable man, recognises that, with increasing longevity, it is inevitable that the pension age will rise. That is what this Government are doing, and by next year pension inequality will have been removed. We will hit 65 for both sexes next year, and that means that we will then have an equal pension system.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Royal Air Force is unique among the three services in having been established by an Act of Parliament, which received Royal Assent 100 years ago today. Will my right hon. Friend find time in his busy diary to join me and Members of both Houses and staff from throughout the Palace in celebrating the magnificent service that the RAF has given to this nation over that 100 years, at a unique parade in the atrium of Portcullis House at 7.30 this evening by the Queen’s Colour Squadron?
Damian Green
I have already mentioned the centenary today, and my hon. Friend is right to bring it up again. We cannot pay high enough tribute to the men and women of the RAF for a century of service that will go on for a long time into the future as well. I am glad that he has managed to get an advert in for the parade this evening in Portcullis House.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Damian Green
It is not really surprising that EU institutions are not going to be in a state that is not a member of the EU. That cannot come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. As for the capitals of culture, I rather agree with him. After British cities, including some in Scotland, were invited to be part of the process, it is extremely disappointing that the Commission has decided that they cannot apply. We are in urgent talks with the Commission about that, and we are ensuring that all the cities that applied can continue with their cultural development, which has been shown to be an extremely good basis for the regeneration of cities and towns across the United Kingdom.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
This Saturday, I will be announcing the winners of my annual local shop competition as part of Small Business Saturday. Will my right hon. Friend wish all Cannock Chase retailers the best of luck and will he congratulate the winners?
Damian Green
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating her retailers. Like many Members, I will be celebrating Small Business Saturday this weekend. It has become an extremely important part of the calendar. Supporting small business is absolutely at the heart of this Government’s economic strategy, and we should take every opportunity to celebrate the hugely important work that small businesses do in innovation, in entrepreneurship and in serving the people.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Damian Green
I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that this Government’s stance on knife crime is actually tougher than ever. We have made the punishment for repeat offenders stronger, and we have banned cautions for the most serious offences. There is now a very clear message: if you carry knives in public, you are more likely than ever to go to prison. The latest figures show that 42% of adult offenders were given an immediate custodial sentence—the highest rate in nearly a decade—so I hope that she can be reassured that this Government are actually being tougher on knife crime than any previous Government.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Does the First Secretary agree that we do not need to break into the computer or iPad of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to work out that the half a trillion pounds that he wants to borrow will attract £7.5 billion of interest payments every year?
Mr Speaker
Order. The one difficulty with that otherwise ingenious question is that it bears no relation to Government policy, for which the First Secretary is responsible, and relates instead to the policies of the shadow Chancellor, for which he is not.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Damian Green
Obviously, I cannot be aware of the individual issues in that case, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be happy to consider that case to see whether something needs to be done for Sharon.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I very much welcome the announcement of the borderlands growth deal, which is positive news for the border area. Can the First Secretary assure me that this initiative will receive sufficient resource to ensure its success?
Damian Green
I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the borderlands growth initiative. I have seen the many benefits of city deals and growth deals around all parts of the United Kingdom since I became First Secretary. The borderlands growth initiative is particularly important because it will show the mutual prosperity of his part of the north of England and the southern part of Scotland. All I can say is that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is the MP for a constituency in the southern part of Scotland, I know this deal will get particularly strict attention inside the Cabinet.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Damian Green
When the hon. Gentleman says that all Members of the House of Lords are begging for reform, he may not necessarily be representing the entire range of views in another place, but I am happy to assure him that the Government are looking very carefully at the proposal of the Burns committee. We will, of course, respond in due course.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour say what action the Government propose to take against Russian-backed agencies that are spreading fake news and disinformation? We know they have been doing it in our political campaigns, but there are also worrying reports that disinformation may be being spread on important issues such as accessing vaccines and the flu jab.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is right to raise cyber-security, which is an extremely important issue, and fake news and the dissemination of potentially dangerous information is one part of that. The National Cyber Security Centre is looking very hard at the issue, and it is taking a number of measures to combat it, some of which obviously have to remain private. I absolutely assure him that the issue is very high on the agenda of the National Cyber Security Centre, which is just over a year old and which is doing very good work in ensuring that the whole area of cyber-security is much better than it used to be.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Damian Green
I absolutely agree that this is a serious problem, and it is one of the reasons why housing was at the centre of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget.
Damian Green
I see the right hon. Lady has recovered her voice. I will tell her what we are doing. Last year we delivered more homes than were delivered in all but one of the last 30 years—217,000, which takes us to 1.1 million since 2010. Over the next five years we will invest £44 billion in home building, boosting the funding for council, social and low-cost housing to over £9 billion. We are building more social housing than the Labour Government did in their 13 years in office. We will build even more in the future. This is a Government who are addressing the problems of the constituents of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting); previous Labour Governments signally failed to do so.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
At the recent extremely successful Cheltenham literature festival, Hillary Clinton talked about the importance of ensuring that the Russians are not allowed to meddle in British or, indeed, American elections. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be building an offensive cyber capability so that our opponents know we have the will and the wherewithal to strike back?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is exactly right, as we would expect, given that he is the Member of Parliament who represents GCHQ; he is absolutely right about the offensive capacity we may well need in the cyber area, and I am happy to assure him and the House that we are indeed developing that.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Damian Green
I said this in reply to a previous question on this subject, but I hope the hon. Lady would recognise the principle, which is right: that as we live longer we need to move up the pension age. She knows as well as I do that the Scottish Government do have the capacity to top up welfare payments. Scottish National party Members like to sit here and deny that, but in Holyrood they know they could do this. So, as ever with the SNP, they should stop simply moaning in this Chamber; they should go back to their own Government in Scotland and say that if they want to do something, they should do it. They should get on with the day job of running Scotland.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s modern industrial strategy, which was launched this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is really going to be important, as this country moves forward and we seek a global Britain, in creating more and better-quality jobs?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is exactly right; the point about the industrial strategy, which is a hugely important moment, is to create not just a stronger economy but a fairer economy for decades to come. That is why it is looking forward to 2030; it is a long-term attempt to make sure that we have not just a global, outward looking economy—I completely agree on that—but a modern economy where we can capitalise on our huge research strengths and our huge intellectual strengths to make sure that, unlike so often in the past, we benefit commercially from that for decades to come. That is the route to rising productivity and rising prosperity.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Damian Green
I am sure the hon. Lady, who has great expertise in this field, will know that this Government are spending £90 billion on disability benefits. More to the point, we are being more successful than ever before in giving disabled people a degree of independence. Hundreds of thousands more disabled people are in work than have ever been before. We have a plan to have an extra million in work over the next 10 years. That is an extremely important and practical way to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled people. That is what this Government are doing, and that is what we will continue to do.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Given that President Rouhani of Iran has said that his will not be the first country to breach the joint comprehensive plan of action, will the First Secretary assure us that British diplomats are working hard in Washington DC to persuade our American friends that it is in the interests of the west and of Iran to uphold the JCPOA as an essential prelude to solving other regional problems?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is right; we think that the JCPOA is a very important part of attempting to improve conditions, not just between Iran and its neighbours but across the wider middle east. We will continue to argue that case in all parts of the world.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I, too, join in offering congratulations to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their engagement. One issue that Prince Harry has rightly highlighted and campaigned on is mental health. The Invest in Life campaign in Northern Ireland is doing a fantastic job in highlighting the need for extra resources on that issue. We join in that campaign and have secured extra resources. But at a time when issues such as mental health, education and all the rest of it need to be prioritised in Northern Ireland by a locally devolved Government working on these issues and representing the people of Northern Ireland, does the First Secretary agree that it is a gross dereliction of responsibility for Sinn Féin to announce this week that it is not going to engage in further discussions on the restoration of devolution? If that is the case, we now need to move quickly to restore accountability and Ministers to Northern Ireland to get on with the people’s business of responsible government in Northern Ireland.
Damian Green
The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working as hard as possible to restore democratic control and to restore the Northern Ireland Executive. We all want to see proper devolved government restored in Northern Ireland. That would be by far the best thing for the people of Northern Ireland, and the Government will continue to work tirelessly to that end.
Points of Order
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Exceptionally, I will take the point of order now. [Interruption.] Will Members who are leaving the Chamber be good enough to do so quickly and quietly? It is quite unaccountable if they do not wish to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), but there is no accounting for taste.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for exceptionally taking this point of order.
You and others in the House may not be aware of this, Mr Speaker, but it appears that the President of the United States has in recent moments been retweeting comments from a far-right organisation, Britain First. There are some highly inflammatory videos, including some posted by an individual who I believe has recently been arrested and charged in relation to certain serious offences. Have you had notice of any intended statement by the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary on this very serious matter?
Mr Speaker
I confess I have had no advance notice of this matter. I am not myself one who tends to follow what is said on Twitter, but the hon. Gentleman is almost invariably very well informed on these matters. The Home Secretary is in her place and if she wants to say anything, she is welcome to do so, but she is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do so.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
indicated dissent.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady is not hailing a taxi. Oh, very well—in deference to the seniority of the right hon. Lady in the House, if she has a point of order to raise, I will of course hear it.
Yvette Cooper
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the woman in question has indeed already been convicted of hate crime in this country. On that basis, given the significance and seriousness of the President of the United States giving her such a huge platform, do you think it would be appropriate for us to hear some word of condemnation from the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary?
Mr Speaker
Well, it is a point of order for the Chair, and I can say only to the right hon. Lady that, at the moment, as will be obvious to her and to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, I have received no advance notice of any intention to make a statement. It would be wrong to expect a Government Minister immediately to respond and, to be fair, the Home Secretary is under no obligation to do so. What I would say is that I now know the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth very well and, if anything, I know the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) even better, because we came into the House together 20 years ago. Knowing them as well as I do, I know that when they have got their teeth into something, they are disinclined to let go. By the way, that is a compliment. We will leave it there for now, but I rather imagine that this matter will probably be mentioned again.
Exiting the EU: Costs
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to update the House on the expected costs of exiting the European Union.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
Our negotiating team is currently in Brussels discussing our exit from the European Union—in fact, our officials have been working on it for months. It would be completely wrong of me to cut across those discussions by commenting on speculation about the financial settlement, and it would not be in our national interest.
The Prime Minister made it clear in her Florence speech that EU member states would not need to pay more, or to receive less money, over the remainder of the current budget period as a result of our decision to leave. She also made it clear that, in the spirit of our future partnership, the UK will honour its commitments made during its period of membership. As we have said before, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Any settlement that we make is contingent on us securing a suitable outcome, as outlined by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech. We will meet our commitments and also get a good deal for the UK taxpayer.
We want to see progress towards our preferred option, which is an implementation period followed by an ambitious future economic partnership. In the Budget, we have set aside £3 billion, in addition to the £700 million that we have already allocated, to make sure that our country is fully prepared for all eventualities. What we have seen today is simply media speculation. We will update the House when there is more detail to give.
Mr Leslie
The British people were promised a dividend from Brexit. They were told that leaving the EU would save us a fortune. Those who campaigned for Brexit daubed their hubris across the side of a giant red bus, promising a windfall of £350 million every week for the NHS. That was not just a whopping lie, but the direct opposite of the truth.
Will the Chief Secretary confirm that if the divorce bill comes in at somewhere between £40 billion and £67 billion, as is speculated, that could be a payment of £1,000 from every man, woman and child in this country? Is this speculated divorce bill not just the tip of the iceberg? If we are being honest about the true costs of Brexit, should we not also add in the lost revenues to the Exchequer set out in the Red Book—something in the order of £20 billion by 2021—the £3.7 billion of Brexit preparations for all the duplicated agencies, new border arrangements, lorry parks in Dover and so forth, and of course the higher cost of living for all of our constituents as prices keep on rising?
How do the Chief Secretary’s constituents react to the idea that they will be lumbered with all these extra costs? Do they not ask her, “What exactly are we getting for this? What wondrous new advantages will we gain by shelling out these astronomical sums?” Will she not be straight with the House that we are paying for the privilege of putting the world’s most efficient free trade, tariff-free, frictionless agreement into the bin, and being told to pay for the privilege of downgrading to an inferior deal with our European neighbours? Why is she being so coy about the deal that is being done? The Government have gone from “go whistle” to “where do we sign?”
In a week when the Government will still not fully publish the Brexit impact assessment papers to this House, we are now hearing rumours that Parliament and the public may never be told the full amount. When will Parliament be told what is actually happening and will we get a vote on the sums of money involved? Will the Chief Secretary, right here and right now, scotch this nonsense that the true costs of Brexit will be hidden away in a convenient backroom deal in the negotiations? The British people need to know whether there is a deal and how much the Government have put on the table in the negotiations. If she will not tell us, why does she think that the only people who cannot be told are the British public and the British Parliament? This is not what the British public voted for in the referendum. It is not taking back control; it is losing control.
Elizabeth Truss
I can tell the hon. Gentleman what my constituents say: “The country has voted to leave the European Union.” What they want to see is us getting on with that and securing the best possible deal for Britain. If we look at the Opposition Benches, we can see Members who, like the hon. Gentleman, voted to stay in the single market and the customs union, and we also see Opposition Front Benchers who voted to leave the single market and the customs union. Today we read that the shadow Home Secretary wants a second referendum. That is not remotely helpful in securing the best possible deal.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are in negotiations as we speak. If we were to talk about numbers and aspects of the deal in this House, we would be cutting across our negotiating position. The people of Britain want us to get on with it, to take the advantages of leaving the European Union, to make the most of the opportunities and to secure the best possible deal. We are well on the way to doing that. I suggest that, rather than trying to refight the referendum battle, which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing, he needs to get with the programme and to start talking about how he can be helpful.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that no Government of any EU member state could possibly be expected to agree that we should have a good future trade and economic relationship with the European Union while, at the same time, we repudiate all our past financial obligations and somehow refuse to pay a fair share of the costs of agencies and so on that will be incurred in the future? Does she therefore agree that those who oppose paying any money presumably want a no-deal Brexit, which would be catastrophic for this country, and would stop the opportunity that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has of negotiating a deal that retains as many benefits as possible for jobs, investment and the growth of this country’s economy?
Elizabeth Truss
As the Prime Minister laid out in her Florence speech, we do want to abide by the commitments we made during our period of membership, and we also want to see progress on securing a deal. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that any settlement that we seek to achieve has to be contingent on getting a suitable outcome from the negotiations, as has been outlined by the Prime Minister, because we want to ensure that any money spent is value for money for the British taxpayer.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for raising this critical question.
As we all know, settling this issue is vital to continuing to the next part of the negotiations. Given that progress has been so much slower than we would have hoped, the Opposition support efforts to resolve this part of the negotiations as soon as is feasible, so that we can start to make progress to end the uncertainty that is impacting on jobs and the economy.
The financial settlement with the EU must meet our international obligations while delivering a fair deal for British taxpayers. The UK is a responsible country and there is no mileage in our refusing to meet our obligations. If we are to negotiate a comprehensive new trade agreement with the European Union, which we will need for future jobs and prosperity, we must be seen as a country that can be trusted to comply with the deals that we reach.
Given our long-standing membership of the European Union, the calculation will understandably be complex. Given that this is a sensitive part of the negotiations, we appreciate that the Government cannot announce a figure publicly at this stage, but they must be transparent about the process, especially once an understanding has been reached with our EU partners. That is why we have tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that calls for any financial settlement to be assessed by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office, and for Parliament to have the chance to scrutinise it. The Government’s handling of the presentation of the impact assessment studies to Parliament has left a lot to be desired, so may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to promise that, in the interests of transparency and clarity, the Government will support that amendment?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments. I am glad that he agrees with the Government’s strategy. The next step will be making sure that his Back-Bench colleagues also agree with his strategy. He is absolutely right that we should not reveal the details of negotiations while they are ongoing. However, the Opposition’s approach of saying that any deal is better than no deal is not the best way of securing a deal. Although our preferred option is an implementation period followed by a strong agreement, we are preparing for all eventualities, which is why we are putting in £3 billion. I suggest that the Opposition should also support that very responsible approach.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am not in favour of anything that is not legal, so I support my right hon. Friend completely. I am also in line with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), in that whatever the legal agreement is, bound against the contingency of a free trade arrangement, it is exactly what the Government will set out to do. Will the Chief Secretary please remind those who have raised this question that even if we agreed a figure of something in the order of £40 billion over 40 years, because we will not be paying contributions to the European Union, it means that the UK Exchequer will be better off by £360 million in the course of those 40 years—a net gain, with a free trade arrangement?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Whatever happens, we will not be paying anything like what we would have paid as an EU member. That represents a considerable saving to the British taxpayer.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for bringing this matter to the House.
There would be no newspaper rumours about the sum if the Government actually told us what the sum was. Nobody voted for this disastrous, disorganised EU exit. People voted for £350 million a week for the NHS, not to spend £40 billion or £50 billion just to be worse off. Our public services must not pay the price for this Brexit mess. It surprised us all when the Prime Minister found a magic money tree earlier this year, so surely the Government cannot have been lucky enough to find two. Given that last week’s Budget did not make provision for this £40 billion or £50 billion, will the Chancellor now bring forward an emergency Budget to explain where he is finding the money?
Elizabeth Truss
When the hon. Lady stood up, I thought that she was going to thank the Government for the £2 billion additional spending power that we gave to the Scottish Government in the Budget, which they will no doubt be able to use to improve their public services. As I have said before—and, indeed, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—talking about the money now would cut across the negotiations and prevent us from getting the best possible deal. That is not in anyone’s interests.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am glad that the Government have confirmed today that they are carrying on with comprehensive preparations for no deal, because it is very important that we are not up against the clock at the end and forced into a bad deal because we have no alternative. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that no deal has the great advantage of no payments whatever under the divorce bill heading, meaning that when the Government recommend a deal, it has to be visibly better?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is correct. It is irresponsible for Opposition Front Benchers to suggest that any deal is better than no deal. That is the way that we will not get our preferred option, which is an implementation period plus our preferred economic partnership. We are allocating £3 billion to ensure that we are prepared for all eventualities.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The United Kingdom is currently a member of a large number of EU agencies, from that dealing with aviation safety to the European Medicines Agency. Have the Government made an assessment of the likely cost to the Exchequer of having to replicate all those functions and activities, if they eventually decide that we have to leave all of them because of their stated principled objection to the European Court of Justice having any jurisdiction over the United Kingdom?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been very clear with the House that we are preparing for all eventualities. Of course, looking at the specifics of those agencies is a part of that.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister made a fair and generous offer to the European Union in her Florence speech. Given that article 50 provides that the negotiations that are under way should take account of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the European Union reciprocated and started adhering to its obligations under the treaty?
Elizabeth Truss
As my right hon. Friend points out, it is important that we move on to the next stage of the negotiations and talk about our long-term relationship with the European Union once we have left. That is exactly what we seek to do.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The problem with the Chief Secretary’s answer is that all our constituents saw the slogan on the side of a bus. If the Government simply say nothing—if they keep radio silence for a long time—and then suddenly pluck a figure out of a hat at the end of the process, it will just be incomprehensible to everyone. Surely she can tell the House the kinds of things that the Government think they should be funding—pension contributions or whatever else—rather than just leaving everyone in the dark.
Elizabeth Truss
I refer the right hon. Lady to the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, in which she laid out the commitments that we want to continue to honour, in the spirit of our future partnership, after we have left the European Union. The right hon. Lady has to be aware that this is part of a discussion that is also about our future relationship, and all those elements are contingent on securing our future relationship, as the Prime Minister laid out in her Florence speech. It would be wrong at this stage—from the point of view of not only the negotiations, but transparency to the public—to lay out something before it is fully agreed. That would not be helpful.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
To cheer up the miseries on the Opposition Benches, perhaps they would like to look at the prospective budget published by Economists for Free Trade in the week before the Budget. It is a really exciting prospectus that says that our economy will grow at 3% a year by 2025, providing an infrastructure surplus of £60 billion, which easily covers the £18.2 billion a year for the famous £350 million. But that is contingent on reciprocal free trade with zero tariffs, so will my right hon. Friend guarantee that there will be no legally binding commitment to spend money until our partners agree to a serious free trade deal that is based on reciprocal free trade and zero tariffs?
Elizabeth Truss
I fear that my right hon. Friend is over-optimistic if he thinks we can stop Opposition Members from being miserable. We tried that over four days of Budget debate, but we have been unsuccessful so far. He is absolutely right to talk about the benefits of free trade for the British economy—I completely agree with him. We are seeking a good deal that benefits the UK in the long term.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
At least £45 billion, higher inflation and debt, an extra year of cuts, and less influence in the world are the price that the Government are willing to pay for a deluded vision of Great Britain post Brexit. Is there any level of damage that the economy, jobs and families in the UK would have to sustain that would cause the Government to rethink and give the people a vote on the deal? That would be supported by the Liberal Democrats and Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor—and, as I understand it now, the shadow Home Secretary.
Elizabeth Truss
I see, regrettably, that the misery has spread to the Liberal Democrats; there seems to be a contagion on the Opposition Benches. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to welcome the fact that this country has the lowest unemployment in 40 years. We also have the third highest number of start-ups in the world—a record number for this country—and the other positive benefits that we are seeing due to the actions of this Conservative Government.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Most of us—certainly those of us on the Conservative Benches—accept that a good trade deal is better than no deal, that there is always give and take in a negotiation, and that it is important that we meet our financial commitments. However, does the Minister accept that this issue is largely a storm in a teacup, because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed? It is important to make that point and not to listen to the few siren voices who still refuse to accept the result of the referendum.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. Regrettably, there are people—particularly on the Opposition Benches—who still do not seem to accept democracy and that fact that people did vote to leave the European Union.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is that the Government are keeping their cards so close to their chest that I suspect they have not even looked at them themselves. For that matter, the left hand certainly does not know what the right hand is doing, because the Minister is obviously making it clear that we are going to pay lots of money for a no-deal outcome, yet the Foreign Secretary boldly and quite confidently told this House that our foreign counterparts could “go whistle”. What was he suggesting that they should whistle—“Stand and deliver your money or your life”?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that considerable work is taking place across Government, but it would be wrong to cut across our negotiators in the deal they are seeking to strike. It is in our country’s interests to reach the point where we are talking about our long-term economic relationship with the European Union.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend should not pay more than we owe, but she should be confident that, whatever that is, it is a bargain against the cost of staying in.
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Were we to stay in, the costs would be considerably higher than any amount we are talking about as part of our negotiations.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government are so intent on keeping information they have about Brexit secret that they are actually risking contempt of Parliament. As this even more secret financial settlement is negotiated, how can we be sure that it really represents the national interest?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have pointed out already, these negotiations are not yet complete—there is not a number that we can disclose to the House. Absolutely, when there is one, and when there is more detail to give, we will come to the House and talk about it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following a good Budget, and given the need for good housekeeping and the pressures on public spending, if the impression is given that we have wads of cash when it comes to Europe, that undermines our arguments on the public sector and on the need for good housekeeping, especially since the House of Lords says that we have no legal financial obligations? Does she not also agree that this is not a divorce bill? We are leaving a club, and once someone leaves a club, they no longer have to pay subscriptions.
Elizabeth Truss
First, we were able to make sure that we stuck within our fiscal rules at the Budget, making sure that debt is falling as a proportion of GDP for the first time in 13 years, and keeping within our deficit targets. At the same time, we were able to freeze fuel duty to help ordinary working people, who need to keep their living costs down. We were able to do all those things. The reality is that, as we leave the European Union, we will no longer be paying those vast sums in, and that will represent a benefit to the taxpayer.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that 70% of the people who voted in Bolsover voted to leave? But let me also say this to her: those same people in Bolsover, I believe, would expect me to tell the right hon. Lady from the finance Department that if the Government have £60 billion to spare, it should go to the national health service and social care.
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, as part of last week’s Budget, we were able to put additional money into the national health service—into hospital capital and making sure we hit our A&E targets—and we are also allocating money to help with nurses’ pay. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be pleased about that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
These negotiations remind me of the even more complex ones on arms reductions in the 1980s. Will the Minister bear it in mind that the lessons of those negotiations were, first, that too many one-sided concessions project an image of weakness and, secondly, that to get the very best deal, we often have to walk away first and wait for the other side to agree with us, come back, sit down and negotiate realistically?
Elizabeth Truss
It is because we need to make sure that the European Union is aware we have alternatives that we are preparing not only for our preferred option of a transition period plus a long-term economic agreement, but for a no-deal scenario. The Opposition want to give that option away, so we would not be able to have that discussion with the European Union.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
There are two salient features about the news that is emerging. The first is that this is the opposite of what was promised during the referendum. We were promised £350 million a week more, and now the Government are set to pay up to £50 billion, when our constituents urgently need money for health, housing, policing and much more. But, secondly, what is it that we are paying for? Other countries pay significant sums to get into the single market; we are lining up to pay up to £50 billion to leave the single market. Is not the tragedy that these huge sums are going to pay for a worse deal than we have at present? That is hardly strategic genius.
Elizabeth Truss
It is absolutely right that the UK honours its commitments in the spirit of our future partnership, but as I have said before, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will expect to make progress and secure that long-term economic partnership, which will be to the benefit of UK citizens.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend note the growing concern at the fact that Her Majesty’s Government seem in these negotiations to be dancing to the tune of the European Commission? Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), may I also ask whether she can be certain that, after 29 March 2019, we will make no payments to the European Union whatever in the absence of a full agreement covering trade?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not dancing to anyone’s tune. What we care about is the future of Britain’s economy, protecting the British taxpayer from excess payments and making sure we secure a good deal, which is why it is so important that we do not discuss these numbers while we are in the middle of a very important negotiation.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I have been informed by a former public finances auditor that international accounting standard 37, on provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets, requires the UK Government to account for the divorce payment as expenditure in their public finances—even if the exact amount cannot be calculated. Given that the Government accounts for 2016-17 did not adequately disclose the potential liability, as required by IAS 37, will the Minister give assurances that a liability of this magnitude will now be included in the supplementary estimates for 2017-18 and that that provision will be subject to a vote of this House?
Elizabeth Truss
That would be wrong according to accounting principles, because nothing has been agreed. The Office for Budget Responsibility followed the Prime Minister’s Florence speech in laying out its projections for the Budget. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has misinterpreted those standards.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she agrees that the UK should pay the EU what we are legally obliged to pay—not a penny more and not a penny less? If so, will she make sure that, before this House votes on the final bill, we have an itemised account of exactly what we are paying for at the end, and also the legal basis on which we are making those payments? I have to say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is absolutely right: if there is any spare money going at a time of austerity, it should be directed to our priorities in the UK; we should not give it as a bung to the European Union, which we are not legally obliged to do.
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to get the best possible deal for the British taxpayer, and we need to look at the deal in the round to see what represents value for money. Absolutely, the money should be spent on our public services and on keeping taxes low for our hard-working citizens.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Last week, the Treasury published the Red Book, which showed that there would be no more payments to EU institutions from 2019. It also said there was £15 billion of headroom and that debt would then fall. Does the news overnight not show that there is a £30 billion hole in the public finances and that there is no possibility of debt falling on that timescale?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady is not correct about that. The OBR has made predictions on EU payments and those are included in the Budget. Indeed, that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in the Budget debate last week.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary please confirm that any payments that are offered will be itemised, so that Parliament can understand the constitution of the payment and put it into the context of any likely conditioning that may be required in any deal on the future relationship?
Elizabeth Truss
I assure my hon. Friend that the payments that will potentially be made—as we have discussed, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed—will absolutely provide value for money.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) is right in his question to highlight the serious difficulties the country faces. I hope it is true that agreement has been reached on the costs of exit, so that the negotiations can move on to the next stage. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is essential to the UK’s national interest that the European Council agrees at its meeting next month that enough progress has been made to move on to discussions about future trade?
Elizabeth Truss
We absolutely want to secure movement on to the next stage of the negotiations. That is very important. Ultimately, it takes the UK and the EU27 to agree on that. It would be wrong to take the approach of the Opposition and say that we would agree to any deal, regardless of what it was. We have to look at and prepare for all eventualities.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the message to the doom-mongers must be that the British public have given their verdict and expect Parliament to deliver? The doom-mongers should recognise that we are the fifth strongest economy in the world and that our population is significantly greater than that of 15 EU countries put together. It is high time that they started talking Britain up, rather than talking it down.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition refuse to see any of the positive things that are happening in our country, whether it is the lowest youth unemployment rate for over 13 years or the highest number of new start-ups this country has ever seen. Great things are happening, so let us see a bit more optimism from the Opposition.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
People in the Black country voted to leave, but they were not told at any point that it could cost them £1 billion a week. They certainly were not told that it could make them worse off. If it is the case, as we have been told, that we will be much better off as a result of leaving and that there will be considerable savings, as the right hon. Lady promised a moment ago, will she promise that those savings will be used to replace the programmes that are currently funded by the EU, such as the crucial £50 million-a-year skills programme that operates in the Black country?
Elizabeth Truss
There will be savings once we leave the European Union, as I have made clear. We want to ensure that those savings are spent in the best interests of everybody in the UK to make our country as successful as it can be.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Chief Secretary will be very aware that her constituents and mine voted overwhelmingly to leave. Does she agree that it feels on the ground as though most people now want to get on with Brexit, but also that they expect the UK to be fair, generous and magnanimous, so long as the financial settlement is contingent on a free trade deal?
Elizabeth Truss
As my hon. Friend points out, the people of Norfolk are fair minded. They want the referendum result to be respected and they want to honour our commitments to the European Union, but they want that to happen in a way that is fair for Britain and British taxpayers and that ensures that we get the best possible deal.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The figures are astronomical. Is it not the case that the British public are already paying the costs of this Government’s approach to Brexit in the form of the £3 billion that the Chancellor announced in the Budget would be spent on Brexit contingencies and the more than £700 million that he has already shelled out? Should people not have been told about that before the referendum?
Elizabeth Truss
It is completely irresponsible of the Opposition to suggest that we should not prepare for all eventualities. It would be disgraceful for the Government not to do that. That would not be the proper action of a responsible Government.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
For the first time in my parliamentary career, I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). He is absolutely right. The 60%-odd of people in Wellingborough who voted to leave would want to know what we were doing with £60 billion. They would want it to be spent on the NHS, social care and defence. They would not want it to be given to the European Union. Does the Chief Secretary agree that such a move would betray the trust of the British people?
Elizabeth Truss
The amounts of money we have read about in the press are speculation. The negotiations are ongoing and we want to secure value for money for the British taxpayer. It is in our interest to secure a long-term economic partnership with the European Union, but we will not pay over money until everything is agreed.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Page 25 of the Government’s brand new industrial strategy document states that the Government are seeking a transition—sorry, an implementation period—of “around two years”. Does the reported deal include provision to pay for an extended deal beyond two years?
Elizabeth Truss
The negotiations are taking place at the moment. We want to secure a reasonable transition deal, but we have to know what the future relationship will be like before we enter into the transition deal. The British public will not accept the can being kicked down the road. They want to know that we are leaving the European Union.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The greatest risk to the new partnership that both the UK and the EU want is that the EU makes such unreasonable demands that no British Government could accept them, on the wrong assumption that this House will never vote for no deal. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that all Members who want a good deal, like the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), should make it absolutely clear to their constituents that they do not subscribe to the ludicrous idea that any deal is better than no deal?
Elizabeth Truss
I fear that Opposition Members have not made that logical leap yet, but I am sure that my hon. Friend’s question will have helped them reconsider in their own minds.
Mr Speaker
Extraordinary behaviour! It is good of the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) to drop in on us.
Mr Shuker
Can the right hon. Lady name any moment in any aspect of the negotiations so far when the Government have gone head to head with the EU27 on an issue on which they have competing ideas about what to do and come out on top? Is this not yet another example of the Government crumbling and facing up to the reality of leaving the EU?
Elizabeth Truss
We are making continuous progress in our negotiations with the EU. Of course, in any negotiation there has to be give and take from both sides. That is exactly what is happening. However, it would be wrong to expose the details of the negotiations at this stage.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In any divorce, the assets are divided. Given that in today’s money—in real terms—our net contribution to the EU over the lifetime of our membership amounts to £209 billion, will my right hon. Friend make sure that we get our fair share of the EU’s assets when we leave?
Elizabeth Truss
I assure my hon. Friend that that consideration is part of our discussions.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Before making a big decision, it is generally sensible to inquire about the price. Most people will be staggered to learn that the average household in this country will be asked to stump up between £2,000 and £3,000 to pay for this. What plans do the Government have to tell people about the bill they are facing and to ask them whether they think it is a good use of their money?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman needs to look at both sides of the account, because we will not be paying ongoing vast sums into the EU as we are at the moment. He needs to look at the big picture.
Rail Update
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our plans for Britain’s railways. Those railways were privatised in the mid-1990s against a backdrop of what many regarded as terminal decline. The radical Beeching cuts of the 1960s had been followed by further line closures under British Rail, and passenger numbers had been falling steadily since the second world war, yet privatisation sparked a remarkable turnaround in the railway’s fortunes. More than a million and a half more trains are timetabled each year than was the case 20 years ago, and passenger demand has more than doubled. Other countries are now adopting Great Britain’s rail model in their own markets.
To support that growth and reverse decades of underinvestment in the infrastructure, we have embarked on the biggest rail modernisation programme since the Victorian age. In addition to Government funding, billions of pounds of investment from the private sector is helping to renew and expand train fleets, upgrade stations and transform services across the country, and franchises are making an increasing contribution to the public purse. The rail renaissance we are seeing in Great Britain today is the direct result of a successful partnership between public and private sectors.
That partnership has delivered real benefits for passengers for more than 20 years, but that success has created its own challenges. As the number of services has increased, our network has become more and more congested, making the delivery of the punctual, reliable services that passengers expect more challenging. On much of the network, our railway is operating on the edge of what it can cope with. It carries more passengers today than it did in its heyday in the 1920s, on a network that is a fraction of the size. When things go wrong, the impact can be widespread and quick, causing significant frustration for the travelling public.
That is why last year I announced plans to start bringing together the operation of track and train on our railways. I said at the time that it should be a process of evolution and not revolution, and that the exact approach might differ from area to area, but the outcome must be the same: a railway that is predominantly run by a joint local team of people with an absolute commitment to the smooth running of the timetable whether they are planning essential repairs, responding to incidents on the line or communicating with passengers.
Today I am publishing more details about our plans, and an update on what we are doing and the steps we are taking to realise our ambitions. That publication, “Connecting people: a strategic vision for rail”, explains how we will create a new generation of regional rail operations with a relentless focus on the passengers, economies and communities they serve. It represents the biggest change to the delivery of rail services since privatisation.
Although we have already achieved significant structural improvements—with joined-up working between operators and Network Rail, and Network Rail’s own transformation into a series of regional route businesses—the document explains our plans to go much further. Where doing so will deliver real benefits for passengers, many future rail franchises will be run by a joint team, made up of staff from Network Rail and the train company, and headed by a new alliance director. That will make the railway more reliable for passengers by devolving powers to local routes and teams, and ensuring that one team is responsible for running the railways and the related infrastructure.
Today I am issuing the invitation to tender for the next south-eastern franchise. That will, among other things, deliver longer trains, providing space for at least 40,000 additional passengers in the morning rush hour. A simpler, high-frequency “turn up and go” timetable on suburban routes will boost capacity and provide a better service to passengers. As part of the unification of track and train, the day-to-day operations on the south-eastern network will be run by a joint team led by a new alliance director who heads both the train and track operations. On the east midland main line we will also introduce a joint team approach, bringing more benefits to passengers.
Hon. Members will know that the east coast main line has had its challenges in recent times, and I intend to take a different approach on that route. From 2020, the east coast partnership will run the intercity trains and track operations on this route. That partnership between the public and private sector will operate under one management and a single brand, overseen by a single leader. It will take a leading role in planning the future route infrastructure and meeting the challenges that it faces. Bringing the perspective of train operators to decisions on rail infrastructure will help to ensure that passenger needs are better represented in the process. While we run a competition to appoint the east coast partnership members, we are in discussions with the existing east coast franchise operator to ensure that the needs of passengers and taxpayers are met in the short term, and laying the foundations for the reforms I have just outlined.
I want the passenger to be central to train operators’ strategies. On some parts of the network, that will mean that we introduce smaller train companies. I am today launching a consultation on the great western franchise, to seek views on how it can best meet the needs of passengers and communities in the 2020s and beyond. We want to establish whether it should be retained in its current form or divided into smaller parts, with more of a local focus, to deliver best for customers. We will also begin the process of splitting up the Thameslink, southern and great northern franchise in 2021. The two franchises were put together with the intention of helping the implementation of the £6 billion Thameslink upgrade investment programme, which is now near completion.
Despite the improvements in the railway since privatisation, we are still some way from achieving the modern, high-performance, low-cost and customer-focused industry we all want to see. That is why we must continue to reform and invest in the railway, and maximise the contribution that both public and private sectors make to improving services. We will continue to deliver the biggest investment programme in our railways since the steam age, something the Labour party never did when it was in government.
Getting to grips with industry structure will go hand in hand with investment in infrastructure. We need new capacity to cope with growing demand, and new links to support economic growth and housing development. The great north rail project is transforming journeys across the north, providing faster, more comfortable journeys, new direct services and room for tens of thousands more passengers. Every single train in the north of England will be replaced with as-new or brand new stock—that change was never made when the Labour party was in power.
I intend to invest around £3 billion in upgrading the trans-Pennine route to deliver faster journey times and improved capacity between the great cities of Leeds, York and Manchester. In the south, flagship projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink are coming on stream and providing the capacity to underpin economic growth. Our investment in HS2 will bring north and south closer together, and bring benefits to people across the country. It is a new railway for a new era for rail. It is a bold and ambitious project, but if it were not for ambition and faith in the power of rail to transform the country, we would have no railways at all.
Our vision rejects the mentality of decline that characterised the railway in the second half of the 20th century. To complement record levels of private investment, we recently announced Government funding of up to £34.7 billion for the railway in the years 2019 to 2024, as part of an overall expected spend of £47.9 billion. That will support an overhaul of the network’s ageing assets and other vital work and improvements. Passengers value reliability more than anything, and this commitment will help to deliver it.
We also want to create new connections. We are establishing the East West Rail company to restore the rail link between Oxford and Cambridge that was lost to passengers in 1967 and to provide a major boost to the region. I expect construction work to begin next summer. We will look at other opportunities to restore capacity lost under Beeching and British Rail cuts of the 1960s and 1970s, where such projects would unlock development and growth, offer value for money and unlock the potential for housing.
Large projects and industry reform take time, but passengers want faster improvements in their day-to-day experience travelling on the railway. We do too, and we are doing something about it. We are pushing to have smart ticketing available across almost all the network by the end of 2018. We are improving arrangements for compensation and dispute resolution when things go wrong, including by supporting the establishment of a new passenger ombudsman. We are working with industry to extend the benefits of discounted rail travel, to ensure that all who are aged 16 to 30 can access appropriate concessions. We are investing in new digital technologies and better mobile connectivity. We are committed to improving the accessibility of the network and delivering a modern customer experience that is open to all.
I know that the Labour party does not believe this, but privatisation brought a revolution to our railways—that is why there are twice as many passengers as there were 20 years ago. But now is the time for evolution to build on that success: joining up track and train, expanding the network, modernising the customer experience and opening up the railway to innovation. We have a vision of a revitalised railway that is used to its full potential, delivered by a partnership between the public and private sectors, supporting people, communities and the economy. We are taking real action to make that vision a reality. I am making copies of the strategic vision available in the Libraries of both Houses, and the great western and south-eastern documents are now on the website of the Department for Transport. I commend this statement to the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement, the contents of which have already been well trailed in the media.
The Secretary of State and I can be in agreement on rail’s need for investment and new capacity, and I am delighted that he has picked up Labour’s manifesto commitment to reopen branch lines. The problem is that the current system and the structure of the railways do not lend themselves well to the receipt of new investment or the delivery of new capacity. The majority of the recent problems on the railway can be traced back to the planning for control period 5, when the Office of Rail and Road said that Network Rail had to make efficiency savings of 18%. The ORR got this wrong, and the railway has suffered the consequences.
We are where we are on rail, and I am afraid that the Secretary of State has, frankly, now run out of ideas for what to do with the railways, but Labour has a solution, which I will refer to in a moment. The Secretary of State proposes an alliance on the east coast line between track and train. This was done only a few years ago between Stagecoach and Network Rail on the south-west franchise, but Stagecoach pulled out because it was too expensive. Trains on the east coast may be labelled Virgin trains, but they are actually run by Stagecoach. What makes the Secretary of State think that this alliance with Stagecoach will be any different?
The Secretary of State says he will break up the GTR’s southern and great western franchises. GTR was always going to be broken up at the end of the contract in 2021, so this is not new. His calamitous oversight of the contract only adds to the urgent need to put the whole thing out of its misery for the sake of the passengers.
The Secretary of State says he will reopen lines. He announced the Oxford-Cambridge line a year ago. His new, privately funded line will operate with polluting diesel trains. What about the air quality? Labour supports reopening lines, but, without financial backing, the Secretary of State’s proposals mean nothing in reality. It is all well and good to reverse the Beeching cuts, but what about reversing the Grayling cuts to the great western, the midland mainline and northern railways? The Department’s website hails the reopening of the line
“from Blyth to Ashington in County Durham.”
If it is all right with him, I would prefer Blyth and Ashington to stay in Northumberland.
The Secretary of State’s proposals offer nothing for commuters on overcrowded trains who are facing a fare hike of 3.4% in January on top of the 27% rises since 2010. The truth is that the rail system is broken. No amount of rearranging the furniture will change this central fact. I regret that the Secretary of State cannot recognise or admit this.
Today’s announcement is a total smokescreen. We can put all this to one side; the real issue is that the east coast franchise has failed again and the taxpayer will have to bail it out. Markets do not lie, and the Stagecoach share price has risen by 12% this morning following the news that the Secretary of State has let it off the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds by ending the current franchise early. He has moved the goalposts to suit Stagecoach. He is tough on everyone except the private sector. Labour took the franchise into public ownership in 2009, and it should have stayed there. Conservative dogma put it back out to the market in 2015, and it has now failed again.
The Government’s proposals are more window dressing that will solve none of rail’s urgent problems. Only Labour has the vision and the courage to deliver the railway the public deserves. The public want public ownership of the railways, and the next Labour Government will deliver it.
Chris Grayling
Fortunately, this country will be waiting a long time for that to happen. What Labour Members really want is to take us back to the days of British Rail, but they have not explained to us how they would pay for all the new trains currently funded by the private sector, or how they would pay for longer trains and better services all around the country. What they do not tell us is that, with a publicly run railway, trains would have to compete for capital costs with hospitals and schools and we would just not get the investment we are currently getting in our railways. Going back to British Rail is simply no solution for the improvements this country desperately needs.
The hon. Gentleman asked a series of specific questions. What is different is what is happening within Network Rail. The devolution within Network Rail—more of a local focus, local decision making, local budgets—is absolutely crucial in making local partnerships possible. We are driving through that change right now, off the back of Nicola Shaw’s report on Network Rail, and it is the right thing to do for the future.
The hon. Gentleman talked about GTR, but I remind the House that the independent Gibb report showed that the GTR problems were substantially down to the actions of the hon. Gentleman’s friends in the unions. Such conduct was unacceptable, and the Labour party’s continuing support for the disruption that unions are causing to passengers on the railways is utterly unacceptable.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the Oxford-Cambridge railway line. I did actually give an update on that. Last year, I said we were going to do it. This year, I am saying that we are now ready to start work on that route in the next few months. This Conservative Government are delivering real improvements and real investment on the railways.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the finance for reopening lines. He may have missed these announcements in the Budget, but I can assure him that there will be £2 billion more for investment in transport in our cities, and there will be £47 billion for investment in the railways over the next five years. We will, indeed, be funding investment in the expansion of the railways, because that is what is needed.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about electrification. I say again that in a world where we have more flexible technology, I regard it as more of a priority to provide more services and more routes for passengers than to save one minute on the journey time to Sheffield and no minutes on the journey time to Swansea. I am doing what we need to do, which is to deliver better journeys, better journey times and new trains for passengers, which is what they want above all. They are not worried about how the trains are powered, but about whether they will have a nice new train that gets them to the right place, and that is what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the Blyth-Ashington line. It is one of the projects I am looking at seriously. I think it has real potential to expand the investment we are already making in the Metro in Newcastle upon Tyne, and it is another example of this Government’s commitment to the north-east.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing for commuters. All around the country, we and the private sector, together in partnership, are delivering new trains and longer trains to create more space for people who travel on our crowded railway lines each day.
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, let us be absolutely clear for the House that as we bring the east coast franchise to a close and move to the new arrangements, no one will get any bail-out at all. It is absolutely clear that Stagecoach will meet in full the commitments it made to the Government as part of this contract, and that is what will happen.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I warmly welcome the commitment in the strategy document to the east-west railway line through my constituency and the announcement that its construction will start very soon. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about when he expects the western section of the line to be up and running, and how this will feed into the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendations on the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right that this is an important project. We have been pushing ahead hard with the new special purpose vehicle, which will be set up in the coming weeks. Construction is due to begin next summer, and my goal is to have the first trains running on that route by the end of 2021.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. Unfortunately, I am having to thank him for early sight of what is a disappointing damp squib. Given the media coverage last night about the possible reversal of the Beeching cuts, I hoped there would be some firm commitments in the statement, but there is nothing other than a throwaway line.
The Beeching cuts were typical of the Tory policy of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, and this attitude continues in the Secretary of State’s ideological adherence to privatisation. While he worships the private sector, he needs to remember that there are already four foreign state-owned rail companies operating existing UK franchises. If it is good enough for foreign state-owned companies, it should be good enough for UK state-owned companies to run the franchises. I hope that he supports the Scottish Government’s move to make a public sector bid in Scotland.
The Secretary of State trumpets the turnaround in rail since privatisation, but he does not say that it has been driven by a 90% increase in public sector investment and a real-terms fare increase of a quarter. That is where the real investment and the turnaround have come from. The Secretary of State’s real masterplan is to create alliances and effectively to sub-divide Network Rail, so I have the following questions. What is the overall governance structure to prevent inter-alliance conflict? Given that he is such a fan of devolution, will he devolve Network Rail to Scotland? Who will fund the new railcard for 26 to 30-year-olds? Will the smart ticket system automatically provide consumers with the cheapest fares? If he is considering reopening lines, will he stop the fire sale of Network Rail assets? He will be well aware that the Scottish Government built the biggest new line in the UK for more than 100 years, on the borders. Will he consider reconnecting Carlisle to the borders by rail? Finally, what are the statement’s funding implications for Scotland, and will he review the existing funding gap of £600 million in control period 6?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman has asked a mix of questions; let me take them in turn. On devolution, it remains this Government’s position that we will follow the recommendation, which was part of the broader devolution package, that the Scottish Government should be responsible for franchising but not for the infrastructure. The Scottish National party needs to demonstrate that it can do a decent job in government with the powers it has, rather than ask for more powers.
We are working through the railcard with the industry. The extra revenues may well mean that it will be a self-financing venture, but the Treasury has underwritten it in the Budget process. On the cheapest fare options, I want a system of smart ticketing on our railways so that, for future shorter journeys, we end up with the kind of pay-as-you-go technology that exists in London and other cities, so that people can tap in and tap out as they travel. For longer journeys, ticketing is likely to be based on mobile phones and barcodes. We are working to achieve those objectives as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of assets. There are times when assets are genuinely not needed. They can be sold and the money put back into the railway line—that is the right thing to do—but of course there are assets that we need to protect for the future. Frankly, I wish that some assets had not been disposed of or built over, because that makes it more difficult to reopen some of the routes that I would like to be reopened. We will protect the assets we need.
I applaud the Scottish Government for what they have done with Borders Railway, which is a good project and has made a positive difference to that part of Scotland. I am happy to talk to my Scottish counterparts about how we can do more in the future.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the funding settlement. As I have said before in this House, the funding settlement for Scotland for rail is based on the Barnett formula, which the SNP does not usually argue against. I do not think it can have its cake and eat it.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I welcome the news that the GTR franchise is to be broken up. It is too big to be managed and has a management incapable of managing it, but given that it has frequently been unable to live up to its performance indicators, why do we have to wait until 2021 to get a competent operator in charge of a manageable franchise area?
Chris Grayling
The real thing we have to achieve is to get through the rest of the Thameslink investment programme. In the coming months, we will also do some significant works on the Brighton main line, spending the £300 million I committed last year to doing the big parts of the project around Balcombe, for example. I would not wish us to destabilise things during that period, but once that is done we will need to get on with making the change.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Alliancing and joint teams can improve dialogue between Network Rail and operators, but that is not a fundamentally different proposition from what has happened before and what is happening now on certain segments of the railway. The underlying factors that contribute to the misalignment between operators and Network Rail—namely, separate performance regimes and financial incentives—simply do not appear to have been addressed. Will the Secretary of State set out the specific steps he intends to take to tackle those fundamental structural shortcomings, so that we finally have a railway that drives co-ordinated performance, cost-reductions and improved reliability?
Chris Grayling
We are already, in the alliance areas and, indeed, elsewhere, moving to aligned performance incentives and aligned key performance indicators. That work is already happening on routes such as great western, where a route board and key performance indicators are being increasingly aligned, so that Network Rail has an incentive to look after passengers in a way that has not always been the case in the past. When it comes to a joint venture on the east coast main line, the KPIs will be the same, because there will be one team doing it. That is the benefit of having somebody in charge, a joint brand, joint planning of budgets and joint KPIs in the same team. That is what is different from the past.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, this Government’s continued investment in our railways and the success that is possible only because of the partnership with the private sector. He will be aware that concerns have been raised about the break-up of the great western franchise. May I seek his reassurance that any proposals will not leave Devon and Cornwall isolated and that they will be introduced only if they are in the best interests of improving services to and from the south-west and provide value for money for the passenger?
Chris Grayling
First, let me be clear: I do not envisage a Devon and Cornwall-only franchise. That is not part of the plan. I am asking a legitimate question: should we go back to having, in effect, something like Wessex Trains and a franchise with its headquarters in the south-west, that provides regional services in the south-west and that could theoretically even do some of the long-distance services up to Paddington from Penzance? There are pros and cons to that. This is a consultation to ask the south-west what it thinks. It is no more and no less than that, and I want to get the right answer for the south-west.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I welcome today’s big message that our railways work better when track and train are operated together and the fact that the Secretary of State is now trying to correct the big mistake in the original rail privatisation, when his party separated track and train ownership. May I ask him, on behalf of my constituents in Surbiton, to consider the urgent safety case for a new staircase at platforms 3 and 4 at Surbiton train station, given how dangerously overcrowded they can become during the evening peak?
Chris Grayling
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for bringing back together the operation of track and train. If he wants to catch me offline, I would be happy to look at the issue he raises.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He mentioned smaller railway operators. Will he clarify whether that includes open-access operators, and if so, does he foresee that leading to an extension of services such as those in my own area of northern Lincolnshire?
Chris Grayling
I am a strong supporter of open access, which plays an important part in the railways. The east coast main line has been a significant user of open access, or is a route on which there has been open-access operators. As we move into the era of HS2 and as we move express trains off some of the other routes, I expect there to be more, rather than less, scope for open access in the future. It is certainly not my intention for the open access available to my hon. Friend’s part of the country to be changed in coming years.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
The east coast main line was run for many years by a not-for-profit company and it made a profit for the Treasury, but that is not what I want to ask about. I have been campaigning for 30 years to reopen the Blyth and Ashington line. Now that that is on the cards, will the Secretary of State tell me when it will happen, so that I can tell my constituents? I do not want to have to wait another 30 years, because I will be dead.
Chris Grayling
I will do my very best to make sure that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait that long. There is real short-term potential to reopen that route. I am not going to put a date on it today, but it makes a lot of sense to integrate it with the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Metro. We will push the project forward with feasibility and development plans.
Chris Grayling
We are going to press ahead with it in the immediate future and look at what will not happen. I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman an exact date—I never do that.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Eastleigh is a historic railway town, and transport issues really matter in my thriving but getting-more-busy-and-congested constituency, which hosts Southampton airport. East-west connectivity between Portsmouth and Southampton on a railway line takes an hour. Will the Secretary of State commit to working across Departments to make sure that there is a joined-up approach for constituencies that not only provide housing, but are blighted by air pollution, congestion and a historic lack of investment in railway lines?
Chris Grayling
I give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is really important that, as we seek to develop more housing, we make sure that infrastructure is in place to cope with it, whether road, rail or cycle routes, or different forms of public transport in different parts of the country. I assure her that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is in charge of the housing infrastructure fund, will look supportively at those parts of the country that are being asked to take on housing development and see how we can best provide infrastructure for them.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I echo the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) about the idea of breaking up the great western franchise because of the loss of ability to cross-subsidise from the more profit-making parts of the region to the more expensive parts in the far south-west. Exactly how much extra taxpayers’ money is he handing over to Stagecoach as a result of the Government’s botched and ideologically driven reprivatisation of what was a perfectly good and profitable publicly owned company?
Chris Grayling
The answer is that at this stage we have not yet reached final arrangements. My intention is not to hand over money, but to get the railway line in a preparation stage for the establishment of the east coast partnership. With regard to the great western franchise, this is genuinely a consultation. There are two options: we could continue with the great western franchise as it is, or we could create a second franchise that is focused on the south-west. I have heard both arguments. I am committed to having more accountability and better transport in and around the south-west, which is why we are finally dualling the A303, for example. This is a genuinely open consultation and I want to hear views about it.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I totally support greater unification of train and track. For my constituents, it is absolutely maddening that when we have problems on the railway—unfortunately, we frequently do on the great eastern main line—Network Rail and the train operator can argue about who is to blame, because our constituents want a single body to point a finger at. Will he confirm that there will be far simpler accountability under these structures, and that when our Greater Anglia franchise expires, we will have the opportunity to look at this sort of regional arrangement?
Chris Grayling
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that this approach should spread across the whole rail network, with clearer accountability, clearer integration, clearer joint working when something goes wrong and better joint planning for maintenance works and affected services. That is a really important part of ensuring that the railways work for the future.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Why did the Secretary of State not use this opportunity to say that there would be electrification of the whole of the midland main line, instead of it stopping somewhere in Northampton to suit commuters travelling into London? The other business is that people in my constituency have been asking him for a meeting to try to put to him an alternative to the HS2 spur that will wreck 30 houses in a tiny village in my area. When will he answer their letter? He can tell me now.
Chris Grayling
On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, my hon. Friend the Rail Minister has already extended an invitation to that meeting, so we will happily talk to the hon. Gentleman’s office this afternoon and fix a date. With regard to the midland main line, we are in the early stages of what is the biggest investment programme in the line since the 1870s. It will mean faster journeys and brand new trains, years earlier than would otherwise have been the case. We can deliver those new trains in 2021-22. We could wait several years more for those new trains. We could spend £1 billion more, but all we would be doing is saving a minute on the journey time to Sheffield. I could be wrong, but I do not think that would be a terribly good use of taxpayers’ money.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. What steps are being taken to improve stations, and particularly to improve disabled access at stations such as Rugeley Trent Valley?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Rail Minister has made improving accessibility on the rail network a particular part of his work. We will continue accessibility funding in control period 6, and the opportunity will be there for individual stations and areas to come forward with proposals on how we can do better in what is an extremely important challenge that the rail industry faces.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a year and a half since the then Under-Secretary of State responded to our calls to look at extending the borders rail link—incidentally, it was delivered on time and under budget by the Scottish Government—to Carlisle, and she said that she was interested in looking into that. Will the Secretary of State now take those discussions forward with the Scottish Government?
Chris Grayling
I am happy to take forward those discussions with the Scottish Government. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Rail Minister is meeting the borders rail campaign shortly. We absolutely understand the benefits that the project, which the Scottish Government have already delivered, has brought to the borders.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Isle of Wight there might be interest in extending the island line to the beautiful seaside town of Ventnor and the county town of Newport—the latter has been made possible in part due to the foresight of the Isle of Wight steam railway in securing track in decades past? Will money be available for feasibility studies to assess the costs and benefits of opening up, for economic regeneration purposes, former branch lines that were closed in the ’60s?
Chris Grayling
In the new year we will publish a new process for evaluating new projects and moving them into development. I will happily talk with my hon. Friend about how that process will work and how he can have his project on the Isle of Wight considered.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I have written to the Secretary of State about Kirkstall Forge railway station in my constituency. It opened just over a year ago, but only one train stops there an hour. If we are going to open new railway stations, we must have trains stopping at them. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet with Arriva Rail North and myself to talk about the frequency of services at Kirkstall Forge, so that we can get maximum benefit out of this housing and business development?
Chris Grayling
I am happy to have that conversation. When a new station opens, it is not unusual for it to start with an hourly service while the passenger ridership builds. Of course, as demand grows, services tend to grow. I am just delighted that we are able to invest in better station facilities in the hon. Lady’s constituency, which I am sure she will agree were long overdue.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the overall thrust of this plan. As the Secretary of State will know, it is probably no coincidence that the current GWR franchise covers roughly the same area that the railway company did back in the 1930s, so it is interesting to note the proposal to split. Can he reassure me that in any consideration of this the top priority will be services to passengers, particularly maintaining direct links between London Paddington and Paignton?
Chris Grayling
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we want to see those services protected. Again, this is a genuine consultation. I do not have a pre-set view; I am relaxed and I want to listen to those people who represent the south-west and ask, “What works best for the constituents you represent?” We will listen and respond accordingly. There is certainly no prejudged view in the Department about what the right way forward is; we are simply asking the question.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s U-turn on his promise to electrify the line from Cardiff to Swansea included all the safety improvements that were part of that work, including the plan to close the level closing in Pencoed in my constituency. Can he set out, as part of his grand vision for the railways, how he will now invest in closing dangerous level crossings? While he is at it, will he explain how he will keep the promise on highway improvements in the same town, which were linked to rail electrification?
Chris Grayling
Safety remains fundamentally important for Network Rail. We are fortunate enough to have the safest rail network in Europe. Network Rail has a rolling programme to replace dangerous level crossings, which will continue in all circumstances. I think that the Welsh Labour Government are rapidly reaching the same conclusion that we are reaching, because the versatility of bi-mode trains means that we do not always have to erect overhead cables. The hon. Gentleman talks about us making the wrong decisions, but I caution him to wait and see what the Welsh Government decide to do, because he might find that the Labour party agrees with us on the best way forward.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I welcome the announcement that the southern and Thameslink franchise will be broken up—it cannot come soon enough for my constituents. Can I ask specifically about the line reopening, because we have the Lewes to Uckfield line in my constituency, with the BML2 scheme, which could be opened very easily, improving connectively and putting towns such as Seaford and Newhaven on a main line for the first time? We have private investors willing to put up over £15 million to fund that. Will the Secretary of State use that scheme as one of the first to illustrate what can really be done?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend knows that I have met the investors who are interested in pursuing that project, and I have said that I am very open to doing so. I am waiting with interest for them to come back with the first stage of their work. I would be delighted to see the route reopened, and I hope that the consortium pursuing the project will prove successful.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
There was little mention of Wales in the Secretary of State’s letter to hon. Members on the great western consultation, yet key services run through my constituency. Just this morning, commuters to Bristol and beyond have yet again had to highlight the chronic lack of capacity as demand grows. Can he tell my constituents when they will see real action and improvement?
Chris Grayling
Of course, much of the responsibility for local services in the hon. Lady’s constituency lies with the Welsh Government, and I am looking forward to seeing the outcome of their work in delivering new trains and better services as part of the new franchise. As for what we are doing in her constituency, there is the electrification programme into Paddington and the investment in the intercity express trains, which are providing faster and better journeys, but I am expecting and hoping for a significant increase in services from Cardiff eastwards as part of the Wales and the borders franchise, which is one reason why we support the plan for Cardiff Parkway station. I am hoping for a significant enhancement, as part of that franchise, to the connections from Cardiff to Newport and Bristol.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The east Suffolk line, which runs from Lowestoft to Ipswich, dodged the Beeching bullet and is now going from strength to strength, with a regular hourly service. Will he give an assurance that his improvements will provide the framework for further improvements, including a more frequent and faster service?
Chris Grayling
One of the things I am pleased we are doing in partnership with the private sector is the complete transformation of the train fleet across East Anglia. Every single train will be replaced with brand-new trains that have more capacity for passengers. As demand grows, we will have to look again at routes such as my hon. Friend’s to see whether there is a need for more services. In the immediate future, however, I hope that his constituents will be delighted to see the brand-new trains arriving to deliver a better journey for them.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I am struck by the contrast between, on the one hand, the strength and wisdom of the best Select Committee report of my time in Parliament, the unanimous 1993 report by a Tory-dominated Committee chaired by the Secretary of State’s late colleague, Robert Adley, which forecast accurately all the problems that privatisation would bring, and, on the other hand, today’s statement, which seems nothing more than a piece of vacuous window dressing designed to distract us from the Government’s collapsing policies on Brexit.
Chris Grayling
There is nothing like trying to shoehorn every issue into one question, is there? The simple reality is that back in the 1990s our railways were in a state of decline—routes and stations were being closed, and there was even a plan to turn Marylebone station into a coach station. That was the reality of the days of British Rail. In the past 20 years, we have seen new trains, new routes and double the number of passengers. The problems today are the problems of success, not failure. That is why the approach in today’s statement is the right one. It is not designed to tear everything up and start again; it is designed to evolve the railways so that they are better placed to deal with the challenges that result from success.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The last Labour Government halved the mainline northbound service from Kettering from a half-hourly service to an hourly service, but since then the significance of Kettering on the railway network has increased: there are now more passengers; it is effectively the hub between the commuter service to Corby and the main line northwards; and it is now to be the interface between the electrified part of the line and the diesel-operated part of the line. Will my right hon. Friend agree that Kettering would therefore be the ideal base for the new train and track operating team?
Chris Grayling
Kettering is a fine town and a well represented constituency, and I can absolutely understand the case that my hon. Friend and Kettering would make for its hosting the operating team. He is absolutely right that it is at the heart of the midland main line. It might have some competition from Derby and others, but he makes a strong case.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned in the Budget last week the north Wales growth deal, which includes a proposal for a metro linking north Wales and the north-west of England much more effectively. Has the Secretary of State received a cheque from the Chancellor?
Chris Grayling
Actually, it was my suggestion that we look at the project. I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman and understood the argument, and the Chancellor has provided development funding so that we can take that work forward.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Building alliances and closer working between Network Rail and train operating companies into franchises is a welcome move, but I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could advise us on how Network Rail will ultimately be held accountable for meeting the terms of future franchises or contracts, just as the train operating companies currently are. Also, will that mean that infrastructure improvements will now be considered as part of the franchising process?
Chris Grayling
On the latter point, they can be now—there is nothing to prevent train companies from coming forward with small-scale infrastructure proposals. I would be happy to see the private sector come forward with plans, for example, to introduce digital signalling on routes, but we will not move the infrastructure itself out of public ownership. The accountability comes from the performance measures we put in place for Network Rail and the people who lead it, but I think that devolution to individual routes will mean better services, a more local focus and more out-of-the-box thinking, which Network Rail needs to do if it is to deliver best value for everyone involved.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
My constituents will be listening with avid interest, because prior to the general election, the Transport Secretary visited my constituency and said that the reinstatement of the Burscough curves between Burscough, Preston and Ormskirk would be a “quick win” to help improve rail services in the north. When will we get this “quick win”? When will funding for that project, for electrification in the area and for the Skelmersdale railway station be forthcoming? My constituents look forward to him keeping his promise.
Chris Grayling
Of course, the people of West Lancashire will be getting the benefit of the investment programme in the line from Manchester to Blackpool. It is a huge investment in improving the services on that route. That, right now, is our priority. After that, I hope we will move forward with other projects that can make a difference to passengers in Lancashire and elsewhere in the north-west.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the focus on passengers in particular. He will know that 30% of passenger improvements on Abellio Greater Anglia were due to the new fleet, but that 60% were due to the track. The Oxford-Cambridge line does not end at Cambridge, but goes through to Felixstowe and carries most of the freight for this country, so may I urge him to make Horley junction and Ely junction key priorities in order to deliver better services for both passengers and the freight industry?
Chris Grayling
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and reiterate the commitment I have given to people in East Anglia that in control period 6 the work on Ely junction will free up both freight and passenger access through that important junction and open up all kinds of opportunities across East Anglia. That will be an early priority for us.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My constituents are used to travelling on trains where there is a link between those who run the track and those who run the rolling stock, but that body is the publicly run Transport for London, and the Secretary of State refuses to allow it to have anything to do with the south-eastern franchise based on the fact that we have a Labour Mayor. My constituents deserve better than his petty political grievances. Will he allow TfL to demonstrate that it is capable of running the franchise more efficiently than the private sector has done hitherto?
Chris Grayling
I would make two points. First, Transport for London does not run the track and the trains. The trains are run as part of a franchise by Arriva. Secondly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what we have outlined today—more services and longer trains on the south-eastern line—is a lot better than what TfL offered in its business plan. My concern is to deliver a better service for his constituents rather than unnecessary political shuffling.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
What talks has the Secretary of State had with the Northern Powerhouse Minister about the upgrading of the trans-Pennine route, and will he consider linking up the great cities of Liverpool and Newcastle, as well as Leeds, York and Manchester?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. The key point about the trans-Pennine upgrade is that we have already electrified it from Manchester to Liverpool. That bit of the project has been done. The next bit is from Manchester to Leeds to York. I have said that that will be a £3 million programme. It is the next big rail investment project. I am expecting Network Rail’s detailed proposals shortly. It will be the next big project we go ahead with and will make a big difference to the north.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I warmly welcome the announcement today of a consultation on the great western franchise and the improvements it will bring to passenger services in Devon and beyond, but may I seek my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that there will be a focus in that process on the one rail service that serves my constituency—that between Exeter and Barnstaple? It is not just a quaint tourist line used in August; it is a vital part of north Devon’s economic infrastructure.
Chris Grayling
It certainly is, and I do not want that service to be diminished in any way. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that one of the routes on which we intend to start passenger services again—and we are actively engaged in that work—is the line from Okehampton to Exeter. I think that has the potential to ease congestion at Exeter, and to provide a better commuter route.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell us why he is not electrifying the midland main line even though every single business organisation, Member of Parliament and local council is telling him that that is what he should do? Why is he ignoring the wishes of local people and local representatives, saying that he knows best, and simply offering them a “joint team approach”, whatever that is?
Chris Grayling
The answer to that is very simple. Over the next four years, we will deliver the biggest upgrades to the midland main line since the 1870s. We are straightening tracks to improve line speeds, and resignalling in places such as Derby. The programme will deliver faster journey times—it will take 15 to 20 minutes off the journey to Sheffield—and we will deliver brand-new trains on that route in the early 2020s. I could then go further and electrify the route all the way to Sheffield, but all that I would be doing is delaying the arrival of new trains and saving one minute on the journey time to Sheffield, at a cost of £1 billion. I think that we should deliver what passengers want—better journeys, faster journeys and new trains—more quickly, and that is what we are going to do.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On my own behalf and that of my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), I thank the Secretary of State—who has visited our area and seen the potential there—for the proposals on page 31 of the south-eastern rail franchise stakeholder briefing document, which will deliver faster trains from Hastings with fewer station stops, and, crucially, require any bidder for the franchise to pay attention to the potential for high-speed rail to be extended to Hastings, Rye and Bexhill. Does he agree that that will unlock regeneration in our constituencies?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We get caught up in the biggest projects, but sometimes the smaller ones—even a bit of track realignment in places—can make the biggest difference. I hope to do big things, such as the trans-Pennine upgrade, but also smaller things at, for instance, Ashford, where we are trying to improve the situation for passengers.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Secretary of State will know, the Cumbria coastline and the Furness line are giving a dire performance at the moment. It is disappointing that Cumbria was not mentioned in the strategy. Will he ask the Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), to meet us to discuss what can be done about the 50-year-old locomotives that are breaking down and annoying residents, the terrible state of the rolling stock, and the awful standard of reliability? There is an urgent need to fix all that, otherwise there will be significant damage to the economy.
Chris Grayling
I am delighted to be able to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are scrapping all those trains on that route and getting new ones. We are also introducing better services, including Sunday services. All that is being rolled out now. We have a partnership with the Labour leaderships in the councils of the north and Transport for the North, and we have been working side by side to shape the new franchise and the replacements for the rail fleets, for which the Government are paying. Those trains are on order, and the first new trains are now entering service in the northern networks and the trans-Pennine network. Every single train in the north of England on every single route is being replaced—either completely refurbished as new, or scrapped. The old Pacer trains on the Cumbrian coastline, which should have been scrapped years ago and were not under Labour, are being scrapped by us now.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I noted, both in the rail strategy—which I welcome—and in the Secretary of State’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), a reference to improvement works at Ely North junction. Can the Secretary of State assure me that when those works—which will benefit the entire region and take freight off the road—are completed, my constituents in Queen Adelaide will not be disadvantaged?
Chris Grayling
Our aim is always to minimise the impact of improvement works as they are happening, and also their consequences. I assure my hon. Friend that we will work with her and her constituents to ensure that this is a beneficial investment for her part of the world, and that where it has any impacts, we will minimise them as far as is possible.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I noted what the Secretary of State said about compensation for passengers when things go wrong. He is aware, I know, of the appalling service that Northern Rail is currently providing in my constituency. Could a more flexible compensation system be introduced? Delay Repay does not capture the full experience that my constituents are having.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend the Rail Minister and I are working to create a passenger ombudsman, because we recognise that there are circumstances in which a conventional repayment system does not reflect the problems that someone has experienced, and that will happen shortly.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, and particularly for what he said about the south-eastern franchise. It is necessary because of the significant amount of house building that will take place in north Kent over the next 20 years, and because there will be extra capacity and more seats for my constituents, who have been complaining about the service for a long time. Are there any further plans to increase capacity on the wonderful High Speed 1 network? My constituents who want to use that service often complain about the lack of seats and the inadequate number of trains available.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The high-speed trains to St Pancras are pretty full at peak times. We have talked to the bidders about that, and I know that they are thinking about how best to tackle the capacity challenge. We will see what happens when the bids come through, but I know that the issue is on everyone’s radar.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
In 2014, the last Tory Prime Minister described electrification of the great western main line across south Wales as ”transformational for communities” and “huge”. Given that the Government have now cancelled electrification from Cardiff to Swansea, why should my constituents, or anyone else, believe Tory promises on rail again?
Chris Grayling
The answer is that we are delivering much faster connections to south Wales. The huge investment in the great western main line, not just in electrification but in improving the track and the signalling, will make a transformational difference to the south Wales economy. We are spending money to ensure that the new intercity express trains can go west of Swansea, and brand-new intercity express trains are already travelling from Swansea and delivering better conditions for passengers. If we erect overhead cables between Cardiff and Swansea now, it will cost several hundred million pounds and deliver no extra benefits to passengers—not even a minute off the journey time—which is why that does not make any sense.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not attend the debate on transport in the north on 6 November. He has talked about his priorities for transforming services in this country. Which does he think will happen first, Crossrail for the north between Liverpool and Hull or Crossrail mark 2 for London, between Surrey and Hertfordshire?
Chris Grayling
Those two projects will happen in lockstep. They are both important, they are both going to happen, and we are going to steer them in parallel.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The journey from Paddington to Cardiff is regularly a version of hell. Trains are frequently cancelled, and then everyone has to pile on to the next train, often an hour later. My constituents tell me that it is often announced that a train will not set off for another 20 minutes because it is too overloaded to be safe. At the weekends, instead of putting on extra trains after international matches, the company puts on fewer trains, which means that hundreds of people are standing for four hours. That is simply unfair and wrong. When will the Secretary of State put it right?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to see the arrival of the new Hitachi intercity express trains, which will have more seats and more capacity. They will replace trains that are well out of date, and will provide a faster, better service for passengers.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for helping to secure extra money for north Wales in the Budget, but that was for the development of a business case for the Wrexham-Bidston line, which is merely a taster. Will he please help to deliver the main course of the north Wales growth deal, which will unlock growth in one of the most effective and forward-looking areas of the national economy?
Chris Grayling
I know that the hon. Gentleman is after not just the hors d’oeuvre but a second course. That second course will probably be the Crewe hub, on which we are working carefully at the moment, but I thought that he at least deserved an appetiser. I buy the argument that the present situation as trains head north from Wrexham is not right, and I am therefore delighted that the Chancellor agreed to fund the development work for that scheme.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I give the Transport Secretary credit for acknowledging the failure on at least two occasions of the private franchise running the east coast main line. My recollection is that when it was operated by the UK state-owned Directly Operated Railways it generated more than £100 million in profit for the Treasury, which could be used for vital public services. What assessment has he made of the additional costs of the private-public sector partnership, and would it not be better to use the profits to extend the Tyne and Wear Metro into Easington rather than swelling the coffers of privately operated train companies, often German, Dutch and Spanish Government-owned?
Chris Grayling
There is a curious conundrum in this. We hear so much uncertainty from Labour about what they think about Brexit: they seem to want to stay in the single market and continue to operate in the traditional way, but they do not want to work with train companies from other countries. That is a bit illogical.
I am delighted that we as a Government are finally investing—in a way that the hon. Gentleman’s party did not—in rail in the north-east. The investment in trains on the Metro and the plans to extend it are the right things to do to help his constituency and the economy of the north-east, and I am very proud to be able to deliver them. It is also worth saying that the private sector franchise on the east coast main line has been contributing more to the Treasury than the public sector one did.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 October and eagerly await his response. My constituents are, frankly, fed up with chronically overcrowded and unreliable trains and substandard services. What action is being taken to monitor the performance delivered by the train operating companies?
Chris Grayling
The good thing from the hon. Lady’s point of view is that, although she is right that her constituency has old, overcrowded trains that are not long enough, we are replacing them with new longer trains. That will make a transformational difference to the travelling experience of her constituents and others right across the north.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I have read the Secretary of State’s document published today and was perplexed that there is no reference to mutual operators. I can only assume that that is an oversight, given that they provide democratic control, work within the existing framework he has laid out in this document, and reinvest their profits for the value of all passengers. Given that, will he or his Rail Minister commit to a short meeting to talk about the barriers faced by mutual operators?
Chris Grayling
I can only say that I will be very happy to see an employee-owned bid come forward. There is no barrier to that happening at all. I will be very happy to see a partnership between employees and investors come forward, and if there are artificial barriers to that happening, I am happy to see whether we can remove them.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Every line that could be reopened, as outlined in the Secretary of State’s strategic rail vision, appears to be in England. The Aberystwyth to Carmarthen line was closed under the Beeching cuts, and reopening it not only enjoys considerable support in Ceredigion but could serve to significantly boost the economy of west Wales. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the campaign group to discuss ways of adding that line to his map of lines that could be reopened?
Chris Grayling
We have a clear responsibility for Welsh infrastructure, and I want it to improve in a way that provides extra services for passengers and better routes, hence the Wrexham to Bidston investment that I expect us to make. The Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, will be very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and the campaign group about that route; I am aware of it, and was, in fact, talking about it the other day to people in Wales. I am well aware that people want that project to be opened, but I should also make it clear that, as we invest in reopening routes, they have to either unlock economic opportunity or housing opportunity or break up a real point of congestion. We cannot simply recreate old routes that no longer have a commercial purpose.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware from my communications of the importance of rail connectivity in my constituency of Leigh, which is the fifth largest town in the country without a railway station. Following the publication of his report today, the industrial strategy and the social mobility reports, which all highlight the importance of connectivity for social and economic purposes, will he confirm that my constituency will be, or has been, considered for the reversal of the Beeching cuts?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and of course I want significant towns to be well served by the railways. I know she is meeting my hon. Friend the Rail Minister a little later this afternoon, and we will listen very carefully to what she says.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
My constituency is on the brink of daily gridlock due to welcome but significant developments in housing and travel-to-work routes that are not fit for purpose, so I welcome the reference to the Portishead line and the Henbury line in this strategy, but the solution is the Henbury loop line. Will the Secretary of State commit in his conversations with the Conservative metro Mayor for the west of England to reiterating the advice given by his Department to my predecessor—that an independent business case study should be funded for delivery of the Henbury loop line?
Chris Grayling
I spoke to the metro Mayor this morning about this and the investments we need, and also about North Filton railway station. He clearly has a strong agenda to take forward investment in the suburban service around Bristol. I have also been to the port and looked at the point on the putative Henbury loop that would be the issue. We need to resolve that, and I absolutely understand the need to get those services working well.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The prize for patience and perseverance goes to Luke Pollard.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Fragmentation of the great western franchise risks locking in a poor deal for rail for the far south-west, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to match the commitment given by the shadow Secretary of State for Transport to fund the peninsula rail taskforce recommendations for faster journeys and a more resilient railway, and to ensure that we can unlock the investment we need for Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall?
Chris Grayling
I reiterate my point that this is a consultation, and I want views from all sides. We will make a change only if it is the right thing to do. We are not going to create a little fringe franchise just for Devon and Cornwall, cutting them off. If we make a change, it will be to have much more of a south-western franchise serving the region, providing good links locally.
The peninsula rail taskforce’s top recommendation was that we need to deal with the issue of the cliffs at Dawlish. The work on developing the solution to that is happening now, and that is critical to making sure that the route is resilient. That is my No. 1 rail priority for the south-west, and I give an absolute guarantee to the House that, as long as I am Transport Secretary and beyond, my party is committed to delivering a solution to prevent the real risk that those cliffs represent.
Yemen
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely Britain’s engagement with Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Today we are witnessing an almighty catastrophe of Biblical proportions unfolding in Yemen, in which Britain is dangerously complicit. Britain is respected throughout the world for bringing hope and relief to those caught up in humanitarian misery, but today in Yemen, which I visited earlier this year, we are in danger of earning a reputation for precisely the reverse, for the UK is part of the coalition that is imposing a blockade by land, sea and air on 27 million Yemenis. In recent weeks, fuel prices have risen by up to 160%, and rice and basic foods by nearly 70%. Fuel for generators, which are essential for hospitals and water-pumping stations, will run out shortly.
Yesterday’s announcement by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while arguably slowing the trajectory, will not in any way curtail this escalating disaster. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last week that, unless the blockade is lifted, famine throughout Yemen is a very real threat, including on the southern borders of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, wilfully impeding humanitarian access may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.
It is increasingly clear that this blockade imposed on Yemen constitutes the collective and illegal punishment of an entire population. If you grant this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the House will see clearly that current policy will result in a huge strategic failure both for Saudi Arabia and, by extension, for the UK. It is important that the voice of this House is heard urgently, along with the Prime Minister’s on her current visit to the Gulf.
Above all, it is a moral failure that confronts us. Famine is a phenomenon that we were close to eradicating from the human condition. The last 20 years has seen only two famines throughout the world. When I was responsible in 2011 for co-ordinating the UK’s efforts to address one of those famines, in Somalia, I saw for myself emaciated children and starving mothers. Today in Yemen we are witnessing a totally preventable mass humanitarian catastrophe, the likes of which we have not seen in decades.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely the current situation in Yemen. On behalf of Mr Speaker, I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Gentleman. Mr Speaker is satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The motion is clearly—[Interruption.] Order. I reassure Members that I do not have to count them. No one indicated dissent and the proposal is clearly supported as required by the Standing Order.
Application agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The debate will be held tomorrow, Thursday 30 November, as the first item of public business. It will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that this House has considered the specific matter set out in the right hon. Gentleman’s application, namely that this House has considered the current situation in Yemen.
Food Insecurity
Wednesday 29th November 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Food Insecurity Bill 2017-19 View all Food Insecurity Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government to monitor and report on food insecurity; to make provision for official statistics on food insecurity; and for connected purposes.
People are going hungry, and with each passing day of this terrible excuse for a Government, more and more are falling into poverty with little chance of escape. There are no second chances in Britain today. Food poverty is a clear consequence of this Government’s ideological assault on the social safety net and the people who rely on it, and of their ongoing inaction on poverty pay.
Each time hunger is raised in this Chamber, I have heard Secretaries of State and Ministers denigrate statistics from charities, food banks and colleagues, claiming that the figures are not robust enough, or that the information is not reliable enough to inform Government policy. Denying the accuracy of the data or simply turning a blind eye allows Conservative Members to pretend that the problem does not exist.
Today, with this Bill, I am giving the Government an opportunity to rectify this data gap and to robustly measure the levels of hunger in the UK, because we all know that what gets measured gets done. The problem of food insecurity in the UK is increasing. While the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are taking steps to implement measurement, this Government doggedly persist in refusing calls from the Food Foundation, Sustain, Oxfam, myself and a host of others to routinely and robustly measure levels of food insecurity. United Nations estimates from 2014 suggest that as many as 8 million households in the UK are food insecure. That is 8 million households who cannot afford to eat, or who are worrying about where their next meal will come from. But that estimate is based on a small survey of around 1,000 people, which is not nearly good enough to properly inform policy.
In 2016, when the Food Standards Agency surveyed households about food insecurity as part of the “Food and You” survey, it found that 21% of households in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were moderately to severely food insecure. That one-off measurement gives a snapshot of the problem, but does not allow for an analysis of long-term trends or the ability to track the impact of policy changes.
This month, the Office for National Statistics released data showing that due to the drop in the value of sterling as a result of Brexit uncertainties, food inflation had risen more than 4% over the past year. We need up-to-date information on the impact that that is having on UK families’ ability to afford enough healthy food, because being food insecure has lasting health impacts. We already know that the UK is facing a double burden of food insecurity and obesity, which is no surprise given the types of meals that a food insecure family can afford. More worryingly, in the last financial year, a count of hospital admissions in England revealed that nearly 8,000 adults and more than 300 children were admitted as a result of malnutrition. Those figures should shame any Government, but for a Government in one of the richest countries in the world, they are simply unforgivable.
The latest data provided by the Trussell Trust shows that just over 1 million three-day emergency food supplies were given to people in crisis over the past year, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, as the Trussell Trust collects data only from its own food banks. Independent research has found that there are at least 1,000 food banks in operation. There are also the “hidden hungry”, who will not go to a food bank and rely on the kindness of their friends, family and neighbours, or, worse still, go hungry so as not to face the shame of having to ask for food.
The desperate state of this problem is something that I and my colleagues see every day in our constituencies. I recall a woman who called my constituency office in desperate need of help after having problems with her benefits. She had no money for gas or electricity, and no food to feed herself and her four children under the age of 10. She was alone and unable to afford to get to the nearest food bank. In the end, our local volunteers in Shields managed to get food to her. The fact that faith groups and charities have had to fill a gap left by the state reveals a massive dereliction of duty by the Government. As a result, food banks are now a permanent part of our welfare state.
According to United Nations data on food insecurity in the UK, as many as 17 times the number of people using Trussell Trust food banks are food insecure. Also, food bank use is an indication of last resort, when families are at imminent risk of going hungry. Recurring or moderate food insecurity is not captured by measuring food bank use. We also know that measuring the proportion of income spent on food is not an adequate measure of food insecurity. New evidence from Canada shows that food insecure households will continue to spend the same proportion of their income on food when their income falls, and that they then experience increasingly severe food insecurity. In addition, these measures do not inform us about food affordability, the socio-emotional issues faced by people who are food insecure, the use of survival strategies, or people’s inability to meet needs. These issues can be captured only by measuring a household’s experience of food insecurity.
Capturing and measuring the experience of food insecurity is easier than we all think. Many survey tools have been validated and are being used in countries around the world. The United States Department of Agriculture’s food insecurity module includes questions that assess both household and child food insecurity. The method involves asking a series of questions about people’s experiences of accessing a sufficient quality and quantity of food. The results rank a household’s food insecurity on a scale from mild to severe. The Bill proposes that such questions should be inserted into representative UK-wide household surveys that the Government already conduct.
What I propose is very simple. Adding the food insecurity module to an existing survey, such as the living costs and foods survey, could be cost-neutral if some less important questions were removed. For example, the survey currently asks households about the food they grow at home. We need new questions for new times.
This straightforward Bill proposes introducing an existing measure into an existing survey, which could be done cost neutrally. As we negotiate new trading arrangements with Europe and beyond, as global populations rise, as conflicts spread and as more extreme weather affects food supplies globally and domestically, food security will become an even more important issue. In order to meet the challenges of the future and the urgency now, the need to measure food insecurity here in the UK is more important than ever.
As I present this Bill, there will be a mother in my constituency wondering how she is going to feed herself and her toddler today. There will be schoolchildren struggling to focus because their stomachs are rumbling, parents who have yet again skipped breakfast to ensure that their children did not have to, families searching their cupboards for what is left, and elderly people who are unable to access fresh food. But that is not just happening in my constituency; the situation is the same in constituencies and homes right across the UK. As I have outlined, implementing the measurement is not an insurmountable or costly challenge, and the Government owe it to every man, woman and child who woke up hungry this morning and will go to bed hungry tonight, in one of the richest countries in the world, to do so. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Frank Field, Kate Green, Jim Shannon, Liam Byrne, Kerry McCarthy, Stephen Timms, Dan Jarvis, Alison Thewliss, Layla Moran, Mr Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris present the Bill.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 136).
Opposition Day
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
State Pension Age: Women
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and everybody else in the Chamber a happy St Andrew’s day for tomorrow? With your forbearance, I will just remark that today is the 50th anniversary of the mighty Hibernian football club defeating Napoli—with Dino Zoff in goal—5-0 at Easter Road, ensuring that they went on to the next stage of European football.
I am delighted to open the debate and to move the SNP’s Opposition day motion calling for mitigation for women born in the 1950s. We are here in support of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and its efforts to secure fairness for women affected by the acceleration in their retirement age. I am saddened that we are having yet another debate on this issue, but the fundamental fact is that the Government should have taken action to mitigate the increase in women’s pensionable age. There must be action. The 3.8 million affected women have waited simply far too long for effective mitigation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we both called for action well over two years ago when he and I were our parties’ respective pensions spokespeople. Does he share my deep frustration that we have still had absolutely nothing?
Ian Blackford
I welcome that intervention, and I certainly look back fondly on the period when he and I were holding the Government to account. When the evidence is before us that the women did not get appropriate notice and that the acceleration is happening so quickly, it is an absolute outrage that we have had nothing from this Government.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
This is an important debate on an important issue—I also attended the debate in Westminster Hall last week—but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is wrong to say that the Government have taken no action? In 2011, they ensured that no one waited for an extended period beyond 18 months.
Ian Blackford
I have heard about spinning, but let me deal with the facts. The hon. and learned Lady refers to the fact that the Government brought in the Pensions Act 2011, but that increased the acceleration. To say that the Government have mitigated the situation is a distortion of reality, and Government Members should stop spinning and tell the 3.8 million affected women the truth: the pensionable age is increasing by three months per calendar month. That is the reality. The Government should be utterly ashamed of trying to argue that they have mitigated things, which demonstrates that some Conservative Members simply do not get what is going on.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The tragedy is that it falls to us to speak for the individuals who have suffered. I have a constituent in Dolgellau who was born 24 hours too late and now has to work for an extra two years and three months. The change has led to individual tragedies.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for that intervention; I cannot really add much to what the hon. Lady says, because she demonstrates the ridiculous nature of the situation and why the Government must listen.
Ian Blackford
I will take one more intervention, but then I must make some progress.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that I support this cause. Although I cannot be here for the rest of the debate due to its late start, if there is a vote, I will certainly support this innocuous motion. The measures taken in 2011 actually benefited men just as much as women, but this is very much a women-focused injustice. Some 33% of men approaching retirement expect to rely on just a state pension, but the percentage for women is as much as 53%, which is why this issue is so important to them and to all of us.
Ian Blackford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. He has been resolute on this matter over the past couple of years, and I know that the women are grateful for his support; I hope that he will be back for the vote later on. I am glad that he referred to the motion in front of us, because we had a choice of all sorts of things to lay before the House today, but the motion is laid in such a way—simply calling on the Government to put mitigation in place—that all the Members of Parliament who have shown support for the WASPI women can support it. Now is our only chance to show that we can stand up and do something for those women.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I know that many Members want to speak, so I will make some progress and let people in later.
This is about women who have paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension and have been hit with the bombshell that their pension was being deferred—in some cases by up to six years—with only 15 months’ written notice. Members should dwell on that. They were looking forward to retirement, but they received a letter telling them that they were going to get as little as 15 months’ notice of an increase in their pension age. Can anybody on the Government Benches defend that? Will anybody stand up and tell the House and the public that giving someone 15 months’ written notice of an increase in their pension age is acceptable? Is anyone prepared to do that? If so, I will happily give way.
James Cartlidge
We recognise people’s concerns about the notice, but to rectify the situation requires public funds. In a previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that his party’s position was to pay for that from the surplus in the national insurance fund. Is that still his party’s policy?
Ian Blackford
Well, there we are. Given the opportunity to defend the indefensible, we again get spin. Let me make things absolutely crystal clear. The national insurance fund is sitting at a surplus in the region of £30 billion, and that surplus has been generated by the women who have paid national insurance. All that we have asked for is that the women be given what they are entitled to receive. A pension should be seen as a right, but the Government have changed the terms and conditions of that right without consulting those who have paid in for a pension. As many of the campaigners have said, “We paid in, you pay out.”
This campaign is at the heart of SNP policy. We have long fought for the Government to rectify the shambles and give the WASPI women the pensions they rightfully deserve. I speak on behalf of SNP Members when I say that we will never rest until justice is delivered for the women affected. The Government have failed time and time again to address the injustices of a lack of notice for the acceleration of the state pension age. There is an opportunity today for the Government to admit that effective notice was not given of an increase in pensionable age. The process of increasing pensionable age must be slowed down.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with his customary passion on this issue, which he says is at the heart of Scottish National party thinking. I am not an expert on devolved powers, but my understanding from reading the legislation is that the Scottish Government have the powers to rectify this issue if they so wish. He chastises the Treasury Bench for a lack of action, but we have seen no action from Holyrood that could give a lead to the Government.
Ian Blackford
There we have it. Does anybody here think the Scottish Government have power to introduce pensions? [Hon. Members: “No!”] I will tell the House why: it is because we do not have the powers. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped creating the impression that we have that power.
Let me be absolutely crystal clear. Power over pensions is reserved to Westminster. There is a bit of a clue, because pensions are paid out of national insurance. I would love the Scottish Government to have control over national insurance. Let me make it clear that if we had control over pensions in Scotland, we would make sure that the WASPI women in Scotland got what is rightfully theirs.
Simon Hoare
The Scotland Act 2016 does not preclude the right hon. Gentleman—
Simon Hoare
I agree entirely that pensions are reserved, but discretionary payments could be made by the Scottish Government. Why have they not done so?
Ian Blackford
There is a very simple answer. I have respect for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and he should go back and read the 2016 Act, because it is crystal clear that we cannot introduce new benefits, nor can we introduce payments based on age. The fundamental point that needs to be made is that we are talking about the state pension in the United Kingdom, which is a reserved matter. It ill behoves any Conservative Member to try to create the impression that the people of Scotland and elsewhere have powers that we do not have. If Conservative Members want the Scottish Government to have the powers to fix this, then give us the powers. Give us control over pensions and we will fix it tomorrow.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has asked us to tell him what powers the Scottish Government have to help in this situation. Well, under section 28 of the Scotland Act they can create a new benefit, and they can make that argument on the basis of, but not because of, old age—the Department for Work and Pensions has accepted that argument. Further, section 26 allows the Scottish Government to make short-term payments to people who need them,
“to avoid a risk to the well-being of an individual.”
The Scottish Government have the powers. They choose not to use them. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman. I was about to try to quieten down the House in order that I might be able to hear him, but I realise that most of the noise is coming from those behind him. He is making an important speech, and those behind him are trying to support him, but they are being a bit noisy about it.
Ian Blackford
The simple fact is that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government do not have the ability to introduce new benefits based on age. What is really important, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) should reflect on this, is that this is a failure of UK Government policy. Nobody can get away from that. Are the Conservatives in Scotland really saying that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should again clear up the mess left by this Conservative Government? The Scottish Government have already spent £400 million mitigating the worst effects of Tory austerity.
That is the reality—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) chuntering. Maybe he could answer this question. Was he one of those who signed the WASPI pledge? Did he say to his voters that he would stand up for the WASPI women? If he is true to his word, he has to come through the Lobby with us this afternoon, or his words will be shown to be meaningless and a fraud on the people of his constituency.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to listen to Government Front Benchers. I am sympathetic to the WASPI women, of whom there are nearly 10,000 on the Isle of Wight, but the reality is that he can do something about it, but he will not. He is not taking interventions because he would rather score political points than fix this problem.
Ian Blackford
That is pathetic, absolutely pathetic, because it demonstrates well and truly that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have listened to Government Front Benchers in debate after debate in which they have been given the opportunity to do something about this. We introduced costed proposals in the last Parliament. The Minister, like countless Ministers before him, wants to sit on his hands. He wants this issue to go away, and I can tell him that this issue is not going away.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I will make progress before giving way again.
The Government have an opportunity today to do something about it. I remind the House that 250 Members of Parliament have presented petitions on behalf of WASPI women. That is 250 Members of Parliament who I expect to go through the Aye Lobby tonight. There is no point signing a petition unless they are prepared to go through the Lobby, otherwise they have duped the WASPI women. I trust that no Member would wish to do that.
Our motion is a simple one. It calls for mitigation. It is written in a way that allows all Members of Parliament to recognise the injustice that women born in the 1950s are facing, and it allows the Government to bring forward proposals. Let me state at the beginning of this debate that if parliamentary democracy means anything, the House must divide on this motion. The Government must either support mitigation, which we are calling on them to do, or they must have the guts to vote against it.
Now is the time for Members on both sides of the House to signal that we need to put mitigation in place. Let us stand up today for 1950s women, because I believe parliamentary arithmetic is on our side.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Cunningham
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He and I have been involved in a lot of debates. I think the Government can find this money. It is no good their trying to blame the Scottish Parliament. This is a UK issue, full stop. I assure him that I will be backing him in the Lobby today.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hoped he would be backing me, and he has been resolute on this issue over a long period of time. He is absolutely right; we can find money on the magic money tree for Northern Ireland and, as I said in the Budget debate only last week, we found £70 billion for quantitative easing last year. A £70 billion cheque was written for the Bank of England to put into the financial markets, so do not tell us that the Government cannot find the money. Of course, the answer to the question is that the money is there because the national insurance fund is sitting on a surplus.
Ian Blackford
I must make some progress. I will not take interventions for a while.
The moment has never been so opportune for Members on both sides of the House to come together to do the right thing and to call for this long-standing error to be corrected. Conservative Members made a pledge to the WASPI women as recently as June 2017. Scottish Tory Members—I will not name them, but they know who they are—signed the WASPI pledge before the general election and claimed to be prepared to act against party orders on the issue. There has been a deafening silence from them on this matter since the election, and the heckling has gone.
The House might be interested to know that, in the constituencies represented by Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament, a total of 84,000 women are affected by this Government’s legislative changes. I ask this question of the Scottish Tories, in a friendly spirit, particularly to those who supported the WASPI women during the campaign: will they have the courage to join us in the Lobby this afternoon, or will they turn their backs on the 84,000 WASPI women in their own constituencies?
I flag up to them page 62 of the Scottish Conservative manifesto, which states:
“We will also ensure that the state pension age reflects increases in life expectancy, while protecting each generation fairly.”
So, today, Scots Tories, do the right thing.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The nub of the matter is that people are living longer and contributions were calculated on the basis of people not living so long. Although I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, the debt burden would be increased on our children and grandchildren, and that is grossly unfair.
Ian Blackford
I am stunned. [Interruption.] I am speechless, because we should put that out in a leaflet. We are not talking about tea and sympathy; we are talking about WASPI women having to rely on benefits, and they are going to get nothing from the hon. Gentleman—that is crystal clear. It is obvious where he stands on this issue.
Today, these Tories should deliver the generational fairness they promised in their manifesto. I sincerely welcome the backing of some 37 Conservative MPs who expressed support for WASPI women during the general election—37 Tory MPs signed the pledge. We will be watching this afternoon, as will the WASPI women, and these MPs will be expected to do what they promised in the election campaign and stand up for the WASPI women. That support stretches from the Tory Back Benches across to the Benches of the Democratic Unionist party—to our friends from the DUP. Page 9 of the DUP manifesto contained a pledge to protect pensions, with the announcement that the DUP would:
“Support an end to the unfair treatment of women pensioners”.
I call on DUP Members to deliver on their pledges made to the WASPI women.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am disappointed at the tone that has been set in this debate. Despite the fact that we have a motion that could command widespread support, the tone of the debate has not been as I expected. Let me make something clear: we made a manifesto pledge on this issue, and the reason why I am here as my party’s spokesman is that we do support this and we will go through the Lobby on it. However, the WASPI women would be better served if we had a debate that was not divisive and not about point scoring, because there is no party—whether Labour, the Liberals or the Conservatives—that has not caused some of this problem.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful that DUP Members will be going through the Lobby, but let me point out that we are trying to set out the facts of the arguments in this House. These women have for too long been let down by politicians, so let us use the opportunity we have today to give them the result they deserve. Thanks to freedom of information requests, we learned that the Department for Work and Pensions only began writing to women born between April 1950 and April 1955 in April 2009, and did not complete the process until February 2012. So it was writing to women to inform them about changes in legislation that go back to 1995 but it did not start the formal notification period for 14 years. Taking 14 years to begin informing women that a pension they had paid into was being deferred is quite something. Can we imagine the outcry if a private pension provider was behaving in such a way? There would be an outcry in this House and, no doubt, legal action. When we consider that entitlement to a state pension is earned through national insurance contributions, where many women have made contributions over 40 years, this is stunning.
A woman born on 6 April 1953 who, under the previous legislation, would have retired on 6 April 2013 would have received a letter from the DWP in January 2012 with the bombshell that she would not be retiring then—she would be retiring in July 2016. That is three years and three months later than she might have expected, and this is with 15 months’ notice. That is what Conservative Members have been defending, and it is no wonder the WASPI women are insulted. We are talking about 15 months’ notice before what they thought was a contract they had with the Government was simply to be ripped up.
A pensions White Paper published in December 1993 stated:
“In developing its proposals for implementing the change the Government has paid particular attention to the need to give people enough time to plan ahead and to phase the change in gradually”.
Not much there that I would disagree with, but when you accept the need for people to plan ahead, you need to write to them and tell them.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am secretary of the all-party group on state pension inequality for women, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. A serious point for WASPI women is the number of women in their 60s who did not receive a letter. Their pensions were deferred until they were 63, even though they should have received them at 60, but they were not told at the time of those deferments that they should have received them three years earlier. This is another scandal about how the DWP has not been honest in those letters. Does he agree that that is something else the Government should be looking to address?
Ian Blackford
Again, I am grateful for that intervention, and the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says. This is yet another clear example of why there is absolutely no excuse for not collectively taking action today. We have a choice: we can recognise the injustices that the women have faced or we can sit on our hands and do nothing. This is about morality. It is about doing the right thing. The Minister can look up to the skies, but it is not going to remove the problem for him. I do not want to wait until the end of the debate and then get another 10 minutes of ignoring the reality of what is going on. We have had that for too long and it has to stop—it has to stop today.
The intent was there in the 1993 White Paper, but it was 2009 before any formal letters went out. Then we have the issue of phasing this in gradually. What we are dealing with is an increase in a woman’s pensionable age by three months for each calendar month that passes. It is simply scandalous that a woman’s pensionable age is increasing so rapidly. It is indefensible and it is not within the spirit outlined in the Government’s White Paper in 1993.
In October 2002, while giving evidence to a Select Committee, the DWP suggested that the role of the state was
“to provide clear and accurate information about what pensions will provide so that people will understand how much they can expect at retirement before it’s too late to do something about it.”
How does “before it’s too late to do something about it” equate with 15 months’ notice? How can the Minister, and how can anyone who is not going to support our motion today, support that lack of notice? It has gone quiet now, has it not?
James Cartlidge
The right hon. Gentleman has to find a way to pay for this and he did say that he would still use the national insurance fund. Ruth Kelly, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said the following in 2003:
“The national insurance fund provides security for those contributory benefits. It is ring-fenced and cannot be used for other Government expenditure.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 231WH.]
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is going to have to do better. Of course this is ring-fenced—it is for pensions. Pay it out! That is what the Government are being asked to do. As I was saying, no formal communication took place until 2009 and the task was not completed until 2012. The DWP has to take responsibility for this failure to communicate and, crucially, for the lack of time that women have had to prepare for an increase in their state pension age. Rather than recognising that women deserved to be communicated with directly, the DWP issued leaflets headlined “Equality in state pension age”. Can anybody in this Chamber remember them? No, I do not recall seeing them either. That is no surprise, as DWP-commissioned research in 2004 highlighted that only 2% of respondents mentioned that they had been notified of changes to their pension age via a leaflet. That is the responsibility that the Government took to inform people. Frankly, it is an insult that the Government at the time thought that changes that affect a woman’s retirement age could be delivered with a leaflet. That was an abdication of responsibility and we have to take responsibility for that. We should all receive an annual statement from the DWP on our expected entitlement, just as we do from private pension providers.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ian Blackford
I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I have to move on because of the time.
The failure to communicate was highlighted by a 2004 DWP report called “Public awareness of State Pension age equalisation”, which stated that only 43%—less than half—of all women affected by the increase in state pensionable age were aware of the impact on them. If the Government accept that women were not informed in a timely manner and therefore did not have time to react, why do they not accept their responsibilities? I am watching the Minister and he is looking away. He is not interested because he simply does not want to hear the facts. When will he accept his responsibility for the WASPI women and engage in a constructive manner?
The Government sent out 17.8 million letters on automatic state pension forecasts to men and women between May 2003 and November 2006 but—wait for it—the letters did not contain any information about state pension age. You simply could not make this up. What they did say was:
“If you want to know more about the changes to State Pension age, please see Pensions for women—Your guide… See page 10 for details about how you can get a copy of this guide.”
That, Minister, was no way to convey information. What should have been communicated was accurate, clear and transparent information. It was yet another failure to do that by the Minister’s Department—another massive failure to communicate from Government. What is he going to do about it? Nothing.
On 23 November 2016, in answer to a written question I submitted, the previous Pensions Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), stated:
“The Government has committed not to change the legislation relating to State Pension age for those people who are within 10 years of reaching it. This provides these individuals with the certainty they need to plan for the future…We recognise the importance of ensuring people are aware of any changes to their State Pension age”.
I welcomed that statement, but that recognition of the need to ensure that people are aware of changes was not afforded to 1950s women. If that statement from the previous Minister in 2016 is to have any credibility, the current Minister has to accept that the women affected were not given that courtesy and the Government need to correct that today.
I shall set the socioeconomic scene in which female pensioners find themselves under this Tory Government. Only 52% of women are adequately saving for retirement, compared with 60% of men. Female pensioners have a net weekly income that is approximately 85% of that of their male counterparts. More than two thirds of pensioners who are living in poverty are women. In August, the Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed that the increase in state pension age has left 1.1 million women £50 a week worse off. The IFS looked into the Government’s reform of the state pension, which was needed to account for a longer-living population, and found that the move to increase the eligibility age for women from 60 to 63 meant that income poverty rates were “pushed up substantially” from 15% to 20%. That is just as a result of the increase in the pension age from 60 to 63. Is the Minister going to defend that? Are the Tory MPs from Scotland, bearing in mind their constituents, going to defend that? There has been an 8.7% rise in the chance of a woman aged 60 to 63 being in absolute poverty.
In my constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, there are 5,400 women who were born in the 1950s and are affected by the changes to the state pension age in 1995, 2007 and 2011. Throughout Scotland, the figure is a staggering 347,000. New freedom-of-information figures have revealed that although almost 4,600 maladministration complaints relating to WASPI women have been received by officials at the DWP, only six investigations have been concluded. The process of dealing with the complaints has taken so long partly because the DWP has only three staff members dealing with the complaints. Three staff members dealing with 4,600 complaints—that is how seriously the Government are taking this issue. The delays have been so long that the pensions ombudsman has now forced the independent case examiner to streamline the process. What a farce! That is an indication that the Government simply do not take their responsibilities to the WASPI women seriously—another let down from this Government for 1950s WASPI women. The Government have a commitment to the WASPI women and should stop playing fast and loose with their rights.
In a Westminster Hall debate on 5 July, the Minister talked about employment or retraining opportunities for 1950s women, stating—wait for it—that the Government had “extended apprenticeship opportunities”. There we have it: women who in some cases have worked for more than 40 years can go on apprenticeship schemes. Later in his speech, the Minister claimed:
“I realise it is not going down well”.—[Official Report, 5 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 143WH.]
It is little wonder, because 1950s women do not want apprenticeship schemes; they want their pensions.
Women born in the 1950s do not want to be pushed on to benefits, but that is what is happening. Between August 2013 and August 2017, the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit across all ages fell by 42%. We welcome that, but the number of 60s-plus women claiming a benefit rose by 9,500—a 115% increase—while the number of women aged over 60 claiming employment and support allowance increased by 121,000. That is a massive increase of 413%—that is the reality of the sharp increase in the state pension age for women. The reality is that women are being denied their pension and this Government are forcing them on to benefits. The Minister has been ridiculed by, among others, the Financial Times, in which he was described as one in
“a line of pensions ministers with no interest in pensions”.
He certainly has no interest in women’s pensions. Today, the Minister must start to take an interest and do the right thing by putting mitigation in place.
It is nothing short of a disgrace that the Government found no remedy for the WASPI women in last week’s Budget. The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and extolled the virtues of spending billions on Brexit, but he failed to address the injustice faced by female pensioners. Transitional measures to mitigate the issue would cost significantly less than the UK Government’s £30 billion figure. Last year, independent research commissioned by the SNP showed that the cost would be £8 billion. We can find billions for Brexit and billions for Trident, but not one penny for our pensioners, who are treated with contempt by the Government. It is bitterly disappointing that the Chancellor did not use the Budget to support the WASPI women. Once again, it falls to the SNP, by securing this debate, to be a voice for this campaign in the House and to press the UK Government to do the decent thing. They have got it wrong—admit it and fix it now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I should warn Members who wish to take part in the debate that time is of course limited. In order that they might tailor their proposed speeches accordingly, there will be a time limit of three minutes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Since world war two, we have seen a dramatic change in life expectancy. We are living longer, staying healthier, fighting diseases that previously would have killed us and leading a more active lifestyle, regardless of age. Faced with demographic pressures and increased life expectancy and costs, successive Governments have acted. We must be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenge that these changes create for us as a society.
Taking forward-looking action is critical to protecting the long-term sustainability of the state pension not only for today’s taxpayers, but for future generations. In July, the Government published their first review of the state pension age, which sets out a coherent strategy targeted at strengthening and sustaining the UK state pension system for many decades to come. It accepts the key recommendations of John Cridland’s independent review, which consulted a variety of people and organisations, including the Scottish National party—the bringing forward to 2037 to 2039 of the increase in state pension age from 67 to 68.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Will the Minister explain to the House the potential debt impact on future generations of spending up to £39 billion reverting to the 1995 timetable, as well as of Labour’s plan to freeze any increases in the state pension age, which would cost hundreds of billions?
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I recognise that he has more than 25 years’ experience of working in the pensions industry through his previous journalistic work. The reality is that if the Pensions Acts 1995 and 2011 were to be revoked, it would cost well in excess of £70 billion. If we were to follow the path set out in the Labour party manifesto, which would keep the state pension age at 66, it would cost approximately £250 billion compared with the itinerary set out by the independent review commissioned by the Government and produced by John Cridland.
The Cridland review is very clear on that point. It says:
“In 1917 King George V sent the first telegrams to those celebrating their 100th birthday. 24 were sent that year. In 2016 around 6,000 people will have received a card from Her Majesty the Queen. In 2050, we expect over 56,000 people to reach this milestone.
Three factors are at play here: a growing population; an ageing population as the Baby Boomers retire; and an unprecedented increase in life expectancy. A baby girl born in 2017 can expect to live to be 94 years and a boy to be 91. By 2047 it could well be 98 and 95 respectively…The world of the Third Age is now a very different one, in which those lucky enough to get the State Pension will on average spend almost a third of their adult life in retirement, a proportion never before reached.”
It was clear that the Government had to act.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can the Minister tell us what specific help Jobcentre Plus is able to give older women to help them to retrain or to reskill to find age-appropriate work? That is a question that a number of older women often ask. What specific help is out there for them?
Guy Opperman
Having visited his local jobcentre, my hon. Friend will be aware that a great deal of assistance is provided by the job coaches. However, help comes not just from job coaches and jobcentres but from local job clubs, which I am sure exist in his constituency, as they do in mine; from individual flexible working arrangements; and from jobs fairs, which a number of colleagues have mentioned. I have done three myself, culminating in the last one in September, which was highly successful. There is also all manner of private sector support on an ongoing basis.
Guy Opperman
I will give way in a moment, but first let me address the issue in relation to Scotland. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) refused 10 times to give way. If I were him, I would say that he was frit, but I will not go down that route.
In addition to the substantial support that the UK Government are providing, which is worth £50 billion across the country and 6% of GDP, the Scottish Government now have significant new powers available to them to tailor welfare provision to people in Scotland. Although pensions remain a reserved matter, the Scotland Act 2016 has given the Scottish Government the ability to use a wide range of new welfare provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) correctly set out the provisions of section 28 of the Scotland Act. There are of course section 24 powers as well. I refer all colleagues, on both sides of the House, to a letter written to my predecessor by Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the Scottish Government. She says that the power under section 26
“is limited to providing help with ‘short term needs’, and those needs must require to be met to avoid a risk to a person’s wellbeing. That would not readily allow assistance to the majority of women most affected by the acceleration of increase in their State Pension Age. Their needs and the risks to their well-being would have to be assessed individually.”
There is an acceptance in that letter that, as Scottish Conservative colleagues have said, the powers are there. Those powers commenced on 5 September 2016. It is up to the Scottish Government to determine how they will use those powers, but—
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am asking for your guidance about what we can do, because the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, is seeking to mislead the House. It is absolutely crystal clear in the Scotland Act 2016 that the Scottish Parliament is not in a position to introduce benefits by reason of old age. That is quite clear, and the Minister should be truthful with the people of this country. He should stop blaming the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government for a responsibility that solely lies here with Westminster.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will first answer the original point of order. First of all, of course the Minister is being truthful. Secondly, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) knows that this subject is a matter for debate.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just going to observe the contradiction that it is impossible to, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, “inadvertently seek” to mislead the House. One either misleads the House seeking to do so or not.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful advice. I suggest that we move on, because time is very limited and we do not want to delay the debate further with continuous points of order.
Guy Opperman
I fully understand, and I will move on, but I will make one single point in reply to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. I specifically read the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, quoting what she said. When the right hon. Gentleman criticises me, he should be aware and conscious that he is criticising someone from his own party.
Ross Thomson
Regarding the point of order, does the Minister agree that the argument can be made that people under the retirement age of 66 are not in old age? The Scottish Government have already been in correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions, and the DWP has accepted that very argument. The Scottish Government have the powers, they just do not use them.
Guy Opperman
The reality of the situation, given the motion facing us today, is that one has to ask what the Scottish Government are doing. My hon. Friend is entirely right.
The issue dates back to 1995, when the Government legislated after two years of debate and consultation to equalise the state pension age in order to eliminate gender inequalities in state pensions. There had been welcome increases in life expectancy, and there was an anticipated increase in the number of pensioners in the years to come.
Guy Opperman
I will give way for the last time. I am conscious that 20 Members wish to speak.
David Linden
I have come through an apprenticeship on how this works. The Minister made a point about jobcentres, but he is actually closing half of Glasgow’s jobcentres. I have a question for him about life expectancy—I asked him this 10 days ago in Westminster Hall, so he has had 10 days to find out the answer. Can he tell me the life expectancy in Glasgow East?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, without a shadow of a doubt, life expectancy has increased in all parts of the country and in all socioeconomic groups over the past 30 years. I refer him to the Cridland report, which accepts the situation that has existed for the past 30 years, and the change that has been made.
Developments in policy have included the Pensions Act 1995, as well as the Pensions Act 2007, passed when the Labour party was in power. It is a shame that the Labour party is now scrapping the fiscal prudence that it seemed to demonstrate with the 2007 Act by now revoking its desire to increase the pension age beyond 66. Under the coalition, action was taken in the Pensions Act 2011 to increase the pension age as a result of enhanced life expectancy.
Guy Opperman
I will not give way any more, because I am conscious that 20 Members wish to speak.
Automatic enrolment was introduced in 2012 on a cross-party basis after a considerable amount of time. The important point is that the overall participation in workplace pensions of eligible female employees in 2012 was 58% but, following the introduction of automatic enrolment, the figure increased to 80% in 2016. For males, the figure increased from 52% to 76% in the same period. The private sector has seen the largest increase in participation in workplace pensions, and there was no gender gap in participation rates in 2016.
In the circumstances, I would respectfully point out that the key choice a Government face when seeking to control state pension spend is whether to increase the state pension age or to pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty. The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an even larger share of their income to support pensions.
Guy Opperman
I am not going to give way again—I am so sorry.
While increasing longevity is something to be celebrated, we must also be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenges it creates for us as a society. Since the early 2000s, it has been widely recognised that we face big questions as a society about how we ensure economic security for people in retirement, while maintaining fairness between generations.
The Pensions Commission found in 2005 that a state pension age fixed at 65 was no longer sustainable or affordable. Between 2007 and 2014, three separate Acts of Parliament were introduced, each responding to changes in life expectancy by changing the state pension age. At the same time, the state pension has been increased, between 2010 and 2017, by £1,250 a year for an individual who is on a full state pension.
So with increasing financial pressures, as I have described, we cannot change a policy that has been implemented for over 22 years and supported by all three major political parties. The Government have to ensure that the costs of an ageing population are shared out fairly, without placing an unfair financial burden on future generations.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I despair, because having stood at this Dispatch Box, led for the Opposition in Westminster Hall debates and worked on the Pension Schemes Bill, with the matter before us taking centre stage, I have spoken about this issue, like a lot of other Members, many times. However, it is not the Scottish National party that I blame for that, nor is it members of the Labour party, and it is definitely not the ’50s-born women who have been energetic, consistent and strong in pushing this issue.
The Conservative party is the reason we are debating this topic yet again, but we know that many Conservative MPs pledged their support for these women by making speeches, by taking up photo opportunities, and by becoming members of the all-party group. A few months ago, I stood here and highlighted the fact that there were no fewer than 37 of them. Among them are the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for Salisbury (John Glen), for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan)—that is just nine of them.
This weak Government continue to stick their head in the sand and hope that the issue will go away. I do not know how many more times I or anyone else has to say this to the Minister: the issue is not going away.
I am frustrated and impatient that we are yet again debating this topic when the Government could do something to fix the problem right now. I do not understand the politics of why the Government refuse to address it. They angered the older generation during the general election, and look what happened: their huge predicted majority failed to materialise, and now they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is making a very good case. As a 1950s woman, I am extremely sympathetic to the 4,000 WASPI women in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Government have failed to understand is that some of these women have been working since they were 15?
Alex Cunningham
That is most certainly the case, and the Government need to understand that. My wife herself has been working since that young age.
For some reason, the Government persist in pushing huge numbers of ’50s-born women into financial difficulty and distress. It is time for the Government to put their pride aside and do what is right.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging the financial plight of many of these women. Women in my constituency have been forced to sell or remortgage their homes, and to spend the money they had set aside for retirement now so that they can exist, which will increase the poverty they experience in retirement. That has not been acknowledged at all by the Government.
Alex Cunningham
Indeed it has not, and I am sure we will hear many such examples in the debate.
I have heard stories from numerous women affected by the changes of their desperation and fear—and it is fear—about how they will cope in poverty as they wait even longer for their state pension. Does the Minister understand how difficult it is for a woman in her 60s to retrain and gain employment? The job market and the skills needed in today’s workplace are very different from what they were 40 years ago.
Grahame Morris
My hon. Friend is making powerful points. Does he agree that the Government have an opportunity to act while the ball is in their court and before the collective action for maladministration compels them to act?
Alex Cunningham
That is the case, and I will refer to that matter later in my speech.
We have a system that does not help older people to retrain and get back into meaningful employment. The welfare system has been torn to pieces, disabled people have been humiliated through repeated assessments, and the state pension is becoming increasingly difficult to access.
The Labour party has laid out the approach that we would take to reduce the strain on vulnerable and struggling women. We would extend pension credit to those who were due to retire before the increase in the pension age. That would alleviate the toughest circumstances, and restore the faith and dignity that many people feel they have lost. It would provide support worth up to £155 a week to half a million of the most vulnerable women affected by the increase in the state pension age. We have also proposed allowing those who have been affected to receive their state pension up to two years early at a reduced rate, to give women the choice over what works best for them.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I have a great deal of sympathy for the women concerned, but the issue is how we pay for this—I know that is not something the Labour party tends to concern itself with a great deal. I would support taking money from the overseas aid budget to provide transitional arrangements for these women. Will the shadow Minister show his concern for these women by agreeing to that, or does he put overseas aid ahead of the WASPI women?
Alex Cunningham
We know fine and well that as GDP goes down, the amount of money spent overseas also reduces. The poor overseas also need support. If we need to find this money, we can start by looking within British budgets.
Why do the Government not look at our proposals? Why do they not give these women some hope? We heard from the Minister that the Government’s position is that they will not make further concessions, but I urge him to go back to the Secretary of State after the debate and persuade him to think again.
Earlier this year, the Secretary of State said that he and the Department for Work and Pensions would look into individual cases of hardship. We know from a freedom of information request that the DWP has concluded just a handful of complaint investigations relating to the ’50s-born women campaign, although more than 4,500 complaints were received. Will the Minister update the House about the progress on those complaints?
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is not the real problem demonstrated by my constituent who wrote to me a fortnight ago? She was born in 1954, has been in insecure, low-paid work, and has no access to an occupational pension or savings. The Government must address this issue.
Alex Cunningham
I said a few minutes ago that we would hear many examples of the plight faced by ’50s-born women, and that is yet another one.
Although I agree that this mess was created by the Government, I want to touch on the Scottish Government’s social security powers. I know that there have been some heated exchanges on this subject already. The SNP says that it cannot act to resolve the issue in Scotland because pension provision is reserved to the UK Government. Although that is true, the Scotland Act 2016 gave the SNP Government powers to top up social security or to create new social security policies. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) denied that they have the power to introduce new benefits based on age, so will the Minister commit this afternoon to publishing a clear paper outlining exactly what the Government believe the Scottish Government can and cannot do with their powers. Perhaps that would make the matter clear once and for all.
Labour has made a commitment to extend pension credit and provide early access to a state pension, but we cannot deliver that because we are not in government. Therefore, there has to be a challenge to our SNP colleagues: use your powers to help women north of the border and, if they are insufficient, chat to the Government, because they believe you do have the powers.
Mhairi Black
I do not think that anyone on the SNP Benches feels the need for any clarification, because it is already there. We all remember vividly how it was the Conservatives and—it is unfortunate I have to say this, because I am not trying to make a party point—the Labour party that made sure that we did not have power over pensions.
Alex Cunningham
Nobody suggested that the Scottish Government had pension powers; we are saying that they could use social security policy. I suggest again that the Scottish Government chats to the UK Government. I think they just need to get their heads together and talk rationally, but I would rather the UK Government published a paper spelling out the position.
I do not want to keep having to stand here debating this issue. I do not want us to give false hope to the ’50s-born women who are fighting, because it is their livelihoods we are talking about. I want the Minister to do something—to reach out across the Chamber and work for a real solution—to demonstrate that the House is listening to the residents of this country.
Alex Cunningham
I am nearly finished. Before I conclude, I would like to ask the Minister what the Department is doing in relation to the legal challenge from the WASPI campaigners, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). Has the Minister made contingencies for the day when the courts rule against the Government, as they may well do, and order that ’50s-born women be compensated? What is happening in relation to that?
Although we support the motion, I think that the House needs to be able to vote on a motion that will be binding on the Government.
Guy Opperman
I will answer two of the hon. Gentleman’s points. First, the Government do not believe that there has been maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the legal claim by Bindmans, and that includes in the 13 years when the Labour party was in power. Secondly, with regard to his assertions about the Scottish Government, the situation is as I said when I cited the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the Scottish Government.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but he knows as well as I do that the decisions of successive Governments are overturned in the courts time and time again, and the then Government end up having to pay for it.
I want to see before the House a motion that actually means something, and that is binding on the Government to deliver some of the relief that these women desperately need. We will continue to look for that opportunity, and then we will call on the supporters of ’50s-born women, from both sides of the House, to vote for that relief and make something happen.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
We have debated this matter on numerous occasions. It is important that it is not used for the purpose of political expediency, because many people are experiencing serious challenges. We must listen to them and seek to address their concerns in a way that is responsible and financially prudent, but also just and fair.
I have received a great deal of correspondence over the past two years from constituents who have graphically highlighted the challenge that they face. When many of us presented petitions in the Chamber last autumn, I was in second place behind the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for the number of people who had signed, as the Waveney petition was signed by just under 2,250. It was also endorsed unanimously by Conservative-run Waveney District Council.
The impact of the changes is being felt disproportionately in areas of the UK where there has been a tradition of women going out to work—whether in factories, agriculture, fishing, food processing or clerical posts—often part time and not on high salaries. The changes are affecting a lot of women and their families in Lowestoft in my constituency, although many of the businesses in which they worked are no longer there. There used to be, for example, numerous jobs in the fishing support industry and the Sanyo television factory, to name but two.
I acknowledge the challenges that the Government face in addressing those injustices and in coming up with a fair and affordable solution that complies with equalities legislation. I urge them to look carefully at that. There are two private Members’ Bills before Parliament that propose a review of the pension arrangements. One is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the other has been presented by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I am a supporter of the latter Bill, and I urge the Government to consider carrying out a full, proper and meaningful review. For that reason, I will not support the motion tonight, because I do not believe that it provides the evidence base that we need to find a fair, affordable and just solution.
As I have mentioned, this issue disproportionately affects specific parts of the country. I thus ask the Government to carry out research to establish the extent of this problem and to come up with a fair and affordable solution that addresses the pockets of the country in which there is a real issue.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The last time I spoke on this matter, I said that I welcomed the opportunity to make another contribution on the WASPI issue, but that was over 18 months ago, and I do not welcome having to make this argument again. It is absolutely ridiculous that this Government have refused to help these women, whose only crime is to have been born in the 1950s. Although the original mistake goes back to 1995, Governments of different persuasions have been culpable. We can sit here and squabble all day about who has done what and who is most to blame, but the problem is in the here and now. The reality is kicking in for 6,200 women in Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and for more than 3.7 million women and their families across the UK, so it falls to this Government to fix the mess.
I do, however, welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the WASPI campaign once again. All these women are asking for is fairness. This is the 11th time that their plight has been debated in this House, and we have had many ministerial responses, which have ranged from the incompetent to the ridiculous and everything in between. I was hoping for a better speech from the Minister given the arithmetic of the House, the natural majority in favour of transitional arrangements, and the—to say the least—precarious position of this Prime Minister and this Government.
I have had discussions with Conservative Members and overheard conversations about this issue in which Members have conceded that this has been bungled. They accepted that many women affected by this reform were only told about the changes 14 years after they made, but said it was just too darn expensive to do anything about it. However, times have changed. The Chancellor has found his magic money tree, with £1 billion for the Democratic Unionist party and £3.7 billion for Brexit preparations—a billion pounds here and a billion pounds there: before you know it, it is real money. We have had billions for wasteful spending and cash for votes, but nothing for these women, who have paid into the system all their lives.
With inflation rising faster than at any point in recent years, many of the women affected will face further burdens in relation to their cost of living. It is now more vital than ever that they are supported, which is why SNP Members will not stop until justice is done. The Chancellor’s Budget was a huge missed opportunity to deliver protection for the WASPI women. As he continues to shirk his responsibility, I hope that the Scottish Tories, who were keen to support the WASPI campaign while seeking election, will vote with their consciences, rather than rubber-stamping the line sent to them by the Whips Office.
In conclusion, I want to echo the words of the former Member for Foyle, Mark Durkan, who has been a great loss to this House. In an impassioned contribution in one of our previous WASPI debates, he said:
“If we fail to pass this motion, we will be saying that those women are an acceptable casualty on the way to equality, and we cannot accept invidious treatment in the name of equality.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 503.]
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Equalising the state pension age between men and women is a principle about which the UK Government, the WASPI campaign and I am sure all of us in the Chamber agree. However, there is rightly concern about the unfair and disproportionate impact of the 2011 reforms on women born in the 1950s, and this concern is shared by Members on both sides of the House.
Some 5,200 women in my constituency are affected. Since the general election in June, as Members might imagine, I have been meeting local women who are affected by the changes and who, in some cases, have had to change their retirement plans radically because they were not made properly aware of the changes made by 1995 Act.
One constituent I recently met was employed by NHS Grampian for 39 years. She worked hard and full time for her whole working life, with no maternity leave and no long-term sick leave, until in 2014, during her last few years of work, she had to take a couple of months off for health reasons—first due to cancer of the womb, and subsequently cancer of the bone marrow. She requested retirement, and she was 60 on 1 December 2016, but because of the changes to state pension policy, she is not receiving a state pension, even though she paid in, in full, during her 39 years of working. This has caused her great strain and worry, and she is naturally concerned about her finances.
Last Friday, I met a 61-year-old constituent who expected to receive her state pension in 2016. She also contributed through national insurance for more than 40 years. When she received her first letter about the age changes from the DWP back in 2013, she was in full employment and good health, but her circumstances changed in 2015, when she was made redundant and diagnosed with breast cancer. I am thankful that my constituent has made a recovery following successful treatment to date, but she finds herself with no income, and the downturn in oil and gas in Aberdeen has made it very difficult for her to get even a job interview. At the moment, therefore, she has to rely on the very pot of savings that she worked hard to build up.
I wanted to highlight my constituents’ cases as a reminder that the state pension system is founded on a contributory principle. It is not a welfare benefit. Those cases show that this group of women have done the right thing. They worked hard all their lives and paid their dues in good faith, but now they face being completely short-changed. That is not fair.
We have heard a lot of bluster from SNP Members, but let us be clear that the Scottish Government have the powers to make a change. Their record clearly shows not only their incompetence, but their refusal to use those powers. Let us be absolutely clear: my constituents know that I will make their voices heard loud and clear in this place.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Here we go again: another day, another debate on the injustice facing the 1950s-born women as a result of the pension changes. More than 3 million women have lost out because of the changes to pension law, and more than 3,000 in my own constituency of Swansea East have been unfairly treated by the changes to the state pension.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those women have worked in manual jobs since they were 15 years of age—some of them since they were 14—so they deserve fair play?
Carolyn Harris
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. These women have been the backbone of our country and they have been betrayed by this Government.
What is really scary is how many women do not realise that they have been affected. Yet this Government are still not listening. They have betrayed these women, stolen their security and shattered their dreams. Without the time to prepare and make the necessary alternative arrangements, very many women born in the 1950s have been left in financial despair.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On shattering lives, the life expectancy for women in my constituency is among the shortest on these islands. This is a brutal attack on their end-of-life progress, especially if they are living with a short-term condition that will come to a brutal end with no pension from the Government.
Carolyn Harris
It is cruel—there is no other word to describe the current state of play. These women have fought tirelessly for justice, but appallingly their cries for justice are falling on deaf ears.
I think that most people are aware of my passion for the campaign. Like the 1950s women, I am not going to give up. I know that they are not going to give up, either, so none of us is going away. And do you know what? The problem isn’t going away either.
These 1950s women have been inexcusably disadvantaged by the handling and communication of the changes to the state pension, and some women will be as much as £40,000 out of pocket. These women have paid into the system since the 1960s. They paid in with the expectation that they would retire with a state pension at 60, but due to an abysmal lack of correspondence they find themselves severely out of pocket. They have not been given enough time to make alternative arrangements, and as a result very many are facing dire financial hardship.
Dr Whitford
Obviously, this is a UK-wide issue, not one that applies only to women in Scotland. The women I have spoken to are not looking for the kind of crisis grants that the Scottish Government can deliver. They do not want to go begging. They actually want what they are due.
Carolyn Harris
I do not want to get involved in the argument about what the Scottish Government can and cannot do, but I agree that this matter affects all women, regardless of their nationality.
Many in this House stand by these women. I call on the Government to make a commitment to look again at this gross injustice, to discuss a productive and constructive way forward for the women affected, and to listen to what we are saying.
Not all women are fit enough to work. Some women who are expected to jump through hoops before they can receive unemployment benefit do so risking their own physical and mental health.
Carolyn Harris
I am going to make progress.
The reality is that these women are desperate. I have women affected all over the country calling my office every day, letting me know that they have had to sell their belongings and that they are relying on family, friends and food banks just to exist. I understand that this might not be comfortable to listen to, but it is the reality. These women are only asking for compassion, for fair play and, more importantly, for respect.
I will continue to call on the Government to stop burying their head in the sand and to do the right thing by these women. My private Member’s Bill is due to have its Second Reading debate in April. It states that these women need reasonable, transitional arrangements to allow them not just to enjoy retirement, but to survive it. So many Members across the House agree that these changes to the state pension age are unjust and unfair, and that these women have been robbed of their pension. When will the Government recognise the mistake they have made with the 1950s women? These women will not be ignored.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Over the past two and a half years I have met many constituents who have been directly affected by the various changes to the state pension age. Listening to them, it is impossible not to feel every sympathy, given the circumstances in which many find themselves. If I suddenly found out that I would not be able to retire at the age I had expected, I am not sure that I could say how I felt—actually, I probably could, but I fear my language would not be parliamentary.
As a teenage boy in the early 1990s, I probably did not pay as much attention to women’s pensions as many other people did, but I do remember the announcement in 1993 that the state pension age would have to be equalised upwards. There was widespread publicity at the time, through the media and the leaflets that have been referred to. None the less, it is clear that many women, for one reason or another, were genuinely unaware of that. As late as 2012, 6% of the women affected still expected to retire at 60, despite the Department for Work and Pensions having sent out 11 million leaflets and letters. However, that was significant progress since 2004, when just 73% of the women affected were aware of the 1995 reforms.
Clearly there are solid reasons why successive Governments here and in many other developed economies have been increasing and equalising the state pension age. The fact that even a relatively small proportion of people affected were unaware of changes that will have such a large impact on their retirement raises broader issues about how public authorities communicate pension matters, and Government at all levels need to consider that.
The truth is that the state pension age will not be reduced to 60—arguably, that would be illegal under anti-discrimination legislation—so we must look at what can be done not only to help those women born in the 1950s back into work, but to help all those who will find themselves working later in life. I hope that the Government can come up with further suggestions on what support can be provided.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
When people ask me what it is like at Westminster, I often observe that I live in a parallel universe from the Tory party—I am sure its Members feel the same about me. We all inhabit a political bubble, but let me recall some of the concerns I have heard from Tories recently: whether Big Ben is going to bong, whether Clerks in the House are allowed to wear wigs, whether it is credible for MPs to ask questions in the Chamber without wearing a tie—these are some of the things that have concerned Tories recently. I have also heard them say that when they visit jobcentres people tell them, “It’s great being on universal credit. When I’m on universal credit, I find work”. They do not see the irony that they are meeting these people in the jobcentre. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), said that WASPI women should be able to get apprenticeships, and the Chancellor recently said that there were no unemployed people. They have also said that the majority of people knew about the changes to the pension age. They live in a different world from me.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
What exactly is wrong with a 65-year-old woman taking up an apprenticeship? I am not talking about all women, but why would the hon. Gentleman deny any woman the chance to work at 65?
Alan Brown
That is a nonsense argument. I would hope that that woman would not get paid the apprenticeship levy. The Government have a shocking minimum wage for apprenticeships. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) stood up during the Budget debate and said that the people of Taunton Deane had thousands of pounds more in their pockets. It really is a different world.
People on universal credit struggle as their debts increase. Food bank usage is up. Only this month, a British Medical Journal study estimated that up to 120,000 deaths in England and Wales could be attributed to the Tory austerity policy since 2010, and people over 60 are most at risk. This only touches on the world that some of the WASPI women inhabit: having to sell homes and downsize to survive; mental health problems associated with the stress; the humiliation of seeking jobs; marital pressure and break-ups; just living with the daily anger and disappointment at being let down by the state and a Government who refuse to listen.
In a previous SNP Opposition day debate, the then Secretary of State challenged our £8 billion costed proposal to reverse the Pensions Act 2011. He said that we need to look at the longer-term horizon and that it would cost £30 billion to 2025. Well, just a few months later, the Tories trooped through the Lobby following the Budget and voted for £30 billion of tax cuts, including £23.5 billion in corporation tax giveaways. So even if it would cost £30 billion, it could have been found, and it was there in the last Budget. The Budget, which has just been passed, contained a £3.2 billion stamp duty tax giveaway that will only increase house prices, £3.7 billion for Brexit preparations and an additional £7 billion for a national productivity fund. I welcome that money, but it shows that the magic money tree exists and that money can be found whenever the Tories want it.
We have heard the argument that the state pension age equalisation is all because of the bad EU—it is EU rules that have forced it upon us—yet I have not heard one of the mad Brexiteers in the Government come to the Chamber and say, “One of the benefits of leaving the EU is that we can reverse the 2011 Act”. They have never said, “Let’s stick it to the EU, take it on and give these women what they deserve”. It is high time they gave them what they deserve, and it is high time the Government started listening.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I agree with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). The WASPI campaigners are very passionate and tenacious, and one obviously sympathises with those who, having saved all their lives, feel they were not given adequate notice. Obviously there is a legitimate grievance there, but the point is that, as parliamentarians, if we decide to go through a Division Lobby and vote for something—to join a cause, to jump on its bandwagon—we must have a credible, funded policy to stand behind, otherwise we are selling snake oil. Once again, we have it from the SNP. It stills says we can use the national insurance surplus. I will read out a few more written answers about the ability to use the surplus, which is their policy for saving the WASPI women.
In March 2008, the former Minister Mike O’Brien said:
“Any surplus of NICs over social security benefits in any one year…is not…an extra resource available to spend.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 2605W.]
In February 2009, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
“what assessment he has made of the merits of using future national insurance fund surpluses to fund an increase in the state pension.”
That was Labour’s policy at the time. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), then a Minister, replied, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
“Any increase in the basic state pension has a cumulative impact on Government spending going forward. The Government consider the short-term use of the surplus on the national insurance fund in this way to be unsustainable in the long term.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 1852W.]
That is not least because it has been in deficit and it is cyclical. I think that any of us who claim to support the WASPI women must say which line of taxation, or which line of expenditure, in the Red Book we are prepared to use to pay for this.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I am afraid that the position of the Scottish National party is so obviously partisan and unaffordable that it does the WASPI campaign no favours, but for all that, there are women in my constituency who were not notified and who are clearly experiencing hardship. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more constructive to consider sensible, affordable measures, such as the early draw-down of bus passes, which could help to address the genuine need that exists?
James Cartlidge
Of course there are measures that we can consider. My point is that unless we can identify specific lines of tax or expenditure to pay for them, the money will simply be borrowed and paid back by future generations.
Mhairi Black
I have heard a lot about how no one is coming to us with a plan for what we can do. As I said earlier, we came up with a plan, and we think we can argue for it. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it, he should come up with a plan himself. There have been umpteen debates, and we have been waiting for months—years—for the Government to come forward with some kind of proposal, because the 2011 proposal clearly is not good enough.
James Cartlidge
I think the hon. Lady is missing the point. I am not saying that to my WASPI campaigners. I am not full of righteous anger, so high on my high horse that my ears pop, like the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). If we are to go out on a limb to that degree, we must have a credible policy. We must be able to say, “This is how we are going to pay for it.”
James Cartlidge
I do not think that I should give way again, but I will, because the hon. Gentleman was very generous to me. However, others wish to speak, so I shall wind up my speech immediately afterwards.
Ian Blackford
We have tabled a very straightforward motion that asks the Government to introduce mitigation measures. The hon. Gentleman has asked for costed proposals, but we gave him one last year in the Landman report, on deferring the increase in women’s pensionable age. It would have cost £8 billion. That is one option. We have done our work; the Government have not done theirs.
James Cartlidge
I gave way to that intervention, so I shall now wind up my speech, because others wish to speak.
Given that £8 billion is a huge amount of money, it is necessary to identify a specific area of taxation or expenditure—other budgets, as an Opposition Member has said. Until people are prepared to do that, we cannot say that a policy is available to fix this. We are just jumping on a bandwagon.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I am grateful to the SNP for securing this important Opposition day debate, and appreciate the opportunity to speak in it. Like every other Member, I have been contacted by numerous WASPI women in my constituency. We all know how much of an impact this has had, and we all know just how upset, frustrated and deeply angry many WASPI women feel.
Before I go on to ask the Government for transition payments, let me point out that we are all culpable. One of the things that I have found so interesting while sitting here listening to all the different arguments is the element of amnesia. Every political party that is represented in the Chamber now is culpable because of the WASPI issues: the Conservatives, the Labour party and possibly, it appears, even the SNP. I do not know that for sure, because I am not a Scottish MP or a Scottish constituent, but I do know that, during the passage of what became the 1995 Pensions Act, the Tories did not tell people what was happening right at the beginning. In 1999 and then in 2001, 2002 and 2003, Labour did not engage in the mass communication that would have warned the women of what was coming—and I hold my hands up as a member of the coalition Government. I do not think that we gave enough information in 2011, when we changed the retirement ages. So the first thing I want to say, despite all the Sturm und Drang in the Chamber, is that I think we have let WASPI women down. End of.
Secondly, I feel that the Government should give serious consideration to finding some transitional money. As a number of Members have pointed out, many of these women, particularly those who are in menial and artisan jobs, will not be in the same physical shape in their early sixties as someone who has not done a backbreaking job for 40 or 45 years. I do believe that the Minister and the Government understand the strength of feeling, the passion, the anger and the exceptional frustration that so many WASPI women feel.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally unfair that these women are not paid their pension when they have a full contribution record, and that instead they are being made to work beyond a time when they are able or are forced to rely on insecure benefits that are too low?
Stephen Lloyd
That is an important point about the many years of contributions and of back-breaking jobs.
I return to the fact that we are all culpable; we know that in this Chamber— Conservative, Labour, coalition and, according to the Conservatives and Labour, the SNP as well. I do not say—because I would be lying to my constituents—that we are going to cancel the new retirement age and take it back to 60; anyone who says that knows they are telling whoppers, and that that is not going to happen.
Stephen Lloyd
I am going to continue.
If there are Members who honestly say that to their constituents—well, I am not going to cast any slurs on anyone in the Chamber. This is having a shocking impact in some parts of the country and on many WASPI women and I believe that the Government have a duty to find some additional money to assist with the transition period. That is the right and the honourable thing to do, and I believe that the Government must find that money. If they do, a lot of WASPI women will, possibly through gritted teeth, accept that transition money and move on with this challenging age change. Without that, however, the anger and the sense of justifiable unfairness will increase, which will leave a real scar for a heck of a lot of women born in the 1950s who have contributed not just to the greatness of our nation, but through the children, grandchildren and families that have made our country what it is today.
I urge the Minister to go to the Chancellor and ask him to find an element of transition money that will at least allow the WASPI women to have the funds, not just to make up for losing the six years, but to cover the money that this has cost so many. I urge the Minister to find a way; find some transition money, make a difference, and do it now.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
This is an important cause that affects thousands of women on the Isle of Wight, and I have had the pleasure of meeting my WASPI representatives on several occasions. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his words on the issue; he knows I hold him in high regard. The Government have done good work on pensions and in many other areas that have improved the lives of pensioners.
My hon. Friend talked about the importance of fairness. In justification of the WASPI women, they would say that the current system is not fair to them, and it is difficult to argue against that point. I have heard many stories of hardship from WASPI women on the Island, many of whom found out at a very late stage of the day that their pensions would be extremely negatively affected. These are not spendthrift people; they are people who have either raised families or worked hard and paid into the system over many years. It pains me to read stories of hardship from them.
My concern for the Government is that a pensions Bill might force this issue, and I believe that, on the grounds of fairness and common sense, moving in some way to rectify this issue now would be better than being forced to do so later. So if there is a way of putting in place transition payments or a mechanism can be found to alleviate some of the worst problems faced by the WASPI women, who are an admirable cause, the Government would get my full support. I know my hon. Friend the Minister cares about this issue very much.
Jim McMahon
Given the likelihood that the Government will eventually have to change their position, would it not make sense for a good Government to ensure that financial provision was being made for that eventuality now?
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
We recently heard from the Chancellor about how he had buckled under the immense lobbying pressure of his 13 Scottish Tory colleagues. That pressure supposedly made all the difference to his scrapping VAT payments for Scotland’s police and fire services. Perhaps the half-baked baker’s dozen could have another word in his ear to prove that they understand this situation and that they care about the WASPI women and are seeking to achieve justice for them. If the UK Government make no changes, this will simply show that the Scottish Tories are not as influential as they are made out to be, or that they simply do not care about the plight of the WASPI women. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) spoke as though he truly understood the problem, but will he follow us through the Lobby, or was it all just empty rhetoric?
Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, what would happen if MPs born in the 1950s were not made aware of major changes to their pensions that resulted in their not receiving them until years later? If we debated that—and we would—the House would be full to the gunnels. MPs would be filling every single seat, and the steps in between. How quickly would this House find a political solution to that problem? How quick are we to vote ourselves a pay rise? That is the benchmark that the Government should be judged by. On behalf of the 5,700 WASPI women of Inverclyde, I want to tell the UK Government that we will keep on bringing these debates to the House, that we will continue to raise the issue in the press and that we will not go away until there has been a resolution to the plight of those affected by these pension changes.
The momentum of the WASPI campaign has not weakened. Next week, my office will host a meeting of the Inverclyde WASPI group as it maintains its work on attracting new volunteers and making sure that the affected women have access to advice and support. The campaign has already raised more than £100,000 to fund an initial legal campaign, and the Minister must surely be aware it is now too well organised and well funded for him to continue dismissing its concerns. According to the campaign, 196 Members have committed themselves to assisting it. This should be seen as a signal that the UK Government need to begin a dialogue with the WASPI women and that they have to start that dialogue now. The women are being very reasonable in asking for this opportunity. There may be many small steps along the way to achieving a solution, but the UK Government should see sense and take this first step willingly, rather than being dragged along by the undeniable force of public pressure. It is not too late for this Government to do the decent thing and make amends for this ill-advised, poorly administered and damaging policy.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a great honour to speak in the debate on this important issue on behalf of the many WASPI women of Chelmsford who have been to visit me, especially the lovely Cheryl Lucas, who speaks with great calm and compassion on the issue. I have deep respect for them and for the situation they find themselves in. Many of these women have worked for many years and paid their taxes and national insurance contributions. They have told me how they had made plans based on the expectation that they would retire on a certain date, only for that date to be changed. Some of them genuinely feel that they were not consulted or made aware of the change of date. Others had retired early in anticipation—
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is putting her case very well. Is this not why it is such an insult to suggest to older women that things will be fine if they go out and get an apprenticeship?
Vicky Ford
Let me carry on with my point, because I would dearly love to help the WASPI women in my constituency who find themselves in this situation.
I look at the statistics, and as a mathematician, I remember looking at life expectancy a few years ago. My mother is 30 years older than I am, and my daughter is 30 years younger than I am. Of my mother’s age group—those born in 1937—6% will live to 100. For my age group, 16% will live to 100. In my daughter’s age group, it is 26%. We are all living longer, and we all therefore need to work longer. That is why successive Labour and Conservative Governments have been right to take measures to change the pension age.
I have thought about what more we could do to help the women who have been affected. If we give them additional financial or tax benefits, what then do I say to women like me who were born in the 1960s? Why should a woman born in 1959 get an additional benefit, but not the woman born in 1960? I have championed equality all my life, so what do I say to the men when the women get an additional benefit? What do I say to my daughter’s generation, who are struggling with student debt and struggling to get on the housing ladder? They can see that they may never have anything like the workplace pensions that we have had.
The jobs that the WASPI women have been doing in the past may often not be jobs that they want to continue doing into their 60s and may not suit them, which is why it is so important that we champion opportunities for some of our older workers—people in their 50s, like myself, and people in their 60s. We should go out and tell employers that these women are fantastic and can really add value. For those who have genuine problems, we must be faster in getting support to them. I was contacted by a WASPI woman just this week who has cancer and needs support, so we need to be quicker. I understand why the Government cannot write a blank cheque, but please let us find some support.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). The WASPI situation is a stain on this country. Were it not for the decisions made by others, these women would perhaps never have thought of turning to politics or of organising, lobbying, shouting and screaming. People such as Ali Wallis and Pat Milligan from East Lothian are organising and seeking justice for the WASPI women. Some 6,000 women in my constituency are being organised and assisted to follow the four-stage process not to seek their pension, but to seek a maladministration review of how information was not given to them. They meet in my constituency office to plan how to identify the other affected women in the area, and I must pay tribute to my predecessor George Kerevan, who aided and assisted the WASPI women so eloquently.
I must point out that the WASPI campaign’s aim is not the equalisation of pension ages; it is about the transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s. The campaign recognises the longevity of our population today. The campaign is about the transitional provisions. In March 2016, the Work and Pensions Committee concluded that the communication
“has been too little too late for many women, especially given increases in the state pension age have been accelerated at relatively short notice. Many thousands of women justifiably feel aggrieved.”
Among the 6,000 affected women in East Lothian, those aged between 60 and 62 will see their household incomes fall and income poverty will increase due to the changes. Women who were born in the ’50s have paid so much into our system, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, which should be extended to all those nearing pension age or receiving a state pension. Perhaps the Government should take this opportunity to write to the women to set out the situation. If the Government are unable to offer any financial compensation, they should at least point out the maladministration steps that could be taken so that the matter can be investigated.
We stand up in this place for the people who struggle to have a voice. The WASPI women do not have that struggle, but they seem to struggle getting the Government to listen to them. We must honour the women who have contributed so much to our society, listen to what they are asking for and give them the respect that they so rightly deserve.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I welcome this debate—[Interruption.] Excuse me. I would have welcomed the opportunity to put far more points on the record had the leader of the SNP not taken almost 40 minutes with his opening remarks. This is the first debate in this Chamber—[Interruption.] SNP Members may want to hear what I have to say.
This is the first debate in this Chamber in which I have been able to articulate the views of WASPI women in Moray, and I would have appreciated a little more than three minutes. Our previous Westminster Hall debate was secured by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) in early July, less than a month after I was elected to this place. I had not made a maiden speech and, again, there was a very restrictive time limit. Having previously met Moray WASPI women, I told them that I would not contribute to that debate, and they understood, yet the SNP put out a press release criticising me for it. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) said:
“Douglas Ross must do the right thing for these women”,
despite these women believing that I was doing the right thing for them.
The SNP press release led to comments on social media calling me an “effing snake,” a “little twerp” and a “disgrace to humanity.” In direct response, another message said:
“I think Guy Fawkes had a good idea.”
The SNP has done a lot on this issue, but I agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that, despite the wording of the motion, the words from the SNP today do not try to encourage more people to support the motion.
I support the 6,400 women in Moray who are affected by this issue. They all agree on the need to equalise the state pension age, but the biggest issue for me and for them is the lack of communication from Governments of all parties. It is because of that lack of communication that I signed the pledge before the election, and I support the pledge now.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made a valid point about 53% of women relying on the state pension, compared with a far smaller proportion of men.
Tim Loughton
I offer my hon. Friend some refuelling, because the SNP would benefit from listening to his wise words. Just because we are from a different party, it does not mean that our commitment to the cause is any less. Does he agree that one suggestion that would show willing—it came up in the Budget for other generations—is for the WASPI women at least to be given back their bus passes? That would help them, and it would be a start to showing our recognition that there is a problem we need to address.
Douglas Ross
I agree with a lot of what my hon. Friend says, both now and in previous debates on this issue.
More can be done. There is a lot we can discuss and debate, and I have put myself forward to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women. I signed a pledge before the election, and SNP Members have criticised me every day since I have been elected for not honouring that pledge.
I return to the earlier remarks by SNP Members and by the hon. Member for East Antrim. People can be convinced not by shouting them down every time but by trying to get them to go along with us.
Douglas Ross
I am just finishing.
A constituent contacted me after the last efforts by the SNP. She said, “I just wanted to say I am disappointed at the media response to your support of WASPI in Moray. I do hope your support for us continues and we don’t become victims in the backlash.” I believe WASPI women are already victims—victims of decisions in this Parliament by both sides—and, because they are already victims, I say in the calmest possible way to the SNP that, despite the actions of SNP Members in this debate, I believe the wording of their motion is sensible. If the House divides tonight, I will be joining them to support their motion.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). In my short contribution, I intend to furnish the House with a few examples of the 5,500 women from Airdrie and Shotts who have seen their state pension entitlement cut at short notice. If the Government will not listen to Members on both sides of the House, perhaps they might listen to our constituents and their taxpayers.
My first constituent wishes to remain anonymous. She worked for 43 years and has never been out of work. By the end of 2013 she was exhausted from her work and decided to retire. She knew that she had not yet reached her increased retirement age of 62, but she and her husband calculated their finances and felt that she could and should retire at that time. So she handed in her three months’ notice and it was not until a financial adviser, provided by her employer, visited her home that she found out she could not retire until she was 65. By that time, someone else had been offered her job and she just had to make do, all because of the lack of notice.
The next case is that of Christine Rennie from Airdrie. All her working life she had expected to retire at 60, in 2015, but she was given no notice that that was to be extended until 2021. Mrs Rennie has Crohn’s disease, which is managed by injections into her stomach. The Crohn’s reacts to cold weather, and part of her job as a classroom assistant is playground duty—it does not take me to explain the issues at stake there. Like so many other women in this era, she gave up work to bring up her family and returned to part-time work, with no access to a private pension. She will rely financially on her state pension to retire and she needs it now.
Finally, Ellen Connelly from Airdrie was due to retire aged 60 in 2014, but will now have to wait until 2020, when she turns 66. Highlighting the communications problems once again, Mrs Connelly says she only found out about the state pension age rise via the GMB union magazine. Had she been given proper notice, she would have had the time to find a new job, rather than having to work as a nursing ancillary until she is 66. A lack of notice makes it almost impossible for her to do anything other than continue in that demanding role.
The few cases I have highlighted will not even be the worst examples in my constituency, never mind the rest of the country. They are not the worst we have heard today; they are just a random example from the dozens who have contacted me and will doubtless have contacted others. Every one of these women has had their life turned upside down as a result of the incompetence and intransigence of successive UK Governments.
In conclusion, we all have ladies in our constituencies born in the 1950s who have been impacted by the changes to the state pension age, but there is one thing that does separate us today. Later, some of us will recognise, respect and represent these ladies, and we will be separated from those who will chose to try to ignore them once again. I know where I will be, and that will be in the Lobby backing my WASPI women.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As time is short, I will focus on a few key issues. I cannot support the motion for a few crucial reasons, the first of which is that the SNP has not clarified its own domestic position adequately to the House. We have heard that there have been many debates on the issue, and the Minister has clarified that there are powers available in the Scotland Act 2016, passed by this House, so I ask SNP Members to consider why the SNP has not addressed this itself in Scotland. Is it simply because it faces declining popularity in Scotland, as reflected in our having more Scottish Conservative MPs?
We all have met WASPI women in our constituencies, and I have spoken to women who have been affected. I am very much aware that these women have been working hard since they were 14 or 15 and have often borne the brunt of caring responsibilities. They have brought up families, and they definitely feel a sense of injustice.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Surely this is about justice, about doing the right thing for WASPI women and about Conservatives joining Opposition Members on the issue. The 31 Conservatives who claim to be supporting the WASPI women—and rightfully so—should join us in the Lobby. Let us have some justice and some proper transitional arrangements.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the basis of the claim in the motion is that nothing has been done, and that is simply not the case. This Government have already allocated more than £1 billion to help women. We have heard this morning from the First Secretary of State that the pension age will be equalised by next year. Although I accept that there are women who feel a sense of injustice, this motion is not the way to deal with it. Let us instead look at what the Government have done to improve the lives of older people up and down this country, including in Scotland.
The investment in the NHS has meant that we have seen people receiving better healthcare, enabling them to live fuller active lives, which means participating in the workforce for longer. I was surprised to hear that it might be an insult for a woman aged 65 to be offered an apprenticeship. I know women of 65 who find that a great opportunity—why write off women just because they are 65? The idea does not apply to all women—no one is saying it does—but research shows that when women take up such opportunities at the age of 65, they report increased satisfaction. We all know that participating in the workforce is one of the best ways to improve mental health and a whole range of other outcomes. I reject the suggestion that it is insulting. Government Members like to think about how we can create more opportunities for our people to participate and live fuller lives, at all stages of their lives. It is incumbent on Members from all parties to recognise that and support it.
We need to look into some of the statistics that Opposition Members have made claims about. Having read some briefings, I do not recognise some of the statistics on maladministration, an issue that the Minister addressed. We need to be honest about the communication programme and the fact that women have been able to plan for their retirement. The crux of my argument is that there is no suggestion that the SNP proposal is costed, and I dispute the figure put forward by its Members.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is important. I pointed out earlier in the debate that the SNP published the Landman report last year and it was fully costed. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) has made an error by saying that our proposal has not been costed. It has been costed precisely and she should recognise that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate, and it has simply reduced the time available for other people to speak.
Rachel Maclean
Research has suggested that it might cost £36 billion to implement the proposals. When I speak to WASPI women in Redditch, how am I supposed to say to them, “Let’s not spend money helping your children and grandchildren”—
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It strikes me that some of us in this House might do well to remember that our retirement might be a decision made by the electorate, who have every right to know when they can retire. They would know, were it not for the way in which the House passed legislation in 1995 and 2011 that changed the state pension age for women born in the ’50s and then failed to communicate that effectively.
The changes to the state pension age affect women such as a constituent of mine who recently came to me to tell me that although she had planned for her retirement for almost 30 years, she now found herself having to do two part-time jobs just to remain solvent. This is a woman who had worked all her life, paid her national insurance and saved for her retirement, and she now works as a cleaner and, as a result, suffers from arthritis. Her life today is very different from the one she anticipated. That she finds herself in this situation is not her fault but is down to the Government’s mismanagement. She was offered voluntary redundancy a couple of years before her anticipated retirement age. She calculated that with two years to go she could use the redundancy money, as well as her savings, to see her through, but she then discovered that she actually had to wait for the best part of a decade to retire. She has now used up her redundancy money, her savings have been whittled away, and she has those two jobs.
My constituent is not alone. Some 6,000 women in my constituency alone have been affected, and almost 3 million women throughout the country have been drawn into this unjust pension trap. Our constituents, in some cases our friends and members of our families, have been pushed into hardship, even poverty, after a lifetime of work. What is most galling is that the women who come to me, like so many others, have no quibble with the need to equalise the pension age with that of men. As has been said already, the issue is how it has been done. A situation has been created in which women born in the 1950s who, for the most part, worked all their adult lives, paid their national insurance and tax—paying for our education service and national health service—and planned for their retirement are now asked to wait.
During the general election campaign, an elderly person told me that they felt they were being punished by the Conservative Government for growing old. It is difficult not to agree with that today. One thing about this debate that has disappointed me has been the political point scoring between one side of the House and the other. Perhaps it is more important for all of us to rise above that and work to do something to reverse this monstrous injustice; otherwise, the electorate may well offer us all early retirement.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate the Scottish National party on selecting this topic for its Opposition day debate. It is one on which I and many other Members—too many to mention them all—have been working. However, I do wish to mention the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for the sterling work that he has done, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who have raised this issue time and again and have worked hard to encourage Members from all parts of the House to speak in the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that the motion has been carefully crafted to allow anyone to support it—both Government and Opposition Members—and I urge everyone to do so.
If the Government do not take this opportunity to resolve the issue, I remind them that we will have another big debate on this matter in the Chamber on Wednesday 14 December, and I encourage all Members to come along. I say to Ministers: please do not think that you will get off the hook. If this new Session of Parliament has taught us anything, it is that the Government have been prepared, on more than one occasion, to cover their eyes and ears to pretend that suffering is not happening—on universal credit, employment and support allowance, personal independence payments, food banks and now on WASPI. While I have the attention of Ministers for a very brief period, I therefore want to tell them some of the reasons why they should act.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend and neighbour agree that 5,500 women in Hartlepool have been victimised by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the consequences have been devastating? They have been robbed of the happy retirement that they deserve and forced into food banks and the dysfunctional benefits system.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. It is something that affects every Member. Often we bring up issues that affect only the north, only Scotland or only Wales. This time, people in every constituency are affected.
Grahame Morris
I really should not give way, because of the time. I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but you will admonish me if I give way, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I recently tabled early-day motion 63, which has been signed by 197 Members. A petition was signed by 107,000 people, which led to the granting of a debate. It will take place next week, if it is necessary—if the Minister does not concede the point tonight. May I remind him that the early-day motion has been signed by Members from every party, every nation and every region in the UK?
Every day, I receive completely heartbreaking letters and emails from women who are in dire financial hardship. Many of them have worked and paid national insurance contributions since they were 16. They now find that the deal that they signed with the Government in good faith has effectively been ripped up. We are talking about a contract and a moral obligation on Government. An unnecessary situation has been created, with a generation of women relying on food banks, selling their homes and being forced to rely on the benefits system. It is degrading, completely unfair and unnecessary.
The failings by consecutive Governments have forced these women, many of whom I have known for years because I live in the constituency that I represent, into poverty and forced them to rely on support from friends and relatives. I am totally convinced of the sincerity of their claim that they knew nothing about the increase in pension age because of the lack of notification. I therefore urge the Government immediately to acknowledge their error, provide all those affected with some level of compensation, and provide those worst affected—those who are waiting six years longer than they had planned before they receive their pension—with some support through a bridging pension. I thank the WASPI women for their support in raising this issue.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Many of the WASPI women watching this debate may feel disappointed that instead of trying to build some consensus, we have had finger pointing, Pontius Pilate-style hand washing and rancour. It is important to note that this is not a party political issue for many women, and certainly not for those I have spoken to. It is a personal issue that has affected their day-to-day lives, so they want Parliament’s collective attention. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has been an exception today, as he was very honest in accepting that all Administrations have played a part in this situation.
We will support the motion for a number of reasons. The first is that it is quite clear—even from successive Governments’ own admissions and from the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions—that people were not given adequate notice of the change. The Pensions Commission said that there should be about 15 years’ advance warning for such changes, but some people had less than five.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
There are 4,000 WASPI women in East Renfrewshire. None of those whom I have met have an issue with their state pension age going up; they simply feel that they were not given enough notice. Is there not a broader question about how the Government communicate with individuals who face serious consequences and life changes as a result of this policy? We need to look at the communication, not just at pensions.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Even DWP research found that, especially in the lower income groups, two thirds of women were not even aware of the changes. The very fact that the practice was changed to writing to people individually after 2011 indicates that the DWP recognised that newspaper adverts and leaflets were not sufficient.
The second reason why we support the motion is that these changes have hurt people in the lower income brackets. Look at the hardship that has been caused. Research shows that the impact on people with lower incomes is five times the impact on people with higher incomes. There is an issue not only of communication but of fairness, and that has to be dealt with. Poverty among 60 to 64-year-olds has already gone up by 6.2% as a result of the impact of the changes.
We support the motion even though it has been said that it is not specific. At this stage, it is probably right that it is not specific, because a range of remedies could be introduced to deal with the issue. I accept that not all those remedies will please people—for some, no remedies will. I want to be responsible, and I understand that we cannot simply rewrite pensions history and say, “Let’s undo all that has been done.” It is too costly. But there are a range of remedies, and the motion gives the Government the opportunity to come back with ideas within the financial restraints that they face at present. Those ideas can be knocked around and debated, and we can see what impact they would have and whether they target the people who are hit most badly. But at least let us have some recognition that there is a problem caused by bad communication, and that that problem hits certain groups of people, especially those on low incomes who are coming to the end of their working lives. Let us find a way to deal with it.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I have no wish to be disrespectful to anybody in the House, but I have to say that some of the comments I have heard from the Government side of the Chamber have been unmitigated piles of mince.
The injustice that has been visited on women born in the 1950s is widely accepted by most people, except the Conservatives, who continue either to tell those women that they can seek apprenticeships—we heard that again today, justified by the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is not in the slightest bit embarrassed by her comments—or draw down their early bus passes. You could not make this up. Apparently, the message to WASPI women suffering hardship right now is, “Don’t worry about it. Do you know what? You’re going to live longer and you might even get a telegram from the Queen, so that’s alright.”
Patricia Gibson
No, thank you.
The message is, “Don’t worry if you’re short of money now. Don’t worry if you can’t pay the rent. One day, if you hang on long enough, the Queen might send you a wee card.”
No one doubts that people are living longer. No one doubts that we need to have pension equalisation. That is not the issue at hand today; the issue at hand is the poverty these women are living in because this Government did not give them sufficient notice to make alternative plans.
Patricia Gibson
No, thank you.
That is what today’s debate is about, so Members should not come to the Chamber and talk about apprenticeships and about how we are all living longer. That is nothing to do with what this debate is about.
To add insult to injury, new freedom of information figures reveal that the DWP has received thousands of complaints relating to the WASPI campaign, yet only six investigations have been seen through to completion. Despite the so-called dedicated complaints team, thousands of women have been let down and robbed of a pension, with questions unanswered.
What about the Prime Minister’s vow to tackle “burning injustice”? I continue to wait for evidence of that. What about the Tory MPs from Scotland who pledged their support to the WASPI women but who will stand up today, give those women tea and sympathy and then go on to abstain in the vote? They are a disgrace. They should hang their heads in shame.
It is time that this burning injustice was addressed. It is time for the Government to stop giving these women a deaf ear. They should take off their brass neck and do the right thing. It is time to give WASPI women the justice they deserve.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
I thought I would never hear the likes of it, but I have: the idea that the solution is for people to draw down their bus pass; or that, somehow, it is not offensive—I am looking at the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean)—to offer a 65-year-old woman an apprenticeship. That is completely out of touch with this nation, and I am offended on behalf of these women.
I want to challenge the premise that everyone is living longer. Are the poorest in this nation living longer? I would also challenge the premise that, just because someone lives longer, they should work longer and not actually live longer after their working life.
Five thousand women in my constituency are affected by this pension age increase and by the woeful and inadequate notice they received of the changes. I met those women during the general election campaign, as other Members met women in their constituencies, and they made a massive impression on me.
There are now 190 Members in this House who said they would support the WASPI women. I hope that that was not just an election gimmick—I am looking at the Scottish Conservatives. Anybody who has supported these women needs to do that now. They have to keep their contract with those women in deeds and not just words. [Interruption.] I see that the Whip has just done the rounds of the Tories, but I hope that that was not to put pressure on them. They should come into the Lobby with us.
My own mam was born in 1953 and started work at the age of 13. She worked for 47 years and thought she would get her pension at the age of 61; actually, she will get it at the age of 65 and two months. To this day, she still has not received any notification from the Department for Work and Pensions, as is the case for thousands of other women.
I can guarantee this: if these women owed the state any money—if there was any unpaid tax from these women or if there was any bill they had not paid—the Government would be on their backs. The Government would be tenacious in the recovery of that debt, and the communication would be thick and fast.
To witness the disappointment of these women is heartbreaking. Women who could not have worked any harder all their life are being made into dependents at an older age. How degrading is that? The exponential increase in ESA claimants is telling.
Laura Pidcock
I am sorry, but there is not time.
In our universal credit debate, I heard the argument, which I reject, that the system of monthly payments teaches people lessons. But if we apply the premise from that debate—the one about expectations and notification—the Government have absolutely failed. For these women, who have not had adequate time to prepare, who have had inadequate correspondence from the DWP and who are at no fault at all, the right thing to do is to compensate them and to have a bridging pension.
The 1950s women will not give up. They will not go away and they will not forgive this Government if their demands are not met. They do not need apprenticeships or platitudes, but they need pension justice now. Let us have a vote and let us see whose side people are really on.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
I only arrived in this House in June this year and on 21 November I led my first Westminster Hall debate, on the state pension age. I was grateful to the many Opposition Members who attended and spoke up for women in their area and across the country. I was even more grateful to the many WASPI women who turned up in Westminster Hall that day to hear the people who spoke. Sadly, no Government Back Bencher turned up to speak, apart from in interventions.
We cannot beat Father Time; even Big Ben suffers from old age. One day, it will be our turn to retire. As we look back, will we wonder, “If only I had listened. If only I had cared. If only I could turn back time”? If Members cannot listen to me, they should listen to the WASPI women. Members will all have had plenty of letters, emails and Twitter and Facebook messages from their constituents—their own voters; the people who sent them here to listen to and speak up for them.
I am committed to fighting for a better deal for the WASPI women not just in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, but across the whole of the UK. It is time to listen; it is time to care—the WASPI women’s time has come.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I honestly do not think that Scotland has ever been talked about as much in the Chamber as in this debate, but it is worth reminding everybody that this is a UK-wide problem created by consecutive UK Governments.
I know that it is the job of the person winding up to sum up the debate, but I have been trying to figure out a way to do that without swearing. I will start with the Scottish Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) eloquently said that they have a brass neck. I am happy to supply the Brasso for that brass neck—honest to God, how shiny it is! The amount of rubbish spoken in the Chamber today by those Members is appalling.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) if he feels that any of my comments in a press release drew unjust criticism to him. However, my criticism is legitimate. He expresses annoyance at not being listened to, but this is the 12th time that we have had to debate this matter since I was elected. If any disrespect is being shown, it is by the Conservatives, who have refused to listen time and again.
Douglas Ross
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She would have listened to my speech, in which I said that it was not just me who was criticising the attitude of the SNP, but WASPI women in Moray, who wrote to me to express concern about the attitude of SNP Members, who do not try to get support across the aisle, but simply use the issue to score political points. That will not achieve the right result for the WASPI women.
Mhairi Black
Right, I will go over a few points again, just to get this across. In 1995, the then Government did not write to anybody to let them know that they would have extra years added on to their pension—[Interruption.] Hold on, I’m getting there. In 2011, this Government came along and said, “Right, see that timetable? We’re going to make it a lot quicker and much more intense.” Bear in mind that no letters were sent out until 14 years after the changes were implemented. Right? Let’s go with that. Conservative Governments—and, to be fair, consecutive Labour Governments—did not pick up on this, so here we are now.
Twelve times we have debated this issue since I was elected and on every single occasion, the Government have abstained. I would like the hon. Member for Moray to tell me what he thinks I should have done that I have not done yet. Can he?
Douglas Ross
If the hon. Lady wants me to tell her what she should do that she has not done yet, it is to answer my intervention from earlier.
Mhairi Black
Oh, the hon. Gentleman is a pleasure to talk to, but I will move on.
The motion was deliberately written to make sure that it was not party political—[Laughter.] I am loving the laughter from Conservatives Members. If they want to tell me what is funny, I would suggest an intervention.
Ross Thomson
I thank the hon. Lady very much for taking an intervention. She says the motion was written so that it was not party political. I am afraid that the diatribe we have heard from SNP Members has been nothing but narrow, party political point scoring that has achieved nothing for WASPI and nothing for those affected, and is only in the interests of the SNP. The women affected deserve better.
Mhairi Black
The motion says:
“That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.”
What part of that can the hon. Gentleman not get on board with?
Mhairi Black
No, I am moving on. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) to talk about the attitude of SNP Members considering some of the guff that has been coming from the Conservatives, especially in the last couple of weeks.
The point is that even when we come to the House with a non-political motion—[Interruption.] I suggest you listen as well. We have had more excuses and more of the same; everybody has covered that. Let us remember that these women are guilty of nothing other than when they were born. Only women are getting affected by this. We keep hearing about equalisation, but it is a strange definition of equality when only women get targeted and are told that they are going to be left destitute.
I am coming to the end of my remarks. We are told that these women can get apprenticeships. If anybody cannot see the problem with suggesting that 65-year-olds start a new career and a new pension pot, I am sorry, but I do not know who they are talking to. To be fair to the Minister, that is an opportunity, if people want it, but they should not be forced into it. A better idea is to try paying them their pension.
Mhairi Black
No, I will not. Sit down!
In conclusion, I have to express some frustration at the Labour party. I am being very gentle on it, because I appreciate that we are all on board with this. My main difference with Labour Members is on the constitutional question, and that is fair enough. Three years ago we were told that we were better together, on the strong shoulders of the United Kingdom. We were told, “Vote no to save your pension.” It has been three years; if we are better together, prove it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Caroline Dinenage)
I start by thanking everyone who has contributed to today’s debate on this important issue. Members on both sides of the House have made passionate and heartfelt speeches and interventions.
A welfare and pensions system is successful only as long as it is sustainable, and as the population balance shifts from working-age pension contributors to those aged over 65, an increase in the state pension age is necessary for the welfare of all. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) pointed out, virtually every party in the House has either taken the opportunity to raise it, or not taken the opportunity to do something about it.
Jamie Stone
To support my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), does the Minister agree that the failure to address the issue—for whatever reason, and by whatever party—reflects badly on this Parliament in general at a time when we could do with a much higher standing in public esteem?
Caroline Dinenage
We have taken forward transitional arrangements. It is insulting for Members from parties that have played their part in getting us to where we are today somehow to wash their hands of the matter. I will go on to make a few points, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Those who are able to work should support those who are not, confident in the expectation of similar support when they reach retirement. Today’s workers provide the support for today’s pensioners, and that is why it is so important that we have the right balance of the contributions that are paid in at present with the pensions that are being withdrawn, and that we adjust pension ages to maintain that balance. Women who retire today can still expect to receive the state pension for 24 and a half years, on average—almost three years longer than men.
As was outlined by the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the Department for Work and Pensions has communicated the timetable for changes to the state pension age since they were first set in train 22 years ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) pointed out, in response to concerns raised during debates on the Pensions Act 2011 in both Houses, we introduced the £1.1 billion concession that has been mentioned, which staggered the changes and ensured that no one would wait more than 18 months for their pensions, compared with under the previous timetable.
Any further concession would cost significantly more. It would involve asking people of working age—more specifically, today’s younger people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned—to pay even more for it. Those outcomes simply cannot be justified.
Caroline Dinenage
I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. He made criticisms in relation to the Budget and the Chancellor, but he went on to speak for a considerable time today, taking more than 40 minutes for himself and depriving Back Benchers of the chance to have their say. I will make some progress—[Interruption.] I want to address some of the issues that have been raised by SNP Members, so if the right hon. Gentleman would like to listen, I will do so.
As has previously been stated—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) pointed this out—if the Scottish National party disagrees with any of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, it has the power to do something about it in Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has mentioned on several occasions that the Scottish National party’s Westminster parliamentary group published a report by Landman Economics, which modelled—[Interruption.] I thought he would be keen to listen to this. The report modelled the impact of a number of options for compensating women affected by the 2011 Act. Of these, the Scottish National party’s preferred option was to abandon that Act entirely, returning us to the timetable under the Pensions Act 1995.
The SNP-commissioned report put the cost of this option at £7.9 billion for the period between 2016-17 to 2020-21. As it stands, that is simply unaffordable, but it has the double misfortune of also being wrong. The Landman report significantly underestimates the full costs of returning to the 1995 Act’s timetable. The Government estimate that the cost over that period would be about £14 billion—nearly double—and that figure includes the impact of lost revenue from tax and national insurance, which the Landman report does not fully take into account.
What is worse is that the SNP’s position applies the costs only to the five-year window between 2016-17 and 2020-21. The costs beyond this horizon are simply not included in the option put forward. If the changes we are implementing did not happen, the actual costs to working-age people would be more than £30 billion over an extended period, which is equivalent to over £1,100 per household. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to justify that to his constituents.
The Scottish National party has also suggested using the national insurance fund to pay for the cost of scrapping the Pensions Act 2011. However, that is not the intended use of the fund, and it is worth reiterating that today’s national insurance contributions fund today’s pensions, with an excess of only two months’ outgoing payments at any given time.
The new state pension is actually much more generous for many women, who were historically worse off under the old system. By 2030, over 3 million women stand to gain an average of £550 extra per year as a result of these changes. The acceleration of the increase in the state pension age for both women and men is necessary to ensure the state pension system’s sustainability in the light of increasing life expectancy and more pressure on public resources. In fact, by 2035, there will be more than twice as many people aged 100 and over as there are now.
Failure to act in the light of such compelling evidence would be reckless. Given the increasing financial pressure that I have described, we cannot and should not unpick a policy that has been in place for 22 years. It is simply not affordable, especially when we take into account the fact that the average woman reaching state pension age will get a higher state pension income over her lifetime than an average woman reaching state pension age at any earlier point.
It is important to appreciate the modern lived experience of later life in the 21st century, which has altered significantly since the inception of the state pension in the 1940s. Longer life, better health and continued activity in later decades are reshaping the profile and participation of older people in our society. This includes sustaining work and other economic activity as those over 60 continue to learn, earn, contribute and participate.
Rachel Maclean
Contrary to the assertion by SNP Members that it is an insult to offer an apprenticeship, does my hon. Friend agree that saying that is actually an insult to women who would like to take up—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sorry, but I think the Minister had finished her speech.
Caroline Dinenage
In fact, I do not think that I had quite finished, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I do not think that anybody is suggesting that older women should be forced to take an apprenticeship. No one is even suggesting that they should be cajoled or encouraged to do so, but I find it insulting that SNP and Labour Members seem to be suggesting that women over the age of 60 should be put on the scrapheap and should not be allowed to do what they want. If they want to take an apprenticeship, they should be allowed to do so.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had an impassioned debate, and a clear and decisive result. This House has determined that the Government should bring in mitigation for the WASPI women. I am seeking your guidance as to what we now need to do to empower the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the Chamber, recognise parliamentary democracy, and put in place the Government’s plans to respect the motion that the House has passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I think that the most useful thing I can do is read out the written statement made by the Leader of the House on 26 October in which she updated the House on the Government’s approach to Opposition day debates. She said:
“Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate. This is to allow thoughtful consideration of the points that have been raised, facilitate collective discussion across Government, especially on cross-cutting issues, and to outline any actions that have been taken.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 12WS.]
I think that it is very clear what the Government will do. The right hon. Gentleman may well wish to question the Leader of the House further tomorrow, during the exchanges on the business statement, about when there might be a response from the Government.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the amount of time that Divisions on Opposition day motions take, would it be possible to issue Conservative Members with white flags to wave, rather than our having to put up with the inconvenience of a Division?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, that is very ingenious but, as the Speaker has said before, it is up to each individual Member to decide which way to vote, or even whether to vote.
EU Nationals
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Home Secretary to introduce legislative proposals in this Session of Parliament, in line with the recommendation in paragraph 45 of the Second Report of the Exiting the European Union Committee of Session 2016-17, The Government's negotiating objectives: the rights of UK and EU citizens, HC 1071, that the Government should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.
It is the responsibility of each of us—every parliamentarian—to represent all citizens, regardless of who they voted for. We must also all be aware that our actions in this place have consequences, just as our lack of action has consequences. It is now 525 days— 75 weeks on Thursday—since the EU referendum, which delivered crushing uncertainty to our fellow citizens who happen to come from elsewhere in the European Union. We can change that: we can take away the uncertainty that has been so damaging for the past 75 weeks.
Our motion contains a direct quotation from a report from the cross-party Select Committee on Exiting the European Union in stating that we
“should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.”
That is something that this Government should have done months ago, but once again it is up to the Opposition to give them an opportunity to take away the uncertainty and to do the right thing by our fellow citizens. That should apply to EU citizens and to core family members.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman in advance on winning the vote at 7 pm, given that the Government appear to be absenting themselves from democracy in the Chamber. Does he agree that the uncertainty must be cleared up once and for all? Many organisations in my constituency, including the world-class Edinburgh University, require EU nationals in order to remain world-class, and that is why we need to clear this up as soon as possible.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point. I shall say something about universities shortly. The excellence of Edinburgh University is, of course, dwarfed only by that of the University of St Andrews.
I hope that tonight the House will back the ability of EU citizens to remain, and that we will take away that uncertainty. Just as we should be delivering fairness for WASPI women, we should be delivering fairness for EU citizens.
Let us consider the contribution that EU nationals make. Our proposal would benefit not just those in our communities with EU passports, but our entire community. A lot of statistics are bandied about when it comes to our relationship with Europe, so let me give a few examples. There is the £40 billion just to leave the EU—just to keep us standing still—that we will not be able to spend on public services. There are the 80,000 jobs that the Fraser of Allander Institute reckons leaving will cost us in Scotland alone. There is also the £350 million a week that we were promised for the NHS, which we are yet to see. That statistic came from senior Government members who are now in a position to deliver on the promise.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I have two universities in my constituency, and they often rely on the expertise of EU nationals for some of their courses and technology. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is very important?
Stephen Gethins
I absolutely agree, and I will come on that shortly. In fact, it is important, not just for universities but across a range of industries.
To add to the statistics I have just given, I will give some statistics applicable to Scotland. Each EU citizen working in my country contributes £34,500 to GDP, which comes to about £4.5 billion overall. Each EU citizen working in Scotland contributes £10,500 in Government revenue—the taxes we spend on our public services. Frankly, EU citizens are better for the economy than Brexit.
The following is a critical point, which I hope the Minister will touch on when he sums up. Will the Government keep the promise made by Vote Leave—made by senior members of the Government—that
“there will be no change for EU citizens…resident in the UK”
and that they
“will be treated no less favourably than they are at present”?
Vote Leave did not tell us much, but it did make promises, and these promises were made by senior members of the Government, who have a responsibility to keep them.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an EU citizen who came here back in, let us say, 1968, and who had “ILR”—indefinite leave to remain—stamped in their passport but might since have lost their passport, will apparently be required to prove that they have not left the UK for two years since arriving in 1968?
Stephen Gethins
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about that uncertainty. I have had such cases in my constituency. There are people who have lived here since the 1960s and 1970s and, as far as I am concerned, they have as much right to live here as I do, or as other Members do, but that right has been taken away from them. That is a disgrace to each and every one of us.
Stephen Gethins
There is one way to get rid of scaremongering: to vote with us tonight and give EU citizens certainty. This Parliament has the power to put an end to that uncertainty.
Let me talk about some of the key industries. On the NHS, the Conservatives should be ashamed. Anyone who has spent time in hospital recently or had relatives who have done so, will tell of the outstanding care from all staff in the NHS, including EU nationals. Very few of us will not have been treated by an EU national at some point. Yet the British Medical Association reports that 45% of doctors are considering leaving and 19% have already made arrangements to do so. That is damaging for us all—each and every one of us.
Seasonal workers make an absolutely crucial contribution on our farms. Just a couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a farmer in my constituency who plants broccoli. He told me that it has to be harvested by hand, and that if the number of seasonal workers continues to go down, the harvest cannot be taken in. That uncertainty is being created for industries in my constituency and, I suspect, in rural constituencies across the UK.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
There are not many rural elements to my constituency, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same principle applies to construction, where we could also face a lack of skilled workers, holding up the building of more affordable homes, which are urgently needed, including in my constituency?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the construction industry.
The University of St Andrews is a big employer in my constituency, with 22% of its academic staff and 31% of its research staff coming from other EU countries. That is absolutely critical.
I want to touch on the human angle now. It is all very well to talk about statistics and the big impact; that is something that we are all aware of. I have asked colleagues across the House about EU nationals in their constituencies, and I want to give hon. Members some examples. In Glasgow North, for example, Michèle Gordon, a Scot who is originally from Germany, runs the Language Hub, which helps young and old people to learn new language skills. In Rosyth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), Dace Stutane, a Scot who is originally from Latvia, volunteers in the community garden to cultivate vegetables to give to local children. In St Andrews, Silvia Paracchini, a Scot originally from Italy, works with a team of five other EU nationals on ground-breaking neurogenetics, including vital work on dyslexia. That work will benefit us all. Nanodent in Glenrothes and Edinburgh has Spanish and Greek dentists who are plugging a gap in that vital service. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) is married to a German Scot who has worked in the NHS in Scotland for 32 years. The former Member of the Scottish Parliament, Christian Allard, is a Scot who was originally from France. He set up a fishing business and is now in Aberdeen.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the Scottish Parliament, will know that the final wood-finishing work in that building was done by craftsmen from eastern Europe. When I was in another place, in another incarnation, Bovis told me that that work could not have been carried out, but for those craftsmen, because we no longer have those skills in this country.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, drawing on his own experience in the Scottish Parliament. That Parliament reflects the modern Scotland, drawing as it does on so many people from across the EU.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Gethins
I want to take an intervention from the other side of the House now.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman really insinuating that there is a threat in his mind—I believe that it exists only in his mind—that we are somehow going to remove these valuable members of our society from our nation? That is a preposterous suggestion. It is simply fear-mongering.
Stephen Gethins
This is outrageous. If this was scaremongering, the Government would be quite happy to remove the uncertainty from EU citizens, but they have not done so. And what about the 100 EU nationals who received Home Office letters telling them that there had been an unfortunate error? Those letters should have told them, “We are sorry. You are welcome to stay here.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Gethins
I want to finish making my points now.
The UK is at a crossroads in relation to the kind of country that we want to see. The first mark of that must be the way in which we treat our fellow citizens. Is the message that is coming out that they are bargaining chips? Or is the message that we should be welcoming them? This is a question of fairness, just as it is for the WASPI women. If the UK Government will not keep the promises that were made by Vote Leave and by senior members of this Administration who are in a position to do something about this, they should devolve this power to the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Administrations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Gethins
I want to finish now, and I am sorry that some Members have not been able to get in.
The day after the EU referendum, the First Minister of Scotland said:
“I want to take the opportunity this morning to speak directly to citizens of other EU countries living here in Scotland—you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.”
Today, we are asking Parliament to use the powers that we have and, as the Brexit Committee has requested, to remove the uncertainty for EU citizens. We can do this today, right now.
The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)
It is good to have the chance to correct some of the inaccurate things that were stated just a few moments ago, and it was interesting to listen to the Scottish National party spokesman make a speech in which he simply decided not to recognise democracy. There was a referendum in this country, a decision was made and this Government will deliver what the people of the United Kingdom voted for, and we will deliver that in a way that gets a good deal for the United Kingdom.
Brandon Lewis
Not just yet; I want to make some progress.
We are listening to the SNP trying to play catch-up, and I will explain why they are yet again behind the curve on where we are. It is slightly odd and, I suspect, somewhat disconcerting for many people in Scotland today to listen to their representatives fail to represent the very people in Scotland who elected them, because there was not a single mention of any British citizen or Scottish individual who is living and working in the European Union. It is proper to ensure that we do right by them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brandon Lewis
I am going to make some progress before taking interventions.
More than 3 million EU citizens currently live in the UK, and the Government have been clear that we value their contribution to our national life, to our economy and to our rich and diverse society. We want them to stay, and there is agreement on that. We want them to stay and we want to deliver that for them.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. On the contribution of EU nationals, does it not concern him that there is an 89% drop in nurses and midwives coming from Europe and that 11% of UK-born nurses have fallen off the register? If we cannot recruit nurses and midwives, what will that mean for this country’s health service?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have done his homework and will have taken the time to look at the work we are doing on what we do as we leave the EU. The independent experts at the Migration Advisory Committee are doing work to look at what we do post Brexit, but let me be clear that we are still in the EU and still have freedom of movement, which will continue until we leave the EU.
Brandon Lewis
I will just finish answering the first intervention before taking any more.
At the last calculation, this country’s net migration figure was some 246,000, and roughly half of them were EU nationals, who continue to come to this country. People see the UK as a country to come to, and rightly so. We should continue to be a country that welcomes people and plays that role.
Brandon Lewis
I am going to make some progress, and I will then take some interventions. I am conscious of the limited time available for Back-Bench Members.
The future rights of EU citizens living here is an issue that has an impact on the lives of millions of hard-working people across the country, and it has been the Prime Minister’s first priority in the negotiations to ensure that they can carry on living their lives here as before. I therefore welcome the opportunity to outline that further today. The Government have been making it clear at every opportunity that we want to offer EU citizens living in the UK certainty about their future status as early as possible. We have been clear that no EU citizen currently lawfully in the UK will have to leave when we exit the EU, and hon. Members can play their part by reassuring their constituents of that fact—I am sure that they would not want to mislead anyone any further.
In June, we published a fair and comprehensive offer in respect of the position of EU citizens and their family members in the UK, giving residents who were here before a specified date the opportunity to take UK settled status after completing their qualifying residence period and enabling them to carry on with their lives as before. Family dependants who join a qualifying EU citizen in the UK before the exit date will also be able to apply for UK settled status after five years’ continuous residence—irrespective of the specified date. We have committed to provide an application system that is streamlined and user-friendly. Our intention is to develop a system that draws on existing Government data, such as the employment records held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will for the majority verify their residence as a worker. Our priority is to minimise the burden of documentary evidence required to prove eligibility under the withdrawal agreement.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that every day that passes means another day that EU citizens are living in limbo? I assure him that they are coming to my surgery in big numbers. Every day that passes is important, and the Government need to get on with setting out exactly what settled status means and to design a programme tomorrow.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady should look at what has already been said and at what we have outlined. She should read the Government’s offer, which clearly answers her very point. She has a part to play in reassuring her residents, rather than leaving them wondering about things on which they can have fixed answers.
We have already said that there will be a two-year period after exit for people to make an application, and our caseworkers will be exercising discretion in favour of the applicant, where appropriate, to avoid any unnecessary administrative burdens. For those who already hold an EU permanent residence document, there will be a very simple process to exchange it for a settled status document.
Andy Slaughter
I can tell the Minister what EU citizens think of his proposals because one in six of my constituents is an EU citizen. They think the proposals are bureaucratic and expensive, and that they will deliver second-class citizen status. He should withdraw the proposals and give EU citizens equal status, as they have now. He should do it unilaterally and he should do it now.
Brandon Lewis
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to go back, check the details of what we have already outlined on how the process will work and update his residents. They do not have to have those concerns, because what he has just outlined is simply inaccurate.
We have also been very clear that we fully expect the EU and its member states to ensure that the rights of UK nationals living across the EU before the specified date are safeguarded in a reciprocal way. Despite not mentioning it so far this afternoon, I would like to think that Members on both sides of the House will want to do the right thing and ensure that British citizens have their rights protected, too. This issue must therefore be resolved as part of the negotiations on our exit from the EU to ensure the fair treatment of UK nationals living in other EU countries.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
We are not convinced of the Government’s integrity on this point. Earlier this year, I took a petition to the European Parliament arguing for equal rights for EU citizens living here and for British citizens living in the EU. The petition, which also asks for several other things, has gone through three committees of the European Parliament. I remind the Minister that, ultimately, the European Parliament has the power of veto over the negotiations, which he should bear in mind. Many Members of this House have signed these petitions, which are now going through the EU process.
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Lady makes an interesting contribution, and I therefore hope she will support us in ensuring that all EU citizens here in the UK are aware of exactly what the Government are doing to ensure that they have confidence in being able to stay here.
One million UK nationals have built their lives elsewhere in Europe, and we want to make sure that we get a fair deal both for EU citizens in the UK and for UK nationals in the EU. That is a sensible approach, and it is one we will continue to take in the coming weeks. As I have said, it is notable that we are the party making that point, which I have not heard from Opposition Members in debates on this issue.
We have had detailed and constructive negotiations with the EU on citizens’ rights and, as the Prime Minister outlined, we are within touching distance of an agreement. Around two thirds of the issues identified have now been resolved, and we have isolated the key remaining issues to agree. We will be working hard in the coming days and weeks to finalise this chapter of the withdrawal agreement and to deliver our shared objective of providing swift reassurance to EU citizens in the UK and to UK nationals in the EU. For the UK to take unilateral positions at this stage of the negotiations would not be appropriate or responsible.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister has sought to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) for not mentioning UK nationals living in Europe. I know the Minister has met British in Europe, which represents that group, but can he tell us why, if the Government care so much about UK nationals living in Europe, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has refused to meet British in Europe despite countless requests to do so?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. and learned Lady will appreciate that, as the Minister responsible for this portfolio, I have met and will continue to meet representatives from that group. The fact remains that there needs to be an agreement between us and the EU, and that agreement must include protecting the status of UK nationals living, working and studying elsewhere in the EU.
The motion calls for the introduction of legislative proposals in this Session to unilaterally safeguard the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. I have just explained why we should not be taking unilateral action on this issue, as it would be wrong for British citizens. The motion is a little late, as the Government have already announced a new Bill to enshrine the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU in our domestic law.
Catherine West
What consideration has the Minister or his team given to the case of the3million campaign group, which is seeking to examine the fact that when EU nationals arrived under a different treaty they had nothing to do with the Home Office? One of the group’s fears is that the Home Office and its procedures may lead to a complicated procedure, whereas a light touch approach, perhaps from a local authority, may be more appropriate for those who arrived under free movement and with a different set of rights.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. As she may appreciate, I have met the3million and my team continues to meet it, as it is one of the user groups involved in designing the system we will use. As I have said, this system will be streamlined and simple, and it will be designed through working with the very user groups that will be accessing it, to make sure we can grant settled status swiftly, efficiently and effectively.
The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will directly implement the contents of the withdrawal agreement, including the agreement on citizens’ rights, in UK law by primary legislation. As I say, this is why the SNP is somewhat behind the curve. This approach will allow Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process, and it will mean that the agreement on citizens’ rights will have direct enforcement and effect in UK law. Ahead of any primary legislation, we are planning to set up a voluntary application process in 2018, so that EU citizens and their family members who want to get their new UK immigration status at their earliest convenience will be able to do so efficiently, swiftly and effectively.
EU citizens worried about their status here have the Government’s complete assurance that we want them to stay, that we value their presence here, both in our communities and in our economy, and that they continue to be welcome here in the UK. Given that it is in the interests of all parties to protect the rights of their citizens once the UK exits the EU, we are confident that both EU citizens and UK nationals will be protected through a reciprocal arrangement. As I have said, we are now very close to reaching an agreement that will protect EU citizens and UK nationals alike, so any attempt to take unilateral positions would risk undermining our ability to secure protection for the rights of UK nationals living in the EU. When we reach this agreement with the EU, the Government will then enshrine it in primary legislation, providing certainty to the millions of EU citizens who have made the UK their home.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, let me say that there are still a lot of Members wishing to speak and so after the shadow Minister I am going to impose a time limit of three minutes.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The International Trade Secretary told the Tory party conference last year that the Government
“would like to be able to give a reassurance to EU nationals in the UK, but that depends on reciprocation by other countries”.
He said any other strategy
“would be to hand over one of our main cards in the negotiations and doesn’t necessarily make sense at this point”.
That is using the EU nationals here as bargaining chips—that is the Government’s approach. This could have all been resolved quickly if the Government had made a unilateral guarantee of rights, as Labour Members were pushing for, and it would certainly have been reciprocated by the EU. At the start of the negotiations, the EU tabled an offer that opened the doors to a reciprocal arrangement. Had the UK accepted it and worked with the EU on the details, we may have settled the issue by now. But the UK did not take that course and instead has created a climate of uncertainty and confusion. That uncertainty has already led to discrimination against EU citizens.
Afzal Khan
I am going to make some progress, as we have limited time. Labour and the EU citizens’ rights group the3million found more than two dozen examples of job, housing and other adverts that illegally prevented applications from EU nationals. Those adverts have been reviewed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has written to a number of the advertisers. How can EU nationals who have been here for decades continue to feel welcome if we allow discrimination of that kind?
Even the Home Office is finding it hard to deal with the confusion. Over the summer, it sent hundreds of letters to EU nationals living in the UK, ordering them to leave the country or face deportation. The letters were intimidating and unsettling, especially given the fact that the recipients were in the UK perfectly legally. Instead of providing assurances from day one, the Government made their own offer on EU citizens’ rights. Their so-called settled status offer has been extensively criticised by the3million. The Government must urgently improve their offer and stop acting as if this settled status is a settled matter.
The problem with settled status is that the Government seem to think that assimilating EU nationals into our existing immigration system is sufficient. That was the vision set out in the leaked Home Office White Paper, but it is not sufficient. The Government will have to realise quickly that both our non-EEA and EEA immigration systems need a total overhaul. Moreover, although this debate focuses on EU nationals in the UK, let us not forget British citizens living in EU27 countries. Despite the pensioner stereotype, some 80% of them are working, often on a cross-border basis. What are the Government doing to secure their right to freedom of movement and the recognition of their professional qualifications? What assurances can the Minister give today that those rights will be guaranteed before we proceed to phase 2 of the negotiations?
Another problem is the attitude of some Government Members, who seem to imply that EU nationals are lucky to be in this country, rather than acknowledging the value they bring and the contribution they make to our economy and communities, particularly our public services and not least the NHS. There are 58,000 EU nationals working in NHS hospitals and community health services in England alone.
Suella Fernandes
The Prime Minister has said clearly,
“we want you to stay”
and that we value their commitment. What part of that does the hon. Gentleman not understand?
Afzal Khan
It is clear that things are still confusing for everyone. What part of this does the hon. Lady not understand—that we need to give a simple offer so that we can move on?
In total, there are 2.4 million EU migrants working in the UK, and a far greater proportion of them are in work than of the population as a whole. They make a huge contribution. What they desperately need now is certainty before the conclusion of phase 1 of the talks. This is what the hon. Lady needs to understand: we need certainty for EU citizens in the UK, for UK citizens in the EU and for the businesses and communities in which they have built their lives. The Government have provided none, as they are still busy negotiating with themselves.
It seems to be an alien concept to the Government, but citizens have rights. EU nationals came here in good faith when their rights were guaranteed under freedom of movement rules. Rather than guaranteeing those rights, the Government are offering them the opportunity to reapply for them, charging them for the privilege, and then pretending that nothing much has changed. That is transparently false. No wonder the EU negotiators seem to believe that the Government are incompetent. The Opposition value EU nationals; it is high time that the Government did, too, and followed up their warm words with action.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
My constituency of Banff and Buchan voted to leave the EU—
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
indicated dissent.
David Duguid
That is according to University of East Anglia analysis; look it up. The constituency voted to leave, but it was not because the local people are hostile to immigrants. Indeed, immigrants from inside and outside the European Union are welcome and valued contributors to our community. There is no doubt that EU citizens make a great contribution to the economy of Banff and Buchan. One of our key local industries, food manufacturing and processing, has the highest proportion of workers from the EU of any UK sector, with 33% of its labour consisting of EU nationals. Throughout the UK, the industry employs 120,000 people.
Although many EU nationals choose to make their permanent home in Banff and Buchan, many choose to stay for a time to work and then move on. That creates a constant demand for more workers, especially when factors such as poor infrastructure, particularly poor broadband infrastructure, sadly drive many local young people out of the area.
I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the House that one of the chief reasons why my constituents decided to vote leave was the impact of the EU common fisheries policy on our local fishing industry. Leaving the European Union and the common fisheries policy will mean leaving the single market and putting an end to the free movement of labour.
David Duguid
I cannot give way, I am sorry.
The prospect of needing more immigration in the area because we have more fish than we can catch and process is a welcome one. However, it is clear that there is a real need to develop our local workforce in the long term. That includes not only our own home-grown workforce, but the EU citizens and their children who have made their home here. That can be done outside the EU, as taking back control over immigration does not mean an end to immigration, nor should it. Bearing in mind the great contribution of EU nationals, and as someone who has an international family of my own—my wife is from Azerbaijan—I am, like the Prime Minister and the UK Government, in favour of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens already living in the UK. It is right that we provide protection and reassurance to families and businesses as quickly as we can. However, that must work both ways, and what we are debating today is the idea of unilaterally granting rights without securing those same rights for British citizens abroad. I agree with SNP Members that Europeans who have made their home in Scotland are indeed very welcome, but the same must be true for Scots who have made their homes in Europe.
What we are doing in leaving the EU is not a game, and the question of rights after Brexit affects millions of people—not just EU citizens in the UK, but UK citizens in the EU. It is very disappointing to see the Scottish National party—a party that claims to stand up for Scotland—willing to put Scots living outside the UK last. Neither EU nor UK citizens should be used as bargaining chips—
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) that it is an absolute disgrace that, 18 months after the referendum, our highly valued EU nationals still do not know with any certainty what lies in store for them. Those well respected, hard-working, tax-paying members of our society have been treated appallingly by this Government who, despite numerous opportunities to do so, have ignored all opportunities to make a unilateral guarantee to our EU nationals that their current status will remain unaltered when the UK leaves the European Union. I repeat the appeal today: regardless of what others do, please will the Government do the right thing and guarantee to those EU citizens, who are living, working and contributing economically and socially to the wellbeing of this country, that their status will not change with Brexit and that they are welcome here?
Like other Members who have spoken, my mailbox has been full with letters from worried people, and my surgeries have a steady stream of people looking for some certainty. Let me give the Minister one example—that of Katarzyna Zalewska, a Polish EU citizen who has lived in my home town of Helensburgh for the past 12 years with her young son.
Katarzyna is a highly qualified, respected and experienced multilingual social worker, working in the area of domestic violence reduction among communities in which English is not the first language. She recently applied for UK citizenship, so keen is she to stay in Scotland after Brexit. On 9 October, she received a letter from the Home Office informing her that her application had been refused on the minor technicality that she had not provided her blue residence card. UK Visas and Immigration could not be satisfied that she was a permanent resident on the date of her application for naturalisation. It said to her:
“The fact that that you have been refused is not because you do not qualify for Permanent Residence, it is because you have not provided a Permanent Residence Blue Card.”
That is patently absurd. Her blue card may have expired, it may have been lost, but she has provided references from her employers and a host of other documentary evidence. The irony is that, very shortly afterwards, we all received the updated Home Office guidelines on settled status which said that EU citizens
“will not have their applications refused on minor technicalities.”
I ask the Minister to look again at Katarzyna’s case.
Looking at the wider picture, I have to ask why we are putting people through this emotional wringer. Why are we deliberately making it so difficult for people who simply want to get on with their lives?
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife that Scotland needs a bespoke immigration policy. If the Government here cannot provide what Scotland needs, then they must devolve immigration policy to the Scottish Government. We want a policy of thanking and appreciating those from abroad who have chosen to make their home in Scotland.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
It is with some sadness that I rise to speak in this debate, because my constituency has received proportionally more migrants from eastern Europe than anywhere else in the country. Of all places, Boston and Skegness knows the value that people from Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and elsewhere bring to our local economy. Today we have heard a great deal about surgeries being flooded with people worried about their livelihoods. If I may be blunt, surgeries may be flooded if Members scaremonger and tell people that they might not be welcome here. Being prepared to weaponise the lives and livelihoods of people who have come to this country in good faith, and who the Prime Minister has said are welcome to stay, is not good politics or good democracy. Frankly, it is shameful conduct over a genuinely important matter for constituents on the part of people with other political motives.
Government Members have a responsibility, which we are prepared to take up, to reassure people who are genuinely concerned about their future in this country. We have already heard from the Government Front Bench—from not only the Prime Minister but a number of members of the Government—a solid and sensible pitch that we want people to stay. People who have asked for EU nationals to leave do not represent the mainstream of Brexit voters, and they do not represent a large number of people. In my constituency, the only people who ask for “foreigners to go home”, as it is often put, are either those who seek to misrepresent the views of Brexit voters or those who have their own nakedly racist proposition. Neither position represents the views of the Conservative party. We in politics have a duty to reassure our constituents. I know that the small number of people—I mean less than 10—who have come to my surgery seeking reassurance have received just that. They have gone away knowing that this Government seek to provide them with what they need.
I will end by asking, what can Members of this House do? Well, we can do things such as invite the Polish ambassador to our constituency, as I have done. We can stand on a platform with him and say, “This Government welcome the contribution of EU nationals. We want you to stay, and we will deliver that deal as best we can.”
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Do not the unintended consequences of the decision to leave the EU seem to be appearing thick and fast? The implications of restrictions on EU nationals seem to be among the most unexpected, for some folks at least.
There has been some talk of scaremongering today, so let us hear the case of my constituent, Francoise Milne. She is French and has lived in the UK—mainly in Scotland—for 24 years. She has been married to a Scot for those 24 years and they have three children together. She has been refused a residency card for not exercising her treaty rights. She maintained the family home and reared three children while her husband served in the Marines, including on tours of duty in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. He spent more than two decades in service and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is a member of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, which is perhaps more commonly known as the Queen’s Bodyguard. The Home Office says that his wife cannot prove that she can support herself. Her husband’s income and her smaller income together provide for the matrimonial home and family life. The love and support she has provided for her husband helped him in his service. The idea that she not been exercising her treaty rights is ludicrous. I have written to Ministers and await an answer, but hers is not the only case that I have been asked to help with.
Marco Truffelli moved from Italy to London as a young man nearly 30 years ago. He built a career in the tourism industry, including as chief executive of VisitScotland for five years. His international management company has prestigious clients and he brings wealth into the UK, but his application for citizenship was refused on the grounds that he could not prove that he was resident in the UK. That was despite providing the receipts from HMRC that the Home Office asked for as proof of residence.
Mr Truffelli is married to a Scotswoman and has three children here. He never thought he would need to prove he had a right to live here. He applied for citizenship following the referendum. If Mr Truffelli does not match the profile of EU citizens this Government will accept, who can? I have also written to Ministers about Mr Truffelli’s case.
Those are just two examples. There are many people with different stories to tell, but a common thread among the constituents coming to see me—and, I imagine, a whole lot of other Members—is the fear that people have: fear that they will no longer be welcome in their home, and that a bureaucratic decision will see them sent away from their family or left without a secure right to stay here. I have constituents who are living in fear of the state. Members should consider that: a modern state—a supposed democracy—where people live in fear of its actions.
All these people, who are making our communities better places to live, are swinging in the wind because this Government are in thrall to a xenophobic wing of the Conservative party and a right-wing, anti-foreigner media. That is ironic for a party stuffed with people who are proud of their ancestry—the Angles, the Saxons and the Normans, that is.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
And also the Dutch, in my case, but I will move swiftly on.
I welcome this debate and the chance to highlight the Government’s commitment to this issue. I welcome the Minister’s statement that we are close to an agreement, and I agree with him that the Prime Minister has worked hard to make sure we are in the right place on this issue. However, I mostly welcome the chance to thank people for the contribution they make when they come to this country and work. They work in industries of which we can be proud. They lead on science in our universities, and in our building industry and our NHS. Why on earth would we not want to encourage and promote their security? What we have been shown is the complete lack of understanding of what a negotiation is by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins).
Jo Churchill
I have three minutes; the hon. Gentleman had considerably more.
One of the points the hon. Gentleman made was that the husband of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)—he is a German—has worked long and hard in the NHS. However, the hon. Gentleman showed no care for those British people who might be working abroad, and that is what the negotiation is about.
On the progress that has been made to date, of the 60 aspects we have been discussing, we are on target with 37. The UK has done more than the EU27 countries to bring the process to where it currently is, as is widely recognised. We have reached a crucial moment in the negotiations, and it is important that the processes the Minister spoke about are seamless and that they happen. HMRC will certainly have a part to play, although I would like to understand a little more whether it is the right body to take things forward, because it is not always as fluid an operation as we would like.
There is still progress to be made on this deal—on citizens, the direction of talks, the structure of negotiations and the UK’s future more broadly. Jobs have a crucial part to play in that, and we do not want to destroy the brilliant economy we have, which encourages people into this country.
We need to look after not only the 3 million EU citizens we have, but the 1.2 million of our citizens abroad. That is what we will do, because it is right. It is clear that the negotiations are at a crucial stage, and we must ensure not only that we unstick them and get the best deal for everybody involved, but that we in this House do not behave impatiently with arrogance, or in a way that would critically endanger those people.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Living with uncertainty in our life brings a lot of stress, and we have seen a stunning lack of empathy, exemplified by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), about what people are going through.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) pointed out, we have all been helped by, treated by, served by and supported by EU nationals, and we all probably have good reasons to be grateful to them. To us in the highlands, they are our friends, our neighbours and our colleagues. They happen to come from other parts of Europe. This uncertainty visited upon them is no way to treat our friends, without whom businesses in the highlands face the danger of scaling down and even having difficulties functioning. From cradle to grave, they make a positive impact on Scotland, especially in the highlands, where population growth is essential.
Without inward migration, there will be more older people—incidentally, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is nothing wrong with older people; I have harboured a lifelong ambition to become one and I am making good progress—and a greater need for pensions and healthcare than can be met by their own contributions. We must not forget that older people did their bit when they were younger.
Free of Brexit, it was projected that 90% of Scotland’s population growth over the next 10 years would come from migration, especially in the highlands. It is a cold fact that without migrants, we have more deaths than births. Some 30% of the highlands and islands population live in very remote areas. We need people to help them. The fact that young people are leaving means that we need EU nationals and their families in the highlands.
EU nationals support our health service. Six per cent. of NHS clinicians in Scotland are EU citizens and the figure is higher in the rest of the UK. We have already estimated that we cannot recruit all the regulated staff—doctors and nurses—for hospitals and surgeries to fulfil our future need. As was pointed out earlier, the Royal College of Nursing has seen applications from EU nationals collapse by 96%. Coping with an ageing population is looking incredibly difficult. In the care sector, a survey of Camphill communities pointed out that 170 out of their 251 staff working with people with learning difficulties were EU nationals, with only five UK citizens.
The same is true of the food and drink, tourism and construction industries. As we heard just this morning, an unprecedented alliance of seven of the construction industry’s major bodies has come together to talk about the industry facing a cliff edge over EU workers and an inability to deliver infrastructure. The National Federation of Builders and others have said that this is a disaster.
We need EU nationals across the UK, but especially in Scotland and absolutely desperately in the highlands.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
EU nationals living in the United Kingdom form an integral part of the economic, cultural and social fabric of this country. I should declare an interest, as I am married to one. My wife hails from Stockholm. Therefore, it is no surprise that I am very supportive of the principle that it should be business as usual for EU nationals, even if only to have a quiet home life. That is the right thing to do.
We have always been an open, attractive and welcoming country. As Ruth Davidson said at the Conservative party conference in 2016:
“for those who have already chosen to build a life, open a business, make a contribution, I say this is your home, and you are welcome here.”
I associate myself fully and unreservedly with those comments. The Conservative party has ever stood with those who, as John Major said, have the “guts and drive” to travel to another country thousands of miles away to work to better themselves and improve the lot of their families. After all, those are innately Conservative instincts.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Bowie
I will not, given the time.
The Prime Minister has explicitly confirmed that the United Kingdom does not want anyone who is living legally in the UK to be asked to leave because of our exit from the European Union. It is every bit our desired outcome that it will be possible for EU citizens who are already here to be treated just the same as if they were British subjects. No EU national will be treated as a second-class citizen.
The SNP’s scaremongering on this issue is utterly shameful. Putting fear into the hearts of EU nationals by making false claims about their future in this country is an utter disgrace, and SNP Members should be ashamed. They know full well that negotiations on the bilateral agreement have been going on from the very start of the Brexit process. It was one of the first issues that our negotiators sought to resolve. The Government have made it explicit that they do not want to use EU citizens’ future rights as a bargaining chip, but they cannot risk allowing the future of UK citizens in the EU to become a bargaining chip either.
We are making progress. As recently as October, the Prime Minister wrote in an open letter that the UK Government and our partners in Brussels were “in touching distance” of a deal on citizens’ rights. Nothing from any other European leader has contradicted that, and Michel Barnier has agreed that an agreement is close. The SNP wants somehow to unilaterally grant rights to one side, just at the point when we are so close to agreeing an arrangement that guarantees the rights of everyone. That is total madness.
EU nationals are welcome and will always be welcome in the United Kingdom, but I urge SNP Members to think very carefully about how seriously their motion would jeopardise the chances of their Scottish constituents enjoying similar rights in the rest of the European Union.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I rise to represent East Lothian, an agricultural constituency that relies heavily on EU workers at certain times of the year. The constituency relies on EU workers for our care services, and it houses a great many EU citizens who work in the university sector, in our own Queen Margaret University.
We have historically had very close relationships with Europe, especially with Italy. I am thinking about the families, who still live in our community, who moved to my constituency in the 19th century from Barga, in Tuscany, when there was an economic problem. Sixty per cent. of the people who live in Barga, a town with 10,000 residents, can say that they have Scottish relatives, many of whom live in Musselburgh, Tranent, Port Seton and Cockenzie.
There is a lack of confidence among EU citizens about the Government’s intentions, and I hear a lot of cries across the Chamber. Perhaps it is for the Government to clarify their position more succinctly and definitely. I raise the example that I have set out because the connections that exist are deep. Is it too much to ask that our neighbours, friends and workers have their rights secured and understand what those rights will be?
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Britain is undoubtedly one of the most open, tolerant and welcoming countries on earth. EU citizens have benefited our economy and our society hugely over the last few years, and they have brought a great diversity to our towns, cities and rural communities. Despite the fall in value of the pound and the negative headlines that have appeared since almost the day after the Brexit vote, the net migration figure of close to a quarter of a million is testament to what a great country this still is, not just to visit, but in which to work and make one’s home. People really value that, as I hear from my constituents and EU nationals who come to talk to me about the matter.
That is probably why even before article 50 was triggered, the Prime Minister said that we wanted to deal with the rights of EU nationals at the very earliest opportunity. I remind the House that the EU stated that that would not be dealt with until after we had triggered article 50. The EU left people in a state of limbo during the months in which we waited to commence negotiations. I welcome the fact that we are “in touching distance” of reaching an agreement on the matter, but, as someone who supported remain in the referendum, I was deeply disappointed with the EU’s initial approach.
To do as the motion suggests now—when we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out a moment ago, within touching distance of reaching agreement in the negotiations—would be a gross error for the 1.2 million people from this country who are making their lives overseas. If anyone thinks that we can do that and everything will be all right, they need to think about some of the negotiating positions that the EU and its member states have taken.
Let me just talk about one EU member state, Spain. Right from the start, Spain linked this issue to sovereignty over Gibraltar. I remind the House that we have just witnessed an event in Catalonia that shows a great deal of bad grace and bad faith on Spain’s part. What are we supposed to do? On this point, are we supposed to hand over absolutely everything, effectively allowing the EU and its member states to take unilateral action or to threaten and say whatever they want? That would be a grave negotiating error.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
We have heard a lot from Government Members about EU citizens being valued and welcome, but words are cheap in that regard. I go out and speak to EU citizens every weekend. More often than not, when I knock on doors I will meet an EU citizen, because they are fully integrated into the community and so they are often the partners, husbands, wives or flatmates of British citizens. I am talking not about what I say to them, but about what they say to me. They are genuinely distressed and upset, and they feel as though they are being treated as second-class citizens. That is not just because of the failure to grant or promise them rights, but because of what they are being offered.
The most recent document is the so-called technical note. That is a disingenuous phrase, because the document is a policy statement that gives EU citizens rights that are less than they would otherwise have. We do not know yet whether that will be the final version. The fact remains that there will have to be an application process, and there will be a fee. That applies even to those who have permanent residence already. There will be requirements on such citizens that are more onerous than the ones they currently have to meet. All of that sends out the signal that they will not have a status equal to what they have at the moment, but will have second-class status.
The Government should accept—I cannot better what the3million group has said in response to the technical note—that such people want the same rights as now, and they should be granted that without having to pay a fee and without having to go through a long and bureaucratic process. If the Government do not accept that, the signal they are sending out to EU nationals in this country is they are not as welcome as they should be.
People are already voting with their feet. They are not going to make decisions in a year’s time; they are making them now. These are often talented people who could work elsewhere, and if the Government wish them to leave the country and work elsewhere, they should at least be up front about that. They are suggesting, through the backdoor, that EU citizens currently resident in this country are not going to have the same rights and will not be treated on the same basis, but will have to go through identity checks and residence checks in order to stay in this country. Why should they put up with such a change of attitude and such a change of status?
The Minister should be able to say in response to the motion, first, that there will a unilateral decision, and secondly, that that decision will be for a status that is exactly equal to what residents have now. If she cannot do that, all the words that Ministers have said will carry no weight, and we will see that they are placing less value on EU citizens than they have now.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I am proud to live in a country where fundamental decency and neighbourliness lead us to welcome newcomers and embrace them as our own. There is something inspiring about our warm embrace of citizens from all over the world. It is often said that tolerance is one of the British virtues, but I believe it goes beyond that: it goes beyond tolerance to a warm acceptance and a sense of celebration about our diversity.
We should be gratified that so many people from around the world chose to make the United Kingdom their home, and they make a full contribution to the society they live in. They are an economic positive; indeed, an economic necessity—students, entrepreneurs, skilled workers and valued employees. Before my election to this place, I had the privilege to work alongside and lead teams of wonderful colleagues from across the EU—talented, motivated and inspiring people—who had chosen to come to the United Kingdom and build their future lives here. Every one of those wonderful people, my former colleagues, should, in common with all other EU nationals living and working in our country, be assured of their position in our society, which is as much theirs as it is mine.
That is why the priority, first and foremost, of Her Majesty’s Government in our negotiations with the EU was, from the very outset, to secure the status of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom and that of British nationals living in the EU. This debate is somewhat redundant because we have received assurances, as we did again from the Minister today, that we are “within touching distance” of an agreement to safeguard these rights.
SNP Members have brought forward this issue for debate—they do so with alarming frequency—because every time they do they try to tell people, despite a thousand assurances to the contrary, that their right to stay in this country is somehow at risk. No EU national currently living in the UK lawfully should have any fear, whatever the scaremongers on the SNP Benches may say, about having to leave the United Kingdom when our country leaves the EU.
SNP Members spread fear and panic because they think there is some party political advantage in doing so, but fear and panic are entirely unjustified. Their implication that Conservative Members are somehow plotting to ship back our friends, our neighbours, our work colleagues, our partners and our families to the country they came from is absurd, but it is an absurd narrative that they delight in because absurdity is their speciality.
Whatever spin SNP Members try to put on this situation, the fact is that the people of Britain—the family of nations and regions that make up our United Kingdom—voted to leave the European Union. EU nationals are welcome in this country, and will continue to be welcome here. Frankly, I do not think that the British people who have EU nationals as friends, family, neighbours, colleagues and partners would stand for any other policy, and it is disreputable of SNP Members to suggest that they would. I am happy that this House should take a lead from our neighbours and our friends, as well as from our EU nationals, who are under no threat whatsoever from this Government.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I am prepared to accept the Government’s stated position that they will ensure that many EU citizens living here will stay after this negotiation. I am sure that that is the case. However, I hope that the Minister will have the frankness and honesty to accept the facts and figures that show that many EU nationals have already left since the referendum, which is damaging many aspects of our society and economy.
Sir Edward Davey
It is not wrong. I have shown the figures to the Minister. I have talked to businesses and to the local hospital in Kingston, and they are all worried about recruitment and people having gone home.
Brandon Lewis
The simple fact is that net migration was 246,000 last year. The figures are up for EU nationals coming to this country.
Sir Edward Davey
I am afraid that those figures show what has happened in the past. If the Minister talked to businesses and to people working in the health service, he would know that the position is changing significantly and quickly. He is in a completely ridiculous world if he thinks that that is not the case.
I want to challenge the Minister. If he is going to welcome EU nationals, he and his colleagues need to do various things. Italian and German nationals, and other friends and colleagues, have shown some of us job adverts saying that only British passport holders can apply. Will he ensure that the full weight of the law will go against those putting out those adverts, because they are illegal? We need to make sure that that discrimination, which is appearing in our society, is clamped down on. I hope he will give that reassurance from the Dispatch Box and tell us what measures he and his colleagues will take to prevent that discrimination, which is affecting EU nationals here and making them feel unwelcome.
Will the Minister say more—the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about this—about whether the systems that will be put in place will be easy and welcoming, not difficult and expensive? I have a concrete case for him. An EU national with permanent residency in the UK applied and paid for it. The Government—wrongly, in my view—are asking them to apply again for settled status. Given that they have already paid for permanent residency, will the Minister commit from the Dispatch Box that they will not be charged for having to apply again for settled status?
If an EU national who has not been able to provide proof of residency is given temporary status for two years—a new Government proposal for which the EU national will have to pay—will they have to pay again when they apply for settled status after five years? I hope that the Minister will make it clear that they will not have to do so.
I hope that the Minister will also make it clear that the whole registration process will be simple. He said that in his speech, but will he take up the idea suggested by the3million group that, in order to register, people should just have to prove that they have lived here for the past five years and have proof of identity? That would make it simple, quick and unbureaucratic. I hope that he will commit to that from the Dispatch Box tonight.
I hope that the Minister will reassure people about how the negotiations on family reunion are going. This is one of the sticking points about which the3million group is most worried, because its members see the UK Government taking away rights that they thought they had in the past and preventing them from bringing their relatives here. The group has set out its views in detail. It believes that the UK’s settled status proposal is not fit for purpose and should be rejected. It has set out in detail why that is the case and has suggested an alternative. The group is worried about it because it does not trust the Home Office. Many of its members have worked with the Home Office in the past and they feel that it is slow and bureaucratic and that it makes mistakes and is unreliable. They do not want to have to go through that process in the same way as other people who have suffered in the past.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The UK Government absolutely recognise the necessity to address uncertainties. To that effect, the Prime Minister has already committed to maintaining EU citizens’ rights. Many Government Members, including the Minister, have risen—I will not repeat everything they have said—to make that clear.
I declare an interest as a farmer and a food processor. I do not grow broccoli, but the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) has mentioned how important foreign and EU workers are in that regard. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly on this issue. Foreign and EU nationals are important to all hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). Foreign nationals are monumentally important to the oil industry in constituencies such as Gordon, Aberdeen North, Aberdeen South and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The businesses I speak to are relatively positive, in contrast to what the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) described. Members of Parliament should do their utmost to reassure those constituents who are still anxious about their status that they are absolutely entitled to stay in this country.
With that in mind, we should now do everything in our power to ensure that what is enshrined in UK law regarding the rights of EU citizens living and working in this country is also integrated into EU law with regard to the 1 million UK citizens living and working in other EU countries. Those UK nationals based abroad deserve just as much certainty as EU citizens residing here. I look forward to a reciprocal agreement as soon as possible.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to be able to sum up the debate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not mention everyone’s contributions, but I do not think I have enough time even to read out the names of all their constituencies—it does give the lie to the myth that the SNP is never interested in talking about anything important, given that both our debates today have been so oversubscribed that they could easily have run for four or five hours each. Instead, I want to pick up on the main themes that have come out on both sides of the debate.
Let me draw the House’s attention to this document, “The Contribution of EEA Citizens to Scotland”, which was produced by the Scottish Government a few days ago. It is only 49 pages long, so it is an extremely brief summary of that contribution. The foreword states:
“The Scottish Government believes fundamentally that continuing free movement of people is in the best interests of Scotland and the UK as a whole.”
What a shame, and what a disgrace, that the United Kingdom Government refuse point black to accept that, because although we have been told that there was a referendum in this country on leaving the European Union, there has been no referendum on the free movement of people or on the single market, and in one country in this Union—this is also true of the local authority that includes Banff and Buchan—62% of people voted to remain.
Many specific cases have been raised by the Opposition, and no doubt we could have heard many more, had there been more time, and of course there are a great many more such individuals who, for various reasons, do not want to be identified. One Member asked in an intervention what part of the reassurances we do not understand, missing the point completely; it is the 3 million people outside this Chamber who also need to understand, and they are simply not reassured. We have heard Conservative Members say that the SNP is scaremongering. Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament are accusing Scottish National party Members of Parliament of scaremongering about the results and consequences of a referendum. You could not make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker—they could, and indeed they did.
Another major theme that we have heard from Conservative Members is that the Government genuinely care about the rights of EU nationals living in the United Kingdom. Why then did it take nine months after the referendum, and a full-scale Select Committee inquiry and report, before the Government realised that their system for allowing EU nationals to stay here permanently was utterly unfit for purpose and, in the view of those 1.5 million people, clearly designed to deter them from applying? Are those the actions of a Government who care as much—[Interruption.] It is not rubbish; it is in the Select Committee’s report. If I had time, I would offer to give way to anyone who could tell me that they had read the Select Committee’s report; clearly, Government Members have not.
We have heard it said that we cannot give unilateral guarantees because that would prejudice the position of the 3 million UK citizens living in the other EU countries. If they had bothered to read the report—certainly if the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who described the recommendation as “total madness”, had bothered to read it—they would have seen that the recommendation was unanimous and that the Committee, before the last general election, contained a majority of Conservative MPs. Madness! They might even have recognised the names of some of those responsible for that unanimous act of madness, because one is now the Environment Secretary and one is the Justice Secretary. If he wants to tell them they are mad, I think that he can say “bye bye” to his political career, almost before it has started.
British citizens living abroad want the House to agree the motion tonight, because they believe that it is in their best interest that the UK make the first move, but I will finish with one final point. When the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) used the phrase “bargaining chips”, which came from Ministers initially, not from us, there were howls of protest. What do we call it when Ministers say, “We cannot do A, although we’d like to, because if we do A, it makes it less likely that these people will do B, which we want them to do.”? That is called a negotiating tactic. And what do we call A and B in the standard parlance of negotiation? We call them “negotiating capital” or “bargaining chips”. They might not like it, but that is the language of their own International Trade Secretary.
If the Government refuse to accept the motion, or to act on it when it is passed, because they want to use the uncertainty they are creating in the minds of EU nationals here to try to get certainty in the minds of UK nationals living abroad, not only are they going against the unanimous views of a group that included a lot of their own MPs, including two Ministers, and not only are they undermining the wish of the 3 million people living on mainland Europe, but they are continuing to use all 4.5 million as bargaining chips. They do not like to hear that, but the only way they can stop the phrase being true is to stop treating them as bargaining chips and give the unilateral guarantees that the 1.5 million here and the 3 million over there so desperately want to hear.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have participated in this debate on the very important issue of safeguarding the rights of EU citizens living here in the UK and those of UK citizens living in the EU after our withdrawal. I am glad that Parliament has had the chance to debate this issue again, and I hope we can reach some clarity at the end of it. I have heard many SNP Members describe the worries and concerns of their constituents and the alleged uncertainty people feel they are living under. May I please take this opportunity to clarify the situation? I hope then that SNP Members, who are clearly concerned about their constituents, will do the responsible thing and, the next time a constituent comes into one of their surgeries with these concerns, reiterate the Government’s position.
The Government’s position is as follows. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if SNP Members gave me a moment to say this so that they—and their constituents, should they be watching—might understand the Government’s position. Those EU citizens and their family members who are worried about their status here have the Government’s complete assurance that we want them to stay and that they continue to be welcome in the United Kingdom. I ask that that position be clarified when constituents go to hon. Members’ surgeries, because I fear that that misunderstanding, which some of them are labouring under, might be contributing to their concerns.
Victoria Atkins
I will take just one intervention, because I am conscious of time.
Stephen Gethins
I think the Minister needs to understand that those points were raised in response to letters that constituents had received from the Government.
Victoria Atkins
I know that individual cases were raised, and I hope very much that those letters are being chased up if no replies have as yet been received. I also hope that, now that Members have heard the assurances given from the Dispatch Box today, they will communicate those assurances to their constituents while they await responses from the Home Office.
I have another clarification for the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). The discrimination in job advertisements that he described is wrong, and I can reassure him that the Government will continue to crack down on any such discrimination.
We heard today from my hon. Friends the Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Solihull (Julian Knight), for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Gordon (Colin Clark), all of whom represented the views of their constituents, and some of whose constituencies voted to leave. However, I must make a special mention of my hon. Friend, and Lincolnshire neighbour, the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who has the honour of representing a constituency with one of the largest eastern European populations in the country. He set out very robustly the views of his constituents, not only those who are “yellowbellies” born and bred, but those who have had the good sense to move to his constituency from the European Union.
Since the result of the referendum last summer, the Government have made absolutely clear how important it is for us to secure the status of EU citizens here as soon as possible. As the Prime Minister said in her open letter to them, that is her first priority in the negotiations. The right to settled status will be defined in the withdrawal agreement, which will be implemented in United Kingdom legislation.
In respect of the negotiations, the Government wish to offer an assurance that we are close to reaching an agreement on citizens’ rights. There remain only a small number of outstanding issues to be agreed with our European partners. In the coming weeks, the focus will be on delivering an agreement that works for EU citizens living here and for UK nationals living in the EU. The fact remains, however, that there must be an agreement with the EU on this matter. We cannot just wish it away. Taking unilateral positions at this vital stage in the negotiations would risk the position of UK nationals who have also chosen to build their lives with their families in other countries. It would not be responsible for the Government to ignore them and enter into the unilateral agreements that have been urged on us by the Scottish nationalists.
The Government wish to reassure EU citizens throughout the United Kingdom that we are confident of reaching a deal that will enable them to carry on with their lives as before. As the Prime Minister has made clear, no EU citizen living lawfully in the UK will be required to leave when the UK withdraws from the EU. We recognise and value the huge contribution that EU citizens make to our economy, our health service, our schools, our care sector and our communities. We will act fairly towards them, just as we expect other EU countries to act fairly towards UK nationals living there. Safeguarding the rights of citizens is a shared priority for both sides in these negotiations, and a reciprocal agreement that works for all our citizens is now within touching distance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Home Secretary to introduce legislative proposals in this Session of Parliament, in line with the recommendation in paragraph 45 of the Second Report of the Exiting the European Union Committee of Session 2016-17, The Government's negotiating objectives: the rights of UK and EU citizens, HC 1071, that the Government should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.
Stephen Gethins
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? This House has now agreed that there should be a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals. How can we instruct the Home Secretary, and when she will come before the House to deliver this?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The instruction has been given earlier, but I will repeat it for the record, to make sure that we are all aware. The Leader of the House of Commons made it clear that
“the Government are determined to listen and take account of views from all sides of the House. Where there is opportunity for the Government to listen and better enable the effective work of Parliament, we will do so.
To that end, I am today updating the House on the Government’s approach to Opposition day debates. Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate. This is to allow thoughtful consideration of the points that have been raised, facilitate collective discussion across Government, especially on cross-cutting issues, and to outline any actions that have been taken.
This is in line with suggestions made by Members across the House and I hope colleagues will welcome the new initiative and the opportunity for accountability this provides.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 12WS.]
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that sensible explanation from the Leader of the House, will that now be known as the “Leadsom principle”?
Universal Credit: Terminally Ill People
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I have raised many times in this place the subject of universal credit and the problems faced by my constituents and others across the nations of the UK. This debate is about UC and its effect on the terminally ill, and preparing for it has been one of the most humbling experiences of my parliamentary career so far. I pay special tribute to Marie Curie, the highland Macmillan-Citizens Advice partnership and the Motor Neurone Disease Association for their input, and especially to terminally ill claimants who have come forward with stories of the issues they face—stories of delays, difficulties, the deficits they face as disabled people, the complexities and frustrations that confront them, and the humiliations and indignities they have to suffer.
These are actually very simple things for the Government to fix, some of them at little or no cost to them. If the Chancellor is sincere in what he said in the Budget debate about wanting a civilised and tolerant place that cares for the vulnerable, he will take on board the representations I am making on behalf of those agencies and the terminally ill tonight.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and commend him on the work he has done over many years in highlighting the problems with UC. He mentioned the Chancellor’s Budget, which was an admission that UC was failing some of the people he mentions. Does he agree that the Chancellor and the Government now need to go further to address the real issues at the heart of UC, such as those he mentions tonight?
Drew Hendry
Absolutely. We have all accepted the principle of a simpler benefit and the move to a single payment, but that simplification does not work if it is not simple for the users and instead becomes complex and difficult, which is what has happened.
As my hon. Friend points out, I have been raising issues with UC since 2013 when I was leader of the Highland Council, where we took UC through the pilot and on to live service and finally full service roll-out. During that time we spotted and reported the problems thrown up by UC, but until very recent weeks none of them have been taken on board. As my hon. Friend notes, we have recently seen an admission, however grudging, from the Government that there are problems—that the current system is broken. The Minister has an opportunity tonight to fix some of the areas in which it is broken.
Prior to universal credit being introduced, personal independence payment had a specified line for those who were terminally ill to call. Claimants on PIP who were terminally ill had their payments processed quickly, payments could be made weekly and implicit consent was available, giving supporting organisations the authority to make claims on behalf of terminally ill claimants. Many terminally ill people simply do not want to be told that they are dying, and PIP allowed them some consideration and dignity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me permission to intervene on him and for bringing this matter to the House for our consideration. Does he agree that, just as disability living allowance had special rules for the terminally ill, universal credit must have compassionate grounds so that it can be adapted to an individual’s circumstances? Each person has circumstances that are specific to themselves.
Drew Hendry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, and I will underline it later in my speech.
I held a universal credit summit in my constituency, specifically to challenge the accusations of scaremongering that were coming from the Government Benches. I invited every Tory MP, along with Ministers and indeed the Prime Minister, to come to Inverness to hear testimony from agencies and claimants about the problems of universal credit. Had they attended, they would have heard from Elaine Donnelly, the caseworker at the highland Macmillan-Citizens Advice partnership. She has been dealing with the universal credit cases of cancer patients and the terminally ill. She describes herself as “battle-weary” and “numb” as a result of the number and type of claims that are coming forward and the fact that people are dying before their claims are processed. She told us about a claimant who was dying of cancer not knowing the outcome of her claim and being without any support for six weeks. I welcome the timely reduction of the waiting period to 5 weeks, by the way. It took her three months to get her payment, and when it came through it was wrong. A £500 deduction had been made for another benefit that had never been claimed or received.
Other claimants have included Lucy, a 22-year-old who had missed the deadline, which meant that her PIP and her mobility component were stopped. Her blue badge was lost and her mum’s carer’s allowance was taken away. It was hard work to sort that out. In another case, Jo-Ann’s dad was told in April 2016 that there was nothing more the doctors could do, and he was moved from DLA to PIP that summer. He received two points—eight points are needed for the standard rate and 12 for the enhanced rate. The rules on terminal illness suggested that if the probability was that dying could be expected within six months, the claimant could apply under the special rules. However, the prognosis was unknown. The doctors were saying that it could be a month or a year, and it was unclear whether those rules would be an option, as the doctors could not reasonably say whether death would be likely within six months. Let us just imagine that discussion.
Jo-Ann’s dad and the family had not come to terms with the prognosis, so they could not claim under the special rules. The process was incredibly difficult and caused a lot of stress. As the special rules option was not available, the application had to be followed in the usual way and PIP was not awarded. The mobility car was taken away, leaving Jo-Ann’s dad unable to attend medical appointments or get shopping, due to their rural location, which had no bus services.
Jo-Ann also sat in with her dad, John, at the face-to-face assessment. She described the experience as “awful”, saying:
“They pushed and pushed my dad until he gave them the answer they wanted.”
When he was asked if he could walk 50 yards, he said no, so he was then asked if he could do it even if it took a long time. When he again said no, he was asked if he could do it if there was an emergency and he absolutely had to walk 50 yards. At that point, he felt so pressurised that he said yes. The overview of the assessment then said that he could “reasonably” walk 50 yards. The assessment process is deeply humiliating and degrading, putting claimants in a position where they often feel bad about not being able to carry out certain tasks and even about asking for extra assistance in the form of benefits.
I hope that no one here or watching the debate ever faces a diagnosis of cancer, motor neurone disease or any other terminal illness, yet that happens to people every day. It must be absolutely shattering not only for those who are diagnosed, but for their families. I imagine that the last thing on their minds would be going through the hoops to get the basic financial support that they need, yet that is what universal credit means in its current form.
I mentioned the Motor Neurone Disease Association, which states that MND is a devastating fatal disease that rapidly progresses through the brain and central nervous system, leaving people trapped in a failing body and unable to move, walk, talk, swallow or, eventually, breathe. It kills one third of people within the first year and more than half within two years. A small number survive longer. People with MND and other terminal illnesses and their families face significant financial burdens, with an estimated extra cost of £12,000 a year.
Universal credit needs to work smoothly for the terminally ill, but it does not, and there is nothing like it for causing stress. People do not need and should not suffer delays or stress, and a financial burden is the last thing that they should be asked to face. Universal credit should be easy, but not everyone can use the online portal. Many are simply unable to type. Completing an online application has been described by those who assist the terminally ill as
“extremely arduous and time consuming, often requiring outside help”,
yet help is available only over the telephone, which is clearly inappropriate for anyone who is unable to speak.
The severe disability premium has been abolished under universal credit, costing disabled adults with no carer £62.45 a week or £3,250 a year. The enhanced disability premium was also abolished, costing disabled adults under the pension age £15.90 a week. The Department for Work and Pensions’ stipulation that terminally ill claimants can apply only via special rules if death can be reasonably expected within six months does not work for many people with terminal illnesses. Health professionals are often confused by that condition and about whether they should sign the relevant form, which is known as a DS1500, meaning that people often do not get the swift support that they badly need. Whether people apply under the special rules or not, there is no customer journey specific to claimants with disabilities or vulnerabilities, especially the terminally ill. Those with severe and progressive conditions, including terminal illnesses, are all given work-focused interviews, which is clearly insensitive. As I mentioned earlier, some people do not want their doctor to tell them that they are dying, and it is cruel to ask them to self-certify their fate—cruel and unnecessary.
In conclusion, I have some simple low-cost or no-cost requests of the Minister that he can agree to given the relatively low number of terminally ill claimants: remove the waiting time, which should not be there, for terminally ill people; make the application simpler, which should be easy for this limited number of people; provide direct support or give implicit consent for agencies to apply on a claimant’s behalf; reinstate the severe disability allowance and the enhanced disability premium for terminally ill people; provide a specific journey and special rules for the terminally ill; allow the DS1500 to be submitted by third parties without explicit consent; and, easiest of all, get rid of the cruel requirement for self-certification.
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing a debate on this important matter. These are, of course, extremely difficult situations, and we in turn must always be careful to treat them with the highest level of sensitivity.
I will begin by setting out the recently announced changes to universal credit, which of course apply to all recipients, before addressing the hon. Gentleman’s specific points. We continue to roll out universal credit gradually, constantly improving the way the system works as we do so. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the changes to universal credit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in his statement to the House last Thursday.
New guidance will be issued to staff next month to ensure that claimants in the private rented sector who have their housing benefit paid directly to landlords are offered that option when they join universal credit. We will make two changes to advances from January. First, the maximum period over which an advance is recovered will increase from six months to 12 months, making it easier for claimants to manage their finances. That will apply regardless of the level of advance claimed. Secondly, we are increasing the amount of support that a claimant can receive through an advance from up to 50% of their estimated entitlement to up to 100%. Of course, the advance is interest-free.
If someone is in immediate need, we can fast-track the payment so that they receive it on the same day. In practice, new claimants in December can already receive an advance of up to 50% of their estimated overall entitlement, and may receive a second advance in the new year to take it up to 100%. Taken with the first scheduled payment, that means that claimants in need could receive nearly double the amount of cash that they would previously have received over that period.
In addition, from spring next year, we will make it possible to apply for an advance online, further increasing accessibility for those who need it. From February we will remove the seven-day waiting period, reducing the time claimants might wait to receive their first full payment. From April, for new claimants already receiving support towards their housing costs, we will provide an additional payment of two weeks’ housing benefit to support them as they transition to universal credit, which will help to address the issue of rent arrears for those most in need.
It is important that I explain that the personal independence payment is a separate benefit to universal credit. It will continue to be paid weekly in advance to provide important financial support to help people to meet the additional costs of disability in the latter stages of their life. PIP is also not taken into account when assessing entitlement to universal credit. To be clear, PIP is not a benefit that is being replaced by universal credit. PIP and UC are not comparable, as they are not intended for the same thing.
Income-related employment and support allowance and the linked disability premiums, including the severe disability premium, are being replaced by universal credit as part of the process of simplifying benefits to help us address overlaps. To mirror the design of ESA, universal credit has two disability elements for adults. The higher rate is set at a substantially higher level than the equivalent support group level in ESA. By structuring the rates in that way, the Government are making it clear that they are not looking to make savings. Transitional protection will also be provided for those claimants who are transferred across to universal credit by the Department for Work and Pensions and who have not had a change of circumstances.
We will continue to listen to and act on feedback as we roll out universal credit. I regret to say that mistakes can be made in any benefits system and, when errors happen, I am sorry. Of course we recognise that people with health conditions or disabilities face extra challenges. People may be dealing with more than one condition or disability, and the same condition can affect people in different ways.
Drew Hendry
Will the Minister take on board some of the specific points that I raised? These things are easy to do and would cost nothing. Specifically, will he address the issues relating to self-certification? I also referred to other things that would be very easy to deliver, so will he consider any of those?
Damian Hinds
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. As we roll out universal credit, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that terminally ill patients are treated with the utmost sensitivity and care, and receive the support they need to make a UC claim.
It might be helpful if I briefly set out to the House how the claim process works in the pre-existing system—the legacy benefit system. Under that system, additional financial support can be obtained by someone who is terminally ill by making a claim to ESA. This is a manual process that requires an application to be completed via a telephone call or a paper-based form. As part of the process, the claimant is asked whether they would like to apply for ESA under “special rules”, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. For ESA, “special rules” means someone who has a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than six months. The claimant is asked to provide medical evidence from their GP or medical practitioner confirming this. If the claimant has already provided the medical evidence to another part of the DWP, the Department will confirm that and make a referral to an expedited work capability assessment. That is entirely clerical; it is a review of papers. The healthcare professional will provide a report, usually within 48 hours, confirming the claimant’s prognosis and condition to the DWP, which will then be able to award immediate additional financial support by allocating the claimant to the support group. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the UC full service is designed to be accessed and claimed for online, although a claim can be made over the phone or via a home visit, which can be arranged if needed. Universal credit has a similar process in place to support claimants when they have been diagnosed as terminally ill to make sure that additional support is provided as quickly as possible.
I am are aware of the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman about the process of notifying the DWP about a claimant’s terminal illness. However, we do not need to change the consent rules in UC to support these claimants; we can already accept information directly from claimant representatives, such as claimant appointees and third-party organisations representing the claimant. However, we are also aware that there are instances when this is not happening as intended, and we are working very hard to make sure that the system works properly, with all the necessary guidance and procedures in place to support terminally ill claimants and to help our operational staff to assist them.
As part of the training that our staff receive, they are made aware that claimants might not know their prognosis or condition and that they therefore should not record or refer to the nature or detail of the illness on the full service journal or in discussions, unless requested by the claimant. Our approach is, and always has been, that we must ensure that terminally ill claimants are treated sensitively and with empathy at all times.
When a claim is made to UC where the claimant is terminally ill, we want to ensure that claimants receive any eligible additional financial support as quickly as possible. To make sure that that happens, the claimant is asked if they have a terminal illness. We have already asked that question of ESA claimants, but using the terminology of “special rules”. I must stress that, in effect, the two questions are the same. We changed the wording to make things clearer to the individual, and to make sure that people would be able to get the support to which they are entitled and which they need. That applies to new claims and to existing claims on a change of circumstances.
When somebody presents with such an illness, they are given the option of continuing to provide further information themselves, or of receiving support from the DWP to do so. When they indicate that they would like support, it becomes a high-priority task for a case manager to telephone the claimant to gather the information on their behalf. A home visit can also be arranged.
The most usual way for claimants to supply evidence of such an illness is by providing the DS1500 form to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is issued for the DWP by a GP or healthcare professional, either to the claimant or to their representative. We check our systems immediately and as a matter of course to see whether we already hold a DS1500 that was submitted as part of another claim. If one is already held, we reuse it for the universal credit claim. Receipt of that information indicates to us that the claimant must receive immediate access to DWP support, and that support immediately results in an additional £318.78 per month being included in their universal credit entitlement. The additional amount is payable from day one of their claim. In addition, the claimant is completely removed from any conditionality requirements.
The Department and the universal credit programme have regular meetings with key stakeholders, including Macmillan, Maggie’s centres and Mind, to understand how our policies are working, and to identify and discuss possible areas for improvement. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has encountered universal credit claimants who have had issues with the service in his constituency. As I acknowledged earlier, things can go wrong, and when they do, I am sorry for that. If cases involve vulnerable claimants, it is particularly important that they are escalated, investigated and resolved quickly. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has an effective direct relationship with the Scotland complaint resolution team, as well as with our local operations team, which has helped to manage a number of urgent cases to successful resolution.
As we continue to deliver the full universal credit service—it is now available in 178 jobcentres—with its expanded claimant base, we are continuing to review and further develop the customer journey for claimants with complex needs, including by looking into how we support terminally ill claimants to engage in the process. In that context, I welcome the hon. Gentleman raising these important issues on the Floor of the House. I do recognise that there are areas for improvement in the service, but he has seen for himself the drive, commitment and passion of so many of our staff, stakeholders and people working across universal credit to see this important reform through.
Question put and agreed to.
Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 26 June, will confer legal status on the unified patent court, as well as providing a limited set of privileges and immunities to the court, its judges and staff. These are necessary to ensure the effective and proper functioning of the court, and were agreed in the international agreement that established the court and its protocol on privileges and immunities.
Why does the unified patent court matter? The current patent system across Europe is fragmented and expensive: businesses must maintain a bundle of patent rights, each covering a single country, and must enforce each patent separately in the national courts of each country, which is costly and burdensome. The unified patent court will offer a way for innovative businesses to enforce or challenge patents in up to 26 European countries with a single court action. The ability to obtain a single judgment is significant and valuable for patent-intensive industries. Independent research shows that approximately a quarter of all patent cases heard in UK courts were litigated between the same parties in other European jurisdictions, so a single unified patent court is welcome. An important division of the court, dealing with disputes in the field of pharmaceuticals and life sciences, will be based here in the UK, cementing our global reputation as a place to resolve commercial legal disputes. British businesses will still be able to choose national patents and litigation in national courts, but will have the option to use the new court structure with all the benefits that I have described.
The draft order is part of the UK’s ratification process. It confers legal capacity on the unified patent court and gives effect to the protocol on privileges and immunities. It also provides immunity from legal process for the court, with some exceptions; for its judges, registrar and deputy registrar; and for its representatives and staff, although only in the exercise of their official functions. That immunity can be waived by the UPC.
The judges and staff of the court will be exempt from national taxation on their salaries and from national insurance once the court applies its own equivalent tax and puts in place its own social security and health system, but neither exemption will apply to court staff who are British nationals or permanent UK residents. The draft order also provides that the court is exempt from direct taxation in relation to its official activities, as is the case for other international organisations based here, such as the International Maritime Organisation.
The draft order will confer on the new court and its judges and staff only the privileges and immunities that are necessary for the organisation to conduct its official activities effectively. Those privileges and immunities are in line with those offered to officers of other international organisations of which the UK is already a member. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
We are a creative nation of entrepreneurs and innovators. In the 19th century, Birmingham and the Black country were known as the workshop of the world, and in modern times we have silicon roundabout about 2 miles away, the golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge, and remarkable innovation from Jaguar Land Rover in the midlands and the north of England. I will never forget travelling with Jaguar Land Rover’s chief executive Ralf Speth in his Land Rover and seeing how the company was using its close proximity to a cluster of companies engaged in the games industry to produce the next generation of in-car entertainment systems. Crucial to that was the protection of patents.
I have seen at first hand, and I am sure that many Members have likewise seen, just why it is important that we remain a nation of innovation. In future, we will want to attract the brightest and the best as we leave the European Union, and crucially in that process we need sensible arrangements that protect the interests of Britain. I will come back to that point later.
At the heart of turning ideas into commercial practice is protection from poaching, as well as the patent system that has grown up over many years. Such protection is of the highest order including, as the Minister said, both domestic and international mechanisms on the one hand, and immunity, as is proposed by the order, on the other hand.
The European Patent Office was founded in 1977. We signed up to the unified patent court in 2013, together with 25 other member states in the European Union, and the necessary arrangements were finalised shortly after the decision by our country on Brexit. The order seeks to confer necessary legal status as we approach the next stages, for the avoidance of any doubt, and we believe that to be an eminently sensible move, which the Opposition wholeheartedly support.
Finally, it is all the more important that we have such domestic and Europe-wide arrangements at a time of immense uncertainty in our country, to help to reassure creative people and innovators that we are serious about remaining a creative nation of innovators. Dare I say to the Minister that in reaffirming that existing European arrangements should continue to obtain in the future, hopefully that will form a precedent when it comes to next-stage discussions on the single market and the customs union? On those fronts, we will also need sensible arrangements, whereby we will have full access to and will enjoy the benefits of those arrangements that have served this nation well for many years.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bailey; I do not think I have done so for a while.
Will the Minister say a little bit more about how he the arrangements will work in future? Clearly, it is a very important and good thing if we can deal with the fragmentation of patents, particularly across the European single market, but his Government are now determined to leave that market. Although this new institution is not an institution of the European Union, we agreed to come on board and become involved in it while we were in the EU, well before the vote to leave had even been thought of, except on the far fringes of the Conservative party, much less the subsequent referendum.
I am interested in the Minister’s observations on that, because the court will have to put into place the new unified directive on patents, which the European Union is in the process of putting into law and with which we are associated at the moment. However, we probably will not be if we leave the customs union and the single market at some time in future.
We are in quite an unfortunate situation: just as we are attempting to stop the fragmentation of patent law and requirements, particularly their jurisdiction in the European Union, we are fragmenting ourselves from the institution that is meant to co-ordinate that. If the last few weeks are anything to go by, we are not exactly leaving in good odour—or order—judging by the way things are going at the moment. I suspect that that may have some implications for the way in which such a pragmatic and important issue will be dealt with in future. Will the Minister give us the benefit of his observations on that and its implications?
I also note that there are experts who feel that the UK will need to take several steps to remain within the ambit of this institution after Brexit, including entering into new international agreements with the other signatories of the agreement on the unified patent court. Those signatories will all, of course, remain in the single market and the EU.
We are in the middle of trying to set up this institution, which is what the order is about, just as we are leaving the EU. Does the Minister think that we need to come back to this, and change the law and international agreements so that we can proceed smoothly with what we all agree is a desirable outcome? Would that hold up the implementation of what is a wholly good thing?
I also note that there are some issues in Germany that are holding up the final ratification of the court. Does the Minister feel that events in Germany will assist us in getting the timing right regarding our desire to enter into new international agreements, or does he think that they will slow down this wholly welcome development? If we do need new international agreements to move forward in the event of our coming out of the European Union by 2019, is his Department geared up to negotiate them? Has it done any planning on ensuring that our legal arrangements enable us to go on with, and not disrupt, the setting up of this extremely important institution as we leave the European Union?
Finally, can the Minister give us a definite guarantee? His Government do not believe in the jurisdiction of the European Court, but areas of patent law, particularly in the directives, are currently subject to that jurisdiction. Can the Minister explain to us how on earth we are going to be part of this institution, but not subject to the oversight of the European Court? For the life of me, I cannot work out how that would work.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington for supporting the order, and for recognising the role that the court will play in ensuring that we have a system that encourages innovation and protects companies that invest in research and development. Those companies are able to go on and commercialise the discoveries that they make without fear of their hard work and efforts leading to nothing, or being taken advantage of by competitors that have not made those investments in discovery.
I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey for asking some important questions; I will now try to respond to as many as I can. She asked principally about the impact that leaving the EU will have on the operation of the UPC, and what our relationship to the UPC will be after March 2019, when we will be in the process of leaving the EU. To be clear, the UPC itself, as she knows, is not an EU institution, but currently all participating member states are EU member states. Our position is that while the UK remains a member of the EU, we will and should complete all necessary legislation, so that we are in a position to ratify the agreement.
Whatever the UK’s future relationship with the unified patent court, we expect that, as the hon. Lady said, we will need to negotiate with our European partners, to reflect the change to the UK’s status in relation to the UPC that will take place when we leave the EU. As a Government, we believe that it would be wrong to set out any unilateral positions in advance of the negotiations that we know we are going to have to have, because our efforts will need to be focused on securing the best possible deal for the UK in our negotiations with our European partners.
Jack Dromey
This is an important point for the avoidance of doubt on the part of the innovators and entrepreneurs of our country. Our support for the order is given on the basis that it will be an enduring mechanism now and after we leave the European Union. Is the Minister suggesting that having given legal effect to the order, the situation might change post-Brexit? That will be a source of immense concern to innovators and entrepreneurs in our country.
Joseph Johnson
Through the passage of the order and completing all the necessary legislative steps in Parliament, we want to ensure that we are in a position to ratify the UPC and our membership of it, thus enabling it to come into existence. As the hon. Gentleman and Members know, under the terms of the international treaty, UK ratification is required for the UPC to come into existence, and we want the court to come into existence. We have been supporters of it from the outset, and we think it will play an important role in enabling businesses to enforce their intellectual property rights at the lowest possible cost, or certainly at a much lower cost than many companies find to be the case at the moment. We are supportive of it, and we want to continue to play a facilitating role in setting it up.
After we leave the European Union in March 2019, we understand that we will have to negotiate a new relationship with the UPC. We want to do that as seamlessly as possible so that businesses can continue to take advantage of the provisions that the UPC makes possible. Our expectation is that the long-term relationship we will have to establish after March 2019 will be subject to some negotiation. I and the Government as a whole do not want to go into the detail of exactly what that relationship will be at this point.
Ms Angela Eagle
We all agree that the court should be set up. Because of the delay in Germany it is unlikely to be up and running much before the middle of next year, if things go well with the constitutional court there. That leaves us less than a year to get the institution up and running before we have to have a major renegotiation of our relationship with it.
In response to one of my initial questions, the Minister said that he is not in a position to give us any particular view on that because he, his Department and the whole Government will be much too busy concentrating on the bigger Brexit things. Is he of the view that the court and, much more importantly, our participation in it can continue without the legal changes we will clearly have to negotiate to remain a member once we are outside the European Union?
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that the order is essentially about the privileges of the key figures of the court. While I have allowed the debate to range to other issues around it, it would be helpful if we could focus on the order and if the Minister could relate his reply to the specific issues relevant to the order and the hon. Lady’s comments.
Joseph Johnson
Thank you, Mr Bailey, I will try to do that. Returning to the hon. Lady’s question, the order is made under the International Organisations Act 1968. It does not relate to EU legislation, nor does it rely on the European Communities Act 1972. The order will therefore not need to be preserved by the EU (Withdrawal) Bill at exit to remain UK law, so it will continue. As the hon. Lady knows, the UPC agreement is an international treaty, not an EU treaty. It will not need to be converted into UK law by the EU (Withdrawal) Bill for it to continue to apply.
To summarise all the points on Brexit, whatever the UK’s future relationship with the UPC, we will need to negotiate with our European partners to reflect the change to the UK’s status when we leave the EU. We want the court to come into existence. That is why we are facilitating it by putting ourselves in a position where we can ratify it. We understand that there are issues in other countries whose ratification is necessary; we hope that they can be overcome so that this court can come into existence and do the job we all want it to do.
Ms Angela Eagle
The privileges issue is clearly important. We cannot have the court without this order, which is why we all support it, but I hope the Minister will reassure me that we can continue to use this court with all its privileges if we are out of the European Union. The House of Commons Library note on this issue includes some worrying or at least alarming views from European law experts who say that we will not be able to remain in the court appropriately after Brexit before we have changed the law—we will not be able to just carry on having the court run. That might mean that people in our country cannot have access to its benefits until the Government ensure that they have entered into new legal agreements with the other signatories. Would he confirm that that is the case and say something about whether the order ensures that we will continue to have access to the court’s benefits, which we all want, without Parliament having to come back—
The Chair
The points have been packaged up as questions. We have the drift of it, so will the Minister now respond?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Lady has raised the issue of a smooth transition so that there is minimum uncertainty for business about the enforcement of intellectual property rights as we leave the EU. She is right, and the Government are in total agreement. We do not want any cliff edges. We want minimum disruption for businesses, and we want to minimise threats to stability as we develop the deep and special relationship with the rest of the EU that we have set out as our objective for the negotiation. Of course we will take into account the need to protect intellectual property rights as part of the process of considering the options for the UK’s intellectual property regime after our exit, but as I have said on a number of occasions, our future relationship with the UPC will be a matter for negotiation. It would not be appropriate for me to set out unilaterally what the UK’s position will be in advance of those negotiations.
I will try to conclude again by saying that the Government will continue to work with signatory states to bring the UPC into operation as soon as possible, making it easier for businesses all over the country—in the midlands, in Birmingham, Erdington and elsewhere—to enforce their patents across Europe. I hope the Committee will support the draft order accordingly.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Risk Transformation Regulations 2017
Draft Risk Transformation (Tax) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Stephen Barclay)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Risk Transformation Regulations 2017.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Risk Transformation (Tax) Regulations 2017.
Stephen Barclay
It is a pleasure, Mr Davies, to serve under your chairmanship. The regulations introduce a bespoke regulatory and tax framework for insurance-linked securities business in the UK, completing a process that was announced at Budget 2015.
Insurance-linked securities enable insurers and reinsurers to transfer risk to the capital markets. That is an important and growing part of the global specialist reinsurance market. As of 2017, more than $90 billion-worth of insurance-linked securities have been issued. However, despite the importance of London as a global insurance hub, the rapid growth of the insurance-linked securities market has taken place elsewhere. That is why at Budget 2015 the then Chancellor announced that the Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority would work closely with the London insurance market to develop a fit-for-purpose framework for insurance-linked security business in the UK.
The regulations comprise four main elements. First, the regulations provide for UK regulators to apply a new authorisation and supervisory regime for the vehicles that issue insurance-linked securities in the UK. Secondly, the regulations introduce a new type of company called a protected cell company to enable multiple deals to be managed in a single company. Thirdly, the regulations set out the rules for the issuance of securities by protected cell companies, so that the interests of protection buyers and investors are protected. Finally, the tax regulations set out an appropriate and straightforward tax treatment for the transformer vehicles that issue these securities.
The Government are also introducing a new form of corporate body called a protected cell company in these regulations. A protected cell company allows for the efficient management of multiple insurance-linked security deals within a single company, rather than establishing a new vehicle for each individual deal.
The structure of a protected cell company requires each to be held in a cell, with each cell’s assets and liabilities ring-fenced from one another. That type of structure is already common in the insurance-linked securities market but has not been available in the UK until now. The PRA and the FCA will carefully supervise protected cell companies, with the PRA ensuring that each cell is fully capitalised.
The regulations ensure that only sophisticated or institutional investors can be offered insurance-linked securities in the UK and take on this risk. These are complicated financial instruments and it would be wrong for retail investors to be able to purchase them. Finally, the risk transformation tax regulations set out an appropriate and straightforward tax treatment for transformer vehicles that issue these securities in the UK.
To ensure that UK transformer vehicles are competitive and straightforward to use, under the regulations tax is charged at the level of the investor rather on the transformer vehicle itself. For UK investors, tax will be charged as normal, according to their circumstances. Non-UK investors will be taxed according to the rules of their home jurisdiction.
That tax treatment follows the policy aim of the UK’s existing tax regulations for insuring special purpose vehicles, which is set out in the Taxation of Insurance Securitisation Companies Regulations 2007, a document I know you are very familiar with, Mr Davies. The tax regulations we debate today provide for broadly similar outcomes but in a much more straightforward way.
In conclusion, Members have heard that insurance-linked securities are a growing market. Indeed, 2017 has seen record issuance of insurance-linked securities with more than $11 billion-worth in this year alone. It is, therefore, the right time for the UK to improve its offer in this market. The regulations have been welcomed by the industry and by the London Market Group, which represents London’s insurers and reinsurers. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure as ever to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and it is always nice to find time to talk about insurance.
One of the first visits I made to the City after I became shadow City Minister was to the iconic Lloyd’s of London building at the heart of the square mile. It is extraordinary modern architecture with a fascinating history, from simple beginnings as Edward Lloyd’s coffee shop to the insurance behemoth we know today, underwriting £30 billion every year. As a country, we should be very proud of the history of the insurance industry and its potential for the future.
The question of opening the insurance market up internationally is therefore of significant importance to the UK. The London Market Group, which, as the Minister said, has contributed in considerable depth to the initiative, has said that greater tax revenues on the insurance-linked securities market may come from an expansion and updating of the legal regime that the regulations cover.
We should always bear in mind the potential risks around securities markets, with the insurance-linked securities market being particularly affected during the global financial crisis and the collapse of the collateralised debt obligations market a decade ago. We also cannot ignore the context. I could not help but notice that the Minister said that this package of measures was announced in the 2015 Budget—that is a long time ago in political terms. Now we face an entirely different landscape, due to our exit from the European Union. I find it odd that the Government are taking this approach to ensuring the London market is well-equipped to compete globally, while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that a “no deal” Brexit would cut off the industry at its knees.
We have already seen reports that Lloyd’s has picked Brussels as the location for its new EU subsidiary, given its concerns about retaining access to the single market. The success of the UK insurance market is inextricably linked to cross-border market access and so the sector is perhaps more dependent than any other on the need for sound transitional arrangements. The ongoing validity of insurance contracts across borders is vital to the economy, but we have no insight as yet on the Government’s proposals for mutual recognition.
I have spoken with industry representatives who have made it abundantly clear that Solvency II provisions on equivalence will fall short of what is needed. They have also said that a transition must be agreed by the end of this year to have real value and prevent them from needing to enact their contingency plans.
Without considering the wider context of how the industry will thrive outside the EU, this initiative seems to me to be hamstrung from the beginning. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister some key questions. First, will he assure the Committee that safeguards will still be in place to secure the stability of the insurance-linked securities market following the adoption of the regulations? Is he comfortable that the processes are sufficient to ensure that there will be no contagion between different parts of the securities market and beyond? Most of all, will he say how the market will continue to operate in the absence of any deal with the European Union, and a hard Brexit taking place? Finally, will he commit the Government to reviewing the legislation after a short period and placing a report in front of the House on the operation of the insurance-linked securities market as a whole and the effect the regulations have had upon it?
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I have a few words on the regulations before us, rather than generally on the insurance market. I warmly welcome the fact that we are trying to reform our regulatory rules and tax rules to make sure that this kind of work can be done onshore in the UK, rather than offshore in a collection of our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The right answer for our economy has to be to try to have this work carried out in the UK, rather than risk it all being done offshore. I would hope it would be the right answer for all the investors who would like to get into the market: to realise they can now do the work in a well-regarded, well-reputed, transparent and clean financial market, rather than risk being tainted by the various scandals that sadly seem to exist in some of our overseas territories, where we cannot quite yet convince them to have the levels of transparency that we would like. Perhaps I will not drag the Minister down this line; we will leave it for another day.
I always get a little nervous when we create new tax exemptions. The important thing is to make sure that it applies only to those entities that are carrying out this work and which we intend this perfectly sensible tax treatment for. This market does not work if we tax the investment vehicle rather than the investors.
The definition in the regulations is that it is a company that
“carries out the activity of insurance risk transformation”.
Will the Minister confirm that he is happy that that definition is sufficiently tightly defined so that other people cannot pretend that another activity can be done by one of these companies and be done tax-free, and groups cannot reinsure their own costs and somehow disappear that money from UK tax? I am sure it all links to how the regulations works. The definitions are there, but I cannot see, from what is written in the order, that they are as strong as I would like them to be.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is an absolute delight to be on a Delegated Legislation Committee. It has been far too long since I had the pleasure of coming to one of these rooms to discuss something incredibly technical. I have several questions for the Minister, following what the hon. Member for Amber Valley said about attracting this kind of work and these kinds of opportunities to the UK.
I am not exactly clear why this stuff does not take place in the UK already, or about the Government’s moves relating to the tax treatment and the enabling legislation that the Minister talked about. This measure was mooted in the Budget in 2015, and this is the follow-through. My concerns are about the assessment of its impact. The legislation has been presented to us, but I am not clear how much tax will come to the UK Treasury as a result of it and what the economic benefits will be. How many jobs will it create, if any?
I am also not clear about the issues that the insurance industry is set to face with Brexit, which the shadow Minister alluded to. It is incredibly concerned about dropping off the cliff edge because of the legislation that means that it can no longer communicate with customers who do not live in the UK if we do not have a deal that covers that with the EU. I am not clear whether this will do any good in countering those issues and concerns—particularly those relating to Brexit.
I am not clear about why this should be exempt from corporation tax. Like the hon. Member for Amber Valley, I have concerns about creating something new that is exempt from corporation tax. I would welcome the Minister’s views on how the Government will ensure that this statutory instrument is used only by the companies and organisations that should be using it.
The shadow Minister called for an assessment, to be published fairly quickly, of the impact of the regulations—an assessment not just of how many times the legislation is used, but of the tax-take that has been lost and the economic benefit that has arisen. Given the Government’s focus on job numbers, it is really important that that comes out more when we discuss new regulations and vehicles.
I think the Minister pretty much answered the question about the requirement to deduct income tax. I understood from what he said that the income tax will be paid by the people who receive it, whichever country they happen to be in. That is why the protected cell company does not need to deduct income tax.
My last question is about the consultation responses. The papers we have state that the 19 consultation responses were largely positive and in favour of the proposal. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us how many consultation responses were sought and/or received from organisations that are not set to benefit directly from the regulations. It would be useful to know how many people who do not have a beneficial interest in them responded to the consultation. If the respondents were all people who will benefit, of course they are going to write back and say, “It’s a wonderful thing.” It would be useful to have a bit more clarity about that. I am sorry I have given the Minister an absolute string of questions, but that is the technical nature of DL Committees.
Stephen Barclay
I thank Committee members for their probing but very interesting questions about the rationale for this policy. The shadow Minister is right to say that we are proud of the insurance industry in the United Kingdom for its global reach and its potential. He mentioned the context of Brexit. These measures were initiated in the 2015 Budget, but Brexit reinforces the benefit of increasing the UK’s influence over this part of the market, which is already well established but is currently conducted offshore. Bringing it within the UK will give UK regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority—more influence over it than they have under current arrangements. With Brexit, this is the kind of global business that the UK should be competing in. EU insurers already use these vehicles and deals outside the EU. We are discussing a business that is conducted outside the UK from which the UK has the potential to benefit, as opposed to a business that is currently conducted in Europe.
The shadow Minister raised safeguards. It is important to flag that, unlike conventional reinsurers, these vehicles do not pool risk; every deal must be fully collateralised. A transformer vehicle must raise and hold collateral that is at least sufficient to meet its insurance obligations, so an inherent safeguard is built into the design of these products. A further safeguard—it is important to reiterate this—is that the products can be accessed only by sophisticated or institutional investors, so there is no risk of retail investors failing to understand the products on the market.
Several Members raised the issue of tax. It is important to reiterate that the principle behind this tax treatment is similar to the way Lloyd’s members are currently taxed on their syndicate participation, albeit the mechanics of how it is achieved are different because of the different legal characteristics of the entities involved. Investors in Lloyd’s are treated as if they had participated in profit-generating insurance activities directly, rather than through an intermediary—a syndicate. Also, a vehicle cannot qualify for this tax treatment without authorisation from the UK regulatory framework—the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. That is a further safeguard.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who speaks for the Scottish National party, asked, legitimately, whether any tax would be lost as a result of these measures. I reassure the Committee that the UK will not lose any revenue from this tax treatment, as none of the deals concerned are currently domiciled in the UK. There is already a similar treatment for transformer vehicles in UK legislation—the Taxation of Insurance Securitisation Companies Regulations 2007—but that legislation has been too complicated for the industry to use, so the draft regulations simplify the treatment of those vehicles.
It is also worth pointing out that international competitors already offer a similar tax treatment. Without a competitive and appropriate approach to this tax, the UK would lose out on business that is important to the future of our global reinsurance industry and to our position as a world leader in specialist reinsurance business. That was the shadow Minister’s opening point. As I said, UK investors will be taxed in the same way as they would be if they received interest or dividends from any other company. There is not an issue of lost taxation, because this tax will be applied to entities that are not currently domiciled in the UK.
I hope that I have addressed Members’ questions. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT RISK TRANSFORMATION (TAX) REGULATIONS 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Risk Transformation (Tax) Regulations 2017.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Draft Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 26 June, will confer legal status on the unified patent court, as well as providing a limited set of privileges and immunities to the court, its judges and staff. These are necessary to ensure the effective and proper functioning of the court, and were agreed in the international agreement that established the court and its protocol on privileges and immunities.
Why does the unified patent court matter? The current patent system across Europe is fragmented and expensive: businesses must maintain a bundle of patent rights, each covering a single country, and must enforce each patent separately in the national courts of each country, which is costly and burdensome. The unified patent court will offer a way for innovative businesses to enforce or challenge patents in up to 26 European countries with a single court action. The ability to obtain a single judgment is significant and valuable for patent-intensive industries. Independent research shows that approximately a quarter of all patent cases heard in UK courts were litigated between the same parties in other European jurisdictions, so a single unified patent court is welcome. An important division of the court, dealing with disputes in the field of pharmaceuticals and life sciences, will be based here in the UK, cementing our global reputation as a place to resolve commercial legal disputes. British businesses will still be able to choose national patents and litigation in national courts, but will have the option to use the new court structure with all the benefits that I have described.
The draft order is part of the UK’s ratification process. It confers legal capacity on the unified patent court and gives effect to the protocol on privileges and immunities. It also provides immunity from legal process for the court, with some exceptions; for its judges, registrar and deputy registrar; and for its representatives and staff, although only in the exercise of their official functions. That immunity can be waived by the UPC.
The judges and staff of the court will be exempt from national taxation on their salaries and from national insurance once the court applies its own equivalent tax and puts in place its own social security and health system, but neither exemption will apply to court staff who are British nationals or permanent UK residents. The draft order also provides that the court is exempt from direct taxation in relation to its official activities, as is the case for other international organisations based here, such as the International Maritime Organisation.
The draft order will confer on the new court and its judges and staff only the privileges and immunities that are necessary for the organisation to conduct its official activities effectively. Those privileges and immunities are in line with those offered to officers of other international organisations of which the UK is already a member. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
We are a creative nation of entrepreneurs and innovators. In the 19th century, Birmingham and the Black country were known as the workshop of the world, and in modern times we have silicon roundabout about 2 miles away, the golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge, and remarkable innovation from Jaguar Land Rover in the midlands and the north of England. I will never forget travelling with Jaguar Land Rover’s chief executive Ralf Speth in his Land Rover and seeing how the company was using its close proximity to a cluster of companies engaged in the games industry to produce the next generation of in-car entertainment systems. Crucial to that was the protection of patents.
I have seen at first hand, and I am sure that many Members have likewise seen, just why it is important that we remain a nation of innovation. In future, we will want to attract the brightest and the best as we leave the European Union, and crucially in that process we need sensible arrangements that protect the interests of Britain. I will come back to that point later.
At the heart of turning ideas into commercial practice is protection from poaching, as well as the patent system that has grown up over many years. Such protection is of the highest order including, as the Minister said, both domestic and international mechanisms on the one hand, and immunity, as is proposed by the order, on the other hand.
The European Patent Office was founded in 1977. We signed up to the unified patent court in 2013, together with 25 other member states in the European Union, and the necessary arrangements were finalised shortly after the decision by our country on Brexit. The order seeks to confer necessary legal status as we approach the next stages, for the avoidance of any doubt, and we believe that to be an eminently sensible move, which the Opposition wholeheartedly support.
Finally, it is all the more important that we have such domestic and Europe-wide arrangements at a time of immense uncertainty in our country, to help to reassure creative people and innovators that we are serious about remaining a creative nation of innovators. Dare I say to the Minister that in reaffirming that existing European arrangements should continue to obtain in the future, hopefully that will form a precedent when it comes to next-stage discussions on the single market and the customs union? On those fronts, we will also need sensible arrangements, whereby we will have full access to and will enjoy the benefits of those arrangements that have served this nation well for many years.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bailey; I do not think I have done so for a while.
Will the Minister say a little bit more about how the arrangements will work in future? Clearly, it is a very important and good thing if we can deal with the fragmentation of patents, particularly across the European single market, but his Government are now determined to leave that market. Although this new institution is not an institution of the European Union, we agreed to come on board and become involved in it while we were in the EU, well before the vote to leave had even been thought of, except on the far fringes of the Conservative party, much less the subsequent referendum.
I am interested in the Minister’s observations on that, because the court will have to put into place the new unified directive on patents, which the European Union is in the process of putting into law and with which we are associated at the moment. However, we probably will not be if we leave the customs union and the single market at some time in future.
We are in quite an unfortunate situation: just as we are attempting to stop the fragmentation of patent law and requirements, particularly their jurisdiction in the European Union, we are fragmenting ourselves from the institution that is meant to co-ordinate that. If the last few weeks are anything to go by, we are not exactly leaving in good odour—or order—judging by the way things are going at the moment. I suspect that that may have some implications for the way in which such a pragmatic and important issue will be dealt with in future. Will the Minister give us the benefit of his observations on that and its implications?
I also note that there are experts who feel that the UK will need to take several steps to remain within the ambit of this institution after Brexit, including entering into new international agreements with the other signatories of the agreement on the unified patent court. Those signatories will all, of course, remain in the single market and the EU.
We are in the middle of trying to set up this institution, which is what the order is about, just as we are leaving the EU. Does the Minister think that we need to come back to this, and change the law and international agreements so that we can proceed smoothly with what we all agree is a desirable outcome? Would that hold up the implementation of what is a wholly good thing?
I also note that there are some issues in Germany that are holding up the final ratification of the court. Does the Minister feel that events in Germany will assist us in getting the timing right regarding our desire to enter into new international agreements, or does he think that they will slow down this wholly welcome development? If we do need new international agreements to move forward in the event of our coming out of the European Union by 2019, is his Department geared up to negotiate them? Has it done any planning on ensuring that our legal arrangements enable us to go on with, and not disrupt, the setting up of this extremely important institution as we leave the European Union?
Finally, can the Minister give us a definite guarantee? His Government do not believe in the jurisdiction of the European Court, but areas of patent law, particularly in the directives, are currently subject to that jurisdiction. Can the Minister explain to us how on earth we are going to be part of this institution, but not subject to the oversight of the European Court? For the life of me, I cannot work out how that would work.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington for supporting the order, and for recognising the role that the court will play in ensuring that we have a system that encourages innovation and protects companies that invest in research and development. Those companies are able to go on and commercialise the discoveries that they make without fear of their hard work and efforts leading to nothing, or being taken advantage of by competitors that have not made those investments in discovery.
I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey for asking some important questions; I will now try to respond to as many as I can. She asked principally about the impact that leaving the EU will have on the operation of the UPC, and what our relationship to the UPC will be after March 2019, when we will be in the process of leaving the EU. To be clear, the UPC itself, as she knows, is not an EU institution, but currently all participating member states are EU member states. Our position is that while the UK remains a member of the EU, we will and should complete all necessary legislation, so that we are in a position to ratify the agreement.
Whatever the UK’s future relationship with the unified patent court, we expect that, as the hon. Lady said, we will need to negotiate with our European partners, to reflect the change to the UK’s status in relation to the UPC that will take place when we leave the EU. As a Government, we believe that it would be wrong to set out any unilateral positions in advance of the negotiations that we know we are going to have to have, because our efforts will need to be focused on securing the best possible deal for the UK in our negotiations with our European partners.
Jack Dromey
This is an important point for the avoidance of doubt on the part of the innovators and entrepreneurs of our country. Our support for the order is given on the basis that it will be an enduring mechanism now and after we leave the European Union. Is the Minister suggesting that having given legal effect to the order, the situation might change post-Brexit? That will be a source of immense concern to innovators and entrepreneurs in our country.
Joseph Johnson
Through the passage of the order and completing all the necessary legislative steps in Parliament, we want to ensure that we are in a position to ratify the UPC and our membership of it, thus enabling it to come into existence. As the hon. Gentleman and Members know, under the terms of the international treaty, UK ratification is required for the UPC to come into existence, and we want the court to come into existence. We have been supporters of it from the outset, and we think it will play an important role in enabling businesses to enforce their intellectual property rights at the lowest possible cost, or certainly at a much lower cost than many companies find to be the case at the moment. We are supportive of it, and we want to continue to play a facilitating role in setting it up.
After we leave the European Union in March 2019, we understand that we will have to negotiate a new relationship with the UPC. We want to do that as seamlessly as possible so that businesses can continue to take advantage of the provisions that the UPC makes possible. Our expectation is that the long-term relationship we will have to establish after March 2019 will be subject to some negotiation. I and the Government as a whole do not want to go into the detail of exactly what that relationship will be at this point.
Ms Angela Eagle
We all agree that the court should be set up. Because of the delay in Germany it is unlikely to be up and running much before the middle of next year, if things go well with the constitutional court there. That leaves us less than a year to get the institution up and running before we have to have a major renegotiation of our relationship with it.
In response to one of my initial questions, the Minister said that he is not in a position to give us any particular view on that because he, his Department and the whole Government will be much too busy concentrating on the bigger Brexit things. Is he of the view that the court and, much more importantly, our participation in it can continue without the legal changes we will clearly have to negotiate to remain a member once we are outside the European Union?
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that the order is essentially about the privileges of the key figures of the court. While I have allowed the debate to range to other issues around it, it would be helpful if we could focus on the order and if the Minister could relate his reply to the specific issues relevant to the order and the hon. Lady’s comments.
Joseph Johnson
Thank you, Mr Bailey, I will try to do that. Returning to the hon. Lady’s question, the order is made under the International Organisations Act 1968. It does not relate to EU legislation, nor does it rely on the European Communities Act 1972. The order will therefore not need to be preserved by the EU (Withdrawal) Bill at exit to remain UK law, so it will continue. As the hon. Lady knows, the UPC agreement is an international treaty, not an EU treaty. It will not need to be converted into UK law by the EU (Withdrawal) Bill for it to continue to apply.
To summarise all the points on Brexit, whatever the UK’s future relationship with the UPC, we will need to negotiate with our European partners to reflect the change to the UK’s status when we leave the EU. We want the court to come into existence. That is why we are facilitating it by putting ourselves in a position where we can ratify it. We understand that there are issues in other countries whose ratification is necessary; we hope that they can be overcome so that this court can come into existence and do the job we all want it to do.
Ms Angela Eagle
The privileges issue is clearly important. We cannot have the court without this order, which is why we all support it, but I hope the Minister will reassure me that we can continue to use this court with all its privileges if we are out of the European Union. The House of Commons Library note on this issue includes some worrying or at least alarming views from European law experts who say that we will not be able to remain in the court appropriately after Brexit before we have changed the law—we will not be able to just carry on having the court run. That might mean that people in our country cannot have access to its benefits until the Government ensure that they have entered into new legal agreements with the other signatories. Would he confirm that that is the case and say something about whether the order ensures that we will continue to have access to the court’s benefits, which we all want, without Parliament having to come back—
The Chair
The points have been packaged up as questions. We have the drift of it, so will the Minister now respond?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Lady has raised the issue of a smooth transition so that there is minimum uncertainty for business about the enforcement of intellectual property rights as we leave the EU. She is right, and the Government are in total agreement. We do not want any cliff edges. We want minimum disruption for businesses, and we want to minimise threats to stability as we develop the deep and special relationship with the rest of the EU that we have set out as our objective for the negotiation. Of course we will take into account the need to protect intellectual property rights as part of the process of considering the options for the UK’s intellectual property regime after our exit, but as I have said on a number of occasions, our future relationship with the UPC will be a matter for negotiation. It would not be appropriate for me to set out unilaterally what the UK’s position will be in advance of those negotiations.
I will try to conclude again by saying that the Government will continue to work with signatory states to bring the UPC into operation as soon as possible, making it easier for businesses all over the country—in the midlands, in Birmingham, Erdington and elsewhere—to enforce their patents across Europe. I hope the Committee will support the draft order accordingly.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment No.2) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure, Mr Stringer, to serve under your chairmanship. The regulations, which were laid before the House on 10 July 2017, will reduce confusion for pension scheme members and burdens for industry. They enact the conclusions of a call for evidence in 2015, on the issue of how a scheme determines whether a member is required to take financial advice before transferring their pension savings.
Plainly put, the regulations simplify how trustees and scheme managers value members’ pensions, in order to determine whether the requirement to take advice under section 48 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015 applies. The provisions form part of a wider package of changes that, as a whole, expand and simplify the protections for members with potentially valuable guarantees attached to their pensions.
The pension freedoms, introduced in April 2015, have given individuals aged 55 and over greater choice in how and when they access their defined contribution pension savings. Members who save into pension arrangements that provide potentially valuable guarantees can generally exercise these new freedoms, where necessary, by first transferring to a defined contribution scheme or converting to defined contribution savings.
These pension arrangements—safeguarded benefits—include typical defined benefit schemes as well as defined contribution arrangements, which offer safeguarded flexible benefits. Safeguarded flexible benefits are flexible, in that there is a pot, which is cash-based, meaning that the pension freedoms apply; but also safeguarded because they include a promise in relation to the secure income they may provide in retirement.
Normally, but not exclusively, safeguarded flexible benefits are personal pension contracts that include the option to take an annuity at a guaranteed rate. These are commonly referred to as a guaranteed annuity rate, or GAR. Because of the valuable guarantees offered by safeguarded benefits, section 48 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015 introduced an advice requirement alongside the pension freedoms. That requires trustees and scheme managers to check that members with safeguarded benefits have taken financial advice before transferring or otherwise flexibly accessing those benefits.
Section 48(3) provides a power to create exceptions to the requirement, and this was exercised in regulation 5 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) Regulations 2015, to provide an exception for members whose safeguarded benefits under their scheme are valued at £30,000 or less. It is that legislative requirement—how pensions are valued for the purpose of determining whether it applies—that I am proposing to amend.
The Government have become aware that the methodology prescribed in regulation 5 of the 2015 regulations for valuing members’ benefits against the £30,000 threshold has resulted in firms that offered GARs having to provide two values for the member’s pension: first, the transfer value, which an individual will actually receive, and, secondly, the actuarially calculated, but ultimately notional, value against which the £30,000 advice threshold is tested.
Providers and consumer groups reported members with safeguarded flexible benefits experiencing confusion as to why they were receiving two valuations. This means that there is always a risk that members may choose to pay for advice, wrongly believing that they would be entitled to the higher actuarially calculated value, when they would receive only the lower transfer value.
Regulation 4 of the regulations that we are debating will, if approved, amend regulation 5 of the 2015 regulations so that, under paragraph (1) of that provision, trustees and scheme managers will be required to treat the value of safeguarded benefits as equal to the transfer value of those benefits when determining whether the £30,000 threshold is met. Meanwhile, those offering safeguarded flexible benefits, such as GAR, will produce only one valuation: the transfer value of the member’s benefits, determined in accordance with the legislative provisions referred to in paragraph (2) of amended regulation 5.
For most schemes, that will be the cash value of the member’s pot. That single figure is easily explained and avoids confusion for members. It is also widely used within other communications and already produced by firms. The instrument also contains transitional provisions in regulation 6 to accommodate the change from one valuation methodology to another so that members are not disadvantaged. Finally, regulation 4 makes a further amendment to the valuation methodology in regulation 5 of the 2015 regulations, removing an inconsistency in the treatment of defined benefit pension scheme savers.
In conclusion, we remain committed to the principle that pension savers choose when to access their pension savings. It is equally important that they are supported in doing so. The Government have listened carefully both to stakeholders and to those representing consumers, and these regulations show that we are meeting our commitment, made as part of a consultation exercise, not only to monitor the pension freedoms themselves, but to reform existing measures where needed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Stringer; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
We agree that the regulations are designed to help people, and we will not oppose them. I have a number of comments and questions, but I do not expect or intend to detain the Committee very long. As the Minister said, the regulations have been introduced to provide protections for people at a time of real financial difficulty for millions of people in our country. Wages are down in real terms, millions are using food banks and thousands of families with children will be homeless this Christmas. The average household budget had unsecured debts amounting to £13,200 at the end of 2016, just below the £13,300 level at the end of 2008, on the eve of the financial crisis.
Analysts at the Trades Union Congress expect that figure to rise to £13,900 by the end of this year and as high as £15,400 by the end of 2021. Nobody should be surprised at people choosing to take lump sums of tax-free money from their pensions because they simply do not have the luxury of being able to plan ahead and look to the future. Their worries are very much in the present. While I recognise that it is important that people with even small benefits with guaranteed annuity rates should receive advice, I cannot say that I do not understand why some people are choosing the option to have their money now.
Pension freedoms are a success to some extent, but people are seduced by the temptation of easy cash for a number of reasons related to their personal circumstances. Here lies the contradiction and unintended consequence of pension freedoms: it is incentivising jam today and may end up leaving little for retirement. One of my biggest questions and concerns is why that was not considered when the 2015 Act was passed. Why is it only now, after two years, when numerous people have taken out lump sums, that the Government have decided it needs to be addressed?
Nevertheless, the decision is still welcome. Advice should be given, and it should be good-quality advice at the lowest possible cost. We must have financial advisers who consider the future of their clients, and provide a real picture of what they can expect. There seems to be an attitude that small safeguarded benefits do not matter as much, when I would argue that they are in fact just as important as any others, if not more so. Any guarantee of a future steady income outweighs the high risk involved in managing one’s own pension pot.
People with less than £30,000 may be poorer, facing increased financial difficulty and looking for a way to resolve their problems quickly. They may insist on having their tax-free 25% quickly, but I wonder about the quality of advice that they are getting. They need to know that their guaranteed annuity rates are worth more than cashing in. That is why I welcome any initiative that would require them to receive advice before making any transfers. I look forward to making many similar points when the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill comes to the Commons; I assume that that will be in 2018. I would also argue that the people who have benefits under £30,000 are the people who most need the advice.
That said, while I appreciate that there are concerns about the cost of the advice from Financial Conduct Authority-regulated providers, I do not believe that should be a barrier, nor just an entitlement for the wealthier. As I have said, the change is welcome, but would the Minister agree that for many people the horse has already bolted? They have had their cash, they have spent it and many of them face financial hardship simply because nobody warned them of the risk they were taking. The freedom agenda has been littered with bad advice. Not everyone is being reasonably and accurately informed about their options, and they are missing the key point that taking the cash would not be as valuable as keeping their pension benefits.
I note that the Government have received representations from schemes and consumer bodies that the current approach is confusing for members, which does not surprise me at all. The Minister has addressed that. I have spoken on the issue of transparency a number of times, and will continue to do so until I am satisfied that there is a real and meaningful clarity provided to those who have occupational and private pensions. Any confusion faced by consumers simply proves my point. We cannot just provide information that is difficult to understand: it needs to be in language that is easily comprehended.
I note that a voluntary approach has been considered but discounted on the grounds that providers would not always comply with a requirement to notify individuals about their guaranteed annuity rates, as it would be a cost to the provider. It is right that there is a requirement for providers to give personalised risk warnings to all members with guaranteed annuity rates, and that they seek advice. I hope that this is another a step forward to cleaning up and making this area more transparent and worth while for consumers.
We all know that when it comes to the financial services industry, at times there are those who do not always act in the client’s best interest. The Financial Conduct Authority is looking into claims that rogue pension advisers are aggressively targeting steelworkers at Tata’s UK plant in Port Talbot. It is a real concern for everybody that advisers have swooped on the steelworkers, in many cases seeking to persuade them to transfer their money to alternative arrangements. While these transfers may enable the steelworkers to access their savings more easily, they invariably carry high costs and almost always involve schemes that carry much greater levels of risk. Despite Government assurances, rogue advisers are reportedly presenting a transfer as the best option for almost all those affected, despite regulators repeatedly warning that most people with defined benefit pension benefits would be better off keeping them.
What will the Government do through the regulator to ensure that we do not see the same thing happen to people who have guaranteed annuity rates savings? I have mentioned the cost of advice. How will the regulator ensure that advisers do not charge excessive fees for advice, which is something that could dig deep into small pots? Likewise, how will they make sure that the rogues in the system do not make a financial killing as a result of these regulations and the new body of people seeking advice?
Guy Opperman
In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Stockton North, he is right that the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill will not be debated this year. It will be coming to the House of Commons, following extensive consideration, in 2018. Secondly, after the Pension Schemes Act 2015 was passed there was a deliberate call for evidence to assess its impact. The methodology prescribed in regulation 5 of the 2015 regulations for valuing members’ benefits against the £30,000 threshold by which firms offered GARs was assessed and then addressed, so we introduced these specific regulations to address those points.
Thirdly, the cost of financial advice and the importance of people having access to affordable financial advice in these circumstances is something that both the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and the FCA have considered. The financial advice market review that launched in August 2015 explored how the financial advice market could be improved for consumers, including the market for pensions advice. I can assist the hon. Gentleman by making the point that the FCA has published guidance on streamlined advice to help firms provide advice to customers with specific needs in a proportionate way. To tackle issues of the affordability of that advice, the Government have increased the income tax exemption for employer-arranged financial advice on pensions from £150 to £500, and introduced the pensions advice allowance, which allows consumers to access £500 of their defined contribution or hybrid pension pots tax-free up to three times at any age to redeem against the cost of pensions and retirement advice. I would, with respect, make the point that the regulator and the Government have acted on that matter.
In relation to the points on the British Steel pension scheme and Tata pension scheme members, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a further meeting today to discuss that with members who are affected, and I welcome the expansion that we will give on that particular point. What I can briefly tell the Committee today is that the FCA is aware of this issue and is making sure that its expectations are set out to advisers. That includes arranging to meet adviser firms in Swansea. The Government are also working with industry to prevent scams and investment fraud. He will be aware of Project Bloom and the various other things brought forward to address scams. The British Steel pension scheme has worked with the regulator to ensure that any communications to members both highlight the importance of taking professional advice and signpost where that advice can be obtained. The communications tell members how to check that advisers are approved to give the advice, and give warnings on how to look out for scams. The FCA is monitoring any scam behaviour and will, I assure the hon. Gentleman, take stringent action when something suspicious is reported.
The regulations simplify how trustees and scheme managers value members’ pensions when they are determining whether the requirement to take advice applies. They form part of a package of measures and, if approved, will come into force alongside a new requirement to send members tailored communications, ensuring that all members are told about their valuable benefits in a more timely and accessible manner. There will no longer be a cohort of individuals who are required to seek financial advice, but are often unable to locate an adviser willing to advise on their pension savings.
I hope that I have set out for the Committee the need for the regulations and have responded to the matters that have been raised. If not, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with more details. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Migration Policy and the Economy
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the Government’s migration policy on the economy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to see the Minister in her place. We had a crossing of paths in Gloucestershire when she stood as our police and crime commissioner candidate in 2012. She was not successful on that occasion, but Gloucestershire’s loss is very much the House’s and the Home Office’s gain. It is also a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) here to speak for the Opposition. I will be happy to take interventions from hon. Members and listen to their contributions.
To summarise what I plan to say, my proposition is that migration can be good for Britain if it makes all of us richer, not just the people who have come here to work. It can benefit the public finances and help with the budget deficit, but only if the people coming have sufficient skills and earn a sufficiently high salary. After we have left the European Union, we should treat people who come to Britain from the European Union in the same way as people from elsewhere in the world. Anything else would be indefensible. The system should be based on people’s skills and what they can contribute to the country, not where they are from. That will also make a tremendous difference to our efforts to strike trade deals around the world. That is the nub of my argument; I will now set it out in more detail.
I will talk primarily about migrants who come here to work or to look for work; I will not cover people who come here seeking refugee status, for family reunion or as students, although I will touch briefly on students towards the close of my remarks. I want to be clear that migrants who come to Britain with the right skills are to be welcomed: they come here, they do valuable jobs and they can benefit our economy as well as themselves. However, we should also consider our primary responsibility to the people who elect us to this place and ensure that our migration system benefits not only the people who come here, but the people who are here already.
When we debate the performance of the economy, the measure that we most commonly look at is the growth of GDP—the size of the economy—which has been positive since the Conservatives came to power soon after the economic crash, but we should also look closely at GDP per head, which is the size of the economy adjusted for the fact that there are more people in Britain. Perhaps that is something the Minister can pass on to colleagues in the Treasury. Of course not all population growth is to do with migration, but according to the Migration Observatory, just over half the population increase between 1992 and 2015 was due to migration. That is quite a significant amount. The rest was to do with things such as the ageing population. GDP growth per head in the time that we have been in office is about 0.75% per year lower than GDP growth, and over a considerable period that makes a significant difference to how well off we are. We need to ensure that the people coming here contribute to the extent that they are not just making themselves better off, but increasing GDP per head. It is important to make British citizens better off as well.
I want to flag up how migration relates to the conversation we are having about productivity performance, which has been somewhat disappointing since the financial crash. The Chancellor spent a fair bit of time on that in last week’s Budget, which we voted on last night. I do not want to overstate my case, because the academic research shows that there is no single cause of what some of the academic literature calls the “productivity puzzle”. A lot of bright, smart people—far brighter and smarter than me—are not entirely certain what is at the root of it, but I posit that at least one aspect of productivity is to do with migration.
If we say to businesses that there is effectively an unlimited supply of all different sorts of labour that can come from the European Union and that can be hired relatively cheaply, it does not make much sense for those employers to invest significant capital sums in their business for the latest technology and labour-saving innovations that could help their existing workforce to become and stay more productive. If we were to say to employees that after an appropriate adjustment period that unlimited supply of labour from across the European Union will no longer be available, employers would look at investing capital into their businesses and at different and smarter ways to do things that would improve the productivity of their existing workforce. That would make Britain more competitive and deliver the only sustainable way to drive up wages in the public and private sectors: increasing productivity.
Charlie Elphicke
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Is not the nub of his case that importing cheap labour from overseas disincentivises businesses from investing not just in kit, but in improving the skills of their employees and our workforce?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is a big issue in his constituency of Dover, one of the gateway parts of our country.
It is perfectly right for us to look at what people can pay; we have rules in Britain about paying the national living wage. However, research done by the Bank of England in its staff working paper, “The impact of immigration on occupational wages: evidence from Britain”, concludes that although there is not an impact at the higher end of the skills spectrum,
“in the semi/unskilled services sector…a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 percent reduction in pay.”
I do not want to overstate it, but there is certainly some evidence that at the bottom end of the labour market, there is an impact on pay. It is also a question of the availability of labour and saying to employers that they need to think about smarter ways of working, not just assume that they can access an unlimited supply of labour.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. On the point of productivity, which he was discussing when my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and I simultaneously attempted to intervene on him, he will no doubt be as concerned as I am that the productivity figures we have just seen show a heavy concentration of higher productivity in London and the south-east. That suggests to me that the area that has had the highest level of migration and has the highest migration-derived population actually does have high productivity. We have to think about that.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The literature shows that many factors contribute to productivity. To digress for the moment on the regional aspect, which is not too far from the main topic, the strongest action the Government should take is to continue to invest in infrastructure across the United Kingdom, particularly transport infrastructure. One of the reasons for the focus of our former colleague George Osborne, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the northern powerhouse was that if we improved the transport infrastructure to join up the northern cities of England so that people could commute much more quickly between them, we would effectively create a group of cities that together would be globally competitive and would make a real difference to the productivity not just of their region, but of the United Kingdom. Ensuring that we invest in all parts of the United Kingdom and not just in London and the south-east is a valuable point.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
To go back to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, is he aware that he has mis-stated the results of the research on the effect of immigration on wages? In fact, the research to which he refers shows a fall of only 1% in the wages of low-skilled workers as a result of immigration, according to the immigration expert Jonathan Portes. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is the true result of the research that he misquoted?
Mr Harper
No, and I take slight exception to being misquoted by the hon. and learned Lady. Some people have misquoted the research, but I have been careful to have a copy of the document in front of me and quote exactly from its conclusion without overstating it. I am familiar with Jonathan Portes’ research, but that is different research.
Joanna Cherry
Jonathan Portes is an expert in economic immigration. His commentary on the document states that the actual results suggest a fall of only 1% in the wages of low-skilled workers due to immigration. That is Jonathan Portes’ expert conclusion.
Mr Harper
I was quoting from the document itself; I carefully explained what it was and read out its precise words. What the hon. and learned Lady has done is read out someone’s opinion on it. Jonathan Portes is indeed an economist—in fact, I was debating and disagreeing with him on this very subject on the “Today” programme this morning. Someone may call himself an expert and be an economist, but I suspect everyone here knows that when a number of economists get together, the room ends up with more opinions than economists in it.
Mr Harper
No, I will not give way again yet. I will make some progress.
Much of this debate is about the assumptions behind economic models. Changing the assumptions can often lead to different conclusions. We often hold different views about these things, so we have to make our case with arguments and let our ultimate bosses—the voters —take a view on who they believe. I am content to let them reach that conclusion.
My second point is about migrants’ contribution to the public finances. When we came into office, there was a budget deficit of approximately 10% of GDP, which was completely unsustainable. We have reduced that budget deficit by three quarters, but despite the considerable progress we have made, we still have a fiscal challenge to solve. It is important that we look at the contribution made by those coming here.
The Migration Advisory Committee is an independent, expert committee, so I hope the hon. and learned Lady will listen carefully to what it has to say. It did a very detailed piece of work for the Government in 2011, looking at the minimum income requirement for sponsorship under the family migration route. One of its conclusions from the 2011-12 figures was that a household had to earn £25,700 to make a neutral contribution to the public finances—in other words, for the tax it paid to be sufficient to offset its share of public services such as education, health and defence.
That suggests that the migrant workers in Britain who do not earn significant salaries but have access to benefits such as our welfare system are not making a net contribution to public finances. I am not suggesting that they are not working; they are, but they are earning a lower salary and are therefore entitled to things like in-work tax credits and—as the system changes—universal credit. Lower-paid migrant workers are coming to Britain, working, earning money and paying taxes, but the taxes they pay are not sufficient to contribute properly to public finances. In effect, British citizens and those already working here are subsidising some of those migrant workers.
To come back to our friend Jonathan Portes, on the radio this morning he made the point that if we take all EU migrants together, they do make a positive contribution. I have not checked the figures since I debated him, but I think he is right about that. However, he is mushing together all EU migrants of all skill levels. My argument is that we should absolutely continue to have people coming here who are sufficiently highly skilled, are earning income and are making a positive contribution to the public finances, but we should not allow everyone to come here.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he accept what a number of employers have told me: that people who may have entered the UK to fill relatively low-skilled and low-paid jobs in shortage occupations develop and progress their skills in the workplace and make a greater contribution over time to the UK economy?
Mr Harper
That may be true, but if the hon. Lady will allow me, I will say more later about what business thinks and about the opportunities that will arise if we make the change I propose. Then, if she does not think I have covered her point, of course she should feel free to intervene.
Charlie Elphicke
My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Will he address ensuring that we can end free movement when we leave the European Union and get the right balance with work permits?
Mr Harper
Yes, I will come to that.
It is worth saying that Britain’s unemployment rate of 4.3% is relatively low, compared with 7.5% in the EU as a whole and 8.9% in the euro area. Some countries in Europe have unemployment rates of more than 20%. Our record is very positive, and businesses have created 3 million new jobs since this Government have been in power. I am always careful to say that businesses have created the jobs, because it does not happen automatically. Although we can help to create the conditions, it is businessmen and businesswomen who actually take the risks and start the businesses. In this country there are still 1.4 million unemployed people, as well as a number of people not in the labour market, to whom we should give opportunities. I think that addresses my hon. Friend’s point.
When we leave the EU in March 2019, we will leave the single market and the customs union, and freedom of movement will end. The Government were absolutely right to make a generous offer to EU nationals already in Britain who came here before we triggered article 50. We were not able to make that offer unilaterally, because we had to ensure that we protected the 1 million British citizens elsewhere in the EU, since the British Government’s first responsibility is to defend the interests of British citizens, wherever they may be in the world. In the Chamber today, we will debate an Opposition day motion from the Scottish National party that we should unilaterally make an offer to EU nationals, casting aside the essential interests of British citizens elsewhere in the world.
Mr Harper
I see that that point has engaged SNP Members, but we will have plenty of time to debate it later. I mention it now because the Government have published a very clear document for EU nationals called “Rights of EU Citizens in the UK”. Every hon. Member who speaks to EU nationals already in Britain should ensure that they see that document, so they know that the Government have made it very clear that they are not just welcome, but positively encouraged to stay here after we have left the EU. If they have been here for five years, they can get settled status; if not, they can stay for that period and then get it. We want them to stay. My point is about what we do after we have left the EU when new EU nationals want to come and work in Britain. It is worth distinguishing those categories so that there is no opportunity for mischief-making or for anyone to pretend that we do not want existing EU nationals to stay under the Government’s very generous offer.
There has been some debate in the media today about our negotiations, but from the document produced by Michel Barnier’s team, which sets out the British Government’s offer on EU citizens and the demands of the EU27, we can see that we are not a million miles away. There are some issues left that still have to be negotiated on, but on the vast majority there is complete agreement, including residence, exportable benefits and access to the health service. We are within touching distance of reaching a deal on that basis, which will set the mind of many people—EU nationals and British citizens—at rest.
I am also very keen that students keep coming to the United Kingdom to attend our fantastic universities. It is worth mentioning that over the last year the number of international students coming to Britain has increased. Students make very little net impact on the immigration figures because usually they complete their course and then leave; those who want to stay are welcome to do so if they get a graduate-level job, but then they are counted as a worker and not as a student. We have a fantastic offer for international students and I am very pleased that the Home Secretary has asked the Migration Advisory Committee to examine the contribution that international students make to our economy. I look forward to seeing the results of that research.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that the University of Gloucestershire has a campus in Cheltenham. Does it not always bear emphasising that our fantastic universities are effectively one of the great exporters in the British economy, because they bring in so much foreign currency? They are one of the jewels in our crown and we should nurture them at every opportunity.
Mr Harper
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is not quite, but almost, my Gloucestershire neighbour, for that intervention. He is absolutely right that we have some fantastic educational institutions. In my constituency, Hartpury College is a provider of both further and higher education. It has international students from around the world, particularly on some of its sport courses, and is a global leader. Those are the sorts of educational opportunities that we should be extending; I want to see that continue, and there is no reason why it should not be able to.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am not sure where the right hon. Gentleman got his figures from, but the ones that I am looking at are from the Evening Standard. In fact, his former right hon. Friend —the ex-Member for Tatton and former Chancellor—is very worried about the fact that the migration targets include students. He said on 27 August in the Evening Standard, “International student numbers are down by 27,000, because we look like an unwelcoming nation”. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has any comment on that.
Mr Harper
Well, the figures I looked at suggest that is not true. There has been a small reduction in the number of students coming from the European Union, but that has been more than offset by the number of students coming from outside the European Union. Also, the whole issue of whether students are counted in the migration figures or not is a complete red herring. There is no limit on the number of international students who come to Britain. The only things that students have to be able to do is speak English to an appropriate level, be properly qualified for the course they are taking and be able to pay for that course. There is no limit on the number of students coming here.
Of course, what the Government have done over the last seven years is make sure that students are indeed genuine students, and are compliant with our immigration regime. When we came to power, there were tens of thousands of students who were not really students; they were pretending to be students, but they were actually here working. We have removed sponsor licences from, I think, 916 educational institutions, which were bringing in students but were not complying with our immigration rules. That did no one any favours.
We now have an almost entirely compliant system, in which everybody coming here as a student is a genuine student, does their course and, at the end of it, either goes back to their country of origin or, if they have a graduate-level job opportunity, stays and contributes to our country. They are very welcome to do so. If smart, talented students want to come to Britain and study, I welcome them; if they want to stay here afterwards and take a graduate-level job, I welcome them; and if they want to stay here and start up a business, creating wealth and job opportunities for others, I welcome them. We have seen more people doing those things, not fewer, and I hope that trend continues.
We should base our offer to EU nationals post-Brexit on skills. One reason for that is that there are 1.4 million unemployed people in our country, but there are also some people who do not get the opportunities that they ought to get from employers, because employers are sometimes a little too ready to ask people to come from elsewhere in the European Union to work here.
I am thinking about some of the people who need employers to think about them a little more. There are around a million people in the UK on out-of-work benefits who have some kind of mental health problem but are perfectly capable of working, and who would like to work; some, but certainly not all, of them are included in the 1.4 million people who are unemployed. They may need employers to make reasonable adjustments for them, or they may need some support from the excellent Access to Work system that the Department for Work and Pensions has, but they deserve an opportunity to get into the labour market. We should say to employers, “Before you bring someone in from outside the United Kingdom, you should think a little harder about the people we already have here, and ask yourself if you are doing enough to engage them in the labour market.”
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on learning disability, but there are also around 600,000 people with learning disabilities in the UK who Mencap estimates are perfectly capable of working, and who would love nothing more than to enter the workforce. Again, they should be given the opportunity to do so, and we should just challenge employers a little to look at some of the people we have here. I accept they may not be completely job-ready, but I will come back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) made about encouraging employers to invest in the skills of employees, so that they get the opportunities to participate. Such encouragement would help enormously.
It is also important that we have an immigration system that commands public support. I was looking at some very interesting work that an organisation called British Future has done. It looked at some of the options that will be in front of us in its report, “Time to get it right: Finding consensus on Britain’s future immigration policy”, which was published in September. The report considered whether we should effectively continue to have free movement, whether we should do what I suggest and have a system like the one we have for migration outside the EU, or whether we should have some other system.
Interestingly, British Future did some polling. I always think that we should not make our policies fit polling, but when we have come to the conclusion that we think is right for other reasons, it is quite helpful and heartening, when one looks at what the public’s views are, to find that actually the public are broadly supportive. When I look at the tables about that polling, I see, first of all, that there is a very considerable consensus, and that people think we should not prioritise business and the economy over immigration, or prioritise immigration over the economy, but that we should have a compromise that balances immigration and the economy. That position commanded very significant support from people, whether they were Conservative or Labour supporters, leave or remain, and men or women, which is encouraging.
The report also considers two options for the Government. One is controlling low-skilled immigration through a cap while allowing skilled migrants to come to the UK, as before. Again, that approach has overwhelming support from a whole range of people, whether they were leave or remain, Labour or Conservative, or whatever. The other option is to consider whether we should have different targets for different types of immigration, and that also commands overwhelming support.
Interestingly, particularly for Scottish National party colleagues who are here, the report also put those questions to voters in Scotland and in London. In Scotland, 62% of voters agreed that we should control low-skilled immigration through a cap while allowing skilled migrants to come to the UK as before, which was far more than the proportion of people who wanted to keep free movement or—at the other extreme—wanted to stop EU migration all together. In London, there was broadly the same figure, with 59% of people wanting to control low-skilled immigration but being very relaxed about higher-skilled migrants, and both those numbers were broadly consistent with those for the UK as a whole.
Joanna Cherry
That is, of course, an opinion poll. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of voters in Scotland have voted for political parties that want to keep free movement, and indeed that the Scottish Parliament has recently voted, on a cross-party basis, to support keeping free movement for Scotland and a differential immigration policy for Scotland?
Mr Harper
That may well be true, but of course in the referendum on Scottish independence, when Scotland was asked whether it wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, it clearly said that it did, and in the EU referendum the United Kingdom, which Scotland is part of, decided that it wanted to leave the European Union, and the single market and free movement of people. The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that I am citing an opinion poll; it is an opinion poll that is not only consistent with the result of the EU referendum, but shows very considerable support for the proposition that I am setting out, so I think that my proposition would command widespread consensus.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is very kind to give way to me a second time. There is one key point I want to raise, because I am not sure whether he will come to it. Were we to bring in such visas or such a system, would he expect that we, our children or whoever would then be subject to similar visas, should we want to visit France or Germany, or work or study in those countries?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. He mushed together several things, including visiting and working. I cannot see any reason why, once we have left the European Union, we would require people coming from the EU for visits—people coming on holiday or for travel—to have visas or vice versa. For example, we do not require visas from citizens of the United States of America coming to Britain on holiday or for visits. It is perfectly reasonable to have rules about people coming to work in Britain, and it would not be unreasonable for European Union countries to have similar rules. We could hardly complain if such rules were reciprocal, but to require visas for visits would not be sensible.
The final point I want to make is about the views of business. It is certainly true—I read the paper that the CBI produced ahead of the debate—that businesses, particularly larger businesses, are basically saying, “We want to carry on importing labour as we do already”, but I think we should push back a little. It is not surprising that businesses want to carry on doing things as they are, with unlimited supplies of inexpensive labour, but we should remind businesses that they should not only do what is in their economic interest, but what is in the economic interest of our country. We should challenge businesses to think about those who are already here and ensure they invest in them and improve their skills. We should also challenge businesses a little about whether they are investing enough in their capital, in the technology available to their business and in their productivity before we automatically say, “Let us just import people from overseas.”
The Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to look at the businesses that depend on EU nationals in their workforce, and that work will be helpful. It will enable us to identify those businesses that are using that labour, particularly at the unskilled end of the spectrum, and it will enable the Government to work with those businesses, particularly over the two-year transition period or implementation period that we have said there will be once we have left the European Union, during which people from the EU will still be able to come here. In that period we will be able to work with business to ensure that they can make the changes they need to make ahead of not having access to the unskilled labour that I talk about in my proposition.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman has been making very broad assumptions about who owns and runs businesses in this country. A great number of my constituents who have been in touch with me on this issue have come from other countries to Scotland to set up and establish businesses, but have found that Home Office rules and processes mean that they are then at risk. They employ people from Glasgow, and their businesses are being put at risk by the Home Office, in particular through delays to entrepreneur visas.
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady makes a good point, which is that we allow and welcome people to come here to set up businesses with appropriate rules about the investment of capital and so on. If she has any specific cases, she should raise those with either the Minister or my colleague the Immigration Minister. I have done that job, and I used to deal with specific cases. The hon. Lady is right: officials, fabulous though they are, are not perfect and mistakes do get made. Part of what we do in this House is fix those mistakes where they happen. We enable Ministers to ensure that systems work more smoothly, and that work is very welcome. She should continue to raise her concerns, as I know she does.
In conclusion, migration can have a positive effect on the economy, but we should look at the growth of our economy per head of population, and not just at GDP growth overall. We have to ensure that the existing population is better off. People coming to the country should earn enough to make a positive contribution to the public finances. That will support the public perception of migration and make people more welcoming. Finally, a migration system based on skills and not the country of origin will be essential for a global Britain that goes out looking for trade deals. It will be very difficult to explain to countries outside the European Union why a citizen of their country with the exact same level of skills finds it more difficult to come to work in Britain than someone from the European Union. Arguably, that would be a discriminatory system that would be difficult to defend once we are no longer a member of the European Union. For all those reasons, I commend my proposition to the House and look forward to the contributions from other Members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I note that five Back Benchers wish to speak. Although I cannot enforce a formal time limit, if they can keep their remarks to around five minutes each, the Front Benchers can start at half-past 10.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I will pick up exactly where the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) left off in talking about the attitudes of business, and I do so in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration, which recently produced a report on the needs of business for access to labour post-Brexit. I have a somewhat shop-soiled copy here that I am happy to share with the Minister.
In the report, we particularly focused on the views and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We felt that their voice had not been heard very much in the debate so far. I put on record my thanks to the Migrants Rights Network, which helped with the research, and Ernst and Young, which provided funding, as well as to all the businesses and organisations that provided evidence. We had evidence from 19 organisations and we held oral evidence sessions with businesses and representatives in London and Manchester covering the retail, hospitality, manufacturing and social care sectors, all of which employ a high proportion of EU and European economic area nationals.
The first thing we were told was that the characterisation of jobs as highly skilled or low skilled and the potential over-restriction of inward migration of so-called low-skilled workers was unhelpful. Many jobs that would not be classed as highly skilled under the 2011 definition that currently applies to non-EU and non-EEA nationals require significant skills and experience. It was inferred that that definition might in future apply to EU and EEA nationals. We know from Office for National Statistics data that non-UK nationals are more likely to be in jobs for which they are overqualified than UK nationals. Businesses saw that as potentially having a positive impact. The issue of skills was therefore complex.
Secondly, businesses said that the description, whether implicit or explicit, of some jobs as low-skilled caused an image problem in some sectors, making recruitment in the domestic workforce more difficult, as it made the jobs unattractive. Thirdly, employers found that migrant workers were often more flexible than UK workers. They described them as highly motivated and hard-working. More to the point, migrant workers were more willing and able to move around the country or work more flexible hours, because often they did not have the same family commitments as UK workers. Indeed, ONS stats show that on average EU2 and EU8 nationals work more hours than UK nationals and so supply important and much needed capacity. Finally, the businesses we spoke to were clear that EU free movement has been an important safety valve for employers in accessing the labour they need. That was especially true for SME employers and sectors where recruitment is more difficult.
Given all those factors, the employers who gave evidence to our inquiry were concerned that immigration policy post-Brexit should not inhibit their access to the labour they need. That concern has been echoed by businesses across all sectors in my constituency, from food processing to paper-making to construction. Flexibility is especially important. In some cases, the need for labour is seasonal, as the Minister knows. Some businesses need to be able to move workers from site to site, depending on where the work arises. I mentioned this in an intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, but employers also spoke about the need for flexibility to enable lower skilled workers to progress and develop higher skills as they progressively acquire experience and knowledge. That flexibility is important in terms of the productivity and progress of the business.
In our inquiry, we asked employers about their preferred model for management of migration post-Brexit. They cautioned against introducing a points-based system similar to the system that applies to non-EU and non-EEA nationals, expressing concern about the cost to employers, the complexity of the system and the bureaucracy. They were worried that such a system would not only limit the number of workers who could come to the UK, but inhibit the flexibility business needed. They were particularly anxious to ensure that any system did not impose unnecessary administrative burdens on employers. They suggested that work needed to be done to identify sectors that were likely to face acute labour shortages in certain skillsets when we can no longer freely access EU labour, and that the shortage occupation list should be expanded if necessary to reflect the new shortages.
The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has not been able to stay for this part of the debate, rightly spoke about the need to upskill the domestic workforce. The businesses we spoke to favoured more emphasis on training and upskilling of domestic workers and potential workers, although they also said they thought the existing apprenticeship and training schemes were too inflexible, especially for small and medium-sized businesses. They suggested that as part of the post-EU migration strategy, the Government need to look at developing apprenticeship schemes that more effectively address the labour needs of small businesses. They also asked for Government to provide support for positive efforts in sectors that are considered, often wrongly, to be unskilled and to build a public relations campaign to promote the attractions of working in those sectors. They highlighted in particular the hospitality, food, retail and social care sectors.
I hope the report will be helpful to the Minister in formulating post-Brexit migration policy. The APPG has already had the opportunity to meet the Migration Advisory Committee to discuss our findings. I am concerned that the MAC report commissioned by the Home Secretary will not be with us until later next year. I anticipate that the Government intend to introduce their immigration Bill rather sooner than that, and so will not have the benefit of the MAC research in preparing it. I hope the Minister will say how engagement with business, especially SMEs, will take place in anticipation of the introduction of the legislation to ensure their needs are fully reflected in it.
Finally, we should also be aware that restricting immigration will create other additional and new pressures. We will increasingly have an ageing settled population and a proportionately smaller working-age population; that will lead both to increased demand for labour to care for the ageing population, and to pressures on the supply of labour. As the recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows, that will potentially have a negative impact on tax revenues. We must not forget the benefits of immigration. As the APPG’s report makes clear, the flexibility, innovation, commitment and ready availability of migrant labour has benefited business and our economy, and it must continue to do so post-Brexit.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am thrice blessed—to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Hosie; to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who made some excellent points; and for the first time to attend a debate to which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will respond as Minister. We congratulate her as the first member of our intake in 2015 to have a red box. I am sure she will do the Home Office proud.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on securing the debate. I mean that sincerely, because it is extraordinary how immigration featured so prominently in the referendum campaign but has been barely debated in Parliament since, so I very much welcome this debate. I did not know what the essence of his argument would be, but I have to say I fundamentally disagree with one point that is extremely important and we need to reflect upon it: the point about discrimination and the two different systems that I think will eventually become far more important than perhaps many people realise.
My right hon. Friend is right to say we have a discriminatory system. In fact, the official Leave campaign vowed to end that system. Under our system a person can enter the country to work as an unskilled migrant only from the EU; it is illegal to do so from outside the EU. Tier 3, a form of non-EU migration, is closed and has been for many years. In a written answer, Jacqui Smith said it was because we get sufficient unskilled labour from the EU. The key word is “unskilled”. Some 75% of people who come from the EU to work in this country would not be able to enter under the non-EU high-skilled migrant route. That tells us that the vast majority of EU migrants are doing jobs whereby they would not even be able to get into the country were we to reform the system as suggested. The problem is that the jobs are not menial and unskilled.
I will give the example of a firm in my constituency. Challs, based in Hadleigh, is a chemical manufacturer that exports around the world. It is ambitious, but its owner has said there is a real problem: he has key members of staff who are EEA nationals who are classed as unskilled under the non-EU system, but they are not unskilled and his company depends on them and he would not be able to recruit replacements; it is simply not feasible. We have a significant issue here. I campaigned to remain, but I think the referendum result was driven—quite legitimately—by a concern about unsustainable levels of migration. To honour the referendum result, it is necessary not only to bring about control of immigration, but to reduce the numbers to a sustainable level in the long term.
We have to remember that in the last quarter non-EU net migration was 50,000 higher than EU net migration. If we have a single non-discriminatory system—the same system for EU and non-EU—it is mathematically impossible that non-EU migration will do anything other than rise, perhaps significantly. On the streets of Clacton and other places where the people voted leave in overwhelming numbers, if we had said that a direct result of leaving the EU will be a significant rise in non-EU migration, they would have been shocked and appalled. That is a democratic point that we have to consider. I am a strong supporter of immigration, but it has to be controlled. Consider the people from eastern Europe and the impact they have had: they had a century of brutalisation, but we set them free in 1989; they came into the single market that Mrs Thatcher created and they have worked their socks off in this country.
How do our recycling centres keep going? Almost entirely from east European labour. This is the key point. Would we fill jobs? It is not about what skills are available. It is simply whether we have people available to do those jobs, and people with the will to do those jobs. I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston that we have to train our own workforce to fill those positions, but it will take time. I remember representatives of the hospitality sector coming to speak to the Work and Pensions Committee when I was on it before the election. They said they supported a greater proportion of workers coming from the UK, but there would need to be a transition.
When I stay overnight in the Park Plaza, I do not see a single British member of staff. They are all from Europe and they work their socks off. They might be unskilled and low paid, but we and our economy depend on them. We have to move away from that dependency, which has become damaging. That is the reality of the position we are in now, so we must be very cautious before equalising the system. In my view, for what it is worth, were we to maintain some form of membership of the EEA and have some form of emergency brake on European migration, such as Liechtenstein has through the European Free Trade Association, and were we maintain the division we have where we are strict on non-EU numbers, we might get a better system, because instead of the Migration Advisory Committee determining the number of people coming into the country, it would be a different system altogether called the free market, which I support. We should be very cautious before changing that.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is wonderful to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on securing this debate. I very much welcome the opportunity to speak about the positive contribution that migration makes to the economy, particularly in Scotland. As you might expect from an SNP MP, Mr Hosie, I will focus my remarks today on this Government’s obsession with an unrealistic and counterproductive one-size-fits-all net migration target, which I believe is deeply flawed in economic terms.
It is important to set the scene and provide a bit of context for this debate. Scotland’s estimated population was 5.4 million in mid-2016—the highest on record and an increase of 6.7% since 2001. Net migration has contributed to a population increase every year for the past 16 years. In contrast, the rate of natural change has remained low for the past 50 years, and over the past two years has been negative. That contrasts with the situation in the UK, where natural change contributes significantly more to population increase. Migration has therefore been critical to growing Scotland’s population, and any reduction in migration has the potential to seriously damage Scotland’s demographic resilience.
Looking ahead, Scotland’s population is projected to increase by 5% by 2041, driven solely by migration. Scotland has a markedly different demographic profile from the rest of the UK, which is why I believe immigration policy should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, a topic I will return to later. If current trends continue, net inward migration is projected to be the sole contributor to Scotland’s population growth. EU migrants make an enormous contribution to our economy in Scotland, so I am especially fearful about the consequences of restricting free movement in a post-Brexit Britain.
I was recently out in Glasgow enjoying a dinner and was struck that from the moment I entered the hotel to the moment I left, every single member of staff I came across was a European national. That echoes the point made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) only a few moments ago. The reality is that our tourism sector is heavily and increasingly dependent on workers from other EU countries. According to the annual population survey, in 2016 there were approximately 17,000 EU citizens working in tourism in Scotland, representing 9.4% of all those working in the sector overall, with that share rising to 15.3% in the accommodation sector specifically. That compares to an EU citizens’ employment share of 5% in the Scottish economy as a whole.
We know that the UK Government’s position on EU citizens in the Brexit process is already having a detrimental impact on flows of inward migration. For example, the number of nurses from the European Union registering to work in the UK has fallen by 96% since the Brexit vote last year. Figures collated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council show that the number of new applicants from the EU fell from 1,304 in July last year to just 46 in April. If that does not cause us concern, I do not know what will.
Mr Harper
I was trying not to intervene because I did speak for a fair length of time, but just to be clear: there are more EU nationals working in the NHS this year than last year. There were 61,891 EU nationals working in the NHS in June 2017, compared with 58,698 in June 2016. The idea that after the referendum decision all the EU nationals working in the NHS went away is simply not true.
David Linden
Those figures will presumably include doctors; the figures that I quoted are from the Nursing and Midwifery Council. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to conflate the figures, that is absolutely fine, but that is where my figures are from.
Restrictions on migration will also have an impact on Scotland’s soft fruits sector—a vital part of our rural economy. That impact will be of interest to you, Mr Hosie, and to the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), who I presume will speak about it as well. It is vital that our sectors retain the ability to recruit staff from across the EU. We know that 15,000 non-UK seasonal workers are employed in our soft fruit and vegetable sector, so that should be a cause for concern as we approach leaving the EU.
Before summing up, I want to focus on calls—not from the Scottish National party, but from civic Scotland—for immigration powers to be devolved. We know that the one-size-fits-all approach to which the Government are wedded will not work for the future sustainability of our economy.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
There have been a number of suggestions about having a separate immigration policy for Scotland and England, but there is of course no border there. Countries like Australia, for example, have separate states with separate immigration policies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that creates issues, with leaks of migrants across the states?
David Linden
Given the mess that the United Kingdom Government are currently in regarding the situation in Ireland, I am not sure that a Member from the governing party lecturing us on borders necessarily suggests the right frame of mind at the moment.
The calls for immigration to be devolved do not necessarily come from the SNP, although we support them; they come from civic Scotland. Let me quote Grahame Smith, head of the Scottish Trade Union Congress, who I believe was right to say:
“We believe migration has an entirely positive contribution to make to Scotland’s economy, demography and culture, particularly in a properly regulated labour market in which workers’ rights are protected.”
He went on to say:
“UK immigration policy is increasingly encroaching on the devolved powers of the Scottish parliament, including how it runs its public services and who works within it.”
Grahame Smith is right: immigration powers must be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We in the SNP believe that migration is about more than economics. It is about individuals and their families having the right to choose to build their lives in Scotland. It is about the contribution that they make to our culture, communities and society, as neighbours, friends, family members, and work colleagues. That contribution will be lost if people from the EU are no longer able to come here.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for introducing such an important debate on the future of migration after Brexit.
Since being elected, I have heard concerns specifically from soft fruit farmers across my constituency about how we will continue to provide for seasonal agricultural labour after we depart from the European Union. In Angus, we produce over 30% of Scotland’s soft fruit, and I am incredibly proud of my many constituents who collectively deliver such a significant contribution to our vital food and drink sector. As I set out in my submission to the Migration Advisory Committee last month, Angus requires an excess of 4,000 seasonal workers every year to make that vital contribution to our economy. I will continue to urge the UK Government to provide clarity on how they will field those much-needed staff going forward.
Labour accounts for approximately 50% of a soft fruit farm’s costs. If there are further declines in the numbers returning to the United Kingdom, overtime payments will be essential to cover the hours of work required to complete the production process. I am deeply concerned that those higher wage overheads will put pressure on the price for our consumers. If the cost of our fruit increases, I am anxious about not only competitiveness with outside markets, but the possible implications for the ability of consumers to afford our produce.
Many colleagues on both sides of the House will have similar issues in their constituencies; I hope that they, too, take this opportunity to work constructively with the Brexit process, rather than heckle from the sidelines. I know that behind the scenes there is a power of work is going on in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office to ensure a viable solution after Brexit, but I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance to my constituents that they will be told how they can continue to grow their great British businesses as we depart the EU, sooner rather than later.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to see the two rapid-risers of 2015 and 2017 on the Front Benches. I want to touch on three separate issues, the last of which has already been extensively discussed: curry, students and fruit-picking. The metric I want to use is how much those sectors contribute to our economy, through productivity and other means.
Let us start with curry. I am a product of that industry as my father had two Indian restaurants. It was the late Robin Cook who said that chicken tikka masala is now the national dish, not fish and chips. Chinese and Indian restaurants combined contribute £5.5 billion to our economy—employing 250,000 people—but since the Government started meddling with the tier 2 visas, we hear that two Indian restaurants a week are closing in this country. That is on the eve of small business Saturday.
In all three areas, there is a theme: a dogmatic target—tens of thousands, just for the sake of it—can lead to skills shortages and gaps in our labour force that need to be addressed. If we are wedded to that ridiculous target, we have no room for manoeuvre. I think the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) were making the same point: inflexibility is hamstringing our economy.
We now have several world-class, Michelin-starred Indian and Chinese restaurants. We could introduce a system of temporary visas, like the seasonal agricultural workers scheme for fruit-picking, for bringing people in and out to do those kinds of job. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to do a review—they are always popular—on how to alleviate those shortages. The curry colleges that Eric Pickles, no longer a Member of the House, suggested have been a complete flop. The idea was to train curry chefs here, but that is just not happening.
To add insult to injury, the Leave campaign used the hashtag #saveourcurry. I think it was the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who said that if we stop EU migration, the curry chefs will be welcomed in with open arms. I remember querying that in Home Office questions, during my brief time at the Dispatch Box. I was told, “No—the target remains the tens of thousands.” The curry industry was hoodwinked, which was really unhelpful, and now feels very cheated.
It is time to get rid of the arbitrary target altogether, but students should certainly be taken out of migration figures. The general public at large do not see them as immigrants, because they are here temporarily; I think Home Office figures show that 97% of them go back after their studies. They contribute £10 billion per year to our economy and this is a huge export industry. There are many advantages to having students, such as the contribution they make to our soft power, and to having international staffers come to our universities, including the University of West London in my constituency.
Dr Huq
I am sorry; I would have done so earlier, but I have only one minute left to conclude.
Hon. Members have already mentioned fruit-picking. We need a stable and predictable flow of people to stop our fruit, hops and vegetables rotting away in the fields. The National Farmers Union—not the Socialist Workers party—has said that there is an urgent labour crisis in that sector. We had that workers’ scheme from 1948 to 2013. The agriculture industry is worth £3 billion to the UK, and it relies on a seasonal workforce. As the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, indigenous people do not want to do that work—that is why it is not happening. I would urge the Minister to reintroduce that kind of scheme. There are academic studies from the University of Sussex, but again we see dogma trumping reason, with a counterproductive result. Attracting Brits is difficult.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned settled status. Members of the 3 million campaign—my constituent Wiktor Moszczynski is very vocal in that—do not like what they are being offered. They think it is a lesser status and a secondary tier. They have lost their rights to family reunification, appeal rights, protection from deportation—the list goes on. It is seen as not really satisfactory.
We need some flexibility. The fixed target is unmet, unachievable and unrealistic. George Osborne says:
“Advanced nations that have shut the door to newcomers now find themselves ageing fast and shrinking as a presence in global affairs—whereas those with open societies maintain a big role in shaping the world we live in.”
I did not used to agree with him when he was in here, but I agree a lot more with him now he is out at the Evening Standard. I will end there!
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to welcome you to the chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. It is also a pleasure to welcome the Minister to her place. We may disagree about politics, but I have always found her unerringly professional and courteous in her approach.
We have had a very interesting debate today, but these debates should be evidence-based. I want to start by taking the opportunity to correct for the record what was said by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on Sir Stephen Nickell’s research. I quote from an article published in The Independent on 25 January 2017 following an interview with Sir Stephen Nickell, where he said that his work had been misrepresented by those who wished to slash immigration:
“The author of an influential piece of economic research frequently heralded by leading Brexiteers as evidence that immigration from the European Union undermines native British wages has stressed that the negative impact is ‘infinitesimally small’ and that his findings had been widely misrepresented.”
Sir Stephen’s research, originally published in December 2015, is frequently cited by those who are
“asked to provide evidence that immigration has had a negative effect on...living standards”
in the United Kingdom, yet
“the 10 per cent claim was based on a significant misunderstanding of the research’s findings. As...Jonathan Portes has pointed out, the actual results suggested only a 1 per cent fall in the wages of low-skilled workers due to immigration—and this impact was spread over a period of eight years.”
That is 1% spread over eight years.
Sir Stephen said that his research had been “grossly misrepresented”, that the wage impact is “very small” and that low-skilled workers
“lose out by an infinitesimally small amount.”
He said that he was cross that he had not been able to get cross in public about the
“public bowdlerisation of his research findings”
because he was a senior official at the Office for Budget Responsibility until recently, and added that
“his co-author, Ms Saleheen, who works at the Bank of England, has also been unable to speak out publicly to correct misleading statements.”
I am pleased to quote from the horse’s mouth—the author of the research—that the research has been misquoted, and from Jonathan Portes, who is not a self-appointed expert, but a professor of economics and a widely recognised expert on immigration.
Mr Harper
I was very clear in what I said. I agree with the hon. and learned Lady—I do understand that some people have misrepresented what Professor Nickell said. I read from the conclusion of the report, which said that the 10% increase in the proportion of labour led to a 2% reduction in wages. I did not overstate it. I do understand that some people have exaggerated that, and I was very careful not to do so, because I take what economists say seriously.
Joanna Cherry
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am happy to have had the opportunity to clarify the matter.
What I really want to speak about is the evidence of the impact of immigration on the Scottish economy. It is increasingly clear that UK immigration policy does not and cannot address the demographic and social needs of Scotland. If that continues to be the case, the Scottish economy will be adversely affected. The contribution of citizens from the European Economic Area to Scotland has recently been addressed in detail, with substantial evidential analysis, by the Scottish Government, in their response to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence on the role of EEA workers in the UK labour market. I commend that to the Minister. It shows that EU migration in Scotland is essential to ensure sustainable population growth, which is the single biggest driver of our economic growth.
All the projected increases in Scotland’s population over the next 10 years are projected to come from migration, in contrast with the UK as a whole, where only 54% of population increase is expected to come from overseas migration. That is why Scotland needs a different immigration policy and why the Scottish Parliament has voted to support the Scottish Government’s policy of a differential immigration policy, although it is a matter of regret that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats did not support that. I am very pleased to say that the Labour party and the Greens did.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, the Scottish Government also have the support of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. In particular, Unison has spoken out strongly about the need for a differential immigration policy for Scotland. I am also pleased to say that the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Institute of Directors have said that Scotland should look closely at a differential immigration policy.
To address the point about borders raised by the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), Australia and Canada are two examples of countries that operate differential immigration systems. As the hon. Lady ought to know, because it is her Government’s policy, immigration is not controlled so much at borders these days but in the workplace, when people go to look for a job or a benefit, or go to rent a flat. In Scotland, we now have a separate national insurance code, so it would be easy for Scotland to have a differential immigration system from England without any need for a hard border. Indeed, we are repeatedly told by the UK Government that the Republic of Ireland can have a separate immigration policy from the north of Ireland without the need for a hard border.
I am constrained by time, but I want to look briefly at the macroeconomic modelling that has been done by the Scottish Government, because it shows the contribution of EU migrants to the Scottish economy: on average, each additional EU citizen working in Scotland contributes a further £34,400 per head in gross domestic product per year. As there are approximately 130,000 EU citizens working in Scotland, that means they are contributing approximately £4.42 billion per year to the Scottish economy. It is also estimated that, fiscally, they contribute £10,400 per head in Government revenue. So, the evidence shows that EU and EEA migrants are making a huge contribution to the Scottish economy.
With regard to migration from outside the EU, we do not think a one-size-fits-all approach applies either. We would like the UK Government to abolish their net migration target, which, let’s face it, they have missed for the past seven or eight years, so there is not really much point in it anyway. We would like them to abolish the immigration skills charge. We would like a more flexible and responsive approach to the existing mechanism of the shortage occupation list for Scotland, and most importantly—this has cross-party support from every single political party in Scotland—we want the post-study work visa introduced in Scotland. I would really like the Minister to tell us why the post-study work visa has not been reintroduced in Scotland, despite the support of her own party in Scotland for that to happen. We are often told how tremendously influential the Scottish Conservatives are now at Westminster. If that is so, let us see the post-study work visa come back, because the Scottish National party has been calling for that for a long time.
Immigration policy must be evidence-based. When we quote evidence, we have to look at it carefully to make sure that we understand it properly. If we are in any doubt about the conclusions, we are perhaps best to go back to the author of the research, as I have done with Sir Stephen Nickell.
As regards Scotland, the evidence shows that the Scottish economy benefits from immigration. Business in Scotland accepts that, the trade unions in Scotland accept it and most of the political parties accept it. It is time for immigration policy to be devolved to Scotland so that the Scottish Parliament can ensure that migration works to the benefit of the Scottish economy.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the Minister to her position, and I look forward to our exchanges. I was an immigrant, but I am an adopted Mancunian and I am here representing Manchester, Gorton.
The Government’s migration policy is not driven by economics. Since 2010, the focus has been on meeting the net migration target, whatever the cost—and there certainly has been a cost. One of the first groups they went after was students. International students contribute £25 billion to our economy. They are also an easy target for reducing migration numbers. Students are the largest group in the net migration figures, and the numbers for that group are easier to control than for other forms of migration. Attempts to reduce international student numbers have worked: 72 British universities have lost more than 43,000 international students over the past five years.
Mr Harper
With the greatest respect, the Government have not gone after students at all. There are more international students here. What the Government have done is to tackle colleges that were pretending to educate people who were actually working. We have taken away their sponsor licences. We actually have more genuine students studying here than we did—I welcome that—but it is not right that people come here pretending to be students when they are really working. We have got rid of that abuse.
Afzal Khan
I have no problem with stopping abuse, but if the right hon. Gentleman will hear some of my further arguments, what I am trying to say may become clearer.
Carol Monaghan
What we have seen in Glasgow is not a drop in the number of international students, but a change in the demographics. Whereas in the past we had students from India, the States, Australia and New Zealand, now the majority of our students come from China. They come and study, and are welcome—we love having them—but they leave immediately after finishing their course. We want them to stay and help improve the economy, but we need the post-study work visa in place for that to happen.
Afzal Khan
I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution.
Let me make progress on my point. Those students would have supported about 24,000 jobs and brought £920 million-worth of positive economic impact to those universities and their local economies—50% of the jobs would have been in the local economies and 50% in the universities. International students pay higher fees and subsidise UK higher education spending. Students not only benefit local economies but have a lasting impact on our links with other countries. They increase our soft power abroad: 55 world leaders from 51 countries have studied in the UK.
Research is a major reason why the UK is attractive to investors. International students go on to fuel innovation and research. I am from Manchester, and graphene—a wonder material—was discovered at Manchester University. The two professors who discovered it were migrants. They won Nobel prizes, and we will continue benefiting economically from their discoveries. International students have also been shown to benefit the UK students who study alongside them.
Despite all those benefits, the Government made it more difficult for students to get visas, which discourages them from staying in the UK. The Government have chosen their misguided net migration targets over the benefits students bring to local economies. Their approach to EU nationals is already making skills and labour shortages worse. The NHS, nursing and social care are being hit. Those sectors face a crisis. The Government have used EU citizens as bargaining chips in negotiating with the EU. EU citizens are still waiting for clarity about their rights 18 months after the EU referendum. The number of EU nurses registering to work in the UK dropped by 96% in the year since the Brexit vote, and staff shortages in social care are causing homes across the country to close.
This issue does not just affect the public sector. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have all said that we will need more migrant workers, skilled and unskilled, in the years ahead. Despite the rhetoric that immigration policy will attract the brightest and best, we are losing out on skilled workers. The Government’s distinction between skilled and unskilled workers makes no sense. Apparently, to be a skilled worker, a person must earn at least £35,000 a year, but people in a number of skilled occupations earn less than that, including non-medical nurses, many teachers, language teachers and engineers. Outside London, many people earn less than £35,000. A tech genius in Manchester is likely to earn less than she would in London, but that does not mean she is any less skilled.
The Government asked the Migration Advisory Committee to investigate immigration policy and our economy, but it seems that the Government will publish the immigration Bill before the Committee publishes its advice. What could be a clearer sign that immigration policy is not guided by economics? The Government are already planning to ignore the advice they requested.
When the Government draft the immigration Bill, will they ask businesses what they need, and will they seek input from unions? Will they examine the impact that their own austerity policies have had on access to the NHS, schools, housing and public services? Will they take account of the fact that the Migration Advisory Committee missed the nursing shortage altogether, and that it was the Secretary of State for Health who had to lift the visa restriction for nurses?
Labour has promised fair and reasonable management of migration. We will always put economic prosperity first. We will scrap the meaningless and unworkable migration target, which has never once been met in seven years. The reality is that the target for non-EU migration alone, which the Government are solely in charge of, has never once been met. Labour would not include international students in the immigration numbers. We will work with employers, unions and others to establish our real needs and meet them. We want fairness between EU and non-EU migrants. That means levelling up decent treatment and establishing fair rules. We will crack down on all exploitative employers who deny rights and breach national minimum wage rules. Migrants make a great contribution to this country, to our social and cultural life, and to our economy. Tory rules are an obstacle to maximising those benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to appear opposite the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). I welcome him to his place. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for this important, topical and genuinely interesting debate. It is so important that we have this debate now. As we move towards leaving the EU, we begin to formulate ideas and plans for our future, not just in the European area but in the world as a whole. As a former Immigration Minister, my right hon. Friend’s expertise and experience precede him. He spoke with clear authority and eloquence—particularly about the issue of skills and productivity. I found his submissions about GDP per head very interesting. I hope those sorts of ideas will come to the fore as we debate the future of immigration in this country.
My right hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members rightly mentioned students. The Government absolutely believe that our world-class educational establishments are a major success story for the United Kingdom. There is no limit on the number of international students who can visit. International students are included in the net migration figures because the independent Office for National Statistics follows the policy of Australia, the United States and other countries, which also include those figures in the net migration statistics. It is worth bearing in mind that when students leave the United Kingdom, they are taken out of the net migration figures.
David Linden
May I press the Minister on the point about the post-study work visa made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)? The Conservative education spokesperson in the Scottish Parliament, Liz Smith MSP, made comments about, and was hoping to see action on, this issue. Will the Minister give us an update on the post-study work visa before she moves on from education?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted me; I was going to deal with that at the end, but I will deal with it now. We have no plans to reintroduce the post-study work visa. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) was quite right to talk about evidence, and I thank her for her kind comments, but evidence from previous schemes showed that large numbers of people were undertaking low-skilled work. We now have the much more targeted tier 2 scheme, so that when graduates leave UK universities we know that they go into highly skilled jobs, using the skills that they have developed at university. Indeed, the evidence goes even further: we found that in October 2010, three in five users of the post-study work visa were in unskilled work. A 2014 analysis of migrants who had switched from the tier 1 post-study work category to the tier 1 entrepreneurial category found that the majority had no declared economic activity or were working in breach of their conditions of stay. That is why we are focusing on skills and productivity— precisely because we hope that students who come to our universities will deliver those skills and will be able to contribute.
I am conscious of time, so I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and I reassure them that the Government are clear that carefully controlled economic migration benefits our economy. It is vital for our country’s prosperity that we select and attract the right mix of skills to the UK, ensuring that we continue to support wealth creation, employment and productivity. We know that migration supports United Kingdom growth by allowing employers greater choice and enhancing the labour market’s ability to respond quickly to capacity constraints. I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on the concerns of local employers. I hope that the independent Migration Advisory Committee report will draw on those views, so that in September 2018 we will have an evidenced-based report on what our migration system should look like.
Migrants do not just bring the skills needed but enhance our society and contribute to British life. However, we must strike a balance. We need to attract migrant labour, which boosts our economy, while ensuring that migration does not reach unmanageable levels to the detriment of domestic labour, skills and local communities. Our commitment to reducing net migration to sustainable levels must be balanced by our determination to ensure that UK businesses have the labour force that they need. Our immigration system must strike that balance.
I was most interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), particularly as she is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. She mentioned skills; in setting in our immigration policy we have followed the advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee, particularly when it comes to drawing up the shortage occupation list. Again, we will look at the evidence of the committee’s report in September 2018.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West both mentioned Scotland having its own immigration system. I make the simple point that the United Kingdom is united: there is free movement between England Wales and England and Scotland. The whole point of having a united immigration policy is to keep our kingdom united. I know that that does not play with the views of the—
Victoria Atkins
Will the hon. and learned Lady forgive me if I do not, as I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean wants to speak for two minutes at the end? I just wanted to make the point that we have freedom of movement in the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) for raising the issue of agricultural workers. That is being kept under review, and the Immigration Minister is visiting many members of the agricultural sector to discuss those concerns. We note in passing that the latest labour market statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that more EU nationals are coming to this country to work than ever before. That is why we have not implemented a seasonal agricultural workers scheme, but that is kept under review and we will listen carefully to the National Farmers Union and others.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) mentioned curry, students and fruit picking. We have already dealt with fruit picking, but I am delighted that she raised the subject of curry. Curry chefs are not subject to the freedom of movement rules that EU chefs enjoy. We do not want to discriminate between non-EU and EU migrants. There will be a system for all our international partners. I make no promises as to how that will impact curry chefs in particular, but the point is that we will be free of that current difference between EU and non-EU citizens because we are leaving the European Union.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West spoke about the post-study work visa issue; I have already answered that point by way of an intervention. We continue to review our immigration arrangements regularly, and we are committed to ensuring that the system continues to serve the national interest.
Very quickly, on the point about the immigration Bill and rules, which was raised by a number of hon. Members, the MAC report is due to report in September 2018. The immigration Bill will be drafted before then; it will be about dealing with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill repealing freedom of movement. The detail of EU migration policy that will apply to EU nationals will be set out in immigration rules. The report is a very important part of creating those rules. I hope that the Bill will come next year; it will set out the framework within which those rules will work.
Mr Hosie, I want to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean time to make his closing remarks. It has been a pleasure to listen to this debate and to the informative contributions; they have made for a very interesting morning. Allow me to finish with this thought: we all know that successful businesses are essential to the success of our economy. It is through successful businesses that we have employment, pay packets and prosperity, which is precisely why the Government established its immigration policy, and measures such as its modern industrial strategy and flexible working arrangements, through universal credit for example. I hope that that will have an impact on bringing people into the job market. All those policies draw together to try to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a great place to do business. We welcome the contribution that migrants have made historically, and will make in future.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up the debate. To come back to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, part of the reason for this debate was to kick off the discussion. I am grateful for the views that colleagues have given. I am very conscious that all the debate about migration so far has been about the existing EU nationals in Britain and our British citizens overseas. That is very important, but it has rather obscured the question of what we will do after we leave the European Union. That is exactly why I called this debate. Clearly, it will not be the last debate, but the first in a series. It has brought out some of the issues and has enabled us to have discussion. What has come through very clearly—this is supported by the polling that I quoted from British Future—is that the public want us to balance the needs of the economy and the requirement to control migration. They do not want us to prioritise one issue over the other; they want to balance them, and getting that balance right is important.
I have set out a proposition, and the Minister can listen to that. The Migration Advisory Committee is doing work to inform the debate, and colleagues on both sides of the House and from all parts of the United Kingdom will bring valuable insight. That was my intention. We have had an excellent debate, with contributions from many parts of the United Kingdom and from both Front Benches, and I am grateful for those. I am sure that this will not be the last time that we debate this important subject, and it was a great pleasure to do so under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of the Government’s migration policy on the economy.
Arctic Ambassador: Appointment
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the appointment of an Arctic ambassador.
It is an immense pleasure—indeed, an honour—to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I welcome the Minister. He indicated that this might be his first Westminster Hall debate in his present post, so I congratulate him on that.
I am delighted to introduce this debate on an issue that is close to my heart. Scotland is the Arctic’s closest neighbour, and the potential for collaboration and mutual learning between us is significant. That is why I have championed closer political engagement with the Arctic countries for some time. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on polar regions, I want to take this opportunity to credit the APPG for its work in this regard.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the APPG on polar regions, which I have the great honour of chairing. It covers both polar regions—the Antarctic and the Arctic—so will he explain why this debate is about an ambassador only to the Arctic? Surely, if we were to have an ambassador or a special envoy, they should be for both the Arctic and the Antarctic.
Douglas Chapman
The chairman of the APPG makes a valid point. However, as I will reveal, the proximity of the Arctic to Scotland makes Arctic issues much more relevant to our Government in Edinburgh and to our interests. I recognise, however, that the Antarctic plays a significant role overall and has similar issues, especially with regard to climate change and the environment, as the hon. Gentleman alludes to.
I thank Members who supported my recent early-day motion calling for the UK Government to appoint an Arctic ambassador. The reasons for my pursuit of this matter are manifold. Climate change is one of the greatest threats we face. As we know, its impact is felt most keenly in the Arctic north, where the melting of sea ice is accelerating at an alarming rate. In summer 2016, we saw the second lowest minimum ice extent on record in the Arctic ocean. The melt season has been lengthening, too. For example, the duration of ice-free conditions between the East Siberian sea and the western Beaufort sea increased by nearly three months between 1979 and 2012.
We must not underestimate the impact of what is happening in the High North and its inevitable effects on the rest of the world. Geographically, Scotland is the Arctic’s closest non-Arctic neighbour; the northernmost part of Scotland is closer to the Arctic than to London. I was delighted to be able to attend the Arctic Circle forum last week in Edinburgh, which was co-hosted by the Scottish Government. The forum served as a platform to spell out the plethora of ways in which Scotland can work with our Arctic partners for mutual benefit. Our geographical similarities and our shared challenges in areas such as the environment, living in remote communities, fisheries, planning and tourism were all brought to the fore. We also share many cultural and historical ties. For example, the twinning arrangement between my home town, Dunfermline, and Trondheim in Norway was the first in Europe. Our links go back a long way.
I will focus on the following areas of mutual interest between us and our Arctic neighbours, although this list is far from exhaustive: energy, transport, tourism, design and innovation, and defence. Energy is an area in which Scots have much to offer. The development of renewable energy in Scotland is forging ahead, and the capacity of renewables is set to increase. The world’s first ever floating wind farm was recently launched in Scotland, demonstrating our innovative approach to renewables on a global stage. At the Arctic Circle forum last week, we heard from Neil Kermode, managing director of the European Marine Energy Centre, who recounted Orkney’s renewables success story. Those islands have been producing more than 100% of their energy from renewables since 2013, and one household in 10 generates its own power.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend join me in acknowledging the fantastic contribution from Heriot-Watt University in my constituency to the development of renewable technology in the Orkney Islands?
Douglas Chapman
Exactly; I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. I will mention later the collaboration that we seek with all academic institutions. All the universities in Scotland were represented at the conference last week.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Given that the majority of policy areas related to the Arctic and the High North, and to the boundaries with the United Kingdom, are predominantly devolved to our Parliament in Holyrood, does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more joint work and collaboration, and that the United Kingdom Government need to recognise the expertise in Holyrood and in the Scottish Government?
Douglas Chapman
My hon. Friend makes a really valid point. During the independence referendum, Scotland was asked to lead the UK, not leave the UK. That kind of argument makes it important that Scotland’s position and expertise, and the valuable contribution we can make to Arctic issues, are brought to the fore.
Orkney also has the highest uptake of electric cars in the UK. There are clearly lessons to be learned across borders in a region with some of the greatest potential for renewable energy in the world.
Although we are making huge leaps in harnessing wind and tidal power in Scotland, we still mainly use fossil fuels to heat our homes and businesses. Many other, more niche renewable energy sources, such as geothermal, can be exploited. Geothermal energy is already being used to heat homes in parts of Glasgow, which begs the question, how can that be expanded to other areas? That takes me to Iceland, which is a world leader in geothermal power. Where better than our near neighbours to seek guidance on further developing that form of energy in Scotland?
As sea ice coverage in the Arctic reduces, opportunities might open up for new global trade shipping routes, and those could be supported by Scottish ports. The Northern Isles, the Western Isles, the Moray firth and my home port of Rosyth are some of the locations identified as potential stop-offs for such shipping. To prepare ourselves to ensure that we have the capacity to exploit those opportunities, we must consider what investment is needed in new port infrastructure. The Scottish Government are already investing in land-based shipping infrastructure; national planning framework 3 considers opportunities for new and expanded ports at Scapa Flow, Stornoway, Shetland and the Moray firth. The hub port of Finnafjord in Iceland has undergone a transformation in recent years to enable it to take full advantage of new shipping routes opening up across the region, so we can look there for inspiration.
We also have great potential to attract the cruise industry to the north. Scotland is well placed to embrace the economic opportunities presented by that expanding global market; it already attracts 45% of passenger day calls across the UK. At the Arctic Circle forum last week, we heard from Domagoj Baresic, a polar research and policy initiative fellow at University College London, who believes that Scotland could become a hub for the cruise liner industry. Let us not allow that golden opportunity to pass us by.
Besides attracting cruise liners to Scotland’s coast, there are plentiful opportunities for smaller-scale blue growth through marine and coastal tourism. At the Arctic Circle forum, Giancarlo Fedeli spoke about the success of his Cool Route project, a sailing route with more than 300 stops along the coasts of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Faroe Islands and Norway. That cleverly mapped-out route has the benefit of sustaining small coastal enterprises, often in remote communities, and helping them to extend their market reach. Cool Route has been ranked the No. 1 most adventurous cruising route in the world.
To give another example, North Coast 500 in the Scottish highlands successfully attracts tourism to remote areas. However, that project has taught us a valuable lesson: maintaining the integrity of our natural resources is part of the challenge of sustainable tourism. Iceland has that particularly in mind, given the rising popularity of its stunning Blue Lagoon as a tourist hotspot. Like Iceland, Scotland is home to some of the world’s most beautiful scenery and natural wonders, which attract millions of visitors to our shores every year. We must ensure that those valued resources are protected so that they can continue to be enjoyed by Scots and tourists alike for generations to come.
James Gray
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. I, too, am a Scot, and of course Scotland has a great deal to offer both the north and the south and elsewhere. I am puzzled, however, by his logic as to why Scotland having nice scenery should somehow or other lead to the conclusion that there should be an Arctic ambassador—which, after all, is what the debate is about.
Douglas Chapman
I think it fits perfectly. There is a need for an Arctic ambassador—I will cover other areas in my speech. It is crucial that we make these links and have these friendships and collaborative projects across the whole of the Arctic. I know the hon. Gentleman has a wide range of interests, so I ask him to open his mind to the possibilities if we were to have an Arctic ambassador fighting for the UK and for Scotland over a wider range of issues.
We must ensure that all our resources are protected so that they can continue to be enjoyed by Scots and visitors alike. That is why the Scottish tourism agency signed a memorandum of understanding with Iceland’s tourism board last year. There is room for wider collaboration across the Arctic region on marine and coastal tourism. It is in our stewardship and sometimes our care for sensitive areas that Scotland can influence others.
An area of a mutual interest between the UK and the Arctic that does not spring immediately to mind is social policy. That said, I was hugely impressed by the Arctic conference and the innovative ways in which some speakers identified collaborative approaches towards things such as health, housing and planning. I was blown away by the cutting-edge approach taken by Lucy Fraser of Albyn Housing Society and Matt Stevenson of Carbon Dynamic towards health and housing in the context of Scotland’s ageing population. They have been working together on a project to design high-tech, low-energy adaptable housing units complete with state-of-the-art wellness sensors that can monitor a resident’s health and potentially predict changes—for example, falls—before they happen. Already, they are collaborating with northern universities on artificial intelligence used in the oil industry to help to develop their design. Their vision of Scotland as a global leader in predictive health is truly awe-inspiring. Again, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), this is about working in collaboration with other Arctic states, not narrowing our vision just to environmental issues.
Another pioneering initiative showcased at the Arctic Circle conference was that of Lateral North, a Glasgow-based design agency run by two creative young people who specialise in collaboration aimed at redefining Scotland’s relationship with the Arctic north and our Nordic neighbours. It uses virtual and augmented reality technology to map out ideas across areas such as town planning, tourism and shipping. A recent project saw it working with the Anchorage Museum in Alaska, engaging with indigenous communities to tackle societal challenges through urban planning, architecture and design. It sees Alaska and Scotland—the relationship between them—as the two gateways to the Arctic and the north. This is about how we can capitalise on that unique approach; it is a really inspirational project.
I appreciate that some areas I have mentioned are devolved either partly or in full. The Scottish Government deal with the devolved issues, but the major reserved area for the UK Government in terms of the Arctic is defence. The retreat of sea ice and the Arctic opens up commercial opportunities, but also increases the risk of military conflict in the region. We have seen recent submarine activity in Scottish waters, which is reaching levels beyond even what we experienced during the cold war, with Russia increasing its military footprint in the region. Members will also be aware that NATO has recently announced the formation of a new command to protect sea lines of communication between North America and Europe. That presents the UK with a unique opportunity to make representations to our NATO allies to base the new maritime command in Scotland. I call on the Minister to address that.
The Scottish Government recognise the geopolitical importance of the new north and have taken what steps they can to formalise our willingness and eagerness to work with Arctic nations. In 2014, the Scottish Government and the European Policies Research Centre hosted an international conference on regional co-operation in the Arctic. In 2016, the First Minister made a keynote speech at the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik and, as I have mentioned several times, we hosted the Arctic Circle forum in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. As well as issuing a Nordic-Baltic policy statement, Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for external affairs, announced at the closing session of the conference that the Scottish Government would seek to develop a new Arctic strategy.
I warmly welcome the moves Scotland is making towards closer collaboration with our northern neighbours, given the range of devolved issues at stake. However, foreign affairs remains reserved to the UK Government. It is therefore vital that those sentiments are mirrored here in Westminster to ensure we have a consistent approach over all Arctic issues. By appointing an Arctic ambassador, the UK Government could signal their intent to work more closely with the Arctic countries on areas of mutual interest. That would also provide greater focus on British-Arctic affairs, allow for greater scrutiny and co-ordination of policy development in this area, and provide a platform for initiating trade missions to the region and work on energy projects. All that is even more important in the face of a hard Brexit, which could damage our economic links with many of our neighbours to the south. That is why now, more than ever, we should be encouraging the UK to look north.
For me, the key message of all this is one of collaboration. By working together, sharing our experiences and learning from one another, we can achieve great things. The many similarities that we in Scotland have with the countries of the Arctic make Scotland well placed to engage a multiple-level approach, but we need the UK Government to support and complement that engagement.
The appointment of an Arctic ambassador is not a novel idea: France, Japan, Poland and Singapore all have ambassadors responsible for Arctic affairs. All eight Arctic states also have Arctic ambassadors, special Arctic envoys or special representatives. The UK is clearly lagging behind in that respect. I suggest we follow the example given by the House of Lords Arctic Committee, which in 2015 recommended that the UK appoint an Arctic ambassador. I urge the Government now, at this critical time for our future relations with other nations, to take heed and give serious consideration to the appointment of an Arctic ambassador, even if that means allowing Scotland to take the lead in the UK, or for the UK, on the issue.
I thank the Minister in advance for his response, which I am sure will be well considered, and I would welcome further opportunities to discuss this matter with him in greater detail. Mr Hosie, I hope you have a wonderful day.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) for securing the debate. The United Kingdom has a long history of involvement in the Arctic. As Minister for the polar regions, I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to the Arctic and the steps we are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom remains active and influential there. I will also respond to the specific question of whether we should appoint an Arctic ambassador, but first I will set out the context in which our Arctic policy is based and the extent of our work on the Arctic.
The Arctic is changing rapidly. The effects of climate change are perhaps more visible there than anywhere else on the planet. Temperatures there are rising twice as fast as at lower latitudes, and we are already seeing the dramatic impact of that across the northern hemisphere in a growing number of extreme weather incidents. Within the region itself, declining levels of sea ice are attracting greater economic activity. There are opportunities for the UK, but equally, we must take our obligations seriously to ensure that only responsible development takes place in the Arctic.
Our Arctic policy is set in that context of a rapidly changing climate, which means that the co-operative approach we have always taken is now all the more important. The UK has a prominent voice in all international organisations with a role in the governance of the region. We are rightly seen by the Arctic states as a reliable and pragmatic neighbour. That means working with all the countries that have a stake in the Arctic—the main eight are labelled as the Arctic states—and we do that principally through the Arctic Council, at which we have held observer status since its inception in 1996. We enjoy excellent economic ties with Arctic states, which are enhanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) in his role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the Nordic region.
A co-operative approach is the right basis for ensuring that we can continue our long record of involvement in the Arctic, particularly as more nations declare their Arctic interests. It underpins our ability to conduct pioneering scientific research and to make the most of any economic opportunities that may arise, while taking due account of our environmental responsibilities. The UK has consistently been at the forefront of international regulatory developments that aim significantly to reduce the risk of Arctic pollution. We maintained strong involvement in finalising the environmental aspects of the polar shipping code and the ongoing discussions regarding the impact of black carbon emissions on the Arctic.
A central strand of our policy is to continue to support the Arctic research of our world-renowned scientists. Only three other countries—the US, Russia and Canada—produce more Arctic science papers than the UK. The Government are supporting pioneering Arctic research in a number of ways: first, through increased diplomacy and exchanges, including recent visits to Arctic states by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s chief scientific adviser, Robin Grimes; secondly, through the strengthened Arctic science office of the Natural Environment Research Council, which is giving more support to UK Arctic science; and thirdly, through our network of science and innovation officers in our embassies in Arctic countries, who are increasing their engagement in the Arctic Council’s working groups and have helped to promote the UK’s scientific excellence in Arctic science.
As the Arctic itself is ever changing, so too must our policy adapt and change. I am therefore pleased to announce that we will renew our Arctic policy framework early next year. We intend that to be an evolution, not a revolution, and we will reaffirm our commitment to partnership and international collaboration in the Arctic. Our vision remains one of a safe and secure Arctic that is well governed in partnership with indigenous peoples and in line with international law. The new framework will remain a cross-government document and will take account of the views of the devolved Administrations. I saw the Scottish Government’s recent announcement that they intend to develop their own Arctic strategy. I trust it will be in line with the UK’s framework and focused on their areas of competence.
As I hope everyone agrees, the UK can be proud of the positive role we are playing in the Arctic. None the less, having carefully considered the arguments set out today, I do not believe that appointing an Arctic ambassador, as some countries have done, is the right approach for the UK. Given our wide diversity of interests and established engagement across the Arctic states and within the Arctic Council, we do not think that it would add value. As Minister for the polar regions, I am already supported by a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official who oversees the development and implementation of the UK’s Arctic policy framework, chairs the cross-Government Arctic network and ensures the UK has appropriate representation at the Arctic Council and other key international Arctic events.
I am not convinced that the appointment of an Arctic ambassador would add significant value to existing structures and roles or justify the additional costs involved. We believe that the existing structure of Government, working properly at official level, does the job. I hope everyone agrees that the UK has been a prominent voice in Arctic affairs for many years. The Government are determined to maintain that level of interest and influence. The arrival of new interested parties, such as Asian nations, challenges us all to ensure our voice is heard just as prominently. We will continue to make the most of new opportunities for co-operation and to encourage our scientists, businesses and non-governmental groups to continue to pursue their interests in the Arctic.
Climate change means that international co-operation will be more important than ever. We want to ensure that the Arctic remains a place of peace and stability, and we will continue to work in partnership with all of those who have interests in the Arctic region.
Question put and agreed to.
Legal Aid
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of legal aid.
Thank you, Mr Robertson, for calling me to move the motion in this critical debate on legal aid provision in the United Kingdom. As ever, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship.
When people lack the money or knowledge to enforce their rights, those rights are worth nothing more than the paper they are written on. It is unacceptable that, in 2017, justice is fast regressing to a system that is not served to all, but instead belongs to those with the deepest pockets. Failings in the legal aid system are taking away people’s ability to defend their rights in practice, which is creating a system where a person’s income or economic status is a key determinant of whose rights matter when they are most needed.
That increasingly worrying situation is the result of a conscious political choice to restrict access. Just as the Labour party was founded more than a century ago to give working people representation in Parliament, legal aid was introduced by Clement Attlee’s pioneering Labour Government in 1949, alongside the pillars of the welfare state, to rebalance the scales of justice. The principle underpinning its creation was the belief that every person should have equal access to, and protection under, the law, regardless of financial position or social status. That was, and still is, a key way to support our ambition for a fairer society.
Since then, legal aid has been a lifeline for the vulnerable. It has funded action to stop justice being available only to the privileged few in a wide range of areas, from housing and family break-ups to benefits assessments. As Lord Bach stated in a Fabian Society investigation of the state of legal aid, which was recently commissioned by the Labour party:
“We will all lean on the law at some point in our lives… an effective legal system in which all can access justice fairly is the cornerstone of a free society…The law guarantees our rights, underlines our duties, and provides an equitable and orderly means of resolving disputes.”
But in all parts of the UK it is becoming harder and harder for the poorest people to access justice. Access to legal aid lawyers continues to become ever more difficult, with the Law Society warning of “legal aid deserts” where there are no legal providers, or just a sole legal provider, for whole regions.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the number of legal aid providers has fallen by 20% since the Government changed the eligibility criteria?
Mr Sweeney
Absolutely. I will refer to that statistic later. It is a shocking indictment of the cuts and the attrition of the access available to the weakest in our society, who rely on that point of contact and are otherwise shut out of the legal system altogether. Where in our country someone lives should never affect their ability to access justice, but it does, because of the wide variation in availability of legal aid providers.
Legal aid is often a lifeline, particularly for women, when the case is domestic violence, family law or employment tribunals on equal pay, unfair dismissal or discrimination. In my constituency and across the country, it is clear that we need to relearn just how critical legal aid is as a cornerstone of a civilised society. Although Scotland has a distinctive legal system within the United Kingdom, the Law Society of Scotland recently raised concerns about the sustainability of the legal aid system there, stating that, in particular,
“current rates of payment for legal aid work risk making the provision of legal services to some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society”
simply “uneconomical”. We already know that gaps are developing in the provision of legal aid in parts of Scotland, and we must work hard to stop those gaps growing. The Law Society of Scotland also said that a lack of investment in legal assistance had made it
“increasingly difficult to maintain a sustainable, high-quality legal assistance system”
across Scotland. It urged crucial investment to halt the ongoing real-terms decrease in legal aid funding.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the Scottish Government’s review of legal aid? The legislation is 30 years old, and the Government now seek to ensure that full access to public legal aid continues.
Mr Sweeney
I think we both recognise that the situation in England and Wales is much more acute than it is in Scotland, but none the less, there are challenges facing the legal system in Scotland. I welcome that review and I hope it will take into consideration the financial constraints that legal aid provision in Scotland has faced in recent years, and take heed of what the Law Society of Scotland has urged.
To look back at the wider issue, an increasing lack of funds across the UK means that a growing number of solicitors will be unable to take on legal aid cases. The report “The financial health of legal aid firms in Scotland” of February this year found that those relying on legal aid might soon be unable to find a solicitor because many law firms simply cannot afford to carry out legal aid work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and giving us a chance to intervene or speak on the subject. On average, since 2011, Northern Ireland’s annual bill for legal aid has been in excess of £102 million. Does he agree that, as we live in an increasingly litigious world, legal aid must be available to support those who have been wronged and cannot afford redress? Does he further agree that we must ensure they have protection? Protection is what they need, which is why they need legal aid.
Mr Sweeney
I agree. The fundamental, critical point of judgment on this is equality of access, not necessarily cost. Cost is a secondary consideration. Access is the fundamental right that all should be entitled to. That is the challenge we face, whereby some of the smallest legal aid firms are carrying out legal aid work at a loss and are at serious risk of not being able to offer legal aid work at all. Civil legal aid solicitors are paid for only approximately two thirds of the work they carry out, and criminal legal aid solicitors are paid for only three quarters of the work they carry out.
As if that were not bad enough, we have seen even greater ravages to the system in England and Wales following the cuts made by the Tory Government. That has taught us what happens when access to justice is removed from people in our democracy: further inequality, marginalisation of the most vulnerable, a self-defeating increased cost to the public purse and a fundamental impact on our society.
Access to justice has been seriously undermined by the Conservative Government, with hundreds of thousands of people unable to afford to defend their rights following savage cuts to the legal aid budget as part of the 2012 reforms, where the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO—left many vulnerable people unable to defend themselves in areas as fundamental as housing, employment, immigration and welfare benefits. We have seen not only a decline in access to legal aid providers, but, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), the number of providers cut by a shocking 20% in just five years, and a limiting of the scope of legal aid itself. It has been an all-out assault on justice.
This summer’s Supreme Court ruling that the Government acted unlawfully by imposing employment tribunal fees underlines just how far they have gone in restricting people’s access to justice. We have a Tory Government attacking people’s living standards and, at the same time, deliberately undermining their ability to defend themselves from those very attacks. It is a cynical, Kafkaesque nightmare perpetrated on the poorest. Britain’s most senior judge, Lord Thomas, has said:
“Our justice system has become unaffordable to most.”
Amnesty International’s 2016 report, “Cuts that hurt: the impact of legal aid cuts in England on access to justice”, states:
“Cuts to legal aid imposed by this Government have decimated access to justice and left thousands of the most vulnerable without essential legal advice and support. We are in danger of creating a two-tier civil justice system, open to those who can afford it, but increasingly closed to the poorest and most in need of its protection. From parents fighting for access to their children, to those trying to stay in the country they have grown up in, and to people with mental health problems at risk of homelessness, these cuts have hit the most vulnerable, the most.”
LASPO removed whole areas of law from the scope of legal aid and drastically reduced the percentage of the population eligible for the legal advice service and representation that still exists. Spending has fallen from £2.2 billion to £1.62 billion per year. As a result, the number of civil legal aid cases, which was 573,744 in the year to April 2013, has now fallen to a shocking 146,618 in the year to April 2017. In some regions the fall was even greater. For example, in October The Independent reported:
“Legal aid cuts have triggered a staggering 99.5 per cent collapse in the number of people receiving state help in benefits cases”
with just 440 claimants given assistance in the last financial year, down from a massive 83,000 before the £1 billion of cuts imposed by the Tories. That is absolutely shocking.
One of the Government’s stated aims in no longer funding lawyers for low-income couples arguing over divorce or child arrangements was that that would encourage them to seek mediation instead, but the Government have acknowledged that the opposite has happened, with mediation numbers falling off a cliff and a huge rise in people attempting to navigate the family courts with no lawyer or legal representation. Even more appallingly, not a single person with a discrimination complaint was referred to see a legal aid lawyer in the last year, as BuzzFeed News revealed just last week.
During a time of austerity, it is fanciful to believe that the decline in numbers reflects reduced demand. This is a deliberate effort to exploit the weakest in our society and deny their access to justice.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, first for his securing the debate, and secondly for making such a passionate case. The reality is that professional, useful advice for vulnerable people is decreasing—not only through the diminishing of legal aid, but with citizens advice bureaux being threatened with closure, such as in my constituency. These people need help, and we have a responsibility to them to devise a system that will give them that help.
Mr Sweeney
Absolutely. Wherever vulnerable people in our society turn, they are increasingly finding impediments and blockages placed in their way. That is increasing all sorts of problems and harms that people in society face, including mental and physical health problems.
Although many people have decided to give up pursuing a legal case because of the cost, even where legal aid remains in scope, many now represent themselves in court, as has been mentioned. Since LASPO, for the first time, more than half of parents—58%, many of whom were mothers from poor backgrounds—went to court without a lawyer to fight their case.
As we all know, in many walks of life, spending money early on leads to savings down the line. It was therefore very depressing to observe cuts falling particularly hard on services that help to advise whether someone has a case and how to proceed in the first place, which can prevent problems from escalating. Increasing funding would be a money saving measure, but instead, as so often, the Government, who profess their fiscal prudence, end up throwing good money after bad in their obsession with destroying the fabric of our public realm.
The Government are reviewing LASPO, and we urge them to guarantee the reintroduction of legal aid for early advice from a lawyer as part of that review. Restoring early legal advice would not only help to resolve many legal problems, but would save taxpayers’ money by reducing pressures on the courts and elsewhere. In October, the new President of the Supreme Court, Lady Justice Hale, described LASPO cuts as “a false economy”, and said that early legal advice would help to resolve many legal problems and save money by reducing pressure on the courts system.
As the Law Society explained this week, early legal advice helps to address problems before they escalate. For example, in housing law, although legal aid is still available to defend possession proceedings, that is only when the loss of a home is imminent and the landlord has sought an order for possession. A lack of early legal advice can create unnecessary costs for the taxpayer due to cases going to court that could have been resolved earlier. Worsening legal problems can also create other knock-on effects and costs to the public purse, potentially causing issues such as poor health, homelessness and debt.
Early legal advice is vital in housing law. For example, a lack of early advice on minor disrepair issues can mean problems such as faulty electrics or a leaking roof escalating, potentially creating health, social and financial problems, as we most appallingly saw earlier this year with the Grenfell Tower disaster. Early legal advice is also important in family law, but is no longer available in family breakdown and child custody cases. Because of that, mediation referrals have plummeted, putting pressure on courts and therefore on public finances. A Citizens Advice study estimated that for every £1 of legal aid spending on housing advice, the state saved £2.34; for every £1 spent on debt advice, it saved £2.98; and for every £1 spent on employment advice, a massive £7.13 was saved.
The Labour party is seeking to repair the broken justice system to ensure that people can defend their basic legal rights. One of the first acts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as Labour leader was to support the establishment of a commission on access to justice, made up of legal experts and chaired by Lord Bach, whom I mentioned earlier. Over nearly two years, the commission heard from more than 100 individuals and organisations with special expertise in all parts of the justice system. The commission proposed, among other measures, the return of legal aid in some areas and increasing the availability of early legal advice.
There is much in Lord Bach’s report that the Government could implement ahead of the next general election if they were serious about restoring access to justice. Labour’s 2017 general election manifesto committed the party to
“immediately re-establish early advice entitlements in the Family Courts”,
which includes protecting children from harm and most domestic violence cases. The Government should do the same.
The Government must use their review of LASPO fundamentally to repair the damage caused by their legal aid reforms since 2012, rather than simply to apply a sticking plaster to what is, it is increasingly apparent, a broken system. They should also use the review to look at restoring legal aid for early legal help on housing and welfare benefits. Opposition Members also urge the Government to review the legal aid means tests, including the capital tests for those on income-related benefits.
In Scotland, we need to continue pushing to ensure sufficient resources for legal aid providers, so that provision is maintained. That includes challenging the long-term underfunding of the system, and the modernisation and streamlining of legal aid, to ensure that access is available to any citizen in need of its support. My constituents, and people across Scotland and the rest of the UK, must be able to have confidence in our legal systems and must be confident that the social status or wealth of an individual cannot usurp the most basic concepts of right and wrong.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) for securing the debate. May I also compliment the Labour party on introducing legal aid 68 years ago? It has been of great benefit to many over that 68 years and continues to be so.
Here in the United Kingdom, we are rightly proud that everyone is equal under the law. Across the United Kingdom, our separate legal systems are united by the common principles of fairness, equality and respect for human rights, which have made the British justice system respected worldwide. Legal aid is crucial to ensuring that our justice systems live up to those principles. Without it, access to justice would become the preserve only of those who can afford it.
Legal aid is there to ensure that as many persons as practicable, regardless of their ability to pay legal fees, which can be very expensive, have access to fair representation in a bid to obtain their legal rights. That is why our legal aid system must be sustainable and up to date, and I for one am pleased that the UK Government recognise that and have reformed legal aid in England and Wales to modernise it and to put it on a secure financial footing for the future.
United Kingdom spending on legal aid massively outstrips the European average; it dwarfs that of most European nations and is, surprisingly, above France’s and Germany’s.
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples and oranges. The legal systems in France and other European countries are different from the adversarial system we have here. It is probably not fair to compare only legal aid budgets, without looking at overall justice costs.
Bill Grant
The hon. Gentleman may well be right. The fact is that we spend more per head than Germany, but I accept that that there are other considerations to take into account.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an error by reading out the Minister’s speech from the LASPO Bill’s Committee stage five years ago. What he says is no truer now than it was then. He should be looking at the effects of legal aid cuts, not the incorrect predictions made at the time the legislation went through Parliament.
Bill Grant
I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the decisions on cuts. They adjusted the system. It is a suitable system, which still remains, and I am sure many people will continue to benefit from legal aid.
As has been said, legal aid is devolved in Scotland and decisions on its provision are quite rightly the Scottish Government’s to make. Funding for legal aid was £138 million in a previous year; it is now down slightly by some millions, but it is fair to say that, per head, Scotland’s legal aid spending is broadly in line with the UK Government’s spending in England and Wales. When the Scottish National party came to power in Holyrood, Scotland’s legal aid system was 20 years old, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) said. Ten years on, that system is 30 years old, and it now needs to be looked at, as I am sure he would agree. After a decade of SNP rule, and despite the enactment of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, Scotland’s legal system would benefit from further reform.
It is true that we have seen some change, such as the court decision that prompted the Scottish Government to reconsider its Ministers’ decision not to exercise discretion to provide legal aid to an alleged victim of domestic abuse who sought to oppose attempts to obtain her medical records. The Scottish Conservatives had repeatedly asked for that change, to bring Scotland into line with England and Wales, but the Scottish Government repeatedly refused until the courts forced their hand. They were then slow to act: only in February did they finally see fit to launch a review of the Scottish legal aid system, which I commend. I hope the Scottish Government act soon and follow the UK Government’s lead in making legal aid sustainable, modern and fit for the future.
Stuart C. McDonald
Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Scottish Government should follow the UK Government’s example by removing family, immigration, housing and welfare cases from the scope of legal aid? He cannot possibly think that that would be a positive development.
Bill Grant
It will be entirely up to the Scottish Government to decide what course they take.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Order. It is my intention to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.28 pm, which hopefully will allow two minutes for Mr Sweeney to respond. If hon. Members keep their speeches to five or six minutes, that will enable me to call everyone who attempts to catch my eye.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) on securing the debate. Mindful of your guidance, Mr Robertson, I will minimise my comments on the detail of what has happened to legal aid provision since LASPO was introduced.
The position was summarised very well this summer in the Law Society’s report, “Access Denied?”, which said that legal aid is no longer available for those who need it, that those eligible for legal aid find it hard to access, that wide gaps in provision are not being addressed and that LASPO has had a wide and detrimental impact on the state and on society. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East explained how the scale of the reductions in legal aid provision has worked out in practice. We know that the total number of matter starts for legal aid and controlled legal work fell from 933,815 cases in 2010 to 147,107 this year. That is a staggeringly precipitous fall in provision.
Although this debate is rightly about legal aid, it is worth mentioning the wider context. Legal aid sits alongside the provision of wider advice services, many of which were funded by local authorities, and in many cases there was co-provision of such services in the same premises. Because local government has had a 40% fall in funding in recent years, mainstream advice services and other forms of early help have also taken a significant cut. As my hon. Friend said, and I am sure everyone who contributes to the debate will say, it is often the most vulnerable people who experience the most deleterious consequences—people who are suffering from mental health problems, people who have language difficulties, people who are extremely stressed as a consequence of debt, benefit difficulties and impending homelessness. They need that assistance, but it has not been available.
I have one of the largest constituency caseloads involving disability benefits in the country. Often it is not understood that this is an inner-London issue, but it very much is. Those of us who have a significant welfare caseload in our constituencies have seen in particular the consequences for people who are losing their employment and support allowance, have lost their disability living allowance or are making claims for personal independence payments. They have found it extremely difficult to get not only early help but representation and advocacy to get their benefits restored, despite the well documented evidence that such early assistance significantly improves a claimant’s chances of being successful at appeal.
The local advice agencies in my area draw a clear line between the lack of early help, the consequences for people losing their benefits and the direct rise of dependency on food banks. There has been a 56% rise in the number of cases going to my local citizens advice bureau—often cases that previously would have been picked up by early legal help—and my food bank in north Paddington has seen a doubling of demand for its services. Those things are connected. In my borough, there has been a 93% fall in family legal help cases; a 26% fall in housing legal help; a 51% fall in housing certificated assistance, despite a sharp rise in homelessness, in common with many other local areas; a 100% fall in welfare; a 99% fall in debt advice; and a 46% fall in the number of solicitors’ firms taking on cases. In common with many Members of Parliament, I have experienced a sharp rise in the number of people who are coming to me and to local councillors to seek the kind of legal help that they are no longer able to get because of the fall in legal aid provision.
Today’s debate is very well timed, with the announcement that the post-implementation review is under way. As has been referred to, the Law Society’s report on early help came out this week. I am sure I will not be the only one to reference and give huge credit to the Willy Bach commission report, which sets out a comprehensive analysis of what has happened since LASPO was introduced. I hope the work of the Law Society and the Bach commission will inform the Minister’s review.
I have few questions for the Minister about the post-implementation review; it will be helpful if he can provide answers. What reassurances can he give that the post-implementation review will be thorough? The memorandum to the Justice Committee says it will be thorough, but we want to know what that will mean. Who will be on the advisory panels? Will the thorough work and consultation necessary to make this a meaningful review take place before Parliament rises for the summer recess next year? How will the review be conducted? Who will be consulted and how? Will there be written and oral evidence?
On early advice, we know about the impact of the reduction in numbers on the sustainability of practitioners. Ministry of Justice figures indicate that the total number of not-for-profits with legal aid contracts has fallen from 870 to 95 post-LASPO. That is a drop of 89%. Can the Minister assure us that, whatever the outcomes of the post-implementation review, there will be enough providers to pick up any additional provision of advice? Do the Government know how many people will be available to deliver legal aid after the changes are made? Many areas are now advice deserts, with law centres and practitioners having had to close. Who will provide this advice and what is the Minister doing to ensure there will be a flow of lawyers into an increasingly stressful and under-resourced legal aid service?
The Government say that the exceptional case funding system is a safety net. When it was discussed in Parliament, we were told that 5,000 to 7,000 cases per year were expected. In fact, the number of cases has been extremely limited. How will the Minister review that and ensure that exceptional case funding is adequate for purposes?
How will the shortfall in county court offices since their reduction be met? County court offices used to be able to assist not by giving legal advice, but at least providing some support—for example, if someone was applying to suspend a warrant, they could obtain the form and get the application listed through the county court. Now, many court offices are open for very limited hours or just for appointments, and that is another hurdle. Is the Minister aware of that, and can he give us some reassurance?
Finally, on the promises to improve the service for victims of domestic violence, we know that reforms have been thrashed out and that Ministry of Justice staff and family groups have been working on it. The Government have admitted that changes need to be made to protect those suffering domestic abuse, but that has been delayed for a number of months. Can the Minister tell us when those changes will be brought in?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid. They have set out some of the facts and figures that show the astonishing decline in the availability of legal aid since the enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and I will not repeat those.
I had the pleasure—if that is the right word—of leading for the Opposition, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the noble Lord Bach, during the year-long Committee stage of the LASPO Bill. It was pretty obvious then what the consequences were going to be, but we do not have to predict now; we have seen those consequences. That is why I was quite surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) repeating the shibboleths that we heard at that time: that this was just bringing us into line with what happens elsewhere, and that these were perfectly reasonable and affordable cuts. The figures we have seen show that the contrary is true.
In the other place, I think there were 11 defeats and three tied votes, all of which unfortunately were substantially reversed in this House. That was a significant indication of the level of concern, even while the Bill was going through Parliament. Were it not for the extraordinary discipline of the Liberal Democrats—this is possibly the only issue that all Members here will agree on—there would have been many more defeats, and we might have stopped some of these cuts going through. The Liberal Democrats turned out night after night to vote for legal aid cuts in the most stringent terms and ensure that those changes went through, with better discipline than the Tory peers, and we will continue to remind them about that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, that was a sea change. It was reversing the legal aid policies put forward by the Labour Government of 1945 to ’50. The Bill at that time made legal aid permissive. In other words, legal aid was available, except where the legislation said that it was not available. LASPO completely reverses that and says that one has to define exactly the very specific means by which legal aid is made available. The net result is not only that in many areas, particularly of social welfare law, legal aid has been withdrawn specifically, but that in reality it has been withdrawn entirely, because neither the voluntary sector nor private practice can continue it with what meagre fare there is to allow it to operate. Many areas of the country have become advice deserts.
Ian C. Lucas
To pick up on the advice deserts point, during my 16-year parliamentary career, the Ministry of Justice and the local justice departments have very much moved away from their local communities and are now incredibly distant from the communities that they served. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to localise provision in a much better and more responsive way?
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend knows that very well from his professional background. I entirely agree with him and will say in a moment what I think should be done to reverse what he describes, but while we are diagnosing the problem, I must point out that there has been an extraordinary effect on the advice sector and on the courts. Indeed, we can see it in our surgeries. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I now provide 20-minute appointments, and often that is not long enough to see constituents. I refrain, not having a practice specifically any more, from giving legal advice, but that is in effect what people are coming to ask for, whether in areas of family law, immigration, employment or housing. Those are not the sorts of complaint or issue that I remember dealing with 10 years ago. These people have come, possibly as a first port of call, to Members of Parliament—research has shown that this is the case—simply because there is nowhere else to go.
Let me use the example of my constituency. Many of our advice agencies—such as Threshold, which provides specialist housing advice, and the Shepherd’s Bush advice centre—and many of the specialist agencies dealing with specific communities have simply closed down. I am very lucky, in that I have an extremely supportive council. Labour took power again in 2014, and it is now rehousing and properly funding the Hammersmith law centre, which I have had the pleasure of being on the board of for some 30 years. Therefore, along with the citizens advice bureaux, some good provision remains in the area, but I suspect that it is the exception rather than the rule.
I pay tribute not only to Members of the House who have taken an interest in the subject, but to the practitioners out there in the country. My law centre is watched over by Sue James, who was legal aid lawyer of the year after 25 years of practice and setting up other law centres in London. It is the dedication of people such as her, Carol Storer of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group and Nicola Mackintosh that has in effect, despite the Government’s best efforts, kept the legal aid system going in this country over this period. However, it is absolutely at breaking point.
I therefore have something to ask of the Minister, who is an intelligent and fair man and knowledgeable in these areas, when he does the review, but let me just say this about the review. It is being done at the last possible moment, and possibly beyond the last possible moment, because if I remember correctly, the undertaking given during the passage of LASPO was that the review would begin within three to five years. I think that the end of the five years will be next April and that the review is not starting till the summer, so we really are squeezing it into the last minute. I hope that it will be a proper review and that it will look in particular at the Bach commission report, because that is an extremely thorough report by the people in this country who probably best understand the issue and the problems that arise. I hope that it looks across the board at what needs to be done—not just, as we have heard, at early advice and the restoration of legal aid, particularly in areas of social welfare law, but at the means test, at the system for contributions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) said, at the localisation of services, because nothing is really working at the moment.
We need a root-and-branch review, and fresh legislation may well be required. Unless the Government are prepared to look at the matter with fresh eyes, instead of taking the blinkered approach that was taken with LASPO, it will be not only bad for my constituents and those of other hon. Members present, but bad for the system of justice in this country, because the courts are not functioning properly. Litigants in person are flooding the courts, and there are delays throughout the system. The compound effect of cuts in the legal aid system and the Courts Service over the past five years is that we can no longer say that we have a system of justice of which we can be proud, and I greatly regret that.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. As a former employment rights lawyer, I am passionate about legal aid and access to justice. Many of my hon. Friends have made important points about the need for increased access to justice. Coincidentally, yesterday I chaired a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench justice group on this very subject, drawing particular attention to the measures outlined in the Bach commission report, which aims to redress the injustices caused by LASPO.
I am firmly of the view that the abolition of legal aid for early advice is a false economy. It means that far more cases end up going to court that should have been resolved earlier. My experience as a lawyer was that when I gave clients clear legal advice from the outset about their prospects of success, they were far less likely to pursue an unmeritorious claim through the courts. The removal of legal aid for early advice has caused a clear and undeniable increase in the number of people representing themselves in court.
National Audit Office figures and research by the Law Society show a staggering 30% increase in litigants in person in family court cases. In that emotive area of law, litigants in person often result in longer hearings and in victims of domestic violence having to face their abuser in court. Moreover, the failure to provide early legal advice can have significant knock-on effects for other departments and the public purse. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said, the cost of someone being evicted because they have not had access to housing legal advice at an early stage is far greater than the cost of the advice itself. That is not to mention the societal impact.
However, I want to use this opportunity to talk about legal aid for inquests. A number of my hon. Friends will be aware of, and indeed many of them have signed, early-day motion 498 on this important matter, which I tabled. It calls for legal aid to be provided to the family of the deceased in all cases in which the state is funding one or more of the other parties. Inquests have never fallen into the main body of legal aid provision. Legal aid for inquests is available only at the discretion of the Legal Aid Agency under the “exceptional case funding” provisions introduced by LASPO. Exceptional case funding is available for categories of law that are not ordinarily in scope of legal aid, and where failure to provide legal services would breach an individual’s rights under the European convention on human rights, or other enforceable EU rights relating to the provision of legal services.
However, exceptional case funding applications are complex and time-consuming. Lawyers receive payment for an ECF application only if it is successful, and although the Legal Aid Agency will accept applications from applicants in person, very few are made and even fewer are successful. In addition, the definition of exceptional case funding does not provide an adequate safety net for inquests, as an applicant has to show that there is an article 2—right to life—issue, or a wider public interest in legal aid being granted.
The Law Society’s “Access Denied?” publication drew attention to the case of five-year-old Alexia Walenkaki, who died of head injuries while playing on a swing in the children’s play area in a London park. The swing was suspended from two tree trunks when one of them toppled over on to the child. Alexia’s mother applied for exceptional case funding in order to be represented at the inquest. However, the application for legal aid was refused by the Legal Aid Agency on the grounds that it did not meet the LASPO requirement that the representation be in the public interest, despite the fact that the case involved consideration of a local authority’s responsibility to ensure safety in a public area.
Legal aid for inquests is even more important, as most bereaved families will not be able to afford private legal representation, particularly for lengthy inquest hearings. Most recently, the Hillsborough inquiry shone a light on this important issue, calling for families to be fully involved in inquests, and for equality of arms, so that no one is under-represented in these critical types of cases.
The Bach commission report acknowledges that access to justice is lacking in this area and that reform is urgently needed. I tabled early-day motion 498 on legal aid for inquests as I believe the Government should take urgent action in this area, and provide access to justice for bereaved families by providing crucially needed legal aid to the family of the deceased in all cases where the state is funding one or more of the other parties. I urge Members from across the House to sign the early-day motion.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) on securing it.
To get perspective on the problem of access to legal aid, we first need to remind ourselves that the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 came in as one of the Labour Government’s swathe of measures to help alleviate poverty in the welfare state following the 1945 election victory. Over the years, scope was increased to keep up to date with social developments, but over the past 25 years, we have seen a gradual erosion of legal aid, culminating in a full-scale attack on it via the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or LASPO, to give it its shorter name.
Let us be under no illusions: LASPO was introduced under the cloak of austerity to cut the legal aid budget. To that extent, it has succeeded, cutting the total spend on legal aid from £2.499 billion in 2010-11 to £1.554 billion in 2016-17: a cut of £945 million, or 38%, to give the percentage total. Taking areas such as some family law and welfare law out of scope is having a devastating effect on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Couples who split up, sometimes acrimoniously, and who disagree about access to the children are not legally represented owing to the cuts, leaving a judge in the invidious position of trying to sort out the case with limited documentation. Who knows what the impact will be on the children while the court tries to muddle through the process? This could be the most important decision in a child’s life, yet we are likely to have two aggrieved people thrown into a combative situation, with terminology and procedures misunderstood, and making matters worse for the child. Or there are instances where a vulnerable person has a valid case for claiming backdated housing benefit, but is unable to find a lawyer to help, because an application to a social security tribunal is taken out of scope, leaving the person with arrears of rent and facing eviction. We have gone from 80% of people being eligible for legal aid to only 20% being eligible. The onslaught on the legal profession owing to the legal aid cuts has resulted in legal aid firms closing, leaving legal advice deserts in more and more parts of the country, and people desperate, with little chance of getting proper representation.
In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) on 11 September 2017, the Ministry of Justice said that nationally the number of legal aid providers had fallen from 2,991 in 2012 to 2,393 in 2017. That is a fall of 598, or nearly 20%, in five years. The firms that have survived are also struggling as legal aid rates have not increased in over 20 years. I congratulate the Law Society on its excellent recent report on legal aid, as referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Glasgow North East, and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves).
The legal aid cuts are also impacting on barristers. Junior criminal barristers face a crazy situation whereby they would receive only £44 for doing a plea in Coventry tomorrow, when the train fare is £83 and not recoverable. Would anybody seriously do a job that would leave them out of pocket? The truth is that the legal aid cuts are a false economy and end up costing us all more in the long run. Goldsmiths University has estimated that every £1 cut in legal aid costs us all £6 in additional services provided.
So what is to be done? Hon. Friends have referred to the Bach commission’s final report, “The Right to Justice”, which was published in September this year. It made 22 recommendations to improve access to justice and redress the failure of LASPO, which has left many people unable to access justice because they cannot afford to. The 22 recommendations, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), include: creating a right to justice Act, which would enshrine the right of access to justice in statute and would set up a justice commission to advise, monitor and enforce that right; reforming legal aid assessment, so that anyone in receipt of a means-tested benefit is automatically eligible for legal aid; broadening the scope of legal aid, so that all social welfare law, matters relating to children, various areas of private family law, immigration and inquests, which were so eloquently referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge, are brought back into scope; replacing the Legal Aid Agency with an independent body that is at arm’s length from the Government; and reducing the administrative burden on providers.
In addition to implementing the recommendations, we need to repeal LASPO and make sure that legal advice is provided earlier and quicker, along the lines of the old green form scheme. We also need to embrace technology and educate the general public as to their rights, and we need to ensure that the legal aid system is fit for purpose, so that we do not get miscarriages of justice because of the cuts, or see the decimation of the legal profession that does legal aid work. We should never forget that the legal aid scheme was designed to help the most vulnerable in our society, and right now the system is failing them.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
Today’s debate cuts right to the heart of what we mean by justice. Legal aid has been a crucial instrument in ensuring that equal access to justice is attainable. After all, if access to justice is not equal, can we call it justice at all? My surgeries, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), are full of people seeking legal advice. Unlike many hon. Members here today, I do not have a legal background.
The exact meaning of justice may be contested, but it should be quite clear to us all that a society that allows for adequate legal representation for those who can afford it while denying the same opportunities for those who cannot is not a just society. As we have heard, the Law Society has reported on the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Its findings are stark and paint a picture of a Government prioritising savings for the Exchequer over basic legal rights for our citizens. It makes 25 recommendations to improve the provision of legal advice and representation. It will be interesting to see whether this Government will actually implement the recommendations of one of our foremost legal organisations.
The 2012 Act has significantly reduced the number of areas of law in which legal aid applies, while at the same time tightening the criteria for qualification. Among the findings of the Law Society report is one that
“Large numbers of people, including children and those on low incomes, are now excluded from whole areas of free or subsidised legal advice”.
It describes changes to means testing as “counter-intuitive”, and even where people qualify for legal aid, they often struggle to access it due to inadequate provision of services, resulting in “legal aid deserts”.
Reductions in central Government funds have forced many high street legal aid firms and third sector providers to go under. The increase in legal aid deserts has resulted in many people who qualify for legal aid not being able to access it. Almost a third of the legal aid areas in England and Wales have one or no legal aid housing advice providers. Neither Shropshire nor Suffolk has a housing legal aid advice provider. Children, people with mental health issues and people with low levels of literacy and numeracy are now excluded as a result of changes to legal aid provision.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights condemned the lack of access to justice for children back in 2015 and called on the Government to correct that astonishing situation. Those calls were not heeded. The Act prevents the maximum income cap for legal aid qualification from increasing with inflation, while capital eligibility rules mean there are many benefit claimants who do not qualify for legal aid. The Justice Committee has argued that a lack of sufficient advertising of the mandatory telephone gateway has resulted in its underuse, although it is intended to be the initial point of contact for legal advice on debt, special educational needs and discrimination law.
At every turn the Government have sought to cut public services, but equal access to justice must be one of the fundamental tenets of a healthy democracy. That the Government so wilfully undermine that principle tells us all we need to know about their priorities: not ensuring fairness, not ensuring the preservation of basic rights and not ensuring a good society—social security for the rich, economic insecurity for the rest. Without legal representation being available to all, we no longer have a system of justice, but a system of privilege.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. We have had a good and lively debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) on securing it. This is an important subject because a well functioning system of legal aid is a crucial means of ensuring access to justice, and is therefore essential for the operation of the rule of law and democracy itself. This subject has been raised a number of times even in the couple of years that I have been an MP, reflecting widespread concerns about the radical overhaul of legal aid since LASPO came into force in 2013. With the review of LASPO going ahead in England and Wales, and the Scottish Government conducting their own review of legislation that is now 30 years old, now is an appropriate time for this debate.
The hon. Gentleman made a couple of points in relation to Scotland, and if time permits I will say a little bit about that. For now, suffice it to say that the review there will be building from a strong position. That is remarkably different from the system created by the UK Government, where a 38% real-terms cut in funding has left hundreds of thousands to navigate the law and the legal system alone, not because of their means, but because the scope of the legal aid scheme has been drastically reduced. If you went down to the courts in London, Mr Robertson, you would struggle to find a single litigant lawyer or judge who would say that the system in England and Wales is better than the one in Scotland; it would be the reverse.
While the UK Government’s review of LASPO is welcome, if we are honest we already know it has been a complete disaster—one which, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has pointed out, could have been averted had the Government engaged in discussion and looked at evidence before introducing LASPO, rather than five years after it wreaked havoc on the justice system. Whether it is the Justice Committee of this House, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the legal profession or third sector organisations, few if any have a good word to say about the reforms.
The statistics, as the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said, illustrate a drastic reduction in the number of cases of publicly funded representation right from the implementation of the LASPO Act, but it is individual stories about those who are left without access to justice that bring home the reality of the problem. Credit must be given to organisations such as Amnesty International and Coram Children’s Legal Centre for highlighting some of those cases in various reports and briefings. When the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is saying publicly that
“Our system of justice has become unaffordable to most,”
there can be no doubt that we are in a bad place.
There cannot be a starker example of austerity at all costs than the LASPO cuts, which were introduced without
“any proper evidence-based research,”
according to chairman of the Bar association. Parliament’s Justice Committee found that LASPO had unambiguously failed to achieve three of its four stated goals, including targeting legal aid towards those who need it most, delivering better overall value for money, and discouraging unnecessary and adversarial litigation. In relation to the fourth and final goal the Committee stated that
“while it had made significant savings in the cost of the scheme, the Ministry had harmed access to justice for some litigants”.
On the subject of claimant savings, which the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and others spoke about, I hope the review will consider the extent to which those so-called savings, like too many other austerity cuts, are in fact costs passed on to other public services. As the Justice Committee also said, efforts to target legal aid
“have suffered from the weakness that they have often been aimed at the point after a crisis has already developed, such as in housing repossession cases, rather than being preventive.”
Money saved by the Ministry of Justice means more money spent by homelessness services and social work departments. Meanwhile courts are required to spend more time and resources dealing with party litigants.
The arguments for LASPO the Government used in previous debates have struggled to stand up to scrutiny. They sought to justify the cuts on the basis that it encourages mediation, but as we heard earlier, that is not happening, and I think the Government now acknowledge that. In the year prior to LASPO, there were 31,000 mediation assessments and 14,000 mediation starts, but by 2016-17 the numbers had fallen to 13,000 mediation assessments and 7,700 mediation starts—reductions of 61% and 44% respectively. As the Government were told beforehand, people who are given early legal advice will be more inclined than those who are not to the view that mediation is the best course of action.
Another key argument used in the past is that the legal aid system in England and Wales is one of the most generous in the world. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) hinted at that. As I said in my intervention on him, that is comparing apples and oranges, particularly in relation to continental systems, which are inquisitorial rather than adversarial, so more resources are spent on other parts of the system than legal aid. England and Wales may have one of the most expensive legal aid bills in Europe, but it is a long way down the European league table overall when we look at the total bill for providing justice.
The Scottish Government have announced their own review of legal aid. In previous debates on this subject, I quoted from an article by Professor Alan Paterson, so I am pleased to see he has been included in the Government’s review board. He is a legal academic at Strathclyde University and chair of the International Legal Action Group. In 2012, as LASPO was making its way through this place, he wrote an article highlighting that in fact, per capita spend on legal aid in England and Wales had been higher than in Scotland. He asked whether that meant that provision in Scotland was less extensive or generous. The answer was that, on the contrary, the Scottish scheme was still more generous, even in those circumstances.
First, the Scottish system was more generous in scope. That is even more true after LASPO. For example, in Scotland you can still get legal advice and representation on housing, debt, immigration, family, employment law and so on. Secondly, it remained more generous in coverage, with a significantly higher proportion of the population financially eligible for legal aid. The Scottish system had managed to achieve lower per capita spend while remaining more generous. Even if all of Lord Bach’s recommendations were fulfilled, Scotland’s system would remain more generous than that in England and Wales. There were some reasons why that was the case, which went well beyond policy choices, including, for example, the high prevalence of expensive fraud cases in England and Wales. However, for Professor Paterson the crucial difference was that there had been greater success in Scotland in reforming court procedures, both civil and criminal, to reduce legal aid spend. Instead of reducing legal aid spend by not funding people properly to access the court system, the court system was made cheaper to fund access to.
In the months ahead, the group on which Professor Paterson sits, chaired by the CEO of Carnegie Trust and involving lawyers, police, Citizen Advice and others, will look for
“specific measures to reform Scotland’s system of legal aid, maintaining access to public funding for legal advice and representation in both civil and criminal cases, alongside measures to expand access to alternative methods of resolving disputes.”
It is due to report back in February and I hope its findings can feed into the LASPO review. It will most definitely not follow the example of the UK Government in introducing LASPO, despite the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. The one thing I am absolutely confident about is that those reforms have a greater chance of success, because they start from a strong place and they will be informed by evidence and engagement rather than the product of a simple austerity drive. That is the key flaw in LASPO, and it is why this Government should rip it up and start again.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) on securing this important debate. He made an excellent speech. The Government’s approach to access to justice is a marker of the way they view the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Though I am relatively new to this brief, some would say I am lucky—or unlucky—to have so many former lawyers on my own side. Regardless of expertise, what unites us in the Labour party is that we all believe that no matter how much someone earns, what their background is or where they come from, our justice system should be there for them when they are at their most vulnerable.
The truth is that the changes to legal aid mean that there is now one rule for the rich and another for the poor. Those with money can pay for justice; those without are forced to represent themselves, or give up on justice altogether. That was at the crux of the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), who said it is just not a just society if it operates like that. If someone has been a victim of discrimination at work, has had their benefits wrongly sanctioned and faces losing their home, or is fighting a bitter custody battle, the very last thing they have the energy for is fighting a lengthy battle to get legal representation or, worse, representing themselves in court.
Earlier this year, the Labour party’s review of legal aid, chaired by Lord Willy Bach, found a system that was fundamentally broken. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) detailed many of the Bach commission’s recommendations. In particular, the Opposition are concerned about the impact changes have had on victims, particularly the most vulnerable such as children and victims of domestic abuse; the knock-on impact on access to justice more broadly, even for areas of law still within the scope of legal aid; and the human and financial cost of LASPO.
Legal professionals have warned of a sharp rise in the number of people forced to represent themselves in court to access the justice they deserve. The Public and Commercial Services Union has warned that aggression towards court staff is rising because people are left to navigate the complex legal and court system on their own and without support. Recently, BuzzFeed reported that a grandmother in Gloucester had to represent herself in court to prevent her grandchild from being put up for adoption, because legal aid is no longer available for family law. She was told it would cost her between £10,000 and £12,000—her entire income for a year—in court fees if she paid for legal representation herself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, there are desperate cases like that coming through surgeries because, as he put it, “There is nowhere else to go.” Will the Minister confirm what the rise in litigants in person has been since the introduction of the LASPO Act?
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the rise in people having to represent themselves is its impact on victims of abuse. It is well known that abusers will use the court system to continue their abuse. Imagine having the courage to leave an abusive relationship—to uproot the kids and start life over—only to find five years later that that abuser is taking you to court to claim visiting rights to the children. Now imagine being told that you are not eligible for legal aid and you have a choice: go to court and represent yourself and your children, allowing your abuser to sit opposite you in court while their lawyer talks about your fitness to be a parent and even cross-examines you, or give in, give up and allow him to have contact with your kids. That is the choice women have faced because of the legal aid changes brought in by this Government.
Those changes include stringent evidence tests requiring victims to prove they have been a victim of abuse to qualify for legal aid, and a time limit on the validity of that evidence. Some women have even reported being charged up to £175 by their doctor to provide that evidence. Charities such as Rights of Women and Women’s Aid warned that these tests could rule out as many as 40% of domestic violence victims from being eligible for legal aid, and the High Court agreed, demanding that the Government remove the time limit. It has been 21 months since that ruling, yet we are still waiting for reform.
Last month, I wrote to the Justice Secretary asking for the date when changes would be introduced. I am still waiting. Will the Minister confirm now, on the record, when the Government will introduce these long overdue reforms, which organisations they have consulted in preparing the new regulations and whether they will be scrapping fees for obtaining prescribed evidence such as a doctor’s letter or police disclosure? Victims of domestic violence deserve peace of mind and justice.
It is not just within areas of law removed from the scope of legal aid where justice is being denied. According to the Law Commission, advice deserts have opened up across areas of the country because huge cuts to legal aid law have forced providers and law centres to close their doors. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) made the point that that is happening alongside cuts to local government and citizens advice bureaux, so people really struggle to get the advice they need. In response to my question, the Government admitted that the number of legal aid providers has fallen by 20% since the introduction of LASPO.
Ms Buck
Is my hon. Friend also aware that, as has been mentioned by some colleagues, many providers are making excessive personal sacrifices to try to keep some of these services on the road? I am aware of a provider in my constituency where staff have gone without wages for a month in the year to try to keep a service functioning. Those services, and those individuals who are bearing that burden as providers, need to be given praise and credit for their commitment.
Gloria De Piero
I will happily give praise and credit, in particular to the people my hon. Friend mentions, but what sort of society is it where those people are having to make choices like that? I thank her for that intervention.
The number of applicants for civil legal aid for domestic violence cases such as protection orders—technically still within the scope of legal aid—has fallen by 20% since 2011-12. The number of domestic violence incidents has risen in that time, so we can only assume that that fall is due to a lack of specialist legal advice. Will the Minister commit now to reviewing urgently the availability of specialist legal aid advice for victims of domestic violence to ensure no victim is put at risk by legal aid cuts?
The human cost of the LASPO Act is hard to underestimate, but perhaps the most scandalous part of this is that we now know that instead of saving money it is likely to have cost us huge sums, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said. Last week, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the Justice Minister revealed that the budget will have fallen in real terms by 40% since 2010-11, from £9.3 billion to £5.6 billion, which risks tipping our justice system from crisis into full-blown emergency.
This week, however, a study released by the Law Society found that the removal of access to early legal advice means many more cases are ending up in lengthy court hearings rather than being resolved beforehand. Last month—I make no apologies for repeating this point—the new President of the Supreme Court, Lady Justice Hale, said LASPO cuts are likely to prove “a false economy” because removal of access to early legal advice means people cannot resolve legal problems out of court, which places more pressure on courts. According to the PCS union the rise in litigants in person and failure to access early legal advice are leading to lengthy court delays.
In fact, the Government have already acknowledged that removal of early legal advice is a false economy. Last month, their post-legislative memorandum submitted to the Justice Committee admitted that legal aid cuts have led to the number of families and couples seeking mediation rather than court settlements dropping off a cliff. Labour is committed to immediately re-establishing entitlements to early legal advice in family courts once in government. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to do the same, and will he confirm what assessment the Government have made of the associated costs of their cuts to legal aid?
We welcome the announcement of a review of the impact of LASPO, but for many victims this is five years too late, and without a clear timetable or commitment to act on recommendations, how can victims have the assurance they need that things will change? Will the Minister confirm on what date the review will conclude, which organisations the Government will consult as part of the review and when the Government plan to introduce any recommendations?
We might never know how many families have faced destitution or how many victims have given up on justice altogether as a result of those cuts. I hope the Government take seriously the concerns of service providers, legal professionals, court staff and victims themselves, and act to restore access to justice for some of the most vulnerable in our society.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) for securing this debate and for his powerful, tenacious speech.
One thing we all agree on at least as a matter of principle, is that legal aid is a fundamental pillar of access to justice. Last year, the Ministry of Justice spent £1.6 billion on legal aid in England and Wales, which accounts for more than a fifth of the Ministry’s budget. The Government have a responsibility to make sure that those in the greatest hardship, at the times of greatest need, can secure access to justice, that the most vulnerable are catered for, and that the resources are made available to do that. That is a responsibility that we take very seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, legal aid in Scotland is a devolved matter. I appreciate that in this debate he has not talked a lot about that. It is also devolved in Northern Ireland. I can address the provision of legal aid in only England and Wales, for which we are responsible. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) raised this in relation to spending, but I would note that the Council of Europe’s most recent survey post-LASPO found that spending on legal aid per person in England and Wales was the highest of all Council of Europe members. The hon. Gentleman quite fairly made the point that we have a different system from the one used in many parts of continental Europe. Of course, the Council of Europe survey also looks at the spending per capita in Scotland, and in England and Wales it is 13% higher. Neither he nor the hon. Member for Glasgow North East touched on that, for all their critique of the system in England and Wales.
Stuart C. McDonald
In fairness, I did touch on that by mentioning the fact that Alan Paterson highlighted the higher per capita spending in England and Wales compared with Scotland. He said that the reason for that was Scotland’s greater success in reducing the cost of courts, so the total bill was made smaller not by excluding folk from the scope of legal aid but by making courts less expensive to run.
Dominic Raab
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and hope he accepts the figure showing that the spending in England and Wales per capita is 13% higher. I agree with him on a point that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East did not take up: this is not just about how much money is spent, but about how the resources are allocated. Indeed, the question of access to justice is broader than purely the administration or funding of legal aid, so on that point, I accept what he said.
In truth, the legal aid scheme has been the subject of regular change since its inception. Spending has increased substantially, and all Administrations—Labour, the coalition, and Conservative—have sought to exercise control over spending in recent times. I think we all agree that we need to exercise control over legal aid and other precious public services in order to ensure that the finite, precious resources go to those who need them most.
The most recent reforms were part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came in the context of huge financial pressure on the country’s finances. The reforms were founded on the principle of ensuring that legal aid continues to be available for the highest priority cases—for example, when an individual’s life or liberty is at stake, when someone faces the loss of their home, in domestic violence cases, or when children may be taken into care—and in achieving that, delivering better value for money for taxpayers by reducing the cost of the scheme and discouraging unnecessary litigation. Again, although this has not been mentioned today, in some cases—not all—going to court is not the right thing to do, and I will touch on that if I have time later.
I appreciate that the changes in LASPO were contentious. They were subjected to a significant amount of rigorous scrutiny at the time, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said. They were debated extensively and amendments were made before the legislation was approved by Parliament. It has been several years since the implementation of those landmark reforms, so it is absolutely right to take stock. That is why we recently laid before the House a detailed, post-legislative memorandum summarising how LASPO was implemented and making a preliminary assessment of its impact. In addition, my predecessors made a commitment to the House to conduct a detailed post-implementation review of the changes to establish to what degree the reforms had achieved their objectives. It is right that we are now fulfilling that pledge.
As hon. Members have acknowledged, that appraisal will cover each issue that has been subject to a previous commitment by Ministers in this House. The Lord Chancellor recently announced the start of the process. That will be led by officials, but I am keen to listen to interested parties, including hon. Members from across the House. Given the importance of the reforms, it is right that we take time to gather the necessary evidence and views of experts on the impact of the changes.
The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) asked me about the detail of the review. I will write to stakeholders shortly to invite them to participate in a series of expert panels to consider and sift through relevant evidence to inform our review, which will be comprehensive. I want to ensure that we get the review right. Of course, I will not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the review—I am sure she expected me to say that—but we will publish our findings by the summer recess. One or two hon. Members asked about that.
We must acknowledge that the financial pressures in which the LASPO reforms were introduced remain with us today. The proportion of departmental spend on legal aid remains broadly the same today as it was prior to 2010. We in the Government have the responsibility to ensure that taxpayers get the best value for money, as well as deal with the challenges and fixing the problems of the legal aid system as and when they arise.
That is why I recently announced our changes to the fee scheme for criminal litigators in the Crown court. Defence solicitors do incredibly valuable work and we want to remunerate them fairly for it, but since 2013-14 there has been a rise of more than £30 million in the annual spend on that work. That is primarily attributable to a costs judge ruling that changed what we were paying for beyond the initial policy intention. We do not accept that that reflects an increase in the work done by defence solicitors and do not think that the rise reflects value for money for taxpayers, so it is right that we acted to address that.
We have targeted the action to the 2% of Crown court cases—the most expensive cases—in which the problem was identified. Effectively, the change involves a shift in policy so that more remuneration is for work that is actually done and not just for the amount of paperwork that is produced in court. It is absolutely right that solicitors are properly paid for work that is reasonably done through the scheme. At the same time, as the quid pro quo for putting the proper reforms in place to ensure that the precious, finite resources go to those with the greatest need, we announced our intention not to pursue the suspended 8.75% fee cut, which would have affected all solicitors. Those two parts of the jigsaw will make sure that we get this right. As I mentioned, this is not just about the money that goes in, but about ensuring that we get the best use out of it.
The hon. Member for Westminster North raised the issue of domestic violence, as did the shadow justice Minister, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero). Domestic violence is absolutely abhorrent; it appals every one of us in this place, I am sure, and it is an absolute priority for this Government. We are completely clear that genuine victims of domestic violence and abuse must have access to the help that they need, including access to legal aid. That is why we retained legal aid for protective injunctions. Legal aid was granted in more than 12,000 protective injunction cases last year. In addition, in cases involving child arrangements and financial matters, funding is available for those who will be disadvantaged by facing their abuser in court.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, we are considering the findings of the further internal review of the evidence requirements. I will make an announcement on that shortly, which I am confident—or at least, I hope—will receive support from all parts of the House. She also asked who would be consulted. That is of the greatest importance and we are working very hard to get this into the right kind of shape, engaging Rights of Women, Resolution, Women’s Aid and the Law Society, so that we can be confident that we are doing everything we can to protect and support genuine victims.
Although it is right to ensure that those who are most in need of legal aid are able to access it, we should acknowledge that the courts are not going to be the right solution in non-domestic violence cases in other areas. I am thinking particularly of some family law disputes, which the hon. Lady mentioned. In many family law cases, the challenge is to see them not go to court. I accept the point about mediation not being as successful as we had hoped, but the answer is to renew and revive the efforts to achieve greater use of alternative dispute resolution in some cases. That is not just because of the financial implications, but because of the trauma of going to court—not for lawyers, but for the many people affected by such cases. I think that needs to be emphasised.
We need to do more to promote alternative dispute resolution, so we have protected legal help in many cases. Last year, we spent £100 million on early legal advice and assistance in civil and family cases. In other areas, we have introduced a telephone helpline to provide legal advice in certain categories of case to allow individuals to access advice quickly and easily. Last year, there were more than 20,000 instances of advice being obtained usefully and helpfully through that system. We have also developed a user-friendly digital tool—as the world becomes more digital, it is right that the justice system strives to catch up—to make it clear to people when legal aid is available to them.
When an alternative route is more appropriate, people should feel empowered to pursue it without having to find a lawyer at great expense, whether that is to themselves or the taxpayer. For instance, in cases involving separating couples, mediation can be less stressful and quicker than going to court, and it is often far cheaper than using a lawyer. Critically, it can help to reduce conflict after separation and the trauma of that, often on both sides, which in some cases litigation will make worse, not better.
The Government are committed to promoting mediation and its benefits, and legal aid remains available for these cases. In the 12 months to June 2017, a full or partial agreement was reached in 62% of publicly funded cases in which both parties engaged in mediation. Of course, as hon. Members have mentioned, citizens can and do represent themselves in court, in some cases irrespective of whether legal aid is available or whether they are privately funded. Litigants in person are not a new feature of our justice system. People involved in litigation are engaged in a variety of disputes and have a wide range of needs and capabilities. We recognise that for some people, representing themselves in court is purely a matter of choice, but for others it can be very challenging and demanding.
Bambos Charalambous
Is the Minister aware that there is a piece in this week’s Law Society Gazette about rewriting civil procedure rules to accommodate litigants in person, who may not fully understand court procedures in civil proceedings?
Dominic Raab
I have not seen that article, but we are constantly looking to ensure that the court system is as amenable as it can be to litigants in person. Contrary to what the shadow Minister suggested, a range of support is available for that; we have ensured that persons without legal representation can get help and support. Since 2015, the Government have invested £5 million of funding to support litigants in person through the litigant in person support strategy, which works with a range of partners across the advice, voluntary and pro bono sectors to provide practical support, whether that is online self-help resources, access to free or affordable legal advice or representation where possible. Personal support units provide trained volunteers who give free and independent assistance to people facing proceedings without legal representation in civil and family courts and tribunals. More personal support units have opened in courts to provide direct support and information to litigants in person, and there are now 20 such centres in 16 cities.
Andy Slaughter
I hesitate to say this, but the Minister is being a bit complacent. All the organisations that he names are wholly laudable, but a PSU, for example, does not give legal advice. Pro bono services are excellent but they cannot compensate for the reduction in legal aid. Mediation is important, but there will be some cases in family law that need to go to a contested hearing. We would like to hear from the Minister that the review will look at the actual effects on the ground, and that where there is a deficit, there will be a genuine attempt to address that. Further, we are asking that he looks at the Bach commission report as part of that process.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman has made his intervention in his usual powerful way. I gave the assurance he wanted that the review would be comprehensive and I have looked at the Bach commission report. I would love to know where Opposition Members would make allocations of public funding to pay for the estimated £400 million needed to fund those reforms. On our side, we want to ensure that we can allocate legal aid as best we can, but we have to take the cost into account.
The point I was in the middle of making in relation to litigants in person was one that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) made in his intervention. We have also delivered training to better equip the judiciary to support litigants in person through the court process.
To respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), my Department is taking steps to improve the situation of bereaved families at inquests. The inquest process is distinct; it can be incredibly traumatic for the bereaved. It is important to help them to understand how their loved ones died, which can be particularly hard so soon after the event. My heart goes out to anyone who goes through that—not just the grief but the fact-finding process, with all the legal and bureaucratic procedures of the inquest system, which must be rather daunting and challenging for a layperson. I agree that early legal advice can be helpful in allowing families to understand the process, which is why we have protected it for inquests within the scope of legal aid. Inquests are supposed to be inquisitorial, and most inquest hearings are conducted without the need for publicly funded representation. However, we recognise that legal representation may be necessary in some circumstances, for which funding is available through the exceptional case funding scheme.
Dame Elish Angiolini’s important report on deaths in custody highlighted that there are issues relating to public participation. I reviewed that report and I take it very seriously, which is why we committed to update the Lord Chancellor’s guidance so it is clear that the starting presumption is that legal aid should be awarded for representation of the families at an inquest following the non-natural death or suicide of a person detained in custody. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring hon. Members. We could debate that important work for much longer, but I will wind up shortly.
As well as looking back over the record of LASPO and some of the previous decisions, it is also crucial to look forward and ensure that access to justice, to which legal aid makes a hugely valuable contribution, is maintained and meets the needs of a modern society. We are investing over £1 billion to transform our courts and tribunals to build on our world-renowned justice system so that it is more sensitive to victims, more modern so that it works more efficiently, swifter and more accessible in the ways that I have described. As part of that, we will digitise our services to make them easier for the public to use, whether or not they are supported by a lawyer. It is essential that we continue our work to ensure that legal aid is made available to the most vulnerable, as part of that wider approach to making access to justice and the justice system fit for the 21st century.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East again on securing this debate. I welcome the thoughtful contributions on all sides and the opportunity to set out the Government’s position and our plans to take the justice system forward, not back.
Mr Sweeney
Thank you for your excellent chairing of the debate, Mr Robertson. It has been a great privilege to move the motion today and to call on the excellent support of my Labour colleagues, who offered their expertise, insight and personal experience of having served in the legal profession and dealt with these issues at first hand.
Most notably, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, dealt with the issue tenaciously, making a series of observations about how it is often the most vulnerable people who are missing out on this opportunity and how early intervention is the key to success. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) made the point that the whole premise of the so-called reform of legal aid is wrong-headed because it drives cost into the system. We have heard that every £1 that is cut in the legal system is costing £6 in real terms down the line.
I was also interested in the points made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), which is nearly my neighbouring constituency. He observed that although the legal system in Scotland is not suffering from the same pernicious pressures on legal aid, it is damning it with faint praise to say that there are not challenges. I hope the review in Scotland, which is welcome, recognises that the Law Society of Scotland has identified problems and that they ought to be addressed honestly and with an open mind. I hope that will happen and that the resourcing needed to support legal aid is upheld.
I observe the lack of Conservative Members in the debate. I do not know whether that is because they are not prepared to come and defend the system or whether they do not care. I will leave that to other hon. Members to judge. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) made some interesting points, but he also conceded that the cost base premise of reforming legal aid was flawed and that it may well drive cost into the legal system overall, which is unhelpful even by its own standards.
The Minister’s response was also interesting. He asked where the money would come from. Actually, if the system is costing money, surely we should look at it honestly through the review process to see where efficiencies can be made. If the review is to be worth the paper it is written on, I hope the Minister will commit to ensuring that people who have experience of using legal aid are integrated into it and that their views will be part of the process. On the wider efficiency of the court system, we recognise the difference in spending in Scotland per capita. Perhaps there is an opportunity to learn lessons from the efficiency of how the overall courts process works there.
A number of considered observations have been made in the debate and I have learned a lot from taking part in it. I hope we all strive towards an aspiration to remove harm, stress and indignity from society. The legal aid process is a fundamental pillar of achieving that. As a society, I hope we move towards a system in which there is a presumption to give legal aid. There should be a presumption of entitlement to accessing legal aid rather than a presumption that people are not entitled to it; someone should not have to prove their eligibility to the court system.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of legal aid.
Sanitary Products
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of sanitary products.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am delighted to have secured this debate on an important topic that—let’s face it—remains taboo and is still a bit embarrassing for many people. It is precisely because no one wants to talk about it that I believe it is so critical that we do, so I will start by putting my money where my mouth is and telling the House one of my most embarrassing moments.
I was in the first week of a new school. I was 12. I was feeling very out of place and very lost. I saw a teacher beckoning me from the top of a stairwell. I walked towards her and said, “Yes, Miss? What did I do wrong?” I was convinced something was wrong. She said, “Don’t worry—everything’s fine, but I wanted to let you know that you have a stain of blood on your skirt.” Of course, it was not fine. I looked behind and on my light blue uniform there was indeed such a stain. My face went red, and then white. I remember going to the bathroom and crying, and when I stopped crying I called my mum. She came and we went home; I told the school that I wanted to go home to change. In fact, she had brought me another skirt, but I was just so mortified by how many people might have seen it and not said anything.
For me, that was a one-off and I was better prepared the next time, but for thousands of girls in this country, missing school because they cannot afford sanitary products is a regular occurrence. It is an outrage that in a country as wealthy as Britain we let that happen. Thanks to the double whammy of the stigma attached to both poverty and periods, we simply do not know the scale of the problem.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Does she share my intense frustration about the fact that when I asked the Secretary of State for Education about period poverty just a few weeks ago, her response was ambivalent at best? She appeared to be in denial about period poverty even existing.
Layla Moran
Yes, I share the hon. Lady’s frustration. I hope we will hear something different on this important issue from the Minister.
Food banks are now actively asking for donations of sanitary products. Teachers are dipping into their own pockets to keep supplies of sanitary products in their desks.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As a former teacher, I have heard lots of stories from teachers about keeping a supply of sanitary products in the classroom so that girls do not miss out on education because of poverty. Does the hon. Lady agree that that should not be the responsibility of teachers? The Government should do something. The Secretary of State for Education is also Minister for Women and Equalities.
Layla Moran
Speaking as another teacher, I completely agree. On the meagre salaries that teachers are now paid, they should not be asked to fork out themselves for sanitary products.
Many of us first realised that period poverty was such an issue for young women when it came to light that teachers in Leeds had got in touch with a charity called Freedom4Girls that provides sanitary products to women in Kenya and had asked whether it would be willing to give them a supply for girls in their school. They had noticed that girls were missing class at around the same time every month, like clockwork. Given the substitutes, including rolled-up toilet paper or old socks, that girls from low-income families are using, it is no surprise that they choose to stay home. Now, I admit that the rolled-up toilet tissue trick has served me well, but I can go and buy some products or go home. For these girls, it is a regular occurrence. It should not be.
Period poverty affects not just girls, but women. Charities and campaigners tell me that it is rife among asylum seekers, refugees, women in refuges, and indeed any vulnerable women who cannot afford to buy the products they need. As a nation we must do better, and as a society we need to get better at talking about this. Given that 52% of the population menstruate, or have done at some point, is it not ridiculous that it has taken until 2017 for an advert for sanitary products to show red liquid rather than blue? I assure hon. Members that it is never blue. The more we talk about periods and normalise what is a completely natural and healthy function, the easier we will make it for young girls to talk about this.
Paula Sherriff
When I was at school and we were given a very brief talk about periods, boys were sent out of the class. It is important that menstrual health is covered in detail in statutory sex and relationships education, but does the hon. Lady agree that boys need education about periods, too? Many of them will go on to be husbands, fathers, teachers or doctors. Just as women should understand the signs of testicular cancer, men should understand about periods and period poverty.
Layla Moran
I completely agree. School is exactly the right time for that education. I have delivered those lectures myself, and although they may be embarrassing for the boys, it is very important that they understand how this works, and that it is completely natural. That is the point.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Period poverty also has an impact on homeless people. Not only do they need to be supplied with sanitary products, which the Lunar Project in York supplies, but they need access to public toilets. Surely that needs to be a Government priority. It is a public health issue.
Layla Moran
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I visited St Mungo’s last week, and that was raised as an important issue that it needs help with.
Very little research has been done on period poverty in schools in the UK, but what we do know is shocking. In a Plan International UK survey of 1,000 girls, 49% said that they had missed an entire day of school because of their period. Critically, of those, 59% had lied about why, claiming that something else had caused their absence. Meanwhile, 82% of the girls surveyed admitted that they had hidden or concealed their sanitary products, while nearly three quarters said that they felt embarrassed even buying them. Again, I will admit to that: during the 2015 election campaign, I was approached for a chat about politics in Boots, where I had just bought some tampons. I remember standing with them behind my back because I was a bit embarrassed. I would not have done that with toothpaste. That shows how desperately we need to talk more about the issue.
Plan International’s campaign to normalise periods—including with a period emoji—is brilliant, as is all the great work that businesses and charities are doing up and down the country. Boots and others have introduced drop-in donation points. Bodyform has promised to donate 200,000 packs of sanitary products by 2020. There are grassroots campaigns such as the Periodical Diary, which has a website on which girls can talk frankly about their periods; it also goes into schools and delivers workshops. However, we should not leave it to charities and business to pick up the Government’s slack. How can it be okay for a mother to be forced to choose between food and sanitary products? That is exactly the choice that far too many women in this country face.
I was disappointed that the Chancellor did not make funding available in last week’s Budget to ensure that schools could stock sanitary products for those who need them. Let us focus on that small issue. Such a small, simple step would restore dignity, save embarrassment and reduce the number of girls who are missing valuable days of teaching and learning.
It is not too late. The Minister could offer something to these desperate women. I hope that she and others are feeling the political pressure mount. Last year, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) tabled amendments to the Finance Bill that were rejected by the Government—shamefully, I might add. I thank and commend her for her excellent work on the issue. In March, the Education Secretary—who is also Minister for Women and Equalities, as we have already been reminded—said in answer to the then Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, Greg Mulholland, that she would look at the issue of period poverty “carefully”. I look forward to an update from the Minister on where that assessment is, and when the Government plan to publish their work.
I also ask the Minister: did this issue even get a mention in the discussions with the Treasury over the last weeks and months? I sincerely hope that we will not be spun the line that the reallocation of money from VAT on sanitary products to women’s charities is enough, because it is not.
Paula Sherriff
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. Does she share my concern that £250,000 of the tampon tax fund went to a pro-life charity called Life, which confirmed to me on the radio that if a woman it was helping with housing then decided to have a termination, or indeed had a miscarriage, it would withdraw its services? It is absolutely obscene that money that women pay is going to a charity or organisation that does not provide choice.
Layla Moran
That is indeed shocking. This money should be available to all women, no matter their choices, especially if those choices are legal in this country.
We estimate that the small measure of providing sanitary products in schools would cost in the region of £5 million, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the £1 billion found for the Democratic Unionist party. I mention that simply to point out that when an issue is important enough, somehow money seems to be found.
Finally, I also plead that responsibility for this issue not be passed on to schools. Yes, schools have budgets, but those budgets are ever squeezed, and schools still need to find a further £1.7 billion, according to the National Audit Office. I ask the Minister not to pass the buck today on this issue, and to find the small amount of new money that is needed to fund these very important initiatives. Period poverty is a hidden plight, and it is time that it was taken seriously by all. I thank all Members in advance for their contributions, and of course I thank the Minister, who I have much respect for, for listening intently to the arguments put forward in the short time that we have.
The Minister for Women (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Sharma; I do not think that we have done so before.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing this debate. She is absolutely right that this topic remains taboo. I think we can go back 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 years to find some of the origins of the taboo. Even today, some of the cultural issues around women and menstruation are still very strong and not what we would want to see, certainly in this country.
I thank the hon. Lady for her honesty in the story that she told. I was once a young girl at school, and the situation she described would have filled me with horror; I would also have been in the lavatories weeping. I will deal with the issue of poverty and sanitary products in a minute, but while it is a shame that we have not made as much progress as all that, I think back to when I was first elected in 2005, when hon. Members would have been a bit aghast at us even mentioning the word “period” or “menstruation”, so maybe we have made some progress. It is good to see two men in the Chamber—my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), and for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall)—because this is not just a women’s issue. It is also about men.
Period poverty has been the subject of quite a lot of media and parliamentary attention in recent months; I know that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) put a question on it to the Minister for Women and Equalities. In general terms, we are clear that no person should be held back by their gender or background, and if someone cannot attend school on the days that they are having a period, it is much harder for them to reach their potential. They are missing out on valuable school time.
On school absences, the evidence is quite clear. We have all seen that every day of school missed can alter a pupil’s chances of achieving good GCSE results and have a lasting effect on their life chances. It is important to say that in this context. That is why we have made it a priority to reduce school absence. There has been some success, with overall yearly absence rates decreasing from 6.5% of possible sessions missed in 2006-07 to 4.6% in 2015-16, which is quite a marked drop. In the context of this debate, it is interesting and perhaps surprising to note that in 2015-16, the absence rates for boys and girls were almost identical, with boys missing, on average, 4.6% of possible sessions and girls missing 4.5%.
Paula Sherriff
The Minister agrees that this is a taboo subject—she is absolutely right—but it seems as if the Government have prevented us from talking about it during the passage of the Finance Bill by refusing to table the normal motions. Can she assure us that the Government will allow us to address this issue directly in the House, because we have been prevented from doing so thus far?
Anne Milton
With the greatest respect, I do not know this, because I have not looked into it, but I would imagine that that was not to do with the subject. I have no doubt that the Government were not unhappy to discuss periods; we are having this debate today, so there is no question of that. I have no doubt that there are other reasons for what she describes. I am sure that if the hon. Lady made representations to the Backbench Business Committee, it would accept a proposal for a debate on this subject. It is also open to her party to put this forward as the subject of an Opposition day debate—there is an Opposition day debate today.
There is no question of anybody—certainly not me, as Minister for Women— suppressing any debate about periods; the more we talk about these issues, the more we lessen the taboo. If we cannot talk about them here, how can we expect children to talk about them in school?
We need to look into those absence rates further. Also, not being able to afford sanitary protection does not necessarily mean being absent from school; the two do not necessarily correlate. In fact, if the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon is suggesting that that is the reason why many girls are missing school, it is of note that the girls’ absence rate is still lower than that for boys. As I say, we need to do a lot of research on this, and I know that the Minister for Women and Equalities is very keen for that to take place. It will be difficult to dig down into the detail, but we will find out more information by doing so.
The hon. Lady talked about alternatives to sanitary towels and tampons. I looked into this. I was at a meeting with young people who raised some of the issues that she has raised. Actually, I think that one of the Labour Members present was there. We discussed school lavatories being locked during lessons. It seemed odd to me that they should be locked at that time, but it to do with the fact that often it is in the lavatories that a lot of sexual abuse, bullying and harassment takes place. Although there is no policy on that—schools are open to do what they want, and they will open the toilets during breaks, when there can be a teacher on duty—it is a sorry state of affairs that we have got to in this country when bullying, harassment and abuse are so rife that we cannot do what we should be able to do, which is leave the lavatories open so that young girls can be excused from class to change their sanitary protection, or for whatever reason.
There is an underlying problem there, which I know the Minister for School Standards is looking at: making sure that we reduce the amount of sexual abuse and bullying that takes place in lavatories. It has always taken place there; it did when I was at school. The boys’ lavatories in particular were a place where boys’ heads were shoved down the lavatory at regular and frequent intervals, and the girls’ loos were a place where a lot of bullying took place. That has got worse, not better, which is worrying, if we consider all the guidance that has been produced for schools and the fact that we should be a more progressive and open-minded society. I am probably a great deal older than many other Members in the Chamber today, and it feels as though the situation has got worse; it feels regressive, including with respect to taboo.
Interestingly, I saw online a story about Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, that showed just how ignorant people are. She was asked if 100 tampons was the right number for a one-week mission. It is quite extraordinary that people in NASA had no idea—no more than a lot of other people—about this issue.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Although this is a very serious subject, I will raise a smile and share an event with Members. It is to do with the taboo and the lack of awareness, particularly among males. As a father, I was encouraging my oldest daughter to go to her swimming club one night. We had a great exchange of views, but how embarrassed was I when I found out the reason why she was not going? I felt so small, and I was an adult. Both the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the Minister are absolutely right about the taboo, and that the subject is one that a parent of a 10 or 11-year-old girl has to understand; indeed, I am the father of two girls and we have had a number of these experiences. Promoting awareness and talking about this is helpful, although that does not excuse the poverty aspect and the need to provide young girls with the products that we are discussing. That is a male contribution, to balance the conversation.
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I particularly commend him on being here, because it shows that we are all prepared to talk about the issue.
Sex and relationships education and religious education definitely came up as issues. We need to do a great deal more to educate young people about the alternatives. Mooncups are one option; I should think that a lot of people do not know about them. There are alternatives.
Paula Sherriff
I am having a CupAware party here in Parliament in January. I agree that they are a fantastic sustainable solution, although they are not for everyone. Will the Minister join me at that CupAware party? Will she also join us at the period poverty march in Westminster on 20 December? Parliament is sitting that day, and I am speaking at that event. I hope the Minister will come along and listen to people who have been affected.
Anne Milton
I know it is against the rules of the Chamber, but please indulge me, Mr Sharma; I am going to place a Mooncup on the desk. They were invented after I stopped having periods, but I should be able to talk—
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
Order. It may be best if the Minister puts the item away.
Anne Milton
Sorry, Mr Sharma. I will put it back in my handbag. I do not go on marches as a point of principle, but I will be interested in the feedback of the hon. Member for Dewsbury from that event. I do not feel under political pressure, because although we may argue about welfare benefits and poverty—we obviously do—and the route out of those things, we do not disagree on periods and sex education. It should be noted that the Department for Education does not issue specific guidance to schools on the provision of sanitary protection, but it is without doubt the case, and always has been the case, that the school office will have supplies for children who are caught short.
Anne Milton
If I give way now, I will not have time to make all my points. I ask the hon. Lady to bear with me for a minute.
Members are aware of the long-running campaign for sanitary products to be exempt from VAT and the Government’s commitment to zero-rate such products once our leaving the EU offers us the discretion to do so. There are good and bad sides to Brexit, and that is perhaps one of the good sides. In anticipation of that development, we set up the £15-million tampon tax fund, which is equivalent to the amount of VAT paid on sanitary products each year. The hon. Member for Dewsbury raised an issue about one of the organisations, but I was not involved in that. The majority of funding has been grants to frontline charities that aim to improve the lives of disadvantaged women and girls. Those charities include health, wellbeing and education initiatives and support services for vulnerable women. I understand that some of the money has gone to women’s refuges. As a former health professional, I can say how superb some of those organisations’ work is. While the tampon tax fund is not currently open for applications, we can look forward to updates on that in the near future.
More generally, I have to talk a bit about poverty. I have talked about periods, and poverty is the other side of the issue. We know that children do worse in households where no one is in work. Children in such households are five times more likely to be in poverty than those in households where all adults work. They are also almost twice as likely to fail at all stages of their education than children in working families. The number of households where no one is working is just short of being 1 million lower than it was in 2010, which means that there are 608,000 fewer children in such households than seven years ago.
Anne Milton
I have seven minutes left, so I will not at the moment. I will give way if I have a bit of time at the end.
We have increased the national living wage, which means that a full-time worker is now £1,400 a year better off. We have increased the personal allowance again, meaning that a basic rate taxpayer is now £1,000 better off than they would have been in 2010. We have doubled the childcare entitlement for working parents of three and four-year-olds in England from 15 to 30 hours, introduced tax-free childcare and supported the right to request flexible working, which enables parents to arrange care in a way that works for them. We have a returner programme going on. It is easy to dismiss all that in the arguments that we want to have across the House on benefits, but it is important to recognise that those measures will make a difference to those families.
Layla Moran
On the point of money, this is a women-only issue, pretty much by definition; does the Minister not agree that we need new money to tackle the problem? It is all very well us all agreeing with each other, but without the new money, we are not going to get where we need to go.
Anne Milton
What we need is credible and robust evidence about the issue. There are a number of other issues, such as young men in school who possibly have to be clean shaven. There is an issue about razors for boys, which are very expensive. They are probably the item in the supermarket that is more frequently shoplifted than anything else. As a former public health Minister, I know that toothpaste is an issue. People with low incomes are perhaps not spending money on toothpaste when they should. There is a clear correlation between that and dental caries, given the fluoride in toothpaste. There are a number of issues. What things are families doing without because they feel that their finances are too tight for them to afford them? Sanitary products are separate, inasmuch as they are a sensitive issue that can increase the stigma that young women face about their menstrual cycle and their reproductive system. I accept that there are additional issues there, but sanitary products are not the only issue.
It is important to find out about school absences and how many children are not buying sanitary protection because they feel too poor to do so. Only then can we think about possible solutions. I thank Members for attending. I am sure that this will not be the last time that we discuss periods. SRE and RE are critical. What matters to me is that we have lessons that include boys and girls, because it is important for boys to understand. It is important to debunk some of the myths that some makers of sanitary products exploit. Saying that sanitary products are meant to keep someone odour-free is complete nonsense. There is no specific odour associated with menstrual blood; it is not like anything else.
There is a great deal more that we should do. Young boys need to hear about menstruation in the same way that young girls do, but I also feel strongly that young girls need an opportunity to have structured discussions on their own, without boys present, for the simple reason that someone going through puberty might feel very uncomfortable discussing things in front of people of a different gender.
I thank you again, Mr Sharma, for your excellent chairmanship, and for bearing with me when I produced an item in the Chamber. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon for securing this debate and everyone for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Dark Sky Status (Cornwall)
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Cornwall’s dark skies status.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
As many hon. Members know, Cornwall is a beautiful place. Just saying “Cornwall” brings up pictures of a fantastic rugged coastline, the beauty of the moors, and of course our mining history, which made Cornwall a world heritage site—but also beautiful are Cornwall’s skies at night. I was just six years old when President Kennedy said, in an inspiring speech:
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills”.
When I was about seven, my cousin Dawn used to take me out into the garden and point out the different stars to me. She pointed out the great bear, the little bear and the plough, and I found it fascinating. I was just a teenager when mankind landed on the moon, and I remember Neil Armstrong taking his first steps when I was at school. I remember the roads being blocked in Cornwall as it hosted viewers of a solar eclipse in 1999—my young son became very excited about it. People looked skywards, with the correct eye protection of course, to see our skies go dark in the morning.
Those memories were brought back to me when I met with Ken and Muriel Bennett from the fantastic Caradon observatory on Bodmin moor. Their enthusiasm about the sky at night is fantastic and infectious. I would like to read a quick endorsement from space pilot Rick Hauck, who just happens to be the uncle of one of my local councillors in South East Cornwall. He said:
“Congratulations to those who have successfully obtained certification of International Dark Sky status for Bodmin Moor. Having observed the night sky from the space shuttle, well above sky pollution suffered by a large percentage of inhabited earth, I can assure the stargazers in the Moor and particularly those fortunate enough to have access to the Caradon Observatory that they will have a unique view of the night sky, breathtaking in its grandeur.”
Caradon observatory is an amateur-run facility near Upton Cross in my constituency. The observatory has been used as a venue for a number of presentations and open days for students and local groups. The facility inspires the next generation to reach for the stars. That is why I was thrilled when Bodmin moor was formally recognised by the International Dark-Sky Association as the first dark sky park in an area of outstanding natural beauty. In total, it covers an area of 80 square miles, with a buffer zone of about two miles. The bid was made by the Caradon observatory, with the assistance of Cornwall Council. I would like to put on record my thanks to the council for all the work that it carried out to achieve that status.
The exceptional quality of the night sky, commitments to avoid light pollution and the provision of educational outreach were the reasons the award was given. Local residents and businesses are also playing their part. Guidance is being offered in the designated area to help them to choose any lighting, so that the skies can be even better in future. They are also being asked to consider whether they need lighting, and to think twice before putting lighting up.
It is not just people in the area who will enjoy the dark skies. For millions of years, plant and animal life has relied on the daily rhythm of light and dark—it is literally written into our DNA—but humans have recently disrupted that, and it can cause problems with reproduction, nourishment, sleep and protection from predators. From sea birds that are navigating to amphibians that produce their mating calls only when it is dark, many parts of the ecosystem are being affected by light. One study estimated that millions of baby sea turtles die in Florida alone as they make their way towards the city lights at night instead of the bright horizon over the ocean. It is therefore hoped that the abundant wildlife on Bodmin moor will also benefit from the darker skies.
Ken and Muriel Bennett recently wrote to me saying:
“We at the Observatory have always believed that the younger the children that can be educated to look upwards the more impact it can have, even in some cases pointing them towards the sciences and suchlike. Children generally are infatuated with subjects such as dinosaurs and space travel (Star Wars for instance) and this interest starts at extremely early ages. To be able to promote astronomy as a community, or indeed as a county, would act as a further inspiration to them and hopefully steer them towards academia. We are going to need more and more scientists, engineers etc to fill increasingly technical and development positions and perhaps the earliest and best way forward is to inspire the young.”
They continued:
“Together with Cornwall council we have provided the tools to use at no costs to businesses to initially rack up the tourism in Cornwall all the year around. This will create wealth for spin off businesses, and as we become more and more known as a centre for astronomy and science, we would hope to encourage technical and engineering companies to look at starting up or relocating in our wonderful part of the country. We could produce a young labour force second to none.”
I want to see much more made of the dark sky status. I want to help Ken and Muriel with their inspirational project.
I thank the Campaign to Protect Rural England for the interest it has shown in dark skies. In its mapping, it found that around only a fifth of England is free of light pollution. It recommends that the Government ensure that local authorities are implementing Government policy to control light pollution, as set out in the national planning policy framework and associated guidance. In the absence of resources for the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Communities and Local Government to pursue rigorous monitoring, it calls on Ministers to issue a clear statement on how local authorities should proactively take action to control light pollution and protect dark skies in their areas.
I back Ken and Muriel in their call. In particular, I ask the Government what additional information they can make available for businesses and people to help with their lighting. I also ask what grants are available if dark sky lighting is more expensive than other alternatives —especially for people who live in designated dark sky areas, such as Bodmin moor in my constituency.
I would also be grateful if the Minister outlined what help the Government could offer Ken and Muriel to help them with their project. The equipment they need to look up into space is not cheap. I would like to think that we could help with that, and with the facilities at the site, so that children can make the very best of their visit, inspiring them to go further and take up science.
Just last week in the Budget, the Chancellor made much of his welcome boost and long-term support for science and innovation. He mentioned skills and jobs for the new economy. It is hoped that Cornwall will deliver the UK’s first space port in 2020. Its website boasts that Cornwall Airport Newquay and Goonhilly Earth Station are well placed to play a critical role in developing the UK’s space industry with the creation of a space port. Together, they provide a complete end-to-end UK launch capability to support all aspects of launch, including sub-orbital vehicles and systems and the ability to put satellites into Earth orbit. We need observatories such as the one at Caradon to inspire youngsters into our space industry. This is clearly a new economy, and we need to expand the facilities to ensure we have the workforce we need to make the UK a world leader in this field.
What Government help is available to encourage people to visit dark sky status areas? Cornwall is reliant on tourism, and our skies are our greatest asset. What assistance is there to promote our wonderful night sky to people as another reason to come to Cornwall and enjoy our wonderful hospitality?
Like many other people in London, when I am here I look up but see very little. I encourage everyone to visit my beautiful constituency and to look up at night. I promise that the view is very different. Let us make a real push to inspire people into the new economy. Let us take Bodmin moor’s dark skies—a real asset—and make people look up and think, “Where next?”
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this debate and on giving us the opportunity to talk about Cornwall. I extend the invitation much further than east Cornwall, right down to west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which are darker still in lots of ways.
Cornwall is already one of the darkest areas in England. It is well documented that becoming a dark skies reserve has positive effects, including energy reduction and a boost to tourism. It also improves wellbeing—first, for mankind, as it is proven that people sleep better under dark skies, and secondly, for migrating birds, nocturnal animals and mammals. My constituency, like much of Cornwall, has a track record of caring for the environment and wildlife. An example we are proud of is the seabird recovery project on Scilly, where we have supported and increased the population of the Manx shearwater, of which I am a species champion, and other seabirds by getting rid of rats and litter. That is one example of our commitment to create the best possible environment for wildlife and nature.
What interests me most about the dark skies status proposal is the west Cornwall and Isles of Scilly initiative, which will create a protected area from Bishop’s rock, 45 km of the south-western tip of Cornwall, right through to the Hayle river, covering the Isles of Scilly and most of what we know as west Penwith. The Lizard peninsular is also in my constituency but is not included in the current proposal for dark skies reserve status, for understandable reasons—there are a couple of rather large towns between Lizard and west Penwith. However, I intend to do what I can to explore that ambition for the good people of the Lizard peninsular.
I am grateful for this debate, because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We already live in an unspoiled dark skies area down in the far south-west; we just do not have official recognition.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this debate. I want to give an example of something that has happened elsewhere that is similar to what she is trying to achieve. When I saw that this issue was in Westminster Hall for debate, right away I thought of the Wild Atlantic Way, which is something we have done in Northern Ireland with Tourism Ireland. We have promoted the tourism qualities while preserving the rocks, the coastline, the birds and everything else. We have sold it across the world and in the USA. A large number of visitors come not just to the Wild Atlantic Way but to the whole of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is a marvellous thing. If she gets the status, she will get the visitors.
Derek Thomas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he is offering an opportunity to take some of those American tourists from Ireland to west Cornwall, I would be absolutely delighted.
We live in an unspoiled dark area, so achieving the status would not necessarily require significant changes to light pollution levels today. The many people who are working hard to achieve the dark skies reserve, including my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall and others in west Cornwall, are seeking to preserve and protect the current situation for future generations, but there are plans to build 19,000 new homes in Cornwall and carry out a number of road and other infrastructure projects. That is why it is so important that we secure dark skies status—it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
In February, I supported the efforts to achieve dark skies status with a constituency-wide survey. Over 95% of those who responded supported the ambition of the dark skies initiative and the work that the working group is doing, as does the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Exeter University, which delivers education in parts of Cornwall, the National Trust, Penwith Landscape Partnership, the Isles of Scilly Wildlife Trust, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the Duchy of Cornwall, Cornwall Council and the diocese of Truro. A couple of names have been mentioned. I would like to mention Kevin Hughes, a constituent of mine, who been a long-time avid campaigner to deliver dark skies designation in west Cornwall and Scilly. Together, we are united to keep Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly special.
When we secure dark skies reserve status, we will further improve our offer to tourists and our care for the environment and wildlife habitats, and we will lead the way in striking the balance and finding the harmony needed not by resisting house building but by ensuring that the built environment complements the largely unspoiled beauty of the county of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. That is what exercises the minds and energies of large numbers of Cornish residents.
When preparing for this debate, I was sent some fantastic images of the skies above Cornwall at night. It is regrettable that I cannot share them in the Chamber, but hon. Members can view them, along with the 9,805 people who have already done so, on the Dark Skies for West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Facebook page.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing it. It is a debate in which we can enjoy each other’s company for an hour. We are probably all going to say broadly similar things.
The hon. Lady talked about going out stargazing in her childhood, and the wonder and awe that that produced in her. It is something I thoroughly enjoy doing with my two girls. When I take them only a few miles outwith the city of Glasgow—I will say a bit more about Glasgow in a minute or two—vistas suddenly appear in front of us that are not visible in the city. It is great for them to start picking out the different constellations and to see familiar things. For example, Orion is visible in the city, but there is far more detail when we go out of the city.
The hon. Lady talked about the 1999 eclipse in Cornwall. I travelled to Cornwall especially for it. My son was just a toddler at the time, and we camped in a muddy field somewhere in Cornwall. We could not get near the beaches the next morning—it was too busy—so we stayed in rural Cornwall and, because of cloud cover, saw nothing. We enjoyed our experience very much.
In 2015, there was an eclipse in the UK; I am not talking about the SNP’s general election victory, but a partial eclipse that was visible. Shortly before I was elected, I was a physics teacher. We took the students outside and they were able to watch the eclipse. There is something about space and the universe—when we can see things working other than just the normal that we are used to—that really inspires our young people. During my time as a teacher, I often had young people out doing Duke of Edinburgh expeditions, not in Cornwall but usually in the highlands of Scotland, and usually in the rain and the mud, but very occasionally in beautifully spectacular countryside, where the sun would set and the stars appear.
Many of those Glaswegian school children had never been outside the city. It was quite incredible for them suddenly to see the stars appearing. We said to them, “There’s Orion. We’re used to seeing Orion, but have you ever seen the redness of Betelgeuse that you can now see? Have you ever counted the number of stars on Orion’s sword?” Things like that made it far more alive for them.
We must not underestimate the impact that these experiences have on young people, so it is wonderful to hear that Bodmin moor has been designated an international dark sky landscape. I really hope that the wider community in Cornwall and the community of Bodmin moor can take full advantage of the educational experiences that that offers the young people there.
In Scotland, we have three designated dark sky areas—Moffat, Galloway and Coll—but one could argue that most of Scotland is a dark sky area, because just a short distance from the major cities the stars really are spectacular. I believe that the designation is to do with how many stars can be seen and light levels; I have not fully read up on how somewhere can be designated a dark sky area, I must admit. I know when I am somewhere dark when I can see the Milky Way, which is often invisible to us. The problem in Scotland can be the cloud cover, which might be a problem in Cornwall—I think they suffer a bit from clouds, too. We do not always get the beautifully clear skies that we need to see things.
There are lots of advantages to being designated as having dark sky status, one of which is tourism, which has been mentioned. Cornwall already has a fairly vibrant tourist industry, but there are other things that we can do not just in Cornwall but across the UK to help to generate the tourist economy. One relates to VAT on tourism. I am glad that the Minister is in her place and I hope that she is listening. Reducing VAT would be a shot in the arm to many small businesses across tourist areas: bed and breakfasts, restaurants, guesthouses, visitor centres, shops and more. What a difference it would make if that could be considered.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) talked about biodiversity, the improvement in wildlife that he has seen in his area and the different schemes that have been used. Protection for the environment is important. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the wild Atlantic way, which I had not heard about but I have just googled, so I know the details, and I will be sure to read up on it for my next visit to Ireland.
Light pollution is something that we need to think about seriously, both in rural areas where it affects the natural environment and in cities. I said that I would talk a little more about cities. Recently, Glasgow underwent a programme of changing from orange sodium lights, which pretty much sent out light in all directions, to far more directed LED lights, which shine down but not up. That irradiance is quite important—not so much in the city, although I have certainly noticed a difference in the number of stars that are visible now. The difference can be seen out of the city or town areas, because there is not the same light pollution a few miles out of town as we are used to in it. As a child, I knew that I was approaching Glasgow when I was 30 or 40 miles away when I saw the infamous sodium glow of the city. The LEDs do not produce quite as much glow, so they are quite important. In the city, we can now see far more constellations. It is great that my two daughters, who are only eight and 10, can now point out far more detail in constellations they see from the back garden and pick out constellations that they could identify previously only when they were in rural areas.
I want to come back to something that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall said: the importance of inspiring and encouraging young people to study these subjects. I am a physicist by profession, although my background is in photonics, not astronomy. The space industry is at a point where interest in it is ready to explode, and we need to make sure that we have the young people there to take advantage of that.
The hon. Lady mentioned the space industry and I know that she is a great advocate for it, but Glasgow is now the satellite centre of Europe. Only San Francisco produces more satellites worldwide. We have three big companies: Clyde Space, Alba Orbital and Spire Global all in the centre of Glasgow. We also have Prestwick airport—not in a dark sky area, but there are some fairly dark areas between there and Glasgow. Prestwick airport is in partnership with Houston—for those who know Scotland, that is not Houston, Renfrewshire, but Houston, Texas—and it is set to become a space port. There are companies ready to take full advantage, but they need these young people to be inspired and to study physics, engineering and astronomy. The young people also need to have some sort of catalyst to make them do that. Dark sky areas can only help.
I thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall once again for bringing this debate to the House and congratulate Bodmin moor on its dark sky status, which is not as easy to say as it seems. I wish Cornwall all the very best of success in inspiring the young people of that area and hopefully areas further afield. All the best of success in the future, and perhaps the next time I visit Cornwall it will not be so cloudy.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma—
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
Order. Normal practice is that Members indicate that they wish to speak, which you did not do, Mr Grant, and that is why I called the Opposition spokesperson. However, there is time for you to make a brief contribution.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I apologise, Mr Sharma; I am relatively new and still learning. I will be brief. Thank you for your understanding.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for initiating this debate. There was a mention of somewhere being “darker still” Not only do we have whisky stills in Scotland, but we are darker still, too, so we have some things in common. Cornwall had tin mines and Cornish pasties; Scotland had coalmines and Scotch pies. I am going to talk about Dalmellington in the Doon valley, near Galloway forest dark sky park, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned. For 100 years, the Doon valley produced from deep and open-cast mines the coal that kept the nation’s lights on, but it has moved on. Instead of keeping the lights on, it keeps the lights off, because it is a designated dark skies area.
I commend Ken and Muriel Bennett for the good work they have done on Bodmin moor. I extend that compliment to Mark Gibson from the Doon valley, who purchased Craigengillan estate. He had a vision for the area, which is hurting from the loss of the collieries and industry. In 2012, he opened the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory in Dalmellington. It is wonderful. It cost £700,000, which came from various funding streams. It aims to build on the park’s status and offers visitors a chance to observe the northern lights, the Milky Way, planets, comets and shooting stars—of which I am not one. As I say, the observatory was the brainchild of estate owner Mark Gibson, who is to be commended along with the many others who made it happen. The observatory celebrated its fifth birthday in October with the opening of a new planetarium and the launch of the new dark sky tartan. It is a tourist hub that is breathing life into the Doon valley.
The observatory inspires young people—several colleagues mentioned the importance of that. Amateur astronomers, schools, colleges and universities go along. Viewing is not restricted to night time—that is the ideal time, obviously—because the observatory has links with others elsewhere in the world. I hope that dark skies status brings similar revival and success to Bodmin and the rest of Cornwall. The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory is Scotland’s wee magic corner in the Doon valley. It is wonderful. Come along and see us.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
May I say again what a pleasure it is to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and how fair of you it was to call the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant)?
I am delighted to take part in this debate. I welcome the way the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) led it, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on his contribution. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made an intervention, is no longer in his place, but I know that will not count against him. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), too, for her contribution on behalf of the SNP.
I do not intend to delay Members long, but I will make some remarks that I hope will be helpful. This debate has been a learning experience for me. I usually get people moaning when their lights go off and asking me to ensure that they are put back on, but it is valuable for people to have the opportunity to look at the dark sky. I thought that we might turn off the lights in the Chamber and have the debate in the dark, but that might have challenged a few of us who are not capable of eating enough carrots to read our notes in the dark.
This is a serious debate and, as I say, I have taken it as a learning experience. I did not realise that 65 places in the United Kingdom are classified as dark skies places. That is interesting, because it is difficult to become so classified. I am pleased that, if I were going to be in Cornwall on Saturday, I would be able to go to Jamaica Inn, which I have visited previously. For the princely sum of £15, I could get a meal and look at the skies both before and after it. As a vegetarian, I have to say that I hope it puts on vegetarian options as well as what seemed to be a carvery, otherwise it will not be able to attract me there again. It is important that we celebrate the night sky and teach our children about astronomy and the wonder of the sky, which some of us take far too readily for granted.
This is clearly a consensual debate—we would all like to share in such experiences—but I have some questions for the Minister, just to keep her on her toes. First, do we intend to increase the number of applications to be a dark sky place? As I said, getting accepted is quite a laborious process—the application form is some 100 pages long—so perhaps we can help places that would otherwise fall by the wayside to do that.
Secondly, I am told that Plymouth is in the process of installing LED street lights, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned. Not only is that great for the environment, but it will save the city about £1 million—now there is a reason why it should be done. What is the Government’s programme in that respect? I know that is a local authority responsibility, but if they are serious about this, the Government could take a lead and encourage local authorities that are thinking of installing LED lights—it is all about them pointing down rather than out and up—to do so. That would be a good progressive policy for any Government. How is the Minister helping?
Thirdly, how are we working with different organisations? I declare an interest as a long-standing member of the CPRE. It is good that it has issued awards for dark sky initiatives. It would be interesting to know how the Government links into those awards and works with such organisations.
Fourthly, it is relevant for us to look at the idea of dark sky parks and it is interesting that Cornwall is leading the way in that regard, but I am not sure that I fully understand them, so perhaps the Government will provide some education. Those parks are crucial in encouraging people to come into the countryside not just for day visits—for walks, cycle rides and so on—but to experience a different lifestyle in the evening. It would help to have clarity about what a dark sky park is.
Last but not least, will the Minister say something about how we deal with artificial light? As I say, I always get people coming to me who are worried about the lights being turned off at night. They feel somewhat threatened because of crime and because they have got used to having street lights. It would be interesting, because I had not really understood this, to hear about whether we can declare light a statutory nuisance where it is oppressive and affects people’s ability to get to sleep at night. Most councils now turn lights off at night to stop energy being wasted. Can we do that earlier and save more money? Can light be declared a statutory nuisance? From reading the Library briefing, it seems that doing so is quite a complicated process.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall. This is an interesting topic that catches the imagination of people of all ages, and we may all be able to do a bit more about it in our areas. I represent Stroud, which includes part of the Cotswolds, and I will certainly consider whether we ought to look at dark sky status to encourage people to look at the night sky. I look forward to hearing how the Minister answers all those questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this important debate, which has been well attended by people who want to put forward the benefits of the dark sky.
I am sure we all agree that a truly clear, star-filled night sky is one of the greatest spectacles of nature. In an area of low light pollution, it is possible to see as many as 2,000 stars on a clear night, but in our brightly lit modern world many people seldom get the opportunity to experience that. Only last week, a new study was published showing that between 2012 and 2016, the planet’s artificially lit outdoor area grew by more than 2% per year.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) talked about her children and her experiences growing up. I have to admit, growing up in Liverpool, pink skies were a huge feature of the urban glow as the light was partially reflected. Dark nights seemed to be a rarity, and we used to find out about the stars by going to the planetarium. Therefore, when I moved to a village with no street lights at all—I now live in a market town where the council turns off street lights at midnight—it was a joy to behold. Ken and Muriel Bennett, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, are right to point out that just looking upwards can spark such an interest in science; indeed, it can inspire a generation. I understand why my hon. Friend wants to support them.
I welcome the initiative undertaken in Cornwall in seeking the designation of Bodmin moor as an international dark sky site. I am delighted that Cornwall is leading by example in this regard, and I recognise the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) in trying to secure further designations in the county. As to this particular reserve, I warmly welcome the work that Cornwall Council, Caradon observatory and the Cornwall Nature Partnership have carried out in partnership with Natural England to develop their environmental growth strategy. This is a positive example of long-term thinking, setting out a vision of a sustainable future for the county right through to 2065.
Following the launch last year, I understand that a wide range of businesses, individuals and organisations have pledged specific contributions towards achieving environmental-based growth in Cornwall. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall described, that will reconnect people with the wonder of dark skies, as well as offering a range of benefits to local communities.
The Government have been active for some time in promoting dark skies within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. For example, we supported the successful application for dark sky status by Exmoor national park, which, in 2011, became the first international dark sky reserve to be designated in Europe. The Government also supported the South Downs national park, which was designated last year. Indeed, Natural England gave its support to Cornwall Council’s successful application to designate Bodmin moor as an international dark sky landscape, the benefits of which we have heard so much about.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to an example from the other end of the country, where the Northumberland international dark sky park has become the largest in Europe. That has had a hugely positive impact on the local economy, with about 20,000 visitors making the journey to Kielder observatory each year. That in turn has helped the park to become a year-round destination, enabling businesses to remain open and viable throughout the winter months. It has also helped to enhance local residents’ quality of life and to inspire and educate people about astronomy and the natural world. That clearly demonstrates the range of benefits—social, environmental and economic—that can flow from such an initiative. I am also aware that, just last month, Exmoor had a week of celebration that boosted its season and is in line with the Government’s strategy on productivity in parks and AONBs.
In answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, VAT is a matter for the Treasury. She will recognise that in terms of tourism, but I know that those representations are made regularly. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) praised the Scottish dark sky observatory. He is right to do so; it is something of which he should be proud.
Light pollution is an issue that can challenge rural areas and blight urban areas. While I fully accept that artificial light brings valuable benefits to society in safety and in facilitating a thriving night time economy—we think of the spectacular Blackpool illuminations—if used incorrectly or carelessly it can contribute to a range of problems. It can be a source of annoyance to people, be harmful to wildlife and waste energy, as well as prevent enjoyment of the night sky.
That is why we have taken action to ensure that light pollution is addressed through the planning system. The national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution on local amenity, dark landscapes and nature conservation. It is supported by guidance that emphasises the importance of getting the right light in the right place at the right time and helps local planners and developers to design in ways of avoiding glare and intrusion.
As the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) said, artificial light can be classified as a potential statutory nuisance. That means that local authorities have a duty to investigate complaints about light emitted from premises that could constitute a nuisance or be harmful to health, and they have powers to take action when there is a problem. I have an anecdote: I admit that this did not affect me directly, but at a golf club in one of my constituencies, what the lighting was doing was so poor that I genuinely thought the place was on fire. This is a challenge in which working with businesses matters, and I want to encourage councils to do that. There are grants available to help people get LED lighting, and the Energy Saving Trust is probably is the best gateway for that.
I have to alert the House that the jury is still slightly out on the benefits of LED versus sodium, specifically in regard to light pollution. Undoubtedly, LED lights are better in terms of saving energy, but they must be directed downwards in a particular way. Otherwise, there is an issue about the photobiological effects of LED lighting with high blue light components: there is an increase in light pollution, the greater the blue light content of the light source. That has been investigated, and that is why the Government have worked with Highways England and, I think, the CPRE, the Commission for Dark Skies and others to produce guidance on how best to place this in the future.
As we all know, street lighting is an important issue and needs to be managed carefully to strike the right balance between preserving road safety and avoiding light pollution. The Department for Transport is therefore encouraging local authorities to replace their street lighting with modern lighting that reduces the amount of glare emitted. Highways England, which manages our motorways and major roads, is also working actively to minimise light pollution. As I say, it is working with the Commission for Dark Skies and the CPRE to develop improved road lighting standards. It is also investing in technology that allows lighting to be dimmed or switched off in response to lower traffic flows.
Finally, it is important to remember, as has been pointed out, that light pollution can affect wildlife as well as people, and that nocturnal or migratory species in particular can be disturbed by it. We have legislative controls in place to prevent the disturbance of protected species, and Natural England is always available to provide advice in such cases, including by helping to think through the possible unintended consequences of artificial lighting for habitats and wildlife.
It is not only central and local government that are taking action in this area. Last year, for example, the Campaign to Protect Rural England launched interactive maps that allow users anywhere in the country to look at the artificial lighting situation in their postcode compared with other parts of the country. That is a useful tool that can inform local decision making on where action may be needed to control light pollution.
It is important that dark skies and the management of artificial light are part of our future thinking on the environment, given how important we know they are for wellbeing, quality of life and so much else besides. We need to ensure that policy in this area evolves to take account of the challenges and opportunities of the next 25 years, and that we balance the needs of a growing, vibrant society with the ability to access tranquil spaces and clear night skies, now and in future generations.
I will try to answer some of the questions. On funding, I have already tried to guide my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall towards the Energy Saving Trust. I think in particular of the funding she requested for Ken and Muriel Bennett. Off the top of my head, I do not have a particular sense of where that would be at the moment, but I wonder if the Royal Astronomical Society would be a useful avenue to explore. I also think, if they are trying to widen the educational opportunity, lottery funding from the big society may be something to consider.
On some of the other questions that the hon. Member for Stroud raised, the Government are not setting out a plan deliberately to try to grow the number of applications. There are now sufficient parks for us to share how people can best do this, but I must emphasise that the Government do not have a formal role in the designation process. It is non-governmental and non-statutory; in fact, it is undertaken by the International Dark-Sky Association. It looks at five sorts of different designations that people can apply for and be considered for. The applications are reviewed by a standing committee composed of dark sky experts and previous successful programme applicants. Given the growing number of these areas, not only in England but in Wales and Scotland, there is sufficient expertise out there that interested councils could go to. I must admit that I am considering encouraging my council in Suffolk Coastal to consider this.
I conclude by once again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. She really has highlighted how wonderful this has been for her constituency, and I look forward to hearing more about how the designation of Bodmin moor as an international dark sky landscape helps to benefit her local community, both directly and through tourism and research over the years ahead. I am happy to explore how my Department might want to assist future applications, but I am conscious that, as I say, there is expertise out there already. As always, I encourage people to look to those who have already had success.
Mrs Murray
I thank hon. Members for attending the debate, which has clearly demonstrated that there is complete cross-party consensus. We have had contributions from the official Opposition, the Scottish nationalists, the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative party. I think we are all speaking with one voice on this issue. Let us hope that we can take this forward in every way possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Cornwall’s dark skies status.
Written Statements
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competitiveness Council: Pre-Council Statement
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
The Competitiveness Council will take place on 30 November and 1 December in Brussels.
Day one—Internal Market and Industry
The Council will aim to agree a general approach on the single digital gateway. The objective of the Single Digital Gateway proposal is to remove barriers to the single market created by lack of easy access to high quality information and Government services online.
The Commission will then present a competitiveness check-up including details of the objectives of the EU industrial strategy. This will lead into a discussion on the EU industrial strategy, where the Estonian presidency will present a report. The Council will be invited to adopt conclusions on the Commission’s communication on ‘A Renewed EU Industrial Policy Strategy’.
The Council will then discuss a number of AOB points on geo-blocking, the European defence industrial development programme, the digital single market, the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court, the European SME action programme, the public procurement package and the traceability system of tobacco products. In these AOB points the Council will be given information by the presidency or by a member state delegation.
The day will end with a presentation by the Bulgarian delegation on details of their upcoming presidency.
Day two—Space and Research
The Council will adopt Council conclusions on the mid-term evaluation of the Copernicus programme. This will be followed by an exchange of views on the way forward for EU space programmes.
The afternoon session will begin with a discussion on Council conclusions “From the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 towards the ninth Framework Programme”. The Council will then debate the mission-orientated approach proposed for the ninth framework programme.
Under AOB, the Commission will provide information on the state of play with open science.
Day two will conclude with information from the Bulgarian delegation on their incoming presidency work programme.
[HCWS284]
Oil and Gas Authority
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has today laid before Parliament a direction ensuring that the Oil and Gas Authority consults the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on onshore hydraulic fracturing operations.
Under section 4A of the Petroleum Act 1998 (inserted by section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015), operators who wish to conduct associated hydraulic fracturing must apply for a hydraulic fracturing consent from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Hydraulic fracturing consent was introduced in the Infrastructure Act 2015 as an additional step to the existing regulatory and permitting regime. However, it does not apply to wells drilled before the 2015 Act came into force and these are not captured by the requirement to seek a hydraulic fracturing consent.
Today’s direction closes this loophole and ensures that the same approach for consent is taken for all relevant hydraulic fracturing operations, including where the associated well was drilled prior to the 2015 Act coming into force. For these operations, operators will be expected to meet the same set of standards as required to obtain hydraulic fracturing consent, laid out in the Infrastructure Act 2015. The Government have been clear that shale development must be safe and environmentally sound. The UK has a robust regulatory system which provides a comprehensive regime for exploratory activities and this direction will ensure that all relevant hydraulic fracturing operations are subject to this final step of scrutiny.
[HCWS288]
Twenty Third Conference of the Parties
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)
The annual conference of the parties (COP) to the United Nations framework convention on climate change took place in Bonn, Germany, from 6 to 17 November. I led the United Kingdom delegation, accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). As demonstration of the UK’s action at all levels, the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Environment Roseanna Cunningham also attended.
The UK’s priorities for COP 23 were to maintain the global political momentum to combat climate change and to promote the UK’s global climate leadership. We demonstrated this commitment to combating climate change through a series of high-profile announcements, most prominently the UK-Canada Powering Past Coal Alliance to phase out unabated coal power, joined at COP 23 by 28 countries and states. We announced over £300 million of programmes to support developing countries to tackle climate change. This included £177 million for sustainable infrastructure in Latin America; £40 million for a climate fund with Germany for reducing emissions in developing countries; £27.5 million to help the world’s largest cities tackle climate change; and £62 million towards two initiatives to support Latin America to halt deforestation. We also announced that we will double our funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2017 to £230,000—the scientific body whose evidence underpins global climate action.
The context of this COP gave it particular significance, in particular given the recent series of devastating extreme weather events, Fiji as the first small island developing state presidency, and the US’s intention to withdraw from the Paris agreement.
In the negotiations we succeeded in keeping the process on track towards agreeing the rules that will underpin the Paris agreement by the end of 2018, and in creating the conditions for a collective raising of ambition by 2020. Outside negotiations we highlighted our impressive domestic and international action including the recent clean growth strategy, and opportunities for the UK’s low-carbon sector. Since 1990, we have cut emissions by 42% while our economy has grown by two thirds. This means that we have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation, while leading the G7 group of countries in growth in national income over this period.
The Green is Great UK pavilion had nearly 50 events showcasing UK low-carbon expertise and opportunities. Highlights included the international launch of the clean growth strategy, the signing of the “Because the Oceans” declaration, and the showcasing of UK business, academic and NGO expertise.
During COP the UK ratified two important climate change agreements: the Doha amendment to the Kyoto protocol (on developed country action before 2020) and the Kigali amendment to the Montreal protocol (on phasing down hydrofluorocarbons), one of the first countries in the world to do so.
The UK, negotiating as part of the EU, secured its main negotiation objectives: progress in the multiple negotiating tracks on the work needed to implement the Paris agreement; and a clear vision for next year’s “Talanoa dialogue”—a collective process which will take stock of current efforts and drive future global ambition.
Other important outcomes from the negotiations included agreement to showcase and accelerate work on pre-2020 action; agreement of a gender action plan and a local communities and indigenous peoples platform to promote greater inclusion in climate action and UN processes; and the launch of an ocean pathway partnership to strengthen the inclusion of oceans in the UN climate process.
Climate change will rightly continue to be at the forefront of international activity over the next year: President Macron will host the One Planet summit in Paris next month; it will feature strongly at the Commonwealth summit in April 2018; it will be prominent in the work of the G7 and G20, hosted by Canada and Argentina respectively; and California will host a major summit for cities and regions in September 2018. Meanwhile the “Talanoa dialogue” process will run through the year culminating in COP 24 in Katowice, Poland and there is further detailed work to be done to conclude the Paris “rulebook” by the end of COP24.
[HCWS289]
Counter-Terrorist Asset Freezing Regime: January-March 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Stephen Barclay)
Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (TAFA 2010), the Treasury is required to report to Parliament, quarterly, on its operation of the UK’s asset-freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council resolutions 1373 and 1452.
This report covers the period from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2017. This report also covers the UK implementation of the UN’s ISIL (Daesh) and al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime (ISIL-AQ) and the operation of the EU asset-freezing regime in the UK under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001 which implements UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist threats to the EU.
Under the ISIL-AQ asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury, through its Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the ISIL (Daesh) and al-Qaeda (asset-freezing) regulations 2011.
Under EU regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and OFSI has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.
A new EU asset-freezing regime under EU regulation (2016/1686) was implemented on 22 September 2016. This permits the EU to make autonomous al-Qaeda and ISIL (Daesh) listings. Once a designation is made under this regime it will appear in the table available online.
Annexes A and B to this statement provide a breakdown, by name, of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council resolution 1373.
The table, available as an attachment online, sets out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter.
Annex A: Designated persons under TAFA 2010 by name1
Individuals
Hamed ABDOLLAHI*
Imad Khalil AL-ALAMI
Abdelkarim Hussein AL-NASSER*
Ibrahim Salih AL-YACOUB*
Manssor ARBABSIAR*
Usama HAMDAN
Hasan IZZ-AL-DIN*
Mohammed KHALED
Musa Abu MARZOUK
Khalid MISHAAL
Khalid Sheikh MOHAMMED*
Abdul Reza SHAHLAI*
Ali Gholam SHAKURI*
Qasem SOLEIMANI*
Entities
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN)*
Hizballah Military Wing, including external security organisation*
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command (PFLP-GC)*
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)*
Sendero Luminoso (SL)*
Annex B: Persons designated by the EU under Council Regulation (EC) 2580/20012
Persons
Hamed ABDOLLAHI*
Abdelkarim Hussein AL-NASSER*
Ibrahim Salih AL-YACOUB*
Manssor ARBABSIAR*
Mohammed BOUYERI
Hassan Hassan EL HAJJ
Hasan IZZ-AL-DIN*
Farad MELIAD
Khalid Sheikh MOHAMMED*
Dalokay SANLI
Abdul Reza SHAHLAI*
Ali Gholam SHAKURI*
Qasem SOLEIMANI*
Groups and entities
Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)
Al-Aqsa E.V.
Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade
Babbar Khalsa
Communist Party of the Philippines, including New People’s Army (NPA), Philippines
Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi—DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front/Party)
Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army)*
Gama’a al-Islamiyya (a.k.a. Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya) (Islamic Group—IG)
Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem
Hizballah Military Wing, including external security organisation
Hizbul Mujahideen (HM)
Hofstadgroep
Islami Büyük Doğu Akincilar Cephesi (IBDA-C) (Great Islamic Eastern Warriors Front)
Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF)
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (a.k.a. Kongra-Gel)
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command (PFLP-GC)*
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)*
Sendero Luminoso (SL) (Shining Path)*
Teyrbazen Azadiya Kurdistan (TAK)
1For full listing details please refer to: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-list-of-designated-persons-terrorism-and-terrorist-financing.
2For full listing details please refer to: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-list-of-designated-persons-terrorism-and-terrorist-financing.
*EU listing rests on UK designation under TAFA 2010.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-11-29/HCWS285/.
[HCWS285]
Counter-Terrorist Asset Freezing Regime: April-June 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Stephen Barclay)
Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (TAFA-2.010), the Treasury is required to report to Parliament, quarterly, on its operation of the UK’s asset-freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council resolutions 1373 and 1452.
This report covers the period from 1 April 2017 to 30 June 2017. This report also covers the UK implementation of the UN’s ISIL (Daesh) and al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime (ISIL-AQ) and the operation of the EU asset-freezing regime in the UK under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001 which implements UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist threats to the EU.
Under the ISIL-AQ asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury, through its Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the ISIL (Daesh) and al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011.
Under EU regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and OFSI has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.
A new EU asset-freezing regime under EU regulation (2016/1686) was implemented on 22 September 2016. This permits the EU to make autonomous al-Qaeda and ISIL (Daesh) listings. Once a designation is made under this regime it will appear in the table available online.
Annexes A and B to this statement provide a breakdown, by name, of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council resolution 1373.
The table, available as an attachment online, sets out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter.
Annex A: Designated persons under TAFA 2010 by name1
Individuals
Hamed ABDOLLAHI*
Imad Khalil AL-ALAMI
Abdelkarim Hussein AL-NASSER*
Ibrahim Salih AL-YACOUB*
Manssor ARBABSIAR*
Usama HAMDAN
Hasan IZZ-AL-DIN*
Mohammed KHALED
Musa Abu MARZOUK
Khalid MISHAAL
Khalid Sheikh MOHAMMED*
Abdul Reza SHAHLAI*
Ali Gholam SHAKURI*
Qasem SOLEIMANI*
Entities
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN)*
Hizballah Military Wing, including external security organisation*
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command (PFLP-GC)*
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)*
Sendero Luminoso (SL)*
Annex B: Persons designated by the EU under Council Regulation (EC) 2580/20012
Persons
Hamed ABDOLLAHI*
Abdelkarim Hussein AL-NASSER*
Ibrahim Salih AL-YACOUB*
Manssor ARBABSIAR*
Mohammed BOUYERI
Hassan Hassan EL HAJJ
Hasan IZZ-AL-DIN*
Farad MELIAD
Khalid Sheikh MOHAMMED*
Dalokay SANLI
Abdul Reza SHAHLAI*
Ali Gholam SHAKURI*
Qasem SOLEIMANI*
Groups and entities
Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)
Al-Aqsa E.V.
Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade
Babbar Khalsa
Communist Party of the Philippines, including New People’s Army (NPA), Philippines
Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi—DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front/Party)
Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army)*
Gama’a al-Islamiyya (a.k.a. Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya) (Islamic Group—IG)
Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem
Hizballah Military Wing, including external security organisation
Hizbul Mujahideen (HM)
Hofstadgroep
Islami Büyük Doğu Akincilar Cephesi (IBDA-C) (Great Islamic Eastern Warriors Front)
Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF)
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (a.k.a. Kongra-Gel)
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command (PFLP-GC)*
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)*
Sendero Luminoso (SL) (Shining Path)*
Teyrbazen Azadiya Kurdistan (TAK)
1For full listing details please refer to: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-list-of-designated-persons-terrorism-and-terrorist-financing.
2For full listing details please refer to: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-list-of-designated-persons-terrorism-and-terrorist-financing.
*EU listing rests on UK designation under TAFA 2010.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-11-29/HCWS286/.
[HCWS286]
Cyber Security and Data Protection: Update
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
Uber has today estimated that the data breach which occurred in October 2016 has affected approximately 2.7 million user accounts in the UK that were using its service or working for the company in the UK at that time.
Uber have stated that this information included names, email addresses and mobile phone numbers related to accounts globally. Uber have stated they have not seen any indication that trip location history, credit card numbers, bank account numbers or dates of birth were downloaded. Based on current information, Uber have stated that they have not seen evidence that financial details have been compromised.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have directed Uber to provide them with technical reports that should help UK authorities, in particular the ICO and National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), to verify these figures and whether any additional types of personal data have been compromised. The Government expect Uber to co-operate fully and promptly with the ICO and the NCSC.
The ICO and NCSC will continue to work tirelessly with Uber to ensure this information is correct. The Government expect Uber to respond fully to the incident with the urgency it demands and to provide the appropriate support to its customers and drivers in the UK. Uber users should continue to be vigilant and follow the advice from the NCSC, which can be found on their website.
The Government take both the protection of personal data and the right to privacy extremely seriously. It is always the company’s responsibility to identify when UK citizens have been affected as part of a data breach and to take steps to reduce any harm to consumers, and it is welcome Uber has done this.
The Government are strengthening the UK’s data protection regime through a new Data Protection Bill, which will give more powers to the ICO to defend consumer interests and issue higher fines of up to £18 million or 4% of global turnover, in cases of the most serious data breaches.
The ICO, NCSC and other relevant authorities in the UK and overseas will continue to work together to ensure the data protection interests of UK citizens are upheld.
[HCWS287]
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Remedial Order
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
We are today laying a non-urgent remedial order to allow a single person to apply for a parental order, which transfers legal parenthood after a surrogacy arrangement.
Surrogacy has an important role to play in our society, helping to create much-wanted families where that might not otherwise be possible. It enables relatives and friends to provide an altruistic gift to people who are not able to have a child themselves, and can help people to have their own genetically-related children. The UK Government recognise the value of this in the 21st century where family structures, attitudes and life styles are much more diverse.
Provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 allowed, where a child was born under a surrogacy arrangement, for the transfer of legal parenthood from the birth mother to the intended parents by means of a parental order.
These provisions were updated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which introduced new provisions to extend eligibility to same-sex civil partners and all couples in long-term relationships, where the relevant criteria were satisfied. This was further amended in 2013 and 2014 to include same-sex married couples.
The Government will now introduce legislation to reflect an equal approach for a single person and couples in obtaining legal parenthood after a surrogacy arrangement. Following a legal challenge to the 2008 Act in 2016, the family court made a declaration that the provision in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 which enables couples, but not a single person, to obtain a parental order following surrogacy is incompatible with article 14 of the European convention on human rights. Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of convention rights on the grounds of a person’s status, and it was accepted that this could include a single person in this context.
Following consideration of possible legislative options, the Government consider that there are compelling reasons to amend the 2008 Act by order made under the power in section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to take remedial action where there is an incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government also propose to remake the parental order regulations in 2018 to reflect all technical amendments to secondary legislation arising from the remedial order.
The Government welcome the opportunity to lay this remedial order to allow a single person the same rights to gain legal parenthood as couples. The order will allow a six-month period where an existing single parent through surrogacy can retrospectively apply for a parental order.
It will be for the Joint Committee on Human Rights to scrutinise the order, take views from parliamentarians and stakeholders and advise the Government and Parliament on the appropriateness of the order. The Committee will have 60 sitting days to undertake these considerations before the Government must review and respond. The Committee will then have a further 60 sitting days to consider and make recommendations to Parliament, before debates in both Houses.
[HCWS282]
International Financial Institution: Contingent Liability
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
In 2015, the UK agreed to be a founder contributor of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The AIIB will support economic growth in Asia and drive up living standards. The UK’s membership will deepen economic ties with Asia and create opportunities for British businesses.
As set out in the summer Budget 2015, HM Treasury made an initial capital instalment of US$122,180,000 and committed to subsequent payments of the same amount by the UK Government over the four years from 2017 to 2020. The UK’s overall capital contribution will total US$3,054,500,000 of which these five payments together will make up 20% of “paid-in” capital contribution requiring a cash transfer. The other 80%, $2,443,600,000, is “callable capital” —the AIIB has the right to call for payment for these shares if there is a crisis affecting the bank’s assets or loans. As the paid-in capital is an investment, in return for which we get an asset of a share of the bank, the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast this payment as a financial transaction. Financial transactions do not add to public sector net borrowing.
Payment of the third annual contribution of $122,180,000 is in line with the authority provided by this House under the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Initial Capital Contribution) Order 2015. Parliamentary approval for this will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for International Development.
Furthermore, the payment of the third instalment of the capital contribution incurs with it a contingent liability. In line with the AIIB articles of agreement, the contingent liability rises in line with the amount of callable capital paid. As such, the UK will increase its current contingent liability of $977,440,000 incurred following the previous two capital contributions, by a further $488,720,000 to a cumulative total contingent liability of US$1,466,160,000. A departmental minute to this effect was laid before Parliament on 29 November 2017 to give at least 14 sitting days’ notice of the intent to incur a contingent liability. The notice period will be completed on 20 December 2017.
Although the AIIB has the right to call for payment of this callable capital incurred when the initial capital instalment was paid, no such instance has occurred in any multilateral development bank in the past. If the liability were to be called, provision for any payment would be sought through the normal Supply procedure.
[HCWS283]
Rail Update
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I am today publishing “Connecting people: a strategic vision for rail”, which describes our vision for the railways, and the actions we are taking to make it a reality. We are bringing the organisations that run the tracks and trains closer together to deliver better services for passengers. We are pressing ahead with Network Rail devolution to a series of route based business. We are investing in upgrades to the network to deliver faster journey times, more capacity and unlock growth. We are also improving the customer experience, including smart ticketing.
I am making copies of the strategic vision available in the Libraries of both Houses.
I am also today announcing a consultation on the future of the Great Western franchise, and issuing the invitation to tender for the next South Eastern franchise.
These documents are now available on the website of the Department for Transport.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-11-29/HCWS281/ .
[HCWS281]
Grand Committee
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Scotland Act 1998 (Insolvency Functions) Order 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (Insolvency Functions) Order 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, this order is one of a number of measures which are intended to update and modernise corporate insolvency in Scotland with particular regard to insolvency rules for the winding up of companies. This follows the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, which modernised the process relating to company insolvency in England and Wales.
The law on corporate insolvency in Scotland and the respective legislative competences of the UK and Scottish Parliaments and Governments is complex. That is particularly the case with regard to winding up. For example, in relation to business associations, the general legal effect of winding up is reserved but the process of winding up is excepted from this reservation. Consequently, in practice, it is not always clear whether a winding-up matter is covered by reserved or devolved legislation.
To address this, and in order to facilitate the efficient, effective and user-friendly modernisation of, in particular, company insolvency rules for Scotland, both the UK and Scottish Governments agreed that we should legislate to remove the need for a complicated exercise of assessing which rules relate to a reserved matter. Accordingly, both Governments agreed to the preparation of a combined order under Section 63 and Section 108 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Section 63 of the 1998 Act enables an order to provide for any functions that are exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or as regards Scotland to be exercisable by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Minister of the Crown. Section 108 of the 1998 Act enables an order to provide for any functions that are exercisable by a member of the Scottish Government to be exercisable by a Minister of the Crown concurrently with a member of the Scottish Government.
The order will therefore allow for the mutual conferring of functions between Scottish Ministers and a Minister of the Crown, so that both have the power to bring forward as appropriate winding-up rules or regulations for companies, incorporated friendly societies, and limited liability partnerships in Scotland irrespective of whether these rules or regulations relate to reserved matters under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, or matters that are not reserved.
This approach will enable each Administration to make provision on winding-up matters without any doubt being cast on the scope of the relevant enabling powers. It will also ensure that the rules on the winding up of companies in Scotland will be contained in one instrument rather than split between two.
I hope that your Lordships share our view that this is a sensible step which will modernise the approach to corporate insolvency in Scotland. Furthermore, it demonstrates the benefits of two Governments working together to make the devolution settlement work for people and industry in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order, the first of many instruments to be debated today. I put on record my pleasure at operating under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. It is the first time I have operated under his chairmanship, and I hope he is kind and pleasant with me.
As we have heard, the order relates to corporate insolvency rules in Scotland and the complexities that arise due to winding up being a mixed area of competence. The Minister will no doubt have in mind the fact that the future may hold many more discussions about mixed areas of competence as we move forward with our exit out of the European Union. Fortunately, today’s order is intended to make an existing process simpler and has received general support. I place on record our support for it.
As the Minister explained, the order would confer mutual functions on Scottish Ministers and a Minister of the Crown so that both have the power to bring forward winding-up rules and regulations for Scotland in relation to companies, incorporated friendly societies and limited liability partnerships. We accept the arguments that this will alleviate an otherwise complex assessment of which matters are reserved in this specific area and assist in the modernisation of these rules as regards Scotland by ensuring the provisions are held in one single order rather than split across multiple instruments. We are content to support the order.
As I understand it, the provisions are made with an assurance that a Minister of the Crown will be able to exercise these functions only with the agreement of a member of the Scottish Government. I may be a doubting Thomas, but I am sure that occasionally a dispute may arise in the future and a challenge to the agreement. Has a procedure been envisaged for what happens if a conflict arises and the relevant Ministers find themselves in disagreement over the use of these powers? I am sure that we are all alert to the dangers not of disagreements, but of complex arrangements being misused and misquoted in Scotland as a tactic against the Westminster Parliament. Will the Minister answer that point?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
May I clarify that the intention is that either the Minister of the Crown or a Scottish Minister may act, but they have to agree with each other? If so, what will be the process by which they consult? There may be circumstances where the action has to be fairly urgent. Clearly, one does not want to use a consultation process which causes delay. Does one simply have to notify the other or do they have to give consent formally either way?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I share the delight of my noble friend on the Front Bench that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is presiding over our proceedings today. The last time that I mentioned the Chair in a Grand Committee I was told that I was not supposed to do that, but I am delighted that I did. I agree completely with the question raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench and amplified by the Liberal Democrats.
I will make a few more points. First, I am increasingly worried about the number of important matters that are being dealt with through statutory instruments. This one is perhaps okay. In fact, I think it is, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, and he is supporting it. I go along with that. However, I suspect that as we move into the new year, we will get hundreds if not thousands more statutory instruments, many in areas that might more properly be dealt with by primary legislation. It is very important that we on this side of the House—and indeed all sides—keep an eye on the Government to make sure that some important matters which should more properly be dealt with by primary legislation on the Floor of the House are not slipped through on statutory instruments, particularly in Grand Committee.
I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench—I should have done so right at the very start. I have not had the opportunity to appear opposite him before. I know of his work in the European Parliament, which he carried out with distinction. No doubt, like me, he would have preferred that European Parliament to go on and on into the foreseeable future, which it may well do, if my noble friends the Liberal Democrats have their way. I am right behind them on that.
However, I am worried about one aspect of this order in relation to limited liability partnerships. The Minister understandably mentioned nothing about the controversy of limited liability partnerships, particularly in relation to Scotland. He will know that there has been a lot of publicity and concern expressed about the way in which limited liability partnerships are being used for tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering. These limited liability partnerships can be set up quickly and cheaply. I think they cost £35. As a result, corporation tax and capital gains tax are being avoided by people who set up these limited liability partnerships. Very often, there is no need for the partnership to be in writing; it can just be a verbal agreement between people, which is very unsatisfactory. There has been great controversy, not just in Scotland but in other places too. A lot of controversy has arisen in Jersey in relation to them. More recently, the suggestion that people with self-employed status could be treated as employees by a limited liability partnership has caused some genuine concern.
I know that this is not directly covered by the winding-up procedures. However, as my noble friend rightly pinpointed, there could be a difference of opinion between Holyrood and Whitehall about whether a limited liability partnership should be wound up. It may be that Westminster, in its wisdom, will want such a partnership to be wound up because it had been involved in some kind of activities and it would be more appropriate for it to be wound up, but Holyrood might not. In that case, I endorse the questions asked by my noble friends in relation to this. I hope the Minister will amplify in his answer what might happen specifically in relation to limited liability partnerships.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, on being in the chair, and I also congratulate the Minister. I read his moving maiden speech and welcome him to the Front Bench.
I am worrying away at the same point that four other noble Lords have raised. It is the phrase,
“by the Scottish Ministers and a Minister of the Crown”.
It may be because of my former ACAS chair hat, but I look for trouble—for how to sort it out before it happens, and for codes of practice. My questions are about what might seem a narrow point, but it is an extremely important one. Would this relationship be mutual? Would they both have to agree? That question has already been asked. Does one have precedence over the other? I think that has already been asked. Is there an intention to think about something like a code of practice for any eventuality, such as when they do not agree? If they do not agree, how will the delays that take place affect not only the companies but the workers involved in the lack of future of those companies? It is extremely important that, in any inbuilt possible conflict, we should consider the people who are going to be at the bottom end of it and might be detrimentally affected.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those helpful questions. I, too, add my welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. We are the two new boys on the block and it is a pleasure to be under the noble Lord’s astute guidance. I also welcome the support from all sides for this approach. It has a number of important implications for how the two Governments work together, and I hope it will serve as a template for ongoing challenges in the near future, although one might argue that the waters will get choppier as we move forward.
The Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Government Ministers must reach agreement. Without agreement, there will be no progress. This therefore puts a great responsibility on both to recognise the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, about what would happen if they do not do so. It places on their shoulders a very strong burden because they need to recognise that where there is no consent, there is no movement forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked whether it is just a question of notification. No, in actual fact, it is consent—both Ministers must consent to the process. It is not enough just to inform, which is why agreement must rest at the heart of it, which is important.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his kind words, which were very generous. He is right that there will almost certainly be many more SIs in the months to come. I cannot comment on that yet, but I do not doubt that he will keep an eye on the Government, and I think that that eye will be attached to very strong interventions whenever we stray from what he believes to be the correct approach. I am looking forward—I imagine—to those interventions in the months to come.
Tax evasion and limited liability partnerships are not covered within the wider ambit of the order, which is specifically about winding up. I too share the concerns that many of these areas can of course be done almost on a verbal basis and therefore move very swiftly, but in terms of the aspects of this particular issue, it is the winding up only. I hope it gives some confidence that in both instances it is about the consent of both parties, recognising each’s responsibility and duty in this regard, and moving forward on the basis of a consensus. I hope this will be a way of addressing that, but I recognise that that does not cover the wider issues raised, which are not within the scope of this particular approach.
The points of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, were well made. I recognise that workers will suffer if the two Ministers in question cannot reach agreement. That is why I repeat that careful consideration must therefore be given to the implications of failure to reach that agreement. In most instances, I hope it will not be controversial, and there will be a strong recognition that these things must move forward swiftly. On that basis, I hope that I have the support of your Lordships this afternoon.
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the draft order laid before the House is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient provision in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is being made to ensure that the policy set out in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 can be fully implemented. It was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 8 December 2015.
The 2016 Act contains a number of provisions which have been developed from the recommendations of Lord Carloway’s review of the Scottish criminal law and practice, which reported in November 2011. This review followed a UK Supreme Court decision in the case of Cadder that gave suspects a right to legal advice before questioning by the police in Scotland. In this context, the review aimed to modernise and enhance the efficiency of the Scottish criminal justice system, and its recommendations have led to a number of the provisions in the 2016 Act.
These include reforms of arrest and custody laws designed to provide flexibility for police in conducting investigations while ensuring fairness for suspects. It will also build on 2010 reforms to allow suspects access to a lawyer whether or not they are to be interviewed by the police. In addition, the Act specifically states that the police have a duty not to deprive people of their liberty unnecessarily. As a consequence of some of the measures introduced by the Act, it is necessary either to amend the law elsewhere in the United Kingdom or to make provision in relation to Scotland where the reforms apply to reserved matters.
Making such amendments is not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, so it is necessary for this order to be laid before the United Kingdom Parliament. It is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows the UK Government to make legislative changes which are necessary or expedient in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
The order makes provision about arrests effected both in Scotland and outside Scotland in connection with crimes committed in Scotland and the investigation of Scots law crimes and extradition matters in Scotland. Provisions in Schedule 1 will ensure that cross-border enforcement and assistance continues to work effectively. Where a Scottish warrant is executed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, provisions in the 2016 Act on arrest procedure and rights of suspects will apply.
Schedule 2 covers the effects of the 2016 Act on “reserved forces”, namely the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Schedule 3 relates to the impact of the 2016 Act on immigration, HMRC officers, designated customs officers and the National Crime Agency. Schedule 4 covers the application of the 2016 Act on persons subject to service law. Schedule 5 makes provision regarding a person arrested in connection with extradition proceedings.
Reserved forces exercising the powers and privileges of a police constable in Scotland will also be bound by a stop-and-search code of practice issued under Section 73 of the 2016 Act. The order amends the 2016 Act to ensure that the UK Government and reserved bodies subject to the terms of the code are fully consulted when any amendments to the code are being considered. The order also refers to a code of practice that will apply to investigative bodies reporting criminal offences in Scotland to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
This is a particularly wide-ranging and complex order that has required close working between the UK and Scottish Governments, Ministers and officials. As such, it shows how Scotland’s two Governments can co-operate effectively to make the devolution settlement work. I beg to move.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for his very full explanation of the order. As we have heard, it provides legislative changes in consequence of Parts 1 and 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 as passed by the Scottish Parliament. Again, we are content to support the order.
As has been stated, the Act follows, some years later, a review of criminal law and practice in Scotland undertaken by Lord Carloway, and has been subject to detailed scrutiny by Members of the Scottish Parliament. Provisions include changes to police powers, rights of suspects while in police custody, criminal procedure and provisions regarding powers of stop and search. These are wholly within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 to make consequential legislative changes regarding arrests effected in Scotland and outside Scotland in connection with crimes committed in Scotland, police custody in Scotland, the investigation of Scottish law crimes and extradition matters in Scotland. I ask the Minister: where these provisions affect officers outside Police Scotland, including police officers across UK forces outside Scotland, immigration and customs officials, NCA officers, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and other forces covered by the order, has any assessment been made of any additional training or resource needs that might arise from these provisions? If so, who would be responsible for funding any such additional needs identified? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his introduction and explanation. I will explore one or two aspects of this because, as he said himself, it is complex. It is a mixture of devolved and reserved matters.
I will first look at reserved matters relating to human rights, because we have clearly had some controversies in Scottish policing over the last few years. The Liberal Democrats oppose the creation of a Scottish national police force. We believe our criticisms and concerns have been somewhat borne out, certainly in the early part, by the way the national force conducted itself and the fact it appeared to be under somewhat more direct political control than many of us would regard as appropriate and would be the case for police forces in England.
In particular, we saw a massive increase in the use of stop and search by the police in Scotland. In 2013-14, there were 450,173 “consensual” searches. The meaning of “consent” is rather subjective in that context. There were 192,470 statutory searches. Not surprisingly, this created a great deal of public reaction. The Scottish Government responded to that; I give them credit for that, but they needed to because it was a very strong reaction. Consequently, the figures the following year, at least from 1 April to 30 September, saw consensual searches drop to 888 from 450,000 and the statutory searches from 192,470 to 20,665. Consensual searches are now banned altogether, so that is a step in the right direction. I want to check with the Minister, where part of the reaction was not just that public concern but human rights implications that would fall on the UK Government, does this combination of Acts by the Scottish Parliament and this statutory instrument maybe avoid the possibility of that particular question of human rights being addressed again?
The other area is the issue of cross-border policing generally. The Minister mentioned the MoD police, civil nuclear police and British Transport Police. The Scottish Government have taken over the responsibility of the British Transport Police north of the border. Many of us felt that that was a retrograde step too. I am a passionate home ruler, a passionate believer in devolution and supporter of the Scottish Parliament, but I believe that we should also recognise that, as long as we are part of the United Kingdom—which the people of Scotland want us to be—devolution should be to enhance and bring Government closer, but not to undermine the advantages of collective working across the United Kingdom. It seems to me that there will be circumstances where the transport police could be inhibited in their role in cross-border policing. Can the Minister give some clarification as to whether this instrument will affect that positively, negatively or not at all?
I do not have the capacity to go through the whole SI in detail, but there seem to be a number of issues that are really quite important, including to clarify how the devolved and reserved powers can work constructively together—which is why we are not opposing the instrument—but some clarification is nevertheless necessary of what that really means. There also needs to be an understanding, or perhaps appreciation, that the Scottish Government have learned a little bit about their excessive zeal in creating a national police force, which has led to quite considerable friction. I mention again the appearance of mounted police at highland league football matches and routinely arming police officers in rural villages. Things such as that are well within the devolved capacity of the Scottish Government but bring human rights issues into question, so they are not of some indifference to the United Kingdom Government, who have to answer if there are questions of human rights compromises by a devolved Government or Administration.
Having said that, and supporting the passage of the instrument, I would nevertheless appreciate it if the Minister could answer those questions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I want to raise two points. The first, briefly, is an important one on European arrest warrants and whether there is any implication when—if—we go out of the European Union. Will cross-border activity by police using European arrest warrants be affected?
I have a major objection, however, following up what my noble friend has said. I warn that I am going to cause real trouble on the next instrument. I am sorry that I have not alerted my noble friend and colleague on the Front Bench, but I am not going to support it. I will vote against it. I am not going to agree that it should go forward because of what we have just heard about the British Transport Police—and I feel even more strongly about it. It is a major mistake. We and the Government should recognise now that we have all made a major mistake in agreeing that the responsibility for the British Transport Police should be devolved to Holyrood.
I am in favour of devolution. I campaigned for it and, unlike my noble friend on the Front Bench, I have been a long-standing supporter of devolution. But the way in which it is being dealt with by the Government in relation to the British Transport Police is, quite frankly, dangerous, reckless and ought to be stopped. Ruth Davidson—who I understand is the most important Conservative in the whole United Kingdom—has been attacking this and has said that it should be stopped.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, my point is much narrower. I would like clarification on Schedule 1. A constable of the Police Service of Scotland can arrest someone in England, Wales or Northern Ireland without a warrant in connection with a Scottish crime in certain circumstances. A constable of a police force in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can arrest a person in Scotland—it does not mention a warrant—in certain circumstances. Is there a difference? One says without a warrant; one does not mention it. What are the implications? What are the circumstances that are mentioned there? Later on it talks about deserters and refers to certain limited circumstances. I can understand that; obviously, that is a much more complicated issue. But it would be extremely useful to have some clarification about what that cross-border responsibility would be.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I was hoping that there would be another question to give me a minute or two longer. In the absence of that additional question, I will try to answer the questions that I can. First, I welcome the support from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and other noble Lords and recognise the dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I will come back to that point.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about the training and the costs of training, the reserved forces operating in Scotland have been trained through existing budgets. Police Scotland has assisted in this by carrying out training courses for those reserved bodies operating in Scotland. It has also continued supporting partner agencies to adjust to the Act. So there should be no additional costs. However, the noble Lord is quite right to raise the question. We need to make sure that we keep an eye on this. Offering training once and believing that that is all is not enough. We need to make sure this is ongoing training and that it is delivering. It is important that we make sure that we are auditing the outcome and output of the training.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who has asked some serious questions about human rights, noble Lords will recall that the Cadder case originated from a human rights issue. That was the reason why the Government were very keen to move forward.
On stop and search, noble Lords will be aware that this is an operational matter, which limits my ability to comment specifically. However, I note again that where there are issues such as this, they can and should be addressed directly through organisations in Scotland. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, welcomed, Susan Deacon, the new chair of the oversight body. I believe that that appointment will be a useful addition to the overall oversight matter. These issues need to be addressed directly through that point. If violations of human rights occur, they can be raised and escalated through the different strata. In the first instance, it would be a matter for the Scottish Government to address.
I will come back in a moment to the more complicated question on the British Transport Police. However, in answer to the first question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the European arrest warrant is still a subject for negotiation, so we do not yet have clarity on exactly what that will mean. If noble Lords will forgive me, I will postpone answering that question until I have an answer to it. That is probably the sensible thing to do.
The noble Lord has made a passionate point about the British Transport Police. I think not a single person on these Benches does not share his concern about some of the issues which seem to be unfolding, not for the sake of better policing or for better serving the people, but rather for a narrower, more factional agenda. I think we all have a certain degree of unease about that particular aspect. The important thing for me to note at this point is that the Smith commission recommended by consensus that powers over this would be devolved back to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish Government. In this instance, the Scottish Government are operating within their competence to do so. I share some of the noble Lord’s unease and I am sure that this will not be the end of the matter.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
On the Smith commission, with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for whom I have great respect, or to the other members of the commission, it is possible they did not get everything right. They were rushed. They had to do things very quickly and were under a lot of pressure from the SNP in particular. At the end, John Swinney, having signed up and agreed to the Smith commission, said at the press conference that he did not accept the recommendations —an astonishing situation. If they can do that, we have the right to think again as well.
I may be wrong on procedure, but I think that if we do not agree this today, it goes to the House at a later date. That will give the Minister time to think and to consult. In that case, he might be able to consult not only David Mundell and Ruth Davidson but—can I go higher?—even Theresa May about this, because there is genuine concern. I have expressed it strongly, but it is expressed even more strongly by some leading Conservatives as well as other people in my own party. I hope we can have a pause in this statutory instrument. I do not think it would delay it unduly. It would give the Minister time to go back and say, “Look, I as a Minister faced this furore”. Although they have not got to their feet, all the people round the Committee Room were nodding when I was making this point. The Minister has made the point himself and substantially agreed with me. This would give the Minister time to go back and perhaps find a way to get the matter reconsidered.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I will, I hope, be guided on points of procedure regarding the noble Lord’s exact question. However, I know that whatever we agree here today, the order must then move to the Floor of the House, at which point there will, I imagine, be an opportunity for this point to be made in the Chamber and for a Division to be called on the point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
I think that is the case, yes.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That might be the opportunity for that pause. I appreciate some of the points which the noble Lord is making, but he will need to find support in the House. I am not sure whether I can comment on that at the moment, but I recognise the passion with which he makes the point, which is that issues are now unfolding. I stress that this matter was devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government; I do not believe that we can now revisit it in the fashion which the noble Lord would like, if I am being frank. I hope that that gives some answer to that.
I have one more answer to give to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. She will be pleased to know that I will write to her, because she asked quite a technical question which requires a technical response. If she will allow me, I will write to her in due course with that information, and will happily share that with everyone else in the Room.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Perhaps I can help the Minister. I believe that whatever happens today, provided that my noble friend indicates to the Government Whips that he intends to debate the order on the Floor of the House when it is called, they will seek to make time so that there can be a proper debate.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Helpfully, apparently that is a matter for the usual channels, and I am not one of them, so I hope that that will be resolved in due course and that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will find his satisfaction through that.
Lord McAvoy
I thank the Minister for giving way before he sits down. The Smith commission proposals were supported. There was a lively discussion and the situation of the British Transport Police was brought up, but it has been devolved. I wonder whether, not to alleviate the concerns of my noble friend Lord Foulkes but to address them, it would be procedurally possible for the Minister to undertake to raise this specific debate with his counterparts in the Scottish Parliament’s Government.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That is a very good point indeed. I believe that I will be able to raise this very point both behind the scenes and with my counterparts north of the border, and then it will be discussed more fully in due course.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful for the assurances of the Minister and, even more, of my noble friends, both of whom are part of the usual channels in one way or another. I feel no less strongly about it, but I understand the procedure that should be followed.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am very happy for that. Again, I will do all I can to take this forward in the manner in which we have discussed over the past few moments.
Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Wild Fisheries) Order 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Wild Fisheries) Order 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the reason for making this order, laid before the House on 14 September 2017, is to grant the Scottish Government a limited and specific power to raise a levy on wild freshwater fisheries for the purposes of the management, conservation and sustainable development of those fisheries. The order relates to reforms being undertaken by Scottish Ministers to support the management and conservation of wild fisheries in Scotland.
The Scottish Government commissioned an independent review of wild fisheries in Scotland in 2014. One of its conclusions was that the Scottish Government should have the power to adopt appropriate management tools, including the flexibility to change the way in which income is raised for fisheries management, currently done through a fisheries assessment levy applied to salmon fisheries at a local level. Consequently, the order will give Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations imposing a levy on the owners, occupiers or users of wild fisheries, or owners or occupiers of the right to fish in wild fisheries.
The Scottish Government intend to use this power by introducing related provisions to their Wild Fisheries (Scotland) Bill that will provide Scottish Ministers with the power to set, collect and retain fishery assessment levies in circumstances where they do not approve the fishery management plan developed at a local level. The levies in question are considered by Her Majesty’s Treasury to be taxes and are, therefore, outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
In order to introduce a Bill into the Scottish Parliament with provisions on tax, the Scottish Government require an amendment to be made to Part 4A of the Scotland Act 1998. An Order in Council, under Section 80B of the 1998 Act, is the mechanism through which Her Majesty may amend Part 4A so as to specify an additional devolved tax.
We have agreed to devolve this power on the basis that it will be applied only to a levy in respect of the conservation and management of freshwater fisheries. This will not have a significant impact on businesses in other parts of the UK, but we consider that this measure will support the UK Government’s ability to meet their international conservation commitments. I beg to move.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the order. As we have heard, it would provide legislative competence for the Scottish Parliament to bring forward provisions on specific taxes relating to wild fisheries in Scotland.
The order will amend Part 4A of the Scotland Act 1998 to provide that taxes on specified persons to fund expenditure on the conservation of freshwater fish and their habitats, and the management or regulation of wild fisheries, are to be devolved taxes. The Scottish Government commissioned an independent review of wild fisheries in 2014 to consider how this magnificent Scottish resource can be protected and managed sustainably into the future.
The order will allow for an intended wild fisheries Bill to be brought before the Scottish Parliament to include powers for the Scottish Government to raise levies on the owners, occupiers or users of wild fisheries if they deem it necessary in the future. These provisions have been approved by HM Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and members of the cross-party Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in the Scottish Parliament. We are content to support the order so that these issues can be scrutinised fully in the Scottish Parliament.
I ask the Minister: what consultation are his Government undertaking with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the package of reforms undertaken on these natural resources in Scotland either do not materially affect or are beneficial to wider conservation and natural planning efforts across the whole of the UK? We hope that the Scottish Government will work with members of all parties in Scotland to ensure a sustainable future for these natural resources and for communities right across Scotland.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I suppose I should begin, like everybody else, by sucking up to the Deputy Chairman and the Minister and saying how pleasant it is to be here with them. I do not remember this ever happening in this Room before, but the House of Lords exists to be pleasant and I am delighted to join in welcoming them here. In fact, a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made a quite gratuitous and kindly reference to me, no doubt anticipating that I might give him support if there were a vote. In fact, I would not have done, but nevertheless the atmosphere of pleasantry is something I am happy to continue.
I have a purely personal interest in this matter, in that I fish occasionally on the Tweed and more regularly on a loch in the Scottish Borders, which I will return to in a moment. I think the Minister will agree that this order is somewhat unusual in that it is predicated on a Scottish Parliament Bill that we have not yet seen. That makes it a little difficult to understand but none the less, in principle, we will support it. That is presumably why the Sewel convention does not apply in this case, because it is bestowing more powers on the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act. Like the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, I would like to hear a little more about the consultation that the Minister has had with colleagues in the Scottish Government about how this is going to operate.
I have two questions about the order. The first relates to the amendment of Chapter 7 of the Scotland Act, on page 2 of the order. It states:
“This subsection applies to taxes on the … occupiers ... of the right to fish in wild fisheries”.
I operate a syndicate on a loch in the Scottish Borders. One of the members of the syndicate is the former sheriff, who will certainly be breathing down my neck if we do not get this right. Does that mean that when I pay, as I do, a handsome sum to His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch for the right to fish on his loch, that makes me an occupier of the right to fish in the waters? In other words, am I, in supporting this order, liable to find myself subject to taxation in future?
My second question is one that I anticipate my noble friend Lord Beith is about to ask. Fisheries in Scotland are governed under legislation that was passed way back in the 1950s. In the case of the Tweed, Scottish legislation covers the south bank; in other words, people operating in England are subject to Scots law in this peculiar circumstance. I wonder whether this order applies to them as well.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend did not realise quite how far the provision he has just cited extends. Legislation, particularly the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006, embraces the whole of the Tweed district, which includes all the tributaries of the Tweed and tributaries of the rivers which are tributaries of the Tweed, whether they are in England or Scotland. Of course, many of them are in England, such as the Till, for example. The Tweed river system has always been managed as a single system, which makes a great deal of sense. It would be odd to do it otherwise.
However, there are some problems inherent in this, as there were in the 2006 order. The Minister said that the Bill will not affect other parts of the United Kingdom—I hope I am not quoting him wrongly. If that is the case, it will be an interesting reversion to the previous way of legislating in this area. My initial assumption was that this order might affect all the tributaries of the Tweed. The basic question is: can somebody have a fine or levy placed upon them by the Scottish Government when they are not only resident in England but the activity to which the levy relates is wholly in England? Can someone who is the owner or occupier of a fishing right on, say, the Till, be required to pay a levy by the Scottish Government?
There may be a perfectly good case for them being required to pay that levy, but if there is, that surely should be a decision on which the United Kingdom Parliament—the only Parliament which represents England—should continue to have a say in future. It seems constitutionally repugnant for the Scottish Parliament to be able to pass laws or impose levies in England, just as it would be repugnant now under devolution to do the reverse in this area. That is what I would like clarification on as I think something of a wrong turning was taken in the 2006 order, and I do not want to see it repeated in subsequent orders, such as the one we are considering today.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear I have nothing to say on this subject.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery (CB)
I thank the Minister for his cogent explanation. I declare an interest as the spouse of the part-owner of a west coast river.
There is great concern among those involved with district salmon fishery boards on the west coast of Scotland that this clarification of the law is intended to cover a deeper purpose. We currently pay what used to be called fishery rates, or sporting rates. That money is returned to us in the form of support for the district salmon fishery boards. In general terms this has been a very satisfactory arrangement and has allowed the employment of marine biologists to assist riparian management and so on. The concern is that this measure in effect allows the Government to separate the two strands and use that money as part of the general tax pool, and then return what they wish to the district salmon fishery boards, which will thereby over time suffer attrition that may well be a downward trend. Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that all money raised by this measure will be returned to the district salmon fishery boards or their equivalent?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thought the last order was complicated. I will try to do justice to the questions. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and others. The noble Lord rightly asked what consultation has been undertaken. There has been significant collaboration between the UK and Scottish Governments over the impetus behind this approach. Noble Lords are right to note that there is no Bill as yet, but the argument underpinning this approach is that in due course there will be. This is in anticipation of that. We have international obligations on behalf of the salmon in a river, which the UK Government are taking very seriously. The recognition here is that the administration of that will rest with the Scottish Government in this instance. We will continue to ensure the outcome of that management is carefully considered so that we can move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, also asked about consultation. I hope my response answers his question. He asked whether he will be paying the tax, or whether the Duke of Buccleuch is the individual. Helpfully, I have the answer to that, I believe, on two pieces of paper. No, the Scottish Government do not intend to change the existing process to collect the salmon levy locally. The Scottish Government have ruled out the introduction of other taxes. However, these powers will future-proof wild fisheries management, ensuring that Scottish Ministers have the levers at their disposal should new evidence or circumstances merit the introduction of new taxes on the users, such as through a rod licence. The answer is no at the moment, but if a rod licence comes in it will be yes. I hope the noble Lord is okay so far.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked quite a detailed and important question. I remember many years ago when I was a geography student that one of the big challenges was to try to determine exactly where tributaries were because it depends on the season, the rain and so on. Scottish legislation will be subject to the rules of legislative competence in Section 29(2)(a) of the Scotland Act, so English fisheries cannot be taxed. I think that answers his question quite clearly.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That is very helpful. I thank my team very much; that was exactly the answer I was looking for in that instance. Good.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, asked an important question as well. The answer to where the money will be spent is that the salmon levies will be utilised in the district in which they are raised. I hope that gives some comfort to him in that regard.
I think those are the answers to the questions noble Lords posed. I hope that that is satisfactory.
Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Orders Regulations 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Orders Regulations 2017.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 12 October. The drug dealing telecommunications restriction orders—DDTRO—respond to an operational requirement of the police and the National Crime Agency to support them in tackling the issue of “county lines” drug dealing and its related violence and criminal exploitation.
As noble Lords probably know, “county lines” is the police term for urban gangs supplying drugs to suburban areas and market and coastal towns, using dedicated anonymous mobile phone lines. We are particularly concerned about this form of drug dealing because of the high-harm nature of this activity. County lines gangs target and exploit children and vulnerable adults, who are then at high risk of extreme physical and sexual violence, gang recriminations and trafficking. In the National Crime Agency’s latest threat assessment of county lines, three-quarters of police forces in England and Wales reported exploitation of vulnerable people in relation to county lines, including children as young as 12.
The mobile phone line is central to county lines activity, with some prominent lines making in excess of £5,000 per day. However, the phone number has limited personal data associated with it and the handset is typically located well away from street-level drug-dealing activity. Such factors make it hard for the police to gain possession of the handset and to pursue criminal prosecutions against an individual for the activity on the line. Where it is possible to do so, and where there is sufficient evidence, the police will pursue prosecution. However, where prosecution is not possible, the police and the NCA have been clear that closing down the phone lines will seriously disrupt county lines drug dealing and the associated violence and exploitation.
With that background in mind, I turn to the details of the regulations before us. The DDTRO Regulations are made pursuant to Section 80A of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which sets out the power to make regulations which enable courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to issue DDTROs. In essence, the regulations provide the civil courts with the power to make a drug dealing telecommunications restriction order, and set out the process and procedure for doing so.
The applicant for a DDTRO—that is, the police or the NCA—will have to satisfy a court that on the balance of probabilities the device has been used, is likely to have been used, or is likely to be used in connection with drug-dealing offences. The court will also have to have reasonable grounds to believe that the order would prevent or restrict the use of a communication device in connection with drug-dealing offences.
It is important that the initial DDTRO application hearing is conducted in private and without notice to ensure that the phone owner does not know that their line will be closed. If forewarned, the phone owner is likely to take action to negate the order by changing phone numbers in advance. The regulations also provide a number of safeguards to ensure swift resolution if a phone owner is impacted in error. This includes the ability for the applicant authority to disapply the order of its own volition, as well as the right of an affected person to appeal an order at a public hearing.
I hope noble Lords will approve these regulations. They will give the police a vital tool in their efforts to tackle county lines drug dealing and protect vulnerable individuals from being exploited by county lines gangs. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. I have some specific questions about these orders and a general comment about the Government’s approach to illegal drugs and related issues. We support these measures but we have wider concerns.
As the Minister has explained, these regulations allow law enforcement agencies to make an application to a court to disconnect mobile communication devices, such as mobile phones, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would prevent or restrict their use in connection with drug dealing. These orders can be made without notice to the people affected, in private and at the request of the applicant, without any details being disclosed to anyone. I can understand the need to protect covert human intelligence sources who may be involved in supplying information to the enforcement agencies and I also understand what the Minister has said—that if people were told in advance, it might enable them to change their telephone numbers in advance—but surely this is going to be only a marginal benefit, as it will soon become apparent to the drug dealer that their phone has been disconnected. Unless I do not understand the issue fully, it would not take very long not only for an alternative number to be secured but for the suppliers and clients to be notified of what the new number is. What is the real advantage of keeping the whole process secret—other than protecting sources—set against the benefits of having, as far as possible, an open justice system? Can the Minister explain how these measures present any more than a minor irritation to the drug dealers? In her explanation, she talked about these measures seriously disrupting drug dealers, but surely it would be very quick and easy to re-establish their lines of communication.
Moving on to wider issues, these measures are symptomatic of the Government’s approach to illegal drugs—tinkering around the edges in the vain hope of appearing to be doing something. But the inescapable fact is that there is an insatiable demand for illegal drugs, from young people who smoke small amounts of cannabis to the rich and famous who use cocaine. The fact that these drugs are illegal is no longer a consideration for millions of recreational drug users in the UK. As with most forms of prohibition—as we have learnt from history—stemming demand is clearly ineffective and, as a result, the law is being brought into disrepute. Addiction to illegal drugs, on the other hand, should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal justice issue. It is the sufferer’s addiction that is the issue and not the drugs that they are addicted to.
As with any insatiable demand, there will clearly be a supply. The only effective way to deal with illegal drug supply is to take out the whole distribution network from source to street. During the period of the “peace dividend”, between peace in Northern Ireland and the rise of Islamist terrorism and the far right, the police and the security services were able to mount a limited number of operations that did just that—take out importers, distributors and street dealers. The combination of the diversion of the security services back to their core function of anti-terrorism and the reduction in police resources means such operations are no longer possible.
There was a story in the Times this week on this very issue of county lines, which reported:
“Thousands of children and teenagers are being used by criminal gangs as drug runners ... The National Crime Agency ... believes that the ‘county lines’ drug trade, in which urban gangs move Class A drugs and cash between inner-city hubs and out-of-town locations, is out of control”.
I spoke a few weeks ago in Parliament to some young people whose lived experience is that drug dealing, with all its inherent risks and dangers, presents the best way to make money as far as they are concerned, whether to support a reasonable lifestyle or to put food on the table for their families. Prison was seen by them as a place where they can meet with their friends. As one young woman recently released from Holloway prison explained, it was somewhere where she had “the best time”, to quote her exactly. She added, admitting the irony, that when her local police station was the base for a safer neighbourhood team and she saw uniformed officers on a regular basis she felt safer, but not anymore.
In a society where discrimination against the young, and black and minority ethnic people, persists in the job market, where young people’s lives are blighted by criminal records acquired at a young age, and which, from young people’s perspective, gives them little or nothing and no hope of making a decent living by legitimate means in the future, they believe drug dealing to be a legitimate option. All this creates a parallel society where young people feel they have to arm themselves with knives and guns to make themselves feel safe, whether they are engaged in drug dealing or not, resulting in record numbers of young people dying on the streets from knife crime and of people dying on our streets from taking illegal drugs because there is no control of the strength or composition of the drugs they are taking. What is the Government’s response to this alarming picture? It is to cut off the phones of drug dealers, if and only if they find out what numbers the dealers are using—something that can be rectified by drug dealers within hours.
There is a crisis in this country enveloping increasing numbers of young people. Of course we should make life difficult for drug dealers and these measures may have a marginal impact, but a major rethink about the legalisation and regulation of drugs, the treatment of addiction, the incarceration and criminalisation of young people, providing opportunities for young people to earn decent money legitimately, and the decimation of community policing, is desperately needed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for her explanation of the regulations before the Grand Committee. I am fully supportive of them as far as they go and I welcome the action being taken here, although more could be done.
I have spent a few Fridays and Saturdays with the Metropolitan Police over the last few months, looking at a variety of the operations it undertakes and how it has to work in some very challenging circumstances to keep us safe. This whole issue of drug gangs crossing county lines was the subject of a briefing I received recently. I remember visiting one particular unit that explained how a number of young people from their area had been apprehended in a coastal town with drugs and cash. They had gone from their London base and they were dealing stuff there. It is absolutely right that this exploits some very young, vulnerable people. It potentially drags young people into a life of crime. There are other risks for these young people of being groomed and sexually abused, and of being subject to other forms of violence. It is a very depressing thing to see.
I also went on a raid of a property being used as a drugs den. Across the table there were about a dozen mobile phones. If you are a drug dealer apparently you have loads of phones, which is why we have these orders. That highlighted to me the importance of these phones to the operations.
This is a serious issue and the orders have my support but my problem is that the phones can be bought with minimal information. You can just wander into a high street store or supermarket and do not need to provide anything and you can get a mobile phone and off you go. If you are a drug dealer I suppose you buy loads of these phones. I think you can also buy the mobile phone credit with minimal information. There are lots of circumstances where if you want to do things in this country you have to provide ID—to buy goods, to buy services, to get access to credit. This week I went to the post office because a parcel had arrived, we were not there and a little card was put through the door. To get the parcel, which was for my wife, I had to produce the card, our council tax bill and both our passports—just to get a parcel that was legitimately ours. But apparently someone can go to the high street and buy a mobile phone with no indication of who they are—and go off and set an operation up.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the points that they raised. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a series of very good points about this issue, including about the perhaps marginal benefit of disconnecting the phone. I guess that assumes that the phone is used by one person to make one call but in fact it is not. It is often used by hundreds of drug users to facilitate thousands of deals every single day. Therefore, giving no notice of the intention to close down the mobile phone stops the criminals from posting to the users the fact that the phone is going to be closed down. So that is one benefit of it.
Both noble Lords suggested that this is just one very small step. It is something that the NCA and the Government have been concerned about. It is one step. It is not the whole solution. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the general support that users need with rehabilitation and perhaps with mental health problems. The other issues around guns and gangs often go together with drugs. He is right that there is often a multiagency approach to just one of the problems that these young people face. As I said to, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, before the debate, often these young people are in care, so they are very vulnerable. These are the people who are being used for the county lines activity. It absolutely needs sorting but noble Lords are right that this is not the full answer to what is quite a complex problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the police cuts. As I have explained on many occasions, the police budget has been protected over the last few years. The NCA shows that police forces across the country are very engaged in tackling county lines. They are not linking any problems with budgetary issues to being able to tackle these problems.
I understand that new CPS guidance has been issued, as well as awareness guidance on health and social care problems. I do not think the police or the Government want to criminalise a young person at 16 for drug use. They want to rehabilitate that person, as the noble Lord says. Access to jobs and a life away from drugs, guns and gangs is much more preferable to a life dealing with drugs, albeit such a life can be quite lucrative.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked why the NCA cannot launch criminal proceedings against the phone line. The ownership of the phone line is concealed and often anonymous. The noble Lord makes the point about identification, because we have to provide identification for everything, but someone can simply go into a mobile phone shop and buy a mobile phone. I will take that point away with me. The noble Lord also made a point on verification, and I do not disagree. He also asked whether there was an unwillingness of mobile phone operators to engage with this. I think there was that element, because the Government would not have legislated if mobile phone operators had co-operated on this. I think that that answers the noble Lord’s questions.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for those replies. I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that some of the companies involved may not be as keen as we hoped they would be. It is a bizarre situation that someone can go off down the road and buy a mobile phone. This may not be the only solution, but if you bought a phone and the line was attached to you and you had to provide your passport and credit card, and even if in the end you were not a drug dealer but the phone was used for a drug deal, someone could go back and say: “Hang on—you bought this phone six months ago and now it has been used in these operations. What have you got to say about that?”. The fact that it is all anonymous makes things very difficult for everybody concerned.
I think it is the companies—either the shops or mobile phone operators—who are not keen to co-operate. We have seen in other Bills, such as the Data Protection Bill, other issues from companies that are not keen to co-operate with the Government and law enforcement agencies. Perhaps we should look further at that, because it seems ridiculous to me. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will know better than I that these are really serious matters. People’s lives can be totally destroyed. A company certainly has no right not to co-operate with the Government. The Government should insist on this. As I said, you cannot get your parcel from the Post Office without producing your council tax bill or your passport, but you can go off and buy a mobile phone and become a drug dealer. It is ridiculous.
I also mentioned the point about cannabis seeds. Cannabis seeds and all the equipment can be bought in this country quite legally. You cannot run a cannabis farm, but you can buy seeds on a number of high streets, which is absolutely ridiculous. I found that out only a few weeks ago when I was out with the police on the beat. They said, “That shop down the road, you can buy all the stuff, and there’s nothing illegal in doing that”. If that is the case—and I have no reason to doubt the officers—that should also be looked at, because it is a ridiculous situation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I forgot to mention that point. If the noble Lord would let me know the name of the shop, we can take that on.
Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2017.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the draft order, for which the approval of the Committee is being sought, has been laid under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. This allows the Treasury by order to provide for the accounts of a body to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The body must exercise public functions or must be entirely or substantially funded by the Government. It is intended to give the C&AG responsibility for auditing the accounts of a number of public sector bodies and companies. The draft order also removes from auditing, by the C&AG, 61 public bodies and companies because they have ceased operation and are, therefore, no longer subject to public sector audit.
The main provision in the draft order is to give the C&AG responsibility for auditing both Ebbsfleet Development Corporation and the Housing Ombudsman. These are central government bodies and should be audited by the C&AG. The Ebbsfleet Development Corporation is a new body set up by the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2015. Currently, the accounts and statement of accounts of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation are audited by the C&AG by agreement, which means that he is not the statutory auditor. This order appoints the C&AG as statutory auditor for Ebbsfleet Development Corporation accounts.
The Housing Ombudsman was incorporated by the Housing Ombudsman (Corporation Sole) Order 2013. Under the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the ombudsman prepares annual accounts in accordance with an accounts direction approved by HM Treasury. These accounts were audited by the C&AG, but the scheme gave no authority to lay the accounts in Parliament. This order corrects that anomaly and will ensure that the Housing Ombudsman’s annual accounts can be laid before Parliament. This meets the statutory requirement of the C&AG reporting to Parliament by laying certified accounts of government departments and other public sector bodies.
This draft order also makes provision for six public bodies constituted as companies to be audited by the C&AG. These are: BPDTS Ltd, the College of Policing, English Sports Development Trust Ltd, the Oil and Gas Authority, Phone-paid Services Authority Ltd and Revenue and Customs Digital Technology Services Ltd. Section 482 of the Companies Act 2006 disapplies the auditing requirements in that Act where a non-profit-making company is subject to have a public audit by the C&AG under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. For this exemption to apply, the non-profit-making company must be included in an order under Section 25(6) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. There are further conditions applicable to this exemption. These are that: the company is non-profit-making; if the company is a parent or subsidiary undertaking, all undertakings in the group are non-profit-making; and the balance sheet contains a statement that the company is entitled to exemption under Section 482 of the Companies Act 2006. As currently constituted these six companies will meet these requirements, provided they include an appropriate statement in their balance sheets.
Finally, this draft order amends primary and secondary legislation to remove 61 public bodies and companies from the scope of audit by the C&AG because they have ceased operations. The primary and secondary legislation being amended for these purposes is: the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947; the Offender Management Act 2007; the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Orders 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2012.
In conclusion, the proposals in the draft order confirm the Government’s commitment to achieve consistency in the public audit arrangements for public bodies and provide a net gain for both Parliament and the public. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exposition. I shall be very brief. Ebbsfleet Development Corporation figures largely in the draft order. Can he say in some detail what it is, what it does, who leads it and what is its budget?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to be a bit picky, but I hope that the Minister has not moved the order; I hope that what he has in fact moved is that the Grand Committee do consider the order. The order itself, whatever his Treasury-produced paper says, will be taken on the Floor of the House after consideration by the Committee. I note the Minister nodding in agreement. I hope that his authors will get that little bit right in future.
I thank the Minister for introducing the order to the Committee this afternoon. The order provides for certain public bodies to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In addition, the scope of audit is removed from the Comptroller and Auditor-General for a number of public bodies and companies that are no longer in operation, no longer exist or no longer meet the criteria for public sector audit. It is on the whole concept of criteria that I wish to ask one or two questions.
First, does the primary legislation that established these bodies have Henry VIII clauses that allow the changes to be made by delegated legislation? Secondly, with reference to those bodies being omitted from the scope of National Audit Office audit, why are they being omitted and against what criteria? Will the Minister outline the criteria to the Committee? Thirdly, why are the specific eight bodies being added, under what criteria are they being added and why are the Government adding them at this specific moment? Lastly, what other bodies are either waiting to or likely to be added to the list of bodies to be audited by the National Audit Office? Is there a question about the quality of the bodies waiting to be added?
Although I understand that the order is largely procedural, I would welcome a response from the Minister on those questions to give greater clarity to those who are affected by the order about why they are affected. In very simple terms, the Minister gave us an overall view that it was to add consistency, but I should have thought that that consistency must be against a general view of what should or should not be audited by the National Audit Office.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and will try to respond as best I can.
In answer to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—he asked: what is the big picture?—the big picture goes back to the year 2000 and Lord Sharman’s report, which recommended that all public bodies should have as a statutory auditor the C&AG. Since then, most new bodies that have been set up have had the C&AG as their auditor, and most existing bodies have been swept up and are now caught by the C&AG. One or two have slipped through the net, which is why we need the order to capture them. That is the basic principle—that the C&AG should be the statutory auditor of all public bodies in the interests of transparency and other broad goals.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation and, in particular, I think, who reads its report and what the whole development corporation costs. I would like to write to him as I do not have those figures at my fingertips. The responsibility for the development corporations rests with the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I will contact it to pass on the noble Lord’s concerns and make sure that he gets the information that he has rightly asked for. The Ebbsfleet Development Corporation is delivering 15,000 homes and creating a 21st-century garden city in north Kent, taking advantage of HS1.
Turning to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I think I have explained the broad context of audit and accountability and where central government believes responsibilities should rest. The first statutory instruments under Section 25(6) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 made the C&AG the auditor of certain non-departmental public bodies. The C&AG was also given greater powers of access to documents held by persons in receipt of grants from, or in relation to contracts with, bodies audited by the C&AG. Under the Companies Act 2006, the C&AG was given power to audit companies and specific provision was made for the auditing of non-profit-making companies. This order continues the long-standing approach of implementing Lord Sharman’s recommendations, which I mentioned at the beginning, and which have been adopted by different Governments.
I shall address the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. On whether the primary legislation that established these bodies has Henry VIII clauses that allow these changes to be made by delegated legislation, for the bodies included in the scope of C&AG audit by this order, I can advise that no such provisions are available. For the bodies that are removed from that scope, the order amends provisions previously made by earlier GRAA orders and there are no other legislative provisions which would enable all the necessary changes to be made.
Regarding the bodies that are being omitted from the scope of the NAO audit, as I said in my opening remarks, these 61 bodies have ceased operation and there is therefore nothing left to audit and they are being removed. They are listed in one of the schedules to the order. Regarding the addition of the eight bodies, again, in my opening remarks I tried to outline the criteria. To address the noble Lord’s question on why this is presented now, the Treasury originally laid the order in March 2017. However, debates were not possible as a result of the election and so the order was re-laid in September, in slightly amended form, with the Commons debate scheduled for 12 December, and was presented to the Lords today. Lastly, the noble Lord raised a question on future GRAA orders. The Treasury has informed me that no further affirmative orders are planned, which I think is good news for both of us. The last affirmative GRAA order was in 2012.
We support the policy that all public bodies should be subject to C&AG audit to increase parliamentary accountability. We are now implementing that policy, bringing full accountability to Parliament for public bodies and other central government bodies that are consolidated within a department’s accounts. The draft order before us today is an important step to realising that ambition.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Will the Minister forgive my unreasonable curiosity and tell me what GRAA stands for?
Lord Young of Cookham
Government Resources and Accounts—Act. I got three out of four off the cuff. That was a very fast ball the noble Lord bowled me right at the end, and I got three out of four.
Motion agreed.
Community Drivers’ Hours Offences (Enforcement) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
That the Grand Committee do consider the Community Drivers’ Hours Offences (Enforcement) Regulations 2017.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are being made in order to enhance the enforcement agencies’ powers in respect of the drivers’ hours rules. For the benefit of your Lordships who may not be aware I shall make a few introductory remarks about those rules.
The drivers’ hours rules are central to keeping our roads safe. They set maximum driving times and minimum break and rest times for most commercial drivers of both lorries and coaches. For example, the rules mean that after four and a half hours driving, a driver must take a 45-minute break. Daily driving time is normally limited to nine hours.
The consequences of drivers working when fatigued can, of course, be catastrophic, so although we can be pleased to note that road accidents involving coaches and lorries have been reducing over time, we must not be complacent. The rules are enforced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police at targeted roadside checks and also by visiting operators’ premises. Most breaches of the rules are swiftly identified and efficiently dealt with by means of fixed financial penalties. More serious breaches are referred to the traffic commissioners or lead to prosecution.
These regulations extend the use of fixed financial penalties so that they are available for certain drivers’ hours offences committed within 28 days of a drivers’ hours compliance check. At present, this fixed-penalty approach can be taken only for current offences—those that are being committed at the time of the check. But the tachograph, the device which is used to check compliance with the rules, has a historical memory. These “on-the-record” or “historical” drivers’ hours offences can be sanctioned at present, but only through court prosecution. This is time consuming and costly, as your Lordships can imagine, both for the enforcement agencies and for the operator and driver involved.
It creates a particular difficulty in respect of non-UK drivers, which is perhaps where the biggest consequence of this change will be. Although they may be issued with court summons, regrettably they do not generally respond to them. It is costly and may be impracticable to arrest them and hold them in police custody. The regulations will enable the enforcement agencies to issue fixed financial penalties for infringements of the drivers’ hours rules by non-UK and UK drivers committed in the 28 days preceding a compliance check. The regulations will also bring the UK into line with several other European countries, including France and Germany, which already issue on-the-spot penalties for historical drivers’ hours offences. In addition, it will save the enforcement agencies time and money by giving them the option of taking fewer cases to court.
The new powers will not be used indiscriminately. The DVSA intends to carefully consider all relevant circumstances and the gravity of the offence before taking any action and will exercise its discretion when dealing with minor infringements. My department undertook a formal consultation on these changes. They received broad support from respondents, including trade associations. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, these regulations relate to on-the-spot fines for historical road traffic offences—that is, offences committed within 28 days prior to the driver being stopped. Drivers’ hours legislation is an important aspect of road safety standards in this country, as well as, of course, an important aspect of the welfare of the drivers concerned. These regulations apply to the so-called historical offences committed outside the UK in other EU member states and some third-party countries.
A very high percentage of freight traffic on our roads is driven by foreign drivers. Many of them are actually EU citizens resident in this country and working for UK companies here and abroad, but many of them are foreign drivers who have simply come to the UK to deliver and collect goods. Therefore, the future co-ordination and harmonisation with the rest of the EU is vital to our road safety in future—unless of course we are going to hermetically seal our borders, as some Brexit supporters seem keen to do.
I particularly want to ask the Minister about Northern Ireland, because on the island of Ireland, drivers cross all the time from one side of the border to the other. They do not even notice that they have crossed that border in many cases. It happens much more frequently and much less formally than in the rest of the UK because that border is invisible. There has been a great deal of discussion about future customs checks, but clearly the harmonisation of drivers’ hours is also vital. Therefore, do the Government intend to keep in step with EU rules on this, now and in future—deal or no deal? It is not just a case of whether the Government intend to accept the EU rules as they currently stand. The Government need to commit to keeping the EU rules as they are amended and changed over time, which happens fairly regularly. Unless Britain is entirely in step with the EU, now and in perpetuity, there will be huge problems for drivers in Ireland. In effect, a border will be created.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear explanation. Listening to the remarks of the noble Baroness who has just taken her seat, I was reminded of the high reputation she had in the Welsh Assembly as a Minister.
The helpful Explanatory Note refers to,
“rules about periods of driving, rests and breaks for drivers of specified vehicles undertaking international carriage of goods and passengers”.
Road safety requires these rules, that is for sure. I note the reference to “international carriage of goods”. My question is: are the Government doing enough to collect the fines from drivers who have being doing things wrongly on our roads but who then go back to Europe? Often they do not pay up. If you talk to magistrates, they will say that that is the case. Have the Government any statistics on the fines not paid by drivers from overseas?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I, too, thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of the SI. We certainly support its objectives. I have some points to raise about the Explanatory Note and Explanatory Memorandum. I would be more than happy to have a written reply if the Minister is not in a position to respond to some or all of them now.
At least one or two of the points are probably driven as much by ignorance on my part as anything else. Can I clarify to whom the order applies? Is it only to,
“drivers of specified vehicles undertaking international carriage of goods and passengers”,
as referred to in the first paragraph of the Explanatory Note at the end of the draft statutory instrument, or does the order apply to,
“drivers engaged in the carriage of goods and passengers by road”
as referred to in paragraph 4.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum—apparently without any stipulation that it applies only to the international carriage of goods and passengers?
What is the position of drivers of vehicles undertaking national as opposed to international carriage of goods and passengers? Are they covered by similar requirements about periods of driving rests and breaks and can they already be issued with a fixed penalty notice for an offence suspected of being committed within 28 days prior to detection, or only one committed at the time they are detected?
I ask that point to clarify whether the order does or does not mean that we are treating drivers of vehicles involved in international carriage of goods and passengers differently from those involved in national carriage of goods and passengers in this country in respect of fixed penalty notices referred to in the order.
The Explanatory Memorandum refers in paragraph 2.1 to “on-the-spot” penalties being,
“available to enforcement officers when taking action in respect of both UK and non-UK drivers when they detect an infringement of certain Community drivers’ hours rules out of GB”.
In that context, I also raise a point that has just been raised by my noble friend Lord Jones: if a non-UK driver does not pay their fixed penalty notice on the spot for an offence suspected to have been committed within 28 days prior to detection, what does present evidence available indicate is the likelihood of that fine being paid in whole, and what are the costs of securing payment of such outstanding fines?
The Explanatory Memorandum does not give any indication of the likely number of cases that will no longer be coming to court, although it does refer to court proceedings being “costly and relatively cumbersome”. How many cases will no longer be coming to court that currently do so, as a result of the order, and at what saving? Likewise, how many more offences is it considered will be pursued through fixed penalty notices now enabled under this order which would not have been pursued through court proceedings due to their being “costly and relatively cumbersome”?
Paragraph 8.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the assurances being sought by two trade associations. One of them appears to be that,
“enforcement officers would focus on serious offences and not penalise all minor offences”.
My comment relates to all the issues on which assurances were being sought, as referred to in paragraph 8.2. I would like to know what way forward was agreed to in follow-up meetings. All that is said in paragraph 8.2 is that:
“These concerns were addressed and a way forward agreed in follow-up meetings”.
What was the way forward agreed and what are the assurances that have been given in relation to the issues raised by the two trade associations and set out in paragraph 8.2? I also ask the question that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—in considerably more detail than I intend to do, since I do not wish to repeat points that she has made. I, too, would like to know, since the order apparently does not apply to Northern Ireland, what is—and what will be—the position in Northern Ireland in relation to the issues addressed by this order and, indeed, to the rather wider issues referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in her comments?
As I said at the beginning, I am more than happy if the Minister wishes to send a written response to the questions that I have raised.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank noble Lords for all their questions—at least I think I thank them. Various points were made about Ireland. Obviously, goods will be able to travel easily in Europe after we leave the EU; that is our intention. Businesses and consumers across Europe would expect both sides in negotiations to work to this end and there is no good reason why suitable arrangements cannot be negotiated.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned Northern Ireland and its rules and regulations. They are devolved and Northern Ireland has its own rules on tachographs. On what will happen post Brexit, we will continue to work with the industry to ensure that the interests of the road haulage sector are properly reflected in the negotiations during our withdrawal from the EU.
As for how many more penalties are expected to be issued, based on last year’s figures it is estimated that fixed penalties for drivers’ hours and tachograph offences could increase from around 10,000 to at least 14,000 per annum. Of course, on-the-spot checks and fines mean that we are saving quite a lot in court procedures, which are very time-consuming and much more expensive. An official record is not kept on how many non-UK offenders are given a warning or are fined but, since December 2013, the DVSA has recorded giving 273 warnings. However, as the recording of verbal warnings is not mandatory, the figure is likely to be a lot higher. As I said in my opening speech, enforcement officers will be sensitive as to how they give these fines and will listen to what the drivers have to say and to their explanations for what they are doing. If the fine is not paid on the spot, enforcement officers can immobilise the vehicle until payment is made.
I think that I have answered all the questions, so all I need to say is that the new powers will make a big difference to how we collect these fines. The drivers’ hours rules are at the heart of the regulatory regime governing the use of heavy commercial vehicles. They are in place to prevent drivers driving when tired and putting themselves and other road users at risk. It is important that our enforcement of them is as good as it can be, both to deter wrongdoing in the first place and to take action efficiently and effectively when it does arise.
I add that, following consultations, as I said, the main trade associations, which included the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the main trade unions, Unite and the United Road Transport Union, all supported this change. Their only criticism of the Government on this issue could have been the amount of time that it would take to change the law, but they did not even raise that as they are very keen that we should go ahead and get this this done.
These regulations are important measures for enhancing the enforcement of the drivers’ hours rules. They will mean that more offenders can be dealt with at the roadside rather than through time-consuming prosecutions. In doing so, they will help to keep our roads safe, which is the most important thing. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Rosser
Do the regulations apply only to the international carriage of goods or do they apply to national carriage of goods, that is, within this country? Does it have to be goods that are coming from abroad into this country? Also, on paragraph 8.2, I am not aware of the way forward to address the assurances sought by the two trade associations. There are a number of issues set out in paragraph 8.2 on which they sought assurances, but I am still not clear on the nature of the assurances given. I would like to know that either now or in writing.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
On the noble Lord’s first question, it applies to both. On the second, the DVSA has assured the industry that its enforcement officers will ensure that offences will be recorded against the operator responsible for the driver on the date of offending and attribute the OCRS scores to the appropriate record.
Lord Rosser
What assurance was given when they wanted,
“assurances … that enforcement officers would focus on serious offences and not penalise all minor offences”?
On the face of it, that is allowing someone to get away with something. What is the definition of a minor offence that has been agreed in the assurance that has been given, or the way forward that has been agreed?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I love all the inspiration that is coming from over my right shoulder. The DVSO will be issuing fixed penalties for offences at the threshold that would normally go to prosecution. That is the whole point: it is to save prosecution. This is normally when examiners detect at least four less serious historical offences or one serious offence. So it is a build-up, really. Where normally they would say, “Right, we need to send you to court”, instead they will impose on-the-spot fines.
Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 10 July 2017. They will reduce confusion for pension scheme members and burdens for industry. They enact the conclusions of a call for evidence in 2015 concerning how a scheme determines whether or not a member is required to take financial advice prior to transferring their pension savings. Plainly put, the regulations simplify how trustees and scheme managers value members’ pensions in order to determine whether the requirement to take advice applies. There is no change in the actual value of the pensions themselves.
To better understand the provisions, it is helpful to first detail the wider context in which they operate. The provisions form part of a wider package of changes that as a whole simplify, but also expand, the protections available for members with potentially valuable guarantees attached to their pensions. Since they were introduced in April 2015, the pension freedoms have given individuals aged 55 and over greater choice in how and when they access their pension savings. Members who save into pension arrangements that provide potentially valuable guarantees can generally also exercise these new freedoms, where necessary by first transferring to a defined contribution scheme or converting to defined contribution savings.
The regulations debated here apply to these pension arrangements—“safeguarded benefits”, as they are known—which include typical defined benefit schemes, but more importantly for the purpose of this debate, safeguarded flexible benefits. I should explain these terms. Safeguarded flexible benefits are flexible in that there is a pot, which is cash-based, meaning that the pension freedoms apply, but they are also safeguarded because they include a promise in relation to the secure income they may provide in retirement. Normally, but not exclusively, safeguarded flexible benefits are personal pension contracts that include the option to take an annuity at a guaranteed rate. These are commonly referred to as a guaranteed annuity rate—GAR.
Because of the valuable guarantees offered by safeguarded benefits, legislation introduced an advice requirement alongside the pension freedoms. This requires trustees and scheme managers to check that members with safeguarded benefits valued as greater than £30,000 have taken financial advice before transferring or otherwise flexibly accessing those benefits. It is this legislative requirement—specifically, how pensions are valued for the purpose of determining whether or not it applies —that I am proposing to amend today.
The Government have become aware that the methodology prescribed in regulations for valuing members’ benefits against the £30,000 threshold has resulted in firms offering GARs having to provide two values for the member’s pension: the transfer value, which an individual will actually receive, and the actuarially calculated, but ultimately notional, value against which the £30,000 advice threshold is tested. Providers and consumer groups reported members with safeguarded flexible benefits experiencing confusion over why they were receiving two valuations. This means that there is always a potential risk that members may choose to take advice and access their pension, having wrongly believed that they would be entitled to the higher actuarially calculated value, when they would receive only the lower transfer value. The regulations debated here will, if approved, amend existing provisions so that trustees and scheme managers are required to treat the value of safeguarded benefits as equal to the transfer value of those benefits when determining whether or not the £30,000 threshold is met.
Trustees of typical defined benefit schemes will continue to use the same methodology, subject to limited exceptions to which I will come later. Meanwhile, those offering safeguarded flexible benefits, such as guaranteed annuity rates, produce only one valuation: the transfer value of the member’s benefits. For most schemes, this will be the cash value of the member’s pot. This single figure is easily explained and avoids confusion for members. It is also widely used within other communications and is already produced by firms. The instrument also contains transitional provisions to accommodate the changeover from one valuation methodology to another so that members are not disadvantaged.
Finally, the regulations make an amendment to the valuation methodology that removes an inconsistency in the treatment of defined benefit pension scheme savers. Specifically, it is for members of those defined benefit schemes which use higher cash equivalents than those required by legislation. We are working with actuaries to understand and manage the impacts of this measure, in order to understand and monitor its effects. We will be able to amend this requirement should it not function as intended.
Although the purpose and focus of this debate is, of course, the affirmative instrument to which I have just referred, it is worth explaining that the measures set out in these regulations form part of a package of regulatory changes. The Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 introduce a new requirement for trustees and scheme managers to send tailored communications informing all members with safeguarded flexible benefits of the availability of potentially valuable guarantees at precisely the point they are most engaged—that is, when they are considering whether to flexibly access and, therefore, potentially surrender those benefits. Although not within the scope of today’s debate, because they have already been made and laid by the negative procedure, on 6 July 2017, these requirements form an important partner to the regulations debated here by improving member protection through targeted and simplified communications.
I will explain the combined effect of these measures on members with a range of values of safeguarded flexible benefits such as GARs. First, there are those members who have pension pots with a transfer value of over £30,000, for whom the advice requirement still applies, only now they will also receive an indication of the guarantee’s value before they commit to incurring the expense of seeking and taking financial advice. Members who decide not to proceed with their original request to transfer, convert or take a lump sum payment will have therefore saved themselves, on average, £900. For those who still wish to proceed and access their savings, that option is of course still available. Members will receive a more detailed analysis of the implications of doing this, as they will have to pay for financial advice.
Secondly, there is a group of members who were previously required to look for financial advice but, under the new valuation methodology, would now not be required to attempt to find advice. These are typically members with pots in the range of £15,000 to £30,000. I have used the terms “look for” and “attempt to find” advisedly, because I contend that these members are better served by a combination of the new valuation method and risk warnings this package of regulations introduces. Under the current regime, many of these members are both deprived of any opportunity to appreciate their benefits and denied the ability to exercise an informed choice, because they cannot find a willing financial adviser to perform a transfer analysis for a pension pot with a transfer value of £15,000.
Replacing the requirement for members to take financial advice with a personalised risk warning therefore maintains protection while simplifying the process. It does this by removing an additional layer of cost for members, confusion about the money they stand to access from their pension savings through the use of two valuations, and consequent frustration. The combined package of regulations ensures that even members with small pots—typically below £15,000—are notified of the presence of potentially valuable guarantees in their pension scheme. These members would not have been required to take financial advice under the current regime, but they will now be sent a personalised risk warning before they transfer, convert or otherwise flexibly access their pension pot.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to the principle that those pension savers wishing to exercise choice over when and how they access their pension savings should be able and supported to do so. However, it is equally important to protect members through simplifying how they are told about their pension, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary burdens by removing needless complexity for members and industry alike.
These regulations form part of a package of changes which ensure both that more members receive timely and suitable information about their safeguarded flexible pension benefits and that industry can use a simpler method for valuing benefits for the purpose of the advice requirement. Taken together, these changes demonstrate that the Government have listened carefully to both stakeholders and consumer groups. They show that we are now meeting our commitment, made as part of our consultation exercises, not only to monitor the pension freedoms but to reform existing measures where needed. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her measured exposition. I note that in the Explanatory Note the word “survivor” crops up. Does she have to hand a legal definition of “survivor”?
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register, in particular that I am a trustee of two occupational pension schemes. The regulations have the effect of removing some individuals—currently estimated at 2,360 per annum—from the need to get regulated advice before accessing those pension pots with a safeguarded flexible benefit, such as a guaranteed annuity rate. This is a consequence of changing the valuation process to determine whether such benefits meet the greater than £30,000 trigger for requiring the individual to take regulated advice.
The term “safeguarded flexible benefits”—the subject matter of these regulations—can feel imprecise, however many times one reads the background paperwork. I appreciate that there are problems with getting data from both contract- and trust-based schemes, but it is not always clear which benefits are included and which are not. I acknowledge that schemes may well need to seek legal opinion to get that clarity so they are sure about how they are applying these regulations to their own schemes.
I thank the DWP officials who quite late into yesterday evening were still answering my various questions. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister two questions about which safeguarded flexible benefits are included. In occupational schemes where members have a right under the scheme rules to convert their AVC saving into scheme defined-benefit benefits, does that provision come under these regulations? Is it possible to give greater clarity on which guaranteed annuity rates in occupational schemes would not be considered money purchase benefits?
Moving on to the risk warning process, I recognise that these regulations sit alongside a new requirement for schemes to send members with safeguarded flexible benefits a tailored risk warning about the guarantees their benefits offer before they proceed to transfer, convert or flexibly access them. Such risk warnings are welcome, but I have a series of linked questions for the Minister on the process around those risk warnings. First, why can the risk warning not be issued immediately following receipt of a member request to transfer, convert or directly access their flexible benefits and before commencing to process the member request? If the warning is received as late as 14 days before any live request completes, evidence suggests that by then individuals are well set on a course of action, inertia takes over and risk warnings are less effective. Some schemes run a system where there are warnings in place: the first thing is the warning, before the full process is triggered.
Secondly, will the risk warning be sent to any other potential beneficiary of the benefits, such as parties involved in a pensions sharing order or, as my noble friend said, possibly survivors? This is a duplicate question, in that sense. Why is the warning restricted to signposting the member to free and impartial guidance? Is this not exactly the type of case where a person should be given almost a default access to the guidance service in line with the recent amendment agreed to the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill? Just a written reference to signposting can often get lost in the detail of the information sent to members, and we are talking about safeguarded benefits.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the introduction and explanation of the regulations. As ever, I am delighted to have the expertise of my noble friend Lady Drake alongside me on these occasions.
The regulations derive, as we have heard, from Section 48 of Pension Schemes Act 2015 and are an integral part of the pension freedoms introduced with effect from April 2015. They focus on the requirements on trustees or managers of a pension scheme in Great Britain to ensure that appropriate independent advice has been received before safeguarded benefits can be converted, one way or another, to flexible benefits.
These regulations, as we have heard, sit alongside other regulations, of the negative variety, which concern requirements for schemes to provide risk warnings where members have the benefit of a GAR—guaranteed annuity rate—which they might otherwise be in danger of relinquishing. Together with the transitional provisions for the advice requirements, these are described in the Explanatory Memorandum as a package and we comment on them on that basis.
The requirement to get regulated advice currently operates when an individual’s safeguarded benefits are valued at more than £30,000. It is suggested that the detail of this requires amendment because the basis of calculation is unduly complicated in some circumstances and can lead to situations where the calculation of the advice threshold exceeds £30,000 but the pension pot size is different. Having two different valuations is said to be confusing, and we understand that point.
The impact assessment explains that these complications exist because the valuation regulations currently applied were previously used only by occupational DB schemes and that the circumstances in which they now have to be applied do not generally have standardised processes in place to value GAR benefits in terms of the current value of the future income they offer. As we have heard, the solution offered by these regulations is to adopt the transfer value of the pot in the calculations determining whether the £30,000 threshold for getting regulated advice is reached.
On an ongoing basis, this will save individuals with safeguarded flexible benefits some £11 million per year in advice fees. As we have heard, it will remove some 12,000 people per year from the need to get advice before they access pension pots, although they will be brought within the risk warning arrangements. This seems to be taking matters in the wrong direction. Changing the basis of calculation might be administratively or arithmetically convenient, but what assessment have the Government undertaken of the appropriateness of removing so many people from the benefit of advice?
It is accepted that individuals will no longer have to meet the cost of advice, but they will not be getting the benefit of that advice either. Of course, fewer requirements for regulated advice means fewer fees paid by individuals, but will the Minister remind us about the circumstances in which individuals can access their pension pot to pay for advice, the limits and the tax treatment? Do the Government have any information about the extent to which this is used?
The Explanatory Memorandum makes reference to the potential for inconsistent treatment of members regarding when advice is required when schemes can exercise more generous transfers. Will the Minister tell us how this issue is to be dealt with? We support the concept of risk warnings and the principle of informing members of their safeguarded flexible benefits. This should be the responsibility of ceding schemes and should happen before proceeding to transfer, convert or flexibly access scheme benefits. It should apply to survivors with safeguarded benefits.
We agree that those already required to take advice should be included in the risk warnings. We support there being no de minimis exemption on the basis of pot size. On timing, which my noble friend raised, it is proposed that the risk warning should be sent at least 14 days before any live request completes. Why can the warning not be sent, as my noble friend asked, as soon as a member request to transfer or access the flexible benefits is received?
The Government’s response to the consultation on these matters has confirmed the approach to the content of the risk warning and the inclusion of two comparable pension illustrations tailored to the member’s age, pot size and contribution rate and with details of guarantees available.
Paragraph 44 states that the Government are not convinced of the need to explain the difference between personalised tax warnings and the statutory money purchase illustrations. Will the Minister expand on the rationale for this position?
Can the Minister also confirm that she is confident that there should be no confusion arising from obligations in respect of retirement wake-up packs and personalised risk warnings? The written element of the risk warning is, according to the impact assessment, to include the signposting to free and impartial guidance—Pension Wise currently or SFGB, or whatever it is going to be called, in due course. As my noble friend has said, this is about the weakest indication of support, bearing in mind that many would previously have had to take advice. As my noble friend proposes, is this not the type of situation now potentially covered by amendments to the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill where individuals can be defaulted to the guidance service with an obligation to demonstrate that they have received guidance before proceeding?
We will not oppose these regulations, although in some respects we consider them a missed opportunity. However, they illustrate the complexity of aspects of our pensions system and the importance of ensuring that individuals are fully supported to understand the value of their pension entitlements.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for taking part in the debate. I will do my level best to respond to the questions as fully as I am able. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, first asked about the legal term “survivor”. “Survivor” in the regulations means a person who has survived the member and has a right to future benefits or is entitled to benefits under the scheme in respect of that member. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred to survivors. I want to make clear that these regulations apply to both members and survivors. Where an individual inherits a member’s subsisting rights in respect of safeguarded benefits and those benefits exceed the advice threshold of £30,000 the survivor is also required to take financial advice. Survivors who inherit a member’s safeguarded flexible benefits will also receive a personalised risk warning should they decide to transfer, convert or flexibly access their inherited pension rights. The risk warning is sent to whoever is making a decision about their pension saving at the point they are most engaged in that decision.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about what is included in the definition of safeguarded flexible benefits, the simplest description of a safeguarded flexible benefit is a cash pot with some form of promise or guarantee that the member can convert their pot into a pension income at a predetermined rate. We have framed the definition in fairly general terms, rather than specifically to the types of pension arrangements it covers, such as guaranteed annuity rates, in order to limit the scope for omissions or avoidance. Those uncertain whether the regulations apply should seek appropriate legal expertise and advice.
I turn to the question of what GARs in occupational schemes are not money purchase. GARs that are included in the rules of the pension scheme irrespective of whether this was reflected in the terms of a contract between the trustee and a third party, such as an insurer, are not money purchase. In this situation, the scheme would be liable to fund benefits over and above what the scheme assets—including the contract—can provide. So the benefits are technically non-money purchase and are, therefore, safeguarded benefits.
The noble Baroness also asked about members who are told about their guarantees too late. The question was, why not require schemes to tell members about their guarantees earlier on? The regulations laid alongside these regulations will require trustees and scheme managers to send members information about their valuable guarantees at precisely the point that the member is most engaged in considering what to do with their pension savings. This, we believe, makes them more effective at increasing awareness of guarantees among members than forcing schemes to send regular information long before members’ retirement, when they may not be actively considering a decision.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Just on that point, is it the Government’s position that they would support those amendments as currently carried and included in the Bill?
Baroness Buscombe
I thank the noble Lord for the question. Yes, the Government will accept the amendment in the other place but of course we cannot speak for other Members in the other place, who may think differently. Certainly, the expectation is that the amendment will see Royal Assent.
There was a suggestion that our legislation is reducing protection for members of defined benefit schemes, but these regulations have no impact on the vast majority of such schemes or their members. They will still be subject to the same requirement for regulated financial advice where their benefits exceed the same threshold, and the same valuations will continue to apply. In the small proportion of schemes that choose to offer more generous transfer values than are required by law, members whose defined benefit pensions are worth in the region of £20,000 to £30,000 are being treated more fairly. They will not be forced to take advice when members with the same rights in other defined benefit schemes are not. These members can of course opt to take advice and will be able to seek guidance, which can signal the option of advice before transferring.
There was a question about whether we were reducing member protection and making it easier for savers to surrender their guarantees. We remain committed to the principle of the advice safeguard. That is why the threshold to whom it is applied remains the same—those with safeguarded benefits with a value of over £30,000—and with the introduction of these regulations, for the majority of members with safeguarded benefits there will be no change in how their pension is valued and calculated for the purpose of the advice requirement.
However, where a pot is cash-based but has a safeguarded element, such as the option of a guaranteed annuity rate, these regulations deliver simplification and clarity. Trustees and scheme managers now have to produce only one valuation of the member’s pot. A single figure is easily explained and avoids confusing members because it makes it clearer what the members may receive if they proceed to transfer, convert or otherwise flexibly access their savings. At the same time, parallel regulations introduce new protections that are timely—sent at the point members are making a decision—and increase the total number of members informed that their pots contain guarantees.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the work that has been done on assessing the impact of the regulations. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that there will be approximately 12,400 individuals per year who no longer need to try to find advice. The noble Lord said that he felt that these regulations were a missed opportunity. I reconfirm, as I said at the outset of this brief debate, that it is very important to take on board the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions is continually reviewing and assessing the impact of regulations, following the protection freedoms. If it is found that more needs to be done, changed or amended, we will certainly do that through secondary legislation.
The regulations debated here today simplify how trustees and scheme managers value members’ pensions when determining whether the requirement to take advice applies. Pension schemes with members who hold safeguarded flexible benefits—mainly but not exclusively personal pension contracts that include the option of an annuity at a guaranteed rate—can use the transfer value of the member’s pot, instead of undertaking a complex actuarial calculation.
Representatives of consumers and industry have both sought and supported the simplification of the current valuation method that these regulations deliver, and both groups will benefit from its implementation. Consumers with safeguarded flexible benefits will be less confused when they inquire about transferring or accessing their pot because they will receive only one valuation, and the difficulties for industry when valuing these guarantees will be removed.
Finally, these regulations form part of a package of measures. If approved, they will come into force alongside a new requirement to send all members tailored communications, ensuring that all members are told about their valuable benefits in a more timely and accessible manner. There will also no longer be a cohort of individuals who are required to seek financial advice, but are often unable to locate an adviser willing to advise on their pension savings. I hope I have set out for the Committee the need for these regulations and have responded to the matters raised. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Selection of the President of Welsh Tribunals Regulations 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Selection of the President of Welsh Tribunals Regulations 2017.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
By way of background, there are seven devolved tribunals that are the responsibility of the Welsh Government: the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales, the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales, the Agricultural Land Tribunal for Wales, the Adjudication Panel for Wales, the Residential Property Tribunal Wales, the Welsh Language Tribunal, and a tribunal covering the registered school inspectors appeals panels and the registered nursery education inspectors appeals panels.
There are 41 judges currently appointed to those tribunals. Each tribunal has its own judicial lead but these judges have limited access to senior judicial leadership within Wales, which is inconsistent with other judicial officeholders in England and Wales. Sir Wyn Williams, a retired High Court judge, has been undertaking an informal leadership role, but he does not have any statutory powers.
To address this, Part 3 of the Wales Act 2017 created a new post: the President of Welsh Tribunals. The president has responsibility for making arrangements about the training, guidance and welfare of Welsh tribunal members, as well as for representing their views to Welsh Ministers and other Members of the National Assembly for Wales. The president will also be able to give practice directions and will be responsible for deploying tribunal members between the different Welsh tribunals, as well as between the UK-wide tribunals and the Welsh tribunals.
The president will also be responsible for establishing and communicating the judicial strategic direction for the Welsh tribunals. He or she will provide leadership and build effective relationships with the judicial leads of the Welsh tribunals, as well as with the Welsh Government’s Welsh Tribunals Unit, the Lord Chief Justice, the Judicial College, and Ministers and officials in the Welsh Government, relating to policy issues affecting the Welsh tribunals.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Wales Act 2017 provides two routes for the appointment of the President of Welsh Tribunals. The first is by agreement between the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers with regard to a person who is, or has been, a judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court. The second route, in default, is following selection by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
If agreement cannot be reached between the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers on the appointment, paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Wales Act 2017 requires the Lord Chief Justice to make a request to the Judicial Appointments Commission for a person to be selected for appointment to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals.
Elements of the procedure for appointment by the Judicial Appointments Commission are set out in the Act itself. These include that the Judicial Appointments Commission must appoint a selection panel which must include at least two members who are non-legally qualified, at least two judicial members and at least two members of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
The Lord Chancellor is also required to make additional provision about the process to be applied. That is what these regulations do. In particular, they specify that the selection panel should consist of five members and make further provision about the appointment of people to that panel, including that the chairperson of the panel is to be a person designated by the Lord Chief Justice who holds, or has held, office as a judge of the Supreme Court, a Lord Justice of Appeal or a puisne judge of the High Court.
The regulations also make further provision relating to consultation during the process and to the reporting of the panel’s selection to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chief Justice’s options when deciding on that selection. In order to be consistent with the relevant primary legislation and the nature of the new office, the appointment process closely reflects that which applies to the selection of the Senior President of Tribunals.
The Wales Act 2017 established the role of the President of Welsh Tribunals and the requirements for the appointment of a judicial officeholder to that office. These regulations allow that appointment to be made. I therefore commend the regulations to your Lordships and beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome these regulations, although I hope that the machinery that they set up will not be used, because of course the alternative way is by agreement between the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and Welsh Ministers.
At a time when the independence of the judiciary has been under attack, when we have heard expressions in the press such as, “Enemies of the people”, and when the press has questioned the impartiality of judges in many ways and the degree to which they are in touch, it is very important that the independence of the judiciary in Wales should be emphasised. In most of these tribunals, one of the parties concerned will almost certainly be the Welsh Government or local government, and it is very necessary that the administrative tribunal should be seen to be impartial.
I am very pleased that my old friend Sir Wyn Williams has been acting in an informal capacity as President of Welsh Tribunals—we used to meet on many a rugby field in our youth. Hopefully, he will continue in that role, and maybe he will be a candidate for president. I could not imagine the independence of the judiciary being in better hands to give leadership and direction. So many of the 41 judges who are sitting on these tribunals are lay persons without necessarily any lengthy experience in the law, so it is important that they should be properly trained and properly led. I am sure that that has been done under Sir Wyn Williams and that it will continue under these regulations.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will be very brief as I do not have a tenth of the background that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has with regard to legal operations in Wales. But I can from my own knowledge, and by reputation, endorse the comments the noble Lord made about Sir Wyn Williams.
I have one specific question, relating to the Welsh language. As noble Lords will be aware, and as I am sure the Minister has been made well aware, the Welsh language has full official status in Wales now, as it has since the legislation six or seven years ago. From 1967 onwards, it had equal validity, and the 1993 Act gave it equal status with English. That being so, operations of the law in courts and tribunals may take place in Welsh. That is the normal state of affairs in Wales. Proceedings may or may not take place in Welsh, but the choice is there and it is equal handed—as the noble Baroness in the Chair well knows.
In the specifications that have been put down, at Regulation 3(13) there is a list of the characteristics that are “desirable” for the members of the selection panel, including that members should be,
“both men and women … drawn from a range of different racial groups”—
—both fair enough—and have,
“an understanding of the administration of justice in Wales and Welsh devolution arrangements”.
That too is fine. But why is there no paragraph there about having at least some knowledge of the Welsh language, particularly as that will arise from time to time in the work that is being undertaken? I do not object to the instrument in itself, but that should have been covered, unless there is some explanation of which I am not aware.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I have a very brief, possibly technical question, which is probably because I am not legally qualified or an expert in this matter. Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that,
“the territorial application of this instrument includes Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
Further down, under “Extent and territorial application”, it says:
“The territorial application … is the whole of the United Kingdom”.
I was curious why those two provisions were there and whether it is a standard phrase that appears in all these things. It just seemed a little odd.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I of course defer to the experience of the two noble Lords from Wales, who clearly have a greater insight into the position than either the Minister—with due respect—or I could have. Of course, I join them in welcoming the instrument. However, according to the Explanatory Note, the consultation process was very limited, as it was apparently confined to officials of the Welsh Government and the Lord Chief Justice. Was there any consideration with the professions in Wales about this? Presumably many members of the legal profession would have an interest in the matter.
On the concern about diversity, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is in a position to say—if not, perhaps he could subsequently advise me—what is the present composition of tribunal membership and chairs of the tribunals in terms of gender and ethnicity. Clearly there is an implicit aspiration at paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to promote diversity. I would be interested to know what the starting point is. Although the question of developing a baseline against which progress can be measured is apparently still incorrect, it would be helpful to see where we are starting from, if not today by a note to those Members present.
This is clearly a welcome step forward. One hopes that it will work well and in particular that the diversity issue will be addressed properly and in a timely way. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the regulations and trust that their impact will be beneficial.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness for their contributions. I begin with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I entirely agree with his observations about the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and, equally, of defending the judiciary from inappropriate attack. There is an important distinction to be made between what can be regarded as justified criticism and what is tantamount to abuse. We have to underline that distinction if we are properly to defend the judiciary. Of that there can be no doubt.
On the question of whether these powers should be used, I again entirely agree with the noble Lord. This is the alternative mechanism to be employed, but it is contemplated that it will be employed only in circumstances where there is a breakdown in agreement between various parties. It is not something that is contemplated, but because the Act makes provision for this alternative mechanism it is only appropriate that we should have regulations in place so that, if necessary, it can be employed.
On the matter of who will be the president of the Welsh tribunals and his role so far as defence of tribunal members is concerned, remembering that some of those tribunal members are lay members, it is doubly important there is somebody there who can advise and defend their interests. One of the responsibilities of the President of Welsh Tribunals will be not only the training and guidance of members of the tribunals, but consideration of their welfare. That again is important.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the Welsh language, of course we recognise the importance of the Welsh language in the context of proceedings in Wales, but we have to remember that we are making an appointment to the judiciary of England and Wales. While the proceedings of those tribunals may take place in Welsh as distinct from English, it is not considered appropriate that we should extend the criteria for the appointment of this post to include the Welsh language itself.
Lord Wigley
I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. There are numerous bodies that have responsibilities that go beyond the borders of Wales where the status of the Welsh language is recognised. I would not have been surprised if there had been no provision at all for equality here on the basis that other legislation covers it, but if we are writing the equality of men and women and racial equality into this, surely it is not unreasonable to write the language in because some of the work will be undertaken in Wales, if not all of it.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Lord’s observations, language is not an equality issue in that context in the same way as the other criteria he alluded to. It is a matter of context. Of course it is important we recognise that the use of English and Welsh have equal demands on any tribunal process in Wales, but that is quite distinct from how you go about the appointment criteria.
Lord Wigley
I am sorry; I do not want to labour this unduly. The language question has, to a large extent, been put to rest in Wales over recent decades after there was a lot of strong feeling about it on the basis that there was recognition of language being an equality criterion. I do not know whether it is technically so in the legal framework here but, surely in terms of the spirit of what is being done here, it should be accommodated.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, there is no issue about whether an individual applicant would be prejudiced whether he spoke only Welsh or only English or both. That is why I say, in this context, it does not arise for the purposes of this schedule. If an applicant came forward who did not speak English but spoke only Welsh, there would be no issue about that applying to the suitability of his appointment.
Lord Wigley
May I help the Minister? I do not want to see issues like this boiling up to become another bullet in a language war, as it were. It is the sort of thing that we need a harmonious approach towards. Equality is regarded as being relevant in a language context, as in other contexts, and therefore, if it is necessary to write it into the terms as they are here, I cannot see why they are not broad enough to encapsulate language, but I have made my point.
Lord Keen of Elie
If I can make one short addition, it is that these regulations are concerned with the technical operation of judicial appointments and therefore, again, our view is that the question does not arise in this context.
I turn to territorial application. My understanding is that technically, in the context of tribunal appointments, we are looking across the UK and not just at England and Wales, which is why the regulation extends as it does. There are circumstances in which tribunal membership can move between the various jurisdictions.
On the consultation process and diversity in particular, diversity is of course taken extremely seriously. I believe that we have some figures with regard to tribunal membership. I am not sure that I have figures with regard to the chairmanship of tribunals. As regards male and female membership, about 40% of tribunal members are female. In the senior courts, the figures are of course different but, for tribunals, the figure is as high as it is anywhere. As far as BAME in tribunals is concerned, the number is about 10%. Interestingly, perhaps, we even have a figure for those who are of a non-barrister background. I am not quite sure what a non-barrister background amounts to, but 66% of tribunal judges come from a non-barrister background. On whether that is regarded as a good thing or a bad thing, I will not comment. If the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, wishes to have figures about the chairmanship of tribunals, and their gender mix, I can undertake to write to him, if those figures are available. I do not know if they are; I know that the overall figures are there, as I have just mentioned. That, I hope, addresses the points that noble Lords have raised.
House of Lords
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Death of a Member: Lord Steyn
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, on 28 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble and learned Lord’s family and friends.
Nurses: Tuition Fees
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will write off the tuition fees of nurses who spend a number of years working in the NHS or related public care services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, there are currently no plans in place to write off tuition fee loans for nurses who take up work in the NHS. Substantial financial support is available for nurses in training. With the increase in the student loan repayment threshold introduced by the Department for Education, from April 2018 a newly qualified nurse will not pay back their loan on earnings up to £25,000 a year.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, when we have a shortage of 40,000 nurses, when the Government’s introduction of tuition fees has resulted in fewer nurses entering training, and on the very day it is announced that we are having to import 5,500 nurses from India, is it not crucial that we incentivise everything we can to get British students into nursing? Would my proposal about working in the NHS not help that?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, nurse training places have been discussed a number of times in this House. I am sure noble Lords will be keen to know that, while there has been a small percentage drop-off in places year on year, the numbers recruited this year are comparable to 2014-15. That is common with the introduction of tuition fees for other courses and we would expect it to rebound. In the long run, the intention is to grow more of our own nurses and to recruit from the United Kingdom, which is why there will be an increase of 25% in the number of clinically funded training places for nurses—5,000 extra—from 2018-19 onwards.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Can my noble friend indicate what percentage of the borrowing by student nurses under the student loans scheme will be paid back at the point when it is written off after 30 years? If so, would it not be better to do this earlier in their careers, rather than at the end of them?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend is quite right to point out that student debt is forgiven after 30 years. The point of that is to ensure there is an equitable system, where those who earn more pay back more over the course of their working lives. It is important to point out that, with the new threshold moving up to £25,000, a nurse earning £26,000 in band 5 of the Agenda for Change pay scale would pay back £7.50 of that loan per calendar month.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, with the NHS reporting that 96% of hospitals are currently failing to meet their planned number of registered nurses, and UCAS reporting a decline in student nurse applications, as the noble Lord mentioned, as well as the further news that one in four post-qualifying nurses leave in their first year, what are the Government proposing to do to change the problem of recruiting new nurses, including returning to bursaries and abolishing tuition fees altogether? Specifically, what are the Government doing right now to attract nurses into our hospitals?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
It is important to point out that there are 10,000 more nurses on wards than there were seven years ago. One of the things that we are trying to do is encourage nurses to return to practice—3,000 of those nurses have been on the return to practice programme. In regard to attracting them to hospitals, the main thing is that we need to train more nurses to fill those places so that we fill the demand that we know that we have from a growing and ageing population. That is why there are going to be 5,000 more funded nursing training places from 2018 onwards.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is it not necessary to offer the most attractive terms to get more nurses into training? Will the Minister reflect on the very helpful suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that there is a possibility that a fair number of these people will never repay the full amount? Will he tell the House what the estimated write-off is of the repayments that will apply to nurses? If it is a high figure, will he reflect on the answer that he gave to the noble Lord?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I shall certainly write to my noble friend, and indeed all noble Lords, about the proportion of the write-off. Let us remember, however, why the student loans system exists. It exists because those people who earn enough over the course of their working lives end up paying more than those who do not. Therefore, if somebody has gone into nursing but has then gone on to work in another profession, earning more money and being able to pay it off, it is equitable that they pay it off. That was the policy of the Labour Government, and it has been adopted by the Conservative Government precisely on the point of equity. It is only right that the loan is written off for those who have not earned enough but, for those who have earned enough, that they pay it off.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will the Government reconsider the issue of bursaries?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I obviously have not been clear enough; I thought that I had. The answer to that is that we are not considering that at the moment.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My noble friend is explaining the policy very eloquently, but surely he ought to take into account the point raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. The problem is that the way the scheme works disincentivises people from entering occupations that are extremely socially desirable and much needed by the country precisely because they are going to be loaded with debt. Although they do not in the end pay it off, it bears very heavily on them during their working lives.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The system that we have means that the people who benefit most from higher education are those who pay for their higher education and, in doing so, they subsidise those who go into the professions that my noble friend has mentioned, which are extremely worth while but might not be that well paid.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the Health Foundation research has shown that the change in nurse training funding arrangements in England has led to a fall in student numbers, rather than the Government’s promised increase. One of the most alarming statistics shows a 31% shortfall in the number of applicants aged 30 and over, just the group with the background and experience the NHS needs, many of whom are care workers with hands-on experience wishing to develop their skills by becoming qualified nurses. Does the Minister agree that these are the very people whom nursing needs, but for whom taking on a huge debt, often at a time of heavy financial commitment, seems an impossible hurdle? Does this not all underline the need for urgent reinstatement of nurse bursaries?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I think that the figure on shortfalls that the noble Baroness has given is not right. If one looks at the UCAS data, it shows, as I said, a small drop of around 6%, but the numbers going into training are comparable to 2014-15. She is quite right about the need for additional financial support, and there is £1,000 available for childcare support for those who need it, as well as exceptional support funds of up to £3,000.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there was a great disincentive for people to enter nursing when it was decided that it was necessary to have university-level academic education to do it? The SENs—the state enrolled nurses—were abolished. Does he think that the apprenticeship scheme, which I understand is put forward all the time as being the replacement for that, is really working well, or is there a need to bring back that middle layer of nurses who cannot get five A-levels but can nevertheless be excellent nurses?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend makes an important point. It is precisely to, if you like, recreate that route into nursing that the nursing apprenticeship and nursing associate positions have been created, and the numbers are increasing.
Criminal Justice: Interpretation and Translation Services
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have revised their target for annual budget savings on the cost of providing interpretation and translation services in criminal proceedings, following the allocation of the latest contract for those services to thebigword; and if so, what is their new target.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the ministry’s suite of language service contracts was designed to ensure value for money and affordability of the services provided by its suppliers. Given the importance that the ministry attaches to the provision of court interpretation, we have not felt it appropriate to set a target figure for cost savings for the provision, which is a demand-led service. Fulfilment of interpreter bookings is currently around 98%.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, that sounds encouraging, but there has been a long-standing concern that the quality and qualifications of some of the interpreters sent to our courts do not match up to the demands of the job, which results in cases needing to be rescheduled. Is the Minister satisfied that the new contract for quality assurance can provide much useful information when it scrutinises only 1% of assignments, and can he say whether interpreters’ pay and conditions have improved under thebigword contract? Poor employment practice was one of the reasons why large numbers of high-level interpreters boycotted the service previously.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the new contracts came into place on 31 October 2016. They include a contract in respect of quality assurance, which has proved extremely effective. Indeed, the number of complaints about the service provided has dropped quarter by quarter. As regards the numbers of interpreters available, 4,660 have now registered with the new contractors. We are proceeding on that basis; it is at present a success.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, may I support the noble Baroness in her remarks? Does my noble and learned friend agree that the provision of honest and professional interpretation in criminal courts is absolutely central to the proper construction of many cases? Does he also agree that that applies to many civil cases as well, particularly family work and immigration? What public provision is now made for those classes of case, and if none, would he consider the position further?
Lord Keen of Elie
I agree with both the propositions advanced by my noble friend. We have no difficulty at present with the provision of interpretation services in respect of these matters.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this month there have been at least six reported instances of cases being adjourned for lack of an interpreter, and there may be more. This is part of a continuing pattern which disrupts court business and wastes resources. Does the MoJ have any new proposals to ensure that needs for interpreters are identified and arrangements made for their attendance earlier and more efficiently?
Lord Keen of Elie
We have no proposals to alter the present system, which works effectively. I point out that there are around 500 to 550 bookings for interpreters each day, so the number he refers to—six—is a very small proportion of the overall interpretation service.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, will we be able to see that justice is being done without providing proper translation services, either in criminal or other proceedings?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is clearly critical to the administration of justice and to the issue of access to justice that full and adequate interpretation services should be available to the courts and to those who have recourse to them.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, there is clearly a difference between interpretation and translation. I speak as a former professional linguist. What about quality control? Will the Minister comment on that? Being able to deal with a language is not the same as being a competent interpreter, sometimes of very delicate matters.
Lord Keen of Elie
I entirely agree with the observation made by the right reverend Prelate. That is why the present contract provision includes a quality assurance provision by the Language Shop, to ensure that not only are the appropriate levels of qualification available but also the appropriate skills.
Lord Judd (Lab)
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is a great deal of anxiety about people’s experiences with interpretation? It is not just a matter of making sure that an interpreter is there—the quality of the interpretation is essential. Surely with the whole principle of the quality of justice, and of justice being seen and felt to be done, one cannot overestimate the importance of interpretation and its quality. That must apply to civil law as well as criminal law and certainly to the immigration sector.
Lord Keen of Elie
We are confident about the quality of the translation and interpretation services provided to the courts at present, which have been provided under the present contractual regime since 31 October 2016.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minster will know that this is an obligation of an EU directive. I was a rapporteur in the European Parliament; the UK Government chose to opt into this. Not only do we maintain standards that help standards across the whole EU but, if we Brexit, we will obviously want to keep up those standards so that we can operate such things as the European arrest warrant without our operation of it being called into question.
Lord Keen of Elie
Of course, that is one of the objectives of the withdrawal Bill, which noble Lords will have the opportunity to pass in the near future to ensure that we maintain our legal obligations in that context. Over and above the European regulation—I believe it is a regulation and not a directive—there is of course the convention right under Article 6 and the common-law right of access to justice.
Apprenticeships: Training Providers
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Aberdare
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the introduction of the new system of apprenticeship training on both public and private training providers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we are implementing a range of reforms to continue to improve the quality of apprenticeships for all, ensuring employers can access the training and skills they need. We recognise that our reforms have resulted in a number of changes for apprenticeship training providers. We are keeping the impact of the reforms under review and we continue to work closely with providers and their representative bodies.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, independent training providers deliver three-quarters of all apprenticeships, especially for non-levy-paying employers, many of them SMEs, and for 16 to 18 year-olds. The current funding system gives them no certainty about how many apprenticeships they will be able to offer. Will the Minister and his colleagues look at renewing and adapting the system so that providers can plan with confidence to support SMEs in providing the apprenticeships that young people and the nation need to drive up skills and productivity and, indeed, to meet the Government’s own targets?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is right, in that we do recognise this is a period of uncertainty for providers. The Education and Training Foundation is running a programme specifically to help the ITPs prepare for the transition and change. The Government are also making available £440 million for non-levy-paying employers, to cover the costs of new starts during the transitional period from January 2018 —that is until all employers use the new apprenticeship service, from April 2019. The SMEs are also very important for our economy and the Government are paying 90% of the training and assessment costs for 16 to 18 year-old apprenticeships in this area.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
Does the Minister agree that, given the industrial strategy, Brexit, technological advancement and low productivity, there has never been a more urgent need to address and sort out our skills shortages? But apprenticeship registrations have fallen off a cliff because businesses—large and small—do not like the changes the Government are introducing. Is it not time to cut the business world a bit of slack and let them use their own money, raked in through the levy, in a more flexible way to address their actual training needs, and not force all the levy money into an apprenticeship straitjacket which serves little purpose, other than saving the Government’s face in their boast of creating 3 million apprenticeships?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, it is not a boast; it is a clear aim. As the House will know, a great deal of emphasis has been put on training and skills in the industrial strategy document. On the demand for apprenticeships, it is true that there has been a 59% fall-off, but that is not the whole story because between March and May there was a 47% increase, so the net decline was 2.8%. However, the overall picture—for which there is anecdotal evidence—is that over the next 24 months employers are looking to bed in the changes, and they are working very hard to do so.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, although it is probable that many large employers are perfectly content to see the Government do as much as they can to encourage apprenticeships, is the noble Viscount aware that in some sectors—I particularly refer him to the creative industries—the apprenticeship levy does not work terribly well? Those sectors do not resist paying the levy, obviously, but they do not find it particularly helpful because of the inflexible way the benefits from it can be accessed by larger employers who pay it. Looking to the future, and building on the question from the Liberal Democrat Benches, is there a rather more flexible way large employers can develop their own apprenticeship schemes?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Baroness makes an interesting point but we believe that there is enough flexibility in the system. A lot of work is being done with the Institute for Apprenticeships and with employers on the design of apprenticeships to ensure that the approach and the job descriptions are correct for the individual sectors. I know that the noble Baroness has a lot of experience in the creative sectors, which we are looking at very closely.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Bradford a social housing association runs an excellent training scheme for the building trades? It took 10 people this year and has had 400 applications. When there is so much unfulfilled demand—particularly from what we have to call the white working class—obviously there is still something wrong. I am told that in Yorkshire the big building companies still prefer to recruit already-trained people from outside Britain rather than go to the expense and trouble of doing their own training. That is clearly a major problem. Can the Government assure us that the new apprenticeship levy will push companies like that into training our own people?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I hope I can give the noble Lord that assurance. The construction sector is particularly important. Regarding the temporary drop that we have seen, 3,000 apprenticeship vacancies have been posted this month by 40 employers. So I think this comes back to the point that employers are taking their time—which they need to do—working with HMRC and the Treasury to bed in these new changes.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the number of apprenticeships for those aged 16 to 18 declined this year, as they did last year? These are the important ages for apprenticeships, and that decline will persist if the Government continue their school education policy of eliminating all technical education below the age of 16. If they do that, very few students at 16 will want to take an apprenticeship. He has to join up apprenticeships with the education policy and try to get it changed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am aware of my noble friend’s interest in this area, and I have also read the report linked to the UTCs. His point is noted, although I do not entirely agree with him.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, whichever way the noble Viscount dresses it up, a 59% decline in new apprenticeships year on year is hardly an auspicious start to the main plank of the Government’s attempts to address the skills gap. One issue is pay. The Department for Business reported in July that one in five apprentices was not receiving the correct national minimum wage, even though it is only £3.50 an hour. Another question relates to flexibility, which has been raised by other noble Lords, although I would like to put a slightly different angle on it. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech last week that he would keep under review the flexibility with which levy payers can spend their money. I very much hope he will, because part-time apprenticeships have a role to play here and flexibility would certainly be valued by young parents. Will the Government offer advice to employers to make sure that they make more part-time apprenticeships available, not only for their own benefit in terms of skills but to boost the overall number of necessary apprenticeships?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord has raised a number of points but I shall pick up on two. As he will know, the national minimum wage is going up from £3.50 to £3.70 per hour from April 2018. However, we do not see pay as being a particular issue in the way he has suggested. Apart from that, his point about part-time apprenticeships is important, and that is very much part of our plans.
Armed Forces: Morale
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the review by the National Security Adviser on morale in the Armed Forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence strives continually to ensure that our people feel valued and that their contribution and sacrifice are recognised. I regret that recent press speculation around the national security capability review has created a deeply unhelpful atmosphere of uncertainty for many of our service men and women. The review is ongoing and no decisions have been taken.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer but I have to say that I am a little disappointed by it. The latest continuous attitude survey shows disappointing aspects of morale within the services and there is no doubt that, certainly among people I have met and know within the services—particularly young Army officers—there is a real drop in morale. To say that this is press speculation is slightly disingenuous. Since the Levene study, any work looking at costings of any parts of defence is done out in the sticks. This means that the people involved very close to those things are aware of it. I do not believe that talk about getting rid of the two landing docks, fewer Army numbers and so on has been made up by the press. These clearly are things that are being looked at in that arena, and that causes a great deal of worry. There is no doubt that the continual downward pressure on defence is having an impact on morale. Does the Minister not think that making a statement that we intend to not have any further cuts to the forces we have and that we will strive to get Force 2025 would have a wonderful impact on morale?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the thing to emphasise here is that absolutely no decisions have been taken by Ministers. Any fall in morale is clearly a concern that we have to take seriously, and we do. I do not think that there is a single cause for this, but press reports which imply that decisions have been taken which have not been are deeply unhelpful to the men and women in the Armed Forces whose lives and livelihoods these reports directly affect.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, should the Government see their way to announcing a modest rise in the defence budget, this would have an inevitable upward boost to morale?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, in view of the uncertainty to which the noble Earl referred, what advice would he give to a young person wanting to make a career in the Royal Marines.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I hope that my speech last night in the debate on the Royal Marines settled many concerns. The idea that the Government are going to abolish the Royal Marines or give up our amphibious capability is, frankly, ridiculous. I hope that I was able to settle that point.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, the defence of the realm is the number one responsibility of government, yet during the Budget there was not a single word about defence. Does that help morale? Will the Minister also comment on the fact that the retention rate of some of our best people is worsening nearly every week?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend has a deep knowledge of all these matters, in particular on the personnel front. There is no denying that recruitment and retention are currently a challenge, as they always are when the economy is growing and there is a demographic shortage of young people. That is precisely why we have to focus on the things that matter to those thinking of joining the Armed Forces and the offer that we make to them, not only in terms of pay but in modernising the lived experience of service personnel—that is where the covenant comes in—and in the Armed Forces family strategy.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has said that the press are being deeply unhelpful. Now, the Minister has been around long enough to know that being helpful is not a core objective of the press. The MoD’s own attitude survey shows satisfaction in the forces over the past year has declined in almost all areas. The key measure, satisfaction with service life in general, has decreased from 61% in 2009 to 42% this year—a one-third decline. This is a service morale crisis. How are the Government going to arrest this decline if the review does not yield significant additional money?
Earl Howe
My Lords, Britain has a competitive advantage in defence, and that advantage is based on the commitment, professionalism and skills of our people. We place heavy demands on them all, including those in the Armed Forces whom we ask to risk their lives on operations. Therefore, we place a very high premium on recruiting, retaining and developing the right people. As set out in the 2015 SDSR, we have identified a number of long-term plans to ensure that the service offer to which I referred better reflects the aspirations and expectations of our personnel and new recruits.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, our future military capability depends on retaining sufficient talented and experienced personnel. That retention in turn depends on offering those personnel sufficiently challenging, rewarding and exciting training. Can the Minister reassure the House that, in its search for savings, the Ministry of Defence will not be looking to cut back in this area, which would be the falsest of all false economies?
Earl Howe
The challenge, when looking for efficiencies rather than straightforward savings, is to achieve the same or a better level of outputs with the money available. I can tell the noble and gallant Lord that, while training is of course under the spotlight, what we do not want to do is to dilute or degrade the quality of that training for those whose standards we set great store by.
Brexit: Costs
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in answer to an Urgent Question by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place earlier today.
“Mr Speaker, our negotiating team are currently in Brussels discussing our exit from the European Union. In fact, our officials have been working on it for months. It would be completely wrong of me to cut across those discussions by commenting on speculation on the financial settlement. It would not be in our national interest either.
The Prime Minister made it clear in her Florence speech that the EU member states would not need to pay more or receive less money over the remainder of the current budget as a result of our decision to leave. She also made it clear that the UK will honour its commitments made during the period of membership in the spirit of our future partnership.
As we have said before, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Any settlement that we make is contingent on our securing a suitable outcome, as outlined by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech. We will meet our commitments and get a good deal for UK taxpayers. We want to see progress towards a preferred option, which is an implementation period followed by an ambitious future economic partnership. In the Budget we set aside £3 billion in addition to £700 million we have already allocated to make sure that our country is fully prepared for all eventualities.
What we have seen today in the media is simply speculation. We will update the House when there is more detail to give”.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to welcome the Statement, but I had hoped it would be a bit more definitive than the Minister has managed. We think that developments have gone a considerable way to securing the financial settlement, which of course is of great importance. I hope the Minister will accept that we expect the settlement to be a good deal for the nation, a fair settlement for the taxpayer and one that will meet our international obligations. The settlement will need to reduce the uncertainty that has obtained in the British economy over the period in which the Government have been negotiating so far. The Government must recognise that there is a real economic cost to those levels of uncertainty. Will the Minister accept that to get a good trade agreement in the next phase of the negotiations—the important phase—they should be based on trust and the Government should ensure that they earn that trust? Moreover, in circumstances where we may be negotiating positively in the wider world as well, such a reputation for trust will stand us in good stead for the future. The Government have so far pursued a negotiating strategy that has lacked transparency, which has caused considerable anxiety. I hope they will do better in the future.
Lord Bates
I welcome the support that the noble Lord offered to parts of the Statement, but the Government have a specific responsibility, which Parliament has endorsed, not to release information that would undermine our negotiating position. We are in the midst of one of the most complex and important negotiations that this country has ever undertaken in peacetime. It cannot be right that we should have to give a running commentary that will be observed and undermine our negotiating position. We do not want that to happen. At the same time, we are very mindful that we have a duty to keep Parliament informed as far as possible. The position is that we are negotiating the best possible outcome that we can achieve. We have a particular target in relation to the Council meeting taking place in mid-December. We are making every effort and working in a good spirit towards a successful completion of that negotiation.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the £50 billion to £55 billion being discussed is the net sum of our unpaid bills and commitments, so will the Minister answer the Question and tell us the costs of Brexit: the cost of a complex new customs system and of replacing 39 regulators; the cost to business of losing “just in time” in trade; the cost to the public of the collapse in sterling; the cost of Christmas dinner, which is up by 20% this year; and the cost of financial services not being able to sell across Europe? Then perhaps we could understand the shape of the Government’s negotiation.
Lord Bates
I accept that there are costs, but there are also benefits that will come from Brexit. As for the costs, there is our net contribution of £10 billion a year. We have set aside £3 billion, which the Chancellor announced in the Budget, to prepare government departments and the devolved Administrations for all eventualities and outcomes. This is the right and proper way to implement a decision of the British people.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that what he has said will seem reasonable to many people: the member states will, over the budget period, receive what they would have expected to receive? But will any payments be made beyond that, apart from pension liabilities?
Lord Bates
My noble friend tempts me a little further than we are aware at present. The negotiations are happening in a complex situation—it is fast-moving and changing—but our team is out there trying to secure the best deal for the British taxpayer, which I am sure it will.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
On careful reflection, does the Minister agree that the point made by the Foreign Secretary that the EU will have to “whistle for it” was just bluster and wholly unhelpful?
Lord Bates
This negotiation is going on across a whole range of headings and there have been remarks on both sides. The key ambition is that set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech, where she set out a rational, well-argued and clear vision for our exiting in a way that honours our obligations but also prepares a new relationship of economic partnership with our European friends.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that, regardless of any disagreements between Brexiteers and remainers, nothing could be more damaging to Her Majesty’s Government than that we should default on obligations properly entered into by previous Governments?
Lord Bates
We have honoured those obligations and they are part of negotiating a settlement. The Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech that we will continue to honour that, that no country will have to pay in more and no country will get out less. I think that has been well received by our European partners and we look forward now to moving on to negotiating the more important area for us of continued trade with the frictionless access that we want to a very large and important single market.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will the Minister confirm that, if there is indeed a transition period beyond 2020, we may well need to make further payments for that period?
Lord Bates
We will find that out when we find out the outcome of the negotiations.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, is it not somewhat grotesque of the eurocrats to try to extract more money from us in pursuit of continuing free trade than we owe under our present commitments, when that free trade is so much more in the interests of EU exporters than it is in ours? Is not the underlying problem that the eurocrats’ absolute priority is to keep their failing project of European integration alive because it pays them so well, no matter how much damage it does to the real people of Europe?
Lord Bates
I am not going to respond in the terms that the noble Lord has set out because it is important that we are in a serious negotiation not with enemies but with people with whom we want to be friends. We want a constructive relationship with them in the future and it behoves us to recognise that in our language and the way we go about the negotiations. The Prime Minister’s speech in Florence was a textbook example of that.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, have there been any discussions yet in this divorce, as it is called, about not only the alimony but the fate of the matrimonial home—all those buildings in Brussels to which we have contributed? Are we going to get our money back?
Lord Bates
There are assets on the balance sheet of the European Commission and, be they buildings, satellites or anything else, they will be part of the assets factored in to a fair and reasonable settlement for the United Kingdom.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, in honouring our commitments—I very much welcome the fact that we will honour our commitments—will the Government explain to Parliament and the wider public the many positive programmes that this money will go towards and on which we hope we will be able to co-operate with the European Union in future? To pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Anderson, can we be assured that no more statements such as that about the EU whistling for its money will be uttered from Government Benches?
Lord Bates
Certainly, in relation to the ongoing programmes and relationships we are having, once the negotiations have been completed, it is important that we ensure that the British taxpayer understands the importance and value of those ongoing relationships as part of the wider settlement.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, we shall hear first from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and if there is time, from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, afterwards.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, as a committed remainer I say to my noble friend that if the reports are true, I welcome them. Is it not also correct, however, that they are difficult to reconcile with the advantages identified by the Brexiteers in the course of last year’s referendum campaign? Should we not treat those stated advantages with a degree of caution?
Lord Bates
Much as I understand the point my noble friend makes, in all this we should not be involved in fighting the battles of the past. We ought to be coming together and uniting with the single purpose of ensuring that we get the best possible deal, the best possible access to the European Union and the closest possible relationship without being a member.
Railways: Update
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
“When Britain’s railways were privatised in the mid-1990s, it was against a backdrop of what many regarded as terminal decline. The radical Beeching cuts of the 1960s had been followed by further line closures under British Rail, and passenger numbers had been steadily falling since the Second World War—yet privatisation sparked a remarkable turnaround in the railways’ fortunes. Over 1.5 million more trains are timetabled each year than 20 years ago, passenger demand has more than doubled and other countries are now adopting Great Britain’s rail model in their own markets.
To support this growth and reverse decades of underinvestment in the infrastructure, we have embarked on the biggest rail modernisation programme since Victorian times. In addition to government funding, billions of pounds of investment from the private sector is also helping to renew and expand train fleets, upgrade stations and transform services across the country, and franchises are making an increasing contribution to the public purse—so the rail renaissance we are seeing in Great Britain today is the direct result of a successful partnership between public and private sectors.
This partnership has delivered real benefits for passengers for more than 20 years, but the success of privatisation has created its own challenges. As the number of services has increased, our network has become more and more congested, making delivering the punctual, reliable services that passengers expect more challenging. On much of the network our railway is operating on the edge of what it can cope with. It carries more passengers today than since its heyday in the 1920s, on a network a fraction of the size. When things go wrong, the impact can be widespread and quick, causing significant frustration for the travelling public.
That is why last year I announced plans to start bringing together the operation of track and train on our railways. This is a process of evolution and not revolution, and I said that the exact approach may differ from area to area, but the outcome must be the same: a railway that is predominantly run by a joint local team of people with an absolute commitment to the smooth running of the timetable, whether planning essential repairs, responding to incidents on the line or communicating with passengers.
Today I am publishing more details about our plans, an update on what we are doing and the steps that we will take to realise them. This publication, called Connecting People: a Strategic Vision for Rail, explains how we will create a new generation of regional rail operations with a relentless focus on the passengers, economies and communities they serve. It represents the biggest change to the delivery of rail services since privatisation. Although we have already achieved significant structural improvements, with joined-up working between operators and Network Rail, and Network Rail’s own transformation into a series of regional route businesses, the document explains our plans to go much further.
Where it delivers real benefits for passengers, many future rail franchises will be run by a joint team, made up of staff from Network Rail and the train company, and headed by a new alliance director. This will make the railway more reliable for passengers by devolving powers to local routes and teams, and ensuring that one team is responsible for running the trains and the infrastructure they use.
Today I am also issuing the invitation to tender for the next South Eastern franchise. This will, among other things, deliver longer trains, providing space for at least 40,000 additional passengers in the morning rush hour, and a simpler, high-frequency turn-up-and-go timetable on suburban routes, which will boost capacity and provide a better service to passengers. As part of that unification of track and train, the day-to-day operations on the South Eastern network will be run by a joint team led by a new alliance director, heading both the track and train operations. On the East Midlands main line we will also introduce a joint-team approach, bringing more benefits to passengers.
Honourable Members will know that the east coast main line has had its challenges in recent times, and I intend to take a different approach on this route. From 2020 the East Coast Partnership will run the intercity trains and track operations on the east coast main line. This partnership between the public and private sector will operate under one management and a single brand, overseen by a single leader, with a leading role in planning the future route infrastructure. Bringing the perspective of train operators into decisions on rail infrastructure will help ensure that passenger needs are better represented in the process. While we run a competition to appoint the East Coast Partnership members, we are in discussions with the existing East Coast franchise operator to ensure that the needs of passengers and taxpayers are met in the short term while laying the foundations for the reforms I have just outlined. I want the passenger to be central to train operators’ strategies. On some parts of the network, that will mean we will introduce smaller train companies.
I am today launching a consultation on the Great Western franchise, to seek views on how it can best meet the needs of passengers and communities in the 2020s and beyond. We want to establish whether it should be retained in its current form or divided into smaller parts with a more local focus, to best deliver for customers. We will also begin the process of splitting up the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise in 2021. When the two franchises were put together, it was intended that this would help the implementation of the £6 billion Thameslink upgrade investment programme, which is now near completion.
Despite the improvements in the railway since privatisation, we are still some way from achieving the modern, high-performance, low-cost and customer-focused industry we all want to see. That is why we must continue to reform and invest in the railway, and maximise the contribution that public and private sectors make to improving services. We must continue to deliver the biggest railways investment since the steam age, which the party opposite never did when it was in government. Getting to grips with industry structure will go hand in hand with investment in the infrastructure. We need new capacity to cope with growing demand and new links to support economic growth and housing development.
The Great North Rail Project is transforming journeys across the north. There will be faster, more comfortable journeys, new direct services and room for tens of thousands more passengers. Every single train replaced in the north of England is new or brand new—again, a change we never saw when the party opposite was in power. I now intend to invest around £3 billion in upgrading the trans-Pennine route to deliver faster journey times and improved capacity between the great cities of Leeds, York and Manchester.
In the south, flagship projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink are now coming on stream to provide the capacity to underpin economic growth. Our investment in HS2 will bring the north and south closer together, and bring benefits for people across the country. It is a new railway for a new era of rail—a bold and ambitious project. But if it were not for the ambition and faith in the power of rail to transform this country, we would have no railways at all.
Our vision rejects the mentality of decline that characterised the railway in the second half of the 20th century. To complement record levels of private investment, we recently announced government funding of up to £34.7 billion for the railway in the years 2019 to 2024, as part of an overall expected spend of around £47.9 billion. This will support an overhaul of the network’s ageing assets and other vital work and improvements. Passengers value reliability more than anything, and this commitment will help deliver that. We will also deliver new connections. We are establishing the East West Rail company to restore the lost rail link between Oxford and Cambridge—lost to passengers in 1967—and provide a major boost to the region. I expect construction work to begin next summer. We will look at other opportunities to restore capacity lost under the Beeching and British Rail cuts of the 1960s and 1970s where they unlock development and growth, offer value for money and, in particular, unlock the potential for housing.
Large projects and industry reform take time, but passengers want to see faster improvements in their day- to-day experience travelling on the railway. We do, too —and we are doing something about it. We are pushing to see smart ticketing available across almost all of the network by the end of 2018. We are improving arrangements for compensation and dispute resolution when things go wrong, including supporting the establishment of a passenger ombudsman. We are working with industry to extend the benefits of discounted rail travel to ensure that all those aged 16 to 30 can access appropriate concessions. We are investing in new digital technologies and better mobile connectivity, and are committed to improving the accessibility of the network and delivering a modern customer experience, open to all.
I know that the party opposite does not believe this, but privatisation brought a revolution to our railways. That is why there are twice as many passengers as there were 20 years ago. But now is the time for evolution to build on that success by joining up track and train, expanding the network, modernising the customer experience and opening the railway for new innovation. We have a vision of a revitalised railway used to its full potential by a partnership between the public and private sectors, supporting people, communities and the economy. We are taking real action to make that vision a reality. I am making copies of the strategic vision available in the Libraries of both Houses, while the Great Western and South Eastern documents are now on the website of the Department for Transport. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the House of Commons. We welcome and advocate continuing investment in our rail industry and measures to enhance its role and importance in the economy of this country and in the lives of our citizens, including the reopening of some lines closed under the Beeching cuts.
The extent to which the content of the Statement and the associated strategic vision document will deliver those objectives is debatable. We have a Secretary of State who is very good at making grandiose statements about future rail developments—in fact, almost as good at doing that as he is in quietly announcing the abandonment or postponement of schemes that he has previously championed. No Government have cancelled or postponed more railway electrification schemes, or parts of schemes that they have previously espoused, than this one. On the roads, the policy is to reduce diesel mileage; on the railways, it is apparently to increase it above that previously planned. What is the Government’s strategic vision for rail in respect of the further electrification of our railways? I think the Statement was silent on that issue.
The Statement was pretty thin, too, on the issue of fares, as is the associated document called “a strategic vision for rail”. Fares have been deliberately and regularly increased by well above the rate of inflation in order to reduce the percentage of operating costs not covered by fares, and thus the costs to the Government, which they transfer on to the backs of commuters in particular. What is the Government’s strategic vision on fares? What is their objective in relation to the percentage of operating costs that should be covered by fares? How can you have a credible strategic vision without saying what your future intentions are in respect of the level of fares, fare increases in the future and the objectives that you are seeking to achieve and why?
The Statement made reference to the next South Eastern franchise and referred to providing space for additional passengers. However, that is not a strategic vision for addressing overcrowding in our railways. There are many other examples of overcrowding on our rail network, not solely in London and the south-east. Since the Government have chosen to describe their document as “a strategic vision for rail”, what are the objectives in relation to reducing overcrowding? What is the end game in respect of overcrowding and its elimination that the strategic vision is seeking to achieve? Just referring to new schemes, which may or may not be abandoned or postponed at some stage in the future, does not constitute a strategic vision against which success or failure in delivery can be judged.
The Statement set out proposals and intentions for tinkering with the organisational structure of the railways. It referred to a proposed alliance on the east coast main line, running intercity trains and track operation under one management. We had a similar arrangement between Stagecoach and Network Rail in the south-west, which did not seem to prove an unmitigated success. Why do the Government now think this proposed alliance will prove any more successful? What are the specific objectives that it will be expected to deliver under the strategic vision for rail?
As the Government thrash around to find an organisational structure for our railways and the train company franchises that they deem acceptable, they may care to look at the structure of the London Underground, which combines track and trains and has generated—in the public sector—significant increases in the numbers of passengers. It is also a system under which all the revenue goes back into providing and improving services for the travelling public, which cannot be said for our railway network as a whole. Indeed, so concerned was the Secretary of State about the success of Transport for London and London Underground in running services in the public sector, and the revitalisation of the London Overground network since it was taken over by TfL, that he felt it too politically dangerous to agree to the transfer of any further rail services within the GLA area to TfL—not much of a strategic vision there.
This Statement does not represent a strategic vision. It is silent on too many issues, including future fares policy, and silent about too many overall objectives to be such a strategic vision. It is, frankly, more a hotchpotch of separate announcements, some of them regurgitated, since they have been made previously and do not represent anything new. While I reiterate what I said earlier about welcoming new investment in our railways if it materialises, tinkering with the structure, which seems to be the Government’s modus operandi at present, will not address rail’s urgent organisational and ownership problems. Indeed, to the extent that making the structural changes proposed deflects the attentions of managers and staff from the objective of running reliable and efficient services, tinkering with the structure is more likely, in fact, simply to add to the problems.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, one thing on which we agree with the Government is that the answer to improving the railways does not lie in renationalisation. I am disappointed in this strategic vision. It is largely a restatement of existing announcements, some of which I recognise from the days of the coalition.
However, on these Benches, we welcome the commitment to assess transport projects on the basis of their potential for unlocking future growth, rather than on a simplistic assessment of current overcrowding and journey time saved. I want to ask the Minister about the announcement on reopening old lines, which had a lot of publicity this morning—but it is obvious that no new money is involved, as otherwise we would have been told. The reference in the Statement is to partnership with metro mayors. That is usually a code for saying that local government will foot the bill. What are the terms on which these proposals are made? Where will the money come from and how advanced are the plans, with specific examples in mind?
This week, the Minister replied to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, setting out total transport expenditure across each region of England. I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking the Question. The Answer, which I recommend to your Lordships, makes extraordinary reading. Capital expenditure in the last year is a total of £16 billion across the whole of England, £6 billion of which was spent in London. Only £520 million was spent in the north-east, and £666 million in the east Midlands. This entrenches the inequality and the divide in our society, and I am disappointed that this Statement does not provide new announcements on projects for the north and the Midlands that are desperately needed. What are the Government going to do to change that balance of spending within the country?
Finally, there is no reference here to electrification projects. The stalling of electrification and the abandonment of those plans was a huge blow to those poorer parts of the UK, including south Wales—west of Cardiff being an example. It is important that they are given the renewed investment that electrification with provide. That will also improve the quality of our air.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how we will deliver these schemes. As the Statement announced, we have already provided up to £34.7 billion directly in government grant, we expect significant amounts of that to be spent on enhancement during the period, and the funding is provided within that grant to support that. We are also making funding available for early-stage development of the new enhancement schemes.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, brought up electrification. We understand that passengers expect high-quality rail services and, of course, we are committed to electrification where it delivers clear passenger benefits. We are also taking advantage of state-of-the-art new technology to improve journeys. The decision to cancel some of the electrification was made to deliver the benefits to passengers sooner than would otherwise have been possible. We are focused on using the best technologies to improve each part of the network, and will continue to do so.
On fares reform, of course we carefully monitor rail fares and changes in average earnings, and will keep them under review in calculating rail fares. The regulated rail fares are capped in line with inflation each year and for the next year. In the five years to 2019, Network Rail is spending more than £40 billion to improve the network. On average, 97% of every pound of the passenger’s fare goes back into the railway. We recognise that the fare system can be complicated, and the Rail Minister is working with the industry to consider what can be done quickly to help passengers find and choose the best ticket.
On overcrowding, obviously the expansion we are talking about today will help. HS2, once it is up and running, will take huge amounts of people off the overcrowded rail network. As I said in the Statement, the South Eastern franchise is a good example. We are hoping that it will provide space for at least 40,000 additional passengers in the morning rush hour.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked how we will decide on the new rail lines and when they will be delivered. We of course want to work with partners in industry to develop the proposals for the next generation of those lines. We are developing guidance for investors and developers to ensure that the process for taking the proposals forward is as clear and transparent as possible. We cannot today commit to specific amounts or the timescale when the proposals are still in such early stages of development. The strategy refers to some of the potential ones, so we are aiming to take a sensible and measured approach, helping our partners to develop those proposals. As I said, we are funding schemes to help develop business cases.
The noble Baroness mentioned the north. We are investing huge amounts of money into rail in the north. For example, there is the £1 billion in the Great North Rail project to 2020, the train operators of Northern and TransPennine Express will invest over £1 billion in buying new trains and there will be more than 500 new carriages. The Great North Rail project has seen the journey times between Manchester and Liverpool improved by 15 minutes. In addition, we are working with Network Rail in the regions to develop options for major upgrades between Manchester, Leeds and York to provide more seats and faster journeys.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, the Great Central Main Line was closed under Beeching on the grounds that a consultation and survey showed that travellers preferred massively to use the parallel line going north. I was a passenger and commuter on that line during those years, and saw how the traffic on it was strangled by the huge reduction in efficiency, punctuality and cleanliness before the consultation took place. Before that campaign it carried a great deal of traffic, both long distance and commuters. Is reopening all or part of that line still feasible, or would it be considered now to be in competition with HS2, which would be a grave misjudgment?
Baroness Sugg
We are looking at every economic case for each of those rail lines, and as I said, we are working with partners to see whether an economic case can be made. Obviously, demand has changed significantly since the railway line was shut. I do not have specific details on that line but I can certainly come back to my noble friend on that.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and congratulate her on some of the things in it. Now is the time to see what can be and will be delivered. It sets out in a very positive way the contestability of some of Network Rail’s costs and how other contractors can do enhancements. I like the list of new openings and enhancements, some of which I have been involved in. I notice that something dear to my heart and that of my noble friend the Chief Whip is missing from the list—the reopening of the Lewes to Uckfield line. Perhaps the Minister can say why it is not included.
My biggest concern is the structural issue of the east coast main line, which is mentioned a lot in the report. It is easy to say that having the passenger and the Network Rail operators work together is a good thing, but there are open access operators and freight. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group on that line. The passenger figures for the open access operators on the east coast main line are very positive, so competition has brought benefits, not just to the traffic on the main line but to some of the other places served. Can the Minister explain how what the Government are trying to create as a big monopoly is going to protect the interests of the other open access operators and freight on a vital artery?
Baroness Sugg
As for the specific line the noble Lord referred to, the ones used in the strategy were just examples of lines that could be reopened; of course there are many others across the country. As I said, we will look into the economic case for all of them. On the east coast partnership, I acknowledge that the increased competition has led to increased numbers, but we believe that that suggested partnership between private and public ownership will be the best solution for the passengers. On freight, we think that joining up the track and train will benefit freight as well. We will ensure that those interests can contribute to the decision-making process on the franchising, and on the use of the rail lines.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome much of what the Minister has said—but not, she will not be surprised to hear, the bit about HS2. This albatross of an infrastructure project is now forecast to cost over £100 billion. If that money were directed to the rest of the country—the rest of the regions and services that really need it—it would transform our railway system and get rid of a project that everybody now knows is completely discredited.
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him on the benefits of HS2; nor do I recognise the £100 billion figure that he quotes. Our trains are becoming increasingly crowded, and that is why we need HS2. We have invested £55 billion in it, but that is not at the cost of other improvements in our rail network. The announcements we have made today will enable both HS2 and our existing railways to improve.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment to the best department in the Government, the Department for Transport. I also welcome what she said about HS2 and east-west rail. Is she aware that when this House voted on HS2, it voted by a majority of 10 to one in favour of the project? That is a degree of unanimity that the House has shown on no other subject that I am aware of—besides its opposition to Brexit.
However, I find the Statement disappointing, because the document that the Government have published today is, essentially, a smokescreen, with all the blather about reopening Beeching lines—which, of course, is not going to happen. It is a smokescreen for a very big announcement, which is detectable only in the small print: that the Government intend to end the current east coast franchise three years early. They intend to do so—forfeiting hundreds of millions of pounds of payments that would have been made to the Department for Transport—in order, it appears, to bail out the two private companies that currently operate that route, in the guise of a public/private partnership that will do nothing other than excuse those companies from making the premium payments to which they were previously committed.
Does the Minister understand that treating private companies in this way in respect of contracts they have entered into will simply encourage other private train operators to try for the same kind of bailout? Is she aware that when I was Secretary of State we faced exactly the same pressure with the downturn in projected passenger numbers on the east coast main line, which led the then private operator, National Express, to ask us for a bailout, which we refused to give? It was as a result of that refusal that the east coast nationalisation took place: it was a huge success, and should not have been ended. Had the East Coast national company continued operating that line, the return to the taxpayer would have been significantly higher than we now face. Can the noble Baroness answer two specific questions? First, can she tell me precisely how much the taxpayer will lose in premium payments that are currently contracted under the new public/private partnership which she announced this afternoon? Secondly, will she undertake to publish all the communications between Stagecoach, Virgin and the Department for Transport which have taken place prior to the development of the strategy that she announced this afternoon?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I do of course recognise the noble Lord’s vast experience in this area but I am afraid that I do not recognise the description of the announcement today as a bailout. As the noble Lord will know, as part of the bidding Stagecoach made a series of financial commitments. It has met them in full to date and the Department for Transport expects it to continue to honour them. We will hold VTEC to its obligations and in the meantime will ensure that passengers are protected. The noble Lord mentioned the Directly Operated Railways solution. Since 2015, VTEC has contributed on average 20% more per rail period to the taxpayer than when the line was operated by Directly Operated Railways, and has achieved consistently high passenger satisfaction. It will have a rollout of new rolling stock in 2018. The choice today is not between OLR and privatisation. As announced, we are implementing the first regional public/private partnership on the route to deliver the best of both the private and the public sectors.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I draw three points to the Minister’s attention. On electrification, we had a meeting which demonstrated that the technology of the hybrid trains to which she referred may save some money and some face in the short term but will leave behind a trail of costs far in excess of those of electrification. Therefore, it ought to be considered very seriously. Secondly, I put in a word for CrossCountry trains along the lines of the reference made to Great Central. CrossCountry trains used to make much use of that route. In the new dispensation the Minister announced, will the significant success of CrossCountry trains in providing services across the country rather than to London be safeguarded? Thirdly, in the era of Dr Beeching, British Rail made a lot of money out of parcel traffic. It seems there is a new opportunity to harness the appetite for parcel services with delivery from terminals in cities by pollution-free vehicles, which could perhaps replace a lot of the vans that create both congestion and pollution chaos.
Baroness Sugg
I met the noble Lord recently to discuss electrification and we are seriously considering its benefits versus other options. We are trying to focus on the outcomes and what will provide better value quicker. As regards CrossCountry trains, the idea is that more railways will be opened up. I do not believe that will affect competition in relation to that company. On the noble Lord’s last point about parcels and freight, with HS2, as I said, and the expansion of the other railways, rail freight would be expected to increase.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know that increased communication opportunities between Oxford and Cambridge offer significant national economic potential. However, when will the public have an opportunity to look at, and be consulted on, the route of such a rail link between Sandy in Bedfordshire and Cambridge? I should declare an interest as a resident west of Cambridge.
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend mentioned East West Rail, which is a good example of our delivering on the opening of tracks. Since last year, we have been building up the team to work with Network Rail and the department to accelerate the permissions needed to re-open the route and reduce the cost. As part of that, there will be consultation with the people it affects.
Lord Darling of Roulanish (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister did not write the Statement—it is somebody else’s—but it contained a somewhat inaccurate précis of what happened to the railways after privatisation. There are two problems: one is that only central government is capable of providing the sustained level of investment needed to make the railways work. That dried up after privatisation. On passenger numbers, what the Minister referred to happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when investment started. The second mistake is to believe that the operation of track and rail could be fragmented. They are intimately connected, for obvious reasons, although that escaped the architects of the original privatisation.
On that point, I want to ask the Minister something. I welcome the idea that track and train should work closely together. It is not new; it started in 2003. I know that because I was there at the time, but I am glad that it is still being thought about 14 years later. On the point made by my noble friend Lord Adonis, what is happening on the east coast main line? Is the Virgin franchise continuing, or not? There is a real problem when we grant franchises to railway companies that come to believe that if it gets too difficult, or they do not want to do it, they can bail out and hand the keys back to the taxpayer. That is not acceptable and it needs to be stopped, so I hope the Minister will answer the noble Lord’s point. If she does not, that question will be asked again and again, because transparency is needed on what exactly is going on.
Baroness Sugg
On the separation of track and train, we acknowledge the benefits of putting together the operation of both those things. That is exactly what today’s announcement is all about. On the east coast partnership, as I said, the new partnership will come in from 2020, at which point the current franchise will be terminated. That was originally expected to happen in 2023. As I also said, we will hold VTEC to the obligations it made.
Lord Judd (Lab)
In the Government’s concern for the future, are they taking seriously the lessons to be learned from recent investment? I am a regular user of west coast rail services. How can we justify the level of expenditure in the new signalling system on the west coast, when delay after delay still occurs because of signal failure? What are we learning about quality of investment? On Cumbria, and the frequently loose talk about the north, specifically, what are the Government’s plans for Cumbria—west Cumbria in particular—and for real improvement in the communications between Newcastle and Carlisle?
Baroness Sugg
On the West Coast Partnership, I understand that passengers are benefiting from its new technology. Obviously, we want to see improvements in the passenger experience on the west coast services. On the detailed question on Newcastle and Cumbria, I am afraid I will have to get back to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement. It is something of a counter-revolution. I remember sitting on the Front Bench, opposing the legislation that split operation from track maintenance. I am glad to see that after all these years, the lesson that track and operation go together has been learned. Will legislation will be needed to put these proposals into operation? That is important. Can the Minister say whether smart ticketing will abolish going online, to a railway station or to some agent to book a ticket? If those options are not retained, a lot of people will not able to travel by train.
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for his recognition of the importance of integrating the track and train systems, which will obviously help to reduce delays and increase performance for the passengers. We will not need legislation to make these changes: they will be rolled out as the new franchises come up. We are driving forward the roll-out of smart ticketing so that, by the end of 2018, almost everyone will be able to buy smart tickets. They will be able to use their mobile phones, barcodes and smart cards. They will have the choice of travelling without a paper ticket but the paper ticket will still be available.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Will the Minister clarify an earlier answer? Electrification, particularly of the Midland main line, is not at all in this strategy. If we are talking about faster, cleaner, cheaper and greener railways, electrification has its role. In answer to my noble friend, she said that the Government would look at electrification again. Is she giving a firm commitment that the Midland main line is being looked at again by the Government for electrification?
Baroness Sugg
As I said, we are making decisions on electrification. We obviously see its benefits, but our focus is on improving rail journeys and passenger experience as quickly as we can. In some cases, electrification would take many years and cause a lot of disruption. The noble Lord mentioned the environment. We have introduced the new, state-of-the-art bi-mode trains, which, while giving passengers more comfortable and quicker journeys, will also help the environment.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Will the Minister have another go at answering questions put to her by my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Darling? She has conceded that the current franchise on the east coast will end three years earlier than originally anticipated. Can she tell the House—if she cannot today, could she please write to me—what the net cost is of that franchise being ended? That is, what money will the Treasury not receive as a result of that franchise being ended that it would otherwise have received?
Baroness Sugg
I will certainly have another go at that. The noble Baroness is quite right: the franchise was originally due to end in 2023 and it will now end in 2020, when the east coast partnership will take over. As I said, the current franchise owners have made a commitment and we will hold them to it. I will come back to the noble Baroness on costs.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]
Wednesday 29th November 2017
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 View all Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 69-II(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list (PDF, 59KB) - (29 Nov 2017)
Lord Lennie
“(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), a body incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the United Kingdom includes a body incorporated or constituted under the law of the following— (a) any of the Channel Islands;(b) the Isle of Man;(c) any of the British overseas territories.”
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment concerning the territorial application of sanctions regulations. The amendment will make it automatic that the sanctions imposed would apply to bodies incorporated or constituted in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the British Overseas Territories. This is not because they are favourite places to hide away from tax regimes—although they are—but because they are dependent on the UK in terms of foreign and defence policy matters. For sanctions to have an effect, they have to have an international dimension. Currently determined by the UN or the EU, they require co-operation and co-ordination between and across nations. It is surely a matter of good policy to seek to put our own house in order first—which this amendment would help to do.
The Bill currently proposes that its sanction provisions “may” be applied to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the British Overseas Territories by use of an Order in Council, which I understand is a Privy Council matter. I am not a member of the Privy Council and I do not know how it operates. I do not understand in detail how it works, and I am not sure whether such orders are always granted, whether there is ever a debate about them, whether they can be challenged or whether there is delay built into the process. This amendment would make it clear that, as far as sanctions are concerned, the UK will have a consistent application of the law. We would welcome the Government’s views on that.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment. It is useful to have more precise definitions within the Bill, and it seems that the amendment seeks to tighten up the subsections which relate to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories, so that instead of a Minister being able by an Order in Council to add these areas, they are included in primary legislation. It makes sense to clarify that now and in primary legislation in this way to ensure that those whom the UK wishes to sanction cannot evade that sanction by association with these areas. If the UK is to leave the EU, it makes sense to tighten in this way.
The Minister will know that there is a meeting today of the Joint Ministerial Council at the Foreign Office with the overseas territories. Perhaps he could assure us that they would be content to be clearly within the same sanctions regime. I know that they will be less keen on aligning themselves with the UK on anti-money laundering measures; we will of course come to that later.
I also flag to the Minister that, in addition, the Law Society emphasises that guidance should be given on the terms in Clause 17, as well as those in Sections 2, 10, 15 and 46. It points out that in Clause 17 it is unclear whether the UK sanctions regime would apply,
“where UK currency is used, where a non-UK subsidiary of a UK company is involved, or where a UK person on the board of a non-UK company is present when a decision is taken in breach of the UK sanctions regime”.
It suggests that Clause 17 should be renamed “UK nexus” as its current subject matter does not deal sufficiently with “Extra-territorial application”.
It seems that further clarity is required on such issues. Clearly, it would be useful if stakeholders were properly consulted to assess the impact of the scope of application of the UK sanctions regime, simply to identify any unintended consequences. Clearly, intended consequences are fine. So this is a complicated area, but I hope that the Minister will take on board this advice.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I note the nature of the amendment and the final provisions in the Bill in Clause 51(3). I was at one stage a Minister with responsibility for the Crown dependencies, so I am acutely conscious of the particular constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies. As I understand it, we do not normally legislate without their express consent. I wonder whether that is why the Bill is framed as it is. However, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, talked about the Joint Ministerial Council; as a Minister for the Overseas Territories, today has been one of those days when I find myself shuttling between the Joint Ministerial Council and your Lordships’ House. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that this issue—and other elements that relate to the departure of the UK from the European Union—is very much on the agenda of our discussions with the overseas territories. Indeed, as we speak, my honourable friend Minister Walker is hosting a session with them on the implications of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. The noble Baroness raised issues on guidance and I will certainly take back the issue of where we can clarify certain elements.
I will pick up on a couple of points so I can clear them at the start. In his intervention, my noble friend Lord Faulks—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As a matter of information, it is our amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am fully cognisant of that. I meant no discourtesy to noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench; I thought it appropriate to give the context of what I was going to say. The clarification that my noble friend provided from the outset is exactly why the particular clauses have been framed as such.
I will now take up what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has just pointed out. The amendment is in the names of the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench. I thank them, as I did at the start. I believe that I came to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, first—we will have to check Hansard on that—to thank him for tabling the amendment.
Clause 17 sets out which persons can be bound by sanctions regulations, in the UK and elsewhere. It also confirms that prohibitions or requirements can be imposed on any conduct in the UK, including UK territorial waters, or on any UK person anywhere in the world. This clause is consistent with the way the UK currently implements sanctions as part of the European Union. If noble Lords are interested, further detail is provided in the White Paper we published in April.
Clause 17 also allows for Her Majesty, by an Order in Council, to extend the effect of sanctions to bodies incorporated or constituted under the law of any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and any of the British Overseas Territories. This amendment would remove the ability of Her Majesty to make an Order in Council in respect of corporate bodies registered in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Instead, it would require that, when UK Ministers legislate to create sanctions in regulations, these bodies would automatically be caught.
When introducing this particular amendment, the noble Lord referred to the overseas territories in a very generic way. I have had the good fortune of visiting one or two of them—somewhat tragically in the aftermath of the hurricanes that hit—and generalising all our overseas territories in a particular way is not something I would subscribe to. They provide some incredible potential. For example, I am not sure how many Ministers partake of lobster, but apparently Tristan da Cunha has the best lobster in the world. On a more practical note, we have done some incredible work with them on marine protection and building sustainable economies.
I make that point because it is important to recognise the role that our overseas territories play. However, I agree with the point the noble Lord raised that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies must follow the UK Government’s foreign policy, including the sanctions we apply, and that bodies incorporated or constituted in these jurisdictions must also be bound by sanctions. The Foreign Office—to confirm what I said at the start to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—has discussed the Bill with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and they also accept this point of principle.
However, there are constitutional considerations that affect the way sanctions are implemented by the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. As my noble friend Lord Faulks pointed out, at the moment all Crown dependencies—Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—legislate on their own behalf, as do Gibraltar and Bermuda. We anticipate that these jurisdictions will seek to continue to do so—save, possibly, for a transitional period. We legislate for some of these jurisdictions directly through Orders in Council. However, as I have said, other jurisdictions legislate for themselves.
The Bill is drafted in a way that reflects this reality. It is consistent with the current implementation model for UN and EU sanctions, as well as measures under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010. To change this model would depart from current practice and we do not see a compelling case for this. With that explanation—and the assurance I have given to the noble Baroness on the valid point she raised about the Law Society, which I will certainly look at again—I hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lennie
I thank the Minister for that answer. We will consider, read carefully what he said and, perhaps, come back to it. In the meantime, we will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. It is not concerned with lobsters; it is concerned with the duty of the Minister to consider a request to vary or revoke a designation. The Bill contains no provision requiring the Minister to address such a request within any specific time period. I can understand why it would be inappropriate to set any defined time period—how long it takes to address a request to vary or revoke a designation will inevitably depend on the circumstances of the individual case—but the Bill should, I think, contain a more general obligation on the Minister in relation to time. This amendment would require the Minister to decide on a request to revoke or vary,
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
It is important for the Bill to impose such an obligation because, under Clause 32, read with Clause 33(5), a person who is put on a sanctions list cannot seek a review from the court until the Minister has made the decision on the request to vary or revoke the designation. It would be quite wrong for a person to be listed, with all the adverse consequences that that involves, with no opportunity to complain to a court unless the Minister had an obligation to act with reasonable expedition. In an extreme case, were this amendment to be included in the Bill, the courts would be able to say to the Minister that his or her delays were unacceptable.
I cannot see that a “reasonably practicable” test could be in any way objectionable. I suspect that the Minister will tell the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary because of course Ministers will decide these cases as soon as reasonably practicable. We have heard such assurances repeatedly during this Committee stage. However, I am sure that the Minister understands that in contexts as important as this Bill I prefer to see obligations written into the statute rather than rely on assurances from Ministers, however fair and reasonable they are. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
This seems an eminently reasonable amendment. It almost seems unambitious in its scope—it invites Ministers to answer questions along the lines of “as soon as possible” and “shortly”—but noble Lords are surely right to seek to put something of a common-sense timetable on this, and we support them. The Bill proposes to give such wide and untrammelled powers to Ministers that any moves to qualify them should be welcomed.
Lord Collins of Highbury
As the noble Lord said, I have added my name to this amendment, and I have done so for a very good reason, which is that it is about an important matter of procedural fairness and should be included in the Bill. It is not unreasonable to say that there should be a judgment about the actions of a Minister in terms of timeframes. As we have understood in this House on many occasions, the summer can often be extended into the autumn without the blink of an eyelid.
Lord Judge (CB)
Without this amendment, we are leaving a recipe for lethargy, which is inappropriate. We need it so that the court will get hold of the complaint, if one is needed, as soon as practicable.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for tabling this amendment, and I thank other noble Lords for their contributions. Perhaps I will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, somewhat by saying that I agree with the substance and constructive nature of the proposal before us. When the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, started talking about “shortly” and so on, I was reminded of my time as the Aviation Minister and the occasion when an announcement on Heathrow Airport was pending—but we got there.
In that mood, let me outline the Government’s position on this amendment. When a request is received from a designated person to vary or revoke their designation, the appropriate Minister should ensure that they make their decision as soon as is reasonably practicable. As sanctions are applied without giving those sanctioned the opportunity to make representations, and because they have serious consequences on the individuals concerned, it is important to ensure that mistakes are rectified swiftly.
As sanctions are intended to change behaviour, it is also important that people should be able to have their designation revoked if they change their behaviour. Clause 19 therefore provides a quicker and less costly option than going to court. It will also have the advantage of keeping unnecessary pressure off the courts and potentially reducing costs to the taxpayer. The reassessment process exists to allow designated persons to seek swift redress when wrongly designated—and I can assure noble Lords that the Government fully intend to act promptly to requests for reassessments.
I shall certainly reflect on the amendment. I have listened carefully to noble Lords, who have made a compelling case for us to look at our position. With the assurance today that we will look at the amendment again—although it is only an assurance at this juncture—I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the Minister. I look forward to hearing from him before Report that the Government are able to move on this matter. He has heard the views that there is no basis for not including this in the Bill. I hope this is the first of many amendments today that he will see the wisdom of. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick
Again, this amendment is in my name and the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. It concerns the periodic review provisions in Clause 20. The appropriate Minister is required to consider any designation of a person every three years. That is far too long a period given the gravity of the consequences of designating a person. It is true, as the Minister emphasised at Second Reading, that the listed individual can seek a review under Clause 19, but subsection (2) of that clause provides that once such a request has been made, no further request may be made by the individual unless,
“there is a significant matter which has not previously been considered by the Minister”.
There may well be cases where, although the individual can point to no significant new material, the Minister, on reviewing the matter, may find good reason to vary or revoke the designation. Indeed, the passage of a year without any further material coming to light may justify looking again at whether the listing is appropriate. The three-year period is especially troubling because of the grave consequences of listing for the person concerned and because, as I said in the earlier debate today, you cannot start court proceedings under Clause 32(1)(d), to be read with Clause 33(5), until you have sought a review by the Minister and received a decision on that review.
The Minister will confirm that under the EU system, which this Bill is designed to replace, a periodic review occurs every six months normally but certainly in all cases at least every year. I can see no justification for this Bill to triple the period which can elapse before a review is required. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was eagle-eyed as ever, and this issue came up at Second Reading. He now brings forward this amendment with other noble Lords, and we support them.
The point here is that the review period for designations would occur not after one year but only after three. As the Minister said on Second Reading, it could happen earlier, but of course it does not have to. I also note that, on Second Reading, the Minister said that he did not regard the period proposed by the Government as excessive. He did not answer the point that this was a detrimental change from the position should we stay in the EU. I expect that he has now had time to consult on that and—if you like—to recognise that the writing is on the wall and, I hope, to persuade his colleagues that this cannot stand.
There is no reason for the frequency of reviews to change from one year, as now in the EU, to three years. I hope and expect that the Minister will find that this is one straightforward area in which to concede. After all, it has always been said that if we were to leave the EU, no protections or rights of UK citizens would be diminished. This is a case in point.
I raise one other issue, which I think has been flagged to the Bill team. This is, again, from the Law Society. It is concerned that UK courts should have the jurisdiction to hear wrongful listings in the case of UN listed persons. It points out that the Bill does not require or permit a UK court to quash a wrongful listing for a person who is UN listed and can only ask the Government to use their best endeavours to secure a de-listing in the UN. It recommends that the Bill directly transpose into UK law—
Lord Pannick
I am sorry to interrupt, but that is the specific subject of Amendment 62, to which we are coming. I do not wish to inhibit the noble Baroness, but she may wish to be aware of that.
Baroness Northover
I did not spot that point. In that case, I will wait until we get to it. I hope that the Bill team will have taken it on board, both from the amendment submitted in the noble Lord’s name and, indeed, from what we sent through.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I had thought of saying something but while the Minister, unlike Richard III, is in the giving mood, I do not want to discourage him.
Lord Lennie
My Lords, we have heard, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has repeated, the gravity of the consequences of sanctions on the lives of individuals and dependants upon them. Three years is a very long time, particularly if the designation is wrong or if behaviour has changed and they are now compliant. Therefore, we ask that the three years be reviewed and replaced by one year. It cannot be left for a length of time without a review taking effect. The Minister has the right to review. The individual has only one possibility of an application review. Therefore, we ask that this become automatic in the Bill.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, sat down before making a further point. I was reminded not of Richard III but of Oliver Twist, who wanted “more”.
On this particular point, Clause 20 is one of a number of safeguards, as I am sure noble Lords have seen, within the Bill that provides for designated persons and requires the Government regularly to conduct a thorough re-examination of designated decisions. The Government must, as we have heard from noble Lords who have spoken through this short debate, conduct this review at least every three years. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has rightly raised the issue, and I accept the point, that the EU carries out reviews more frequently. However, Clause 20 should be considered as part of a system of safeguards that the Government have built into this Bill which I believe will provide at least an equivalent, and in some respects greater, level of protection to that afforded to individuals designated by the European Union.
Baroness Northover
In the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill, it is mentioned that sanctions apply to about 2,000 people. That does not seem a huge number of people where one might need to make this kind of assessment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am not quite sure what the noble Baroness’s question is.
Baroness Northover
The Minister was saying that this was very onerous. I am aware that there is discussion elsewhere in the Bill of immigration status conflicting with those who have had sanctions imposed upon them. Obviously, when one is dealing with immigration status, one is dealing with very many people, but the point made in the Explanatory Notes is that one is not dealing with a large number of people here or a large number of sanctions provisions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think I understand the noble Baroness’s question, but, notwithstanding the issue of numbers alone, Clause 20 lays out a process which the Government perceive to be more efficient than that currently adopted by the EU.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It is disappointing. I am not persuaded. As the noble Baroness pointed out, a limited number of people are involved here, and surely the time and the resources are justified by the significance of the sanctions imposed. It is right and proper that sanctions of such significance should be reviewed more often than every three years.
The Minister says that the individual can seek a review, which is right, but the individual can do so only if there is a significant matter known to the individual not previously considered by the Minister. There may well be material in the files available to the Government which is not known to the individual. The Minister says that the individual can go to court, but it is the same under the EU system: you can go to court but the whole point of the Bill is to encourage court procedures as a last resort.
The Minister’s other point was that there is a sanctions review every year, but as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that is not a review of individual cases but a review of the structure of the system, so for my part I do not see that that adds to the debate.
I will reflect on what the Minister has said, and I hope that he will reflect on this debate before Report, but we may well come back to this on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“( ) No later than six months from the date of completion of a review under subsection (1), the appropriate Minister must lay the findings of the review before Parliament.”
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, when we had discussions with the Minister prior to Second Reading and just after, the review of the regulations cropped up on a few occasions, the justification being that some of these new powers and regulations would not be subject to primary legislation. In those discussions, I asked, if you are reviewing in government, who tests and scrutinises that review? This is the first Brexit Bill and we have heard on many occasions that Brexit is an opportunity, or an obligation, to bring powers back to the United Kingdom. If that is the case—I do not necessarily agree—and the Minister supports it, this is an opportunity for him to support the principles of these amendments, which are about ensuring that powers taken by the Executive are subject to proper scrutiny, and that the Executive are held to account by Parliament.
Amendment 59 sets out the details and asks: how do we do that job? What are we measuring? But if there are issues and the Minister says, “I cannot have this list because there are things in it that may be subject to national security, or other things that cannot be disclosed”—the Government seem to have a habit of not disclosing information to Parliament on matters relating to Brexit—I would be more than willing to consider those concerns and take them into account. Obviously, if there are issues with the list then the minimum standard that I am arguing for is Amendment 58. I do not think it unreasonable that if the Government are taking these powers, we should be able to hold them to account in any possible review. I know the Minister will say that regulations are subject to consideration by Parliament, et cetera, et cetera, but that is not the scrutiny we want to see here. I hope that if the noble Lord is able to continue in his giving mood, he can give us some positive words about how Parliament will be able to hold the Executive to account.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, helpfully make much clearer the commitments that Ministers must make to review the regulations they have put in place, giving a time by which this must happen and more detail on what they should include. They would, indeed, as the noble Lord has indicated, make these reviews more transparent and accountable and we are happy to support them.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, they say that generosity defines the spirit of a person, so perhaps I can be slightly more generous than noble Lords may perceive. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is quite correct: we have talked about this issue, and sanctions, we all accept, can be an effective tool of foreign policy and national security, but I also accept that they can have serious implications, not only for those directly designated but also for businesses and charities operating in particular areas.
Foreign policy priorities can change frequently. It is therefore important that Ministers regularly revisit the decision to apply sanctions regimes to political problems and security challenges, and also consider carefully whether the sanctions are having the intended purpose, whether there are unintended consequences and what adjustments might be needed to achieve the desired effect.
Clause 26 therefore requires the Government to carry out a political review of its sanctions every year. The EU also carries out annual reviews of its sanctions regimes. The purpose here is to consider whether the sanctions should continue unchanged or be amended. If there is a published outcome, it is simply confirmation that the legal Acts have been renewed or amended. We have in mind a similar model for the UK; the annual review would be mainly an internal policy exercise, rather than a report for external publication. If the Government decided as a result to amend the sanctions regulations, this would involve a process of parliamentary scrutiny through which we would set out the rationale. Of course, the Government would always respond to Parliamentary Questions about specific areas of policy through the usual channels.
That said, I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and we are looking at the amendment specifically. I will reflect on the proposal in that regard. He made the helpful suggestion that, between Committee and Report, we meet again to work out some of the perhaps necessary parameters. I know he appreciates national security issues and other such issues. I hope, with the assurance that we will reflect on his proposal, the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister. I am going to take that as his continued giving mood and I certainly would welcome a meeting. If you are going to have a political review, I do not see how it can be limited to the Executive; Parliament needs to be involved. I therefore welcome his comments and, in light of them, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
“( ) For the avoidance of doubt, in relation to a decision under subsection (1)(c) above, the court has power to set aside the designation if satisfied that it is in breach of the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.”
Lord Pannick
This amendment is in my name and the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It is concerned with persons who are designated in this country because they have been placed on the UN sanctions list. It raises a very troubling rule-of-law issue, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred in one of our earlier debates this afternoon.
Clause 21(2) and (4) provide that a person who is designated here because they are on a UN list may request the Secretary of State to use best endeavours to secure that their name is removed from the UN sanctions list. My concern is that what Clause 32 means —and indeed is intended to mean—is that, in relation to such a case, a court in this country has no power other than to overturn a decision of the Secretary of State not to use such best endeavours, and to ask the Secretary of State to use best endeavours at the UN. What the Bill appears to deny the person concerned is the right to say to the court: “I have been listed in this country—designated in this country—because I am on a UN list. But I am on a UN list as a result of procedural unfairness, as they have never told me why I am listed, or as a result of a substantive defect. There is no basis whatever for my listing, therefore the court in this country should quash the domestic designation”.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 62 is partly in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally. I knew he would not be able to be here, and he sends his apologies for that. I have to say that I read the amendment and the clause a number of times and it seemed to me that the amendment tightened and clarified the clause. What I failed to spot, as a non-lawyer, was what lay underneath it. I am extremely glad that the issue I raised earlier has been so effectively explained by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I again express support from these Benches for what he has said.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, if I heard the Minister correctly, he compared the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to Oliver Twist asking for more. I wonder, having heard the noble Lord, whether the Minister would agree that Oliver Twist had right and justice on his side.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I recognise that it is not an entirely simple point; it is not perhaps as straightforward as some of the amendments with which we dealt earlier. I see the force of the Government’s argument that the UK has no alternative under international law but to give effect to our obligations under the UN charter; indeed, Article 103 of the charter expressly dictates that these obligations prevail over any conflicting international law obligations. In the 2010 Supreme Court case of Ahmed, I ended my dissenting judgment with the hope that the majority view would not be thought to indicate any weakening of our commitments under the charter. In Ahmed, however, I also stressed the draconian nature of these orders. I said:
“The draconian nature of the regime imposed under these asset-freezing Orders can hardly be overstated … they are scarcely less restrictive of the day-to-day life of those designated (and in some cases their families) than are control orders. In certain respects, indeed, they could be thought to be even more paralysing”.
It strikes me as highly relevant to the amendment that in the case of Ahmed the Court of Appeal had held—and before the Supreme Court Treasury counsel for the Government argued this in terms—that orders implementing a UN resolution are reviewable, and that on such a review the court can grant relief directed against any UK public authority, not against the United Nations. That, essentially, is what the amendment seeks to achieve, or at least to clarify.
I note not least that one of the team of counsel instructed for the Government in the Ahmed case was Sir Michael Wood, who had been the senior legal adviser to the FCO. Clearly he had seen no insuperable obstacle to the court having this judicial review jurisdiction—the very thing that the amendment seeks to put beyond doubt that the court has. On balance, therefore, my concluded view is that we can and should make plain that the court will have this jurisdiction.
Lord Judge
My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had to say. The issue is simple: we must honour our obligations to the United Nations but if, having honoured them, there is an injustice, we must provide a remedy.
Lord Lennie
My Lords, I had not realised that there would be quite such a debate on the application of the rule of law, but I am now aware that it is an important matter. When a sanction’s designation is in place, and a review has been requested but denied by a Minister, the court here will have the authority to set aside the designation if the Government are found in breach of the applicable principles. That is entirely appropriate and sensible. I support the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling the amendment and all noble Lords for their contributions.
I agree that appropriate remedies for designated persons are vital, but the Bill achieves this. However, since some noble Lords have mentioned comparisons with other systems of challenges—there was reference to the EU—it is worth emphasising how this Bill has been designed to reflect the current procedural protections for designated persons that exist in the European Union.
As the noble Lord acknowledged, I stated at Second Reading that the proposed threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect” for designations is the same standard that the UK currently uses when considering designations at the EU and the United Nations. It is broadly equivalent to the threshold applied by EU courts. The Bill then provides a system for reviews and reassessments. Where those lead the appropriate Minister to decide that designation is not appropriate, they must take remedial actions. As I indicated in a previous debate, these provisions provide at least an equivalent level of protection to that afforded to individuals designated by the EU.
I agree with the noble Lords that designations should be put in place and maintained by the United Nations only if there is a sound basis to do so. I can assure all noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in particular—that, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK makes this point consistently. The Bill provides a route for persons designated by the UN to bring a challenge in UK courts. As the noble Lord stated, if the court finds that the decision of the Secretary of State not to use best endeavours to secure an individual’s delisting at the UN is unlawful, the court may order the Secretary of State to do so.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, also pointed out, this matter is slightly more complex. As a member state of the UN, we are legally bound to implement decisions of the United Nations Security Council taken under Chapter VII of the charter. If a person has been designated by the UN, the UK is bound by international law to maintain sanctions against the person unless and until the UN Security Council agrees to remove this designation. Again, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, as set out in Article 103 of the UN charter, these UN obligations take precedence over obligations under any other international agreement, such as those in the European Convention on Human Rights.
I recognise that in the past—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to—the EU court has occasionally made rulings striking down EU designations in place to implement UN sanctions. The UK’s position has consistently been firmly that it should not do so and the UK has made this point in submissions to the EU courts in the Kadi case. The EU courts adopting this approach does not change our analysis of the position. The EU is not a signatory to the UN charter and is therefore not bound by its terms—we are. It is not correct to say that this will leave a person in the UK in a worse-off position than a person in another EU member state. All the other member states of the European Union are also signatories to the UN charter, and are bound by it. If there is no EU law in place to implement a UN designation, those countries would need to take alternative steps, for example under their own domestic law, to remain in compliance with their UN obligations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has just reflected that we have done this in the UK in the past. When, in 2010, the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed ruled that an order putting UN counterterrorist sanctions in place was ultra vires, we created domestic legislation—the Terrorist Asset- Freezing etc. Act 2010 to ensure that the UN sanctions remained in place.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the Minister. I have listened carefully, but I am not persuaded. The Minister is telling the Committee that however strong the individual’s case that his or her designation is unfair as a matter of procedure and substance, there is nothing that the English courts can do except ask the Secretary of State to use best endeavours at the United Nations, which the Secretary of State may already have done. What happens if the UN’s response is that it will maintain the designation and the English court is still satisfied that there is no basis for including this person on the list? There may be no evidence that justifies it; it may be a rank breach of fairness.
I am not satisfied, as I said, that we should subcontract these matters to the United Nations. I can well understand that the English court would be very slow to form the view that it should take the step of quashing the domestic designation when the United Nations has imposed internationally such a designation, but I cannot accept that the English court should be left without power to do so if it believes that injustice has been done, given the grave consequences for the individual concerned. I will reflect further on this, and I hope the Minister will reflect further before Report. If not, we will need to return to what, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, is a simple matter but also a fundamental matter of the rule of law. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, this group of amendments is focused on a subject matter that we repeatedly return to: namely, parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of the actions of the Executive. I want to focus primarily on how we enable Parliament to do the job of scrutiny. Amendments 65 and 68, in particular, are designed to ensure that there is relevant information in relation to actions to revoke or introduce regulations. I know that the Minister will say that because regulations will be placed before Parliament there will be a scrutiny function there—but I think more than that is needed. We say that an affirmative decision is required, and also that the reasons should be clearly stated and set out in a written memorandum by the appropriate Minister. So the theme that we are returning to, and focusing on, is enabling Parliament to scrutinise, and giving it the tools to do that job.
There is a power under Clause 35 for an appropriate Minister to suspend regulations “for a specified period” —no period being specified, of course, because that is subject to regulations. I keep coming back to the fact that, in the exercise of powers, it is important to put certain principles on the face of the Bill. We would insert a requirement for the time period to be put in. We must understand that the power of the Executive to suspend regulations or other sanctions has the potential to cause compliance uncertainty for business. There could be uncertainty about when and on what terms a sanction may be reimposed, or whether it could be revoked entirely.
The purpose of the amendment is to create more certainty for all those involved, and by doing so to introduce more effective compliance with sanctions. Considering the aims of those sanctions, that is very important. The persons or entities that are subject to suspended sanctions may still be affected by reputational stigma. It is important, in terms of procedural fairness, that these issues should be properly addressed.
The group is focused primarily on parliamentary scrutiny and enabling Parliament to do that job effectively, and I have also put my name to Amendment 72, to Clause 44. I look forward to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on that. In my opinion that clause gives the Executive an overwhelming power, which the Minister will have to give very good reasons for retaining. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned Amendment 72, which is in my name and his, and in those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It concerns Clause 44(2), which is a very broad Henry VIII clause. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, repeatedly argued during earlier debates in this Committee and elsewhere, we should not be giving Ministers powers to amend primary legislation without very strong justification. Clause 44(2) would allow Ministers to take action,
“amending, repealing or revoking enactments”,
including primary legislation,
“(whenever passed or made)”.
It contains no limitations on those powers. For my part, I cannot see any justification for including such extensive powers in the Bill. I strongly suspect that such a provision is included simply because it may turn out to be useful at some time in the future. We in this House are seeing too regularly provisions of this sort and we ought to take a stand against the conferral of such sovereignty on Ministers.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is once again trying to help the Government, and I appreciate his efforts. He seeks to put a very useful time limit on how long a so-called “specified period” in Clause 35 might be, and his Amendment 64 proposes a further time limitation. We will come back to Clause 35 when we discuss the next group of amendments and I shall address that clause as a whole shortly.
Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, seeks to check the wider and unspecified powers on the revocation of sanctions that the Government seem to want to grant themselves in Clause 38. We do not want to see wide and untrammelled powers in either the setting or the revoking of sanctions. The noble Lord is right to seek to address this.
My name is, indeed, attached to Amendment 72. The case for this amendment was very cogently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The clause contains one of the wide-ranging Henry VIII powers that we have seen elsewhere in the Bill. I cannot see how this power can stand. Clause 44(2) states:
“Regulations under this Act may make supplemental, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision”.
That is a rather wide-ranging description. Therefore, I trust that the Minister has been given enough leeway by his colleagues across government to think again.
Lord Judge
I will not add very much, but I am beginning to think that there is a computer in every department which produces a Henry VIII clause at least once in every Bill. That is what we have here. This is not belt and braces; it is belt, braces and Henry VIII’s great big heavy boots. We do not want it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble and learned Lord made me imagine Henry VIII’s boots for a moment.
As regards thinking, I am forever thinking; I think it is a good thing to do. The Government are reflecting very carefully on all elements of the arguments noble Lords are putting forward on these amendments. I will say at the outset that I can see that a number of these amendments gather around a central theme—namely, the appropriate roles of Parliament and the Government when creating and implementing future policy on sanctions. I assure noble Lords that I recognise that this is a difficult balance to strike. As power flows back to the United Kingdom from the European Union —I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that it is a case of “when” we leave the EU—it will not be appropriate to simply follow the model in the European Communities Act 1972, where decisions of the EU either apply directly in UK law or are implemented through statutory instruments following the negative procedure.
I assure noble Lords that we have tried hard to strike the balance correctly in this Bill and ensure that Parliament has the right level of oversight of the Government’s exercise of sanctions policy. For example, we have ensured that the UK autonomous sanctions regulations must be approved by Parliament before they are put in place. I continue to listen very carefully to the points that have been made about the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny. I assure noble Lords that I will continue to reflect on those points—and not just in respect of these amendments.
It is perhaps worth remembering that sanctions are, in essence, as I have said repeatedly, a matter of foreign policy and national security, which fall more to the Government than Parliament. This was recognised by the great constitutional lawyer A V Dicey, who wrote that the “right of making treaties” was,
“left by law in the hands of the Crown, and are exercised in fact by the executive government”.
That is also the practice in other western countries with national sanctions regimes and legislation, such as Canada and Australia.
On the amendment we are discussing, it is important to recognise that the imposition of sanctions is not a punishment but an attempt to change the behaviour of those who are acting in a threatening or unacceptable manner. That is why the provisions provide ways of suspending, amending and revoking sanctions. Iran is an example of where sanctions have been suspended. Under the 2016 nuclear deal, Iran sanctions can be “snapped back” by the EU if there is a breach of the international commitments made by Iran in relation to nuclear development. Noble Lords will be aware that those suspension arrangements were part of a delicate political balancing act, which the UK is working hard with the EU and other partners to preserve.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation. Does the Henry VIII power in Clause 44(2) allow the Government, by regulations, to remove protections that an individual has under other primary legislation in relation to sanctions, for example under the Human Rights Act 1998?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My understanding is that the regulations would apply only to the sanctions themselves, but I shall clarify that legally as well in answer to the noble and learned Lord and return to the specific issue on Report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Will the Minister write to me, so that we know the Government’s position before Report?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Perhaps I was not clear: that was exactly my intention. I do not want to say something from the Dispatch Box that is not accurate, so I will write to the noble and learned Lord on that particular point.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I am a little intrepid in saying this as I am not a lawyer or a constitutional expert but this seems to be a Bill that, from a layman’s point of view, lets the Government give themselves great powers through the way it designates individuals, connecting persons through descriptions, through definitions of involved people and through clauses that give powers to amend. These include Clause 39, which gives power to amend all of Part 1 so as to authorise additional sanctions, and Clause 44(2), which gives sweeping Henry VIII powers to amend, repeal and revoke amendments and enactments. To me, this seems like Jekyll and Hyde legislation. You think you are getting one thing, yet there is every ability within the proposed Act to change itself into something quite different.
I was quite concerned in last week’s debate, when my noble friend Lady Bowles talked about how Acts could be used for unintended purposes. I recall the case of Maya Evans, who read out the names of 97 British soldiers during the remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph in 2005. Although it was a very innocuous statement that she was making—she was protesting against Britain being taken into the Iraq war; she felt that it was illegal—she was arrested and was the first person in the UK to be convicted under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Also in the same year—I might embarrass the Labour Benches here—Walter Wolfgang was forcibly removed from the Labour Party conference. Again, he wanted to protest about the Iraq war, and shouted out “Nonsense!” and “That’s a lie!” during a speech made from the conference platform by Jack Straw. He was ejected and was stopped from re-entering the conference hall by a police officer citing the Terrorism Act.
From my point of view as a lay person, I am fully supportive of the well-informed noble Lords here who are leading the charge to make sure that the Bill does what it says on the tin and does not turn into a Jekyll and Hyde Bill.
Lord Pannick
Whether I am well informed or not, can the Minister confirm that in his response on Amendment 72 he gave a reassurance to the Committee that these powers would be used only when necessary? That was the word he used on more than one occasion. He will remember an earlier debate we had in this Committee on whether that word should be written into an earlier clause. If with the aid of parliamentary draftsmen “necessary” could be written in to confine the use of that power, it would mitigate substantially my concern about Clause 44(2); I speak only for myself. Perhaps the Minister and the Bill team could reflect on that before Report.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To pick up on that final point, of course we will. I confirm that I used “necessary”. As regards the intervention from the noble Baroness, perhaps I did not quite follow her whole argument—various rules were in play—but I got the general principle that she was in support of the powers that are being conferred. As I said right at the beginning, laying it out in quite a lot of detail, I totally accept the point about the Henry VIII powers—the use of secondary legislation rather than primary legislation—which we have debated several times. Certainly, from our perspective as the Government—that is true not only of ourselves but of previous Governments as well—there is a point in principle that we try to strike a balance. Therefore I am listening carefully. On the specific point that the noble Lord made at the end, I will take that back and see how it can be adapted.
I am in reflective mode, as several noble Lords have noted during some of the earlier debates in Committee. However, on this group of amendments, I hope that after the explanation I have given the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I agree with many noble Lords who have decided to come back to the Minister before he sat down. His response has been disappointing. These are clearly issues of principle that we will return to. I find it amazing that often, when the Minister gives examples of how difficult it would be to do X or Y, they do not appear that difficult. You can give a reason why sanctions need to be revoked. At the end of the day, whatever Crown powers or executive powers there are, the political reality is that these figures work when there is consent—when people buy into them. We are attempting to ensure that the Executive do not act with untrammelled powers and that they have to account for their actions and explain them. If Parliament then gives its support and consent, those actions and powers become more effective. That is what this debate is about today. We will certainly return to this issue on Report, but in the light of the comments the Minister made to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I was rather intrigued by the Minister’s definition of sanctions as being something little more than a gentle nudge. I found myself thinking about—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is certainly not a gentle nudge. What I was alluding to is that the ultimate purpose behind sanctions is that they should not exist for an indefinite period of time. It is about changing behaviour. As I noted in the example that I gave of Iraq, there are times when we could use these to very good effect to ensure, with people’s behaviour—be they individuals, corporations or, indeed, countries—that sanctions act as an effective, and deterrent, tool.
Baroness Northover
I am glad to have that further clarification. My eyebrows rather rose at that and I was wondering, speaking of what is benign, what my kids would have made of being sanctioned and having their PlayStations removed. They would not regard that as particularly benign. But, very seriously, it is quite striking how leaders around the world with sanctions on them strive hard to get them lifted, so I am glad to have that clarification.
I propose that Clause 35 does not stand part of the Bill. We have a series of such proposals through the Bill, as the Minister will be aware. We have had a wide-ranging discussion just now. I appreciate the efforts to improve things made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. However, it still seems to us that this clause remains unacceptable, even if amended in the way that he proposed. That is why we propose that it does not stand part of the Bill.
Just as we wish to ensure that the imposition of sanctions is done in a way which is appropriate, transparent and accountable, so too should be the suspension of sanctions. No one here would wish to see the UK as a harbour for those not wanted elsewhere, but we must not give future Ministers the power to do that either. We feel that these powers are wide and vague, and bearing in mind that the secondary legislation coming down to us will include—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out last time—many things with which we would no doubt agree, which are then jeopardised should we take the very unusual action of voting down the SI, we need to read the Bill in that light. For example:
“The period begins when a specified condition is met and lasts for so long as the suspending regulations or a specified provision of those regulations has effect”.
That would catch a large number of things. Although the noble Lord, Lord Collins, sought to help the Government regarding the amendment we have just debated, we feel that the Government should think again over the whole clause.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, it is important to recognise that the imposition of sanctions is not just a punishment but rather an attempt—as I have articulated in relation to an earlier comment by the noble Baroness—to change the behaviour of those who are acting in a threatening or unacceptable manner.
I state clearly that Clause 35 on suspensions is important. It gives Ministers the ability to provide relief from sanctions to countries, organisations and, yes, individuals where there is evidence of positive steps towards the desired change of behaviour. The ability to suspend sanction measures, rather than fully lifting them, allows Ministers to recognise moves in the right direction while maintaining a credible threat that sanctions can be easily reimposed. We know from past experience that this is an option worth having; thus I believe this clause should stand part of the Bill. I hope the noble Baroness will accept the response I have given, which makes the point that the Bill, at its essence, through Clause 35 provides for the suspension of particular sanctions to ensure that those seeking to improve their behaviour are given an opportunity to prove it. This should be without having the immediate comfort of knowing that their sanction has been not only suspended but lifted altogether. Not having Clause 35 would prevent Ministers from having this very important tool available to impose that kind of suspension.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“( ) Regulations under section 1, which are made by virtue of this section for the purposes of revoking or substantially reducing the effects of sanctions regulations, must be accompanied by the publication of a written memorandum by the appropriate Minister, and such a memorandum must set out— (a) how the decision to amend or revoke the regulations in question is consistent with the overall foreign policy objectives of the UK government, including any specific regional objectives where appropriate;(b) the extent to which each initial objective of the regulations in question has been met, including any specific demands or expectations of any change in the behaviour of the target or targets of the sanctions; and(c) specific provisions for the reinstatement of the initial regulations, in the event that the conditions justifying their revocation or amendment no longer apply.”
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, with this amendment I return to the principle of “tools for the job” and how we enable Parliament to scrutinise effectively. In the previous group, the Minister spoke quite effectively about the reasons for certain sanctions being introduced and how they sometimes underpin and support much broader foreign policy objectives, and he quoted the Iran situation. I did not think that he found that particularly difficult to do. We know that when sanctions are introduced—I come back to this point—we need political support and commitment for them to be effective. Without proper support, they will not be.
That is why it is important that, when the powers and regulations are introduced, we specify how the sanctions fit into the broader foreign policy objectives and why they are there. I fear that sometimes people jump on the sanctions bandwagon because they cannot think of any other action to achieve particular foreign policy objectives. For example, the struggle for human rights is difficult, and different leverages can be used. I do not necessarily think that sanctions are the first port of call, and I accept that they can be part of a suite of actions.
However, when we introduce sanctions, it is important and incumbent on the Government to set out clearly why they are there and how they fit into their overall foreign policy objectives. Furthermore, when will the sanctions be brought to an end and when will we judge them to have been successful? I have heard in this House on a number of occasions that sanctions have been “successful”. That is measured by whether we have stopped certain trade and a certain activity, not by whether they have achieved the foreign policy objectives set for introducing them, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. Once again, I hope that the Minister is in his listening and giving mode. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, once again the noble Lord, Lord Collins, seeks to assist the Government by ensuring that some of the wide-ranging powers sought by Ministers have a little sunlight shone upon them. We support what the noble Lord has said about making the Minister’s actions more transparent and accountable, but we worry—the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has in some ways made reference to this—about the broad categorisation of foreign policy objectives in defining when sanctions are appropriate.
We discussed this issue on the first day of Committee and, although I realise that the noble Lord has carried over the aims as stated in the Bill, we feel that “foreign policy objectives” is too wide a concept. Clearly, if our foreign policy objective were, say, trade with India and we decided, for some reason, to put sanctions on Pakistan and, as described in the Bill, all those associated with that country—as, again, we debated on our first day in Committee—a large number of law-abiding citizens could potentially be caught up in that. That may be regarded as far-fetched, but we always have to look for unintended consequences, given that unexpected things happen in politics.
As we have said before, it is all very well the Minister potentially quoting the Human Rights Act or the European convention, given that some members of his party have spoken of repealing the first and withdrawing from the second. It is therefore important that we ensure that legislation is watertight. With that caveat, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for trying to assist us in making Ministers under this Bill more transparent and accountable.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for tabling this amendment. I agree that sanctions are not the first port of call, a point I have made in previous debates in Committee. The amendment specifically deals with the decision to lift sanctions, and it merits close scrutiny based on a careful assessment of whether the sanctions have achieved their political objectives, as the noble Lord said.
The amendment seeks to oblige the Government to issue a written memorandum alongside any regulation revoking sanctions which would set out the rationale in terms of the original purposes of the sanctions as outlined in Clause 1. While I agree with the important principle of parliamentary scrutiny, I believe that the Bill as drafted provides an appropriate level of scrutiny.
Let me elaborate, if I may. In the case of UN sanctions, revocation would be an automatic response to a decision of the UN Security Council. We can assume that the reasons for the lifting of sanctions would be clearly understood, making a report unnecessary. In the case of UK autonomous sanctions, the regulations could only be revoked using the made-affirmative procedure. The Government would also need to explain the rationale for lifting sanctions and would do this when presenting the said regulations. The explanations provided by the Government would cover the areas proposed in the amendment. However, the Government would need to be careful about putting the full details of the UK’s strategy in the public domain. I know the noble Lord appreciates that point.
This means that, although we support the principle of transparency, obliging the Government to issue a full written memorandum, as proposed by the noble Lord, would be inappropriate. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I am not sure whether that is a cup half-full or half-empty sort of response. However, I shall take it away and consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, have joined with me in objecting to Clause 39, which would allow the Minister to authorise prohibitions or requirements of kinds additional to those set out in Chapter 1. So the Minister, by regulations, would have power to add to financial, immigration, trade, aircraft and shipping sanctions, and sanctions for the purposes of implementing UN sanctions.
If additional types of sanctions are to be added to Chapter 1 and they are not new types of UN sanctions—which is already covered by Clause 7—surely that should be done by primary legislation so that Parliament has the same opportunity to debate and amend the proposals as it does with the clauses of this Bill. These are vital matters to add new types of sanctions to this legislation.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, just as my noble friend Lord McNally and I opposed Clause 35 standing part of the Bill, so we oppose Clause 39 standing part of the Bill. Of course, this is in many ways a more dangerous clause. While, under Clause 35, we might find ourselves not imposing sanctions which other countries—say, within the EU—were imposing, in this case the Government are apparently happy to secure carte blanche powers for imposing sanctions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said,
“an appropriate Minister, may by regulations”,
amend this part of the Bill to,
“impose prohibitions or requirements of kinds additional to those for the time being authorised in Chapter 1”.
The Constitution Committee states:
“We do not consider it appropriate for Ministers to have powers as broad as those conferred by Clause 39. In particular, we consider it constitutionally inappropriate for Ministers to have the power, by regulations, to create new forms of sanctions”.
The Delegated Powers Committee states that,
“we do not consider the powers conferred by Clause 39 to be appropriate”.
They explain:
“We do not consider that the FCO’s reasons are sufficient to justify the powers conferred by Clause 39, particularly having regard to the potential width of the powers and the very significant effects on individual rights that amendments made under these powers would be capable of having”.
They also point out, in relation to UN sanctions, that,
“this power is unnecessary for enabling additional sanctions measures to be imposed for the purposes of complying with UN obligations since Clause 7 already has this effect”.
From right across this Chamber and from the Constitution Committee and Delegated Powers Committee comes a clear message, so we join others in opposing that Clause 39 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The width of this power seems extraordinary and constitutionally offensive. As I understand the drafting of the Bill, it is open to a Minister to pass regulations which allow him to identify individuals on whom he can impose a sanction or prohibition that he has invented. What is more, the only restriction on him is that it must be for the purposes set out in Clause 2(1). If the Minister honestly believes that the invention of a new sanction or prohibition is justified by “a foreign policy objective” of the Government—for example, gaining support from one country by attacking its nationals in this country—the power given by Clause 39 would entitle them to invent a new prohibition and impose it by regulations. Furthermore, should any primary legislation stand in the way of a Minister inventing such a new prohibition that he or she believes is designed to promote a foreign policy objective, that primary legislation can be amended to get rid of an objection by the very same regulations under Clause 44(2). That a Minister could do by secondary legislation such a thing—for example, restrict somebody’s spending their own money, prevent them leaving their home, take away their car or stop certain sorts of bank account being used—without primary legislation strikes me as well beyond what any responsible Government would think should be done by secondary legislation. Can the Minister confirm that my analysis of what could theoretically be done is right, and explain why it is appropriate that that be done by secondary legislation?
Lord Faulks
The noble and learned Lord puts a rather sinister construction on this clause. I do not want to add to my noble friend’s discomfort, but I need some persuading that Clause 39 is necessary given the width and nature of the sanctions and the purposes. It was important that the Government resisted the attempt to narrow “a foreign policy objective”, which was an amendment that we debated on the previous occasion, but “a foreign policy objective” gives the Government quite a lot of room for manoeuvre having identified an appropriate sanction. While I suspect that Clause 39 was inserted as a “just in case” provision rather than to give Ministers extraordinary power of the sort that has been discovered, it nevertheless remains at least open in theory to a Minister to exercise power in a way I think all noble Lords find difficult to accept.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I intervene only to say this: I did not suggest that the motive of the Government was to do this. My experience as a Minister is that you put through legislation and many years later, after emollient assurances given in the House of Lords, those pesky lawyers look at what is possible under the Act. What I have described is possible. Let us imagine if those very same pesky lawyers said, “Well, you might have difficulty getting that through with primary legislation because of the extraordinary width of the powers, but actually we’ve found these rather clever powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill which allow you to do it without primary legislation”. That is the danger.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to take anything away from the force of the points just made by the various speakers who object to the clause more fundamentally, but I want to pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described as minor: the wording of the clause. If the Government are minded to keep it, I suggest they might like to look at it again. Subsection (1) is very general, and the opening words of subsection (2) state that what follows is:
“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”.
The bit at the end in brackets, one assumes, does not qualify subsection (1). Is it in the right place? Is the proclamation that what follows is:
“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”,
really apposite if you are trying to restrict the scope of the powers as you seek to do in subsection (2)? It is a very interesting interaction of subsections but I suggest that it needs a little more care if the clause is to remain—I say nothing more in support of the point that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I think this is one area where the Minister will have to be in his giving mood, because there is very strong opinion on it across the Committee. What the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said is absolutely correct: it is a “just in case” clause. What if this happens? What if that happens? If things happen, there is a process and a procedure and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said it quite explicitly: bring in laws to deal with it; bring in a Bill that addresses those specific concerns. If it is an urgent situation that we had not thought of, there are processes and procedures we can adopt.
As my noble and learned friend said, there is an opportunity here for what he calls “pesky lawyers”. I am always cautious—whenever I dealt with lawyers in my life I always took the precaution never to ask a question I did not know the answer to. That is the situation here. Because you cannot think of the circumstances, but there may be circumstances, you say, “Let us put it in the Bill”. I am sorry, that is not acceptable. There is a consensus across the board on this and it is even a clause on which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee are as one, as they are not on other clauses. So I fear this is one issue about which the Minister will have to think again.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this clause. I am hearing the message loud and clear, but in doing so I need to pick up on a few points as to the motive and the intent behind the clause. I appreciate the clarification by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, of the Government’s motives. I will not comment on his description of lawyers; it would be entirely inappropriate for me to do so. However, he makes a valid point about the explanation and it is appropriate to explain the Government’s intention behind the clause.
The clause will allow the UK to make amendments to the Bill, as noble Lords have mentioned, to allow for the imposition of new and unforeseen sanction measures, a point well made by my noble friend Lord Faulks. The power is confined to new types of sanctions and cannot be used to alter the purposes for which sanctions can be imposed. I should explain what I mean by new types of sanctions. Common types of sanction include asset freezes, travel bans, arms embargos and prohibitions on aviation and maritime transport. These are included in the Bill. However, the international community sometimes finds it necessary to develop and deploy new types of sanctions. Indeed, a recent example is the UN sanctions imposed in respect of North Korea. That resolution requires that UN member states do not grant work permits to North Koreans save where the UN agrees, in advance, on a case-by-case basis. Prior to the UN’s putting in place that sanction, such a sanction did not exist. There may be times in the future when a currently unforeseen type of sanction would again be appropriate.
Lord Pannick
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but if the new type of sanction is to be imposed because the UN has considered it appropriate, it surely falls within Clause 7.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think I mentioned Clause 7 in the preamble, but the noble Lord is correct. I was going on to say that, while Clause 7 would allow the UK to adopt new types of sanction when mandated by the UN, there may be times in the future when the UK needs to act outside the direct auspices of the UN.
Without the power provided by Clause 39, the UK will not be able to deploy these types of sanction without first passing new primary legislation. I have heard that point very clearly from noble Lords. That could significantly hinder our ability to co-ordinate sanctions with allies at times when UN action is not possible for political reasons. I alluded to the circumstances in earlier debates. This would risk the UK becoming the weak link in co-ordinated international responses to international crises of the kind we have seen in the Syrian civil war and Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
I also agree that it is important to give Parliament its assent when new powers are bestowed on government. That is why this clause provides that the draft affirmative procedure be used in these circumstances. In proposing that this procedure be followed—I come back to a point I made in earlier debates—the Government have sought to balance the twin demands of ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and ensuring rapid international responses.
That said, I will make two points, first on the substantive issue. I have again indicated the Government’s willingness to listen. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, among others, rightly made the point about the reports that have been produced by both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Indeed, they have made a similar point to that which has been debated in this House and we will be responding to those reports shortly. Therefore, I will take this back and look at the sentiment and the strength of opinion that has been expressed in this House.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the drafting of Clause 39(2), while I am not a lawyer, I was looking specifically at the drafting as the noble Lord spoke. It is extremely important that we look at that again and I will take that back to ensure the drafting reflects the intent behind Clause 39. With that proposal, I hope the noble Lord will be minded to agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in asking that Clause 40 should not stand part of the Bill, we seek the clarification that I asked for at Second Reading, and failed to receive from the Minister, about Clause 40 and the power to make provision relating to routes to challenging decisions with immigration implications. Noble Lords will know that the Bill gives powers to Ministers to impose sanctions. Among them are immigration sanctions or the power to designate persons as “excluded persons” for the purposes of Section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971. In essence, part of the sanctions package could be either to remove designated persons from the UK or to prevent them entering the UK. The Bill provides a mechanism for those affected to ask for the decision to impose sanctions to be reviewed, initially by a Minister and subsequently by the courts—the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court in the rest of the UK—which could include the decision to designate an individual an excluded person. This would, in effect, be an appeal against the decision to impose the sanction.
An excluded person could, alternatively or in addition, claim that they have a right to asylum in the UK or that their human rights would be infringed if they were returned to their country of origin or refused entry to the UK. This would, in effect, be an appeal against the consequences of the imposition of the sanction, rather than against the decision to impose the sanction itself. It is important that these two potential routes to challenge being designated an excluded person—either the decision to designate or the consequences of being designated—are dealt with separately and appropriately. My understanding is that that is what Clause 40 allows the Government to do, by regulation.
However, Clause 40 is quite complex and, at the same time, non-specific about what the regulations and their effect might be. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill appear to suggest, in paragraphs 115 and 116, that claims of asylum and human rights will continue to be dealt with by the Home Secretary as the Minister with the knowledge, experience and expertise to decide these matters, not by the Minister imposing the sanctions, and that any appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision would be to the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, a specialist tribunal with expertise in deciding such claims, not the High Court or Court of Session, where an appeal against the imposition of the sanction would be heard.
In a letter dated 16 November, the Minister stated that it was the Government’s,
“intention to provide, at Committee stage, an illustrative draft Statutory Instrument in relation to the powers under clause 40, so that Peers can fully scrutinise how decisions that have immigration implications will be taken and the routes of challenge”.
We are in Committee and have come to Clause 40 in the Bill, and no illustrative draft statutory instrument has been made available. Can the Minister tell the Committee how noble Lords are expected to accept Clause 40 in the absence of what he promised in his letter?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, perhaps I might intervene in this debate and save the Committee some time. First, they say that sorry seems to be the hardest word but it is not for me. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, since after Second Reading, as he said, I wrote to him and said that the Government intended to bring forward a draft instrument and would put on record during Committee the Government’s intended policy in regard to this clause. I regret to say that we have not fulfilled the first part of that intention—I will come to it in a moment—but I hope that, through what I say, I can fulfil the second part of it now.
Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the Committee more generally that much work has been, and continues to be, done between officials in various departments on refining this important policy area. As the noble Lord acknowledged, the issue is complex and involves not only the specialist tribunal but how this relates to other aspects of the Bill. This has meant that, despite best efforts by officials, the draft statutory instrument was not ready to be published. It was my view and that of the Government that, rather than publish a statutory instrument that is not yet fully ready, Parliament would be better assisted by seeing a more mature version of that instrument. To that end, my officials and others across Whitehall will continue this work apace. We will endeavour to publish a version of the statutory instrument ahead of Report. I would be happy to meet the noble Lord in the interim to discuss this specific issue. I would also like to put on record for the Committee the intention behind this clause and address some of the points that he made.
Clause 40 concerns how appeals against the immigration consequences of UK autonomous sanctions are handled. I would like to give the Committee some background as to the current arrangements before I go on to speak about the clause. Under the current arrangements, UN or EU travel bans are, in the vast majority of cases, imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and have no connection to the UK. The Immigration Act 1971 already makes provision for persons subject to UN travel bans. Clause 40 allows us to ensure that the persons subject to UK autonomous travel bans can benefit from a similar provision.
In the unlikely event that a UK autonomous travel ban were to be imposed on a person in the UK, this would, as a matter of domestic law, have consequences for their immigration status in the UK—a point I know concerned the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Whereas a person who is outside the UK will be refused entry, those who are in the UK will lose the right to remain here and may be subject to removal. A person affected in this way might argue that any removal from the UK would interfere with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, or be contrary to our obligations under the refugee convention. As a result, they may wish to make a human rights or humanitarian protection claim to prevent their removal. These immigration claims are usually decided by the Home Secretary, and a very developed machinery has grown up around the decision-making process to ensure that it is fair and effective and, importantly, complies with our international obligations. Such decisions, once made, can also give rise to a right of appeal before the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, a specialist tribunal with expertise in deciding such claims.
I turn to the Bill. Such immigration claims may also be made against the immigration consequences of a UK autonomous travel ban imposed under the Bill. Again, immigration claims are most likely to arise where an individual in the UK would lose their right to remain here. Noble Lords might ask why we need Clause 40, given that this situation can already arise in the context of a UN or EU travel ban. I wish to explain the point here. The Bill establishes a new administrative reassessment process for designations and a court review process in the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session. No such equivalent administrative and court mechanisms are currently applied in domestic law for UN or EU travel bans. The mechanisms in place are different, so we will need to adapt the existing decision-making and appellate structures that I described earlier in order to accommodate the Bill. That is why we need Clause 40.
I turn back to the practicalities. Cases of this kind are likely to be limited in number, but it is vital that we get this right—a point made by the noble Lord himself. The Government consider it important to ensure that such claims are handled appropriately. We want to ensure that domestic sanctions do not unjustifiably interfere with fundamental rights or run contrary to our obligations under the refugee convention. It is also important that the effectiveness of our domestic sanctions regime is not compromised because our domestic legislation no longer enables us to manage effectively such immigration claims as may be made. The Government have therefore considered how these immigration claims should be treated in the context of the new administrative reassessment and court review processes.
Our conclusion is that, as a starting point, we should seek to maintain the status quo. The Home Secretary and the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal should remain the appropriate decision-makers, as they are now. Both the Home Office and the tribunal are vastly experienced in this area, having dealt with 38,681 human rights and asylum claims and appeals in 2016 alone. However, some changes will be necessary in order to ensure that domestic legislation enables us to manage situations where, for example, there would otherwise be the possibility of both the High Court and the tribunal considering the same issues, or the High Court being required to determine a protection claim that the Home Office had not had the opportunity to consider.
To illustrate the point, whereas the tribunal would be best placed to determine an appeal against an immigration decision, determining the lawfulness of a decision to freeze an individual’s assets is a decision that would be better suited to the High Court. The clause provides the powers necessary to make these changes, which will ensure that we continue to comply with our international obligations and that the effectiveness of our domestic sanctions regime is not compromised. To provide appropriate scrutiny, regulations made under this power will use the draft affirmative procedure.
I give this very detailed explanation along with, once again, an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I believe that at Second Reading when he raised this issue I had momentarily left the Chamber or I was near the Box to clarify something, so I did not fully hear his contribution and read it only later in Hansard. As I said, I put on record that we would look to return to this in Committee, which clearly we have not been able to do. I am much minded that the instrument put forward is one that we have looked at extensively and reflects the detail of what I have just submitted to your Lordships’ House. I therefore hope that with that somewhat detailed explanation, which I briefly mentioned to the respective Front Benches out of courtesy to your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment, with the assurance that I look forward to working with him specifically on that SI before Report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful and detailed explanation. As I understand him, he is saying that regulations can be produced under this provision, which will delineate between the Minister, the High Court and the Upper Tribunal as to who decides what in relation to the variety of legal challenges that are available both in ordinary law relating to asylum and the right to remain and the rights given under this Act.
That is pretty complex. It is very difficult to judge whether this regulation-making provision is appropriate in its width without seeing a draft of what the Government have in mind. It is critical that the draft be made available a significant time before Report. I do not know when Report will take place, but it may be in the middle of January. Therefore, in the light of what the Minister said about the detailed work on this draft instrument, when might we see it? Obviously, a lot of work has been done on it and there is a draft in existence. The issue is legal appropriateness and there is no reason why we should not see the draft now.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble and learned Lord makes an important point about ensuring appropriate time before Report. He is correct to say that we are looking at Report taking place towards the middle of January in the new year, and correct to say that we must allow sufficient time to accommodate it. I cannot give him chapter and verse on the exact date but he makes his point well. I also subscribe to his view that it is important to allow noble Lords sufficient time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am not asking for a specific date, but will it be by the end of the week, or the end of next week? The Minister must give us some assurance that we will have it in time.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I said, there are already, as the noble and learned Lord will acknowledge, various issues. We will do this in good order. Perhaps I may take this matter back—because various departments are working on this—and clarify appropriately. I will write to noble Lords on the specific date by the end of the week, which will then provide the detail. I fully acknowledge what the noble and learned Lord said about the importance of allowing effective scrutiny before Report. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I am sorry, I meant the noble Lord, Lord Paddick; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has left but he clearly left an impression on me—that I look forward to working with him once the draft instrument has been circulated. For good order—I look over to the Box and my private office—once the draft has been published, we will seek to circulate it and lay a copy in the Library, as appropriate.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I, too, welcome the noble Lord’s statement that Report will not be until mid-January.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think that I am being corrected by my rather forceful Whip on my left. I am sure that this matter will be clarified through the usual channels.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I very much welcome the support and contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining that asylum claims, and any claim that somebody’s human rights will be infringed, will be dealt with by the most appropriate Minister—the Home Secretary—and through the immigration appeal tribunal route, and not by the provisions in the Bill to appeal against the imposition of the sanction itself. I am grateful for that reassurance; it is the one that I was seeking.
I am grateful, too, for the Minister’s apology for missing some deadlines, if I may put it that way. Obviously, I am content to withdraw my opposition to Clause 40 standing part of the Bill.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as the passage of business has travelled fairly quickly, I think it only fair to speakers in the next debate if we adjourn for 10 minutes until 7 pm.
Education: Early Years
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to provide high-quality early years education in England.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who will speak in this debate. I very much look forward to their contributions and to the Minister’s response.
There is no doubt that early years education is one of the best possible investments that any society can make, and that every pound spent well delivers returns that will last a lifetime. A young child who is equipped with the experiences and skills to make the most of their life will not only live a much happier life, he or she will make a much more positive contribution to our society and will be a net contributor to their own life and the community in which they live. A young child whose parents have not had the advantage of good parenting or have grown up in poverty will almost inevitably need support to make sure that their own children realise their potential.
At this point I need to draw a distinction between childcare and education. In coalition, we were proud to push the introduction of free childcare and increase it to 30 hours to enable both parents to get jobs and contribute to the family economy. There are, of course, huge problems for childcare providers in delivering the childcare for the money that the Government are willing to provide, but that is a debate for another day.
Many early years providers strive to provide more than just childcare and begin to educate children naturally in ways that many parents do through conversation, learning simple nursery rhymes, simple counting games and a range of practical activities—that is, learning through play. They also try to ensure that parents who need support are encouraged in good parenting habits. However, even at the earliest ages, children will gain most benefit if their nursery can afford to train, develop and pay staff well. Staffing is the largest single cost for childcare providers and the single largest cost as children move into early years education settings.
There is no sharp distinction between childcare and education. Good childcare also develops the child in all sorts of ways and early years education picks up from where the child is and continues to maximise the child’s development socially, emotionally and educationally. But—this is a big “but”—as children develop, they need highly trained staff to enable them to be taken on an educational journey that will equip them to succeed at primary school, secondary school and beyond.
We hear a lot about “narrowing the gap” but high-quality childcare, followed by high-quality early years education, is about not letting the gap widen in the early years and beyond. What we had in England—and, to some extent, still have—is early years provision that, as Andreas Schleicher of the OECD says, is the envy of many other countries. However, the Government seem determined to see our provision decline from the outstanding to the mediocre, with funding to local authorities being cut, not to the bone—it is worse than that. By 2020, some authorities will have lost half their revenue income: they will be forced to spend all their funding on statutory services, with the vast majority being taken by adult social care.
One of the earliest casualties of austerity were the libraries, a valuable free resource for parents of young children. Tragically for education, one-third of Sure Start centres have been lost since 2010, with more than 40% of centres closing in London and the north-east, where many of the most vulnerable families live. Young children in Swindon and Solihull, for example, have no designated centre any longer. Vulnerable children across the country will have a much less sure start than their older siblings.
Yesterday, the State of the Nation report by the Social Mobility Commission reported that there are many areas where less than half of disadvantaged five year-olds reach a good level of all-round development. Only half of local authorities have a clear strategy for improving disadvantaged children’s outcomes. Could it be that clear strategies cost money? I am led to understand that Bold Beginnings, to be published by Ofsted tomorrow, will reinforce the findings of the commission.
Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, said:
“The Commission is completely right to highlight the importance of the early years in improving social mobility … Worse still, the eligibility criteria for the 30-hour policy excludes the poorest families altogether, while offering financial support to households earning as much as £199,000 a year”.
For families where, for whatever reason, both parents are not—or, in the case of one-parent families, the single parent is not—employed, the 30 hours of free childcare is not available. How do the least well-off pay for their children? What has this to do with the needs of the child? Poor children are being penalised on the altar of austerity. Leitch went on to say:
“Add to this the fact that the early years pupil premium is still less than a quarter of what primary schools receive, and it’s clear that the Government has its priorities all wrong when it comes to the early years”.
High-quality early years education depends on the quality and qualifications of the staff in these settings. We are a long way from having graduate-led settings, for which we on these Benches have consistently argued. Each early years setting needs to be led by staff who have been trained in child development. That will enable them to offer children a rich and varied experience, using a wide range of play activities. The training will also enable staff to identify, at a very early stage, any signs that a young child may be more likely to develop, for example, mental health problems. If this is achieved, the savings to the community and to the personal costs to the child will be immeasurable.
On Monday, Liz Bayram, chief executive of PACEY, said:
“Graduate leadership is strongly associated with narrowing the gap between our most and least disadvantaged children. However, we are hearing increasing reports of Early Years Teacher training courses closing, and a rapid decline in the number of qualified Early Years Teachers, as fewer and fewer students choose the early years sector for their teaching career”.
The more we learn about how children develop and grow, the more it reinforces the benefits of investing in the early years. Resources spent on high-quality early years education are repaid in the later years as confident, well-rounded children take full advantage of their education. High-quality early years education is an investment that pays dividends for the rest of that child’s life. An investment in every child’s future is an investment in all of our futures.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on securing the debate and introducing it so well.
When we talk about childcare and early years education, we need to bear in mind the context. If one looks at the social situation, the following facts are striking: 10% to 15% of pregnant women suffer from depression and anxiety, a third of the violence against women is committed against pregnant women, 1 million children in our society suffer from attention or conduct disorders, and 50% of our children below the age of three have experienced family breakdown.
In that context, we must ask ourselves what government policy should be aiming at. It is absolutely right to concentrate on childcare facilities. The importance of early years provision and the Government’s intervention can hardly be overestimated. Such intervention ensures that the disadvantages that a child brings from home are countered, a level playing field for children, and that no child starts school at a disadvantage. It also makes sure that no child builds up resentment and frustration at society for not giving them the chance to live up to their potential. No less important, it makes the rich people in our society realise that the poor are their responsibility and they should be making sacrifices for them.
The advantages of early-years education are absolutely crucial. In that context, I compliment the Government on their plan to introduce 30 hours a week of free childcare for those who earn less than £100,000. I am also pleased that the Ofsted report tells us that the proportion of good and outstanding nurseries, childminders and preschools has risen, and is now at 91%. The gap between children eligible for free school meals and their peers in reaching a good level of development is also declining, and that is warmly to be welcomed.
While welcoming all this, I want to point to a few important difficulties with the Government’s scheme. First, the target—working parents who earn less than £100,000 a year—is a very wide social group. It does not target those who need childcare the most. In other words, it is very important that we should be thinking not about those earning £100,000—lots of people earn £100,000—but people who earn much less, and prioritise them so that their claims are not ignored.
Secondly, the scheme explicitly excludes foster children from the additional 15 hours of childcare. This is discriminating and not terribly rational. Thirdly, the funding for the scheme is inadequate. In several cases, parents have to put down some money to keep the childcare or preschools going. Around 1,000 nurseries and childminders have gone out of business in the last two years—something that should worry those of us who are concerned about the future of our children.
Teachers involved in childcare schemes, preschools and childminding need proper status, recognition and career patterns so that they know where they are on the career path and how they can go further. There must be some chance for them to improve their qualifications so that they are not stuck in a cul-de-sac or simply seen as preschool teachers. They should be able to come out and join the mainstream after acquiring certain qualifications.
Finally, it is striking, as various reports point out, that the range of local children’s services is not integrated, and different branches of local authorities function in different ways, without much co-ordination. There is also insufficient understanding of what constitutes disadvantage. We talk about helping disadvantaged children, but what is disadvantage, how do you measure or quantify it, and how do you deal with it? I have not seen any research in this area or any attempt to highlight the problem. Moreover, there do not seem to be any specific targets to improve the outcomes for the most disadvantaged. In any scheme to improve people’s situation, the goal should be that 10% or 20% can achieve a certain level of outcome. Without that kind of vision, one has no means of knowing how well a particular scheme is doing. With these reservations, I welcome the Government’s proposals and hope the Minister will answer at least some of these questions today.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I decided to put my name down for this debate, I had a series of points that I wanted to make. It does not usually happen, but my noble friend must have been reading the same papers, because he has covered most of my points already. However, one or two things did come across on this scheme.
I was personally rather surprised about the emphasis on term times. Surely if you have a preschool child, having some consistency of approach out of term might be better: 22.8 hours across the entire year might be more helpful to those families.
What really struck me, however, was the same issue that my noble friend raised, but for slightly different reasons: that is, about the graduate-level training of those who are leading these developments. The simple reason is that, if we look at the snappily titled document Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage and take a quick look at the number of things you are supposed to be aware of when working in this area, it is quite an impressive list: communication and language; physical development; personal, social and emotional development; literacy; mathematics; understanding the world—if you have mastered that in your early years, you are doing very well; and expressive arts and design. That is quite a big ask for somebody with NVQ level 2 training. How will you get the development there without high-quality training for at least the leadership of any institution? How will you develop this?
On more familiar territory for myself, my noble friend once again mentioned things such as mental health. However, with any problem you get, if you get it early, generally speaking you deal with it better or at least put coping strategies in place that allow you to deal with it. One of my personal clichés is that we deal with the most severe problems when it comes to disability better than we deal with the minor or less severe ones, when people are just coping. However, if you can identify them in the early years—which requires good training; a degree level course might be a good start—you may be able to do better. Autism at the more severe end will manifest itself early in life. However, for those who have Asperger’s syndrome—the high-functioning, who may well have had major problems with interaction throughout their life—this will develop at any stage when they have others around them. Are we doing something to identify them? The same can be true of dyspraxia, for instance. We can certainly ask, “Do you have co-ordination problems? Are you doing things? How do you develop? How do you move?”. We can go on and on here. For once, dyslexia will not manifest itself that early, but people are asking why we do not try to identify it earlier and earlier, especially if we do literacy. If we have people who are well-trained, they will be able to support, make interventions and get strategies in place.
Anybody who deals with mainstream disability comes across this situation. You go and talk to a group of parents—usually the Tiger parents lead this—and they will say, “I said, ‘Why isn’t my child doing things properly?’, I took it to the teacher, and then we found out that there might be something wrong”. In early years education, this is an opportunity for the teacher to say to the parent, “By the way, I think something might be wrong”. The advantage of that is that, with things like autism in particular, there is often cultural resistance to it. Resistance in certain ethnic groups has been high and is fairly well documented. If we get somebody well-trained to intervene early, you will have less of the cliff edge and things falling over it. I hope that we can look at doing that and develop it over the next few years to make sure that there are people who are trained to spot these conditions early on. If you get your strategies in place, you will lessen the effect.
As regards the structure of the courses, I see that you have to apply online. The help here will be of most benefit to those on lower incomes. I was wondering whether we should do a little test, such as: if you are applying online, can you do it on a fairly bog-standard mobile phone when sitting down and using somebody else’s wi-fi, or do you have to have a fairly good computer and good computer skills? If it requires fairly high-level computer skills and a good computer, you are effectively cutting out most of your client group, because they cannot get at it. The Minister may say that there is a helpline, but we know that helplines get blocked up and that often, if people have to pay for the phone call—we have had lots of fun with that over the last few months—will find themselves not taking it up. I hope that the Government and the Minister can assure me today that somebody has been looking into how easy it is to access this help and structure. If you make things difficult, you always miss those who will benefit most from it. I look forward to the Minister’s speech.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for providing us with an opportunity to highlight, once again, the importance of early years education, one of the most important determinants of a child’s life chances. What is more important than making sure that all children are given the very best start in life? Indeed, the aim of doing so through improved childcare, early education, health and family support lay at the heart of the Labour Government’s creation of Sure Start in 1998.
I say with some sadness that I do not believe that expanding so-called “free” childcare to 30 hours a week for three to four year-olds, as it is currently funded, is the way forward. I say this for two reasons. First, I believe that an early years funding policy which focuses on subsidising childcare for working parents, rather than on child development, risks damaging the quality of early education provision. By failing to target disadvantaged families, whose children stand to gain the most from high-quality early education, I believe that we are also damaging social mobility.
My second objection stems from my knowledge of early years education from the perspective of committed, professional providers in this field. I declare an interest here as my sister is an early years professional, operating two nurseries in deprived areas of Nottingham. I have drawn on her experience when talking about early years education in this House previously, and she shared some thoughts with me before today’s debate.
A tremendous amount of research has been done into early years and into how to achieve high-quality provision. However, as a practitioner, my sister has an admirably short checklist of what is needed for its delivery: a well-qualified workforce, a comprehensive, age-appropriate curriculum, efficient management of provision, an effective inspection regime and the right resources.
This is really quite simple, but none of it is possible without adequate funding. Early years funding rates for 2018-19 show that most local authorities will not receive any additional funding next year, and that 14% of local authorities will actually see a reduction in funding. While the Government’s operational guidance for 2018-19 confirms that local authorities should take no more than 5% out of the funding that they pass on to providers—they have actually been taking more—funding is still woefully short of what is needed. Early years providers have said repeatedly that they will struggle to deliver high-quality care and education—and sufficient places—with the funding available.
I read with amazement in the FT some weeks ago that the children’s Minister, Robert Goodwill, seems to think that good-quality provision can be funded at an average hourly cost of £3.72 an hour. That beggars belief. He said that this was based on recent research. Where on earth did he get these completely misleading figures? It is not surprising that many practitioners are concerned about the sustainability of their business and believe that we need to get back to basics—to stop introducing ever more complicated ways of helping families to pay for childcare and education, and to go back to the original idea of one system of funding; that is to say, a realistic fee, paid direct to providers who are accountable to their local authority.
I suspect that many parents are actually frightened of becoming involved in the multifarious schemes, which include: funding two year-olds from deprived families for 15 hours per week; funding all three and four year-olds for 15 hours a week; since September this year, funding some three and four year-olds for 30 hours per week, in families where each parent can earn up to £100,000 per year—yet foster parents are, for some reason, excluded; and the tax-free scheme, which has been beset by problems.
Of all these schemes, the one that has worked the best and seen the greatest take-up is the original funding for three to four year-olds, with a reasonable rate given directly to the provider. As I recall, this was introduced by the then Prime Minister John Major in 1995.
The reasonable rate is the issue. As early years providers have highlighted for months, you cannot run a champagne nursery on lemonade funding. The campaigning group with that name has a very effective video, which explains simply that, if it costs you £5 an hour to deliver a service for which you are getting paid less than £4, and you are not allowed to increase the fee to cover the shortfall, you will decide either not to offer that service or to cut back on your costs, thereby affecting the quality of the service you can provide. A third option, of course, is to go out of business.
PACEY, the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, highlights that the “free” childcare entitlement for three and four-year-olds has been seriously underfunded in many areas, for many years. The National Day Nurseries Association has reported that 89% of private, voluntary and independent nurseries make a loss when providing funded places for 15 hours a week. It is not hard to see why. Nurseries are expected to employ graduates; pay wages above the national living wage rates, which increase at least once a year; pay contributions to employees’ pensions; pay increased business rates; serve high-quality, nutritious meals to combat the obesity epidemic; provide high-quality resources—and the list goes on. For this, in Nottingham for 2017-18 the Government set a local authority hourly rate for three to four year-olds of £4.92. Just over £4 is passed on to the provider, and there will be no increase in 2018-19. Can the Minister please give us any assurance that the Government will review the current funding rates?
Providers cannot continue to operate under these conditions. If funding rates do not increase in line with rising early years delivery costs, nurseries, pre-schools and childminders will go out of business. An Ofsted report earlier this month highlighted that the number of childminders operating in the early years sector has fallen by 26% since August 2012. What action will the Government take to tackle this decline?
My final point is on the need for a properly qualified workforce in early years—an issue raised by a number of contributors to this debate. In her 2012 review, Foundations for Quality, Professor Cathy Nutbrown says that the biggest influence on the quality of early education and care is the workforce. I believe it is crucial that staff working in the early years are highly trained, well managed and well led. They should be offered continuing professional development and enjoy the same status as teaching professionals.
Yet, as the Sutton Trust points out, we have seen the end of financial support for graduate training, the removal of the local authority role in continuing professional development, the lifting of the requirement for Sure Start centres in disadvantaged areas to offer graduate-led early education, and no movement on improving non-graduate qualifications in response to the 2012 Nutbrown review. Can the Minister at least offer any reassurance on the current proposals to remove the requirement for maintained nursery and reception classes to have a qualified teacher?
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I sound somewhat frustrated in my remarks today, but I have heard how practitioners feel about the funding of the 30 hours of “free” provision, and their frustration is understandable. We must recognise the true cost of providing high-quality childcare or we will reap other, longer-term costs from failing to provide this care. We need a long-term, sustainable funding settlement for providers that will offer families the affordable, high-quality childcare they need.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for bringing forward this debate. In doing so, I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Foundation Years Trust, which is involved in this area. Unlike other speakers, this is not my special area. However, it is something that I am very interested in and I feel very humble in taking part in this debate. I feel strongly about this issue, but I speak as an amateur—as a parent and a grandparent. Any parent thinking about this subject realises the challenge involved and the fact that we all fail. Incidentally, the name on the annunciator is wrong; I am Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, not of Burry Port, as it happens.
Every child in this country deserves the best possible start in life. The early years, which I take to be from pregnancy to the first day of school, have a powerful influence on the rest of a person’s life. The conclusion of the social mobility report, which has just been published, is that learning and development at this stage matters more than any other area. Children from backgrounds with reduced life chances because of their families being more at risk, living in disadvantaged areas or just being poorer have, compared with their peers, worse development outcomes in the early years in terms of vocabulary, reading, numbers, creativity, speech, confidence-building and so on.
The attainment gap between children from low-income families and their peers is slowly closing, but the calculation in the report I have just mentioned is that it will take 40 years at the present rate to close that gap. That means, given the rate at which technology is changing at present, inequality in our society is bound to increase. The good news is that support and good provision really work. Again I quote from the social mobility report:
“Disadvantaged children in the best areas are twice as likely to reach a good level of development at age five, compared with similar children in the worst areas … Poor performance is not concentrated in any type of area, and similar places perform very differently—likely reflecting the role of local authorities and the importance of parenting”.
On the question of parenting, the role of the parents is one of the most important in addressing the early years but also one of the most neglected. All parents want the best for their children. They know more about their children than anyone else. They have responsibility for their children’s development and their role is vital in the early years. Research suggests that of the many drivers of early years development, three which are important are the mental health of the mother, the attachment between parents and their children and the home learning environment, including playing and having fun. A nursery can help—I am all in favour of nursery education; all my children went to nurseries—but it cannot do what a parent can. A nursery will never find the time to do it.
Parents are a child’s first teachers. In that respect, a study published last year from Cambridge University found that the children who had most fun at home were the ones who talked about it and ended up with good development results. It also found that what parents do is far more significant than who parents are. The fact that they are parents—they may not have degrees or may have left school early—and that they have such an interest in their children is extremely important.
The second thing that hits me about this subject is that all parents need support. Some are very fortunate because they have grandparents, step-parents and relatives. Loving, feeding and protecting a child comes naturally to most people but, by contrast, parenting does not come naturally to some and is learned, perhaps, from the example of their parents, from reading or from watching a video or television. There is a need to support parents universally and right throughout the class system. It is potentially difficult to say that parents need support because it may easily appear that you are preaching at people. It may be professionals teaching amateurs, and the amateurs feeling one down to the professionals. There may be a feeling among those who know they are not succeeding that they are stigmatised because of their background. Support should be a natural conversation. It should build on the strengths of the parents, not their failures, and the most effective support comes from their peer group.
The week before last I visited in Birkenhead three projects with early year carers in a charity founded by Frank Field, the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead. All three were different learning environments, but the way the staff related to the parents and their children because the staff were peers with them was remarkable. They were not coming in as professionals, possibly from a different class—probably from a different class—and looking down on them. What surprised me most of all in this group of carers supporting parents was individual mothers saying to me, “This is the only place we ever go to out of the house except for shopping”.
Parenting is extremely important. I am not decrying the need for money and resources, and I go along with what is being said, but this whole area is something we neglect at our peril.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for initiating this debate on an important topic. It is a short debate, but because of the importance of the topic it is one to which we shall return, I am sure, before long.
The early years, as other noble Lords have said, are a crucial period in a child’s development and play a vital role in their chances of success throughout school and into adulthood. If the Government really are serious about social mobility, then that is where they should be focusing—and focusing relentlessly. Improving child development in the early years is vital in ensuring that every child is school-ready, because only that will begin to reduce educational inequality.
All the evidence points to inequality beginning from birth and getting wider as young people move through the education system, from results in school to staying on in education, the qualifications they achieve post 16, the kind of technical courses they take and the universities they attend, if indeed they do. This inequality must be addressed at the roots, in the early years, by offering every child the best start in life to ensure that they are given a fair chance to succeed based on their abilities and their ambitions, and not one that is predetermined, based on geography or household income.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, said that he wanted to make a distinction between childcare and education. I thoroughly endorse that, and my view is that the first is important, the second essential. Without high-quality early years education being available to all, that will never become a possibility. Although much can be achieved once a child starts school, in many cases that is too late, with the gap in development at the age of four between those from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds in some cases already beyond the point where it can be bridged. The latest figures show that 30% of children have fallen behind in their early learning by the age of five, significantly impacting on their chances of success throughout school and in their later lives. That figure is worse for the poorest children, who last year were twice as likely as their classmates to be behind in basic skills at the age of five. If childcare and early years education policy are designed to improve child development at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that all children are school-ready to reduce educational inequality, and to support parents, particularly mothers, in returning to the workplace, the 30-hours offer looks likely to fail on both counts.
The families who most need the economic support—that is, those who are unemployed or on low wages—are not eligible for the additional childcare. Nearly 400,000 three and four year-olds are not eligible because their parents are not in work, and a further 110,000 are not eligible because their parents earn below an arbitrary income threshold set by the Government. This represents a clear promise to thousands of working parents who, it later transpired, would not be given the expanded childcare entitlement.
At 30 hours, even where parents are able to access it, it is not without problems. The first difficulty is in getting a code, but parents are finding that, even when they have that, they cannot then immediately start the childcare because they have to wait until the end of the current three-month period. Once they have started, they have to re-register every three months, both with the nursery and with HMRC. It is a bureaucratic nightmare. I have to ask: why is it so difficult? It surely need not be, and certainly needs to be made more accessible. If it were, there would be greater uptake.
This also impacts on a very worrying fact, referred to by my noble friend Lady Warwick. It has recently emerged that more than 3,000 three and four year-old children in foster care are not eligible for the additional 15 hours of free childcare a week. Two days ago the Minister stated, in reply to questions from my noble friend Lord Beecham, that the Government had no plans to change that policy. Frankly, it beggars belief that such a distinction should be drawn, excluding children who, given their life experience thus far, are surely at least as deserving, if not more so, of the additional childcare as children from established families. To hide behind the default excuse, as the Minister did in his answer, that the policy is being kept “under review” is unacceptable. He needs to tell us why the Government decided to discriminate against foster children and their foster parents and why, having reconsidered that decision, they have now decided to reinforce it. I say to him that the DfE is in a hole on this issue and it should stop digging. It should treat foster children and foster parents with the respect they deserve and do it now, as a matter of urgency.
This issue reinforces the view that the Government’s policies have increasingly ignored the role that childcare and early years education can play in child development, and increasingly regarded it simply as an economic policy. Statements made have highlighted improvements in maternal employment rates and parents taking on additional hours, with less focus on benefits to child development.
This loss of focus, coupled with serious underfunding of providers, as my noble friend Lord Parekh said, is making it increasingly difficult for provision to be universally high-quality, with low funding levels making it difficult to attract the staff needed to move towards a graduate-led workforce for the sector. As it stands, childcare policy is failing effectively to serve the goals of improving child development and reducing inequality on the one hand and boosting parental employment rates and incomes on the other. There is no reason why these aims should be mutually exclusive.
In government, Labour created the Sure Start programme, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. When Labour left office in 2010, there were more than 3,600 children’s centres, reaching 2.8 million children and their families. It gave those families the best start in life, providing parenting support, childcare for children and job training for adults as well as healthcare and advice. There are now more than 1,500 fewer designated Sure Start children’s centres, with about one closure per week. In 2015, Sam Gyimah MP, then Children’s Minister, announced a consultation on children’s centres. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in March this year where that was. The answer was that it was under review. It is apparently still under review. I ask that it now emerge from review and actually take place.
I am concerned about the critical shortage of early years graduates across the country. Earlier this year, the DfE published its early years workforce strategy. We welcomed the recognition of the positive impact that early years teachers have on children struggling with basic skills and the commitment to look at growing the number of early years teachers, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas. However, the figures are not encouraging. The number of people enrolled in early years initial teacher training fell significantly last year from 2,300 to just 860. Save the Children has identified a shortage of 10,000 trained nursery teachers up and down the country. Urgent action is needed to plug that gap if the impact on children’s development that we are all striving for is to be achieved.
An important point about the quality of teaching is that the DfE showed earlier this year that 20,000 nursery workers were being paid below the national minimum wage. Despite flouting the law, those nurseries receive millions of pounds of public money every year through free childcare offers and subsidies that help parents meet their childcare bills. If it is below the national minimum wage, it is poverty wages, and it leaves nursery workers, many of whom are parents themselves, struggling to make ends meet each week. Again, I raised this in March with the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Nash. He said:
“That is an extremely good point. Nurseries are of course legally required to pay the national minimum wage and, just as any other organisation or business, they risk fines or even prosecution if they do not. We will be vigilant in this regard”.—[Official Report, 23/3/17; col. 264.]
In what way have the Government been vigilant and what action has been taken in terms of enforcement?
The Government are rightly investing in childcare because of the important role it plays in tackling inequalities. It helps parents work, and high-quality childcare helps narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. It certainly serves social mobility. We want the Government to do more and put more resources into it so that more families can benefit. If the Minister is not able to answer the questions that I have asked today, I hope that he will do so in writing on some of the issues, because they have been raised with me by many people involved in day-to-day provision of early years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate. It is widely acknowledged that the first five years of a child’s life are critical: they are the foundation years, shaping their development and preparing them for school. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, is correct in saying that speech and language gaps appear by the age of two and that early difficulties with language can affect pupils’ performance throughout primary school, with impacts being felt into adulthood. This Government are determined to close this gap and improve social mobility, extending opportunity to all. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that the evidence consistently tells us that early years provision can have a positive and lasting effect on children’s outcomes, future learning and life chances. And I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Griffiths that the role of parents in a child’s development is also crucial.
We have already taken a number of steps towards improving the quality of early education and outcomes for children, as well as the affordability of childcare for families. To provide some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, by 2019-20 we will be spending around £6 billion a year on childcare support, a record amount. Our offer to families includes the 15-hour entitlement for disadvantaged two year-olds, the 15-hour entitlement for three and four year-olds and, more recently, the additional 15 hours for three and four year-olds with working parents. This is on top of the support being provided through tax-free childcare and universal credit. As well as giving children the best possible start in life, these entitlements, particularly 30 hours of childcare, are also reducing the childcare costs for working parents. The noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, may know that a lone parent has to earn only around £6,000 a year to be able to access the 30 hours of free childcare.
The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, is correct in saying that Ofsted last week released new data confirming that in 2017, 94% of early years and childcare providers are now rated good or outstanding, the highest proportion ever recorded. This is an increase of 20% since 2012. On outcomes, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, might be interested to know that the latest results from the early years foundation stage profile assessment, which measures children’s development and school-readiness at the end of reception, tell us that children’s development is also improving. The number of children achieving a good level of development at the end of reception continues to increase year on year—71% in 2017, up from 52% in 2013—but we are not complacent. We recognise that there are challenges and remain committed to continuing to improve the quality of early education so that children can achieve the best possible outcomes. We are doing this in a number of ways: from support for workforce development to improvements in literacy and language teaching and monitoring the impact of 30 hours of free childcare, as well as ensuring that children with special educational needs and disabilities can access early education provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, are concerned about workforce training. The evidence is clear that a high-quality early years workforce can have a major impact on children’s outcomes. A well-qualified workforce with the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience is crucial to deliver high-quality early education and childcare. In March 2017 we published the Early Years Workforce Strategy, which outlines the Government’s plans to help employers attract, retain and develop early years staff to deliver high-quality provision. We are working closely with employers and training providers to strengthen level 2 qualifications and ensure that they better support practitioners’ progression to level 3 and beyond. We will be consulting on the proposed criteria for the new level 2 qualifications shortly. A new level 3 apprenticeship standard, designed to support the effective development of early years practitioners, is also near completion.
We continue to support graduates into the sector through our funding of the early years initial teacher training programme, including bursaries and employer incentives. I am also pleased to announce that we have recently established a new working group of early years stakeholders to consider how we can improve gender diversity in the sector. This group includes practitioners, training providers, unions, academics and employers. We believe that a diverse early years workforce that reflects wider society will help to enhance children’s experiences.
Research shows that five year-old children who struggle with language are six times less likely to reach the expected standard in English at age 11 than children who have good language skills at that age. At the Conservative Party conference in September, we announced a number of actions to tackle this astonishing finding. We will provide more funding to help schools strengthen the development of language and literacy in the early years, with a particular focus on the reception year. This includes establishing a £12 million network of English hubs in the northern powerhouse to spread effective teaching practice, with a core focus on early language and literacy as their first priority.
In September this year we also announced that we would take steps to improve the early years foundation stage profile, including reviewing what is assessed at the end of reception. We will be working closely with schools and early years experts as we implement these changes. It is important that we get this right, so changes will not be rolled out nationally until the 2020-21 academic year. We have also put in place measures to ensure children with special educational needs and disabilities have access to high-quality education. The new disability access fund is worth £615 per year per eligible child, paid to the provider. We have required all local authorities to introduce inclusion funds to support children with special educational needs.
Turning to the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, our total hourly average funding rate for two year-olds has increased from £5.09 to £5.39 from April 2017. All local authorities have seen increases in their rates for two year-olds. We are also investing in the early years pupil premium to support better outcomes for three and four year-olds. This is worth over £300 per year per eligible child.
The department’s Review of Childcare Costs took into account future cost pressures facing the sector, including the national living wage. Our average rates to authorities compare favourably with recently published research into the hourly cost of childcare by Frontier Economics, as part of a study of early education and development.
We are committed to evaluating the impact of 30 hours’ free childcare. The evaluation of the early delivery areas published in July and August this year did not find any impact of 30 hours on the universal 15-hour offer. Building on this, the department is in the process of commissioning an evaluation study to assess the implementation and impact of the policy in the first two terms of national rollout.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, raised the issue of Sure Start centre closures. It is up to local authorities to decide the best solutions for their area. They are best placed to understand local needs and how to meet them. Where councils decide to close a children’s centre, they must demonstrate that children and families, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas, will not be adversely affected and that they are still meeting the duty to have sufficient children’s centres to meet local demand.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised issues around children with special educational needs. We are doing several things in this area that he may be aware of. The first is the introduction of the new phonics screening check for children in year 1, which should pick up those children struggling with early literacy. We are funding the special dyslexia trust to raise awareness and support for parents and schools, and are working with the National Association for Special Educational Needs and other experts in the sector to ensure that schools have access to the Inclusion Development Programme training materials on dyslexia and other common forms of special educational needs.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Parekh and Lord Watson, raised concerns over foster children accessing childcare. Children in foster care are already entitled to the universal 15 hours of free childcare. Carers also receive funding and support for the care of their foster children, including a national minimum allowance and favourable treatment in the tax and benefits system. We are in the first term of the 30 hours’ free childcare offer and will continue to keep the policy under review to see how it is working for families, including children in foster care.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
The Minister has basically repeated the Answer to my noble friend Lord Beecham’s Written Question that was given this week. The basic question is: why should there be any difference at all? Foster children are allowed the 15 hours but not the 30 hours; ordinary children who were allowed the 15 hours have moved on to 30 hours. Why is there a difference?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, it might be useful to write to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to set out our thinking. At the moment I do not have the detailed information to hand, but I will do that.
In closing, I thank noble Lords again for their contributions to this important debate today. Many important points have been raised and I will write to address any of those that I have not had time to respond to fully. The Government are very clear that the early years are a critical time which influences outcomes for children and their families. We have achieved a huge amount, but there is still a lot more to do, particularly to close the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. We remain committed to continuing to improve the quality of early years education to make sure that every child improves their life chances and has real opportunities to realise their potential.