House of Commons
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 4 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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
With just two short weeks before the Christmas recess, may I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff of the House, who do such a superb job, a happy and peaceful Christmas and a prosperous new year?
We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. The Government are making CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses, increasing maximum sentences for animal cruelty to five years, banning microbeads that harm marine life, and banning the ivory trade. On leaving the European Union we will go even further.
Henry Smith
The Secretary of State has done more for animal welfare in recent months than was achieved in many years previously, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for that. Will he assure the House that as we will be leaving the EU, the customs union and the single market in 2019, we are making preparations now to ensure that, for example, the banning of live animal exports and the import of foie gras can be achieved?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has been a passionate and successful campaigner for animal welfare during his entire career in the House of Commons, and he is right to say that there are now opportunities to take steps to improve the treatment of live exports—or potentially to ban them—as we leave the European Union. The steps that we take when we put animal welfare at the heart of all we do must be consistent with our broader negotiating objectives as we leave the EU.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On animal welfare standards, whether we are in the EU or outside it, will the Secretary of State consider the importance of labelling so that people know what they are buying? When a label says that a chicken has been reared outside or been stunned or not stunned, people must be able to trust that they know what has happened.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is right: there is confusion and uncertainty in the minds of some consumers as a result of current labelling. Already, farmer-led schemes such as the Red Tractor scheme ensure that people know that animals have been kept to the highest welfare standards, but we can go further and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very acute point. It is in the nature of single market rules and the European Union that some animal husbandry practices, which we would not tolerate in this country, apply to things that we sometimes import. We must consider how we can improve animal welfare standards all round.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State set out what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government about moving forward on animal welfare once we leave the EU, regarding both that Government’s responsibilities and the responsibilities that will come back from Europe to the Secretary of State?
Michael Gove
I commend Lesley Griffiths, the Welsh Labour Minister who is responsible for this area in the Welsh Assembly Government, for the constructive way in which she has engaged with DEFRA over the past six months. I hope to see her next week to carry forward discussions on this and other areas.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I very much welcome higher welfare standards, cameras in slaughterhouses, and tougher sentencing, but as we enhance our welfare, we will also add cost to production. We want to ensure that our consumers eat high-quality product with high welfare standards, and that we do not import inferior quality meat with lower welfare standards.
Michael Gove
The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee makes an excellent point—I know that the Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the impact of leaving the European Union on food standards overall. Critical to high food standards is the viability and improved productivity of our farmers who do such a wonderful job.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Northern Ireland Assembly has passed more stringent legislation on animal cruelty than the UK mainland. What discussions has the Secretary of State’s Department had with the Northern Ireland Assembly about bringing similar measures into operation in England and Wales?
Michael Gove
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are many ways in which Northern Ireland sets higher standards than we do in the rest of the UK, and I have always taken the view that we can learn a great deal from every part of the United Kingdom, not least the cherished Province which I love so much.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Ministers and officials meet regularly to discuss the promotion of UK agriculture. Only last night I was talking to the Secretary of State for International Trade, to ensure that in the next 12 months we place the promotion of British food at the heart of our joint governmental endeavours.
John Howell
As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria, I recently hosted a visit of the Nigerian Agriculture Minister to the UK. Does the Secretary of State accept that the UK is leading in innovation and education in agriculture, and that we have a lot to offer that country?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has done an outstanding job as trade envoy to one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and there is much that we can do together to improve the transfer of technology between our two countries. Nigeria offers huge opportunities to our exporters, which I know my hon. Friend has done much to help to advance.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely the Secretary of State realises that the food and farming sector is terrified about the impact of leaving the European Union? Does he agree that the fact there has been no impact assessment by him or his Department on what will happen to farming in food in this country is a disgrace?
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State impress on the International Trade Secretary the fact that it is not just about goods, but about services? Will he join me in congratulating the British Horse Society on its 70th anniversary year and on being invited to provide an accreditation system for riding centres in China?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend, who did an outstanding job when she was Secretary of State, is absolutely right. No country in the world has a finer equestrian tradition than our own. We can build on that tradition to ensure that services are provided to international markets.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Is there anyone, other than the Secretary of State and the Legatum Institute, who thinks that a free trade deal with Trump’s America would be good for British farming and the UK food chain?
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
As everyone in this House will know—as a fellow Scot, the Secretary of State will know it very clearly—Scotland has some of the largest protected food names in the EU, with high-value products such as Scotch beef and Scotch salmon accounting for some £700 million in sales, yet there has been absolutely nothing from the Government on whether that will continue post Brexit. Will he give a clear indication and a clear commitment today that our participation in this vital scheme will continue or be replaced within the UK?
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has in his role been a passionate and effective advocate for Scottish industry. Yes, we want to make sure that geographical indicators and schemes that ensure high-quality foods from all parts of the United Kingdom are recognised within Europe and across the world. We want to ensure that appropriate schemes exist in the future so that we can provide recognition to our trading partners, as well as ensuring that the markets we care so much about are protected.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
There are some concerns about the impact of pulse trawling on certain species of fish, in particular gadoids such as cod. Earlier this year, I asked the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to review the science on pulse trawling. The preliminary advice concludes that while the impact on the seabed is typically smaller than for traditional beam trawling, there are some detrimental effects on fish species such as cod. Once CEFAS has completed its work, we will decide what steps are required next.
Mr Bradshaw
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will be aware, I am sure, of the concerns of fishers in parts of south-east England about the impact of Dutch electric pulse fishing on the stocks that, surprise surprise, move across national boundaries and are consequently shared. At the moment, we have a voice at the table and we can influence, alongside other more conservation-minded northern European countries, policies such as that on electric pulse fishing. How will we exert the same influence if we leave the European Union?
George Eustice
The right hon. Gentleman is right that pulse trawling is predominantly carried out by about 84 Dutch vessels, which mostly fish in UK waters to catch those species. Once we leave the European Union, we will decide the terms of access. That will give us the clarity and the ability to be able to ban certain approaches if we want to.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The European Union is currently proposing draconian measures for our recreational sea anglers. They will stop recreational fishing for half the year. These ridiculous proposals should be resisted. I seek assurances from the Minister that he will stand up for our recreational sea anglers.
George Eustice
The situation with bass is precarious, which is why I and the UK Government pressed for emergency measures three years ago. However, we believe it is important that the current International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice is benchmarked to take account of measures that have already been brought in. We will be arguing for a more proportionate package this December.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
The key drivers of food price changes are exchange rates, weather events and oil prices. These factors affect all countries in the world, whether they are members of the European Union or independent nation states. We therefore assess the impact of leaving the EU on retail food prices to be marginal.
Gill Furniss
During the EU referendum campaign, the Secretary of State claimed that food prices would fall after a vote for Brexit, yet new data from the Office for National Statistics shows that food prices last month were up by 4.2% on 12 months earlier. My constituents will be feeling the pinch of those increases this Christmas. Will the Minister confirm that an analysis of food prices has been conducted, and that it is not just in his imagination? If he has published that analysis, when will it be in the public domain?
George Eustice
In the 18 months leading up to the referendum food prices fell by 7%, and in the 18 months since they have risen by 4%. Changes in food prices of plus or minus 5% are fairly typical. The fact is that whether a country is inside or outside the EU, the key drivers of food prices—weather events, exchange rates and oil prices—remain the same.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
What discussions has the Minister held with the Department for International Trade about assessing the current EU non-tariff barriers on the pig products that are so important not only to my constituency, but to the broader constituency area of Suffolk?
George Eustice
I am aware that the pig industry is very important to my hon. Friend’s constituency. The UK has a close relationship with Denmark. Danish Crown, including its subsidiary Tulip, is a major investor in the UK, and since the decision to leave the European Union it has increased its investment, with the recent acquisition of new businesses. We are having discussions, but we have a strong and vibrant pig sector.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister said that Brexit would not have much impact on prices. I suggest that he speak to his former Conservative colleague Laura Sandys, the head of the Food Foundation, which has said that Brexit could mean an increase of £158 a year in what the average family spends on fruit and veg. Will he ensure that the horticultural sector, which has been much neglected by successive Governments, is given the priority that it deserves in the agriculture Bill?
George Eustice
As the hon. Lady may know, I studied horticulture and worked in the horticultural industry for 10 years. As we design a new agriculture policy, there is a real opportunity to support innovation in all sectors, including horticulture.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What about the price of animals for live export? Is there any prospect of banning that grisly trade altogether?
George Eustice
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, once we have left the European Union, banning the export of live animals will become a possibility, and we have a manifesto commitment to restrict and control it further.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
The UK now has the second highest rate of food insecurity in Europe. In October, food and drink prices increased faster than at any other point over the last four years, and the latest Trussell Trust figures show a 13% increase on last year in the number of emergency food parcels issued. How will the Secretary of State and the Minister address the shameful increase in hunger and food poverty that is taking place throughout the country on this Government’s watch?
George Eustice
The key benchmark that Governments of all colours have studied for many years is the Living Costs and Food Survey. We know that over the last 15 to 20 years, the spending of the poorest 20% of households on food has remained constant at about 16.5%.
Sue Hayman
With all due respect, I do not think that that really answered my question. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union admitted that Ministers had carried out no proper assessment of the impact of Brexit on any UK economic sector. Food prices are rising. What assessment has DEFRA made of the impact of Brexit on those prices?
George Eustice
As I have said, we are carrying out this work, but our current assessment is that the impact is marginal. Economists sometimes make the mistake of not taking account of the fact that we have tariff rate quotas—that means that we already have a high degree of tariff-free trade—and the fact that the commodity price represents only a small part of the overall value of the shopping basket.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Veterinarians play a vital role in safeguarding UK public health, enabling trade and maintaining animal health and welfare. More than 31% of the UK veterinary workforce is supplied by veterinarians from outside the UK. We cherish and value their work, and we want to ensure that they can continue to make an important contribution.
Tim Farron
I appreciate the Secretary of State’s reply. Britain leads the world in both food hygiene and animal welfare, but that is now at risk. The British Veterinary Association reckons that 95% of the vets in our abattoirs are from the EU, and that many of them are leaving. Will the Secretary of State release the impact assessment that I am certain he will have carried out, and will he tell us what action he is taking to protect our meat industry, animal welfare and food safety from that clear and imminent threat?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He is right: more than 90% of the veterinarians in our abattoirs come from the EU27 countries, and I and my Department have been talking to representatives of the profession to ensure that those who do such a wonderful job continue to feel valued and to play the important role they do in assuring the public of the very high standards of food hygiene.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the slaughter of UK animals should take place in UK abattoirs overseen by appropriately qualified vets, and will he take steps to ensure that the evil and cruel trade of live animal exports is ended when we leave the EU?
Michael Gove
I commend my hon. Friend for his campaigning on this issue, and, as he points out, as we leave the EU there are opportunities to review and change our approach to live exports, and to ensure higher standards of animal welfare.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
The common agricultural policy has been a bureaucratic quagmire that has undermined British agriculture and failed our environment. Leaving the EU allows us to bring clarity and purpose to agriculture policy in the UK for the first time for 45 years. We are committed to introducing an agriculture Bill in this Session and will outline further plans next year.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. Many farmers in my constituency in the bounteous county of Essex supported Brexit, but some did not. What reassurances can he give them that the Government are straining their many sinews to ensure that new and emerging food markets are open to them after Brexit?
George Eustice
We will be working with colleagues in the Department for International Trade to open up new markets. There are opportunities, particularly in sectors such as dairy. We have also been very clear that we will maintain the agriculture budget for this Parliament—that is a manifesto commitment—and that we will have a smooth transition from the policy we have now to the new policy.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Has the Minister seen Wednesday’s press release from the Farmers Union of Wales, which said:
“Denying Wales access to the Single Market and Customs Union would have catastrophic consequences”
on farming in Wales? Would he care to comment?
George Eustice
I very regularly meet members of the FUW, and we absolutely recognise the importance of tariff-free trade with the EU. That is why this Government’s clear position is that we want a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
I met the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, Fergus Ewing, on 6 November, when we discussed EU convergence uplift funding, and I most recently met the National Farmers Union of Scotland on 31 October, when that funding was one of a number of issues discussed. I look forward to seeing the Scottish Cabinet Secretary next Thursday, and also, thanks to the intercession of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), to meeting representatives of the NFU of Scotland on that day as well.
Martyn Day
Back in September, key farming organisations, including the NFUS, wrote to the Minister on convergence uplift. I have been told that the Government have not yet responded. Why have they not responded, and will the Minister fix the scandal now by committing to give Scottish farmers the £160 million they are rightfully due?
Michael Gove
I absolutely recognise, and indeed have explained to the hon. Gentleman’s Scottish National party colleague, that the issue of convergence uplifting is ripe for reassessment. I have discussed the issue not just with the Scottish Cabinet Secretary, but with farming union representatives, and I know it will be raised when we meet next week.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The resilience of flood defences is good. In October, the Environment Agency’s assessment showed that over 95% of the flood defence assets it maintains in the highest risk areas were at, or above, the target condition, and in Cumbria the proportion was 97.5%. We have repaired all the flood defences damaged in the winter of 2015. We know there is more to do to help communities in Keswick as well as other parts of Copeland and across Cumbria. That is why we allocated £58 million extra for flood risk management schemes.
Trudy Harrison
I am grateful for that response. However, £800,000 was pledged for my community in Braithwaite, which was devastated in Storm Desmond. Two years on, can the Minister please confirm when the work will be completed for that village?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of that particular village. I am aware that the shortlisting of options is due to be completed next month, with a target date of the end of 2019. I will be meeting her and her colleagues from Cumbria next week to discuss the details further.
Julian Sturdy
Hard flood defences such as the Foss barrier and whole catchment management solutions are vital for cities such as York, but it is essential that those strategies equally protect smaller communities. Can the Minister assure me that communities south of York will not be forgotten as we progress and continue to develop flood management schemes?
Dr Coffey
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The York long-term plan will use a whole catchment approach to flood risk management. It includes upper catchment management changes, which will be a key component in reducing risk to York and other communities downstream, including the ones to which he refers. I can assure him that the modelling by the Environment Agency ensures that hard flood defences in York will not impact on the communities he has mentioned.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is two years since the devastating floods hit York, yet last week the residents of Clementhorpe learned that their barriers were going to be further delayed and that they will not have protection until at least 2019. What will the Minister do to ensure not only that that programme is speeded up, but that the residents of York are protected in the intervening period?
Dr Coffey
Since the floods of December 2015, when about 600 properties were flooded, we have invested £17 million to upgrade the Foss barrier. That includes eight high-volume pumps to provide an even greater standard of protection than before, and we have developed a five-year plan to invest £45 million in new defences that will better protect 2,000 properties.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Following Storm Desmond and Storm Eva in 2015, the Government made welcome direct payments for resilience work to residents who had been devastated by the flooding. Following the floods in Galgate last month, however, the Government told Lancaster City Council that that flooding was not severe enough to warrant the same assistance, despite 143 homes being vacated because of flood damage. Will the Minister make representations to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and urge him to allocate money to fund essential flood resilience work in flood-affected communities like Galgate, right across the country?
Dr Coffey
As I have indicated, the overall level of flood defence resilience is good, including in Lancashire. I am very concerned about the people who suffered that shock flooding the other week, and I will of course meet the affected MPs. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) is seeing me next week to discuss this very matter.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) put in place a major programme of work to prepare for the UK’s departure from the European Union, planning for a number of scenarios, and we in DEFRA keep the effectiveness of that work under continual review. It is led by outstanding civil servants, to whom I wish to pay tribute now.
Sir Edward Leigh
We know that, in several areas, EU rules have prevented us from improving standards of animal welfare. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he is now doing the detailed preparation so that on day one of our freedom, he will be ready to take action, including to ban the trade in the export of live animals?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That work is being undertaken now, not just in the area to which he rightly alludes but in other areas of animal welfare.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
By next summer, the UK chemical industry will have spent £250 million registering its chemicals. It is united in wanting to remain within the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—REACH—scheme and to avoid EU tariffs of between 4% and 6% on its goods, so why is the Secretary of State proposing to double its regulatory burden by setting up a new agency here? Why is he playing politics with our second largest manufacturing sector?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady has been a consistent champion of the work that is done in our world-leading chemicals industry. We are seeking to find the right regulatory framework to ensure that we can continue to do good work.
Mr Speaker
I think that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) is now conscious. He has a question on the Order Paper that is not entirely unadjacent to the subject of which we are now treating.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am delighted that Phil Hogan, the outstanding Commissioner for Agriculture, has secured assent for the reauthorisation of glyphosate for five more years. It is, as my hon. Friend makes clear, a valuable tool for ensuring that we can move towards no till or min till agriculture, which in itself is an environmental gain.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State clearly knows all this jargon very well. Listening to him this morning is quite an educational experience.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My colleagues and I are working hard to try to get the Northern Ireland Executive restored, but in the absence of an Executive will the Secretary of State ensure that he has discussions with the permanent secretary at the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to ensure that our sector and its niche markets are protected beyond March 2019?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. I am looking forward to representatives from DAERA coming to DEFRA next Thursday for the latest in our series of talks. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his Democratic Unionist party colleagues, who ensure that my ministerial colleagues and I are kept up to the mark with the policies that need to be shaped in the interests of Northern Ireland’s farmers and fishermen, who do so much to ensure that there is healthy food on all our plates.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
I am delighted that the industrial strategy White Paper, which sets out plans to boost productivity and earnings across the UK, recognises the importance of the food and drink sector, which is why we have announced a new food and drink sector council as part of the strategy.
David Duguid
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be more aware than most that, owing to the quality of the product, the seafood processing industry in my constituency is less concerned about access to markets after we leave the EU than it is about access to labour. What discussions has he had with representatives of the Scottish seafood processing industry or, indeed, the Home Office to address such concerns?
Michael Gove
There is no better champion of the Scottish fish processing industry than my hon. Friend, and it was thanks to his work that I was able to attend a roundtable in Aberdeen a couple of months ago, at which fish processors were able to put to me their specific demands. Since then, I have talked to the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister about precisely those issues. I must say that were it not for my hon. Friend, that argument would not be happening at the heart of Government and it would not be being heard and acted upon. He is a brilliant advocate, and the people of Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Mintlaw, Turriff and the other communities in his constituency are exceptionally lucky to have him.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) has just waved at the Chair, which may be analogous to, although not quite the same as, the conventional method of bobbing, but I am going to deduce that the hon. Gentleman is interested in contributing to our proceedings.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
Michael Gove
Absolutely. We all know that Carlsberg is primarily a brewer, but if Carlsberg did MPs, my hon. Friend would be the premium brand—fizzy with a great head and always a pleasure to spend time with of an evening. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure not only that major brewers can invest in this country, but that premium artisanal brewers have their interests represented, and that is what the industrial strategy will do.
Mr Speaker
All that remains is for the Secretary of State to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his characteristic acuity, which I know is a preferred phrase of the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt it will be in evidence at the next oral questions—we very much hope so.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will ensure that the whole body of existing EU environmental law continues to have effect in UK law. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we will consult on the creation of a new national policy statement on environmental principles and on a new independent and statutory body to hold the Government and, potentially, public authorities to account on their environmental commitments.
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the Minister for her response. The Government have boasted that they will leave the environment in a better state than they found it in, so does the Minister agree that we need to enshrine in law not only equivalent, but even better levels of environmental protections after we leave the EU?
Dr Coffey
I agree with the hon. Lady. We are absolutely committed to that, and it has been in our manifesto for the past two years. Aspects of the environment are improving, and with our 25-year environment plan, which will be published shortly, we will continue to set out that agenda for the next generation.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
We are actively looking to see what we can do in this area. Leaving the European Union provides us with new opportunities to deal with the illegal trade in puppies.
Angela Smith
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, once the EU pet travel rules have been transferred to the UK statute book, the scheme will be reviewed as a priority, taking into account the recommendations of the Dogs Trust? As he well knows, the trust has campaigned tirelessly for a number of years to change and improve the scheme.
Michael Gove
It is not just the Dogs Trust that has campaigned; the hon. Lady has campaigned, too. She and the Dogs Trust are right that we need to look at the law. We hope to make announcements even before we leave the European Union about how the law can be improved.
I place on record my thanks to the Dogs Trust because, of the two dogs in the Gove family home, one is a rescue dog that the trust was responsible for finding.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
We discussed the vital importance of the veterinary profession during our earlier exchanges on the question from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I thank the nation’s chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, for his years of service as he moves on and leaves the Department. He has done an outstanding job, and the country is grateful for his service.
Ruth Cadbury
The UK’s terrible air pollution is getting worse and does not respect local authority boundaries. When can we expect an air quality plan that makes a real difference, or will the Secretary of State continue to shunt responsibility to councils that have neither the resources nor the powers to address this nationwide challenge?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Air quality is actually improving. I recognise the challenges on roadside NOx, but hopefully the hon. Lady is aware of the £90,000 grant given directly to Ealing Council to help to address particulates. We are preparing a wider clean air strategy, with a consultation next year.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has been a clear and consistent advocate for higher standards of animal welfare, both before and since she entered this House. It is absolutely the case that we are committed to ensuring not just that we recognise the principle of animal sentience, but that we provide appropriate and stronger protection in UK law. We will shortly be bringing forward proposals on the appropriate legislative vehicle for that protection.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work in this area. He has also been a great champion of the Woodland Trust’s work. I met the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government yesterday to discuss precisely this issue, and I hope that we can bring forward proposals when the 25-year environment plan is published next year.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Michael Gove
Thanks to my hon. Friend’s advocacy, I have had the opportunity to visit one of the distilleries in his constituency. I hope to be able to visit many more over the next few weeks, months and years. He is a brilliant advocate for the interests of the Scotch whisky industry. There are huge opportunities as we leave the European Union. There has been a particularly dramatic increase in exports of single malts since 2000 because of the effective and principled advocacy of people like him. Whether it is Glenlivet or Aberlour, they roll around the tongue perfectly, and they both have no better advocate than my hon. Friend.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Dr Thérèse Coffey
We have been considering this carefully. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement on the publication of our abstraction plan within the next month. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will enjoy reading it, and I am happy to discuss it with him later.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Cornish food and drink is some of the best in the world, whether it is our amazing dairy products, such as Rodda’s cream, which is made in the constituency of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or Tribute beer, which is brewed by St Austell. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with the Secretary of State for International Trade about the possible new markets for Cornish food and drink once we leave the EU?
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Rodda’s, which is obviously a world-leading food company. It has been very successful in exporting its cream to the far east and other markets. We are in regular discussions with the Department for International Trade and, as I said earlier, there are export opportunities for our great food producers.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Michael Gove
I am tempted to quote from the American poet, whose name I temporarily forget, who made the point that “I contain multitudes”. The truth is that we want to go further than existing EU law to protect animal welfare. A better legislative vehicle is available, and we will make an announcement about that next week.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Cats Protection has highlighted the fact that when the UK signed up to the EU pet travel scheme, we had to abandon the previous requirements that cats coming into the UK needed compulsory treatment against tapeworm and ticks. When we leave the EU, may we reinstate these regulations?
Michael Gove
I have two things to say. The first is that the poet whose name I temporarily forgot is, of course, Walt Whitman. The second is that the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Only last week we announced that we would be simplifying countryside stewardship and having four principal routes that farmers can take. I look forward to working with her to ensure that the farmers she represents have access to this money, which will ensure that her beautiful constituency receives the cash it needs for further environmental enhancement.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
There was huge applause for the Government’s decision to ban the UK ivory trade, but there is now growing evidence of an increase in the trade in hippo ivory. With only 100,000 or so African hippos left, the slightest increase in demand could spell disaster for that species. May I urge Ministers to extend the proposed ban to include other ivory-bearing species such as hippo, narwhal, walrus and the like?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The scope of our proposed legislation is so far restricted to African and Asian elephants, but the consultation is still open, so I will take what he says as a submission. We are very keen to see what we can do to protect all endangered species and their habitats, and this may be one way of achieving that.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
George Eustice
Such discussions are part of our planning. We want to put in place a close new partnership with our European partners, and trying to get an agreement on mutual recognition of some of these qualifications would be on that agenda.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
When we leave the EU, the UK will be able to set its own farm support policy. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of whether, if the EU continues farm support, the UK will have to do so, because otherwise British farming could be severely disadvantaged?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is one of the most formidable and knowledgeable experts on the agri-food business in this House, and he is absolutely right to say that we need to keep pace with what is happening in other markets to ensure that we support farmers to continue the work that they do. It is thanks to his advocacy that National Farmers Union of Scotland representatives will be coming into DEFRA next Thursday, when I look forward to discussing how we can ensure that they and their colleagues get the support they deserve in the future.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
I have had many recent discussions with Departments, particularly the Home Office, not least because of my Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill, which is in train. There is an identical Bill before the House of Lords that would achieve the same purpose of allowing mothers to sign marriage certificates. I am not precious about which Bill gets to the finishing line first—we just need to do it.
Gillian Keegan
There is agreement among Members on both sides of the House and across Government that the situation needs to change, so will my right hon. Friend make representations to our colleagues in government about their previous commitment to use Government time to get one of the Bills passed?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Yes. Many Members on both sides of the House have sought to achieve that end. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) for promoting an identical Bill, as well as the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees)—I want to emphasise that this is a cross-party issue—who presented a previous Bill. I received a letter from the Prime Minister in April in response to one that I sent. She absolutely acknowledges the commitment made in 2014 by her predecessor to achieve this, and recognises the need for primary legislation to make sure that the details of both parents can be on the certificate.
Wendy Morton
The signing of the register is a really valued part of the marriage service in churches right across the country. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that that will remain unchanged?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Yes, I reassure my hon. Friend that the registers will remain in the vestry for that all-important photo. Under the proposed new system, on which the Church has consulted, vicars will download a marriage certificate, which will be signed by the couple, as is currently the case, and the vicar will complete the form by filling in the parents’ names, which explicitly gives the possibility of mothers being on the certificate in the future.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comprehensive answer, which leaves me little more to add, other than to ask whether she and the Church of England will support my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill, which is due for Second Reading on 2 February 2018 and includes those exact requirements. Will the Church of England also agree to back equal civil partnerships, through their extension to opposite-sex partnerships, as set out by the Bill?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church has no fixed view on equal civil partnerships but, in general, if they are for stable, committed and long-lasting relationships, they are likely to be beneficial, especially when children are involved. Personally I support that, and for that reason I have rolled my Bill beyond the date for the consideration of my hon. Friend’s Bill to give him an opportunity to make progress.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have three daughters with children. They and many of my constituents want me to ask why this simple step forward for equality has taken so long.
Dame Caroline Spelman
I ask myself the very same question. There have been several attempts and undertakings, including by the previous Labour Government in 2002. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to do everything they can to make sure that we achieve this change in the law and give fair wind to the Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say. Will she also talk to the Church about making it easier for people to get married in church and, indeed, to have their children baptised? That would be real equality.
Dame Caroline Spelman
When answering that question on previous occasions, I have given examples of how churches reach out to the surrounding community so that the thought of getting married is not intimidating. It does not need to be expensive, either—getting married in church is probably the least part of what it actually costs to put on a wedding. I can point the hon. Gentleman towards our materials to encourage people to get married in church.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Given that 25% of households are single-parent households, and that 90% of those are mother-led households, does the right hon. Lady agree that the marriage certificate must take into account that large section of people who are overlooked, yet in real life watch over everything in the home?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which really came out in the Westminster Hall debate that I secured. A number of hon. Members who are themselves the children of a single parent—in most cases, the mother—were really disappointed to find out at the moment they got married that their mum, who had done everything possible to bring them up, was not, under existing law, able to sign the certificate as the parent. That is a very strong reason why the situation needs to change.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s commitment on this issue is well known, and it is clear that both sides of the House are very supportive of what she, I and others have tried to achieve. Following her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), can she reaffirm that the Church, as it set out to me when I brought forward my private Member’s Bill, remains supportive of what we are trying to achieve?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I would like to clear up any possible misunderstanding that the Church is in any way against making this change: the reverse is true. The Church has consulted on changing the marriage registration process. It will save money through the practical reality of moving to an electronic register. The General Register Office is in favour of making the change, and there is cross-party and institutional support—let us just get it done.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
The National Audit Office’s work programme is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, not the Public Accounts Commission. The NAO does not audit individual police forces, but through its access to the Home Office it published the report “Financial sustainability of police forces in England and Wales” in June 2015.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful for that answer. An independent assessment of police force funding would be welcome, not just on an individual force level, but as a whole. The hon. Gentleman is right that the NAO published an effective report two years ago, but the Government have claimed since then that they have protected police funding, which has been challenged by police and crime commissioners and the UK Statistics Authority. An independent assessment would be welcome, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to make that request of the NAO.
Sir Edward Leigh
Of course I will pass that request to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Lady is right: although police forces have successfully reduced costs since 2011, the report that I mentioned has recommended that the Home Office works with other bodies to develop better information on the health of police services and early warnings of when a force might fail. Her question is apposite.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Sir Edward Leigh
The NAO is continually looking at how it can save money. The most recent audited financial accounts show that the NAO has reduced its net resource costs by 21% in real terms against its 2010-11 baseline. That is even while taking on a much greater role in local government at the request of Parliament.
Nigel Mills
I am grateful for that answer. I have no doubt about the great work that the NAO does as our spending watchdog, but what more can my hon. Friend do to be assured that it is cost-effective itself?
Sir Edward Leigh
The commission constantly urges the NAO to make greater steps to reduce its costs. The NAO has been very successful, and it saves many times its own budget in looking at every other Department to ensure that we get good value for money. My hon. Friend makes a fair point that the NAO must lead the way in reducing its own staffing costs.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
There is no direct financial subsidy on alcohol sales in the House of Commons. Alcohol is sold in House of Commons bars and some catering venues, and at banqueting and events, achieving a gross profit margin of some 69%. The profit of some £1 million a year helps to offset the total cost of catering.
Mr Hollobone
I am pleased to hear that there is no subsidy of alcohol sales on the parliamentary estate. There have been some recent, well-reported incidents of bad behaviour in bars on the estate. What steps are the Commission taking to prevent such incidents?
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Tom Brake
Professor Childs recommended a target of a representative parliamentary Press Gallery—Lobby journalists—such that neither women nor men should be in receipt of less than 40% of Lobby passes by 2020. As of 6 December, 25.6% of the 246 valid Lobby passes on issue were for women. As a result of my hon. Friend’s question, I will seek the best means of publishing those figures on a regular basis.
Jo Swinson
Diversity matters in our democracy— both in this House and also up there in the Press Gallery, among those who create the lens through which our politics is viewed. I am glad that the Commission will look to publish diversity data on the journalists covering Parliament, but I encourage it to implement recommendation 4 of “The Good Parliament” review in full by publishing data not only on gender, but on other characteristics; by breaking down the data by media organisation; and by setting clear targets so that, by 2020, men and women each have no fewer than 40% of passes for the journalists’ Lobby on the estate.
Tom Brake
My hon. Friend may be aware that currently neither the Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion, nor the Commission, has considered the recommendation of “The Good Parliament” report. However, following her question, I will certainly ensure that they do as soon as possible, and I will look specifically at ensuring that the extensive level of detail that she has requested is reflected in future reports.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I think that “The Good Parliament” report will come to be seen as a pivotal and seminal publication in the history of the reform and modernisation of this place. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a bit more about how its recommendations, including those relating to the Press Gallery, are being taking forward, and how the Commission is considering them in the light of other opportunities to renew and restore this place, including in the northern estate?
Tom Brake
One of the measures of the importance that is being placed on the report is the emphasis that Mr Speaker and the House of Commons Commission are putting on it. This is clearly something that Members of Parliament are actively tracking. I am therefore confident that both the Commons Reference Group and, indeed, the Commission, will want to ensure that due priority is given to the recommendations of “The Good Parliament” report, and that they are implemented as soon as possible.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church supports ecumenical agencies such as Embrace the Middle East. That, in turn, has supported four projects, including for the Coptic Evangelical Organisation for Social Services in Cairo, which supports more than 2 million Egyptians in more than 100 rural and urban communities.
Vicky Ford
What steps is the Church taking to highlight the importance of a cross-Department approach to tackling the persecution of religious minorities, especially Christians abroad, not simply because that is the right thing to do, but because it is important for our security at home?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church regularly facilitates opportunities for Church representatives to speak to Government Departments. Only this week we facilitated a visit by a bishop from Zimbabwe, who spoke to Foreign Office Ministers. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the interesting speech made by the Bishop of Peterborough on 5 December, in which he talked very much about the hidden victims of persecution. I think that she will find comfort in the bishop’s speech with regard to awareness of how this plays at home.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the many displaced middle east Christians need support to ensure that they have safe environments in which to live and flourish? Hopefully, they will be able, in time, to return to their home communities. Will she join me in commending Open Doors for its global seven-year campaign, “Hope for the Middle East”?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I certainly commend Open Doors. I recommend to Members next Wednesday afternoon’s “Hope for the Middle East” event in the Terrace Pavilion, where Open Doors will be encouraging us all to support the plight of those people.
As that was probably the last question to me before the recess, may I wish everybody a happy Christmas? Let us not forget that Jesus was carried in his mother’s arms all the way to Egypt, fleeing persecution, so while we celebrate, let us also remember those who are forced to flee from persecution.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
The Electoral Commission has experience of undertaking multiple investigations and is confident that its resourcing for this year is sufficient. Nevertheless, it recognises that its workload in this area has increased. Early in 2018, the commission will be submitting its budget for the next financial year for scrutiny. It is for the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission to agree the estimate before its submission to Parliament.
Mr Bradshaw
I hope that the Speaker’s Committee will ensure that the Electoral Commission has all the resources it needs to do this important work. As well as investigating Russian interference, which the Electoral Commission’s chairman, John Holmes, confirmed it was doing yesterday, will my hon. Friend comment on whether the commission is examining whether there was any collusion between Vote Leave, Leave.EU, Labour Leave, BeLeave, the Democratic Unionist party and Veterans for Britain? Will she also comment on whether the role of the United States hedge fund billionaire, Robert Mercer, is being investigated?
Bridget Phillipson
I know that the commission has had useful and positive engagement with my right hon. Friend about these matters. Various investigations are under way, so it will not be possible to comment further, but I can assure him that once any investigations are complete, the commission will decide whether any breaches have occurred and, if so, what further action may be appropriate. The outcome of all investigations will be publicised on the Electoral Commission website in due course.
Mr Speaker
Is the hon. Lady seeking to come in on this question a bit belatedly?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Lady has already asked a question in this group, so I am afraid it is not within the rules for her to come in, but I am sure we will hear further from her in the course of the day—possibly on multiple occasions. We will see.
Israel: US Embassy
(6 years, 4 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
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of President Trump’s decision to move the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
I thank the right hon. Lady for an important and urgent question.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in her statement yesterday,
“We disagree with the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem and recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before a final status agreement. We believe it is unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region. The British Embassy to Israel is based in Tel Aviv and we have no plans to move it.
Our position on the status of Jerusalem is clear and long-standing: it should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Jerusalem should ultimately be the shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states. In line with relevant Security Council Resolutions, we regard East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
We share President Trump’s desire to bring an end to this conflict. We welcome his commitment”
in his statement
“to a two-state solution negotiated between the parties, and note the importance of his clear acknowledgement that the final status of Jerusalem, including the sovereign boundaries within the city, must be subject to negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
We encourage the US Administration to now bring forward detailed proposals for an Israel-Palestinian settlement.
To have the best chances of success, the peace process must be conducted in an atmosphere free from violence. We call on all parties to work together to maintain calm”
at a crucial time.
Emily Thornberry
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I welcome the opening remarks from the Minister of State.
For all of us in this House and beyond who have worked tirelessly for decades in the hope of lasting peace in the middle east, yesterday’s decision was an absolute hammer blow to those hopes. There is a reason why, before yesterday, no other country would locate its embassy in Jerusalem and no other major country would recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital: because to do either thing, let alone both at the same time, confers legitimacy on Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem—an occupation with no basis in international law, and a permanent barrier to achieving the political settlement that we all wish for.
The sheer recklessness of that decision needs no debate. Donald Trump is not crying “Fire!” in a crowded theatre; he is deliberately setting fire to the theatre. And then he has the unbelievable cheek to claim that he is doing this to move forward the peace process, when in reality he is setting it back decades.
As usual—as with the Muslim ban, the Paris agreement and the Iran deal—the question for the UK Government is twofold. First, what are they going to do about this mess? With Donald Trump wilfully deserting America’s role as peace broker between Israel and Palestine, how will we work with our other allies to fill that void?
Secondly, when will the Government admit that they have got their strategy with Donald Trump totally wrong? They told us that holding his hand, hugging him close and indulging him with the offer of a state visit was the best way of wielding influence and shaping his policies. But on Jerusalem, as on so many issues before, they have been made to look like fools: weak, ignored and entirely without influence. When will they realise that bending over for a bully only encourages their behaviour? What our country needs, and what the world needs, is a British Government prepared to stand up to him.
Alistair Burt
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. I agree that a difficult consensus has been broken. She is right that the international consensus around the status of Jerusalem has been one of the things we have all held on to during a period when the ultimate settlement—the final settlement—has yet to be agreed. It has always been seen as part of the process that, at the end of that negotiated settlement, the status of Jerusalem would be confirmed. The United States has taken a decision about itself and about the location of its embassy. In answer to her final point about the United Kingdom’s position vis-à-vis President Trump and the United States, we make it clear that we disagree with the decision. The Prime Minister has said that it is unhelpful. It is not a decision we would take.
We have now to decide, as the right hon. Lady said, what we do now. The first thing we have done is to co-sponsor a meeting tomorrow at the UN Security Council when this will be discussed. We have co-sponsored that with our European partners because it provides the opportunity to take stock of where we are and how we can move forward. There are two options: one is that we just dwell on this particular decision of the United States, as people will for a while, and just leave it sitting there; and the other is to decide what we do now. It is imperative that we now see the work that the President’s envoys have been doing, which they have shared with a number of partners. That now needs to come forward—more quickly, perhaps, than people anticipated—and then we can see what there is to work on for friends both of Israel and of the Palestinians. The process has to move on. If the process were derailed by this, it would compound the unhelpfulness of the decision. That is what we want to talk about.
The right hon. Lady mentioned our longer-term relationship with the United States, which is very deep: defence, intelligence, security, trade—it covers a multitude of things. It has been in place for centuries and it will go on for centuries, regardless of leadership. We respect an elected President but we know that the relationship with the United States is much deeper, and the United Kingdom will continue to honour that relationship in its many forms.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If the President has a cunning plan which he has not shared with any of his allies, may I invite my right hon. Friend to speculate on what it might be?
Alistair Burt
If there is, this is a decision that has clearly been welcomed by the Israeli Prime Minister and the state of Israel. There is no doubt that Israel sees the United States as a great friend. There is no surprise to any of us in relation to that, and nor does it change anything particularly markedly in terms of relationships in the region. Perhaps, when proposals come forward, if concessions are needed by the state of Israel in order to make the agreement that we all wish to see which will be supported by all sides, there just might now be an extra area of pressure that can be applied because a friend of Israel has done what the President has done.
I have no inkling of the thinking of the President of the United States. But, as everything in this whole business is used in one way or another, there are just possibly those within the state of Israel who will recognise the limb that the President has gone out on, and perhaps, when push comes to shove, that might be of some assistance. As for us, we are very clear on our position. We disagree with this and we will continue to work with all partners to seek the peace settlement that is so urgently needed.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv is not only reckless and wrong but throws the entire peace process into jeopardy. There is no denying that this decision seriously hinders a two-state solution to the conflict. The reaction from the international community has been overwhelming. Pope Francis said, “I cannot remain silent.” The UN Secretary-General spoke of his “great anxiety”. The European Union has expressed “serious concern”. I could go on.
Tomorrow, the UN will meet amid concerns that Mr Trump’s announcement is in breach of both international law and UN resolutions. Will the Minister therefore take a moment to condemn this reckless decision in the strongest possible terms and assure the House that all efforts will be made tomorrow at the UN meeting to have the decision reversed?
Regardless of political differences across this Chamber, we share the values of tolerance, inclusion and respect across these islands. Taking that into consideration, will the Minister today completely rule out a state visit from President Trump and send out a clear message that his divisive and reckless actions are not welcome here?
Alistair Burt
We will allow the peace process to be derailed by this only if we interpret the decision as doing just that, as opposed to providing a different opportunity to take the peace process forward. The envoys are still working; they are still in contact with Arab states and Arab partners, as well as the state of Israel. As I said, that work should continue with greater urgency. The risks in the region are even clearer this morning than they were yesterday before the President spoke—risks that many colleagues in this House know full well because of our frequent visits to the region. The only way that those risks can be quelled is by demonstrating to those who seek hope for the process that there is still a chance of hope. The United Kingdom must do nothing to cut off that possibility. That is why we have to keep urging the peace process forward. The deficit of trust with the United States because of its decision will be noted, but it will remain an important part of discussions for the future.
On the hon. Gentleman’s other two questions, we co-sponsored the meeting with the UN, so it is our intention to work with partners urgently on moving this forward. On the President’s visit, again, the Prime Minister has made clear her views on that: an invitation has been extended, but there is no date set for the visit.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister of State has said this morning. I thought I would share with the House a sentence from a letter from the Patriarchs and Heads of Local Churches in Jerusalem to President Trump:
“peace…cannot be reached without Jerusalem being for all.”
That was echoed yesterday by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said:
“The status quo of the City of Jerusalem is one of the few stable elements of hope for peace”.
He urged us all to
“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem”.
Alistair Burt
I think that we would all concur with those words. The status of Jerusalem is of immense importance in the region to all faiths and all parties who live there. It is essential that the consensus that Jerusalem is for all be honoured. As I stated, it is very clear that our position on the final status of Jerusalem, as part of the final settlement to be agreed between the parties, is the most important thing, not anyone’s unilateral decision about what they think about Jerusalem.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The UK Government have previously said that they would recognise Palestine when the time was right. Is the time not right now?
Alistair Burt
Our view has been that recognition of Palestine should come at the time when that is in the best interests of the prospects for peace and the peace process. That remains our position for now.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel isolates the USA. It has been condemned by European and middle eastern leaders, and even by Pope Francis. All say that this hostile act is ignorant and undermines the delicate peace process. Will the Minister confirm that we robustly maintain, with the States, a position of seeking a two-state solution, although I suggest he begins by pointing out where Jerusalem is to President Trump?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure her that there is no change in the United Kingdom’s position, either on the final status of Jerusalem, or on the need for a two-state solution.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Further to the Minister’s answer to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who asked, “If not now, when?”, the Minister will be aware that one of the most grievous consequences of this decision is the impact on Palestinian public opinion. More and more people are giving up on a two-state solution. With Britain’s particular historical responsibilities, is it not time to honour the overwhelming vote in this House back in 2014 and recognise Palestine as a state?
Alistair Burt
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I make frequent visits to the region—I was there recently—and yesterday I expressed to the Palestinian representative in London my views on the President of the United States’ anticipated speech. Recognition of the state of Palestine is not necessarily a consequence of what we heard yesterday. It is not tit for tat; it is more important than that. Accordingly, it should be a decision made by the United Kingdom at a time when we believe it is in the best interests of the process of peace. That is the view for now.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that UK aid contributions to the Palestinian Authority are significant in maintaining the stability of the region, as they have historically been, which will ultimately help to drive forward the negotiations on a two-state solution and the peaceful settlement that we wish to see?
Alistair Burt
Indeed. I spoke just last week to the Palestinian Authority’s Education and Finance Ministers to talk about the latest tranche of support that the United Kingdom is giving to the Palestinian Authority. It is provided in the clear belief and understanding that the Palestinian territories are moving towards statehood. That is the purpose of our support for them, and I re-emphasised that and made it clear. That is where the hope comes from, because there has to be hope for the Palestinians and those living on the west bank and in Gaza. It is our job to make sure that nothing in yesterday’s decision by another power makes that more difficult, and that is what we will be working towards.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this is a sea change, not just another setback, because it removes America as an honest broker and changes the facts on the ground so that an independent Palestinian state is not really possible any more? That is the view of senior Palestinians such as Husam Zomlot and Saeb Erekat. What plans do the Government have to move matters forward in their discussions with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and do they include at least a timetable for recognition?
Alistair Burt
I have said what I wanted to say on recognition. Let us talk about the peace process, which the hon. Gentleman started his question with. It appears clear that the position of the United States will have changed materially in the eyes of those working for peace in the region because of yesterday’s statement. I would draw attention—rightly, I hope—to the parts of the President’s speech dealing with the need for negotiations and a two-state solution, but the nature of the United States as a broker in the region will have been affected. I am sure that we will discuss tomorrow at the UN how the process can be taken forward. The United States will continue to play an important part, but there is no doubt that there is a trust deficit because of yesterday’s announcement. It is for other states to fill that gap, to ensure that the prospects for peace are not diminished.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Is the reality not that the peace process has been stalled for 24 years, since 1993, and that what we need following this announcement is direct peace talks between the state of Israel and the Palestinian representatives? If we can get from the United Nations a brokered position whereby those peace talks start, this decision could end up having been quite a good one.
Alistair Burt
I have no sense that yesterday’s decision made a contribution to advancing the peace process. I understand what the President said, and he had a particular logic in doing so, although I am not sure I share it. I do share the view my hon. Friend expressed in his last point—what happens in the region can be either a blow or an opportunity, but usually it is both. We must make sure that the opportunity provided by yesterday’s statement is not lost. There is a new role for others to play, but ultimately it must be about what we can do to assist direct negotiations rather than push them back.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Trump’s rash desperation to tick off every ill-judged, divisive campaign soundbite now threatens the peace process in one of the most volatile geopolitical regions in the world. The Government have welcomed his words about a two-state solution, but those pronouncements count for little when his actions, coupled with the expansion of Israeli illegal settlements, mean that the prospect of a two-state solution seems more distant than ever. The Government are clearly limited in their ability to influence the US position, but surely it is now time for them to listen to the clear will of this House and for the UK to confirm our commitment to a two-state solution by recognising the state of Palestine, as we do the state of Israel.
Alistair Burt
I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but the United Kingdom’s position has a degree of flexibility. The House is right that we have to make a collective judgment about when the time is right in the best interests of peace. The Government then have to make up their own mind about the circumstances and what is right, and they will do that, but colleagues’ views are known.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
President Trump has said that the United States remains committed to a two-state solution, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government will be pointing out to this country’s strongest ally that moving the American embassy to Jerusalem will be interpreted by many as American acquiescence in Israel’s illegal programme of settlement on the west bank, which is itself the biggest impediment to a two-state solution?
Alistair Burt
My right hon. Friend provides an analysis of the consequences that is accepted by many.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Is not the reality that President Trump’s announcement yesterday has fatally undermined the US’s credibility in brokering a peace between Israel and Palestine? In that light, is it not more vital than ever that the UK and the European Union demonstrate—in deed, as well as in word—that respect for international law must be the cornerstone of any lasting peace? Will the Minister tell the House what action he will take to implement in practice the UK’s obligations under the paragraph in UN Security Council resolution 2334, passed just under 12 months ago, that calls on all states
“to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”?
What, in practice, will Britain do to implement that?
Alistair Burt
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have followed both UN and EU practice in clearly labelling produce from settlement areas—those areas that have been occupied—and we have also been clear about that in our advice to business. To that extent, we have recognised the importance of following through on resolution 2334, for which the United Kingdom of course voted.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to other Members, that many of these issues have, crucially, to be decided in the final settlement between the parties. There is a greater need for urgency about that this morning than there was yesterday, and it is towards that that the United Kingdom can and will bend its efforts, which is why we are meeting partners tomorrow. I will be in Paris tomorrow for a meeting of the international support group for Lebanon, and we will be talking about this on the margins. There is a need for greater urgency and for making use of this opportunity.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Although we absolutely disagree with the US moving its embassy, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that we will continue to seek, and work with the US to find, a long-term two-state solution?
Alistair Burt
I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, the work of the two envoys continues. The United States will obviously continue to play a part in such processes in the region, and I refer to my earlier answers on what we are trying to do to help this process.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I think the Minister understands the perception of yesterday’s announcement in the Palestinian community. What can he do to prevent the complete erosion of faith in this process by Palestinians seeking to find a two-state solution and an accommodation on their border with Israel, and would not recognition be such a move?
Alistair Burt
The first thing we can do is to make clear our disagreement with the policy of the United States. The second thing is to work with partners to provide an assurance that the peace process will go on and to give people hope. The third thing is to say that the process must be continued with renewed urgency to get the result that we all want. That is the UK’s position.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I know the Minister will recognise that our relationship with the United States is far deeper than the question of whoever happens to be the current occupant of the White House, and the same is true of our commitment to the peace process in the middle east. Will he reassure me that we will stick to the original vision in the Balfour declaration of two democratic, prosperous states living side by side, and that we will continue to seek such a solution?
Alistair Burt
Yes. We referred earlier this year to the Balfour declaration as “unfinished business”, and that is still our view. Again, yesterday’s announcement gives renewed urgency to dealing with the second part of that equation.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership on the 45th President of the United States? Several months ago, you indicated your disinclination for him to address Parliament, and you are being proved more and more right by the day.
When the Minister meets his US counterpart at the UN, will he convey to him the words of the young Palestinian human rights activist—you hosted him at the Amnesty International reception in your rooms yesterday, Mr Speaker—who said that by taking this unilateral decision, the President is flouting international law, international consensus, and the hopes and dreams of all those who harbour a wish for a two-state solution?
Alistair Burt
I am sure that the words cited by the hon. Lady will be drawn to the attention of those in the United States. It is our duty to ensure that hopes and promises are not lost in these circumstances.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I completely share the Government’s view on this statement by the President of the United States, but I do not believe that it brings the process for a two-state solution to an end. Indeed, I believe it gives greater emphasis to the work that we can carry on to achieve that. Does the Minister agree?
Alistair Burt
As I said earlier, the peace process towards a two-state solution will come to an end only when the parties themselves feel that it cannot go any further. It is vital that we and all our partners—including the United States—reaffirm that commitment to the two-state solution, and do our level best to ensure that it is not lost.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Given Trump’s previous attitude to settlements, it is clear that this move might embolden further attempts at demolitions and settlement expansion. Is the Minister aware of the real risk that the west bank might be further subdivided? We talk about a two-state solution, but before it is too late, will he please recognise the state of Palestine?
Alistair Burt
I hear colleagues’ comments on that, and the Government’s position is clear: it is better for us to continue our efforts to support legal attempts to prevent demolitions, which we do through our financial support to the Norwegian Refugee Council, and to allow cases to be taken to the Israeli courts. Seventy-nine per cent. of all cases taken forward have resulted in demolitions being stopped, and that is where our effective action is on behalf of those people’s rights.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Although the Minister acknowledges the right of any country to decide where to locate its embassy, I fear that the already fragile prospects for moving the peace process forward are further and significantly diminished by this move. In his welcome reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to a two-state solution, will the Minister continue to devote his not-inconsiderable efforts to driving that forward and delivering an Israel that is secure within its borders and whose citizens are free from the threat of terrorism, living alongside a viable and truly independent Palestine?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend knows the region well, and he puts it very clearly—that is the hope of all Members of the House, and it has been for too long. We must now work out how we can move forward from this position with renewed urgency to make it happen.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Unlike any of his predecessors, President Trump has dangerously inflamed every frozen world conflict that he has addressed. Has the time come to see this man as someone who believes in America first, and the rest of the world nowhere? Should we now say that the invitation to him for an informal, or formal, visit is rescinded? People can be invited, and they can be disinvited.
Alistair Burt
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. An invitation has been given and no date has been set, and that remains the position of the United Kingdom Government.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
This is the second urgent question that you have granted in as many weeks, Mr Speaker, so that Ministers can come to the Dispatch Box and condemn the egregious behaviour of the President of the United States. What is the point of the special relationship if such condemnations have absolutely no effect on the President’s behaviour? Can we even say that a special relationship still exists?
Alistair Burt
When a decision that we disagree with has been made by our friends, the special relationship gives Ministers the opportunity to explain our position on that to the House and the public, and to maintain that despite some of those decisions, the special relationship that is broad and deep across the piece goes on, even if we disagree with certain political decisions.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
UN Security Council resolution 465 of 1980,
“Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem…have no legal validity”.
How is Israel complying with that?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Lady knows the region well—Israel is not complying with that. That is why we hold that land to be occupied, and why we voted for resolution 2334 that restated elements of what she has just said. What we need now is leadership. Forty years ago, President Sadat came to Israel to make peace—that is one anniversary we have not said much about this year, and it should be remembered. It takes bold leadership by those in the region to make a difference, and perhaps after yesterday, it is now time to see more of that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Diolch, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that Jonathan Freedland, writing yesterday in The Guardian, summed up President Trump’s announcement best when he described it as an act of diplomatic arson?
Alistair Burt
It is not the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown to comment on articles by Guardian journalists, or any journalist, no matter what their opinions may be. The House will make a judgment, but the important thing for Ministers and Governments to talk about is how to de-escalate tensions and how to recognise positive elements in any situation in order to move forward. The place has enough rhetoric and enough people willing to take to the streets for all sorts of reasons. The United Kingdom will not play a part in that.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let us be absolutely clear: this announcement is the latest incidence of the Trump Administration showing contempt for international law and the rest of the world. Let me ask the Minister again. Surely it is right, at the UN Security Council tomorrow, for the UK to commit, as most of the world has, to the long-overdue step of recognising the state of Palestine?
Alistair Burt
The United Kingdom will restate tomorrow our determination to see a final settlement with peace between the nations—two viable states—and our determination that the statehood we wish to see in Palestine is agreed. Our position is that we will recognise when it is the right time in relation to peace. We will make that decision.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is 12 years since I visited Ma’ale Adumim, a huge settlement just outside Jerusalem that is now home to 41,000 people. Emboldened by Trump’s decision, the Israeli Parliament is for the first time introducing a law to annex that settlement. Does the Minister agree that the legitimisation of a settlement built illegally on Palestinian land is a very dangerous move? Will he join me in condemning it?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Lady raises again the difficult issue of legality in relation to settlements. There is evidence that the Israeli Government have been influenced by the United States and others in some of their decisions, including legal decisions, in relation to Jerusalem. Our position remains clear: the settlements are illegal and must be dealt with as part of an overall settlement. We support challenges to the legality of the settlements, when it is legitimate and right to do so, by those who might be affected by them or by demolitions. That will remain the policy.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
European Union (Approvals) Act 2017.
Business of the House
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please update the House on the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for the week commencing 11 December will include:
Monday 11 December—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 12 December—Continuation in Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (day 6).
Wednesday 13 December—Continuation in Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (day 7).
Thursday 14 December—Debate on a motion on equality of pension provision for women, followed by debate on a motion on hormone pregnancy tests. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 15 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 18 December will include:
Monday 18 December—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 19 December—Continuation in Committee of the Finance Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 20 December—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (day 8).
Thursday 21 December—General debate on Russian interference in UK politics and society, followed by a general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 22 December—The House will not be sitting.
Today is a day of celebration. I am sure colleagues across the House will join me in congratulating our fellow parliamentarians down under, who have today legalised gay marriage. Australia becomes the 25th country to recognise that marriage is a celebration of all love. It has been wonderful to see such happy and celebratory scenes in its Parliament.
In further good news, today marks the commissioning of the UK’s new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth. Her Majesty herself will be the guest of honour at the event, and we hope that it is a huge success.
Let me also wish good luck to the five cities that will find out this evening which of them will be crowned the UK’s city of culture. It is a tough choice between Stoke-on-Trent, Swansea, Sunderland, Coventry and Paisley, but I know that the successful city will do the entire country proud.
My final bit of good news concerns the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing her a very happy birthday. I look forward to our catch-up later, when I have no doubt that we shall have a piece of cake together.
Valerie Vaz
Follow that, as they say. I just say that the number has been printed incorrectly: the digits should be reversed for my age. [Laughter.]
I thank the Leader of the House for updating us on the business for the next few weeks. It is more or less settled, subject, I suppose, to a few phone calls. Obviously, we were expecting a statement from the Prime Minister earlier this week.
We know the business for 11 January: the debate on restoration and renewal has been fixed. Can the Leader of the House update us on the rest of the business for that week? On the subject of R&R, does she agree that, given the recent legal action by Unite and the GMB, and given that more than £10 million was paid out last year to more than 250 working people who had been denied a job because their names had appeared on a blacklist, we should look carefully at any future bids for contracts to ensure that that illegal activity—which has ruined lives—does not take place again? Is the Leader of the House in a position to publish the motion on R&R before Christmas, so that Members can have a chance to amend it?
May I ask the Leader of the House to correct the record? The Chancellor—I notified him that I would raise this matter today—said in his Budget statement:
“We have heard a lot of talk recently from the Opposition about what they would do to crack down on tax avoidance…but the truth is that they did not.” —[Official Report, 22 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 1054-5.]
He said that he was doing the job that Labour Governments had failed to do. That is totally incorrect. When I asked the House of Commons Library what Labour Governments had done, it supplied a list of the measures in 14 Budgets that Labour had implemented to protect our tax revenues. I will write to the Chancellor and the Leader of the House on the matter. I place that on the record. I will place it on my website as well. It is important to say that tax measures to protect our revenues were introduced. That is important because the deficit is the difference between what the Government spend and what they receive. If they are reducing the tax base and cutting jobs at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, it is hard to know where they will find the money, and that is why there have been cuts in public services and people are living in poverty.
Even as we acknowledge the 75th anniversary of the publication of the Beveridge report, the board of the Government’s Social Mobility Commission resigns en masse, including a highly respected Conservative former Secretary of State for Education, who is now in the other place. The board has said that
“the government seems unable to devote the necessary energy and focus to the social mobility agenda”.
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2017” report, published a few days later, nearly one in three disabled people are living in poverty, while 30% of children and 16% of pensioners live in relative poverty; that figure has risen by 3% in recent years. When will we have an urgent debate on the state of poverty in the UK, and when will there be new appointments to the board of the Social Mobility Commission?
Let me now turn to the invisible papers, as I call them. I have a few questions: who, what, where and why. We know who, because the motion was very clear: the Secretary of State had to give the papers to the Exiting the European Union Committee. What is in the papers? In October 2016, they were called assessments; in December 2016, they were sets of analyses. As for the “where”, it is highly bizarre. Members must make an appointment, and must arrive five minutes early. They will then be escorted by a Government official to a room where they can look at the papers. They cannot take mobile phones into the room; they must take notebooks. Presumably they will be given a stubby pencil, or perhaps a pen containing invisible ink. As I say, that is bizarre. We are elected representatives, and we are entitled to see the papers.
Then there is the “why”. If there is nothing in the papers, why are the Government so secretive? But there is a bigger “why”: why have the Government not conducted the impact assessments, given that Brexit is affecting 88% of our economy?
I join the Leader of the House in celebrating gay marriage in Australia, but, more importantly, Sunday is human rights day, and Amnesty International asks us to remember our actions that freed Albert Woodfox, who was held in the USA for over 43 years in solitary confinement, Phyoe Phyoe Aung in Burma, and Yecenia Armenta Graciano, who was detained and tortured in Mexico. They all said on their release that that was a result of the role played by Amnesty International.
You, Mr Speaker, yesterday launched in Speaker’s House “Write for Rights” with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), chair of the all-party group on human rights. Amnesty International wants us to write for its Turkey director Idil Eser and chair Taner Kılıç, as well as nine other Turkish human rights defenders.
I know the whole House will join me in thanking the Burgundy town of Avallon, which named one of its streets Rue Jo Cox, and there is a sign that reads “British MP. Killed for her convictions”. We condemn those who support her killer and his group, we stand with those who oppose them and, of course, we salute the silence breakers.
Finally, Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you and Sally on your wedding anniversary?
Andrea Leadsom
I was not aware that it was your wedding anniversary, Mr Speaker: congratulations.
I join the hon. Lady in remembering Jo Cox and congratulating that community in France which has recognised her memory and the work she did to promote human rights and cohesive communities. She will never be forgotten, and all hon. Members would want to remember her.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of blacklisting. She will be pleased to know that it has been made clear in all our procurement contracts that none of our suppliers may engage in blacklisting activities, and we have received an assurance on that for the work with the contractor for the restoration of Big Ben and Elizabeth Tower. I share the hon. Lady’s concern about that issue.
The hon. Lady pleads that the Labour Government did a lot to reduce tax avoidance, but the fact is that since 2010 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has generated £160 billion in tax revenue from measures to stop avoidance and evasion. That is an extraordinary and strong achievement on which we should congratulate HMRC and also this Government, because all too often the Opposition talk the talk but do not walk the walk; they simply do not achieve what they promise. Now, under this Government, the top 1% are paying 27% of all taxes, and the top 5% nearly half of all taxes. People who earn more have never been taxed more than under this Government, so progressive taxation is a feature of our Government’s achievements—far more so than when Labour was in office.
The hon. Lady talked about the Social Mobility Commission. She is right to point out that Alan Milburn made a great show and dance of resigning from a job and role that was actually coming to an end. I point out to the hon. Lady the amazing achievement just this week on children’s literacy in our schools in England: England is joint eighth in the world for reading as a result of this Government’s changes to phonics and the amazing dedication of teachers across the country.
As shown by our Green Paper on mental health, Conservative Members are determined to ensure that there is parity of esteem between mental and physical health. Six hundred thousand more disabled people are in work now than in 2010. That is a record of achievement that we on this side of the House are proud of. Of course there are 600,000 fewer children in workless households than in 2010. Those are all things designed to support young people. They are measures that Conservative Members have put in place and have been determined to make progress on.
Finally, the hon. Lady talks about the impact assessments. The Opposition have generated an enormous amount of headlines and publicity over this issue, but the House will be interested to learn that the sum total of 16 Members of this House and the House of Lords have taken the trouble to go and see that analysis that has been made available. Hon. Members should also respect the fact that the freedom of civil servants to discuss matters and give advice freely to Ministers must be upheld. That is why it is important to hold these reports in a confidential and secure way. Those who need to read them or have an interest in reading them can do so, but I say again that only 16 Members across both Houses have availed themselves of that opportunity.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
We have outlawed forced marriage in this country, but could we have a debate on children of 16 still being able to be married with the consent of their parents, instead of waiting until they are 18? That seems to be an anomaly that we should fix.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a question that many people have concerns about—namely, the safety of our children until they reach an age at which they can make decisions for themselves. There has been a long-standing law that young people can marry at the age of 16, however, and I think it unlikely that that will be reviewed in the near future.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week, and I join her in sending congratulations to Australia. I wish the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) happy birthday, and I wish you a happy wedding anniversary, Mr Speaker.
Well, what a week! They do not come much more dramatic than that. Just when we thought that this chaotic Brexit cluelessness could not get any worse, this Government went and surprised us all over again. I am actually now embarrassed that my nation of Scotland is caught up in this total and utter disaster. We did not go looking for any of this, and we certainly did not vote for it, but all of a sudden the institutions of my nation are caught up in the collateral of this disaster. I know that this Government are now totally in thrall to the Democratic Unionist party, and I only hope that the Leader of the House shared the business statement with its Members in advance, just in case she has to hastily redraw it if they do not like it.
The farce around the Brexit analysis papers still goes on, six weeks following the binding vote of this House. These analysis papers simultaneously detail 50 to 60 sectoral impacts while at the same time not existing at all. They are Schrödinger’s Brexit analysis papers. What is becoming clear is that there were never any such papers, yet for some reason the Government took it upon themselves to boast about their existence to the point at which the House passed a binding vote to produce papers that did not even exist. If that is not contempt of Parliament, I do not know what is. The Secretary of State really should be considering his position this morning.
We considered the devolution parts of the repeal Bill this week, but everyone noted that the Bill as it is currently constituted—particularly the provisions around clause 11—is not fit for purpose and will deeply damage the devolution settlement. Today, however, those clauses remain in place in the Bill. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he would table amendments on Report, and he will obviously be held to that, but will the Leader of the House ensure that they are tabled early so that the Scottish Government can assess them, to judge whether they are sufficient to deal with the many threats that are being posed to devolution?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, I also congratulate all the cities competing to be the UK city of culture in 2021, but I am sure that you will forgive us if we on these Benches give an extra cheer for the city of Paisley to become the first ever Scottish city of culture for the UK.
Andrea Leadsom
We will always understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to support his own local contender—that is absolutely acceptable—but we in the Westminster Parliament congratulate all the cities involved and wish them all luck.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the claim that there has been a contempt of Parliament. I must utterly refute that. The Government have satisfied the motion, providing the House of Commons Exiting the European Union Committee with information covering 58 sectors of the economy. We were always clear that the analysis did not exist in the form that Parliament requested, but the Department for Exiting the European Union has taken time to bring together the analysis that we have in a way that meets the request of Parliament—that is, to provide Parliament with the respect that it is due—and I think, Mr Speaker, that you have now had recognition from the Brexit Committee that it considers that matter closed.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about consultation with the devolved Administrations. It has been made clear that the close consultation with all those Administrations, including Scotland, will continue on all subjects relating to the bright future that we believe lies ahead for the United Kingdom once we leave the European Union.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the nuisance telephone calls that are made randomly by cold-callers? Only yesterday, I was driving along the A13 when a young lady came on the phone—it was hands free—to say that she had heard I had been involved in a road accident, to which I replied, “If I get one more call, I will be involved in a road accident.”
Andrea Leadsom
I am pleased that my hon. Friend always drives carefully and that he was using a hands-free device, but he raises an important point of concern for many of our constituents. In the past, the Information Commissioner’s Office had to prove that a company was causing substantial damage or distress by its conduct before action could be taken, but the Government have now changed the law to make it much easier for nuisance-call companies to be hit with fines of up to £500,000. That is a welcome step, but my hon. Friend may like to seek a Westminster Hall debate or raise the matter at Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions to discuss it further with Ministers.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that winter is beginning to bite, and accident and emergency departments up and down the country are struggling to cope with demand. According to a report this morning, a million people are now not being seen within four hours at A&E. The A&E in Huddersfield is threatened with closure, so may we have an early debate on A&E, the shortage of beds, the shortage of doctors and the shortage of common sense in this Government?
Andrea Leadsom
Thanks to the hard work and dedication of staff and record levels of funding, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the NHS is more prepared for winter this year than ever before. We know that the NHS is facing increased pressure this winter, which is why it has robust plans in place that are supported by an extra £335 million announced in the Budget on top of the previously announced £100 million to support A&E departments. More than 1,000 extra beds have been freed up nationally since February by reducing delayed transfers of care, and areas continue to work to increase that number to more than 2,000 to 3,000 extra beds over the winter period.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on access to NHS dentists in rural areas? Oral health in children is reaching crisis levels, with almost a quarter of five-year-olds suffering from tooth decay—the No. 1 cause of hospital admission for that age group. Selsey in my constituency has a population of 12,000 and growing, but not a single NHS dentist. This matter should be debated to ensure that everyone, irrespective of where they live, can have access to good NHS dental care.
Andrea Leadsom
I am really sorry to hear of the problems in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and she is quite right to raise them. NHS England has a legal duty to commission primary care NHS dental services to meet local needs. Access has improved significantly in recent years, but more needs to be done. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can raise the specific problems in her constituency.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
May I wish you felicitations for your wedding anniversary, Mr Speaker? Also, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is still at the stage where the candles do not cost more than the cake, and I wish her a very happy birthday. [Laughter.] There is a very fine line, Mr Speaker.
I ask the Leader of the House for an early indication of availability for Backbench Business Committee time after Christmas. I know that we will be discussing the restoration of the Palace on the first Thursday after Christmas, but I hope that we will get some time on the following Thursday, because the debate on RBS Global Restructuring Group, which was deferred last week, was heavily endorsed, and we are already anticipating applications for debates on really quite important matters.
As for the Brexit sectoral analysis or impact assessments, the north-east of England has a particular set of problems when it comes to the UK economy, and even if there is no sectoral impact assessment for anywhere else, we would like one for the north-east. Our part of the country currently has a balance of payments surplus in manufacturing, and there will be a great deal of concern among businesses in all sectors if nothing has been outlined for our region’s future.
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s request for more time for Backbench Business Committee debates, and particularly for the important rescheduled debate on RBS Global Restructuring Group. He mentions the impact assessment on issues specific to the north-east, and I am sure he will be reassured that since 2010 unemployment is down 41% in the north-east and 44,000 more children are at good or outstanding schools. Nevertheless, he makes a good point. I assure him that the Government are committed to making a success of leaving the EU for all parts of the United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I indicate to the House—I think there are 34 colleagues seeking to contribute—that we really should finish this set of exchanges by midday, because there is a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), to follow and, thereafter, two very well subscribed Backbench Business Committee debates. There is a premium on brevity.
If colleagues have prepared what, frankly, is too long a text, please have the consideration for others that would be represented by cutting that text. If you cannot cut it, do not bother with the question. The debates that follow are very important and I have to respect the interests of those who want to contribute to those debates.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I was hoping Sir Desmond was going to help out, because he is always a master of brevity—[Laughter.] His questions do not take much time, anyway. They are always very brief. I call Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Following your guidance, Mr Speaker, I have a simple question. We are going to build more houses in this country, which is welcome. A local estate agent, Greenslade Taylor Hunt, has been caught price fixing. May we have a debate on stopping estate agents from abusing their position when we want to build more houses for young people?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree that we want to build more houses for all people in this country, and particularly for young people. There are no Communities and Local Government questions until next year, so instead I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to me on that point. I will take it up with him.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Last week I raised with the Leader of the House the possibility of having a debate on the position of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, particularly the three who were sentenced to death because of their beliefs. Now we understand that Captain Muhammad Safdar, the parliamentarian who raised the issues that led, the day after, to the Ahmadis’ imprisonment, is about to visit the UK. May we have a debate on what the Government will say to him about the Ahmadis’ plight?
Andrea Leadsom
Again, the hon. Lady raises an important issue. I am sure she will be in touch with Foreign Office Ministers to reflect her views, and I am sure they will be very happy to respond to her question on what the official line will be when this man visits.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My constituent had a £200,000 offer on his house shortly before phase 2 of High Speed 2 was announced. HS2 Ltd has now valued the house at £185,000. Can I have a statement from the relevant Minister on how HS2 Ltd is instructing these valuations?
Andrea Leadsom
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important matter, which was of great concern to my constituents and, indeed, yours, Mr Speaker, during the first phase of HS2. I continue to challenge HS2 Ltd on a number of constituents’ house purchase matters that have been long outstanding. I urge my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate to get a further response from Ministers on what more can be done to ensure that HS2 Ltd is addressing all constituents’ concerns fairly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Association of Medical Research Charities has now published its report on greater access to off-patent drugs on the frontline, to which many stakeholders have contributed, including me as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on off-patent drugs. May we have a debate on how to continue our cross-party agenda to increase access to off-patent drugs?
Andrea Leadsom
All Members have particular constituency issues concerning off-patent drugs, which is an incredibly important area. I see that there are Health questions on 19 December, so the hon. Gentleman might want to raise it then. I am sure there would be a lot of demand from Members for a debate on the subject.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I am concerned about the way the Boundary Commission for England is operating its consultation, because 5,957 respondents—96% of all people consulted in Morecambe and Lunesdale—said they wanted to keep Morecambe and Lunesdale intact. Both parties agree that the communities of Lancaster and Morecambe should be kept separate, and since then more than 1,000 more submissions have been put in.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is raising an important point. The Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales published revised proposals for constituencies on 17 October, and the consultation does not end until 11 December. He is right to raise this issue in this place and to encourage more respondents to come forward before the closure.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Last month, I met my constituents Margaret and Richard in Parliament at an event organised by CRY—Cardiac Risk in the Young. Sadly, the reason they were there is that they lost their son, Tom Hardman, a talented local cricketer who died of sudden cardiac death. May we have a debate in Government time on the work done by CRY and how we might prevent the 600 such deaths every year?
Andrea Leadsom
I am so sorry to hear about that tragic case; and, as the hon. Lady says, there are too many of them—600 cases a year. It is right to raise these issues in this Chamber and I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate on this.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I received an email this week from two of my constituents whose mother is a former member of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force and was stationed at Bletchley Park during world war two. She is now being cared for at the Royal British Legion care home, Dunkirk Memorial House, in my constituency. They just wanted to express their immense praise and thanks for the fantastic care their mother and other veterans have received in these homes. Will the Leader of the House therefore join me in praising the staff at Dunkirk House, and will she pass on the message to the Ministry of Defence about how important these Royal British Legion care homes are to our veterans?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in praising the excellent work carried out by the staff at the Royal British Legion’s Dunkirk Memorial House in her constituency. All six of the Legion’s care homes around the country make an enormous difference to the lives of ex-servicemen and women and their families, and I know that my colleagues in the Defence team recognise that.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
A recent joint police and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency operation in Bradford on uninsured and untaxed vehicles has resulted in 540 untaxed vehicles being identified and 29 vehicles being seized in one week because their drivers had no insurance. Nationally, figures are rising on this, with the highest tax evasion rate for more than a decade. Will the whole House join me in congratulating West Yorkshire police on their initiative in Operation Steerside to tackle dangerous driving in Bradford? Will the Leader of the House grant parliamentary time to discuss this issue?
Andrea Leadsom
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating her local police force on tackling this; it sounds like an enormous achievement. Again, I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate to raise these specific points and to share best practice in catching this type of evasion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am hoping that somebody might conceivably manage a single-sentence question. I call Mr Stephen Kerr.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 72%-owned by the taxpayer, announced the closure of 259 branches, including branches in my constituency in Bannockburn, Dunblane and Bridge of Allan, with the loss of 680 jobs. Will the Leader of the House provide a debate, in Government time, on the announcement of these closures and the future of retail banking in this country?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a strong champion for his constituency and he raises an important point. All banks must now comply with the access to banking standard, which requires consultation and careful thought before closures. He will also be aware that the Post Office now provides access to basic banking services for all retail banks. Nevertheless, he raises an important point and I encourage him to pursue it, perhaps with the Financial Conduct Authority or with this bank itself.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
In recent weeks, I have noticed an increase in immigration casework. I have previously written to the Home Office about the effect that delays are having on my constituents. Data published by the Department last week showed that only 62% of MPs’ letters and 72% of emails are being responded to within its standard service timescale. May we please have a debate on the modernisation of Home Office correspondence so that Members and their constituents can receive responses in a timely fashion?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Many of us have constituency cases related to visa challenges. I know from speaking to the Home Office that often the problem is one of slow responses from overseas countries to inquiries. It is difficult to totally be in control of response times, but she might want to raise her important point at Home Office questions.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
This is an important week in the taxi trade, because the world’s first purpose-built electric taxi, made by the London Electric Vehicle Company in Ansty Park in my constituency, has been certified for use in London. May we have a debate about how investment in electrification can help to meet environmental objectives?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate my hon. Friend on that achievement in his constituency. It is great news for London and it is certainly great news for Rugby. The Government are fully committed to reducing the carbon footprint of our transport system. This is a great new step that will certainly provide relief for many people living in London.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Research carried out by the Citizen Sense project at Goldsmith’s in my constituency shows that pollution in south-east London reached six times the World Health Organisation limit on several occasions during the past year. Can we have a debate on this important public health issue?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will no doubt have been delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) mention the first London-certified electric taxi, which was built in his constituency. She raises an issue that matters enormously to all of us. The Government are determined to tackle the problem of air pollution, not only in London but right around the country. We are taking strong steps to encourage and help local authorities to pay for new pollution-free zones. Equally, she should speak to the Mayor of London, who, of course, has the challenge of putting in place measures to reduce the poor air quality in our great city.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Given that we came eighth in an international reading test only this week, can we have a debate about phonics and the underlying teaching of literacy, so that we can make all children great readers?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That great achievement demonstrates just how far the Government’s teaching reforms have taken us. I again praise all teachers for their amazing dedication, and congratulate the children themselves on England delivering its best result since 2001, which was in no small part thanks to our increased emphasis on phonics.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Many Conservative MPs said in this House on Monday that clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was deficient and yet they voted for it. At Scottish questions yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the purpose of the Committee of the whole House is merely to listen. Can we have an urgent debate on the purpose of the different stages of a Bill as it goes through this House, because I thought that the Committee stage was meant to amend a Bill?
Andrea Leadsom
As has been made clear so many times, including by me, we are determined to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom—and for the EU27—as we leave the EU. An important part of that is listening to all constructive views that seek to amend and improve the proposed legislation. That is what we have been doing and what we will continue to do.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Reports suggest that some 800 British citizens may have gone to fight for the evil death cult Daesh in Iraq and Syria. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and, indeed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), have both indicated that those individuals will not be allowed to return to the UK and may be hunted down and killed. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made before Christmas, because this is clearly a policy matter of great importance to Members across the House?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. I pay tribute to the amazing work of this country’s counter-intelligence people, who, as we have heard recently, have thwarted multiple terror efforts in this country. It is important that we continue to support them. We continue to invest in counter-terrorism. My hon. Friend raises the question of what we do to stop terrorists coming back to this country from overseas. It is clearly the case that we need to use every means at our disposal to do so.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Could the Leader of the House do something, or could we have a debate, about the Government publishing routine information? I have been trying for 15 months to get the Library’s taskforce dataset published and have had various answers that it will be published in due course or in the near future, whatever that means. If the Government can publish papers that do not exist, surely they can publish papers that do exist so that hon. Members and the public can see them.
Andrea Leadsom
If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about that, I will take it up on his behalf.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
When I visited the excellent Trinity High School in Redditch recently, I had the privilege of speaking to the wonderful young people there. I asked them about their experience of being teenagers in today’s world, and they told me about some of the pressures they faced because of social media and other aspects of their lives. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the massive boost to children’s and young people’s mental health services, and will she work with the Department of Health to make sure that this funding gets to where it is really needed on the ground in Redditch and elsewhere?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right. Young people face huge challenges, including unique challenges from social media and cyber-bullying. The Government’s Green Paper on mental health seeks to alleviate those and to address the problem at its core. It is important to build, in the earliest years, the robust emotional strength that young people can then rely on throughout the rest of their lives.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will have seen that Virgin Care has sued the NHS, and that approach was familiar to me, as the company threatened me when I raised its dubious practices in the House. Will she consider a debate on the matter and make it clear that she will defend our NHS and Members from intimidation by private corporations such as Virgin?
Andrea Leadsom
Absolutely. Across the House, we share a commitment to the NHS and to its services being free at the point of delivery. We will always defend the NHS against any external threats, including from private providers. On the other hand, some private provision has been incredibly beneficial to patients and the cost base of the NHS, and we should not overlook that.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My constituent recently received a demand for payment of £160 from parking contractors on behalf of his local Lidl supermarket while he shopped there for about 15 minutes. He wrote to the chief executive, who was distinctly uninterested in solving the case. May we have a debate on the abuse of parking charges by certain private companies?
Andrea Leadsom
We all share my hon. Friend’s frustration about some of the appalling abuses carried out by private parking enforcement organisations. I share his concern, and he should seek an Adjournment debate so that other Members can hear about the situation.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The British Association of Social Workers advised its members this week that it considered it unethical and degrading to subject a woman to the disclosure of an incident of rape to a third party just to access benefits. It joins a list including the Scottish Government, Unison, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. May we have a debate on the growing condemnation of this Government’s two-child policy and the rape clause?
Andrea Leadsom
We fully recognise that this is a difficult and sensitive issue, but I assure the hon. Lady that the mother will never be questioned about the incident by a member of staff from the Department for Work and Pensions or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. They will simply take the claim and receive supporting professional third-party evidence. There would not be any requirement for evidence of a criminal conviction or a judicial finding. We have consulted on how the exemption should be implemented, and we have adjusted our approach to make sure that women get the support that they need and that additional financial support goes to those for whom it was intended.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I am afraid that a steelworkers’ pension scandal is brewing. My constituents are worried about making the wrong decision on pension transfers, and the Financial Conduct Authority is providing insufficient support to steelworkers at this crucial time. May we have a ministerial statement and an action plan from the FCA to support steelworkers who are trying to do the right thing for their families?
Andrea Leadsom
Pensions are a complex subject, and anybody trying to make decisions needs the right advice. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue and I encourage him to seek further guidance from the FCA so that he can provide support to his constituents.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
When are we going to have a statement on the rights of EU nationals, particularly Irish citizens, many of whom have lived in this country for decades? Even if the Government cannot sort out anything else on EU withdrawal, please may we have a statement on this matter, which is causing anxiety to millions of people?
Andrea Leadsom
I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman seek that reassurance. The Prime Minister has made it very clear on numerous occasions, including in her Florence speech, that all EU citizens will be able to carry on living their lives as before. We have committed to incorporating our agreement on citizens’ rights fully into UK law.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Can we have a statement from the Home Office regarding Abubelcir Oncu, a constituent of mine who lost his passport in Turkey? He has indefinite leave to remain, but has been stuck in Turkey for three months, even though he has a replacement passport. His wife is pregnant. Will the Leader of the House please look into this for me?
Andrea Leadsom
That is a concerning case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is already in contact with UK Visas and Immigration. If he wants to write to me, I will be happy to look into the matter on his behalf me.
Mr Speaker
I say very gently to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is a most perspicacious Member, that the Leader of the House is not, to the best of knowledge, chief executive of, or another worker for, Citizens Advice. Although the hon. Gentleman was allowed to continue with his question, questions should be about the business for next week. Therefore, my little hint to him is that he should seek to get into his inquiry a reference to a request for a statement or a debate. That is very much the correct form for business questions. It is not quite the same thing as asking, “Will you have a look into something for me and let me know?” Nevertheless, we will let the hon. Gentleman off on this occasion, and I give that advice in the friendliest possible spirit.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I send the very best wishes from the current city of culture to all those bidding to be the next city of culture?
Radio Humberside this week reported that there has been an upsurge in the use of mopeds to commit antisocial behaviour, and nuisance and criminal offences, in Orchard Park in my constituency. May we have a debate to discuss why this is happening and the practical steps we can take to deal with it, because it is a problem not just in Hull? We want to be on the side of decent people against this kind of yob culture.
Andrea Leadsom
I think that we all share the hon. Lady’s concern. We have seen an extraordinary rise in moped crime, which the Home Office is very concerned about. I am sure that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee would be delighted to hear from the hon. Lady with a suggestion of a cross-party debate on the matter.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on why the Government have conducted an impact assessment into gravity foul sewers and lateral drains, but not into the UK leaving the European Union?
Andrea Leadsom
So we are back to the Government smelling, are we?
The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is being quite deliberately flippant. As he will know, the Government have produced sectoral analysis, which has now been provided in a form that is useful to Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the motion passed by this House. Therefore, the Government have fulfilled the request that was made. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman is enjoying looking at and learning from that sectoral analysis.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
It has now been two years since the Glasgow city deal was announced, yet in recent days we have heard that the Scottish Government agency Transport Scotland is backsliding on its commitment to deliver the flagship Glasgow airport rail link, having sabotaged the project a decade ago. The people of Glasgow are tired of waiting for this project, so will the Leader of the House consider having a debate or a statement on the Glasgow city deal to ensure that it is delivering the world-class infrastructure that is needed for Britain’s second city?
Andrea Leadsom
I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s call for further progress. This Government are fully committed to the success of the city deals, including the Glasgow city deal. He might like to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss directly with Ministers what more can be done to make this happen faster.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Increasing the number of live animal exports has been suggested as a way of coping with the expected 80% collapse in meat exports post Brexit. That would increase the number of animals exported on the hoof, rather than on the hook, so will the price of Brexit be paid for in the increased suffering of defenceless, sentient animals?
Andrea Leadsom
As a former Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. It is in fact the EU that prevents the UK from looking at measures to curb further the export of live animals. However, on the movement of live animals, I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the issue is not the exports, but the distance that animals have to travel without proper care—food, drink, rest and so on. That is the issue he should be concerned with, not the export or distant travel of those animals. The Government remain absolutely committed to doing everything we can to further improve the welfare of animals as we leave the EU.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Last week, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported that the new centralised air support service for police forces in Wales and England was not fit for purpose, with the communities I serve waiting over an hour for a response. Can we have a Home Office statement on the report so that we can debate the failings of the centralised service, which was introduced by the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary?
Andrea Leadsom
We are always extremely grateful to our police forces for the work that they do. The hon. Gentleman raises a point of which I am not specifically aware, but he might wish to raise it at Home Office questions or through an Adjournment debate so that he can get further information.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Since 2012, two thirds of Britain’s total waste plastic exports have been shipped to China and Hong Kong. From January, that is going to stop—China is going to ban those imports. May we have an urgent statement from the Environment Secretary about where we are going to send our plastic waste in the new year?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that this Government have been totally committed to doing as much as possible to protect our environment, and particularly our marine environment, through our introduction of the blue belt, the protected areas around our coastline, our proposal to ban microbeads in face-cleansing products and so on. This Government have banned the use of plastic bags without a charge, and we have seen a massive improvement in the amount of recycling. We are fully committed to doing all that we can to protect our environment. Should the hon. Lady wish to seek an Adjournment debate on this matter, I am sure that Ministers will be delighted to come along and discuss it with her.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Nepal has passed a new criminal code Bill, which criminalises so-called blasphemy and the conversion of others. There is widespread concern that this code will be used to target religious minorities and will have an impact on religious freedom, human rights and tolerance in Nepal. Would the Leader of the House agree to a ministerial statement on this important issue?
Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of religious freedoms and looking after the rights of minorities such as those he mentions, so I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate on that subject.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
May we have the debate on the Royal Bank of Scotland and its treatment of small business customers as soon as possible, and certainly before the Government flog off their shares and avoid accountability?
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman will have been pleased to see that RBS is recovering. He talks about the Government flogging off their shares. The Government intend to return RBS to the private sector and to recoup, as far as possible, the money that the taxpayer had to use to bail it out. That is the right and proper thing to do. He is absolutely right that the debate about the restructuring group was important, and the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, is seeking to reschedule it just as soon as he can.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
In among the spin about how powerful the Scottish Tories now are and how they secured the £40 million VAT exemption for police and fire services, I highlighted yesterday that that had actually come at the cost of £265 million per Scottish Tory. If they genuinely did do so much work on the VAT exemption, will the Leader of the House make a statement outlining why the Chancellor was not able to give me in writing the date of one meeting with any one of the 12 Back-Bench Scottish Tories on VAT exemption?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman recognises the amazing work done by my hon. Friends the Scottish Conservatives. I share his enthusiasm for their assiduousness in looking after the interests of their constituents. I am sure he will be delighted, as I am, that in our Budget a couple of weeks ago, the Chancellor was able to confirm a £2 billion consequential budget boost for the Scottish Parliament.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will recall that, eight months ago, I informed her that the HSBC bank in Maesteg was closing. Now, NatWest bank is closing in Maesteg and in Pencoed, leaving my whole constituency with one bank. May I press her for an urgent statement from Treasury Ministers about what they can do to address the problem of banks closing across the length and breadth of this country?
Andrea Leadsom
As I said earlier, there is a new protocol under which banks must undertake to properly consult. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the footfall in bank branches has reduced significantly as people move to mobile banking. However, as we all recognise, in many of our communities there are older people who are perhaps not so mobile phone-savvy and will prefer to use paper banking. Post offices now offer basic banking services for all high street banks, and in many cases that means better opening hours and a better service for constituents. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate in which he can talk about the specifics in his constituency.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
As we have heard, we will find out later today the winner of the competition to be UK city of culture 2021. Despite starting the process as an outsider, Paisley, after running a great campaign, is now one of the favourites—I am sure that we will do it. May we have a statement on this competition to raise awareness of the winner and our campaign?
Andrea Leadsom
Again, I wish all the competitors the best of luck. It is great to see the hon. Gentleman sticking up for his local applicant, and I do wish him every success with it. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities for him to raise the issue directly with the Prime Minister, should he be successful.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
On 9 November last year, seven people lost their lives and many more were injured in the Croydon tram crash, which was the largest crash of its kind in 50 years. Today, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch is publishing its findings on the causes of the accident. I have had early sight of them, and it is clear that they will apply across all the tram networks of the UK. For the sake of those who died, many of whom were from New Addington, just on their way to work and never to return again, will the Secretary of State for Transport come to the Chamber to make a statement about how he will ensure that the recommendations of the investigation will be implemented as swiftly as possible so that this never happens again?
Andrea Leadsom
Certainly all Members, and I think the whole country, were horrified by what happened: it was an absolute tragedy. We all send our great condolences to the families and friends of all those who died. It is absolutely right, as the hon. Lady says, that we learn the lessons from the report. I will certainly be very happy to discuss what kind of feedback we can get from the Department as soon as possible.
Social Care
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
This oral statement is the Government’s response to the recent Opposition day debate on social care on Wednesday 25 October. Since that debate, the Government announced further plans for the Green Paper on care and support for older people on 16 November. This oral statement reiterates the substance of that announcement while providing further detail to the House in some specific areas.
An ageing society means that we need to reach a longer-term sustainable settlement for social care. That is why the Government have committed to publishing a Green Paper by summer 2018 setting out their proposals for reform. An inter-ministerial group is overseeing this work. This builds on the additional £2 billion over the next three years that we have already provided to meet social care needs.
In developing the Green Paper, it is right that we take the time needed to debate the many complex issues and listen to the perspectives of experts and care users, building consensus around reforms which can succeed. That is why we are starting a process of initial engagement over the coming months through which the Government will work with experts, stakeholders and users to shape the long-term reforms that will be proposed in the Green Paper. The Government have asked a range of independent experts in this area to provide their views, including the leads of the two most recent reviews on social care, Andrew Dilnot and Kate Barker. We are also engaging closely with key stakeholders, and with people who use services and their carers. The Government will host a number of roundtables to hear a range of perspectives from those representing different constituencies, including carers, service recipients, providers, health services, financial services providers, local government, and working-age adults.
Once the Green Paper is published, it will be subject to a full public consultation. The Government recognise that there is broad agreement across Parliament that reform of social care is a priority, and we look forward to working with parliamentarians to hear a range of views. We have already written to the chairs of relevant all-party parliamentary groups to invite them to meet us to discuss their priorities for and perspectives on reform.
The Prime Minister has been clear that the consultation will include proposals to place a limit on the care costs that individuals face. To allow for fuller engagement and the development of the approach, and so that reforms to the care system and how it is paid for are considered in the round, we will not take forward the previous Government’s plans to implement a cap on care costs in 2020. Further details of the Government’s plans will be set out after we have consulted on the options. The Green Paper will focus primarily on reform of care for older people, but will consider elements of the adult care system that are common to all recipients of social care.
We are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities and complex conditions can live healthy, independent lives, and participate fully in society. Many of the issues and questions about the sustainability of the care system will be relevant to adults of all ages. To ensure that issues specific to working-age adults with care needs are considered in their own right, the Government have committed to taking forward a parallel programme of work on working-age social care, which is being led jointly by the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government. This work will be overseen by the inter-ministerial group to ensure close alignment with the Green Paper.
Of course, carers are vital partners in the health and social care system. It would not make any sense to pursue strategic issues related to carers in isolation from the wider work on the future of social care, so they will be a key part of the Green Paper. A sustainable settlement for social care will not be possible without focusing on how our society supports carers. I am committed to making sure that the issues raised with us through the call for evidence on carers in 2016 are central to any proposals for the wider social care system.
Alongside this, we must continue to work to improve the experience of carers today. The Government remain fully committed to supporting carers in providing care as they wish to, and in a way that supports their own health and wellbeing, and their employment and life chances. In the new year, ahead of the Green Paper’s publication, the Department of Health will publish an action plan for carers, setting out priorities for a cross-Government programme of work to support them over the next two years.
In the short and medium term, we are taking important steps to ensure we have a stable adult social care sector. We are promoting quality care across the system and supporting the wider networks and services that keep people living independently for longer. It is important to recognise that quality across the adult social care sector remains good overall: the October 2017 state of care report from the Care Quality Commission found that 80% of adult social care settings had been rated good or outstanding. However, it underlined that there are substantial variations in the quality of care depending on where people live. The Department of Health is working with the adult social care sector to implement Quality Matters, a shared commitment to taking action to achieve high-quality, person-centred adult social care. Through our programme of sector-led improvement, we are supporting councils to make savings and improve services by promoting good practice, including new approaches.
Looking beyond social care provision, it is important to highlight the broader support and services that help people to live independently for longer. Well-adapted, specialised housing is becoming increasingly important. The means-tested disabled facilities grant helps with meeting the cost of adapting a property to the needs of a person with a disability or support need. This year’s autumn Budget has provided an additional £42 million for the rest of the 2017-18 financial year, taking funding for this year to £473 million.
Getting social care right means a better system that everyone can have confidence in, in which all people understand their responsibilities, can prepare for the future, and know that the care they receive will be to a high standard and help them maintain their independence and wellbeing. This Government want to take the time to consult and build consensus on a long-term, sustainable settlement for the future, which includes looking at the quality of care being delivered, the funding of the system, and how it will be paid for in the round.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement, but it is a woefully inadequate response to the Opposition day debate we held in this place on Wednesday 25 October and in no way addresses the motion passed by the House.
That motion called on the Government to note
“the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment to a funding proposal for social care which would have no cap on care costs and would include the value of homes in the means test for care at home”,
and we called on the Government not to proceed with their commitment to those proposals. The Minister has today finally confirmed what many of us on the Opposition Benches suspected: they will not be proceeding with their plans to cap care costs by 2020, as legislated for by the House. This a shameful waste of taxpayers’ money. Over £1 million in today’s money was spent on commissioning the Dilnot review, and it was a waste of parliamentary time enacting the cap. It is no good for her to say that the Government are consulting on the cap. They consulted on this during the general election, and their proposals were rejected by the electorate. Meanwhile, very many people are still faced with the catastrophic costs of paying for their care.
The motion also called on the Government
“to remove the threat to withdraw social care funding from, and stop fines on, local authorities for Delayed Transfers of Care”.
During the debate, I talked about how Ministers had previously threatened councils with fines and further funding cuts to social care if targets for cutting delayed transfers of care could not be met—fines for targets that half of social services directors believe to be unrealistic. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have listened to the will of the House and will stop these fines, which merely threaten to make the crisis in social care worse?
The motion also called on the Government
“to commit to the extra funding needed to close the social care funding gap for 2017 and the remaining years of the 2017 Parliament.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 312.]
At no point today has the Minister confirmed how the Government intend to enact the will of the House in meeting the funding gap—and of course, shamefully, there was no mention of social care in the recent Budget. Our social care system remains in a perilous state because of the cuts that this Government have chosen to make. The Care Quality Commission has told us that the social care system still remains at a “tipping point”. Will she now confirm that the Government will enact the will of the House and meet the funding gap?
The Minister in her statement addressed the Government’s decision to include the views of carers in the upcoming Green Paper and their failure to respond to the consultation of 6,500 other carers that has already taken place. As I mentioned in the debate, Katy Styles, a carer and a campaigner for the Motor Neurone Disease Association, contributed to that consultation and hoped that her voice would be heard. She told me:
“Not publishing the National Carers Strategy has made me extremely angry. It sends a message that carers’ lives are unimportant. It sends a message that Government thinks we can carry on as we are. It sends a message that my own time is of little worth.”
Will the Minister give more details on the scope of the carers action plan and reassure those 6,500 carers that their time was not wasted?
The Government announced recently, and the Minister confirmed today, that working-age people with disabilities would be consulted as part of a “parallel” workstream to the Government’s Green Paper consultation. Why a parallel workstream? This is an extremely short-sighted approach to reforming social care, and far from one that looks at the system in the round. Will she give us more details about the parallel workstream for working-age people with disabilities who have social care needs?
It is clear that only a Labour Government can deliver much-needed reform to our social care system. Over the coming months, we will also consult experts on how we can move from the current broken system of care to a sustainable service for the long term. We will look at funding options for social care in the long term, such as a new social care levy, an employer care contribution and wealth taxes. These experts will help to clarify our options for funding our planned national care service, and our approach will be underpinned by the principle of pooled risk, so that no one faces catastrophic care costs, as they do now or as they would have done under the Conservative party’s earlier dementia tax proposals.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with much of what she said, but I will address some of her points.
Fundamentally, we are setting out, as has long been established, how to get a longer-term, sustainable system for funding our social care. It is absolutely clear from our debates during the past year that, as far as the public are concerned, there is a real lack of understanding about how, at present, the cost of care has to be met by the person who requires it. That is what leads to catastrophic care costs, and the dementia tax that she keeps mentioning, and that is exactly what we are going to tackle by having a cap on the overall cost. In doing so, it is very important to take the public with us and to have a fully informed public debate. It does not matter how far we think we have had such a debate in this place when legislating in the past, because it is quite clear that the public do not understand this. [Interruption.] We are only going to get public consent for a long-term solution if we have a public debate that is handled with maturity, and so far we have not seen very much of that.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of carers, and she suggested that carers’ voices are not being heard in this debate. [Interruption.] I say to her that they very much are being heard. [Interruption.] She can sit there and chunter, or she can listen to the answer to the question. It is entirely up to her, but it is rather a waste of my time in coming to this place if I am just going to be talked over. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I say to the Government Whip that I think I can control the Chamber. I thank him for his help, but I have already told him once that he does not need to worry. [Interruption.] Order. The Whip is well aware that he is testing my patience. I do not need any help.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Carers’ voices very much are being heard, and there is no way we can actually tackle the broad picture of how we fund and manage social care need without properly considering the needs of carers. I am very grateful to the 6,500 people who responded to the call for evidence. We have listened to them, and we will consider what they have said in bringing forward the Green Paper. In the meantime, it is very important to pull together exactly what support there is at present and then respond to that, and we will publish our action plan in January.
On working-age adults, the hon. Lady is right to some extent in that there are some common issues in the adult social care system that affect both care for the elderly and care for working-age adults, and those common issues will be considered as part of the Green Paper process. At the same time, however, we are going through massive change in how we deal with people with disabilities. We have the very brave ambition of getting more and more people into work and we are on a journey of getting people with learning disabilities out of long-term residential care and into work in the community, and that brings a separate set of challenges. That work will go on in parallel, but the work on the Green Paper will look at the common issues as well as at the specific area of care for the elderly. I hope that gives her some reassurance. We cannot look at this in a silo—[Interruption.] She says this should all be looked at together, but care for the elderly and care for working-age adults face very distinct challenges, and I do not think we should diminish either constituency by grouping them all together.
On the funding gap, as the hon. Lady is well aware, we have made £9.25 billion available to local authorities to meet their needs over three years. The reality is that if we are to tackle social care in this country so that everyone gets the care they need as they come to the later part of their life, we need to build a longer-term, sustainable funding system. That is why we are taking forward this debate in the Green Paper, and I hope that everyone with an interest in this subject will get involved in that debate, because we can fix this problem in the long term only if we can take the public with us.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS rapidly concluded that it would be impossible to carry out its task without investigating the interrelated nature of social care, and it changed its remit accordingly. The Committee changed the scope of its inquiry because it recognised that we will not see a long-term, sustainable solution unless we address both. I am afraid that a Green Paper that focuses entirely on social care will fail to rise to the challenge. Has the Minister read the Committee’s findings, and as she listens to those she consults at an early stage, will she be prepared, if the advice from them is to consider health and social care together—that has been the advice of all the commissions that have looked at this—to go back to the drawing board and start again by looking at both health and social care?
Jackie Doyle-Price
To reassure my hon. Friend on the terms of reference for the Green Paper, let me say that part and parcel of getting a long-term, sustainable solution very much involves looking at care, and I pointed out in the statement that we need to look at holistic areas of policy to deliver it. Housing is one area, because if we get housing conditions right, we can obviously enable people to live for longer. The whole purpose of having a Green Paper and a debate is to make sure that we consider this issue not in a silo, but holistically, with a person-centred approach.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I very much hope that we will not regularly have an Opposition day debate that is followed, months down the line, by the Government deciding to sneak in a statement on a Thursday morning, but this is perhaps a one-off.
If we are to have a consultation, we should start to look seriously at some of the challenges that we face with an ageing population. The Government currently have their head in the sand when it comes to who will actually look after these people when we restrict freedom of movement. The Government’s antics on social care have been far from the strength and stability that was talked about at the beginning the 2017 election campaign.
I very much welcome what has been said today about the cap, but I want to press the Minister about a point on which there is cross-party consensus in Scotland; in particular, it has the support of the Conservative party. In Scotland, the Scottish Government are extending free personal care to under-65s—under the so-called Frank’s law—on which her colleague Miles Briggs MSP has been working very hard. That will benefit about 9,000 people, but the UK Government have no intention of bringing in such a policy. Will she agree to meet me and colleagues from Scotland to look at this on a cross-party basis?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The whole purpose of a Green Paper is to allow us properly to debate and challenge all options available. I am interested in what has happened in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman says that personal care is met by the Government there, but the lion’s share of costs for the elderly is of course the residential component, which is not met by the Scottish Government. We need to make sure that we are learning from the experience of everybody not only in these four nations, but across the world.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I appreciate the importance the Government attach to adult social care, but the title of this statement is “Social Care” and, as the Minister knows, I have a strong interest in children’s social care. At a time when the number of children coming into care continues to rise, the thresholds for intervention are rising and preventive work is I fear going south. As the number of adoptions has also diminished, will she and the Government reassure me that they attach the same importance to dealing with the challenges faced by children’s social care services up and down the country at the current time?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. If I may, I will suggest to my hon. Friends in the Department for Education that they respond to him on those points.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I say how nice it is to see my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) back in her rightful place on the Front Bench? I endorse what the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), has said to the Minister. Does the Minister regret that the Chancellor failed to mention social care at all in the Budget?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I think we are in danger of getting into a false debate. When I talk about social care, I do not talk about it to the exclusion of health but automatically include it. When people talk about the failure of the Chancellor to mention social care, the reality is that more money was made available to the NHS, which will benefit the social care system.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
In the absence of any provision I may make—Dilnot might have encouraged me to make such provision—is it reasonable for me to expect my social care costs to be paid for by the state while my heirs inherit my substantial housing assets?
Jackie Doyle-Price
In a nutshell, my right hon. Friend has neatly summarised one of the debates we need to have in this area, which is how we can ensure that people obtain care when they need it and have it paid for, while at the same time achieving intergenerational fairness. I hope he engages fully in the debate on the Green Paper when it comes out. That is exactly that kind of thing we need to discuss to inform the public about the challenges and encourage everyone to think about how to plan for their long-term care needs.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The leader of Rochdale Borough Council says that he needs about £20 million to meet growing demands on the adult care service. Given that social care was not mentioned in the Budget, will the Minister give the leader of my council some advice about where to find that £20 million?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As the hon. Lady knows, we have made an additional £9.25 billion available to local authorities, and they are now able to raise more through the social care precept. Some local authorities are very creative and imaginative in how they tackle that need, and we have increased the money available through the disabled facilities grant. That is taking a lot of demand out of the system, not least because it enables people to live independently at home without the need for care support, because of the extent to which it reduces falls. I encourage the hon. Lady to look not just at money, but at what else local authorities can do better.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I welcome the report and the focus on carers and the elderly—that is really important in Somerset. Let us not forget that four out of five social care institutions already offer good and outstanding service. As the Minister said, this is not just about funding; it is also about other measures that can be introduced to help. For example, hospitals such as Musgrove Park in my constituency link up with social care providers. It is doing a great job, and its end-of-life care has recently been rated outstanding.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank my hon. Friend for that point because although, quite rightly, we focus on the challenges and difficulties of this issue, a hell of a lot is going right. As she says, the Care Quality Commission found in its recent “State of Care” report that 80% of institutions were good or outstanding. That is a pretty good deal for a sector that is constantly and publicly criticised.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome the Green Paper, and I hope that we can build cross-party consensus for the long term. However, any change will be years away from that Green Paper. The problems are here and now for local councils, and the Minister simply did not deal with them in her statement. The Local Government Association estimates for next year a funding gap of £2.6 billion on a cross-party basis. The Competition and Markets Authority states that care homes are failing because local authorities do not have the necessary resources to pay the fees. What will the Minister do about that? Where is the money to ensure that an inadequate social care system does not get even worse next year?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I welcome part of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right: one reason we are at this stage is that the absence of long-term security means that some of these issues are crystallising rather more quickly than they ought to. We have made more money available to local authorities, but clearly they, more than any others, are desperate for a solution. It is incumbent on us all to hold a constructive discussion about the solutions to this issue. I am well aware of the challenges. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the CMA report, and it contains a lot that, frankly, did not surprise me. In the new year we will be bringing forward a response that deals with some of the issues raised.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, and I encourage her—as others have done—to engage with the whole House on an issue that so many Members care deeply about. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, it is important to recognise the crises that exist now in certain areas of the country. We must engage for the long-term on a cross-party basis, but also on the crises now, including in my county of Staffordshire.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I do not disagree with much of what my hon. Friend says. Colleagues are talking about a crisis, but local authorities and the care sector have been put under a lot of pressure this year getting ready for winter, and they have stepped up to the plate. I pay tribute to everybody who works in that sector. They work incredibly hard and with real care. The work they do is not putting us in crisis but delivering great care outcomes for many people.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
This is a shocking statement for thousands of families who live in this country with the misery of social care. The Minister referred to the previous Government, but the 2015 Conservative party manifesto was clear about what it was seeking to do, and about introducing a cap on care costs in 2016. A few weeks into office, the Government changed that, and moved the cap forward until 2020. I have written to the Minister about her exchanges in the House on 25 October with the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), during which she inadvertently misled Parliament about the 2020 date and legislation—that was subsequently changed when I went to the Library. The key issue is that this issue is causing silent misery for thousands of people now. I am 53. Will my children be suffering the same level of misery about my care costs in the next 30 years? When will we see the actual date published?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I think we made it clear in the recent general election that we will be revisiting this issue. The hon. Lady wants certainty about how we fund the care system in future, and on what obligations individuals and their families will or will not have. It is therefore important to have that full public debate, and work together to bring forward proposals that will put our long-term care system on a sustainable footing. In the absence of that we will not achieve any resolution, and that is contributing to misery for people who do not currently have a limit on their overall care costs. That is what we are trying to address through this process. [Interruption.] I hear noise from Labour Members about needing cross-party consensus, then I look at the behaviour of those on the Front Bench—lacking.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s pledge to consult more widely about a long-term solution, given the pressures on Torbay due to this issue. One problem is people’s complete lack of understanding about how the current system works with unlimited liability. If we just put in a blunt cap, that will mean little to someone who has worked for their whole life and bought a house in Torbay, yet quite a lot to someone who has a multi-million pound pile in the south-east. We must look carefully at how we do this on a long-term basis.
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend encapsulates the problem in a nutshell. Many people do not understand that care must be paid for by the individual; nobody understands that they have to pay for it for as long as they have to pay for it. That is why we cannot simply implement the previous proposals because people do not understand them. If we are to expect people who are living longer to fund that care, we must take them with us. That is why we need a fully informed public debate, which is what the Green Paper is designed to achieve. I implore all hon. Members to engage with that and to help to inform the public about exactly what our care system is now, and how it can be improved for their long-term security and that of the country.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
After years of confusion for which the Government bear some responsibility, tens of thousands of carers engaged in sleep-ins will at last receive justice on the national minimum wage. However, the costs are formidable to the providers, and thousands—potentially tens of thousands—of individuals on individual care packages could face bankruptcy. Why was there no reference to that immediate and looming crisis, and when will the Government act to avoid what would be a catastrophe for the care sector?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about this issue and he has rightly raised it with me before. I reassure him that the Government are now acting, and we are in close contact with providers to address those issues. It is important to ensure that employers uphold their obligations under minimum wage legislation, and we must not put at risk anybody who is dependent on long-term care—I am satisfied that no one is at risk. We are working in detail with providers to ensure that we get them through this.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
West Sussex has some specific social care issues currently under investigation, and it would be inappropriate for the Minister to comment on those at present. However, I warmly welcome the expert panel. Will the Minister please ensure that it is fully acquainted with the lessons learned on financing from previous scandals, such as that at Orchid View in my constituency?
Jackie Doyle-Price
Absolutely. My hon. Friend mentions the expert panel, and it is important that we take the advice of those who have front-end experience of the sector. As he says, this is not just about money; it is about quality and getting the right blend of packages of support and help. We really need to think about achieving the best possible care for individuals, as well as how that care is paid for.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
A recent Barnardo’s report showed that two thirds of child carers start caring in primary school, some as young as four, with long-term damage to their mental and emotional health. Will the Minister ensure that one of the Government’s primary responsibilities is to tackle the issue of child carers and take them out of a responsibility that we really should not be placing upon them?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank the hon. Lady for those comments. She highlights what is literally the Cinderella in this debate. It is appalling that so many children are acting as carers, stoically and fantastically but, as she says, to their long-term detriment. As a society, we would be failing if we did not do more to support them.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The fact that we need to tackle the challenge of social care has cross-party support and agreement. It was in the manifestos of both main parties. In fact, the Labour party’s manifesto said that it wanted to implement change through “consensus” and that the issue transcended party politics. Would the Minister welcome a cross-party approach, rather than political point scoring?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am very keen to approach this matter through consensus. To be frank, I do not think that we can deliver change without consensus. We have written to all-party groups in the first instance to engage with them. Over the course of the next six months, I hope to engage in conversations and discussions with Members from all parts of the House.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Of course, there is a short-term series of pressures. The Minister has cited the CQC’s state of social care report, which talks about decreasing numbers of beds in nursing homes and contracts being handed back to local authorities because of the acute financial pressure. She has also recognised that there is a longer-term issue that all Members have alluded to—the need to set aside some of the yah-boo party politicking and find a cross-party way forward. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) wrote to the Prime Minister saying, “Let’s have a convention across all the parties on social care reform.” Please will the Minister talk again to the Prime Minister? Let us do that, because it is the only way that we will really crack through this problem.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I welcome the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman makes his comments. It is fair to say that we are hearing exactly the same sort of plea from local authorities, which are at the front end of dealing with this problem. He is absolutely right that we need to separate the short-term pressures from the long term, and we ought to be able to have a more sensible conversation on the long-term pressures. Yes, let us save the politics for the short term and have consensus for the long term.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I missed the beginning of the Minister’s statement—my apologies. I concur totally with what a number of colleagues have said about the issues in the here and now. At the minute, there are significant issues for a lot of councils and a lot of care homes that cannot wait for a few years. The here and now must therefore be the priority.
I have two points to make on that. The first is negative and I would like the Minister to take it back to the Chancellor. I call on the Government to make a public commitment to fund the back-pay bill for sleep-in carers. I do not know how many colleagues know about this issue, but if it is not sorted very soon, a number of very reputable charities and organisations are likely to go bust. On a positive note, I wonder whether the Minister has read the recent BMJ report that indicated how exercise can be a significant miracle cure for older people. May I meet the Minister to share the report with her?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman; I am always looking for solutions. He is absolutely right that if we can look after our own wellbeing—both physical and mental—more effectively, the need for care will diminish. That is another reason why we need to have this public debate. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the hon. Gentleman has mentioned sleep-ins. It is a big issue, but we are working closely with the sector to make sure that we can address it.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I am currently caring for my 80-year-old mum who has dementia and lives on her own many hundreds of miles away from me. I pay tribute to the fantastic support she receives from the Cumbria services—it is excellent and it reassures me, when I am standing here, that she is being looked after.
My experience of door-knocking during the election demonstrated strongly that the public do not understand this issue. Dementia patients in particular are not able to understand how care can be funded. When I spoke to people from the Alzheimer’s Society in Redditch, they welcomed the focus in our manifesto on this difficult issue. Will the Minister also comment on the fact that countries across the world face a similar challenge? This is really not about who is in power or in government; it is a feature of ageing societies. That is why we must look at it in the round.
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend is right. I mentioned that local authorities are very keen for us to find a solution to this problem, but it is the Alzheimer’s lobby that is keener than anyone. At the moment, one in 10 people faces long-term care bills. Therefore, if we are looking at an individual’s risk, making financial provision is not necessarily something that they will do, so we do need a solution. The one in 10 people who face long-term care costs generally do face them as a consequence of dementia and the costs are very significant. That is exactly what we are trying to tackle by introducing a cap on the overall costs. That is why it is important that we all get involved and why the Alzheimer’s lobby is so keen that we establish cross-party consensus.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The fact is that over the past 50 years, our lifestyles have changed significantly. Looking at my family, everybody lives within half a mile of each other, so as we get older it is very easy for the family to pick up caring responsibilities and share them about. I live 300 miles away from them. That is increasingly the pattern. Like her, when I knocked on doors during the election, I saw people in their late 80s whose families were living many miles away. That is something that we have failed to address over decades, and we need to address it now.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Will the Minister update us on the financial stability of the Four Seasons group, which cares for over 17,000 vulnerable residents across the UK?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am aware that there has been considerable press reporting on what is happening with Four Seasons. What I can say is that since Southern Cross, the CQC has been involved in market oversight and in stress testing exactly what is happening. We are satisfied that there is no risk to any of the people who currently experience care through Four Seasons. Beyond that, I cannot say very much because there are obviously commercial issues. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter and I hope I can reassure him that the CQC is very close to what is happening there.
Point of Order
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 13 September, this House unanimously passed a motion to revoke the Higher Education (Higher Amount) (England) Regulations 2016 and the Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2016, which imposed the Government’s latest hike in tuition fees. The Government have refused to give effect to the will of the House, but the Leader of the House promised under her new convention that we would get a statement within 12 weeks.
Late yesterday—the final day of the 12 weeks—we got a written statement. It added almost nothing new and left us none the wiser on the Government’s promised review of higher education funding. It did, however, confirm that the Government will continue to ignore the clear will of this House and our conventions that allow Parliament a say on secondary legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, will you tell us your understanding of the so-called Leadsom convention? A written statement makes it near impossible to question Ministers. Has the Leader of the House given you any indication of when Ministers should or will respond through oral, rather than written, statements to votes of the House? Can you give any guidance on how the House can now have a say on secondary legislation?
The Government are riding roughshod over the democratic will of this House. How can we ensure that this House is respected? [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think we have heard enough today, have we not? Thank you.
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the point of order. She asked quite a few things. The first point is that I have been given no such notice by Ministers.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation made a detailed written statement on the matter yesterday, as the hon. Lady said, following the understanding of the Leader of the House of 26 October. If the hon. Lady finds that unsatisfactory, which obviously she does, there are various avenues open to her, the most immediate of which is Education questions on Monday. I am sure it is already apparent to her that that is a good place to start.
On the operation of the Leader of the House’s new convention, as a senior Front Bencher, the hon. Lady may wish to pursue the matter through the usual channels. I hope that the usual channels will be open to trying to ensure that she gets the answer. If not—I know that she is not a shy, retiring northerner like myself—I am sure that she could go directly to having a meeting with the Leader of the House to take the matter forward.
Backbench Business
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prison Reform and Safety
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Justice Committee’s Twelfth and Fourteenth Reports of Session 2016-17, on Prison reform and the Government Responses to them; notes with concern the continuing crisis in prisons in England and Wales, with an historically high prison population and unacceptably high levels of violence, drug availability and use, disturbances and self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in the adult and youth custodial estate; further notes the critical reports by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons on individual establishments and thematic issues; welcomes the Government’s intention to proceed with a programme of prison reform and to produce a prison safety and reform action plan as recommended by the Committee, and the publication of performance data on each prison from 26 October 2017; regrets the fact that the Government does not intend to bring forward legislation to establish a statutory purpose for prisons, enhance the powers of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, and place the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) and the UK’s National Preventive Mechanism on a statutory basis; further regrets the Government’s rejection of the Committee’s recommendation that it should report at six-monthly intervals on the impact of governor empowerment on complaints made to the PPO and Independent Monitoring Boards; and calls on the Government to ensure that information on prison performance and safety is published regularly, and with sufficient detail and timeliness to enable the effective scrutiny of the management of prisons by the Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service.
Let me begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important topic. I thank the co-sponsor of the motion, the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), and other members of the Justice Committee from both sides of the House who have contributed to our work over the last two years or more, both in this Parliament and in the previous one. I thank the many organisations involved in prison reform and other prison issues that have assisted us with their advice and experience. I also thank officials in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, and many prison officers across the country, for their co-operation. They all deserve our thanks.
Robert Neill
I will, but I hope that the hon. Lady will bear in mind that I should like to make a bit of progress.
Mrs Moon
Did the hon. Gentleman visit Parc prison during the Committee’s investigation? Its fantastic work with Invisible Walls Wales is making a huge difference to people’s attitudes to prison, as it shows that prison can change the lives of prisoners and their families, and prevent reoffending.
Robert Neill
We regularly visit a number of prisons. We are indeed aware of the very good work done at Parc, and we will continue our visits.
Let me explain why we tabled the motion and did so in these terms. We cannot avoid the reality that our prison system has reached a stage at which we have to use the phrase “a crisis”. I do not do so lightly. More than 30 years’ experience of practising criminal law and visiting prisons to advise prisoners, and subsequently, since coming to the House, working with the criminal justice sector, have led me inevitably to the conclusion that the system is under unprecedented strain.
I do not for one second doubt the good intentions of the Minister or his predecessors, the Secretary of State or his predecessors, or the management of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. I also acknowledge the good work that we see carried out by many individual members of that service as we travel around the country. However, the fact is that despite the extra money that has been invested in the system over the past year or so following one of our reports, and despite all that good work, all the indicators were going in the wrong direction at the time of our two reports—one on prison safety and one on governor empowerment and reform, which were produced in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Sessions respectively—and they are still going in the wrong direction.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—
Norman Lamb
Not yet, although the hon. Gentleman clearly deserves it. I am grateful to him for giving way.
I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is not the truth that we simply incarcerate too many people, particularly people with mental health problems? A staggering percentage of people in Britain have mental health problems, learning disabilities or autism. Should we not be investing more in keeping people out of prison and ensuring that they receive the treatment that they need to help them to avoid the criminal justice system in the longer run?
Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point—I agree with him. Although the two reports that gave rise to the debate do not touch on this directly, he may be pleased to know that our Committee has agreed to embark on an inquiry in which we shall examine projections for the prison population up to 2025. The issue that he raises will prove to be a particularly important aspect of that inquiry.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that literacy levels among prisoners are a problem? I understand that more than 30% of people in prison have the reading age of an 11-year-old. Does not that issue really need to be addressed?
Robert Neill
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The former Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), rightly drew attention to that on a number of occasions. If we do not turn our prisons into places of education, we will be failing, and we will continue to see reoffending. Part of the problem is the low attainment of people when they arrive in prisons, which is often linked with issues such as social deprivation, a lack of proper parenting and unstable family backgrounds. A particularly high percentage of prisoners have been in care. Low educational attainment is a real problem, and it needs to be tackled.
One of the problems that we have found is that because of other pressures on the system, many establishments are running regimes that are so restricted that it is virtually impossible for prisoners—even those who are well motivated and wish to do so—to gain access to some of the educational facilities that ought to be available. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend (Sir Greg Knight) for that important point.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that prison can offer people a second chance to gain access to education and to find the right track? Charities such as Greener Growth, which works in Norfolk prisons in particular, and with which I work in my constituency, help people to understand and connect with the environment, and to learn about food and nutrition, as well as many of the other basics in life that most of us take for granted.
Robert Neill
That is absolutely true. I and the Committee recognise the very good work that is being done. What we must do, however, is to ensure that we have a programme of prison reform that genuinely enables us to draw that good work together, and establishes a comprehensive and holistic strategy. For example, the good that is done by many people on existing programmes ought to be reinforced by a more imaginative use of release on temporary licence, but sadly there has been a decrease of some 40% in the use of such release over the last couple of decades. That is one of the indicators that are going in the wrong direction.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
If we could engage many more outside bodies—local authorities and experts on health and education, for instance, and indeed experts on the environment such as the Wildlife Trust, all of which run many good programmes on rehabilitation—we could not only save money by setting up the right framework, but benefit offenders, as the courses would give them skills and make them feel confident about going into the outside world.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is right. I cannot do better than quote a 19th-century prison reformer, Thomas Mott Osborne, a former politician who is described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath as having “turned to good works”. That might seem to be a tautology. Osborne became immersed in the prison system, becoming a prison reform commissioner in New York just before the first world war. He said:
“Not until we think of our prisons as in reality educational institutions shall we come within sight of a successful system; and by a successful system I mean, one that not only ensures a quiet, orderly, well-behaved prison but has genuine life in it— one that restores to society the largest number of intelligent, forceful, honest citizens.”
He was right then, and I think that what he said rings true now as well.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I was recently very glad to speak to a group of sixth-formers who were doing modern studies. They asked me about prisons, and I said that at the first opportunity I would raise the subject on the Floor of the House and ask one of their questions. Given that my hon. Friend is so well versed in the subject, I will ask him this question: “Do you think that the support on offer to those prisoners who suffer mental health disorders is effective?”
Robert Neill
All the evidence that our Committee has seen so far suggests that it is not effective. Far too many people in prison suffer from mental health difficulties. David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, rightly emphasised that in a speech that he made back in 2015.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend clearly remembers it vividly.
The point was well made. There are some people whom we will always have to imprison, because they deserve to go to prison, and I saw enough of them during my career as a barrister practising criminal law. However, many others are in prison due to far more complex reasons, such as bad choices, lack of support, lack of background, poor education and mental health issues. We need to be much more discerning, and that means that we need a much more sophisticated approach to our penal policy. We need to introduce genuinely robust alternatives to custody, in the right cases, for those who do not pose a threat and a danger to the public, and who can be reformed without their going to prison. That is critical. We have not yet achieved that. The objective must be not only that the public have confidence in sentences, but that we have proper systems for the rehabilitation of those who are incarcerated. However, as almost everyone will be released at some point, we must make sure we release them in a better state in which they can contribute to society than at present.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises the importance of education and rehabilitation, but may I add to that the critical aspect of access to family? May I also commend to him the report on mental health in prisons by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the work that we did in particular to look at the risks to young people and offenders with mental health problems? Such people were not always guaranteed access to family support at critical times when they were self-harming or at risk of suicide?
Robert Neill
That is a good point. I know that other Members are likely to take up such issues in our debate.
While we welcome a number of the initiatives the Government have implemented, more still needs to be done. We particularly regret the loss of the prison element of the Prisons and Courts Bill from the last Parliament, because implementing that statutory purpose, which would have covered rehabilitation for prisoners, would have been an important umbrella under which to link the good work that is done. It is good news that we have a proper prison reform and safety plan, but it needs to be put into a full context. We need positive actions, not just the good aspirations that are set out.
It is essential that there is a genuinely independent and robust inspectorate, so it is regrettable that we have so far lost the opportunity to place on a statutory basis not just the chief inspector of prisons, but the whole inspectorate as an institution, and to strengthen the requirement for his recommendations to be complied with. It is scandalous that at present only a minority of his recommendations in some cases are taken up. That needs to change. It is also regrettable that the prisons and probation ombudsman has not yet been placed on a statutory basis. I hope we will find a legislative opportunity to do so. I believe that that is what the Minister wants to do, but we must not lose it from the agenda.
Our present indicators on safety in relation to self-harm, suicides, prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and assaults on staff continue to go in the wrong direction. More prison officers have been put in, but we must look in the round, too, at how many people we are sending to prison and why, and what sort of regimes are in place.
We have heard reference to an action plan on prison safety and reform, and what we hope to see are specific strategies on employment, mental health, women in prison, and the retention and recruitment of officers, because keeping experienced officers is particularly important. We need a proper robust inspection mechanism under which the inspectorate, which includes excellent people, has genuine teeth to do what is necessary. We also need more transparency, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) will talk about transparency and data.
It is not acceptable that of the 29 local prisons and training prisons inspected this year, 21 were judged to be poor or not sufficiently good. I know that the Minister agrees that we have to turn that around, but all too often I have found a culture of defensiveness among some of the senior management in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. We must use the changes that have been made to the structure of the service to refresh that culture at every level. That is a most pressing matter. Great work is done further down, but all too often prison officers and governors have said to us that they feel cut out from what can still be too hierarchical a chain of command. That needs to change.
Prison reform was rightly described by David Cameron as a “great progressive cause”, and so it should be, for politicians on both sides of the political divide. Let me end with this thought. A former Home Secretary who became Prime Minister said that one of the purposes of prison was to seek the treasure in the heart of every man. That was said by Winston Churchill in 1910. I say to the current Prime Minister that, as she has had the same career trajectory, such a phrase would fit very well with her desire to tackle burning injustices in society. Some of the injustices and challenges are as acute in our prisons as anywhere else. This is a great cause, and we hope that we will have some more specific responses from the Minister to our reports, and a further indication of the direction of travel. Above all, I hope the House will not let this issue slide down the agenda.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I should say that there is a time limit on speeches of five minutes.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Starting from now, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is a particularly hard-hitting motion; it does not draw back from the challenges the Prison Service faces. It is important that today Select Committee members focus on specific issues and ask the Minister for the Government’s response to the major challenges, and we will do that. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the very good Chair of the Justice Committee, said, the situation is deteriorating; the problems in prisons are getting worse.
While staff are doing an excellent job and trying their best in difficult circumstances, there have been 300 deaths in prison custody in the past 12 months, of which 77 were self-inflicted deaths. Self-harm has reached a record high and increased by 12% over that period, and the number of incidents requiring hospital attendance rose by 9%. Meanwhile, prisoner-on-prisoner assaults have risen to record highs, and the numbers of assaults on staff and of hospital admissions continue to rise, so there is a real challenge in the system.
I contend that there is a challenge because of reductions in resources and staff numbers, but there is also a challenge because of an increase in the amount of psychoactive substances and drugs getting into prison. It is a difficult job and a challenge to tackle, but if we do not get the basics right in our prison system, the aims of reform, rehabilitation and turning positive individuals back into society will be hampered.
Norman Lamb
Over the past year, people in prison have taken their own lives at the rate of one every three days. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the prison services should set a zero-suicide ambition, that we should be seeking to save every life and that it is intolerable that so many people are losing their lives in the prison system?
David Hanson
Absolutely. The threat assessment and self-harm assessment are extremely important, but this requires staffing, so a watch can be kept on individuals and they can be supported through what are often challenging mental health problems, particularly in the first few days and weeks of incarceration, when people are coming off alcohol and drugs, or are arriving in prison with severe mental health challenges.
We must tackle these issues in a positive way. One of the Minister’s challenges is to ensure that we undertake a review of the strategy, particularly on psychoactive substances and drugs. The Government have said that they have rolled out new tests for psychoactive substances across the estate; can the Minister tell us how many have taken place and their outcome? The Government have said that they have trained more than 300 dogs to detect these substances; does every prison have access to those dogs, and do those dogs ensure we catch substances that are smuggled in? The Government have said they are making smuggling psychoactive substances into prisons and possession of them criminal offences; I want us to monitor how we enforce that legislation.
The Minister must look at introducing planned searches of prisoners in prisons. He must also look at whether there should be searches of prison officers and delivery staff. I spoke this week to prison officers who said they would welcome that because they want to weed out corruption among staff. I want the Minister to tell us how that will be undertaken generally. I also want the Minister to take further steps to ensure that all category C prisons have netting around them, to stop people throwing drugs and other things into prisons.
I want to see the re-establishment of the dog units, not just as the regionalised resource that they are now, but as a resource that can be allocated locally.
We must look at the criminal gangs inside and outside prisons who are making money out of the delivery of drugs into prisons by many means. What I do not get from the Government is what their overall strategy is, and I think that feeling is shared by external agencies such as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. I see a number of individual measures, but I do not get the overall strategy. Will the Minister also tell me what is happening with reform prisons? We had a report this week about Holme House prison, which showed that every indicator was going in the wrong direction. It showed more drug use, more self-harm and more attacks on staff—and that is in a reform prison. We need to know who is accountable for that, and what plans are in place to drive improvements in that prison.
Time is extremely pressing, so I shall just ask the Minister one more question. When the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), appeared before the Justice Committee recently, I asked whether the Oakhill training centre was now performing to a contractual level with which he was satisfied, and he replied, “Currently, they are.” Since that discussion, a report on Oakhill has shown that, yet again, that establishment is not performing to the required standard. Will the Minister tell me what concrete steps are being taken to improve performance at Oakhill? If the improvements that have been set out are not made, will he seek to remove the contract from G4S, as has happened elsewhere?
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), and indeed to work with them on the Justice Committee. I apologise to the House that I will not be here for the wind-ups. I have already apologised to the Minister and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might be here in body at the moment, but my heart is currently in court 47 of the High Court, where my district council and our brilliant campaigning group are bringing a judicial review against our clinical commissioning group for its failure to consult us properly on changes to our local hospital. I will be whizzing along there immediately after I have spoken today. Nothing else could stop me talking about prisons, as colleagues in the House well know.
I realised during my time in the judicial review yesterday how much I, as a former civil servant, cared about evidence and good government. That is why I shall focus on the importance of data provision today. I am disappointed that the Prisons and Courts Bill did not make it into this parliamentary Session, but I accept that many of the changes envisaged by the Minister do not require legislation and can be taken forward in other ways. However, those changes must be driven by reliable performance data. During my two and a half years on the Justice Committee, we have asked successive Ministers for up-to-date information on prison safety indicators such as incidents of disorder, staffing levels and activity levels, including the number of hours each day prisoners spend locked in their cells. Our efforts have resulted in better-quality data on recruitment and retention, but we have struggled to scrutinise the Government’s efforts to improve the overall situation because we have not received all the information we need.
The Secretary of State delivered welcome news when he appeared in front of the Committee in October and told us about the justice data hub, which went live the following day. I encourage hon. Members to look up the data hub on the Ministry of Justice website—though possibly not during the debate. It holds information ranging from prisoners’ perceptions of safety to accredited programme completions and deaths in custody. I am far from techie myself, but I have tried the hub out and found it quite easy to use. It is definitely a step in the right direction, but much of the information on it is based on annual statistical releases. If we are truly committed to reform in our prisons, we need more data that really drills down on specifics. We need to know how much time prisoners are spending locked in their cells on a daily basis, and to be able to work out whether the funding given to the most under-pressure prisons has actually had an impact.
I am in regular contact with Ian Blakeman, the governor of HMP Bullingdon in my constituency. He was very understanding when I had to postpone our meeting, which had been scheduled for this afternoon, so that I could speak in this debate. The prison recently underwent an inspection and areas of improvement were identified, but without comparative performance data and without knowing where he stands in comparison to other prisons, it is difficult for the governor to feel genuinely empowered to achieve the better outcomes we are all looking for.
We must also know more about what our prisoners are doing once they have completed their sentences. The online hub tells us how prepared prisoners feel on release, but nothing more about those who find housing or employment after they have left prison. We know that there are some fantastic organisations working hard to prepare prisoners for their release, including the Clink restaurant and the Langley House Trust, which provides specialist housing, programmes and support services in the community for people seeking to live crime-free. Just 2.6% of people in the trust’s housing are reconvicted, which is one of the lowest rates in the country.
Ms Buck
The borough of Westminster has the highest incidence of rough sleeping in the country. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that those involved in Westminster Council’s rough sleeping strategy have found that one in three rough sleepers have been released from prison? We have to make finding a stable and secure home central to the issue of prisoner release.
Victoria Prentis
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. Housing is absolutely key to the proper rehabilitation of offenders. I do not think I would be breaching any confidences by saying that the Justice Committee will be working with other Select Committees to ensure that we fully cover the issues relating to housing in the coming parliamentary Session.
The Kainos Community transforms lives through the Challenge to Change programme, which includes post-release mentoring. To break the cycle of reoffending, we must have more data to target projects like these where they are most needed and most effective. Becoming a data-driven Department is a laudable ambition, but it is vital that the statistics we are given do more than scratch the surface. Prison management and the provision of safe and decent prison conditions that promote rehabilitation are complex tasks. They must be well grounded in evidence. Finding solutions to the problems our prisons are facing requires us to delve much deeper than we have yet done. In conclusion, off I go to court to deal with the way in which good government is run, but I ask all hon. Members to remember that, when considering prisons, data really matters.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It gives me great pleasure, as a newly elected member of the Justice Committee, to speak in today’s debate. Last Thursday, members of the Committee visited HMP Rochester. Rochester holds 740 prisoners and conditions in that Victorian prison have been described as deplorable by the independent monitoring board. In March 2017, the Government announced that the prison would be closed and replaced, but in October 2017 that was put on hold. Many of the facilities at HMP Rochester are in a state of disrepair. For instance, the classroom in which rehabilitation lessons take place has a leaking roof.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
On that point, and the point made a few moments ago about data, it is extremely important to have adequate data if we are to provide education and training. The Prisoners Education Trust and the Ministry of Justice have both reported that reoffending goes down by an average of five percentage points if education can be provided.
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree that education is absolutely at the heart of the rehabilitation of offenders.
At Rochester, when it rains, lessons have to be cancelled because the roof leaks. These issues have to be addressed urgently if we are to reform our prisons and improve standards. Visiting cells there, we saw prisoners in cramped and unsanitary conditions. One cell that housed three men had a toilet that was screened by little more than plastic sheeting and had no toilet lid. In addition, the perimeter fence is low and not comprehensively covered by CCTV. This has led to drugs, particularly Spice and other psychoactive substances, frequently being thrown over the fence, with 47 drug-related incidents recorded in just one week. We were told it would cost £300,000 to install a fit-for-purpose CCTV system and that the benefits would be immeasurable. We also visited the drug rehabilitation wing, but the 12-step rehabilitation programme had to stop when the prison received its now rescinded closure notice. These are the conditions that the governor and staff at HMP Rochester are battling daily and I commend them for their work.
One of the key factors in rehabilitation and safety in our prisons is the prison population. It has been fluctuating around the 85,000 mark for nearly a decade and as of this month stands at 86,000. The Government have been asked repeatedly why the numbers continue to grow, and their answers usually follow the template that more people are convicted of sex-related offences and are serving longer sentences. Although that may be the case in part, we must also look at the wider picture to understand fully why our prison population continues to rise. We cannot look at offences and sentence length alone to answer this question.
Long-term cuts to mental health services, addiction support and housing have all played a part and had an impact on our prison population through reoffending rates. The Ministry of Justice’s latest figures show that 29.6% of offenders in the October to December 2015 cohort reoffended within a year. Cuts mean less support when these individuals require more than most. The Howard League’s “No Fixed Abode” study from 2016 estimated that a third of released prisoners have no accommodation to go to on leaving prison. The Combined Homelessness and Information Network’s annual report on rough sleeping in London showed that 33% of people seen sleeping rough had some experience of being in prison. Let me repeat that: a third of all prisoners are likely to be homeless on release.
Jo Churchill
Does the hon. Lady agree that that relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) about not being able to keep the data? It is well known that health outcomes for those who sleep rough are less good, and we find ourselves with a never-ending cycle of people bouncing between the street and prison, and in and out of the system, with little care and attention to find, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, the treasure in man’s soul.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. One issue that has been raised with us is that people are imprisoned for short sentences of two or three months, and during that time there is no chance of any rehabilitation. We need to look more closely at community-based sentencing, so that people can get rehabilitation and come out of the cycle of prison and homelessness. That is an important point.
To reduce reoffending rates, we need to stop the spiral of prison services being eviscerated, leaving inmates with little help in their rehabilitation work. It is a commonly held view across the House that prison is not there merely to punish offenders, protect society and act a deterrent; it must also exist to rehabilitate and re-educate. Those aims can ultimately reduce the risk of reoffending by providing services to inmates that will provide them with the necessary skills that mean that on their release from prison they will be best equipped to fit back into society and mitigate their chances of falling into a cycle of criminal behaviour.
When prisoners are incarcerated, the state is responsible for their wellbeing. We must not view this responsibility lightly; if we are to reduce crime and, in turn, our prisoner population, we must fix the wider problem pieces of this complex jigsaw. Departmental figures released last Friday show that our prison system is operating at close to maximum capacity. This is not sustainable and it is not a simple case of longer sentences for more serious crimes. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that the system in which these prisoners are treated is comprehensive in its ability to provide rehabilitation; only then will we see our prison population decline.
In conclusion, it is clear that multiple things must be addressed for us to secure decent and sustainable prison reforms and to ensure that the prison population is manageable and kept at a safe level. I have been able to draw attention to only a small number of concerns, and I hope Members will touch on other issues. Until the prison population is under control, I fear that reform and safety standards will suffer. Three people to a room in a Victorian-era prison with limited sanitation, derelict and dilapidated amenities, little or no rehabilitation work, and an uncertain future for “imprisonment for public protection” prisoners both inside and outside prison; this is not where we should be in a 21st-century justice system.
We have by no means the worst prison services in the world, but we could and should do better. I look forward to furthering those aims with my fellow Committee members in due course.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I have three questions for the Minister. First, he has heard our concerns about the quality of the ageing estate and the living conditions of prisoners. What is he going to do about it? My second question relates to the status of the Government’s closure plans and the plans to update and replace our ageing prisons. What is he going to do about it? My third is about the impact of the uncertainty over closures on what the prisons are trying to do to update and improve their facilities.
To deal with my first question, the Minister will have seen, as we have, responses from the chief inspector of prisons. The Minister has heard from Members today that in many prisons they have seen the showers and lavatory facilities are filthy and dilapidated, and there are no credible or affordable plans for refurbishment. In a report published only a couple of months ago, the chief inspector of prisons said:
“prisoners are held in conditions that fall short of what most members of the public would consider as reasonable or decent”.
My question on what the Government are doing to address that is therefore very relevant.
On my second question, the Minister himself said only a couple of months ago that although his first priority is to ensure public protection and provide accommodation for all those sentenced by the courts, the commitment to close old prisons remains a viable option with which he wishes to continue. I would like to hear some detail about what is happening with that programme. The prison estate transformation programme reconfigured the estate into three functions looking after reception, training and resettlement, and those three are crucial to the better treatment of prisoners. The Ministry was also given £1.3 billion in 2015 as part of the spending review to invest over the next five years to transform the prison estates. What exactly is happening to that, what progress is being made and how is it being dealt with?
As for my third question, on the impact of the uncertainty about closure on prison performance and staff morale, I would echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) about the visit to Rochester prison. I was unable to go on that visit myself, but it is crucial that the lessons from it are learned. One lesson was, as governors told the Committee, that the decision about investing in maintenance or improving the facilities had not gone ahead since the announcement that the prison would close. As we have heard, the old 1840s prison buildings there are described as “deplorable” and “deteriorating”. That has an impact on recruitment, which had been frozen in Rochester, and it proves demoralising to staff.
I think that those three questions are the most pertinent.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Rochester issue. He might like to know that we found on one wing that some 22 showers had been out of operation for months. When we spoke to people there, they said that the nub of the problem was that the facilities management contractors do not see the governors as their client. They see their client relationship being with MOJ’s commercial arm. That needs to be got right, because it means that the efforts of governors get nowhere—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can I be honest? We need shorter interventions. The hon. Gentleman was hoping to get two minutes at the end of the debate; he is eating into those two minutes, and he will understand if he does not get them.
John Howell
I fully accept the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), which goes back to what I said about the prison having given up on trying to invest any money in refurbishment or in replacing its ageing facilities. I have already quoted the chief inspector of prisons, who said that the shower and lavatory facilities in many prisons are filthy and dilapidated.
What will the Government do to address our concerns about the quality of the ageing estate? What are they doing about the current programme of reform and estate modernisation? What impact is the uncertainty about closures having both on the prisons themselves and on the lives of prisoners? Those are the three most relevant questions.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The English prison system is in crisis. It is failing inmates, prison officers and, fundamentally, society, as the hard-hitting motion tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) makes clear. Building more prison places will not solve the problem. The prison population tends to expand to fill the places available, often even before the places are built.
As the Howard League puts it,
“trying to deal with only the supply of prison resources and prison places will not work. We now need to manage demand and, in the process, ask some fundamental questions about who we send to prison and why.”
It is therefore surprising that the UK Government are pursuing a strategy of building an industrial-scale prison complex in my nation.
With that in mind, I will focus on the UK Government’s decision to outsource the crisis in the English prison system to Wales, rather than fix it. On 27 February 2017, the Ministry of Justice opened the biggest prison in Europe in north Wales—HMP Berwyn. Once fully operational, the prison will have the capacity to hold more than 2,100 male prisoners. I am sure it will not be a revelation to many in this House that piling a few thousand prisoners into a small corner of north Wales is not expected to be conducive to rehabilitation. Whether it is the left-leaning Howard League or the Centre for Social Justice founded by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), there is agreement that these prisons do not rehabilitate.
Even more galling, HMP Berwyn will not meet the demands of the nation in which it is being built. HMP Berwyn alone will have 800 more places than there are inmates in Wales. In March 2017, the UK Government announced plans to build a new super-prison in Baglan, Port Talbot. Yet again, this prison is not being built for our needs. It will be for 1,600 inmates shipped into Port Talbot. A person does not need a Fields medal to work out that adding the 800 surplus places at Berwyn to the 1,600 surplus places at the proposed Baglan prison would mean 2,400 more places than are required in Wales.
The truth of the matter is that Wales is England’s affordable penal colony. Westminster is turning old south Wales into a homage to 19th-century New South Wales. Those are not my words but the comments of Frances Crook, the chief executive officer of the Howard League. Ms Crook went as far as to draw a parallel between the infamous Botany Bay penal colony and Wales—a rather extreme but, none the less, fitting analogy.
Plaid Cymru has always been against the building of these monstrous prisons in Wales. Currently, however, the plans are being taken ahead with the Labour Welsh Government’s blessing. In fact, the Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff could stop the development if they so decided, because the proposed Baglan prison would be built on Welsh Government land, if only they would, for once, put the interests and requirements of Wales first.
Wales does not want or need another super-prison, much as it did not need the first. Because of the lack of distinct legal jurisdiction, Westminster can still impose prisons on Wales. Northern Ireland and Scotland are off limits thanks to their more generous devolution settlements, but not my country. The existing prison estate in Wales is far from perfect, but we need Welsh solutions to Welsh problems.
Welsh young offenders and women offenders are being sent over the border to England, a damning indictment of the policy currently applied to Wales. Devolution of the prison estate and the criminal justice system must be a priority for the sake of offenders, taxpayers and the communities afflicted by the UK Government’s super-prison policies.
Piling thousands of prisoners on top of each other in these titan prisons is not conducive to rehabilitation or safety, be it for those detained or for those doing the detaining. Relying on some modern-day digital panopticon for the safety and operation of our prisons is neither sensible nor appropriate. All the evidence shows that smaller, more human prisons that do not put economies of scale ahead of outcomes are what our prison estates need.
I close with a plea to the UK and Welsh Governments: listen to the 9,000 signatories to the petition against the Port Talbot prison; listen to the experts from every inch of the political spectrum who advise against these behemoth prisons; listen to the former inmates; listen to the residents; and listen to Wales. We will not become England’s penal colony.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
There are three issues that could promote the progress of effective prison reform, all of which relate to improving prisoners’ contact with their families. As time is short, I will summarise those issues at the outset. First, there is a need to consider the appointment of a deputy director for families, mirroring the staffing priority given to drugs and violence in prisons. Secondly, there is a need to speed up the long-awaited policy announcement on the revised procedures for release on temporary licence. Thirdly, could Skype and other innovative face-to-face digital platforms be used to strengthen prisoners’ family ties?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for successfully championing the importance of good-quality family contact to prisoners and their rehabilitation when he was Prisons Minister. His leadership paved the way for the excellent Farmer review.
The need to replicate the good practice that exists across the prison estate in supporting prisoners’ family ties and to address inconsistencies in that area was one of the key messages of the Farmer review, “The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime,” published earlier this year. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) for his wholehearted commitment to implementing in full every one of the Farmer review’s 21 recommendations.
Another reason for the Farmer review so successfully gaining traction in government is that senior officials are personally committed to the families agenda, often because they have been No. 1 governors in prisons and have seen at first hand the difference made by good family contact. However, this important agenda cannot be dependent on an individual official’s conviction that it matters. Civil servants move on.
Indeed, Paul Baker, the most senior official working on the implementation of the Farmer review, is leaving at the end of the year. I pause here to acknowledge the decades of excellent service he has given to our Prison Service, his dogged pursuit of reform and his championing of prisoners’ families, who are among the most neglected and stigmatised people in this country.
Mr Baker currently heads that work alongside his responsibilities as deputy director of custody for London and Thames Valley, a large group of prisons. In other words, the families agenda is tagged on to a very demanding existing work load. Does the Minister agree that now would be the ideal time to give this agenda the same priority within the management structure of the prisons system as drugs and violence, each of which has a dedicated deputy director? If the importance of family and other relationships is to be the golden thread running through our prisons, we need senior staff who are mandated to keep the issue salient until it is embedded in the estate as firmly as action to combat drugs and violence. Indeed, family involvement drives improvements in those other areas.
Will the Minister kindly look at speeding up the development and announcement of the release on temporary licence policy? ROTL allows for the temporary release of prisoners, where it is safe to do so, to undertake purposeful activities that will benefit their resettlement, including rebuilding closer ties with their family. If men undertake parenting and other family learning courses, such as on how to be a responsible father, open conditions such as ROTL give them the opportunity to put theory into practice.
Exceptional negative incidents will always be reported, but the evidence showing high rates of compliance with ROTL terms and a consequential reduction in reoffending rates is positive. For example, an offender could attend parent-teacher evenings, as well as case conferences to discuss their child protection and care proceedings. This also helps families adjust to having the person around more. Many prisoners begin to feel less legitimate as a parent, which makes it difficult to build rounded relationships with their child, and ROTL would help boost their confidence as a parent. Indicators suggest that all forms of ROTL have fallen significantly since 2013. Governors have been waiting for guidance on this for more than a year and do need it now.
Finally, may I ask the Minister whether Skype or other face-to-face platforms could be used to aid prisoners’ family contact time, enabling digital visits to homes to see their family members in that context?
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I apologise to the House and to the Minister if I cannot be here for the wind-ups. I also commend the diligence of the Justice Committee for bringing this debate forward, as it is incredibly important that the House has a chance to focus on this issue of safety and reform. Lots of organisations in the wider community are also campaigning on these areas, and I particularly want to draw the House’s attention to the work of the Community trade union, the largest trade union in the private prisons sector. It has a strong set of recommendations and campaigns for a safer justice sector. I urge the Minister to look at the work Community is doing and its important recommendations. That would add to this issue.
I simply want to talk about Her Majesty’s prison Nottingham, which is in my constituency, where recently we have sadly seen very difficult pressures starting to grow. We have had five deaths in custody since the summer, some of which have been suicide and on some of which we have not yet had the coroner’s report and recommendations. It is therefore still early days in terms of knowing whether there is a common pattern of events in these cases. I have met the governor, Tom Wheatley, and spoken with the diligent independent monitoring board—these are volunteers who go in every week to check out things such as safety in the prison.
The biggest problem in the prison is the cycle of drugs and smuggling, be it of Spice or mamba, to which many hon. Members have alluded. How these drugs are getting into the prison has to get national attention. Sometimes they are thrown over prison walls, but more often than not—it is difficult to be fully certain—there is a smuggling process whereby prisoners secrete drugs upon their person to bring them into jail. Some inmates are finding themselves affected by those psychoactive substances, but in a way it is just as bad that gang operations are going on within the prisons, as they are putting pressures on some offenders who go out on licence, halfway through their sentence. Incredibly, people are almost driven to reoffend, deliberately to break their licence, so that they can go back into prison in order to smuggle more drugs back in. It is an astonishing idea that in the 21st century there is reoffending as a way of making a living, but some prisoners are in that cycle.
I urge the Minister to think creatively about how to break that problem. There is a question of resources involved. A ridiculous number of experienced officers have been taken out in recent years. I know that things are stabilising now and that new officers are being recruited, but that experienced officer set is what we need to retain to ensure the situation does not get any worse.
I encourage the Minister to think about ways of breaking that cycle of people reoffending on licence, perhaps by getting the courts to randomise which prisons reoffenders are returned to. That might stop this notion that the prisoner breaking their licence knows they will be going back into a certain prison, such as Nottingham. If we can break that, we might be able to deal with this issue. I know that there are networks across other prisons, which are difficult to break, but we need creative solutions. It is important that the designated keyworker programme that has started in Nottingham is extended so that officers can get to know inmates a little more effectively. It is not just those on vulnerable watch who, sadly, we have seen taking their own lives. That is an important programme to be continued.
Also on communications, we need to make sure we regularise access to telephone calls for prisoners, because there is a smuggling problem in respect of mobile phones, too. If we got into a situation where we had regularised phone calls and access to approved family members, some of the pressures and strains on inmates could be lessened. We need creative solutions. Resources are part of this, but it is not just about them, which is why I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Committee, for securing this important debate for the House to pay attention to today.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), who talked about his experiences of his local prison, and I am pleased to be part of today’s debate. I believe there is general consensus in the Chamber about the fact that our prison system is not perfect, but I acknowledge that the Government have an ambitious programme for reform that will benefit not only offenders, but communities across the country. In particular, I welcome the 2,500 new prison officers who will be appointed and the provision of 5,600 body cameras, not just for prison officers, but for the police—that issue has been raised with me in particular.
I wish to focus my speech on gardening and the environment in the prison system, and I make no excuses for that, because it has a lot of potential to be helpful. We know that imprisoning somebody does not in itself reduce reoffending rates. As a number of Members have said, to do that we must try to give these people skills to increase their employability chances and help them to reintegrate back into the community. That is where environmental and gardening schemes can really help. As I have said before in the Chamber, many prisons are old and outdated, with little green space. There is definite data to show that when people are not in contact with green space and nature, it has a real impact on their mental health. I want to talk about a couple of good schemes that can show how this is useful.
The Eden Project has teamed up with Dartmoor prison to transform a disused exercise yard into a gardening project within the resettlement unit, from which local residents can buy vegetables, flowers and eggs. Such schemes are starting to crop up in many prisons across the country. When I was a television reporter, I went to Leyhill prison, near Bristol, which had a fabulous gardening project. It had state-of-the-art greenhouses and its gardening projects won gold medals at Chelsea. Lots of those projects need to be either reinstated—some have dropped away—or regenerated. The Conservation Foundation is about to start a “Gardening against the odds” project in Wandsworth prison. The project will extend across three exercise yards that are currently just tarmac, and will bring together prisoners, staff, members of the community, leading horticulturists and environmentalists.
Such schemes can stimulate mental and physical health. As I said, they also teach skills and disciplines that can improve employability. I recently met the British Association of Landscape Industries, which represents a £6 billion industry that is crying out for people to work for it, so there are opportunities if we can skill people up in these areas before they get back into the working world. Lots of these projects are not costly—they are cost-effective and highly beneficial—so I hope that the Minister will make reference to them. Earlier in the year, he replied to one of my oral questions by mentioning a prison gardening competition and inviting me to be a judge. I hope he is going to stick to the offer, because I would very much like to do that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I confirm the invitation to my hon. Friend to be a judge in the prison gardening competition, at her convenience—the invitation is open.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the Minister for that. I am of course hoping that I will be allowed out by the Whips, as this is a very important initiative. Once it gets more attention, more people will enter the competition.
The Forestry Commission runs an interesting offenders and nature scheme, with offenders typically working as volunteers on nature conservation and woodland sites. They get out to do tasks such as building footpaths, creating boardwalks and establishing ponds, and learn about conservation and the environment. That, too, is very cost-effective, and at the same time it addresses several of the underlying factors that contribute to reoffending.
The Phoenix Futures recovery charity works with people, both in and out of prison, who struggle with drug and alcohol addiction. We have heard a lot about the drug problem in our prisons today. The charity is supported by the National Lottery, and it runs a recovery through nature programme, which aims to connect those who use the charity’s services with nature to assist their recovery. It has been shown that those who participate in the project have an incredible 41% higher chance of recovery than the national average, so I can tell the Minister that there is mileage in it.
Many of the ideas I have mentioned are included in a Conservative Environment Network pamphlet, to which many Members contributed, which calls for a more holistic and cross-departmental approach to environmental policy. This Government are doing great work on the environment and bringing it into many areas, but let us add an environmental strand to our prison reform.
I do not know how many Members have seen the film “Paddington 2”. Perhaps you have, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Oh, well you should see it; it is fantastic. Paddington used cooking to improve the lives of prisoners, and I am saying, “Let’s use gardening.”
We have a great opportunity. We need change. The situation is challenging. I am not saying that this is the answer to everything, but it is one small tool to add to the box—or the greenhouse—that might help us to address the problem. Ultimately, it will improve the lives of so many people who deserve it.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Nelson Mandela said:
“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”
Those words should be at the forefront of our minds as we consider the ways in which prisons operate in England and Wales.
With £3.954 billion of annual expenditure, prisons take up the largest share of the Ministry of Justice’s budget. That goes towards maintaining the 118 adult prisons and keeping roughly 86,000 people in prison. According to 2015-16 figures, that works out at a staggering £32,510 per prisoner.
As a member of the Justice Committee, a week ago I made a very interesting visit to Cookham Wood young offenders institute and Medway secure training centre. I was heartened to see the education and training provided, but at the same time I was concerned to learn that, due to staffing levels, young people were not getting the 27 hours of education that they were supposed to get. Instead, they were receiving just half that amount. In my view, that seriously hampers the rehabilitation of those young men and increases the chances of them reoffending.
I was also concerned about the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic young offenders at Cookham Wood, and I want to link that to the Lammy review, which was published on 8 September, and improving outcomes for young black and/or Muslim men in the criminal justice system. The review states that BAME people make up 3% of the population but more than 12% of the adult prison population, and the proportion of under-18s in custody who are BAME has risen from 25% in 2006 to 41% in 2016. There is a disproportionate number of BAME prisoners in the criminal justice system at a cost to taxpayers of at least £309 million each year.
The Lammy review highlighted three key themes for action. The first is to strengthen the link between scrutiny and equitable decision making on the fairness of the system. That means using the principle of “explain or reform”, so that if there is no evidence-based explanation for the disparities, they should be addressed through reform. The second is understanding and addressing the trust deficit. The Centre for Justice Innovation has found that more than half of British-born BAME people believe that the criminal justice system discriminates against particular groups, compared with 35% of British-born white people. The third is identifying where responsibilities lie beyond the criminal justice system. Issues include parenting, the exploitation of young people, and the need for closer work with communities to hold offenders to account.
The review made 35 recommendations and considered how they relate to prisons, among other areas, and preventing reoffending. One of the recommendations was to collect data. What do the Government plan to do in relation to collecting and disclosing data on the ethnicity of prisoners and offenders?
I am also concerned about the basic screening custody tool for reception and resettlement. I am aware of problems faced by community rehabilitation centres and their subcontractors in receiving data that would help them to inform their view of what help a prisoner may need for resettlement. I am firmly of the view that more investment is needed for resettlement to work in prison.
As has been said, there is serious concern about the state of some of our older prisons, whose living conditions are poor and inadequate. Hon. Members may have read recently about the appalling conditions at HMP Liverpool. There is also concern about the staffing of our prisons, with 95 out of 104 of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service prisons being understaffed. There are 13% fewer operational staff than in 2010, and we all know that a full complement of staff is required to keep prisoners safe and protected from violence, and to help to reduce the prevalence of psychoactive drugs in our prisons.
One of the reasons why there is such demand for psychoactive drugs is the fact that many prisoners are locked up for long periods. It is a widely held view that more purposeful activity outside cells is a good way to reduce demand for drugs. Similarly, more staffing would help to keep vulnerable prisoners safe. It is worrying that there were 120 suicides in prison in 2016, which was double the number in 2012. We need to keep prison staff safe as well. In the 12 months prior to March 2017, there were 7,159 assaults on prison staff, which was a 32% increase on the previous 12-month period.
In conclusion, the Minister and the Ministry of Justice have much work to do if they want to reduce reoffending among prisoners.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Prison safety and reform will continue to be major priorities for the Justice Committee until the challenges facing prisons are stabilised. I want to focus on governor empowerment and on young adults in our prisons.
The increase in assaults, self-harm and self-inflicted deaths are all unsurprising, given rising prisoner numbers, over-occupied prisons, understaffing, and the wave of psychoactive drugs that have been washing over prisons for the past couple of years. How can the system turn prisoners’ lives around when too many are locked up for 22 hours a day and are unable to access education, treatment or work? Those are major challenges not only for prison governors, but for Ministers, the MOJ and the Prisons and Probation Service.
In the Queen’s Speech of 2016, there was a plan that prisons would be independent legal entities, with the power to enter into contracts, generate income and appoint their own boards. Both the Secretary of State and, more recently, one of his Ministers have said that they remain committed to continuing to work towards not only making prisons places of safety, but reforming them.
The Justice Committee, of which I have been a member since September, agrees that prison management and the provision of safe and secure prison conditions that promote rehabilitation are complex activities that must be well grounded in evidence. I would add that adequate resources are also crucial.
I remember, once upon a time, when governors could be incentivised to reduce the reoffending rates of those released from their establishments. Even now, there are many examples of positive good practice in prison, a number of which have been mentioned today. Overarching that, however, there appears to be no joined-up strategy of rehabilitation, or even of reform. The prison system seems to be always in crisis management mode. This is exactly the time for clear lines of accountability between the Ministry of Justice, the Prison and Probation Service and governors. Those lines appear fuzzy at best to members of the Justice Committee.
What is the current status of devolution to governors? What support have governors been given to implement the empowerment agenda? Where is the review of reform prisons? Overarching that, where are the levers, and who gets upset when there are failures?
I want to move on to young adults in the criminal justice system. I draw the House’s attention to my former trusteeship of the Barrow Cadbury Trust, which initiated the Transition to Adulthood Alliance. Young adults aged 18 to 25 are a distinct group: only 10% of the general population, but accounting for 17% of those sentenced to prison every year. That is, admittedly, a drop from 25%, but is still too many people at a key stage in their vulnerable lives. Research shows that when policy makers, sentencers and practitioners take into account developmental maturity and the particular needs of young adults, they are more likely to grow out of crime.
Those results were reflected in a key recommendation by the Justice Committee in its inquiry into young adults in 2016. A week ago, the MOJ released a study that supports the Transition to Adulthood Alliance’s long-standing campaign for criminal justice agencies to take account of young adults’ maturity in service design and delivery. Given the Government’s research findings, what assurance can they give that they will provide a distinct regime for young adult offenders, as proposed by the T2A Alliance and the Justice Committee?
We all have to ask what prisons are for. I hope that, instead of prisons just warehousing prisoners, as too often seems to be the case, the Secretary of State and the Minister will take responsibility for ensuring that our prisons are humane and safe, and that they turn lives around and reduce reoffending.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Given the short time available, I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I restrict my comments to the conditions of my local prison, HMP Wormwood Scrubs, especially as this debate coincides with the publication of the independent monitoring board’s report last week. I start by paying tribute to Rob Foreman, the chairman of the board, and his predecessor, Chris Hammond. They have done an excellent job, as do the overwhelming majority of staff at the prison, who show dedication and professionalism.
I was initially heartened when I read the covering press release, which said that promising changes had been made in some areas, such as the introduction of more CCTV and a new system for prisoners to access their property—it is true that in July the Scrubs went from grade 1, the worst grade which only a handful of prisons are in at any one time, to grade 2—but that is probably where the good news stops. We have to be frank about this: there is nothing new about problems at the Scrubs. Many years ago, it had problems with violence against prisoners and poor management. An HMI report in only April last year talked about rat-infested and overcrowded conditions, with some prisoners too frightened to leave their cells.
The difficulty is that the current problems are specifically connected to underfunding, poor services and low staff numbers, despite what we are told are efforts by the Government to increase staffing, having cut it back so dramatically under the coalition Government. There were still 57 members of staff out last year, and only 21 in.
The report says that
“complaints made by prisoners are sometimes handled inappropriately, or passed to the staff member who is the subject of the complaint.”
It says that the
“lack of maintenance…means that prisoners are frequently subjected to conditions that are indecent and not suitable for them to live in.”
Prisoners experience unacceptable delays in accessing medical treatment, and the report says that
“Care UK is not always able to provide enough staff to deliver…triage and screening processes.”
On the key issue of safety, the report says that 40 to 50 violent incidents occur in a typical month, 25% of which are gang-related. The prison has
“the second highest number of prisoners moved by ‘Tornado teams’”
and had four deaths in custody.
A terrible contractor called Carillion is responsible for maintenance, but the report says that beds were in poor condition, that toilets were broken, that cells were unheated, that staff worked in overcoats, and that there were no working urinals in parts of the prison. People are living in medieval conditions.
As for the education services, attendance at classes in June was 24%, and the library was closed for several weeks because Carillion could not fix the alarm. The Koestler Trust, which does fantastic work in prisoner art, is based in the old governor’s house outside the prison, but there is no art teaching inside. These are truly terrible conditions.
The prison has the worst record in London for accessing legal help. What that means in practice, when solicitors try to see their clients, is, to quote the report, that
“prisoners are effectively being denied access to legal advice.”
I ask the Minister to look at that, because it is not acceptable in any of our prisons, especially one that is 45% remand.
The private community rehabilitation company is MTCNovo, which I remember telling the shadow Justice Minister was not a good appointment. The report says that it does not sufficiently engage with prisoners before their release, with far too many released without any accommodation to go to. Is it any wonder that reoffending rates are so high when that is the background? It is not an accident that we are talking about companies such as Care UK, Carillion and MTCNovo. The privatisation of prison services lies behind what has happened to a substantial extent.
When the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) became Justice Secretary, we were promised a prisons revolution, but of course he did not stay around long enough to achieve that. It is odd to think that the right hon. Gentleman would be seen as the champion of the underdog in that way, but he was following the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and a tip for anyone wants to have a good reputation is to follow him into a job. What will the Minister do to address the appalling conditions that are experienced every day in our prisons?
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
I want to concentrate on just one aspect of the prison system: the workforce. Prison officers are working with people with complex mental health issues and people who have experienced trauma throughout their lives. Prison officers work day in and day out with people who may assault them. They keep watch over people who want to end their life. They are at the forefront of tackling organised crime; work to intercept drugs; have to work in high-conflict and high-tension situations; and suffer intolerable abuse. Prison officers have told me about the unbelievable and disgusting practice of “potting”, which involves prisoners dumping a bucket of urine and excrement over the head of a prison officer. They are routinely spat at. Every day, 20 staff are assaulted.
Somehow, prison officers are not seen as frontline workers, but I want to challenge that in the strongest terms. Although their work is behind closed doors, their heroics should be seen and valued in the same way as other public sector workers.
The increase in violence and tension in prisons cannot be seen in a vacuum. It is part of the perfect storm that has been mentioned—huge cuts to prison staff, a massive increase in the use of the drug Spice, and an historically high prison population. Thousands of prisoner officer jobs have been cut. I know there has been an effort to recruit more prison officers, and that is welcome, but they enter the service on very different terms and conditions from those with longer service. Even those with longer service have had their terms and conditions radically altered. They are now expected to work much longer. Recruitment drives aside, the ability to retain new recruits remains in question.
I agree with the POA that 68 is too late a retirement age for such a strenuous and stressful job, and I support its members in challenging that increased pension age. It would be hard to argue against a clear correlation between the difficulties in recruitment and retention of prison staff and the erosion in pay, terms and conditions, alongside the difficult circumstances I have described. I met a prison officer recently who said that their pay was only £13 more than seven years ago, and that was someone with more than 30 years of service. That cannot be right.
Staff shortages are more pronounced in the south, but those shortages have an impact on other regions—in particular, the north-east—through the detached duty system. If I get anything out of this debate, I hope it is an assurance that the Minister will look into that system. It sees prison officers from my region being asked to work away from home for prolonged periods of time, staying in hotels and being sent to prisons where they do not have a long-standing relationship with the prisoners, and have no in-depth understanding or knowledge of their needs, issues or personalities, making shifts more precarious. The Justice Committee found that the first 13 months of the scheme cost the taxpayer £63.5 million. I would like to know how much that system has cost to date. Should the Department not have considered spending that money on providing incentives for those jobs, making it more likely that people in the south would apply? I am told that many workers in the north only accept detached duty because of their own dwindling pay.
If we are serious about addressing the crisis in our prisons, we must start with the workers. We have to ensure that they are working in safe conditions—I believe that that safety is in numbers—and that there is a concerted effort to keep more experienced workers alongside newer staff. Through the cuts, we have lost far too much organisational knowledge and experience in our Prison Service. There must be acknowledgement that being a prison officer is a strenuous frontline job. It is completely untenable to make these people work until 68, with that really difficult fitness test. In fact, it would be more expensive for the service through things such as temporary injury benefits and medical inefficiency payments.
We have to value these workers by turning the Prison Service into something that offers a career again, rather than just a job. To do this, we must stop wasting millions of pounds on short-term sticking-plaster solutions, and really invest in the workforce.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on setting the scene so well. We have heard constructive contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is always good to have a Northern Ireland contribution in a debate on a matter that, to be honest, is devolved. It is good to hear observations from us in Northern Ireland; we encourage some of the recommendations that have been made, and have some suggestions that the Minister could perhaps look into.
I am very much of the school of thought that prisons play a key part in the structure of the nation in a twofold manner. I am thinking of the three Rs. The first is clearly retribution, which happens because the prisoner has done wrong and the courts have decided on a jail sentence. But alongside that, we need the other Rs: rehabilitation and retraining. If those elements are part of the process, we have a genuine chance of turning people around. I want that to be part of what we are trying to achieve through legislation and through the Select Committee.
We cannot ignore the rising number of suicides in our prisons. I think every hon. Member who has spoken today has mentioned this, and it is important to do so. Although the number of suicides in prison has doubled since 2013, the prison population has also doubled over the same time. But the number of suicides in prison is still higher than the average in the general populace. In prison, 120 people per 100,000 commit suicide, which compares with 10.8 people per 100,000 outside prison. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point and see what we can do.
The Prison Reform Trust has stated that prisons in the UK are currently holding 7,300 people more than capacity. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) mentioned assaults on prison officers. I am very aware of that issue because a lot of people working in prisons in my constituency—this is not a point for the Minister to respond to—are subject to assaults on a regular basis. There has been a 27% increase in assaults compared with last year, and reports say that officers are outnumbered three to one in some prisons. We must consider the need to develop inmates into efficient and beneficial members of society, including those who have unfortunately been involved in assaulting prison officers. We need to turn this situation around.
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who is no longer in her place, mentioned gardening and the other work that has been done in some prisons. The Minister responded by giving her the opportunity to be the judge of the prisons’ gardening competition. There are things that can be done, but we are not seeing enough of them. We need more to happen. We must work our hardest to prevent those who have served their time from becoming repeat offenders. It is so important to address that issue compassionately, directly, efficiently and in a way that actually works.
The fact that 26% of those who serve their time reoffend within the next six months provides us with a clear example of how the prison system has—I say this gently—failed them. Only one in four prisoners has a job to go to on release from prison, and one in five employers says they would exclude or would likely exclude former prisoners from the recruitment process. Some 11% of those released from prison cannot get accommodation. It is important that we address these issues.
We are witnessing a dramatic change in the operation of our prisons, with fewer staff being responsible. We have not seen—again, I say this gently and graciously—the increase in the number of staff in prisons that perhaps we should have seen. I understand that only 75 members of staff have been recruited this year, when there is a dearth of more than 2,000. I also believe that 27% of frontline staff leave the role before two years of service. What are we doing to keep staff on board and not to lose them? We must establish a support system that helps new staff to acclimatise and adjust, not simply leave the service.
There are significantly high levels of mental health issues within our prisons. An unbelievable 26% of women and 16% of men in prison have received treatment or are currently receiving treatment for a mental health problem in the first year of their sentence. Everyone in this Chamber wants the same thing; it is about how we achieve it. I look to the Minister for his response; we are all here to support him. I hope we can get the results that we want.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), I am sure that it does not compromise my impartiality in the Chair if I wish him and his colleagues in Paisley the best of luck for the exciting announcement in about four and a half hours’ time of which town or city will be the city of culture 2021. I hope it is going to be Paisley—good luck.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was concerned that I would be unable to shoehorn a mention of Paisley 2021 into a speech on prison reform in England and Wales, but you have managed it for me, so thanks very much. I will carry your best wishes back home on the 4.55 pm flight, if I make it to Heathrow on time. It is also an honour, as usual, to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Although I am a relatively new member of the Justice Committee, and although some of my contribution today will be based on my short experience serving on the Committee, I should note that I am speaking from the SNP Front Bench and will tailor my remarks appropriately.
The small matter of prison reform in England and Wales has dominated much of the work of the Justice Committee since I was appointed after the general election, and it will continue to feature heavily in the coming weeks and months. However, this work is not new to the Committee, given its good work on this issue in the last Session, particularly on scrutinising reforms put forward by previous Justice Secretaries.
The Queen’s Speech was a missed opportunity for the Government to introduce a Bill that would continue the reforms of the English and Welsh Prison Service. This was unfortunate, as the evidence is clear—indeed, the Committee saw for itself just last week—that the Prison Service is facing some very real challenges. The Government cannot be distracted by Brexit at the expense of modernising the English and Welsh justice systems.
Despite the required reforms being wide-ranging, I will consign my remarks to the attempts that are being made to keep people out of the criminal justice system, including the attempts to reduce reoffending. The goal of keeping people out of prison is a basic premise that I am sure we can all agree on. Not only is it good for the individual; it is vital for our wider society and economy. Prison is obviously a necessary and appropriate route for those who commit serious crimes, but detaining an individual has to be for the right reasons and it should not be seen as the automatic result for everyone who commits a crime.
Reducing the prison population is a key feature of the Government’s proposed reforms to the Prison Service and it is easy to see why that is the case. An exceedingly high prison population is not uncommon in most western democracies, but it is still worth noting that the total prison population in England and Wales on 31 March this year was just over 85,500 people. The recent prison population trend is cause for great concern and will rightly be a major influence in any reforms that the Government eventually introduce.
An exceedingly high prison population serves little good. It is not good for society, the economy or the taxpayer. In many cases, it will not be good for the offender or, indeed, the victim. The current prison population of England and Wales raises some difficult questions for the justice system. As we seek to confront this issue, we should be asking ourselves whether we are detaining the right people or if the criminal justice system still considers prison time to be the automatic outcome for the majority of those who commit crimes.
The PCS, too, has spoken of the significant changes that have affected the Prison Service. Chiefly, the prison population has doubled in the last 30 years while successive Governments have failed to protect funding and staffing numbers. That, in turn, helps to create a much more difficult, stressful and dangerous working environment for those working in the Prison Service.
I repeat that most other European countries are facing similar problems. However, we should take note of the Council of Europe report, which concludes that the UK has the highest prison population rate in western Europe. It states that England and Wales has a prison population rate of around 148 inmates per 100,000 citizens —well above the European average of 134.
In Scotland, we face similar challenges with our prison population. However, the annual daily average prison population has decreased in each of the last five years, falling by over 8% over that period, from 8,179 in 2011-12 to 7,500 in 2016-17. In addition, in the same period, the young offender population has almost halved, with numbers for remand and sentenced prisoners also dropping by that proportion.
However, the Scottish Government are not complacent. At a time when crime is at a 41-year low and recidivism rates are the lowest in 16 years, our prison population is still far too high, particularly among female offenders.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has run an excellent campaign for Paisley 2021, and I very much hope that he gets the news he is looking for tonight.
Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the Scottish Government, and particularly the Justice Secretary, Michael Matheson, for the progressive approach we have seen towards women in the prison system? Will he also welcome the £1.5 million extra for community justice services for women?
Gavin Newlands
Absolutely. I could not agree more. In addition, we are going to close the Cornton Vale prison in 2020, demolish the old facility and move 80 women who need more security, as well as having five new community facilities, which the £1.5 million additional investment will pay for.
Another area where the UK Government may want to take inspiration from the Scottish Government is the policy of a presumption against short sentences, which was recently augmented in the programme for government, with a plan to consult on an extension of the presumption from three months to 12 months. Overwhelming evidence confirms that short sentences simply do not work. They disrupt families and communities. They restrict employment opportunities and make it harder for individuals to access housing. Short-term sentencing does nothing for recidivism rates; in fact, the absolute opposite is the case. Short sentences are, therefore, not effective, and nor do they make sensible use of all-too-scarce public resources.
A Scottish Government extension of a presumption against short sentences gives us the very real opportunity to place Scotland at the forefront of introducing a transformative justice system. Karyn McCluskey, from Community Justice Scotland, has commented on the Scottish Government’s new policy, saying:
“A smart justice system replaces ineffective short sentences with a problem-solving focus on addiction, mental health, poverty, social exclusion and adverse childhood experiences—and recognises prevention is better than cure.”
This move by the Scottish Government has also been welcomed by the former Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, a Liberal Democrat peer in the other place—or the upside down, as I like to call it.
Gavin Newlands
I think I got away with that one.
Lord Wallace said the policy was a
“welcome and imaginative extension of the presumption against short sentences.”
Former Labour First Minister, Henry McLeish, also supports the policy, saying that 60% of those who are imprisoned for three months or less are reconvicted within the year.
Therefore, this imaginative policy from the Scottish Government is not only helping to reduce our prison population, but is doing so in a way that is helping to tackle reoffending rates and transforming criminals into valuable members of society.
The UK Government’s previous White Paper placed a strong emphasis on preparing prisoners for life after their sentence has come to an end and helping to support them to change their behaviour. Now, I support many of the Government’s aims, such as tackling health and substance misuse issues, helping to prepare individuals for working life after prison and improving access to education and training. However, it is vital that we fund and support projects, voluntary groups and charities that can effectively evidence the positive impact their work has on changing the lives of prisoners.
As the SNP’s Westminster spokesperson for sport, and as someone who has always been involved in sport, I passionately believe that Governments of all colours should be tapping into the power of sport to help to change attitudes and behaviours. As a rugby man, I am particularly interested in the work that Saracens rugby club has done to help reduce reoffending rates. Saracens rightly point out that 70% of young offenders leaving prisons in England and Wales will reoffend within 12 months, primarily due to a lack of support and motivation, low career aspirations and not having positive role models in their lives.
The Saracens’ Get Onside programme uses the power of rugby to help to improve the life chances of young people leaving the justice system. The programme is based in Feltham young offenders institution and aims to build career aspirations, to provide mentors and a link to a local sports club, and to assist in finding educational routes or employment. That will, in turn, give offenders a sense of belonging, and it surrounds them in a positive environment.
Currently, in terms of the Get Onside programme’s success rate, 92% of young offenders do not return to crime, saving the Government and the taxpayer around £1 million a year. On their website, the Saracens published a quote from a participant in the programme, who said:
“The project helped to give me belief and direction and taught me that I must be true to myself to achieve.”
This programme, and many like it, highlights how we can use the power of sport to produce tangible social benefits for individuals and wider society. Sport can play a positive and key role in helping to rehabilitate offenders, as well as playing an important preventive role in keeping people of all genders away from crime altogether. As such, the Government would be missing an open goal if they did not incorporate the power of sport into their wider reform agenda.
As the UK Government move forward with reforms, it is important to note that they have a responsibility to wider society by ensuring communities are safe and wrongdoers are dealt with in the appropriate manner. However, they also have a responsibility to those working in the justice system. It is a fact that the number of serious assaults on officers in Scottish prisons is 90% lower than in prisons in England and Wales, mainly due to the number of officers who are in the system because we did not cut the funding for officers.
I hope that the Minister can expand on the answer he gave me recently when I asked whether, given the increase of more than 1,300 in the prison population in England and Wales, 2,500 extra officers were enough. The answer was:
“The 2,500 target is obviously based on careful analysis of what we need in order to deliver the offender management model, which means one prison officer having a six-prisoner caseload, and it should be capable of allowing us to do so.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 453W.]
In his summing up, I would like the Minister to give a bit more information on that. Was the 2,500 figure arrived at assuming an increase of 1,300 in the population, or do a further 216 officers need to be hired, using the one in six ratio he gave me?
We all want to keep people out of prison, and that has to include adopting preventive and effective policies that tackle and help those at risk of reoffending. I can only hope that, as the UK Government move forward in this process, they will reject taking a flawed, ideologically driven approach and instead undertake an evidenced-based approach, taking on board the recommendations that the Justice Committee makes, to ensure that the English and Welsh justice systems can operate in modern and efficient manner.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I would like to begin by congratulating the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the other members of the Committee on all their work and on securing today’s debate. I previously served on the Committee, and it was a most valuable experience.
The Committee has repeatedly shone a spotlight on the ongoing crisis affecting much of our justice system, and its work will become even more important over the coming months, given that the Ministry of Justice budget is set to be cut by another £800 million—by 40% over the decade to 2020—making the MOJ the most cut of any Department.
Turning to today’s topic, our prisons have received vast media coverage over the past year—nearly always for the wrong reasons. The word “crisis” has been used time after time as a descriptor, but it is no longer sufficient. We have warned of crisis for five years—unfortunately, crisis is the new norm. The staff holding the service together are expected to do crisis management. The truth is that our prisons are now moving beyond crisis and are approaching emergency.
Peter Clarke, the chief inspector of prisons, with whom I had the pleasure of undertaking a prison visit, described the situation in his scathing annual report:
“Last year I reported that too many of our prisons had become unacceptably violent and dangerous places. The situation has not improved—in fact, it has become worse.”
He went on to warn that not one young offender institute was deemed safe, describing the “speed of decline” as “staggering”. He described a Dickensian prison system with people
“locked up for as much as 23 hours a day”,
which is
“compounded by staffing levels…that are…too low to keep order”
or to
“run a decent regime that allows prisoners to be let out of their cells to get to training and education”.
I would argue that it is the Government’s policy of slashing hundreds of millions from the Prison Service budget that has driven us into the emergency room.
Perhaps the starkest example of the prisons emergency is what the Justice Committee, in its sixth report of the 2015-16 Session, described as
“the ongoing and rapid deterioration in prison safety”.
It was right to do so. It is a stain on our nation that self-harm and suicides are at record levels and that assaults are up by almost 80% on 2010. Every day, 74 people are attacked in our prisons—one every 20 minutes, morning, noon and night, every single day of the year. The consequences of this violence are dire. With prisoners locked near permanently in their cells to maintain safety, it is almost irrelevant whether education, training or mental health services are improved. Locked in their cells for that amount of time, they remain inaccessible, at a great cost to wider society. This violence is closely connected to another theme addressed by the Select Committee—empowering governors and prison reforms. The Government talk of a reform agenda delivering a modern prison estate fit for the 21st century and of governors self-managing their education budgets to help prisoners, but none of that will bear fruit until the epidemic of violence is tackled.
The central cause of the prisons emergency has been the loss of staff. Conservative Justice Secretaries have cut the number of frontline prison officers by almost 7,000 since 2010. New psychoactive substances, drones and phones are all serious problems in our prisons. As the POA says, staffing shortages drive the wave of violence. I welcome the fact that the Government now acknowledge the damage done by thousands of prison officer cuts and have begun to try to reverse their own cuts, but the staffing picture is not, I am afraid, as rosy as the Government seek to portray it. Despite 1,200 extra officers recruited over the past year, one in four of our prisons has still had a fall in officer numbers in the past 12 months. That includes staffing cuts at 25% of the prisons labelled as being of concern. In high-security prisons, it is even worse: half those prisons have fewer officers than they had a year ago. For all the talk of empowering governors, the number of governor-grade staff has been cut by over one third and continues to fall.
Staffing cannot be permanently resolved separately from pay. The insulting 1.7% recent pay offer was yet another real-terms pay cut—a cut of £980 per year for the average prison officer. Falling pay is one of the reasons there is an exodus of experienced officers, who are now leaving at three times the rate back in 2010. The Government’s policies are creating a dangerous cocktail of experienced prisoners and inexperienced prison staff.
The motion addresses the wider restructuring of the prisons system. The Government have destabilised the prisons system through an erratic reform policy that veered first this way and then that way, while prisons were being stripped of valuable resources, both human and financial. This has not been helped by the constant chopping and changing of those at the top. I have been shadow Justice Secretary for just over 18 months, and I have already dealt with three Justice Secretaries, each with their own specific vision. One of the current Secretary of State’s first tasks was to toss aside the Prisons and Courts Bill and the creation of a statutory purpose for prisons. That was especially regrettable as it had the support of virtually the whole House. Although the Government have scrapped the Bill, one thing remains the same: their answer to the deep problems in the prison service is yet more reform. I am a bit sceptical.
Concerns about how reform is being undertaken were especially well expressed by the president of the Prison Governors Association, Andrea Albutt, who decried the fact that governors have seen nothing tangible coming out of the MOJ to ease the burden to date. The PGA complains of the MOJ’s prison reform programme draining resources, with expensive policy teams in Whitehall, operational experts taken out of prisons and put into the MOJ, and competing structures that sometimes undermine accountability. In short, if real powers rest in new Whitehall teams, budgets are cut and central contracts restrict freedom of decision, governors are not in charge in the way that they should be.
Despite talk of greater autonomy, prison governors are still suffering the lack of control that arose from outsourcing key prison services to the private sector. The hiving off of facilities management and repairs has undermined basic decency in prisons. When prisoners are remarking that it is easier to get drugs than clean clothing, or when prisoners go for long periods without properly functioning showers or with a broken cell window, this does nothing to build the necessary institutional trust. It also makes reforming lives much harder. Labour has not only ruled out any more private prisons but committed to a review, working with prison governors, to identify the private maintenance and repair contracts that can be brought back in house over time, saving the state money and improving prison conditions. I heard the Chair of the Justice Committee call for an urgent review of these same contracts in Justice questions on Tuesday. Labour Members fully support his call.
The motion rightly points to our historically high prison population. Prison must act as a deterrent and, yes, as a punishment. Often prison is a fitting sanction, especially while a convicted person is a danger to the public, and a significant minority of people may never be safe to release. However, most people will one day leave prison, so it must also rehabilitate, but too often it is failing to do so. We now have 10,000 more prisoners in jails than we have proper places for. Rehabilitation cannot take place in overcrowded prisons. Armley Prison, in my home city of Leeds, holds nearly twice the number of prisoners that it was built to accommodate, and that is not an exception: the latest figures show that almost seven in 10 of our prisons are overcrowded.
As we have heard, such warehousing of people without any support or access to rehabilitation means that when they leave prison they are likely to be in the same position as when they entered—or perhaps even worse: drug-dependent, homeless and without the skills to get secure work. Their stay in prison will be too short to tackle their problems. In fact, they may come out of prison more likely to commit crime. I have been struck by the fact that nearly every time I meet a prison governor, they tell me that we are jailing too many people. They ask me why we are using vast resources to send someone to prison for a few weeks. They are frustrated at seeing the same people over and again. When people at the frontline raise such matters, we must all take them very seriously.
The evidence underlines the fact that, for far too many, prison is not working. Six in 10 adults released from prison after a sentence of less than 12 months, which over half of all prisoners receive, commit another offence within a year. The cost of reoffending has now hit £15 billion. As a society, we need to be asking if we should have jailed 8,000 women last year when the overwhelming majority committed a non-violent offence, with half in prison for theft. If prison is about rehabilitation as well as punishment, what is the point of seven in 10 women serving 12 weeks or less in jail? With a woman’s prison place costing £47,000 a year, alternatives could free up valuable resources to invest in women’s centres and community solutions, and to make prison work for those who really should be there.
We need to tackle the discrimination that means there is a greater disproportionality in the number of black people in our prisons than in the prisons of the United States of America. It wastes lives as well as valuable public funds. Too many prisoners, as we have heard, are suffering from mental health issues and need intensive medical treatment, not incarceration. Perhaps most immediately, we need to tackle the cases of the imprisonment for public protection prisoners. We need to debate all three issues separately in this Chamber on another occasion.
In conclusion, we have a huge amount to do to turn our prisons around and make them places where lives are transformed, so that—this is our main objective—our communities become safer places to live. After nearly a decade of failed policies that have cut our prison service to the bone, that cannot and will not be done overnight, but the ongoing scrutiny of the Justice Committee will play a valuable role in helping to make our prisons work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the Justice Committee on securing the debate. I thank Members for their contributions, and I say genuinely that almost every one of today’s contributions was constructive, made in good faith and had some merit to it. My hon. Friend set out with characteristic clarity many of the issues that our prisons face. As we all know, and as the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) mentioned, nearly all prisoners will one day be released, and our prisons should therefore be places that put offenders on a path that will enable them to turn away from crime after release. That means providing a safe and secure environment, and providing the right interventions and support to help them to turn their lives around.
No one doubts the challenge that we face with prisons or expects the situation to be quick or easy to turn around. I do not shy away from conceding that our prison system faces unprecedented challenges, but I am confident that we have a clear and coherent plan to face them. That plan will secure the safety and security of our estate and staff, empower governors to make decisions that are right for their prisons and ensure that we have the right tools in place to support offenders to rejoin society as productive citizens.
The hon. Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—the hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place—referred to the motion, and specifically to its mention of our “historically high prison population”. We can all agree that the prison population is too high, and we want it to fall. We have, however, made a considered judgment deliberately not to set an arbitrary target for reduction, because we will not compromise on our responsibility either to the victims of offences or to the safety of the wider public.
We will always hold in prison criminals whose offences are so grave that no other penalty will suffice, or who would pose a genuine threat to the public if they were released. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned that the Government should have a presumption against prison sentences of less than 12 months. Indeed, in England and Wales there is a presumption against custody at all, and a judge will send someone to prison only if they deem it right to do so.
It is important to remember that our current prison population reflects the number of serious offences—including sexual offences—that are coming before the courts. That has changed the nature of sentencing, with fewer people being sent to prison on short sentences but more people in prison for serious crimes on longer sentences. To give the House one example, there are now 4,000 more sex offenders in prison in England and Wales than there were in 2010.
I can assure the House that we will always have enough prison places for offenders who are sentenced to custody by our courts, and that protection of the public and providing justice to victims will remain our principal concern. Our latest statistics show that we have operational capacity of 87,370, and a current headroom of 1,241 places. The current population is 86,129, which includes 4,048 women prisoners. Of course, we cannot simply build our way out of the situation, but we have a plan for bringing in new capacity to the estate to provide modern, cost-effective, fit-for-purpose accommodation that will deal with the concerns that have been raised about overcrowding in the estate. HMP Berwyn currently has 800 places in use and will, when fully operational, provide 2,100 places. In addition, we have announced plans to build four more modern prisons.
Robert Neill
The Minister has talked about capacity, and I understand the work that is being done. A specific point that has been raised with the Select Committee is the slowness of repatriation of foreign national prisoners who are serving sentences in the UK. Repatriation of such prisoners would certainly take some pressure off capacity. Can he help on that point?
Mr Gyimah
The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point about the repatriation of foreign national offenders. He will be aware that the most effective scheme to repatriate foreign offenders is the early release scheme, under which 40,000 foreign national offenders have been moved out of the UK since 2010. Prisoner transfer agreements are also in place but they are a lot more challenging because they require the co-operation of the receiving Government, who do not always seem that keen to receive their own criminals back. A cross-governmental task force is focused on that very point.
To realise our vision for prisons, we must first make sure that they are secure environments that are free from drugs, violence and intimidation. Again, I do not shy away from acknowledging that the use and availability of drugs in our prisons is too high. The House has often discussed how the rise of psychoactive substances in our prisons was a game-changer, but it was when organised criminal groups moved in to take control of supply routes into prisons that the rules changed. Those groups have embedded themselves throughout the prison estate, becoming ever more sophisticated in driving the drug market and making enormous profits from peddling misery to those around them. Their activities have been facilitated by the rise of new technologies, such as phones and drones, which they have used to try to overcome our security. Those things represent an unprecedented threat that we have not faced before.
As our prison officers and law enforcement partners across the country regularly prove, however, we are more than up to that challenge, and our investment in security is bearing fruit. Last year alone, HMPPS officers recovered more than 225 kg of drugs from the prison estate. Our new team of specialist drone investigators has already helped to secure over 50 years of jail time for those involved, and the team is supporting ongoing investigations across the country.
We are providing officers with the tools that they need. We have already introduced drug tests for psychoactive substances across all prisons, provided every prison with signal detection equipment and trained more than 300 sniffer dogs specifically to detect new psychoactive substances. The right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) asked about the availability of sniffer dogs to prisons. The dogs operate on a regional basis and are therefore available for prisons to call on as and when they are needed.
We are investing heavily in security and counter-terror measures, including £25 million to create the new security directorate in HMPPS. This year we will also invest more than £14 million in transforming our intelligence, search and disruption capability at local, national and regional level, to enable us better to identify and root out those who seek to supply drugs to our prisons. That investment includes more than £3 million to establish our serious organised crime units, which will relentlessly disrupt our most subversive offenders.
We are already seeing early successes from the new capability. A recent joint Prison Service and police operation at HMP Hewell, involving our specialist search teams and dogs, recovered 323 items, including 79 mobile phones, 29 improvised weapons, 50 litres of alcohol and a large quantity of drugs.
David Hanson
The Minister is indicating that those things are all intelligence-led. They should be routine.
Mr Gyimah
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but we need to know what we are looking for, and we need to identify the prisoners who are most likely to have links with organised crime. We now know that about 6,000 prisoners have links with organised crime on the outside and are conduits for drugs into our prisons, and that allows us to be far more effective in what we are doing to combat those operations. It is still very early days, but the point I am making is that we are beginning to see success. As we go forward, we intend to build on these successes, through our new drugs plan, which he mentioned, and our work on corruption, where it exists—even if it be only among a very few officers. He will be hearing more from me about that shortly.
Of course, this is not just about seizing or intercepting drugs. We should never forget that we have a duty of care to our prisoners—we want to help offenders with drug problems—and more of our prisons now have specialist wings to support them in overcoming their dependencies. We are also working closely with health partners to provide information, guidance and support to prisoners, visitors and staff on the impact and damaging consequences of drugs.
Hon. Members have mentioned the safety of our prisons. Ensuring safety is partly about having the right staffing levels to deliver safe and consistent regimes, and we are making swift progress in recruiting the additional 2,500 staff in the adult estate we promised in 2016: 1,255 extra prison officers have been recruited in the last year, and officer numbers are now at their highest levels since August 2013. In the youth estate, we have likewise expanded frontline staff capacity in public sector youth offender institutions by about 20%.
Preventing suicide and self-harm is also a focus of mine. We are taking decisive action to reduce the levels of self-harm by strengthening the frontline. Each individual incident of suicide or self-harm is one too many and a source of deep tragedy. We have introduced new suicide and self-harm prevention training to give everyone working in prisons, whether officers or staff from other organisations, the confidence and skills they need to support those in their care. So far, more than 10,000 prison staff have started the training, and all new prison officer and prison custody officer recruits now complete the programme as part of their initial training. I am glad to say that the number of self-inflicted deaths in custody is significantly down from last year, although I will be the first to admit that there is still a lot of work to be done.
The Chair of the Select Committee referred to the architecture of the prison system and how we can hold ourselves to account. We are strengthening the ability of the inspectorate to hold the Government and the Prison Service to account and have introduced a new urgent notification process, which had formed part of the original Prisons and Courts Bill, to enable the Secretary of State to be alerted directly where the chief inspector has a significant and urgent concern about the performance of an institution. We launched that process last month. The Secretary of State will be directly alerted by the chief inspector if an urgent issue needs addressing to ensure that recommendations are acted upon immediately. A new team of specialists accountable to Ministers will ensure that immediate action is taken and will respond within 28 days with a more in-depth plan to ensure sustained, long-term improvement for the prison.
Andy Slaughter
I hear what the Minister is saying, but a lot of it sounds like firefighting. I quoted from a report on the Scrubs earlier, but tomorrow we have Her Majesty’s inspectorate’s report on the Scrubs—I do not know if he has seen it yet. I have not quoted from it because it is under embargo still, but it shows endemic, long-term problems that need powerful solutions, and I just do not hear that vision coming from the Government.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. Recruiting more staff, investing in intelligence and technology, rolling out a drugs strategy, introducing an urgent notification process, giving more power to the inspectorate—all these things will solve the issues in our prison. I hear him on the Scrubs—I admit that there are deep-seated challenges there—but prisons are, always have been and always will be difficult places to manage. That said, we are making significant investment in tackling the problems in our prisons. As I have always said, it will not happen overnight, but the actions I am outlining show our determination and will to overcome the problems and make sure that our prisons are places of safety and reform.
Hon. Members have touched on employment and education. We have recently announced the new futures network, which will be a broker between prisons and the employment sector so as to help prisoners to find work on release and get better purposeful activity in prisons. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) mentioned that sometimes drug habits develop because prisoners are bored. Having more and better purposeful activity is important to ensuring that prisoners are purposefully occupied in prison and can gain new skills and improve their chances of finding a job on release.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) rightly mentioned the estate. Yes, the plan is to create 10,000 additional places. Of course, there have been issues with maintenance, but those are issues for facilities managers, and I am in direct contact with them to ensure that, whatever the future plans for a prison further down the line, we maintain standards of decency in that prison.
In conclusion, reducing reoffending, protecting the public, reforming offenders and ensuring the safety and security of our staff and those in our custody remain my Department’s top priorities.
Robert Neill
I appreciate the Minister’s remarks and the spirit of them. Will he confirm that the Government remain committed, when a legislative opportunity occurs, to placing the powers of the inspectorate, the prisons and probation ombudsman and the national prevention mechanism on a statutory basis?
Mr Gyimah
I can confirm that we are very alive in looking for legislative opportunities to do exactly what my hon. Friend says. He will be aware that where there are other avenues, such as private Members’ Bills—one to enable us to switch off mobile phones is going through the House now—to make practical progress, we are doing so.
We must break the ongoing cycle of reoffending that has for too long blighted communities the length of our country by helping offenders to turn their lives around and prepare them for a productive and law-abiding life on release. I will end by reiterating some of the remarks I made at the start of the debate. Reforming our prisons to be places of safety and reform will not be easy, but the House should be in no doubt about the energy and resolve with which we will continue to tackle head on the challenges that we face. I welcome many of the points made today. They were constructive. I disagree on a number of issues with the Opposition spokesperson, but I know that we all share the same intention: to make our prisons places of safety and to ensure that when people come out of prison, they do not reoffend.
Robert Neill
I thank my 14 Back-Bench colleagues who contributed to this debate, and I appreciate the spirit of the Minister’s response. We look forward to working with him and his colleagues. He has not by any means answered all the questions raised in the debate, but that was partly a matter of time. We will need to continue to press the Government on several matters, but we look forward to doing that.
Since there is a lot of speculation today about what people have framed and put on their walls, in various contexts, perhaps I might commend something for the Minister’s wall. When Thomas Mott Osborne took over responsibility for Sing Sing penitentiary in New York, he said he was going to turn the jail from a scrap heap into a repair yard. That would not be a bad thing to have on the wall of every prison governor’s office and every office in NOMS and the MOJ.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Justice Committee’s Twelfth and Fourteenth Reports of Session 2016-17, on Prison reform and the Government Responses to them; notes with concern the continuing crisis in prisons in England and Wales, with an historically high prison population and unacceptably high levels of violence, drug availability and use, disturbances and self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in the adult and youth custodial estate; further notes the critical reports by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons on individual establishments and thematic issues; welcomes the Government’s intention to proceed with a programme of prison reform and to produce a prison safety and reform action plan as recommended by the Committee, and the publication of performance data on each prison from 26 October 2017; regrets the fact that the Government does not intend to bring forward legislation to establish a statutory purpose for prisons, enhance the powers of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, and place the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) and the UK’s National Preventive Mechanism on a statutory basis; further regrets the Government’s rejection of the Committee’s recommendation that it should report at six-monthly intervals on the impact of governor empowerment on complaints made to the PPO and Independent Monitoring Boards; and calls on the Government to ensure that information on prison performance and safety is published regularly, and with sufficient detail and timeliness to enable the effective scrutiny of the management of prisons by the Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service.
UK Fishing Industry
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) to move the motion, let me say that it will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak, and there is limited time, so there will be an immediate limit on Back-Bench speeches of five minutes after the hon. Lady’s speech.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK fishing industry.
It is a tradition that MPs debate the UK fishing industry at the beginning of December. Such debates give us the opportunity not only to raise matters relating to the UK industry as a whole, but to reflect on proposals for the following year’s total allowable catch, which are discussed at the December Council of Ministers. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this very important debate, and for holding it in the Chamber, because we have on occasions had this debate in Westminster Hall.
Fishing is a dangerous practice, and my thoughts are with the fishermen and their families who have suffered loss and injury during the past year. I thank those in the rescue services, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the coastguards and National Coastwatch Institution volunteers, for their selfless service to sea rescue. I also thank the Fishermen’s Mission and the Apostleship of the Sea for their work to support fishermen and their families at times of hardship.
The result of the EU referendum was well received by our fisher folk. Whoever I speak to says that they view the future with optimism. Indeed, Toms boatyard in my constituency informs me that it has many orders for vessels on its books. We have heard the Minister and the Secretary of State confirm on numerous occasions that, at the end of March 2019, the UK will leave the common fisheries policy. As a result, the Minister will be able to make decisions about the marine environment and catches of species without attending the meeting in Brussels and haggling with 27 other member states.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady reaffirm that, on the day we leave the EU, there will be no more negotiations and no more trading off, and that we will be out of the common fisheries policy so that we can decide for ourselves how we co-operate with other countries over our fishing? Will we take back control of our fishing on the day we leave?
Mrs Murray
As far as I am aware, when we leave the EU, we leave the common fisheries policy.
The UK has given notice that it will withdraw from the 1964 London convention, which gave some nations restricted access to the 12-mile limit. The UK 200-mile or median line limit is prescribed in the Fisheries Limits Act 1976 but, once we leave, the rules for the management and conservation of fish stocks, and indeed the amount of fish that can be taken, will be governed by the UN convention on the law of the sea, particularly articles 61 to 63. There is a clear distinction between UNCLOS and the CFP in as much as the UK will be free from the principle of equal access to a common resource on which the CFP is based.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that that will allow us to manage better our sea bass stocks for both commercial and recreational fishermen?
Mrs Murray
I thank my hon. Friend, who will be interested to know that I will come on to that point.
It might be worth considering UNCLOS in more detail. Article 61 says we must be responsible for setting conservation measures, taking account of the scientific information available. Such information often comes from the well-respected International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, with which the UK scientific body the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science works.
In short, article 62 states that the coastal state—in our case, the UK—shall set the amount of fish that can be taken in our exclusive economic zone and determine whether our fleet can catch it all. If it cannot, we can offer the surplus to other nations, which must comply with any conservation measures that we have set. Interestingly, paragraph 4(h) of article 62 says that the coastal state can set laws concerning
“the landing of all or any part of the catch by such vessels in the ports of the coastal State”.
It is worth noting that, in some instances, that could have a real economic benefit to the UK. Article 63 says that when a stock occurs in an adjacent EEZ, each coastal state shall work together to set conservation measures.
Zonal attachment is used by many nations to manage their fish stocks while ensuring economic benefit to the coastal state. A good example of zonal attachment is that of a farmer harvesting crops in his fields who does not invite his neighbours to come in and take those crops free of charge. According to a report by the University of the Highlands and Islands in 2016, EU boats overall landed 10 times more fish and shellfish—six times more by value—from the UK EEZ than UK boats did from the EU EEZ. For most individual member states, the imbalance was even greater. Iceland retains about 90% of the benefit from its fisheries in its attached zones, while the figure for Norway is 84%. In contrast, the UK secures a mere 40%, which can be attributed to the common fisheries policy. We give away—free to other nations—60% of the fish in our zone.
Has the Minister ensured that the historical catch data from all EU vessels that have fished in the UK EEZ has been collected? That could provide the basis for increased benefit in the UK zone once we leave the European Union. While any surplus quota that we are unable to utilise could be offered to other member states, meaning that some economic gain for the UK might be obtained, we must make sure that UK fishermen come first.
A significant central feature of moving towards fishing our zonally attached fish will be increased catching opportunity. Once achieved, that opens up the happy possibility of managing fisheries innovatively, looking to optimise benefit for our nation and its communities across the seafood supply chain. The range of options is huge, and can be properly discussed once the enabling opportunity is secured. In the words of Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation:
“don’t stress over choosing the wallpaper before we’ve bought the flat.”
Let me turn to effort control in place of quota. Under the CFP we have a management system that comprises quotas and effort control in the form of kilowatt days. Will the Minister confirm that once we withdraw from the CFP, he will move away from that confusing system of fisheries management and put in place a something simpler? Many fishermen I have spoken to are not in favour of a days-at-sea scheme, but that warrants further investigation. Has the Minister spoken to his counterpart in the Faroe Islands, which operate a days-at-sea system, to find out how their management system works? Has he asked for the views of CEFAS on the days-at-sea scheme versus the use of quota?
Many inshore fishermen have expressed concern about access to the UK’s six and 12-mile limit by other member states fishing for certain species. There appears to have been disproportionate access to those limits for more than 40 years, and that must stop. A lot of inshore vessels are unable to migrate and have found themselves competing with many larger vessels from other nations in the same waters. Will the Minister give due thought to exclusive access for small UK fishermen to our 12-mile limit when considering any post-CFP management regime?
Turning to this year’s Council of Ministers meeting, it appears that an uplift of total allowable catch is proposed for a number of species. As a consequence, the available quota for the UK fleet will increase. It is also heartening to know that the serious uplift of opportunities that arose from the EU-Norway talks has resulted in better quotas. However, in areas VIId and VIIe off the south-west coast, I am surprised that the quota for Dover sole has not followed ICES recommendations. The uplift of quota proposed by the Commission is less than scientists have suggested. The South West Fish Producers Organisation has also expressed concern about sprat stocks in that area.
ICES advice still points to the bass stock being outside safe biological limits—that issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker)—and I have two concerns about bass stock. My constituent, Mr Chris Newman, contacted me last August after hauling in his trawl to find around 1,000 kg of bass. The bass was in abundance at the time because it swims with mackerel, and I had already heard that there was an abundance of mackerel locally. Because of how bass management currently works, Mr Newman would have had to catch 33 tonnes of species to legally land his bass, so he ended up having to discard much of it. That is disgraceful, not only because he was denied around £10,000 of income, but because much of that bass would not have survived once it was discarded.
It has been reported on social media this week that another fisherman in Plymouth was denied a similar income because he had to discard bass that he was prevented from landing. When will the EU realise that fish cannot be told not to swim into a trawl? The Secretary of State has described EU bass management as a “blunt management system”. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that our post-CFP management of fisheries will be flexible enough to prevent such situations by invoking emergency measures?
Secondly with regard to bass, I want to make a point on behalf of recreational sea anglers. They have been allowed to keep a single bass from each year’s angling. It appears that, if implemented, the European Commission’s proposal for 2018 will prohibit a recreational hook-and-line bass angler from taking a single bass for the entire year for personal or family consumption. That is unacceptable and I ask the Minister to make representations at the Council of Ministers in support of those recreational fishers. A lot of young people go angling, and many of them would not recognise if they had a bass on the end of their line. How will we police that?
Mr Charles Walker
It is simply madness to suggest that someone in a west end restaurant can sit down to eat wild bass caught by a commercial fisherman, but that one of my hon. Friend’s constituents, or one of my constituents on a day out at the beach, cannot keep a single fish that they catch off the beach or on a boat. That is simply not tenable.
Mrs Murray
I take a different view. I think that there is a place for commercial fishermen and recreational sea anglers to work together with us. A lot of people who go into a restaurant and think they are buying British bass are actually ordering farmed bass that has been imported from abroad. We need to make sure that we have a flexible management system that accommodates everybody.
I would describe any possible transition period after March 2019 as a bridge. Nine months is all that is needed at the very most. Looking forward to December 2018, assuming that we get a satisfactory trade deal, will the Minister make it clear at the Fisheries Council negotiations that the UK will be introducing its own management system from 1 January 2020 at the very latest? After all, the necessary processes and coastal state arrangements already exist. We can ensure, from that date, that zonal attachment of fisheries will apply to the UK, as it does to many other nations around the world.
Many people have raised concerns about whether we could enforce any UK-set rules on fisheries, including on access. Will the Minister confirm that the UK already polices our 200-mile limit under the CFP using different tools? Fisheries protection vessels from the Royal Navy for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency are all at sea making sure that the rules are enforced. Other enforcement tools include the electronic vessel monitoring equipment on board many vessels and observation aircraft. The UK will continue to enforce any rules it sets after we leave the CFP, as we have done for years.
I would like to raise briefly the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Factortame case. Will the Minister confirm that we will be able to redo our economic links, unfettered by that EU ruling? Nobody else permits foreign rights to national resources and assets to the degree the UK was forced into.
Finally, fishermen have always felt that their industry was sacrificed when we joined the European Economic Community. It is therefore necessary that we have a separation of catching opportunity/access, and access to the EU market. Those are separate subjects. Norway never let them be mixed. Indeed, there is no international precedent or supporting economic reasoning for doing that. For example, if France wants to sell us its wine and cheese, it must buy our fish. That is common sense. Will the Minister confirm that he will not sacrifice access to fishing resources for access to markets in any negotiation?
I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in his negotiation next week. I know that he, like me, knows how important fisheries are to our coastal communities and that, like me, he is optimistic for the opportunities our fishermen will have after we leave the common fisheries policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. As I said earlier, there will now be a time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) about marine safety organisations and fishermen’s welfare organisations? I am thinking particularly of the Fishermen’s Mission, in a year which, thankfully, has been one of the better ones in terms of fatalities at sea.
I do not know whether you have had an opportunity to watch the wonderful BBC series “Blue Planet II”, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you have, you will have been inspired and moved by the wondrousness of our marine environment, but also by its vulnerability and fragility. While environmental degradation on land is visible to us—we see forests and species disappear, and we see desertification—what has been happening in our oceans for far too long has remained invisible to all except a dedicated band of marine scientists and divers, but now, thanks to that fantastic programme, it is there for all of us to see.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
When my right hon. Friend watched that programme, was he as concerned as I was by the amount of plastic being ingested by some of the marine life that later goes into our food chain?
Mr Bradshaw
Indeed I was. Thankfully, plastics are one of the more visible aspects of marine pollution, because we see them washed up on our beaches and the Government are taking action, but a great deal else that goes on is still invisible.
There is another big difference between land-based and sea-based environmental degradation. The sea is a place where the ancient human activity of hunting and gathering continues, and continues apace. As has just been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), other human activity, such as the use of plastics, has its impacts, but much of it is invisible. Man-made climate change is leading to the warming and acidification of our oceans, with yet unknown consequences. It does not affect just marine life—including fish, as an edible resource—but the roles that the oceans themselves play in regulating our climate, our oxygen levels, and basically everything that makes human life on earth possible.
For most of human history, oceans and fish were simply plundered. That did not matter when there were relatively few human beings and fishing technology was relatively antiquated, but in the last 100 years or so, population growth and technological progress have completely changed that equation, with, in some instances, devastating consequences. We all know the story of the near eradication of bluefin tuna, turtles, cod off the north-east coast of the United States, and, in our own case, cod in the North sea. However, things have changed. Because of what was going on in the early noughties, politicians began to take notice and take action. There was collective endeavour, and it has worked. North sea cod has made a fantastic recovery, thanks to the difficult measures and decisions that I took as a fisheries Minister, which were massively criticised by the fishing industry at the time. There has even been progress on the high seas, which is much more difficult because of the lack of an international legal framework.
As anyone—I hope—can appreciate, managing our seas and fish stocks sustainably demands that countries work together. As has been said so often during our debates over the years, fish do not respect national borders; they swim about. Unlike the hon. Member for South East Cornwall, I have real concerns about the potential of Brexit to reverse the welcome progress that we have seen in the last 15 or 20 years. Let us be honest: the status quo is not a disaster. The hon. Lady herself spoke of recommendations for increased catches at this year’s meeting of the Council of Ministers. I wonder why that is the case. My local ports, Brixham and Plymouth, have just reported their best years in terms of the value of their catches. Species such as cuttlefish are doing incredibly well, and are being exported straight to markets in Italy, France and Spain. Our crab and lobster are also valuable exports.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that British fishermen want to stay in the common fisheries policy?
Mr Bradshaw
Some do, but they tend to be quiet, because they are shouted down by Members of Parliament like the hon. Lady. If she has honest conversations with sensible fishermen who care about the long-term sustainability of their stocks, she will find that not all of them share her views, and it would be inaccurate to suggest that they do.
As I was saying, some of our most valuable catches—and we in the south-west have enjoyed a record year in that regard—are exported straight to the markets of the European Union, tariff-free, while we are in the common fisheries policy. As a nation, we also depend on imports for 80% of what we consume, because of our taste for cod and haddock. So what will happen in the event of a bad deal or no deal, in terms of tariffs on these vital exports and the vital imports on which our producing and processing sector depend, and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will speak later?
The Brexiteers have sold the idea that if we leave the EU and unilaterally declare these marvellous limits, our fishers will suddenly get all these extra fish and massively increased quotas, our boats, which currently fish in other people’s waters, will be able to carry on regardless, and our vital exports will be completely unaffected. Like so many of the promises made by these modern-day wreckers, this is a cruel deception on our fishers and their communities. We need only look at the problems we have had this week with the Irish land border; imagine what will happen if, as the Brexiteers are proposing, the UK suddenly and unilaterally moves the international marine borders, and, in effect, declares fish wars on all our neighbours, excluding them from fishing grounds they have fished for hundreds of years and stealing the quota they consider legally theirs. It is a recipe for mayhem.
It is also a recipe for environmental disaster. We know from fisheries management all around the world that if international and supranational co-operation and collaboration break down, it is the fish and the marine environment that pay the price. The second cruel deception being played out is the suggestion that the Government are likely to make fisheries a priority. We need only look at our fishing industry’s value to our economy, compared with financial services, pharma and others. Are our Government honestly going to pick a political fight for fisheries, when all these other sectors are worth more to our economy? It is a cruel deception.
I have two further points. First, I ask the Minister to make bass a recreational stock, as Ireland has done, with huge success. I also ask the Minister to keep a place at that negotiating table, and when he goes to Brussels later this month, I ask him to stick with the science: stick with the evidence, and think about the fish and their future, and a healthy future for our fishing industry.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for initiating it. I know of her great experience in the fishing industry. As she, above all others, will know from her personal loss from fishing, safety at sea is paramount. I pay tribute to her.
We look forward to our very able Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), going to the December Council and coming back full of fish, and making sure that we have sufficient quota for our fishermen, because there is the science now to be able to say that for most quotaed species there are enough there for our fishermen to catch.
I am amazed that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is so pessimistic about the common fisheries policy. Whether we were a Brexiteer or a remainer, I think we can all accept that the one section of society that got well and truly stitched up when we first went into the Common Market was the fishing industry, because it put forward quotas that were reasonably accurate, while others put forward quotas that were not, and we landed up with a very small supply of what were potentially our own fish.
Mr Bradshaw
I completely agree: I think we were stuffed —is that parliamentary language?—when we joined. But I am not pessimistic about the common fisheries policy; I am realistic, and the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that in the last 15 to 20 years, since we undertook these reforms, the picture has been improving.
Neil Parish
I accept that there have been improvements to the common fisheries policy, but there were many improvements to be made. We are getting on now to having discards banned from the common fisheries policy, which we as a nation can work on much better. We can also use a fishing management system similar to that of the Norwegians, where we can shut down an overfished area very quickly; they can do it within a day, whereas it is impossible to move that fast when there are 27 countries trying to come to an agreement. There are great opportunities to be had. There is no doubt—there are figures to prove it—that the European fishing vessels take from our waters some £530 million-worth of fish and we take about £110 million-worth of fish from their waters, so whichever way we look at it, there will be benefits for our fishermen.
Mr Charles Walker
As Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will my hon. Friend look at the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) about making bass a recreational species only? Will he and his Committee look into that?
Neil Parish
As Chairman of the Committee, I would be delighted to look at that. We look at all the evidence and look at exactly what can be done. There is a real place for recreational fishing, just as there is also very much a place for professional fishing. I would be very happy to look into that matter.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
As part of the study that the hon. Gentleman has agreed to undertake, will he look at the value to coastal towns of recreational fishing? In 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimated that it was £2 billion a year. My angling shops, my coastal bed and breakfasts and my hotels all benefit from bass fishing, but the moratorium on anglers taking sea bass is a disaster for coastal towns.
Neil Parish
I actually believe that, as we come out of the common fisheries policy, there will be enough fish for everybody. If we manage the fish stocks much better, we will have every opportunity. We need to make much more of the fish that we catch, not only in the area of recreational fishing but in areas such as fish processing. I believe that we will have greater access to fish and be able to land much more of our fish on to our own shores, but when we do that, we must ensure that we process it and add value to it. We must also—dare I say it—say to all our population that we eat many types of fish when we go to the continent and to other parts of the world that we will not eat here. That is key, because we still have a huge market. Some 70% to 80% of the fish we land in the west of England is exported to France, Spain and across the rest of Europe. Those markets are very important, so we need to ensure that we get the fish, manage the fish stocks and market the fish.
On the question of Brexit and the common fisheries policy, we have a moment now, as we negotiate, when we have very positive cards in our hand. We can say to our neighbours, “There are historical arrangements that we will look at, but at the end of the day, you will fish the amount that we agree under our rules, and that is the way it will be.” If we are absolutely firm with them —I expect the Minister to be exactly that—we can get a reasonable deal with our neighbours. I think our neighbours will deal with us in a fair way on this issue because, to be absolutely blunt, they have two choices. They can have the fish under our rules or they will not have the fish at all.
I want to reinforce the point that we must not negotiate away our fisheries again. Our fishermen did not forgive us when we did that the first time round. If we do it a second time, they will never forgive us. This is not just about our fishermen and what percentage of the overall economic benefit comes from fish; it is also about what is morally right and wrong. This is something that we can now put right. I am convinced that this can work, with the right policies in place. I suspect that the Minister is minded to keep a lot of our existing systems of catching through quota in place. Let us have evolution, not a revolution.
On discards, let us ensure that we land everything that we catch, so that we know exactly what the stocks are. Let us also look at which types of fish will recover if we put them back into the sea. Let us have a smart system of managing our stocks. I believe that we will do well in the future. We can manage our fishing better, and we must ensure that we police our waters as we leave the common fisheries policy.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) to her role on the Front Bench. She will be a strong voice for fishing and fishing communities.
In view of the frankly ludicrously short time available for this debate, I intend to keep my remarks brief and my points very local. My first point is about the continued availability of funding for infrastructure repair. North Shields port is the premier fishing port on the east coast and the biggest prawn port in England, landing around £7 million-worth of catch every year and sustaining around 300 jobs, but a recent report on the condition of the quay found that between £6 million and £8 million is needed for infrastructure repair. On 1 December, the projection jetty—an important part of the port where many boats are moored—was closed, and there is a real dilemma for those who make repairs. Does the North Shields Fish Quay make a bid? As a private company, it would be able to access only 50% of the funding from the European maritime and fisheries funds. Does the Port of Tyne do it? It can potentially access more funding but, like most trust ports around the country, it is not a small or medium-sized enterprise, so it does not fit into that category. We are therefore left scratching our heads as to where the money will come from, and fishermen are being prevented from going about their daily business. I wrote to the Minister earlier this week, and I hope that he will read of our concerns and ask his Department or, perhaps, the Marine Management Organisation to look into them, because getting an outcome and finding funding is urgent. In life after the common fisheries policy, will resources for infrastructure funding remain in place as they are now, because it is important to ports such as North Shields?
As for what post-CFP will look like, different areas will have different priorities. As I have said, North Shields is the biggest prawn port and therefore has an inshore fleet and a 12-mile limit is crucial, but it would suffice. Frankly, a 200-mile exclusive economic zone really is not relevant when, I am told, perhaps only one or two foreign vessels a year may fish those areas. Local fishermen are not particular exercised about that. North Shields has the biggest prawn port exports, with 95% of the prawns being exported. They are not processed or frozen; there are five days between them being caught and being put on tables, which are usually in European Union member states. Lorries cannot afford to wait at a hard border, and we cannot afford to have tariffs. The MMO currently issues around 300 catch certificates a year for exports to non-EU countries. If a certificate is required for every single lorry that goes to France, Spain or Italy, an estimated 21,000 certificates would be necessary, which would be a disaster for North Shields. What is the point of catching all that fish if there are no accessible markets? What is the Minister’s plan? What arrangements will be in place after we exit the CFP?
As for the salmon drift net fishery, there are only about a dozen licences on the north-east coast. They are being phased out, and that decision is based on evidence that is at least questionable because some of our rivers in Northumberland have had salmon runs for the first time in many years. We were previously told that licences needed to be phased out because the EU wanted to make them part of the whole sustainability issue, but the pressure does not come from the EU; it comes from landowners who want to protect their fishing rights to ensure that they get their share of the catches, because it is a big business. Post-CFP, will the Minister stand up to the landowners’ lobby? The fishermen in the heritages fisheries have enormous respect for the environment and a fantastic record of restocking our rivers, and it is in the interests of the fisheries that the fishermen’s interests are looked after.
In the seconds I have remaining, I invite all Members to come to see our new memorial to fishermen lost at sea, Fiddler’s Green, which was unveiled in September by Julie Myhill, the partner of James Noble—the most recent fisherman to lose his life. It reminds us that fishing is a dangerous job, and every policy maker must have that at the forefront of their mind.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I am delighted to be called to speak in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), my constituency neighbour, on securing the debate.
First and foremost, as we leave the European Union, there are massive opportunities for our fishing industry to establish itself once again as functioning, economic and viable. Repatriation of our historical territorial fishing areas will give coastal communities such as mine a completely new lease of life. The UK must ensure full and absolute control of the UK’s 200-mile territory, up to the median lines, with fishing opportunities, access and regulatory regimes controlled once again by the UK Government.
Many people may ask what that will look like. I have been slightly sceptical about the days-at-sea proposal since examining the trial initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) back in 2011. I had concerns about overfishing, about the targeting of species close to the shore and about a lack of scientific data against which to measure catches. However, I recently had a meeting with Fishing for Leave and saw its proposals for excluding travel time to fishing destinations, including net soak time to measure catch effort, and for recording scientific data on which to measure this resource. These proposals would end the senseless discards that we have seen under the failed quota system implemented by the European Union.
In my remaining time, I will address a specific proposal from ICES on fishing for the dicentrarchus labrax—the European sea bass—that has caused consternation among my recreational sea anglers and among sea anglers across the UK. Although I recognise its latest statistics on the continued decline in the biomass of the stock and further recognise that something needs to be done, it should not be done on the back of the rod-and-line angler. As a member of the all-party angling group and a champion of the sea bass in Parliament, I recently had the pleasure of leading a delegation to Cornwall to fish for bass. We were hosted by a chap called Nick, who runs a successful family business called Bass Go Deeper. We had a successful trip, and all the fish were returned to the sea—catch and release. Nick, like many other bass guides in Cornwall and other hook-and-line beach and cliff anglers, will no longer be able to fish if the ridiculous and draconian proposals from ICES are implemented.
The suggestion is that anglers will be able to catch fish for catch and release for only six months of the year. They will not be able to target bass at all for the other six months of the year. If the proposals are truly meant for conservation, the angler is once again being penalised by comparison with the hook-and-line commercial fisheries that can effectively land 4 tonnes of catch each.
Sport fishing in the UK is a lucrative and growing business. Businesses like Nick’s will go to the wall if these proposals are implemented. The recreational sea angling sector, which has had the least impact on fish mortality, will bear a disproportionate burden of last year’s negotiations, with a zero catch from January to June and a one-fish bag limit from July to September. The impact of recreational sea angling on bass stocks is negligible, which demonstrates that the problem does not rest with the sea angler. That is why I support the campaign of the Angling Trust, the Save Our Sea Bass campaign and the European Anglers Alliance to stop these completely unfair and unenforceable proposals. Banning the public from fishing for a species recreationally while letting commercial hook-and-line fisheries continue is unjust and cannot be allowed.
As the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has already said, Ireland and America have both embraced a recreational bass fishery and are seen as premium sport fishery areas.
Catching a fish and keeping it for the pot is not a crime. Catching a fish and cooking it for dinner is one of the last great remaining hunter-gatherer pursuits in this country. The Minister should fight for anglers and oppose these ridiculous measures, which would sink a fine pursuit and a fledgling industry. There are thousands of anglers out there who are looking for his support this year.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this most important debate. I apologise to the House now, as I did to your predecessor in the Chair, for the fact that, unfortunately, I will not be here at the conclusion of the debate. I am very aware that I will shortly be travelling towards Storm Caroline, and it is worth pausing for a second, as we debate in the relative calm of Westminster on a Thursday afternoon, to reflect that many of the fishermen in my constituency will be at sea in those conditions. It is worth remembering that they do a very difficult job in very dangerous circumstances, which is why we should be grateful to them for the work they do and to organisations such as the Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Fishermen’s Mission and others that do so much to support them.
It strikes me that this may be a small piece of history, as this is perhaps the last of these fisheries debates we will have in their current form. This time next year, we will be looking towards the final Fisheries Council in which we will part of the EU, which brings me to my first ask. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Shetland Fisherman’s Association have both made it clear that they see it as obvious that for the first three months of 2019 we will remain part of the common fisheries policy but thereafter they seek bridging arrangements that will take them to end of the year, so that they might honour the arrangements that are made at the December Fisheries Council next year. That would then be the point at which we would properly exit the CFP. There is an elegant simplicity to that arrangement, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the approach the Government will seek to pursue.
Fisheries management cannot continue as part of the CFP during any transitional period that follows after the end of March 2019 for one simple reason: we will not have a seat at the table when the decisions are made at the December Fisheries Council. I put that point to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions earlier this year, but she was less than clear in her answer—I realise that she perhaps does not have the background in fisheries of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today. I hope that he can confirm that that is the position and the Government will not leave us in a situation where our fishing industry is left having to abide by rules and decisions of which we have had no part in the making.
As the Shetland Fishermen’s Association put it to me in its briefing for today,
“water and markets don’t mix”.
By that, it makes the point that the fishing industry and the fishing rights should not be traded off against other sectors. When it comes to the negotiations around our departure, will the Minister confirm that he will do as I have urged him on other occasions and ring-fence the fishing industry? There are plenty of good historical reasons why that should be done. No other coastal state is forced to trade access to waters for access to markets, and I say to the Minister that the fishermen in my constituency would see any arrangement of that sort as nothing short of a betrayal of the undertakings given to them at the time when they voted in the EU referendum.
Of course we will remain subject to a variety of different concerns as the Brexit process continues. We need to address the question of markets, because we can catch as many fish as we like but we have to be able to sell them to somewhere, so we will take a close interest in that part of the negotiations. We also need to address the issue of employment for crew members, some of whom come from within the EU, with many then working in the processing sector. That is where certainty needs to be given to the industry as early as possible. It simply is not going to work if we are left in the same position with crew members coming from outside the UK as we are currently left with visas for fishing crew coming from outwith the EU.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing it. I associate myself with pretty much all of her comments, particularly those on the emergency and rescue services, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) also mentioned.
I want to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for his guarantee during Scottish questions yesterday that when we leave the EU we will leave the common fisheries policy. In turn, I want to be as helpful as possible to Ministers, but I am sure that the Minister will understand that I cannot and will not vote for any fisheries Bill or Brexit deal that does not advance the interests of the fishermen in my constituency.
I will talk more about Brexit later, because first I want to discuss a matter that needs urgent attention and about which we have already spoken to the Immigration Minister—namely, non-European economic area crew on the Scottish fleet. We are not talking about unskilled labour, which is often the perception; we are talking about fishermen who are experienced and qualified professionals. Like farming, with which I grew up, I think that fishing is a trade for which people need passion to make a real go of it. Also like farming, I think that it is something that people need to be born into. It is certainly something that many fishermen are born into, whether they happen to have been born in the coastal communities of Peterhead, Fraserburgh or Macduff in my constituency or, indeed, in the Philippines or further afield.
The industry recognises the need for a transition, so that it can be sustainable with regard to local labour, but that will take time, mainly because we need to undo the decades of damage done by top-down EU policies such as the CFP. It would be helpful and welcome if the Government would start by at least recognising the Scottish fleet’s need for non-EEA crew.
Of course, the Scottish fishing industry will be affected by Brexit. It is important that we agree how fisheries will be manged when we leave the CFP, and we will have those discussions when the fisheries Bill reaches the House. In the meantime, the key focus must be that we do take back control.
The Brexit negotiations are not the final negotiation for fishing. When we leave the EU, the United Kingdom will become an independent coastal state, so we must start thinking like one in our approach to future Brexit negotiations and in our annual negotiations with the other coastal states. As has been said, the December 2018 deal will apply to the UK only up until the end of March 2019. Like others, I am in favour of going into the 2018 discussions willing to accept a nine-month bridge to the end of 2019, but only if our own requirements are met. In the Brexit negotiations, we must not bargain away any concession of access to our waters. We are not talking about building a wall in the sea to keep out all foreign boats, but if we cannot restrict access to our waters and our demands are not met, we will end up with the weakest bargaining power of any independent state.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has mentioned the importance of zonal attachment. Aligning our fishing opportunities with zonal attachment involves two things—an increase of net inward quota exchanges, which we can negotiate annually, and making adjustments to the fixed quota shares, which is a longer-term process—but we cannot insist on either of them without being able to offer in return quota that the EU wants and periodic access to our waters. I reiterate that that access must be in our control and must not be traded away during Brexit negotiations.
Finally, in the short time I have left, I want to address devolution. I agree that those closest to the resource must have the most say and influence. We need grassroots policy making, not a top-down system like the CFP. I seek an assurance from the Minister that a UK framework, which is universally recognised as being required, will be developed between Westminster and the devolved Administrations and, more importantly, with the involvement of the relevant fish producer organisations.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
We have heard many times this afternoon about the importance of the fishing industry and the role it plays in the economic life of our coastal communities, including my Argyll and Bute constituency, where the industry—including the hugely significant shellfish industry—is one of the mainstays of our local economy. So I have a keen interest in the health and wellbeing and sustainability of the fishing industry and the seas that provide some of the finest seafood in the world.
It is easy to talk about the Scottish fishing industry as though it is one entity, but of course there are vast differences between the west and east coasts of Scotland. I want to highlight some of the challenges facing boat owners and skippers on the west coast.
What I am about to say will come as no great surprise, I suspect, as it is an issue that I have raised several times in my two and a half years in this place. I seek a relaxation of the Home Office rules to allow non-EEA crew members to work on vessels operating inside the 12-mile limit on the west coast. Unlike the east coast, where 12 miles is 12 miles, for the west coast’s islands and coastline, the 12 miles extends a vast distance out into the Atlantic—a distance that few inshore vessels can or will travel before reaching international waters. All vessels inside that limit have to be crewed by UK or EU citizens. In the current climate, recruiting EU nationals to crew the boats is becoming increasingly problematic. More than ever, we need to employ non-EEA crew to fill the gap.
In 2015 and again in 2016, I joined a delegation of Northern Irish and west of Scotland boat owners, skippers, fish processors and Members to the Home Office to ask it to relax the ban on international seafarers being permitted to work in west coast Scottish waters. On both occasions, our appeals were rejected. We were told, “Use EU or UK crew.”
I am now hearing from skippers in Oban, including Jonathan McAllister, that because of Brexit and the reluctance of EU nationals to commit to working on the boats, an already dire recruitment situation is in danger of becoming catastrophic. He and many of his colleagues are now seriously contemplating walking away from the industry.
I understand that a more constructive meeting was recently held with the Home Office. I sincerely hope that the Minister for Immigration gave a flicker of encouragement that a solution could be found; otherwise the west of Scotland fishing community will be facing the perfect storm, being unable to attract our valued EU citizens because of Brexit, while being barred from recruiting international seafarers from non-EEA countries.
I cannot overstate just how serious the recruitment problems are on the west coast. Just as we need EU nationals to work in our schools, our hospitals, our high-tech industries and our fields, so we need them to work on our seas. We also need those highly trained, professional non-EEA international seafarers to fill the gaps in our fishing fleet. I hope that the Minister does what his predecessors singularly failed to do and comes up with a long-lasting solution to the problems on the west coast.
We have heard much about the deficiencies of the common fisheries policy. I will not defend the CFP, but the SNP has for the past 40 years been resolute in its criticism of it. I think it right to say that the SNP has been the only party that has been consistently and vocally opposed to the CFP. When back in 1983 the poster girl for the Brexiteers, Margaret Thatcher, was helping to create the CFP, it was left to Donald Stewart, the leader of the SNP, to speak against it. I can understand why that history makes Conservative Members uncomfortable.
I look forward to the day when an independent Scotland, as a member of the European Union, is able to help to shape a common fisheries policy that works for Scotland and all our neighbours.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this debate.
Although we have such an event each December, this particular debate stands apart from those that have been held in the past 40 years. These debates normally focus on putting steel in the Minister’s backbone ahead of the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting. This year, as well as having that immediate task to perform, the Minister and the Secretary of State have before them a great opportunity, with the White Paper and the fishing Bill, to reset the framework within which this great industry operates. This provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rejuvenate the East Anglian fishing industry, with Lowestoft in my constituency at its hub.
Lowestoft used to be the fishing capital of the southern North sea, but it has lost this title over the past 40 years, and East Anglia currently derives very little economic benefit from the fish stocks on its own doorstep, which are among the richest in Europe. The fisheries Bill must provide the policy framework within which the East Anglian industry can be revitalised. That means East Anglian boats having fair and equitable access to fisheries in all UK waters, but particularly the southern North sea. It requires supporting local infrastructure to be developed so that local communities and local people fully benefit from the fish that are landed in their ports. It needs a fisheries management system to be put in place in which local fishermen, scientists and the authorities collaborate in overseeing fisheries—a system that not only provides those working in the industry with a reasonable living, but ensures that the fisheries are passed on to the next generation in a better state.
At present, the East Anglian fleet is largely made up of under-10 metre boats that have access to a limited amount of fish to catch. This inequity and imbalance must be addressed. With the EU fleet today taking around four times more fish from UK waters than UK vessels take from EU waters, our departure from the EU means that it is likely that more fish will be available for UK fishermen to catch. But that will be of no benefit if we retain the existing system of allocation. The inshore fleet—the under-10s—need a fairer and larger slice of the cake. If the quota system is to be retained, there must be a significant reallocation.
It has been suggested that producer organisations will have a key role to play. If this is to be the case, the system needs to be reconstituted, as the Lowestoft PO has only six vessels, none of which lands fish in Lowestoft. There is some debate as to whether we should move to a new system of effort control, based on days at sea. If this is to be looked at again, Lowestoft could be a suitable pilot with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is based in the town, monitoring its impact.
To ensure that local people and businesses benefit from more fish being landed in Lowestoft than in other East Anglian ports, it is necessary to upgrade the local supporting infrastructure. This means safe berths and better landing points, and modern markets and upgraded freezer facilities. It involves strengthening the supply chain and providing new job opportunities for boat builders, repairers, chandlers, engineers, smokeries, merchants and mongers. June Mummery and Paul Lines, representing the local industry, have already met the Minister to outline their plans for securing this investment. I anticipate that it will be worked up locally in the coming months, and I will keep the Minister informed of progress, and seek his guidance and assistance where necessary.
The current fisheries management system must be overhauled. We must move away from the current policing system to a collaborative approach involving fishermen, authorities and scientists. With CEFAS in Lowestoft, there is the potential to put in place on the East Anglian coast a new science-based, sustainable fishing system that can be an exemplar—a system that can be operated around the world and play an important role in sustaining the blue planet for the next generation.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing the debate and on her excellent work with the all-party fisheries group, of which she is chairman. I also echo her sentiments about the Fishermen’s Mission and its continued good work supporting fishermen and their families and local communities, particularly those in my constituency.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
I do not want to leave out my hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn)—who is the joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary group.
Melanie Onn
A rare moment of cross-party agreement around fisheries. I thank the hon. Lady for those comments.
Today, I want to focus my remarks primarily on the processing side of the fisheries industry. However, before I get on to that, I want to mention the case of a former fisherman from my constituency. In the debate last year, I raised the case of James Greene, and the issue of fishermen missing out on their pensions unjustly, with subsequent Governments failing to properly compensate them for that. Sadly, James Greene passed away last year, but his widow is still waiting for his full entitlement from the fishermen’s compensation scheme. The ship he worked on for 20 years was wrongly omitted from the scheme’s list of eligible vessels. That list has been corrected, but the payments owed to James have still not been made in full.
I have been dealing with this matter through the parliamentary ombudsman, but the most recent correspondence I have had sight of says:
“The matters you have raised are not new as they were not in the scope of the investigation. We did not look at the department’s decision to pay for work on the Thessalonian at the reduced second scheme rate even though it had mistakenly been excluded under the first scheme…As the Ombudsman has already given this matter her personal attention earlier this year and with no new information provided, we would not look at this matter again.”
That is extremely disappointing. For the sake of his widow, for just £3,000—that is all we are talking about—and for the peace of mind of those at the Great Grimsby Association of Fishermen and Trawlermen, who have been fighting for decades for justice, will the Minister please meet me to see whether there is anything more that can be done to bring this matter to a satisfactory close?
The demise of the fishing industry since its peak in the middle of the 20th century has hit my town particularly hard. What we have seen in Grimsby is the transformation of the sector. While catching has severely diminished, in the way the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) discussed, we are now a hub for the processing, manufacturing, and packaging side of things. We have 75 food sites within a radius of a couple of miles, employing 5,000 people in landing the fish, selling it, smoking it or turning it into fish cakes.
This is necessarily an international industry. The fish caught off our coasts are often not the kind that people in Britain want to eat. Depending on where a catch is landed, the fish that ends up in Grimsby may have crossed the borders of three or four countries on its way to us. Some 270 tonnes of imported fish passes through our market every week, and these are perishable goods. Anything that makes trading harder could compromise the viability of the main source of employment in my constituency.
Mr Bradshaw
Do those potential obstacles to the frictionless trade my hon. Friend talks about include the loss of regulatory alignment, which is the topic of the week?
Melanie Onn
Yes. I will come on to regulatory alignment and the variance thereof.
I want to talk briefly about Norway, because it has been mentioned in the debate, and it is often cited as an example of how Britain’s fisheries sector could thrive outside the common fisheries policy. However, what is not mentioned is the effect Norway’s position has had on its seafood processing sector. By opting out of the CFP, Norway has had to accept losing market access in fisheries. According to the CBI, this trade-off has seen the majority of its seafood processing sector relocate to the EU, with Britain being a substantial winner from that situation. Under that agreement, Norway can sell fresh fish to EU countries with a minimal 2% tariff, but with 13% on processed fish.
Similarly, while we can currently buy fish from Norway and Iceland tariff-free, that may not be the case in just over a year’s time. The Minister must fight to ensure that this is not the outcome waiting for Britain after we leave the EU. It would be absolutely catastrophic for jobs and industry in Grimsby.
Melanie Onn
And more expensive fish and chips, as my right hon. Friend says.
I met the Minister with a delegation from Grimsby’s seafood processing sector last month to discuss ways to ensure that our ports and industry could continue to grow post Brexit, so I recognise that this issue is on his agenda. However, perhaps he could just update the House on what work he is doing to prepare the sector for the changes coming down the line.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The fishing industry in my area, the south-west of Scotland, is very much lobster and langoustine-based. Eighty-six per cent. of that goes to Europe, so my industry would be decimated if we had barriers.
Melanie Onn
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that point. It just goes to show how important it is, in all areas of the country and in all our coastal communities, that every effort is made to make sure that our local communities do not suffer as the outcome of Brexit becomes ever clearer.
About one in five of the industry’s skilled workforce comes from overseas. Training needs to be much more widely available if freedom of movement is no longer going to apply to this country after we leave the European Union. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to visit the fantastic Modal Training facility in my constituency, which provides training for maritime, port and marine workers. I hope that he will take me up on that offer to see the modern training methods that are being used to maintain these essential maritime skills.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). I am delighted that we were able to secure this debate through my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray).
Fishing is perhaps the oldest industry in all the south-west and it is deeply ingrained in the culture and heritage of my west Cornwall and Isles of Scilly constituency. Fishing and its supporting industries provide high-quality, skilled jobs that offer year-round employment—a vital factor in a part of the country where seasonal work often dominates.
EU fisheries policies have often seemed to ride rough-shod over the interests of the UK fishing fleet. That is perhaps why fishermen were one of the most vocally pro-Brexit groups in the country. I am sure that colleagues will agree, therefore, that leaving the EU presents a real opportunity for the Government to right some historical wrongs and build a sustainable and prosperous future for the UK fishing industry. I think that we can also agree that, as has been said, this will not be without its challenges. However, until we leave the EU, we are still bound by EU regulations, and I am glad to be able to speak in this debate today ahead of the annual EU Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels.
I have spoken to the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, which is based in my constituency, has a membership of over 250 boats and is one of the largest fishermen’s organisations in the UK, and to other local fishermen about their key concerns for the future of fishing. Their message is clear. Fishermen want the UK fishing industry to regain control of access to UK waters out to the 200-mile limit. They want to be able to make use of funding opportunities and to a have a regulatory regime determined by the UK Government, not the EU, that permits UK vessels to secure a greater share of total allowable catch.
With regard to the Commission’s proposals on Celtic sea cod, haddock and whiting, I have heard serious concerns expressed about their effect on all parts of the fleet in the south-west. The proposals show a lack of understanding of the dynamics of the ultra-mixed fisheries in this area—something that I know the Minister appreciates. I ask that he makes a case for mixed-fisheries-model analysis of these stocks to ensure that the Commission’s approach is science-led.
I would also like to highlight, as have others, concerns about the European Commission’s proposals on bass fishing for 2018, as clearly set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). The Commission’s proposals are based on an inadequate understanding of the bass fisheries, which now comprise, almost exclusively, unavoidable by-catch. Under the proposals, every bass caught in a gillnet, a beam trawl or a trawl will be discarded dead. The key to good fisheries management is to control total fishing mortality, but this fundamental principle seems to have escaped the Commission.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because I represent, I think, the most land-locked constituency of any Member in the Chamber at this time. However, my constituents enjoy eating fish and care about the marine environment and fish stocks. Does he agree with me, consumers, and myriad campaigning organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund, On The Hook and Greenpeace about the importance of transparency in labelling so that when consumers buy what they believe is sustainably fished fish, they can be confident that it is?
Derek Thomas
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that has been quite successful, particularly in Newlyn. Newlyn bass is worth a premium in London simply because of clear and correct labelling.
The word ‘by-catch’ implies that it is unavoidable. The Commission is damaging fishermen’s integrity by implying that they are deliberately fishing their by-catch. At the same time, high domestic and continental demand make sea bass a valuable species, so chucking the already dead by-catch back seems senseless. I ask that more time be given to looking at the results of the measures introduced over recent years, which have led to a 70% reduction in landings from the commercial fleet. Steady rebuilding is the right way forward, but avoiding unnecessary discards must be a key part of the policy.
I mentioned earlier that I was grateful to have the Minister and Secretary of State on a visit to Newlyn harbour. The Minister was kind enough to have a Q and A session at the CFPO’s annual general meeting, and I make no apology for the thorough quizzing that CFPO members gave him on the future of their livelihood. I note that Councillor Adam Paynter, the leader of Cornwall Council, also accepted my invitation and visited Newlyn last month. I mention those visits, because the team at Newlyn Harbour have developed plans for much-needed investment, under which the harbour would offer a greater range of services and deliver the infrastructure needed to service a vibrant fishing fleet. Their aim is to support innovation, unlock potential within the local fishers and bring in necessary improvements to current infrastructure. That work is aimed at reinforcing Newlyn’s leading role in UK fisheries.
Newlyn is ideally located to serve export markets as well as premium UK markets such as London and elsewhere. It will be vital to secure public funding support for international hubs such as Newlyn as we navigate our way out of the EU. Such support will provide Newlyn with extra capacity for boats and enable it to offer better services, such as engineering and boat maintenance. Newlyn has the potential to expand its international enterprise.
The current funding systems do not adequately recognise the needs of the Cornish and wider fishing industries. Small fishing businesses in my constituency that do not have reliable cash flows struggle to capitalise on reimbursement-based grants. Businesses looking to undertake larger projects may look despairingly at their Scottish counterparts, who have long been able to use European regional development funding for ports and harbours, because Scotland negotiated a block exemption on state aid rules. Please, as we leave the EU and look to secure a sustainable fishing industry across the UK’s coastal towns, can we provide equal access to funds?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Because there have been a number of interventions, I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker, Ronnie Cowan.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I commend you on your good judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I inform you that I will not be taking any interventions.
In Scotland, there is a great divide that has torn apart families and friends. It is not politics, religion or even football, but the age-old question: salt and vinegar, or salt and sauce? Unbelievably, some people prefer sauce with their fish and chips. That is all that most people need to consider. But how often do we stop and wonder: who caught that fish? What were the weather conditions? Who owns the boat? How much debt are they in? Will the bank lend to them? What sort of living do they make, and are they safe at sea? For generations, fishing families have braved the seas and oceans to put food on our plates, but they can continue to do so only if they and their fishing waters are protected.
Post Brexit, who decides? In the Faroe Islands, the fishing industry accounts for about 90% of total exports. The Danish Government have respected that and allowed the Faroes to negotiate their own treaties. As a result, the Faroes are thriving. That sort of thing is possible when one Parliament respects and trusts another. As we move closer to Brexit, will the UK respect and trust Scotland? Like those of the Faroe Islands, Scotland’s seas are vital. They are the fourth largest in the EU, and they are potentially the richest. On average, around four tonnes of fish are taken from each square nautical mile of Scottish waters, compared with around one tonne on average for EU waters. Neighbouring countries are highly dependent on Scotland’s waters for their landings. Germany and the rest of the UK land around 30% of their fishing catches, by weight, from Scottish waters.
If Scotland was a normal independent nation, we would negotiate directly with other countries to get the best possible deal for this key sector of our economy. Scottish fisherman will be looking to the future with trepidation over their funding and investment situation. We would be wise to look to Norway, where all parties involved in fisheries, regardless of size, have a seat around the table, where all are equally respected, and where fishermen, policy makers, politicians and managers all listen to each other in an atmosphere of equality. No sector dominates to the detriment of another.
I want to be clear that the SNP agrees that the common fisheries policy has been burdensome on the Scottish fishing industry. Ever since 1983, when it was debated in the House, we have consistently opposed the policy, as was mentioned earlier. We understand that, although every voting area in Scotland voted to remain in the EU, many Scottish fishermen undoubtedly voted to leave and to “take back control”. What does taking back control look like for the Scottish fishing industry?
HSBC estimates that the overall loss of access to the single market will initially cost the industry £42 million a year. Over a quarter of crew in the Scottish fishing fleet are non-UK nationals, yet European workers still do not have clarity regarding their working rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) mentioned, a recruitment crisis is looming. We also require access to EU markets: 86% of all the west coast of Scotland’s shellfish currently goes to the EU. This has to continue somehow. New markets in the far east can be pursued long term, but core markets must be preserved.
Finally, it is not just livelihoods at risk, but lives. While we are restructuring our fishing industries, we must give our fishermen the security of a coastguard capable of reacting to emergencies. The loss of fishing vessels such as the Louisa and the mistakes being made cannot be ignored. We should see this period as an opportunity to do things better. Will the Minister seek to develop a fair allocation of quota, provide improved training for domestic fishermen, create fair and flexible fisheries access and management for inshore fleets, and regenerate our coastal fleets and the associated facilities around the coast? We have this opportunity now and must act now.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I wish to start by paying tribute to Sean Hunter, a Brixham fisherman who sadly lost his life in the past week. He was deeply loved by his family and the whole community, and I know that the House will want to join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family.
I also pay tribute to the Fishermen’s Mission, which does much to support fishermen, their families and our wider communities, and join other Members in paying tribute to the coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the National Coastwatch Institution and all the emergency services for their professionalism and courage. Most of all, however, I want to thank the fishers themselves, who do so much, in such challenging conditions, to put food on our plates and bring so much to our national and local economies. The value of the catch to the UK economy in 2016 was £936 million.
I am also delighted to say that Brixham has again been voted the No. 1 fishing port in the UK, landing the most valuable catch in England. In excess of £30 million has been sold through Brixham fish market in the last year, and that is providing jobs not just at sea but in the processing sector on land. We recognise the value of all those jobs.
I also pay tribute to the responsible actions of our fishers, who have done much in responding to scientific advice to improve the sustainability of many of our species. However, just as we expect our fishers to respond to that scientific advice and reduce the total allowable catch, in many cases, so I would ask the Minister to respond and recognise that we expect fairness when the scientific data shows we are fishing sustainably. In his negotiations, in which I wish him well, will he therefore look at the sole quotas in VIId and VIIe? There is a very strong case for their being increased further.
We need to look again at the value of the scientific evidence on which the quotas are based. In responding to the debate, will the Minister listen to the concerns of fishermen who are asking for greater access to fisheries science partnerships in co-operation with CEFAS? I am concerned to hear that too often these requests are turned down. For some years, the UK has agreed to adhere to the data collection framework, so it is of great concern to hear that the sprat stock, for example, is still described as “Data Deficient”. In his response, will the Minister say what is going to happen about that in future?
Several colleagues have raised the issues of bass fisheries. As time is short, I will not dwell on them, except perhaps to thank the Devon and Severn inshore fisheries and conservation authority for meeting me to discuss the wrasse fisheries, and to hold that up as an example of where responsible but proportionate precautionary principles are being applied.
In my closing moments, I say to the Minister that as we now move to thinking about where we are with Brexit and beyond, fishing communities want to see fairness. We recognise that we need to avoid falling into an acrimonious Brexit, but to maintain good relations in order to trade with our neighbours in the future. I just hope that he will make sure that our fishing communities are not let down, as they were in 1973.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), and I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), on securing the debate.
At the beginning of every fisheries debate, it is right that we praise the amazing charities that provide rescue and support for the fishing industry, such as the RNLI, the coastguard and the Fishermen’s Mission. Today I want to pay special tribute to Tony Jones—a respected fisherman of many years who is missed not only by the fishing community in Plymouth, but around the country—who died when the Solstice trawler was lost at sea off Plymouth recently. Our thoughts remain with his family, and with Nick and Chris, who survived that quick capsize.
I want to pass on special thanks to the RNLI crews from Plymouth, Looe and Salcombe who reacted so quickly in searching for the vessel. It might be useful for hon. Members who do not follow their local RNLI on Twitter to search out the #outonashout Twitter feed, which tweets every time an RNLI lifeboat launches, because they will be amazed at just how many times those brave volunteers go to sea to save lives.
We must do more to protect and secure safety at sea, which means matching our words with actions. I am very grateful to the Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime for the action he secured following the possible delay to lifeboat tasking after the sinking of the Solstice. He said that there would be “no stone left unturned”, and so far he has been true to his word. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), an SNP Member, for his support after the sinking of the Solstice, including through sharing his experience of the sinking of the Louisa from his constituency.
The proper investigations are under way and it is not right to prejudge them, but I know that areas in which there can be improved tasking of lifeboats have already been identified by the coastguard. I hope that they will be put in place so that lives can be saved more quickly at sea. This is not a partisan request, because I believe there is cross-party support for ensuring that safety at sea is put ahead of any political considerations. In the meantime, I have asked the coastguard to do all it can to rebuild the Plymouth fishing industry’s confidence in knowing that the coastguard will take action in the event of a disaster or a trawler going missing.
Fishing is a really important industry for Plymouth. We have a vibrant fishing community that we want to strengthen in the years ahead. It is vital not only that we campaign for the right Brexit deal to protect our fisheries, as has been mentioned, but that fishing infrastructure around the country is protected. In particular, that means not building luxury flats on the fishing quay in Plymouth, therefore ensuring that there is protection for the fishing industry for many years to come. Plymouth also needs a new state-of-the-art fish market, and I hope the Government will look at how investments can be secured to ensure that, in whatever port around the country, Britain’s fishing industry can access the very best of technologies and facilities to ensure its success for many years.
I am proud that Plymouth is leading the way towards blue belting, following the example set in “Blue Planet II”, in securing the first national marine park, which I hope will be designated in Plymouth sound. The scheme has cross-party support, as well as the support of world-class institutions based in Plymouth including, among many others, the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the National Marine Aquarium.
Finally, I want to heap praise on the fantastic work of Plymouth City Council in its Plymouth lifejackets campaign. Some 120 personal flotation devices, equipped with locator beacons, have now been given out to those in the fishing industry in Plymouth. This has been supported by a £77,000 grant from the European maritime and fisheries fund and the MMO. As one RNLI coxswain put it, this is designed to take the search out of search and rescue.
At this time, the House has an awful lot to be proud of in the fishing industry. Knowing how dangerous fishing is, we should heap praise on those involved for all the work that they do.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Although my constituency contains 31 miles of magnificent North sea coastline, it does not have much of a fishing industry—certainly not as much as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). However, I thought it was important that I speak in today’s debate on the eve of the Fisheries Council that will set quotas for all European fishing fleets. In a previous life, I had the great privilege to work for just over a year in the European Parliament for Ian Duncan, now Lord Duncan, who was the Conservative spokesperson on fisheries. One could not find a bigger advocate for the industry.
I quickly learned that someone enters the world of fishing unprepared at their peril. More importantly, I learned about the skill, dedication and ingenuity of British and Scottish fishermen and the wider industry, and of the producer organisations of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association with Mike Park, the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association with Ian Gatt, the Shetland Fishermen’s Association with Simon Collins, and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation with Bertie Armstrong. Faced with overwhelming regulation, bans, recovery plans, and a bureaucratic sea of red tape that would test any industry, they have adapted and overcome. It is through their work and actions, not the words of politicians and civil servants at the Berlaymont or Rue Wiertz, that we are seeing record landings at Peterhead. Amazingly, this year North sea cod has been recertified as sustainable.
We are having the debate because of next week’s Council in Brussels. In reality, as the Minister is well aware, the big decisions have already been taken at the EU-Faroes and EU-Norway negotiations. On the whole, it has been quite a positive year for the Scottish fishing fleet.
I pay tribute to those unsung allies and supporters of the industry in Brussels who have fought the good fight over the years in trialogues, at the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries and at various Councils. Right now this is an uncertain time for them as we prepare to leave the European Union. As we speak, they are working hard to defend British interests as regulations that will affect the British fishing industry, such as the extension of the North sea plan, continue to be made.
We wish every success at Council next week to my hon. Friend the Minister, those at UKRep, all British staff at the Commission, and Caroline Healy at the secretariat of the European Conservatives and Reformists group. She works with the industry day in, day out, to defend it and give it a voice at the heart of the EU. For all the work that has been done for the fishing industry during our membership of the CFP, and for all the work still being done, I say thank you. Through the work of those individuals and their predecessors, the industry is in a strong position as we set sail into the sea of opportunity that is a post-CFP world.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and in recognition of its ongoing inquiry on fisheries, I thought it pertinent that I say a few words.
The opposition to the CFP is obvious, but we cannot forget that it was the Ted Heath Tory Government who deemed that Scottish fishermen were expendable in the wider UK interest. Back then there were 23 Scottish Tory MPs, yet we are now meant to believe that the new baker’s dozen will somehow hold this Government to account.
There is no doubt that everybody appreciates how critical fishing is to coastal communities, but in the bigger picture it accounts for only 0.1% of GDP. With successive Governments in thrall to the London’s financial sector and house prices, what will be the overall Government priorities? How can we believe guarantees from the fisheries Minister that there will be separation and ring-fencing of fishing access.
UNCLOS will be the post-Brexit fallback, but it also allows historical rights to be taken into account. There therefore must be discussions on the subject, but given that the UK Government have already allowed 18 months to pass without even closing preliminary discussions with the EU, they will have to up their game over the next 15 months.
The prize is control over the waters and management of the stock in a sustainable way. In the same vein, Scotland must have control over its waters. Ours are the fourth largest in Europe—they account for 60% of the UK’s waters, and 38% of current EU allowable catch. Scotland is therefore critical to the overall process. It is fine to argue for an overall UK framework, but that must be agreed with the devolved nations, not imposed on them.
These concerns are echoed by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which wants all EU powers devolved straight to Edinburgh, because it trusts the Scottish Government. Scotland also needs to be allocated budgets that are currently accessed via the EU, such as that from the European maritime and fisheries fund. Even that funding is proof of the low priority that the UK Government give this and their weakness in negotiations with the EU.
The forthcoming fisheries paper needs to flesh out a lot of things, so I hope that we will hear from the Minister about it. What will the quota management system be based on? We cannot continue a system that sees some of Scotland’s quotas traded, such as for blue whiting, or the top-slicing of The Hague preference quota, which has seen Scotland lose out on over 1,000 tonnes of whiting over the past five years. The UK Government really need to publish and implement the new fisheries concordat that was agreed by Ministers in August 2016. The Environment Secretary needs to ensure that licencing starts to eliminate the “slipper skippers”. If people cannot afford or access quota licences, the perceived opportunities for job creation will be lost. Quota hopping also needs to be addressed.
Problems might arise with trade tariffs if access to the single market is not maintained. As we have heard, the cost to the sector of leaving the single market is estimated at £42 million. A customs agreement is clearly vital for such special products with a limited lifespan.
How will the EEZ be policed? What will transition periods look like? Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation advises that a nine-month transitional or bridging period is required. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State talks about leaving the CFP early, or on day one, but that is at odds with what fishermen say is required. There will be opportunities, but the UK Government must up their game and need to start giving out better information.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I would like to take the opportunity of this debate on the fishing industry, using the broad definition of that industry as the commercial activity of harvesting, processing and marketing aquatic produce for human consumption, to make a positive request of the Minister. Since 1995, the amount of caught fish in the world has been flatlining, but the amount of fish used for food has continued to grow and outpace global population growth. The gap is being filled by the miracle of aquaculture.
Forty years ago, 93% of seafood came from capture fisheries—trawlers and traditional fishing—and only 7% came from global aquaculture. Today, however, more than 50% of the world’s seafood comes from aquaculture and that figure is only going to rise. The number of aquaculture-produced fish is staggering. Today, more than 50% of globally consumed fish is being produced on fish farms. As of 2014, that is equivalent to 73.8 million tonnes of fish, which equivalent in weight to 377 jumbo jets. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a lot of fish. It makes a huge contribution to feeding the world’s population. Aquaculture provides a highly efficient source of animal protein for human consumption and is critical to future food security for the rapidly increasing global population.
It will come as no surprise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear a Scottish Member talk about Scottish food as being the best in the world. Our salmon, born and bred in Scottish waters, is second to none. The growth of aquaculture has allowed this industry to thrive. In 2016, we found 13.7 million salmon in Scotland. According to a DEFRA-commissioned report that was published in July 2017, 85% of the volume of farmed fish and shellfish grown in the UK is produced in Scotland, and 92% of the value of UK aquaculture is produced in Scotland. According to a report commissioned and published this year by the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the aquaculture supply chain in Scotland employs over 12,000 people. According to the Food and Drink Federation, so far in 2017, salmon alone is the UK’s No. 1 food export.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that one reason why the SNP is calling for Scotland to remain in the single market and the customs union is precisely so that we do not have prime salmon backed-up at customs checkpoints?
Stephen Kerr
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We certainly do not want that, because the value of salmon to the UK economy is close to the value of the entire landings of all species of fish by UK vessels in capture fisheries. We want that to increase.
If a barrel of oil is worth $50, the equivalent value of a barrel of salmon is more than $1,200. That is why the Norwegian Government’s national policy is that aquaculture is the sustainable industry for when oil runs out. The industry is already estimated to be worth £1.8 billion to the Scottish economy, but we must go for growth. The Scottish national marine plan has a target of increasing production from the current level of 170,000 tonnes to 210,000 tonnes in the coming year. That can be achieved if we focus on productivity, and we can best do that by focusing on the cutting-edge science involved in food production.
That brings me back to my constituency of Stirling. The Institute of Aquaculture and Global Aquatic Food Security is based at Stirling University, as is the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. They work together to develop vaccines, cultivation methods and productivity techniques that have had an impact in countries all over the world, including Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. With the help of the centre, we can increase productivity in our domestic industry and do our bit to develop a global industry that will ultimately feed the world, which must be a very worthy objective.
Now I come to my request to the Minister. A very important part of the Stirling city region deal is investment in the infrastructure of the Institute of Aquaculture and Global Aquatic Food Security and the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. May I press the Minister to help me to secure a £20 million investment as part of the deal? That will serve as an ignition point for millions of pounds of private investment in the industry, with a potential prize of an additional £254 million in increased gross value, more than 3,000 new jobs, and more than £690 million in additional sales. The ambition is very clear. The institute says:
“We are determined that Scotland and the UK remain at the forefront of global aquaculture and that we do not lose the potential for high value employment and sustainable economic growth through innovation and enterprise in aquatic food production.
We have created a bold vision for the development of our aquaculture infrastructure, ensuring that we can match current and future industry needs. This development is underpinned by a scientific strategy that will ensure that Stirling remains synonymous with excellence in aquaculture.”
I ask the Minister to help me to secure the money, so that we can make that a reality.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I hoped to make a wide-ranging speech about the practical and policy dangers that face the Welsh fishing industry, but instead I shall concentrate on just three issues. First, I shall set out the unique nature and structure of the Welsh commercial fishing industry. Secondly, I shall highlight some of the concerns that have been raised with me about the UK Government’s trade policies. Finally, I shall implore the Government to give coastal communities, and fishermen and women throughout Wales, the tangible assurances that they deserve.
The Welsh fishing fleet, which consists of approximately 400 vessels, operates in some of the most challenging environments. Not only does it face hostile sea conditions, but it must operate within a low quota of 100 tonnes a year for fish covered by the total allowable catch regulations. The adaptable and hardy Welsh fishing industry has adapted to those conditions, focusing much of its attention on non-TAC species including sea bass, about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon, and significant amounts of shellfish, but it walks a fine line. One fisherman told me that his family lived hand to mouth, not knowing from one month to the next whether they would be able to meet their financial obligations.
The Welsh Fishermen’s Association has drawn my attention to some striking analysis which underlines the precariousness of the Welsh fishing fleet’s position. If there were a mere four weeks of delays in our current trading relationships, the Welsh fishing fleet would be in danger of collapse, and a delay of six weeks would cause catastrophic business failures throughout the sector. That takes me to my next point: the trade issues that are at the forefront of Welsh fishermen’s minds.
Our small-scale fleet trades widely in a dynamic market of live and therefore perishable products. Tariff barriers will of course have a huge impact on their viability, but, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), non-tariff barriers could be just as devastating, if not more so. Trade in live or fresh food produce is a tricky business at the best of times, but customs checks and additional delays in the process of trade will cause the value of the produce to deteriorate, which will render trade unviable and, in certain circumstances, impossible. By gambling away our existing trade relationship with the EU, we risk the creation of customs checks and a raft of non-tariff barriers. Empty rhetoric about “frictionless trade” is meaningless to the coastal communities who are peering over the edge of the hard-Brexit cliff that the Government have created.
I will not apologise for repeating, once again, a simple solution to the problem: retaining membership of the customs union and the single market. If the Welsh fishing industry is decimated, as it might well be if the Government carry on as they are, investment will be drained from coastal communities such as those in Ceredigion. They are already hard hit, and this money is unlikely to return to them.
I urge the UK Government to reconsider their position on the customs union and single market, as that would safeguard the viability of the Welsh fishing industry. I also echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan): the UK Government’s pursuit of future markets and trade deals must not come at the expense of today’s fishing fleet. A fishermen I spoke to asked a disarmingly simple but extremely pertinent question: “There may be opportunities somewhere in the intangible distance, but if there is no fleet left by the time we get there, what is the point?”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Yesterday my colleague the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and the former Minister for Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland met the Minister to discuss the forthcoming meetings. It is always good to see the Minister in his place; he is a friend of the fishermen and there is no better person to speak on our behalf in this Chamber.
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has a five-step plan. I do not have time to go into that in detail, but the federation mentions in its brief:
“A house divided amongst itself will fall.”
This House today is united: all parties and Members are working together behind our Minister.
While the devolution of fishing is necessary for the fine-tuning of everyday issues, there is also a wish among the industry for pragmatism and, where appropriate, maintaining a United Kingdom-wide policy framework, particularly on licensing and the trade of quota. It does not serve the Northern Ireland, Scottish, English or Welsh fishing industries well when barriers in the form of temporary moratoriums are erected around the transfer of quota units within the United Kingdom or restrictions are placed on the port of registration of licensing administration.
A confusing picture is emanating from Ireland, typified by evidence provided by Irish fishing industry representatives to the Irish Parliament’s Brexit Committee during a hearing on 24 January 2017. During that session, contributors stated that up to 70% of mackerel and nephrops annually caught by Ireland’s fishing fleet was taken from UK waters. It seems it was all right for them and other EU fishermen to draw a blank fisheries cheque from UK waters, but not for others to draw such cheques from Irish waters. I put that marker down, to go on the record in Hansard.
Northern Ireland fishermen are looking east to the rest of the UK for their future, not to the south, and certainly not to the EU. They expect that the wrongs imposed on them by the common fisheries policy, typified by the application of The Hague preference quota regime, will be righted. For our fishermen, removal of the preference is a red line.
It may be convenient for the Irish Government to blame the UK’s withdrawal from this convention as a reason for not progressing their Sea-Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, but the fact is that their minds were made up beforehand to erect a hard border against fishermen from Northern Ireland, as a tactic to secure future access arrangements for the Irish fleet to British waters, on which, as mentioned, they heavily depend. It is with regret that we conclude the time has come to withdraw from the voisinage agreement, and we urge the Minister to act on this matter soon.
The Minister is well-versed on the issues surrounding the need for non-UK crew. The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland ran a recruitment drive for 150 crew for local fishing vessels. There were 30 expressions of interest in the positions from across the EU. Some 19 candidates were invited to interview, and only six attended for interview, with five of them being offered positions after sea survival training. So 145 places are left in Northern Ireland. I commend the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who have spoken on this matter. The process we have is not working, and we need to do more on this.
I ask the Minister also to remember the long-term cod management plan and ensure that the sea cod TAC is kept for us and increased across Northern Ireland. I also stress the importance of nephrops to my constituency of Strangford and the villages and fishermen of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel.
These are key stocks for Northern Ireland, as well as the Minister’s constituents in the south-west of England, yet it seems that, against a background of much better news from the Irish sea, the European Commission continues to find something to create discontent and upset. This kind of arm-twisting is unacceptable. There will be a better future for our fishermen, and the December 2017 Agriculture and Fisheries Council should offer a first step in that direction.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This is the first time that I have taken part in the annual fishing debate, and I am delighted to have this opportunity to sum up for the Scottish National party. Although I was born in Aberdeen and have lived most of my life there, before I was five I lived in Gamrie, which is also known as Gardenstown, near Banff in the north-east of Scotland. That little community has historically been dominated by fishing and continues to be so to this day. My great-great-grandfather, John Murray, was killed while fishing, at the age of 34, during the first world war. My grandfather—my “granda”—John West, was the skipper of the Banff-registered May Lily, a 70-foot trawler that went out from Gamrie. He skippered that vessel from 1968 to 1975, having been on it for a number of years before that. The fishing history is strong in my family, particularly on my dad’s side.
It was a very different landscape back then; people had very different attitudes. The boats were much smaller, and people stayed on one fishing boat for much longer than they perhaps do nowadays. Things have moved quite significantly, particularly since the 1970s, but even in recent years there has been a significant change. One of the big changes in recent years has been the increase in sustainability. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) mentioned cod stocks, and the reason for the increase in sustainability is the better management of the fishing stocks. We are able to look at this scientifically and sustainably to ensure that the stocks continue to grow so that we can ensure the future of the fishing industry for the long term in the north-east of Scotland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. In the UK, 65% of the tonnage of fish landed by UK vessels is landed by Scottish vessels. Over 50% of all fishing jobs in the UK are in Scotland, as are 56% of the jobs involved in going out fishing, rather than in the processing side.
The SNP has regularly raised a number of concerns about the way in which the UK deals with fishing. The deficiencies of the common fisheries policy have been raised by my colleagues and by other Members across the House today, but we have particular concerns about the way in which the UK decides to divvy up the quotas. The North sea whiting top-slice continues to be a major concern to us. Allowing English coastal communities to have more for their 10-metre-and-under inshore vessels is disadvantaging Scottish fishermen. The Scottish Government have been absolutely consistent in their criticism of that policy, and we will continue to be so.
Another thing that my colleagues have mentioned is the UK’s swap package, particularly in relation to blue whiting. That continues to be a concern for us as well. We cannot be swapping with Norway and not getting back what our fishermen fish. We have been consistent in our criticism of the way in which the UK Government have prioritised the fishing industry. It is incredibly important in the north-east of Scotland. It is not that we want to see less priority being given to fishermen in English coastal communities; we want to see more priority given to those who are trawling for white fish in particular in the north-east of Scotland and across the whole of Scotland. That is another major concern.
A number of Members have talked about Brexit. I want to mention the new port and the refurbishments that have been done at the port in Peterhead. More than £5 million of the money that went into the new port came from the European Union, and a further £6 million came from the Scottish Government to improve the port at Peterhead. I understand that the new fish market is under way, and is looking very positive. However, that could not have been done in the same format without the European money that we have received, and we would like some clarity from the Minister as to what will replace it. What will he do to ensure that our fishing industry is fit for the future, particularly in relation to the critical infrastructure that is needed? Peterhead is an amazing port that lands a significant proportion of the fish that is landed across the United Kingdom, and we need to ensure that we can continue to have the curve on them.
In more Brexit-related issues, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who introduced the debate, talked specifically about trading with France, but few people seem to realise how much we export to France, which is the destination for 27.5% of our fish exports. It is therefore incredibly important for our fish processors and fishermen and for everybody involved in the fishing industry that we have a trade deal with France, and therefore the whole European Union, that allows us to export that amount with few hold-ups at customs and that does not have the 7% to 11% tariffs that we would see under WTO rules, which would be a major problem. As has been mentioned already, leaving the single market will cost the industry about £42 million, which is an incredible amount of money.
My last point is about the Government’s prioritisation of looking at the industries that will be hit by Brexit. I am unsure of their level of prioritisation, but the little prioritisation that they are doing seems to be concentrated on industries that offer a particularly high tax take for the Treasury, such as the finance and car industries. I want them to look a little more at the communities that will be decimated by the loss of a certain industry, such as fishing, and to prioritise on that basis as well.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate this afternoon ahead of the annual December Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting. I start by thanking all those who have taken part in this thoughtful and considered discussion, which saw representations that reflect the diverse fishing activity that is happening all over our country. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who secured this debate, for her characteristically insightful speech—I know that this policy area is close to her heart. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), because there have been tragedies at sea since last year’s debate. I send our thoughts to those who have lost loved ones and to those who have been injured at sea, particularly the friends and family of the crew of the fishing vessel Solstice. I ask the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) to send our condolences back to her constituency following the tragedy that she shared with us. I join all those who paid tribute to the RNLI for its incredible work and to organisations, including the Fishermen’s Mission, who do so much to support the wellbeing of not only those who spend their lives fishing at sea, but their families.
In anticipation of this debate, I looked back in Hansard at last year’s discussion. This is the second fisheries debate since the referendum, yet many of the questions that hon. Members from across the House were asking in December 2016 are still being asked a year on. In the past 12 months, we do not seem to have moved any closer to clarity on what a post-Brexit fisheries policy will mean for our fishing communities up and down the country. While there is diversity and robust adaptability within the UK fishing fleet, which have allowed it to weather both rough seas and changing political landscapes, people’s fears about and aspirations for a post-Brexit policy depend on where they are in the country and what is being fished. Last week, the Labour party launched a consultation on fishing ahead of the upcoming fisheries Bill, which was announced in the Queen’s Speech, to ensure that those with an interest can have a say in that process, and I am looking forward to going through those submissions.
The rhetoric of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has driven expectations for a significant uplift in economic activity in the fishing sector, which we are all keen to see, so the challenge now is how and when he proposes to deliver it. I hope the Minister can update the House today on what progress has been made to prepare the UK to become an independent coastal state and on where fishing currently features in the Brexit negotiations. When this country leaves the EU in March 2019, what will be the framework for agreeing the total allowable catches as a means of managing fish stocks that we share with neighbouring countries? Despite his tough taking-back-control narrative, the Secretary of State apparently told the Danish market back in August that
“boats from EU countries will still be able to operate in UK waters after Brexit, as the UK does not have enough capacity to catch and process all its fish alone.”
Like most of the fishing industry, I am keen to see the evidence upon which he based that policy decision. Will the Minister explain to us how that system would be managed, who would have access to our waters, and what the mechanism will be for agreeing allocations of quota to vessels from the rest of the EU?
In addition to the question of our waters and access, the other area of uncertainty for the fishing industry is trade, which has come up many times today. Although the level of dependence on the European market varies by sector, up to 85% of our crab, lobster and prawns are sold into Europe. We will need the freest possible trade with our neighbours if we are to satisfy the demand from European consumers for our top-quality shellfish. The point has already been made—including in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who represents a constituency with a thriving fish processing sector—that, when dealing with fresh produce, financial barriers are not the only challenge, and ensuring there are no delays that could compromise the smooth and timely movement of fish across borders will be essential if we are to maintain our existing routes to markets outside the UK.
That was made clear to me when I met fishermen in North Shields with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who represented his local fishing community admirably this afternoon. I thank him for his kind remarks, which were certainly kinder than the remarks I heard when I worked under him in the Opposition Whips Office.
It is reassuring that there is firm common ground between the fishing industry, conservationists, recreational fishers and consumers alike that a sustainable approach to a new fishing policy is the only game in town. For a sustainable approach to work, we need two things: we have to get the science right if we are to have confidence in managing fish stocks responsibly; and we have to have a means of robustly enforcing that approach. With that in mind, I am concerned to see that the number of fishing vessels inspected by the fishery protection squadron has fallen from 1,400 in 2011-12 to just 278 in 2016-17. Does the Minister agree that, for all the technological developments, which I certainly welcome, the ability to board a vessel and inspect the operations on board will be essential if we are to manage fish stocks sustainably? I hope the Minister will indicate how he envisages the future of fisheries enforcement to work post-Brexit and confirm that the fishery protection squadron will be resourced to carry out its objectives effectively.
Another issue that came up time and again as I visited coastal towns is the failure to attract the next generation into fishing. If we are to capitalise on an increased quota that drives economic activity and job creation in our coastal towns, we will need a new approach to training. The Whitby fishing school explained to me some of the difficulties of securing funding for courses. The school finds it incredibly difficult to deliver courses that both truly equip young people to work at sea and tick the relevant boxes to secure funding for that training, so it has asked the Government to reflect on whether the framework in place for delivering apprenticeships and training programmes is fit for purpose in attracting and retaining the fishermen and women of tomorrow.
On funding and infrastructure, the European maritime and fisheries fund has facilitated crucial strategic investment that has helped to support jobs and promote sustainability. For the benefit of those planning bids for investment in their area over the coming years, such as the fish quay in North Shields, will the Minister provide further information on the plans in place for replacing the fund? I am keen to hear his response to the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on infrastructure to support aquaculture.
On conservation, there is renewed public awareness of the need for action to preserve our marine environment as a result of David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet II”, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said in his powerful speech—my right hon. Friend has always used his experience to be a real champion of responsible fish management. More than 10 million people are tuning in to watch every week and, as anyone who has seen the show will appreciate, there could be no better showcase for our marine life, demonstrating just how visually stunning yet incredibly vulnerable it is.
We are proud of our record in government, and of introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. We included bold commitments in our manifesto ahead of this year’s general election. The Minister will be aware of the blue belt pledges, which include the goals of establishing a marine protected area around the South Sandwich Islands in 2018 and of delivering on the commitment to establish a fully protected area in at least 50% of Ascension Island’s waters in 2019. I hope he will reaffirm his commitment to conservation and express Government support for such an initiative.
Marine protection and fisheries management are two sides of the same coin. If we get it right and set the standard both domestically and in our waters around the world, we can secure a flourishing marine environment and a strong and profitable fisheries sector. It is fair to say that the need for certainty from the Government is a theme that has run throughout the contributions today. On many of the biggest questions faced by the fisheries sector, although hopes are certainly high, we are still in the dark on much of the detail. There are plenty of opportunities for our fishermen and women and those in related sectors as we leave the EU, but what we desperately need to see from this Government is the road map outlining just how we deliver on them.
That having been said, may I take this opportunity to wish the Minister all the very best for the upcoming Council meeting? We all have an vested interest in it going well and we all have our fingers crossed that he is a better negotiator with our European neighbours than perhaps some of his colleagues.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her good wishes for us at the upcoming negotiations. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and the all-party group on fisheries on securing this annual debate. It takes place at a crucial time, because every year in November and December we have a series of important fisheries negotiations, and this will be the fifth year I attend the December Fisheries Council. It is also crucial because of the context: the fact that we are leaving the EU and working on future domestic fisheries policy, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out.
Fishing, aquaculture and fish processing is an incredibly important industry for this country, contributing £1.5 billion to our economy and employing 33,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) pointed out the great potential for aquaculture, and we have seen some fantastic results in the Scottish salmon industry —this is one of our great exports. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss his thoughts and proposals to take that forward in his constituency. The catching sector is also vital to many of our coastal communities, as the sheer number of contributions we have heard today attests. We have heard contributions from Members from Northern Ireland, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and the east coast, and from those on the channel. We have heard from Members from right around our country—[Interruption.] Sorry, have I missed one?
George Eustice
And Devon—we always miss out Devon and Cornwall, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This industry has vital significance to our coastal communities, but we also know that this is a dangerous occupation. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall suffered a very personal tragedy in this regard, and I pay tribute to the work she has done since on issues such as marine safety. In 2017, five fishermen lost their lives, and our thoughts are with all those families affected.
In today’s debate, we have heard some personal accounts of people who have experienced tragedy in their own constituencies, including from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who talked about a memorial in his constituency, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who gave a personal account of one of her ancestors who suffered a tragedy in this area.
I turn now to this year’s negotiations. The first thing to note, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out, is that a series of negotiations take place at this time of year. For Scotland, and for constituencies such as Orkney and Shetland, and Banff and Buchan, the negotiations that really matter, perhaps more than any other, are the annual EU-Norway bilateral negotiations. This year, we have seen some positive outcomes from those negotiations, which concluded in Bergen last week, with the discard ban uplifts being included, as these stocks are now at the maximum sustainable yield—MSY. For example, we are seeing increases in cod of 10% and in haddock of 24%, as well as an increase in whiting and, for the first time in some time, a significant increase in herring.
Also taking place at the moment are the annual coastal states negotiations, which include other neighbouring countries not in the EU, such as the Faroes, Iceland and even Russia. There was a third round of those negotiations yesterday. There was a sticking point with Russia over Atlanto-Scandian herring, so those negotiations are ongoing, but the emerging point of significance for the Scottish industry in particular is that we have limited the cut on mackerel to about 20%, in order to do a staged reduction to ensure that we keep the stock at MSY. That follows several years when there has been a very positive outlook for these stocks.
I turn to the December Council next week. For 2017, 29 of the 45 quota stocks in which the UK has an interest are now at MSY, and it remains an absolute priority for the Government to try to progress more stocks to MSY next year, in 2018. This year, for the first time in many years, we have seen a more positive outlook with regard to the Irish sea. In particular, the scientific advice on nephrops is more positive, and we believe it may therefore be possible to get area VIIa nephrops to MSY sooner than anticipated. The science also supports significant uplifts for cod and haddock, albeit from a low base.
There is positive news on the east coast and the eastern channel for skates and rays, which is particularly important for some of our south-coast fishermen, with the science supporting an increase there and with no new evidence that we are likely to see a roll-over in the Celtic sea.
George Eustice
I am going to carry on because I want to cover as many issues as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) pointed out that the Celtic sea remains challenging. We are doing some mixed fishery analysis there, but the gadoid fishery, with whiting, cod and haddock, continues to create challenges and we are working with our scientists to address them.
There have been other changes this year. For the first time, the Commission is keen to progress a prohibition on the landing of eel. The UK has signalled that we support that, but we do not believe that marine catch should be the only area we look at; we have to look at the impacts on eels inshore as well.
As several hon. Members pointed out, we anticipate that bass will again be a controversial issue this year. Three years ago, as Fisheries Minister, I pushed for emergency measures for bass because the stock is in a precarious state. We secured that and I have tried since to ensure that the Commission gets the balance right between the actions it takes on recreational anglers and those they take on commercial fishing. We argued last year that there should be a lower catch limit for the hook-and-line commercial fishermen to create the headroom to give more leeway for recreational anglers. I will make a similar argument this year, but the scientific evidence has not been benchmarked to take account of the measures that have already been introduced, so the right thing to do might be to review the bass situation properly in March and we will point that out.
A number of hon. Members have talked about future policy. Everyone will be aware that it is our intention and plan to introduce a fisheries Bill in this Session. Early next year, we will publish more detailed proposals for that Bill, which we anticipate will be introduced during the course of the year, probably before the summer. The Bill will set out very clearly our approach, which is that when we leave the European Union we will become an independent coastal state under international law. We will take control of our exclusive economic zone, which is out to 200 miles or the median line. From that point, we will work with our neighbours to agree issues such as access and quota shares. The hon. Member for Halifax asked what the basis of those quota allocations would be. We are looking at the issue of zonal attachment, which most people recognise is the fairest way to do such things.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall asked whether we have historical catch data. We do. As she pointed out, the UK catches about 100,000 tonnes of fish a year in EU waters, and EU vessels catch some 750,000 tonnes in our waters, so there is an imbalance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the Faroe Islands to discuss its approach. Our view is that the six to 12-mile zone should be predominantly reserved for UK vessels, to keep that fishing pressure down. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, however, there are issues such as Ireland and voisinage agreement, to which we are committed and which we support.
The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) argued that we would lose influence by leaving the EU. I understand his argument, but I do not agree with it. The truth is that at the moment our influence in the EU is limited to the technocratic size of our qualified majority vote, and we are frequently unable to get the changes we support for the pro-science conservation measures we want. When we leave the EU, our influence will be defined by the scale of our fisheries resource and the need of all those other European countries to have access to it. In future there will be a bilateral UK-EU annual fisheries negotiation, and the UK will be in a stronger position.
I apologise to those Members whose points I have not been able to address. Many other points were raised, but I hope they appreciate that time is short and I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall an opportunity to reply.
Mrs Murray
We have heard 18 speeches by Back Benchers from all around the coast. I thank colleagues very much. I am sure that the Minister has got the message. I have one more for him: please do not sacrifice access to resources because you think you might get access to the market.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK fishing industry.
Financial Inclusion
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the crucial subject of financial inclusion and the single financial guidance body. It has been more than two years since financial inclusion was considered by the House, in a Westminster Hall debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd). He applied for the debate to draw Members’ attention to the invaluable work conducted by the Financial Inclusion Commission, the cross-party body on which he served. I have since had the honour of succeeding him in that role. The last two years have seen the publication of an excellent House of Lords Select Committee report into this issue.
We are approaching the halfway point to 2020 by when the commission still hopes to see a step change in financial inclusion. The commission’s report covered a wide range of recommendations and demanded that, by 2020, every adult should have access to objective and understandable advice on credit, debt, savings and pensions. Among other objectives, it also called for a specific Minister to take the lead on financial inclusion and financial capability. I am delighted that a Minister with just those responsibilities will respond to this debate, and I know that his task is to break down silos across the Government on this important issue. I congratulate the original authors of the commission’s report on achieving that objective, and I also congratulate the Minister. I know that he is deeply committed to this area and, as a former director of a credit union myself and the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on credit unions, I recognise a kindred spirit given his extensive work supporting credit unions in his constituency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
It is a fair to say that the work of the Financial Inclusion Commission—I have met many of its members—needs to be recognised. In relation to credit unions, it is right that we pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done. Does he agree that we should laud the fact that credit unions now have 1.29 million members, that their members and loans have doubled since 2006, and that their deposits and assets have trebled? With respect, he is following on from the great work of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), who were outstanding chairs of the all-party group before him.
Jeremy Quin
I am most grateful to the Minister. He raises a valuable point about credit unions, although they are not the focus of this debate. I do not wish to push my luck, but I hope we will have another opportunity to discuss them in the future.
The Minister is right about the progress that has been made since 2006. The increase from 2% to 3% in the interest rate allowed for credit unions has helped to make them more sustainable. It has permitted higher dividends, while ensuring that credit unions’ borrowing rates are very competitive. Without wishing to go all Gilbert and Sullivan, there is something apt in making the punishment address the root of the crime, so I am delighted that funds recovered from convicted loan sharks will, from next year, help to pay for incentives for credit union membership in the communities on which loan sharks prey.
A financially inclusive system is one that is fit for purpose for all in society, regardless of their economic status. It is one in which individuals can participate fully and not face punitive restrictions in the financial products that they can access. It is also a system in which measures are taken to help to prevent people from falling into a downward spiral of financial hardship.
Every constituency MP knows the scale of the issues. There are approximately 1.5 million unbanked adults in the UK. According to Citizens Advice research, 13.5 million adults have difficulty managing money and making financial decisions. The ONS found that in the first quarter of this year only 2% of income was put aside as savings. The savings of those who do have them are often woefully insufficient to deal with life’s inevitable financial pressures—because of the breakdown of a washing machine or a car needed for work—through to more fundamental losses of income. The requirement for credit is therefore a given.
Financial exclusion can be further exacerbated by factors such as the high cost of credit and pay-as-you-go services. The commission estimated this poverty premium to be a cost of £1,300 a year to our poorest families. In the meantime, many from across the income spectrum lack good financial guidance at a time when the range and complexity of financial products has never been greater, and the need to make the right long-term decisions, in the light of increasing longevity, has never been more acute.
Financial inclusion is a huge topic, but the House will be pleased to hear that I intend to focus this debate on education, information and guidance. I was the a director of a credit union before entering this place, so I knew our sense of frustration—indeed, I am afraid, our sense of failure—at not being anywhere near as effective as we felt we should have been at persuading those in need of credit to use our cheaper community rates rather than accessing high-cost and high-risk lending.
The battle to ensure financial awareness has to start very early. I welcome the fact that the new national curriculum has made financial literacy statutory for the first time as part of citizenship education for 11 to 16-year-olds. I also recognise that improvements in basic maths, alongside the excellent results we have seen recently in literacy, are fundamental. However, I am afraid that focusing on secondary level may be too late. A report by the Money Advice Service found that financial habits are largely formed by the age of seven. Worryingly, a separate study by the Gambling Commission found that nearly half a million children as young as 11 are gambling weekly.
All we can do to increase financial literacy among children at primary school should be encouraged, and much can be done incrementally. I am aware that educational cartoons have been produced in Singapore and elsewhere to teach the basics of financial literacy at the very earliest ages. Simply having a single teacher in a school with the knowledge and understanding of how to teach financial literacy, who can act as a focus for provision inside that school, can be critical.
Any Member of this place knows how bewildering financial information can be to consumers. We all, in common with every citizens advice bureau in the country, are aware of the dreaded presentation at advice surgeries of a carrier bag full of financial information, much of which will be highly complex. We need to harness modern technology to help to provide our citizens with clear information about their financial position so that we help them to make educated judgments. Nowhere is this more apparent or more pressing than on pensions. All too many people suffer the scandal of lost pensions, while countless others are unaware of their post-retirement financial position until it is too late. I certainly know of examples of lost pensions from my own constituency.
It was a real pleasure to serve on the Work and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament. Our first report after I became a member of that Committee was “Pension freedom guidance and advice”, which highlighted the critical importance of the pensions dashboard for explaining clearly to consumers what they can expect and to ensure that they do not lose out.
I am delighted by the fresh impetus that the Minister has given the pensions dashboard. Bringing together data from 64 million pension pots is ambitious but necessary. Providing a single accurate and comprehensive source of pensions knowledge will be immensely useful to help to facilitate financial capability and retirement planning. I appreciate how complex a process this is and I have no wish to break the back of any camel. However, when the system is up and running, I want the concept to be extended to clarify for consumers with savings products, a mortgage or debts the full extent of their financial position, thereby helping them to plan accordingly.
On guidance, I welcome what is outlined in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill and the Government’s plans, which have broad cross-party support, to create a single financial guidance body. This, too, is in keeping with the recommendations of the Financial Inclusion Commission’s report, and it has been welcomed by Which?, Citizens Advice and Age UK.
A lot of great work is conducted at a community level—I particularly draw hon. Members’ attention to the valuable work conducted by the Horsham debt advice service—but the scale of this issue requires support on a national level. I have witnessed at first hand the excellent work carried out by the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise. They are all superb in their different ways, but I am certain that a single body will provide a more effective means by which to impart co-ordinated and consistent guidance.
I am at one with Citizens Advice in seeing three aspects of the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill as particularly positive: the new body will support only advice that is free at the point of use and is independent; it has an objective of targeting help at those most in need; and it has a remit to support joined-up services and to fill gaps, not to duplicate current provision. I am only too aware of the other pressures on time in this Chamber, but I look forward to the Bill’s Second Reading in this place as soon as possible.
One of the Bill’s provisions begins the process of implementing the Conservative manifesto commitment to provide a debt respite scheme. Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State must, within three months of the establishment of the body, seek its advice on the establishment of such a scheme. That will be an early test, and one to which a great number of us look forward to the SFGB and the Government rising.
This will be but one early example of the body’s strategic function to support and co-ordinate the development of a national strategy to improve financial capability. The SFGB will have to rise to the challenge outlined in research by Which?, which shows that only 36% of consumers use Government advisory bodies as an information source about their financial options.
Advertising and effective resourcing are key to ensuring high uptake, particularly among the groups who would benefit most from accessibility. Financial exclusion disproportionately affects lone parents, single pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled, and the active recruitment of those people requires the effective use of Government funding.
I would also like pensions guidance made much more widely available. Without wishing to be indelicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say that the services of Pension Wise, determined by age as they were, are available to our excellent Minister, but not, alas, to his excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary and nor, surprisingly, to myself. The younger the age range, the more effective this service will be.
I finish where I began. The SFGB will have a role in advancing financial inclusion, as will the new financial inclusion policy forum, which will be co-chaired by the Minister and the Economic Secretary. Especially at a point when the interest rate cycle is turning, financial inclusion is of critical importance. I welcome the moves by the Government that are under way, but I welcome still more the further reforms that I look forward to the Minister progressing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on the key issue of financial inclusion and the single financial guidance body, which we hope to bring before the House in the new year.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) for calling the debate and for the contribution he made as a step-in member of the Financial Inclusion Commission, following in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd). It is fair to say at the outset that I am deeply grateful to the commission’s authors, and I have met many of them, including Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who has been of great assistance to me in the five months I have been doing this job. He is part of the reason why we have a financial inclusion Minister at this stage.
It is an exciting time to be doing this job, in circumstances where we have over 8.5 million people automatically enrolled in a workplace pension and where we have the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill coming forward—it completed its passage through the House of Lords on 23 November, and it will come to this House in the new year. We are driving forward the points raised by my hon. Friend, whether on the pensions dashboard or the mid-life MOT.
I am particularly passionate about the need to address people’s financial inclusion and capability. If I may briefly digress and talk about my personal circumstances, I co-founded a local community bank in my constituency, in the north-east. Our community bank was launched in November 2015 by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. It was specifically tasked with trying to compete payday lenders out of business, as asked for by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. It has a small staff and an incredible team of local volunteers. It is fully accredited, with significant amounts of money deposited, and it makes low-cost loans to those who need them most.
I am no longer personally involved, because my ministerial role prevents me from doing so, but I do, as a Minister, want it to be my mission to champion such locally led positive solutions and to evangelise for savings and pensions. I pay tribute to all the staff who have helped so much in that institution.
The second institution I think it fair to thank is the Lords Committee that prepared a very detailed report in the 2016-17 Parliament on tackling financial exclusion. That was responded to by the Government recently. I pay tribute to the work the Committee has done addressing this issue. I also pay tribute to the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service, Pension Wise and all their staff, because we would not be where we are today without their efforts. However, more particularly, those three organisations are particularly enthused by the opportunities that lie ahead with the single financial guidance body to address the issue we are all so keen to tackle: financial inclusion.
We are working very closely across the Government on this. It is sometimes argued—not, I accept, under this Government in any way whatsoever—that we exist in silos and that Departments do not necessarily speak to each other. I am particularly encouraged that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and Ministers in other Departments are equally committed to addressing financial inclusion, and that we have a forum coming together to be co-chaired by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. That shows that we are jointly addressing this key issue.
We need to provide people with access to the tools and services that they need to plan their lives and to avoid the unnecessary costs that come with financial exclusion. It is also important, however, that people are confident that the financial system itself will work for them—that there is responsible capitalism, that they will be protected from practices that are a threat to their finances and that they can make financial decisions themselves that are appropriate throughout their lives. The single financial guidance body will be the key addresser of financial capability in the United Kingdom. We realise that not enough people know how to manage their money effectively. This body will ensure that those people, especially those who are struggling, are easily able to access free and impartial guidance to help them to make more effective decisions about their pensions and their money and to seek advice on their debt.
There has been widespread support for the measures contained in the Bill, which passed on a cross-party basis in the House of Lords after significant amendment and improvement. It is a credit to the Houses of Parliament that a Bill that started out as 19 clauses emerged from the House of Lords with 31 clauses, considerably amended but with great support from individual peers on all sides, as was borne out by Lord Stevenson noting that the Bill was strengthened
“not because of any particular line or argument in a political or wider sense but because…as a result, the lives of people right around this country would be improved.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2017; Vol. 787, c. 83.]
Jeremy Quin
I am grateful to the Minister for quoting Lord Stevenson, another member of the Financial Inclusion Commission, but I would like to bring my hon. Friend back to the importance of ensuring that this financial advice reaches those who need it most. I referred, for example, to the disabled, lone parents and single pensioners. It will be absolutely critical, as we measure the success of this body going forward, that it does reach the hardest-to-reach people who need its support the most.
Guy Opperman
It is interesting that my hon. Friend raises that point, because it was specifically addressed by their lordships in some detail. He will be aware that the new financial guidance body will simplify the existing public financial guidance landscape, making it easier for all people to access information and guidance.
Let me briefly address the statutory objectives and functions, because I think that that will reassure my hon. Friend on the point about those in society who are vulnerable. The single financial guidance body will have a number of statutory objectives: to improve the ability of people to make informed financial decisions; to support the provision of information, money and pensions guidance and debt advice in areas where it is specifically lacking; to ensure that information, guidance and debt advice is clear, cost-effective and not duplicated elsewhere; to ensure that information, guidance and debt advice is available to those most in need, particularly people in vulnerable circumstances; and to work with devolved authorities.
I stress that the chief executives of the three organisations—Michelle Cracknell, Jamey Johnson and Charles Counsell—all agree that bringing these organisations together and harnessing the product of the whole will enable specific opportunities to address this point. That is particularly appropriate given that one of the functions of the body is not only the protection of individuals as consumers but a strategic approach to ensure that this guidance is there. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that that is something that we massively support.
My hon. Friend raised financial education. The strategy behind the creation of the guidance body is to develop evidence that clearly shows which projects are successful and which are not. The Government want the body to prove what helps people to make better financial decisions throughout their lives, and then to deploy that understanding actively in its efforts in the area and share the knowledge as part of best practice.
The Government want the body to maximise the positive impact of financial education for children and young people, so that they are better prepared. We definitely see the guidance body taking forward the issue that my hon. Friend raises, to ensure that children are better prepared for financial challenges at any age. That strategic function is underpinned by the premise that, although Government bodies, industries, charitable functions and the voluntary sector are already doing excellent work, if they work together the impact will be that much greater.
I want to take the opportunity to celebrate the LifeSavers project, which I am pleased to say exists in my constituency. The organisation provides at primary level exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friend described. The community bank of which I was a part is the provider of six LifeSavers programmes, which are supported by the Church of England and Virgin Money. There is literally a bank in the school, educating children about the importance of finance, loans, deposits and long-term saving, which is the way ahead.
A large number of schools are part of that project, and we are evaluating its impact. It is Treasury-supported to a limited degree. I have visited participating schools, such as Hexham East First School in my constituency, and the difference that the programme makes is off the charts. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided a great deal more money for maths education, more maths teachers and support across the curriculum to ensure that that key point is addressed on an ongoing basis.
Briefly, I will mention other areas of the Bill that address some of the points that my hon. Friend raised. I believe that we all accept that problem debt is an issue for too many people. The Conservative party manifesto set out the commitment that the Government would adopt a breathing space scheme, to allow someone in serious problem debt to apply for legal protection from further interest charges and enforcement action for a period of up to six weeks. The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill will enable the Government to introduce such a scheme.
The breathing space scheme builds on the local work of organisations such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned in Horsham. It sounds as though they are approaching the matter in an interesting way. The Bill will build on the existing work of the Financial Conduct Authority, which has instituted rules. Also relevant is the fact that in October, the Treasury published a call for evidence on breathing space, and evidence is still being taken on the best and most appropriate way forward. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, officials and I have met the people behind the operation of the scheme in Scotland, which has already introduced a debt respite scheme and breathing space scheme.
The key to inclusion is access to engagement with savings and pensions. Surely, the game-changer on that over the past five years is the development of auto-enrolment, as part of a cross-party approach down many years. It is one of the unseen success stories of successive Governments, and it has engaged individual consumers and members of the public to an astonishing degree and reversed generations of decline in savings and pensions. The statistics bear some contemplation. We are about to approach the point at which 9 million people are auto-enrolled in a workplace pension. Hundreds of thousands of individual employers have signed up to the scheme, and it has not only totally stopped the rot in relation to pensions but reversed a long-term decline.
We are conducting an auto-enrolment review to assess where we are with the programme, and we will be considering a number of key areas. Those include the existing coverage, how to achieve the right balance between enabling as many people as possible to save and ensuring that it makes economic sense for them to be included, how we can improve engagement and how to strengthen the evidence base around contributions to support future decisions on contribution rates. I will report the findings to Parliament before the end of the year. We hope that the review will provide a clear sense of direction as part of the ongoing conversation.
I want briefly to talk about the pensions dashboard, which is an important part of the conversation about how we can better use technology. Just as the private sector has reformed the travel industry, insurance and so many other business, such that we now go online to access information, so we believe that the same will bring pensions into the digital age. The dashboard is an opportunity to give people access to their pensions data in a clear and simple form by bringing together savings information in one place online. It is an opportunity to give more people a sense of ownership and control over their pensions. This is a complex process, but I look forward to a massive meeting of stakeholders on Monday, to which hon. Members are most definitely invited. The good news is that the Department for Work and Pensions is taking this forward. We are utterly committed to the ongoing feasibility study and believe that by placing consumers at the heart of our approach, the Government, working closely of course with industry, regulators and other interested parties—notably, consumer organisations —can achieve the goal of such accessibility.
I want to make a brief final point about the mid-life MOT. It has struck me in this job that although we address individual issues, in relation to our health and our ongoing status quo as human beings—my GP regularly, and rightly, contacts me with ways to improve my health—we do not address our finances in a similar way. The concept of the mid-life MOT, as pioneered by John Cridland in his outstanding state pension review, published earlier this year, could enable us to better encourage and support people in preparing for later life and retirement in a holistic way. I encourage all private sector companies, through their human resources departments, to conduct mid-life MOTs— organisations such as Aviva are leading the way—and I certainly hope that the public sector will address those points as well. We believe that it is unquestionably a promising idea worth detailed scrutiny. Individual workers or employers could be provided with holistic advice and guidance to prepare for the gradual transition to retirement—whether at 45, 47 or 50—and it is something that the Government should be progressing.
It is often asked what brings us into politics. Social justice and financial inclusion are among the things that brought me into politics. When talk about the achievements of this Government and the coalition since my hon. Friend and my colleagues at my side—my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones)—first entered the House of Commons, and when we talk about extending free childcare, improving schools results, introducing the national living wage, creating 3 million jobs, reducing income inequality and record high household incomes, we should remember that they are not just statistics, but steps towards tackling injustice and spreading opportunity. I believe passionately that the Bill will enable us to tackle financial inclusion. I welcome the work of those who have taken us this far on the journey, but I also welcome the opportunity to report to the House on the progress we have made and the opportunities that lie ahead to tackle this fundamental issue of social justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
It is the role of my Department to make sure local authorities have a full range of powers and tools to enable them to tackle fly-tipping, but it is the responsibility of local councils to use all the powers and tools available to them. Last year we gave councils in England the power to issue fixed penalty notices for small-scale fly-tipping. More than 56,000 such notices were issued against fly-tippers last year, and more than half of all local authorities have implemented the new fixed penalty notices since they were introduced in May 2016. [Official Report, 21 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 1023.]
Letter of correction from Dr Thérèse Coffey.
An error has been identified in my response to the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris).
The correct response should have been:
Dr Coffey
It is the role of my Department to make sure local authorities have a full range of powers and tools to enable them to tackle fly-tipping, but it is the responsibility of local councils to use all the powers and tools available to them. Last year we gave councils in England the power to issue fixed penalty notices for small-scale fly-tipping. More than 56,000 fixed penalty notices were issued against fly-tippers last year, and more than half of all local authorities have implemented the new fixed penalty notices since they were introduced in May 2016.
Petition
Users of the No. 67 Bus Service in Torbay
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 4 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
Women in the House of Commons
(6 years, 4 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 Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Fifth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Women in the House of Commons after the 2020 election, Session 2016-17, HC 630, and the Government Response, Cm 9492.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate this important report, published by the Women and Equalities Committee in the last Session. I also thank my incredible Committee staff and all the witnesses who gave written and oral evidence. In particular, Professor Rosie Campbell, professor of politics at Birkbeck College, Professor Sarah Childs and Lord Hayward all gave a great deal of their time. I also thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Leader of the Opposition, and those other individuals who gave oral evidence.
In the 100 years since women were given the right to vote and stand for election, just 489 women have been elected to this place—I was the 265th, elected in 2005. Record numbers of women are in work and women are achieving record highs when it comes to education, but just a handful have had the opportunity to use their skills and expertise to represent their communities in this place. We have to ask ourselves whether that is a sign of a healthy democracy. Nothing can be more important than making sure that the institutions that are vital to our system of democracy are fit for purpose. They should function in a way that gives the electorate confidence that Parliament can make the laws that we need for a free and fair society.
Society changes, so Parliament has to change too. It is not an institution that can afford to place itself in aspic. It has to evolve to ensure that it truly represents the people we speak for and serve. That must involve recognising the changing role of women in society. Almost 100 years since legislation was passed to give some women the vote, it is timely to be debating this important report, considering what progress has been made, and ensuring that there is a clear pathway forward on the matter of women being elected to the House of Commons.
One point that emerged from the evidence session with senior representatives from the major parties in Westminster was that Parliament would be a better place if 50% of MPs were women. There is a growing understanding that although MPs represent all people in our communities, regardless of their sex or gender, women view the world through a different lens—the lens of having experienced life as a woman, and the associated differences that that involves. This place was established at a time when only men were allowed to dictate our laws and shape the future of our country. Our political parties were shaped then too. The Women and Equalities Committee’s inquiry has set out a number of recommendations that members of the Committee felt would do more than simply try to retrofit women into Parliament, instead allowing them to play a truly equal role—something that we are still very far away from achieving and can only really achieve through a step change.
The 2016 inquiry focused on what the Government, political parties, the House of Commons and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority could do to ensure better female representation in the House of Commons in 2020 and beyond. It was launched in the context of the Boundary Commission review and the proposed reduction in the number of House of Commons seats. When the inquiry was launched, women held 30% of seats in the Commons, and the UK was ranked 48th globally for representation of women in legislatures. A lot has changed since then, but a great deal of the report remains extremely pertinent.
We found that Parliament should actively encourage women to participate in democracy, and should continue to look at ways to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to women coming here to represent the people who voted for them. We found that political parties had the primary responsibility to ensure that women come forward to represent them. Although the political parties have measures in place to help to achieve equality in gender representation, we felt that there was insufficient analysis of how effective those measures actually were, and that in all the parties there was a lack of clear strategy and leadership to achieve gender equality and representation.
The Committee made some quite radical recommendations. We recommended that the Government set a domestic target of 45% representation by women in Parliament by 2030. We recommended that they introduce a statutory minimum proportion of female parliamentary candidates in general elections—that target should be at least 45%, given the current deficit—with sanctions for political parties if it was not achieved. We also recommended bringing into force section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring political parties to publish the data on diversity for general elections, and continuing the measures that allow things like all-women shortlists.
The Committee suggested that political parties take greater ownership of this issue, make gender balance in candidate selection a real priority, and accept that they have primary responsibility for making sure that the House of Commons is a more diverse place. We suggested that they publicly set out the measures that they plan to take to increase the proportion and number of female parliamentary candidates at the next election, and that they adopt, fund and promote training so that women can achieve those goals. We suggested that the parties should provide support for younger women and women entering politics for the first time, and that there should be a clear sense of direction towards increasing female representation in parliamentary parties, ensuring that their leaders work more closely with national decision-making bodies and local associations to deliver that.
The Government’s response was quite startling. They rejected all six of our recommendations. I do not mind if people reject one or two of them, but not all six at a time when we are still nowhere near equality. I am really pleased to have secured today’s debate, and that my colleague from Hampshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—is the Minister responding on behalf of the Government. In Hampshire, we have actually done an amazing thing: about 40% of our Members of Parliament are women. We know how to do it there; we just need to do it nationally.
The Government did not support the use of legislative quotas or sanctions on parties to achieve gender balance in the Commons. I know that that is a philosophical approach. They emphasised that political parties had the primary responsibility for improving representation in the Commons. Although the Government stated that they were ready to support parties on approaches to improve diversity, they did not detail how. I was struck that they rejected the idea of enacting section 106 of the Equality Act, which would make the number of women from political parties standing for election transparent, at the same time as they were asking businesses to implement gender pay gap reporting mechanisms, which were intended to create transparency about the role of women in business and their ability to progress. I realise that gender pay gap reporting is something done by larger businesses, so perhaps the Minister could explain why we could not just ask the larger parties to report in line with section 106 of the Equality Act. That would be a way of getting started.
Unfortunately, a general election then happened, which meant that our report, which was carefully crafted around the prospect of a 2020 general election, was slightly thrown up into the air. It is good, however, that at the election earlier this year we saw the highest number and proportion of female MPs ever recorded in the UK— 208 out of 650 MPs, making up about 32% of seats.
We need to put this in context. Membership of the House of Commons is not infinite. It is actually quite small—it is just 650 people—so a big change in the proportion of women requires quite a small change in numerical terms. Specifically, to achieve a 50:50 Parliament, we need only 117 more women to be elected at the next general election. Nobody would argue that there are not 117 incredibly capable women in this country who would be able to take over from some of the men who are here at the moment—with the greatest respect to all of my male colleagues. To achieve that, all political parties need a plan, and transparency needs to be at the heart of those plans. It is the responsibility of Parliament as an organisation to evolve into a place that everybody can thrive in. I pay tribute to Mr Speaker’s work in establishing the House of Commons reference group, which I and a number of other Members sit on, to look at the workings of the House and to make it easier for a more diverse group of people—not just women—to come here to work.
We also have to be realistic about the external factors that can dissuade women from seeking public office, including becoming an MP. To that end, the Women and Equalities Committee took some further oral evidence from the political parties on 15 November 2017 as a result of the inquiry. I want to draw out a couple of themes from that additional evidence. Do the parties have a plan? Based on that evidence session, I would still say that the situation is mixed. I cannot put my finger on an exact plan that any of the parties talked about, so there is more work to do there.
I am still looking for more encouragement from the Minister that the Government will press forward on transparency and the collection and publication of diversity data. The Conservative party said it hopes to publish more data. The Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and the Scottish National party agreed that it would be helpful for the Government to bring into force section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, although the Labour party raised a number of issues about how the data would be gathered. Again, they said that it was the smaller parties’ fault that it was not being brought into force, so we thought we would write to the smaller parties and ask them whether it would be an enormous burden to enforce section 106 of the 2010 Act. So far, we have not been overwhelmed with negative responses. We will be looking at that issue further, and if the so-called smaller parties that are represented here today want to voice any opinions on that, that would be incredibly helpful. We will analyse how we can overcome some of those apparent problems through the drafting of secondary legislation. It is not beyond the wit or man—or indeed woman—to do that.
The second issue that came out of our further oral evidence was the culture, which still causes many women concerns about coming to work in this place. The witnesses talked about cultural factors blocking women’s aspirations to take on leadership roles and become Members of Parliament. The Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party agreed that late-night voting in Westminster—a topical thing to talk about, given that we were voting at midnight this week for no apparent reason—is a barrier to women’s coming forward. They said that voting could perhaps be organised in a different way. We often call it a family-friendly way, but I call it a human-friendly way, because I am not sure there are many individuals who think it is possible to work in the way we do without it having some impact on their capacity.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing this timely and hugely important debate to the Chamber. On the matter of voting, does she agree that there are models in the devolved nations? In the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments, there is a seat for every Member and electronic voting. It takes two seconds to press a button in Holyrood in Scotland, yet it takes us 15 minutes to walk through the Lobby. A huge amount of time and public money is being wasted.
Mrs Miller
I am not sure I totally agree with the hon. Lady on that issue. Like in many corporate organisations, we benefit from talking to and interacting with each other, and votes are often the only way we can do that because we are spread out doing many different things. I do not think the mechanism of voting is a bad thing. I just do not understand why we cannot do it on a more regularised basis.
The issues that prevent women from thriving in business—I was at a conference this morning held by the Trades Union Congress talking about that very issue—include irregularity and the lack of certainty about what a business might ask of them. That is not just a problem for women; people generally want more certainty. Everybody would say that there is some latitude when we are debating incredibly important things such as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. On those matters we need to ensure we are all there when we are needed to vote, but that is not necessary on every single piece of legislation and on things that are not so time-specific. I hope the Government and their Whips Office are considering how they can make the way we operate in this place appear as if we are at least in the 20th century, if not the 21st century. Holding late-night votes on just any business should have gone out with the ark.
The other cultural issue that came up is the representation of women on party decision-making bodies. The Labour party, which gave evidence to us in November, aims to have a gender-balanced party conference and National Executive Committee—I am sure Labour Members understand what that means more than I do—but other parties were more uncertain about that. They all offered to write to us, and we will look carefully at their submissions, but if there is not gender-balanced representation on parties’ decision-making bodies, it is likely that having more women in Parliament will not be seen as such a pressing issue. I hope all parties will write to my Committee with their views on that.
The next issue that was raised—it is important to set this out in my opening speech—is the working environment here in Parliament. Clearly, impropriety in behaviour is still in the headlines this week. All parties have a code of conduct for Members of Parliament. Labour and the Conservative party have recently strengthened theirs, and all parties have been asked to write to the Committee outlining their procedures for reporting inappropriate behaviour. I look very positively at the way the parties reacted to earlier issues that were raised.
The final point, which is very important, is the abuse and harassment of parliamentary candidates. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is not a candidate, I was shocked at what she experienced this week. A coffin was put outside the parliamentary office in her constituency as part of a “family-friendly” event. People have to think very carefully about the abuse and harassment that parliamentary candidates experience. That sort of behaviour towards elected representatives has to be rejected. We asked the parliamentary parties to write to us to tell us how many party members have been expelled or suspended for abusing or harassing parliamentary candidates. We need a zero-tolerance approach. I applaud Members of all parties who stand up for their colleagues here, regardless of party.
In conclusion, the Select Committee is already working to follow up on the report, which we see as a continuing part of our work. This Parliament does not look like our country, in particular when it comes to women. Ninety-nine years ago this month, the first woman sat as a Member of Parliament. I am incredibly proud that next year we will be celebrating Nancy Astor, a Conservative Member of Parliament, as the first woman here.
It fills me with great pride that my party has given this country the first two female Prime Ministers, both extraordinary women. Margaret Thatcher made me interested in politics at a time when few other people could do so; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has not shirked from taking our country through the most politically challenging period of modern history—our exit from the European Union. Everyone knows her tenacity as this country’s longest-serving Home Secretary and her commitment to get more women elected to this place by establishing Women2Win. In my parliamentary career, my right hon. Friend has been a friend, a mentor and a champion for thousands of women in the Conservative party, and we all owe her a debt of gratitude.
My point is that each party has a story to tell about women in the party—and we should tell it—but no party has found the holy grail. No party in this place can claim to have equality for women, and each has a different set of problems. This debate needs to be honest about that. Each party needs to explain better how it will ensure equality for women in the future.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Party leaders and most MPs share the objective of achieving equal representation. Almost all of them also accept that there is more to do in order to succeed.
The recent general election put the number of women in the House of Commons up to 208. That is just short of double where we were in 2001, when there were only 118 female MPs. Progress is not as fast as I believe we need it to be, but there is progress to be celebrated nevertheless.
To draw on my own experience, I first interned in the House of Commons 17 years ago—
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend. People would stare at me because they were not used to seeing, for a start, women under 5 feet, or loud-mouthed women of colour working in Parliament. I went on to work as a researcher, a press officer and a special adviser, and then left Parliament and came back as an MP.
In every layer of the party that I have described, whether special adviser, press officer or researcher, I always stuck out like a sore thumb. It fills me with a lot of pride and a sense of joy when I walk down the corridors now and see the difference in Parliament. Again, I will emphasise that we have not reached where we need to be, but there is no doubt about the big difference in Parliament now from what I saw 17 years ago.
My worry about the report is that the burden of progress seems to have been entirely assigned to political parties and that certain courses of action that could help, such as quotas and targets, are ruled out entirely out of hand. That concerns me. At a time of such major constitutional upheaval for the country, I feel that this place could show its determination to truly equip Britain for the future by putting women on an equal footing, and at a time when we are led by a female Prime Minister.
The recent oral evidence given before the Women and Equalities Committee revealed that entrusting political parties with that task will produce limited results. The Government should take the matter away from party bureaucracy, with all the delays and compromises that such a route entails, but their response to the report clearly rejects the imposition of targets, so I want to make a few alternative suggestions.
First, the prevailing culture in Westminster deters women from joining. Authorities must be up front about that and willing to take action when required. Secondly, outreach programmes must be considered as an apolitical way of making Westminster more attractive not only to women but to black and minority ethnic communities. Thirdly, Parliament must be proactive about ensuring that equal representation is enshrined in the new democratic contests that take place—that is not only parliamentary elections, but mayoral or police and crime commissioner ones. We need improvement at all levels, in different kinds of elections.
Parliament needs to be proactive in fostering an environment that does not put people off even before they have contemplated a career in public service. I am sure everyone in the Chamber will join me in expressing the horror that we felt about the accounts of harassment. Clearly we must deal with the aspects of this place that create a hostile environment for women. All parties working together on something we all care deeply about will deliver a confidential and independent complaints service and a procedure for victims to have their voices heard and their complaints dealt with properly. I hope that extends to people who visit the parliamentary estate, as well as those who work here.
When dealing with the cultural problems of the Commons, we must also look at the behaviour of Members in debates—Members of all political parties, I accept, not just one—and the bureaucratic structures that discriminate against women. As the Committee’s report notes, a 2015 survey from the Administration Committee explored experiences of working in Parliament, finding that
“the unappealing culture of Westminster…deterred women from standing as parliamentary candidates.”
Whether that is hon. Members barking like dogs at women who are speaking in debates, or the centuries-old voting systems that prevent new mothers from representing their constituents, the authorities must accept the fundamental link between the prevailing culture of the Commons and the continued under-representation of women within it.
As an MP for a London constituency, I often speak at schools, including all-girls schools, where women will ask me whether it is uncomfortable being a young woman in politics. I always hesitate, because I do not know whether to tell them the truth and deter them from joining politics or to say, “Hand on heart, I believe this place is welcoming for young women.” I do not want to feel like that. When I go into a school and am questioned about whether I would encourage young women to come into politics, I want to be able to say with a clear conscience, “Yes, this is a welcoming place. Yes, here you won’t face any discrimination. Yes, it’ll be as easy for you as it is for the male student sitting next to you.” That is the problem I face in schools. We need to talk about this problem but at the same time, if students from Hampstead and Kilburn are listening: I do not want to deter you from coming into politics.
I also want to pick up a little on intersectionality. We are talking about women, but we cannot separate that from the fact that there is more discrimination against women of colour. That must be part of the debate if we want to secure equal representation in Parliament. We now have 51 BME MPs in the Commons, since the 10 who were elected at the 2017 general election. That increase is welcome, not least because it includes my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), the first female Sikh MP, and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is registered blind as well as being a woman and a woman of colour.
We have come far, but I still want to make another point. Especially in the context of this Parliament’s make-up, I want to look at an important part of Parliament: Select Committees. There are 28 departmental and specified Select Committees in total. Only nine of the Chairs are women, and not a single Chair of a Select Committee is from a BME background. To me, in a Parliament like this, that is really shocking.
The number of BME MPs make up 7.8% of the new Parliament, which still does not reflect the population at large, where the figure is 14%. I come back to that Select Committee point, however: it is not just about having MPs in Parliament who are BME, but about what positions they hold. Are they party leaders, or in the Cabinet or shadow Cabinet? Are they the Chairs of Select Committees? The answer to the last question is: no, there are no BME Chairs of Select Committees.
To go back to the report, the rejection of quotas for women was disappointing, and so was the omission of a formal response to the Committee’s recommendation for Parliament to lead outreach initiatives. The Committee provided the Government with an opportunity to think boldly and to deliver an apolitical advocacy programme that could sell the virtues of life in Westminster to under-represented groups. By encouraging the political participation of traditionally marginalised and hard-to-reach groups, we can help to bring that focus to the forefront. In the end, diversifying candidates diversifies policies.
Mrs Miller
As a fellow colleague on the Select Committee, I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the work that we do. The educational outreach that Parliament does is fantastic, so one could argue that we already have an apolitical programme that hopefully is encouraging young people to be MPs in future. What the Committee suggested was really just an extension of that, was it not?
Tulip Siddiq
Yes, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady as Chair of the Committee. The Committee works very well together and constructively, and its members are from all political backgrounds—people have different viewpoints, but we do a good job. She is absolutely right. What we want is an extension of something that already exists. We do not think it is a huge ask. I fear that, given the progress required, until statutory enforcement is seriously considered even for just an interim period, we will not achieve our goals.
I will not take up too much more time because I know that lots of Members want to contribute to this important debate. Speaking as an ex-councillor, representing constituents at ward level provided me with experience and the belief that I could go on to do that on a constituency-wide basis. As such, the Committee’s recommendation that the Government update the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 to allow all-women shortlists for all elected mayoral and police and crime commissioner posts seems like a sensible proposal. The Government say that the evidence base for taking such a step is as yet under-developed. Since 2002, only two of the Labour party’s 18 elected Mayors have been women. The Select Committee report shows that, in every major party, less than 40% of councillors are women. The evidence base seems to be the opposite of underdeveloped.
The Government leave the door open by saying that they will consider the issue further. I hope they will do just that. In all the three areas that I have discussed, I truly hope that the Committee’s report will prompt the Government to take the lasting top-down steps required to deliver the equal representation that we are all hoping for.
I will be a bit cheeky and follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who paid tribute to the Prime Minister. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), because if it was not for her encouraging me to stand, and if it was not for the informal networks that are created among women who came to the House before I did, who told me over and over that I could be the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, I would not be standing here today.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is grossly unfair to have to follow that speech. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) secured this debate. I need to begin with an apology: unfortunately, I need to get to the Education Centre for 2.50 pm, because the only college in my constituency is sending a big group of students down and I need to speak to them to convince them that this is a place they could come to.
I want to begin with a brief explanation of how I ended up on the Women and Equalities Committee and speaking today. I grew up in Birmingham with five brothers and I went to an all-boys school. I grew up in an Irish Catholic community that was constituted almost entirely of men who worked in the construction industry, so it is no surprise that I went on to study civil engineering at university and, after I graduated, I went to work on a building site. I managed to avoid virtually any contact with women—in a professional or other capacity—in college, at university and in the workplace until I was about 25 or 27. Then, I joined an American property company and about 70% of the people who worked there were women. That was a complete revelation. Having been brought up, not through any fault of my own, in a society that had seen women in a slightly subservient role—except of course my mother, who had been ruthless in ruling her six lads—I suddenly found that there were women employed right across the organisation at all levels of seniority, who in many cases were considerably more brilliant than any of the men I had met previously. I realised that there was something strange in the world as I had experienced it.
Up to that point, I had been conditioned in a particular way, and since then I have felt that it is my duty and obligation to speak out for women because the world is unfair and it needs correcting. I do not think that the world is unfair simply in terms of politics. In 1991, 3% of consultant surgeons in the UK were female. There has been a massive, transformational change since then; 25 years later, the figure is 11.1%. The University of Exeter did some work to see why that was the case. It is definitely not that women surgeons are any less committed than their male counterparts or any less dedicated or skilled at their trade; it is simply that they feel that they will pursue the career choice that seems to give them the best opportunity for success. According to the university, what they need is excellent role models, for them to see that it is possible for them to achieve that status.
The situation in the police obviously has to be much better—but no, unfortunately it is not. In 1995, which does not seem very long ago, the first woman chief constable, Pauline Clare, was appointed to Lancashire Police Force. What has happened since then? In 2016, out of 43 forces, there were four women chief constables. How can that be the case? It gets worse: the year before, there were eight. So what happened in the meantime? A few of those women decided to step down. Jane Sawyers, the Staffordshire chief constable, said:
“Either disproportionately female Chief Constables are less competent than their male counterparts, which is simply not the case, or there is something sexist about how female leaders are viewed.”
It is not just about representation in this House; women are unequally represented across several professions, and something has to be done. The butt of my case is that I do not think that quotas are the answer to that. Would hon. Members want to be operated on by a female surgeon who got the job because that hospital needed to achieve its quota of surgeons for that case? No, I do not think so. There are brilliant women surgeons out there; they can be appointed because of their brilliance, their ability and their dedication, but they do not need to be there because of quotas.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful and interesting speech. We may have the debate about the good, the bad and the indifferent, but does he not agree with quotas as a short-term measure to redress the balance? Are we really saying that more than 50% of the population are not able to do exactly the same jobs as men?
Eddie Hughes
Yes and no. I am absolutely not saying that women are not able to do as good a job as men. The clue to my disagreement is in the way the hon. Lady phrased the question, by saying “short term”. I do not want a short-term solution; I want a sustainable, long-term solution. I appreciate that it may seem naive and idealistic of me to view it that way.
I look at the Benches opposite and I am particularly terrified of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), because on Monday I will be on “The Politics Show” with her. I appreciate that she is an experienced, incredibly able Member, and I will look decidedly puny in political terms by comparison, so I am starting my preparation now in earnest and I hope that she has a bad day. I see members of the Women and Equalities Committee who I have grown to know over the past few months who are equally brilliant. I do not feel for one minute that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) needed an all-women shortlist to get to that position.
Mrs Miller
May I say first how much my hon. Friend brings to the Women and Equalities Committee? His passion for these issues is apparent to everyone. He said that there is a cornucopia of women with the ability to do jobs—even in the construction industry. Does he not see that although we may have a large pool of capable women, they are not able to progress because of the way their competencies are judged? Does he agree that there needs to be a focus on removing barriers to women progressing? That might be done in this place through all-women shortlists, which would not allow substandard people to come through, but would create a level playing field of opportunity.
Eddie Hughes
My right hon. Friend makes a very valid point, which I was kind of coming to. I maintain my resistance to quotas, but what can we do to change the situation? Well, I can do my tiny bit. I begin early: when I visit primary schools, I encourage women—young children—by saying, “You can aspire to be whatever you want to be.” Obviously, I represent a working-class constituency and I am a working-class lad. From a social point of view, I say to people, “You can become an MP. I’ve managed it and I’m happy to help you do it.” I can say to the girls in the class, “Look, we’ve had two outstanding woman Prime Ministers, and I can point to several other examples who can be your inspiration and help you with your aspirations.”
We need to reach out to girls and encourage them, but we need to do that with lads as well. We need to say to them, “You need to understand that these girls sitting next to you are your equals.” That conditioning needs start early. We need to destroy the stereotype of men being the breadwinners and women the carers. That needs to be dealt with at an early age. That will lead to a better society, not just by helping us with representation but by helping to reduce sexism and sexual harassment of women, because it will mean that men do not see themselves in the superior role that they may otherwise have been preconditioned to see themselves in.
We should encourage girls, and then we should back campaigns such as the 50:50 #AskHerToStand campaign. We should catch brilliant women early and encourage them to take part, but we must also ensure that men do their bit with regard to child rearing and parental responsibility. The Committee has done brilliant work on that. Imagine a future five or 10 years from now where it is completely normal for parenting duties to be shared equally between men and women. Having that engagement with their kids would be better for men and better for the kids, and it would mean a more equal playing field. In interviews, people would not ask themselves, “Can I recruit this woman? She may become pregnant and then she’ll have childcare responsibilities,” but would see men and women in parity and think, “It makes no difference whether I recruit a man or a woman—their obligations to the family will be the same.”
If we can level the playing field, we will go a long way to making it easy for women not just to become the brilliant parliamentarians of the future, but to run surgeries, to run our police forces and to contribute generally to society. There has to be parity. Women are amazing.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). I agree with much of what he said—not all, but he has given me some good food for thought and debate.
Like other Members, I will start by talking about my background. I was brought up by a single mother. My brother and I had very strong female role models. I often worried that he had few male role models, because my grandad died when he was eight, but he is now a proud father and partner and I can see that the female influence in his life has been hugely important.
It is important that we identify that the success of women and gender equality is as much for and about men as it is for and about women. It will benefit society. I always think about the reports that I read following the banking crisis about the demographics of the people who made the decisions in that sector. We might say they were a very homogeneous group: they were the same race, gender and class, and they all looked at one another and did not see the faults in the system. I am not trying to blame the whole financial crash on men, but had there been more diversity—this is not my view; it is from the reports produced after the crash—there would have been different ideas and people would have challenged one another in different ways.
I think it is fair to say that the same applies very much to government, business and society. Where there is one type of people, they are more likely to agree than disagree. It is much better to have people of different religions, sexualities, genders and abilities around the decision-making table, because that makes for better decision-making processes.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about quotas and long-term solutions, but surely he recognises that structural challenges still exist for women who seek to get into positions of power. He referenced all-female shortlists. I will talk a little about what the Scottish National party has done in that respect, but all-women shortlists have brought us Members such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). I cannot imagine her not being in this place and not being a vociferous champion of gender equality. I am sure she will be able to comment about this, but I have not seen anyone cast that up to her at any point. She is here and in her place, like many others.
I reflect on a comment by a friend who works high up in the corporate world. We met at an event in Parliament and she said, “Women will have equality when they’re able to get into positions of power in the same way as their average male counterparts have been able to.” This is somewhat derogatory towards men, but she said, “For generations, average men have got into positions of power. Women will have equality when they have the right to be just as average.” Let us not set the bar too low but say, “Actually, we can all be better, but there are structural challenges.”
I worked in the oil industry before I came to this place. Many decisions were made on the golf course, in the pub or in nightclubs. I remember going to an interview to be a sales representative and saying categorically that I was not willing to take clients to strip clubs as part of engagement. The response I got was, “Oh, well that doesn’t really happen any more,” but it was clear that it still happened. It was still common practice in the part of the sector that I was working in, and it was something that I was unwilling to do.
I did not get that job. I do not believe that was because of that comment, and I do not suggest that it was, but there were certain practices, and certain comments were made to me. I remember a sales guy I worked with saying to me about someone who was on maternity leave, “I don’t want that girl back in my team. How long is it going to be before she has another child?” I said, “Hang on a minute. Apart from that being completely illegal, how would you feel if someone said that to your wife and excluded her from the workforce?” He had obviously never considered that. He saw his opinion in a vacuum.
I came to this place largely because I had been involved in politics before. My colleague the former right hon. Member for Gordon, Alex Salmond, who I worked for in a previous capacity, encouraged me to stand. In 2010, my mother stood unsuccessfully in the Livingston constituency for election to the House of Commons, so in 2015 I got the pleasure of beating the man who had beaten my mum five years before. I have to say that was a great experience. He was a really nice chap and we had a very respectful campaign, but beating the person who had beaten my mother was a proud moment, and I am proud to represent the constituency that I grew up in.
West Lothian is split into two Westminster constituencies and two Scottish Parliament constituencies, and 75% of the representatives of those constituencies—three out of the four—are women. Here is another interesting statistic: of the 12 candidates that the SNP has fielded in West Lothian for Holyrood and Westminster elections since 2007, nine have been women and three have been men, and we have not used any gender balancing mechanisms.
Let me summarise what the SNP has done in recent years. Members will all be aware that Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, is a woman and has a gender-balanced Cabinet—one of less than a handful in the world. Scotland has very much led the way on that front.
At the SNP spring conference in March 2015, we passed a new mechanism to encourage more women to stand as candidates at the 2016 Scottish Parliament election: where an incumbent SNP constituency MSP announces their intention to stand down, the national executive committee may direct an all-women shortlist. That resulted in 43% of SNP MSPs being women—an increase from I think just over 20% in 2011. Similarly, we looked at all-women shortlists for local government elections where the party was standing more candidates than sitting councillors, and in a ward where the party had one sitting councillor, it stood two candidates, at least one of whom had to be a woman.
I am not saying that we are perfect by any stretch of the imagination—34% of our parliamentarians here at Westminster are female. It is incumbent on us all not just to look at this from a party structure perspective but, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said, to look at this place. We look around this place in terms of its family-friendliness or female-friendliness, and we recognise that men and women are different in their approaches to work and atmosphere. I sometimes walk around the Palace and think, “It is not the most friendly place to work.”
I take the right hon. Lady’s point about the Lobby, our voting mechanism and being able to network, but surely we can find a way by which Members can discuss and relate to each other, other than through the voting Lobby. Votes take 15 minutes, and I think we have 10 votes coming up at the end of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Committee. That will take us more than two hours. We can think about the time, effort and public money spent on drafting and tabling amendments to Bills, and I remember that there were hundreds of amendments to the Scotland Bill, but we are able to press only a handful of them to a vote. I wonder how much public money, time and energy is being wasted because we cannot press amendments to legislation to a vote because votes take so long. We are missing out on opportunities to amend legislation, and by extension our democracy is being affected.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech. I have long argued for e-voting, because I believe that is the right way for us to go forward. Does she think it quite strange that the reason I was given for not introducing e-voting was that all Members need to be in the Chamber to listen to the debate—even though 650 Members of Parliament do not fit in the Chamber at the same time?
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point; I am sure that irony is not lost on anyone here or anyone watching at home. We must look at those structural aspects. When there was a discussion about the refurbishment of the building, we suggested that perhaps it would be more financially efficient to build a new Parliament that was fit for purpose and turn this place into a museum. I know that is a controversial view, but at some point we will have to realise that this place does not reflect modern working practices in terms of the technological advances, e-voting and digital voting, however that comes. Even proxy voting is being considered for maternity and paternity baby leave. I remember seeing a Labour Member in the Tea Room during a vote breastfeeding her child. I thought, “This is absolute madness. This Member has had to travel from her constituency to vote—because it is such an important vote—and she has to bring her child with her.” I do not have any children—I would love to have children—but I think, “How would I manage that logistically?” It would be a huge challenge.
The Government have not accepted any of the report’s recommendations. That is disappointing. Surely they can find it in their heart, as a token of good will and progression, to take at least some of those sensible recommendations. The Fawcett Society said that,
“37% of seats at-risk in the Boundary Review are held by women, which is substantially more than the percentage of women in Parliament—only 29.6%”.
Let us not forget that up until the previous Parliament, the number of men in each Parliament was greater than the number of women who had ever been elected. That is staggering.
We are in Westminster Hall, just across from the broom cupboard where Emily Wilding Davison hid on the night of the 1911 census. We can think about the struggle, and I often think about the representation of women and women’s suffrage in Parliament. The new art installation is fantastic, but some of those representations of the women’s movement and women’s suffrage are really subverted and subdued. More could be done in that regard.
I come to some of the most amazing women we have had in Parliament. It is 50 years since Winnie Ewing, our dear friend and colleague, was elected. We stand on her shoulders, and we can read the stories in her biography. Given that we are now sadly leaving the European Union—unless something dramatic happens; who knows?—she will be the only one who will have been a Member of this place, a Member of the European Parliament and a Member of the Scottish Parliament. That is a major achievement. I pay tribute to Winnie, because
“stop the world, Scotland wants to get on”
is a line that will live in infamy. I know it inspires many of us, and she has inspired many of us.
We are the architects and the agitators of change. We should stand proud as women, and men who are supporting women to stand for election, but we must not pull up that ladder behind us; we must extend it out for the next generation.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship again, Mr Sharma. I also give apologies: I have a train to catch heading north, so I need to be away by 3 o’clock.
Bill Grant
I have the dinner to make when I get home as well. First, I must advise of my CV. My mother was a woman and I married a woman as far back as 1970—that reminds me: it was on 19 December. I also have two daughters and one of my grandchildren is a lovely young lady. I am indeed a very fortunate individual.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), I went to an all-boys’ secondary school, which isolated me from the fairer sex—or the other gender. I also worked for 31 years in a male-dominated organisation: the fire service in Strathclyde. As a senior officer, I had the great privilege of working with a female deputy chief officer. It was a privilege to serve with her—I hope it was a privilege for her—and to improve that service. I welcome the involvement of women in male-dominated services such as the fire service and the police service, to which he referred.
Women in the House of Commons are welcome, but let us not legislate for gender balance, even in the short term. We saw good progress on female representation in the House of Commons in the 2017 election, with record numbers of female MPs elected: 208 in total, accounting for 32%. The Conservative party fielded a record 184 female candidates in the election, 32% of the total, which is an improving record that we are proud of. Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats also had record numbers of female candidates in the election.
Some 51 years ago in 1966, when Harold Wilson won the election, there were just 26 female MPs. Today’s figure of 208 reflects, if my calculation is right, a 700% increase in those years. Some would say that is very good.
Jess Phillips
Does the hon. Gentleman know which party made the most progress and why that progress was made?
Bill Grant
The hon. Lady will be glad that I am not on her quiz team, because I do not know the answer. If she wishes to tell us—[Interruption.] I am sure she will. I think she would agree that that is significant progress over 50 years, but it is probably not fast enough.
The Conservatives have a great track record, having secured not one but two excellent female Prime Ministers. I am sure history will treat kindly their contribution to women in politics, both here in the United Kingdom and probably around the world. In Scotland, until recently, three key party leaders were female. That must be applauded, though the hat-trick has changed with the arrival of Labour’s new leader in Scotland, Mr Richard Leonard, with Ms Dugdale testing the water for a future in television. I think her excursion was relatively short-lived, but I wish her well.
I am pleased to advise of the Conservative organisation Women2Win, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), which was co-founded by the Prime Minister, ably supported by Ruth Davidson, my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) and many others. It is good to know that we have a passionate advocate for female representation resident at No. 10.
The way forward in increasing female representation in Parliament has no single solution, but in my view much of the remedy lies with political parties, not legislation. Each party must try to attract the right female candidates, giving them support and encouragement, as was said earlier on. The Conservative Women2Win is but one proud example. We must look, as was also mentioned earlier, to the pool of talent of people involved in politics. We all have phone bankers, leaflet deliverers, staff and door knockers, many of whom are female, who keep many local associations of all parties alive in our communities. They help to secure our seats here in Westminster. Let us encourage them and others from a whole range of backgrounds to come forward.
As elected Members, each of us has a role to play in ensuring that the working environment at Westminster is indeed welcoming and human-friendly, as was said earlier, and safe and secure for all who take on the challenge of public office. We must learn and move on from the recent barrage of allegations that undermine the good work of most parliamentarians of all parties. Part of our role as elected parliamentarians is to be ambassadors for Parliament and to encourage female participation in our rich democracy. Having sat in Parliament for only a few months, I know female Members have a lot to give to democracy. Let us all contribute to a fairer and better Parliament, hang up the old school tie, if I dare say it, and strive for better progress in gender balance. Diversity can only strengthen democracy.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I want to pay tribute to all who have spoken, with some special tribute to my colleague the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). Like him, I grew up in a family in Birmingham, I have only brothers—obviously we make boy babies in Birmingham, because I also have two of those—and I grew up with an Irish heritage. I certainly have the same touch of the Blarney that he has. My experience and my views are different from his, but I know we have the same goal.
In case there is any question whether the Labour party feels that what happened in Totnes with a coffin was appropriate, I will self-appoint myself as spokesman for the Labour party and say that it is totally unacceptable to have political debate that leads to a Member of Parliament having a coffin put outside her office. It is especially unacceptable in regard to that particular Member of Parliament, who works tirelessly—often better than some members of the Labour party—to hold the Government to account. There is no question that she is fighting. If the Labour party had any involvement in that, I can only apologise whole-heartedly. It is totally unacceptable.
Stopping the cross-party love-in, I am disappointed that the Government did not listen to a single one of the recommendations of the Select Committee. If it had been me writing those recommendations, they would have been considerably more radical. I would have asked for the moon on a stick. The Committee’s recommendations were thoughtful, and it was not asking too much to recommend some of the outreach, as has already been pointed out. Some of the tiny changes to the Equality Act 2010, which would mean we could have all-women shortlists for mayoral and police and crime commissioner candidates, are the sweep of a single pen. They would not affect a single person in the Government even slightly, because their party does not recognise all-women shortlists anyway. They do not have to do it. We just want to, and we need the law to reflect that. If the Conservative party, the ruling party, does not think that quotas work, then it can crack on with that point of view. We in the Labour party know that they work. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), the progress was made as a result of the Labour party and all-women shortlists. They are the single biggest reason for progress.
Mrs Miller
I pay tribute to the work the hon. Lady does for the Committee, and she knows that I support the recommendations of the report. Is she not a bit disappointed that she feels her party needs all-women shortlists for mayoral elections in order to get female representation?
Jess Phillips
I feel utterly disappointed, but the triumph of hope over experience tells me that I have to force my party to look at electing women into the position of metro Mayors. The Conservatives want it too, but they are not willing to do it, whereas I am willing to say, “Yes, we have a problem. I have a solution. It will work.”
To speak to the point made by my hon. Friend, and I will say friend, the Member for Walsall North—is it north? It is all just the Black country to me—the idea that I would not want a surgeon selected via a quota to operate on me is not something I recognise. I would be delighted to have somebody who had been selected from an all-women shortlist be the surgeon in my hospital and operate on me. I would be less happy to have somebody who had probably got the position because he went to a certain school or was born into a certain family. He would be no better; he would just have been given all the tools to allow him to become a surgeon or even to dream of becoming a surgeon. My hon. Friend will know, just as I do, that kids from Birmingham who have kissed the Blarney stone rarely end up being surgeons in Birmingham’s hospitals. I would be more than happy to be operated on.
To draw out the surgeon analogy, when somebody operates on me I expect evidence to have been taken about how they do that procedure. I want to know how they have come to the conclusion that that procedure is the very best thing for my health. I want to know that it is going to work, and I look for evidence. I want to see more women in Parliament, so I will look at the evidence of what works and I will ask that it is implemented. What works is quotas for women and sanctions when they are not realised. There is no other area of Government where we would just say, “Oh, do you know what really works to stop people being hit by buses? Oh, well, I’m just not sure it’s the one we want to go for,” or, “Do you know what really, really works for making sure that more kids go to school? But I just don’t know whether it’s good enough for choice if we do that.” We would not do that with any other thing, so why do we do it about this?
We look at clear evidence about the heavy lifting and the reason we have more women in Parliament now. In the last election, the Conservative party went backward. The Labour party surged forward. Do not get me wrong: the Labour party is in no way faultless in this area—I have just had to apologise for someone having a coffin left outside their house—but it is willing to do the thing that actually works, and to do it at every single level of the political party. It has to be balanced for every single person who sits on the National Executive Committee and for every person who goes to the conference. That is not because of people who want to claim they are great heroes of the movement. It is because of women in the Labour party fighting and bearing the scars.
Bill Grant
I note the comments about the negativity of the Conservative party. Here is a reciprocal quiz question: I wonder if the hon. Lady can explain why the party that seems to be quite restrictive on women is the party that has produced two wonderful female Prime Ministers, and yet no other party is following it?
Jess Phillips
I will query “wonderful”, in both regards. They are women. As somebody who grew up in the 1980s, I have to say that Mrs Thatcher does not deserve “wonderful”, but she does deserve credit for what she achieved. There are no two ways about it. The jury is out on the current one, because she is the head of the Government who have turned down the exact things that we are asking for.
Of course, there is a problem, and here I will show hon. Members something that I know works: admitting that we have a problem. The Labour party has a problem with having women in leadership positions. That is just a fact, and it is one I can see based on the evidence. There are all sorts of reasons for why that is, and it is partially because women in the Labour party—I feel awful saying this; present company excepted—do not defend the status quo; we are radicals who act for change. The reason our party has fallen short is because we are radicals.
It is very difficult to get people to vote for radicals or for things that would affect the actual status quo, so while it is amazing that the Prime Minister and the late Baroness Thatcher achieved what they have, to me they also very much represent the status quo. They did not challenge an established order. That is one of the reasons I think the Labour party struggles: our women would definitely upset the apple-cart, as they always have in our movement.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that the fact that somebody in power is a woman does not mean that they should be held to different standards from men? That seems to be part of the issue: as women in the positions we hold, we have a right to be good or bad in the same way that men have.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. All politicians need to be cut a bit of slack, because we are only human and we will all make mistakes. However, if a woman makes a mistake, she is making a mistake forever. That mistake could be what she wore on her feet. Everybody knows what shoes the Prime Minister likes, but what shoes did David Cameron like? Probably boring posh ones, but nobody will ever comment on that. We are held to an entirely different standard.
For me, some of the recommendations in the report are really obvious and easy solutions. I understand that there may need to be a bit of give and take; we did not expect all the recommendations to be accepted, but for some to have been considered would have been nice. I will not speak for much longer because I recognise that we are running out of time, but in the Government’s response, the idea that political parties can solve this problem is either naive or is basically trying to kick the can down the road. Political parties are not good and equal institutions that rely only on fair play. They are places where power, patronage and position mean everything. Nothing more than the past few months has shown me that my political party, as well as every political party in this building, cares more about politics, power and position than it cared about, for example, my friend Bex.
To think that political parties have the will to do this themselves is basically to say that the problem has to go away on its own. They absolutely do not. They care more about by-election results than they will ever care about the problem of sexual harassment, for example. That was felt by everybody on the Committee when every single political party presented to it. Nobody will actually turn on their own in the end. That is why people think we are all the same and why they have no trust in us. I have to say, for the first time, as somebody who believes in this building so deeply, I am kind of with the people on the doorstep who say we are all the same. That is how it has felt for people like me since the sexual harassment scandal started in Westminster.
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
We are aiming to finish by 3 pm. I am quite flexible, Maria, if you are a little flexible on your side as well.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Sharma. I am not quite sure that that time limit will work for what I have here, but I will do the best that I can. I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for her speech and for her Committee’s work on its excellent report, and I thank all those who gave evidence to that Committee.
I share the disappointment of everybody who has spoken about the Government not taking on the recommendations. I hope that, now that we have a new Government, they may wish to revisit this and take another look at the recommendations, because they are good recommendations. I add to those who have talked about quotas, and I share their concerns: I suppose that quotas are not perfect or what we would want in an ideal world. However, we do not have an ideal world. Women are not equal to men in society—or in this building—so there has to be a disruptor to the selection process that starts to make the rules work a little bit more in women’s favour. If we leave it how it is, it will be a very long time before we actually see any change. Action on this is long overdue.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke was right to talk about cultural factors and this building, the way it works and some of the behaviour that happens here. This is not new. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) referred to Winnie Ewing, who I will also refer to. Hers was one of the first political biographies that I read, and she reported that, in her time in this place, as the single female Scottish National party representative, she was
“interrupted whenever I spoke, I was regularly insulted and I was even defamed once or twice...I was even stalked by a Labour MP”.
She describes that stalking in some detail, although she does not name her stalker. That behaviour continued when she became a representative in the European Parliament as well. It took the chair of the European Parliament to write to the Speaker here to tell off those Members who continued to harass and upset her when she was in the European Parliament, which is completely unacceptable.
We know that that behaviour has not changed in recent years. My former colleague, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, was threatened with “a doing” in 2011 by a then Select Committee Chair, which is absolutely inappropriate. She felt that she had to withdraw from that Committee as a result of that. As we have seen from recent news of harassments, that is still a problem. It is still an issue, and we cannot be blind to it—we need to act.
Other Members have talked about their own experiences. My experience is that I have been well supported by men and women both in the SNP and not in the SNP. Like the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), I started as a local councillor, on Glasgow City Council. When I was first elected in 2007, the council was very male, pale and stale, and there was some very inappropriate behaviour by some of the older male councillors.
I had only been there for, I think, a matter of weeks before one of the male councillors thought it was appropriate to come up to my colleague and pat her on the stomach because he thought she was pregnant. She was not, but he should not have been doing that anyway; there is no need for that kind of behaviour. Some years later, when I was pregnant, a Labour councillor thought it would be appropriate, during meetings with other people present, to offer to deliver my baby. I made it perfectly clear how I felt about that kind of comment, but he persisted in making them because he knew I did not like it. There needs to be more challenging of those types of behaviours, because they are not funny; it is not a joke and it makes women feel uncomfortable.
I am glad to see that there has been progress in women’s representation in this place. In my own seat of Glasgow Central, none of the nine candidates were women in 2010, but three out of nine were women in 2015, and in 2017 it was the only seat in the country with an all-female candidate list. Progress has been made, but it is not enough. We need to think about how we support women when they get to this place. We need to look at maternity leave and support during pregnancy and we need to look at family-friendly hours. We also need to look at even more radical things. I have suggested before that we should have a version of the French suppléant system, in which Members could have somebody to job-share with or fill in for them when they are not here.
We also need to look at the impact of the boundary review and whether we can do more about safe seats and incumbency. To help to address those issues, the SNP has taken the approach that if a male MSP stands down, there will be an all-women shortlist in that seat to fill that gap. The former Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, is our national women and equalities officer. She has done a huge amount of work to encourage women to stand; she runs a women’s academy and is working to get women’s confidence up. That confidence is so important. Men will often put themselves forward for things after looking at the job description and thinking, “Of course I can do that,” when they can only do half of the things in the description. Women will look at the job description and think, “I couldn’t possibly do that.”
We need to encourage women to stand. We need to identify good women who have potential and ideas and things that they want to do to change the world. We need to get them to stand up and participate. We have seen a lot more female candidates coming forward in the SNP for council, which is a very important starting ground for people who want to get into politics and a very important part of politics. We need to support women in that. We cannot just encourage them and then take away any sense of structure. We need to keep that going over time and make sure that they continue to be supported.
We have some exceptional women in the SNP who I am very proud of. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned her mum, Lis Bardell, who is one of the most wonderful and exceptional encouragers in the party, and fearsome with it. We have a responsibility and a duty to make change and to make sure that, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said, women get here and then get into positions of power where they can help to make change. Select Committee Chairs have huge power to influence, change and set the agenda. Without women in those positions, nothing will change in so many different areas, particularly those where policy hugely affects women. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and to contribute to the debate.
As I have previously stated, 51% of the population are women, and the other 49% would not be here if it was not for the women, so arguing for 50:50 representation in Parliament is really quite reasonable. I am quite disappointed that the Government have not accepted any of the recommendations in the Women and Equalities Committee report. That is the problem with politics—people see that we say one thing and do something else, and it puts people off politics or politicians. If we truly believe in equality of representation, we must accept at least one of the recommendations, and that will make the Committee feel that it is doing a great job.
The report states:
“We are concerned that Parliament is failing to be a world leader on women’s representation.”
That is really important to consider as we debate Brexit and our standing in the world. It is important that we do not fall back. That alone should get people to sit up and listen to the debate we are having on representation in Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is an excellent Chair, and her Committee’s report makes reference to the “inflexibility” of Parliament’s working practices. How we vote in this place has been mentioned a number of times. I accept that there is value in us mingling in the Lobby when we vote, but once could be enough, and we could then vote electronically for the remaining 10 votes. There are ways we can improve the current system without losing some of its benefits.
We must also look at gerrymandering and the boundary changes. We will see a substantial loss of women representatives if the Boundary Commission’s recommendations go ahead. The Fawcett Society found that 37% of those at risk are women. If that goes ahead, the loss to this place will be substantial.
Mrs Miller
I do not want to add a discordant note, but if there were an issue of gerrymandering, surely it is the fact that at the moment constituencies such as mine have 85,000 people in them, while constituencies in other parts of the country have only 50,000. Surely that is the gerrymandering that we are trying to get rid of with the boundary changes, which I fear will not go through because of a lack of cross-party support.
[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]
Dawn Butler
The whole system is substantially flawed in how it counts the number of constituents, because it takes into consideration only people who are registered to vote, and not everybody who actually lives in the constituency. The right hon. Lady will find that constituencies such as mine—a London constituency—have a substantial number of constituents who are not registered. The whole system is flawed in terms of how the number is calculated, but it is not only that. The Labour party is set to lose more seats under the boundary changes than any other party, and we would therefore lose more women. That is where some of the gerrymandering comes into effect.
The report states:
“Our focus on women in this report should not be taken as a lack of interest in diversity more generally”.
I accept that. When we look at achieving gender equality, we need to look at all kinds of women. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) referred to intersectionality in women of colour, who often get ignored or brushed out of the feminist argument. Even though we are looking at women, we need to look at the diversity of women. This is not confined to women of colour; it is also working-class women, disabled women, LGBT+ women, single women, single mums and so on. It is important that when we talk about women, we are not focusing on one particular group of women who are then the acceptable face of women generally.
On the theme of thanking women, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who replaced an awful misogynistic male. She was fundamental in my journey to get here.
The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who is no longer in his place, made quite a powerful speech, some of which I agreed with. I am sorry that he is a little bit scared of me, but I am also quite pleased. I hope that his time on the Committee has brought him on a journey to understand that it is not that women are not capable of doing certain jobs or being in certain positions. It is often that barriers are put in women’s way that are not put in men’s way. It could be the old boys’ club, the secret handshake or what you drink down the pub. Certain barriers are put in women’s way, and that stops them more than their ability to do a job, which is often not the case. I said this at the Committee, but I will repeat it for those who were not there: I will know when we have reached real equality, especially in this place, when we have as many rubbish women as rubbish men. Then I will know that equality has really hit its peak.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about conditioning people, and especially males, from a young age. That is all well and good, but the process of conditioning takes time—decades—and therefore we sometimes have to force that thought process. The way to force it is to have quotas or all-women shortlists or to make the decision makers more accountable. That is how we force conditioning or undo the conditioning that has happened.
More than 57% of women who have ever sat in the House of Commons have been Labour Members. All-women shortlists played a fundamental role in making sure we took that step forwards. To ignore the importance of all-women shortlists or the difference they make is to ignore the progress we often talk about in Parliament. It should not be ignored.
There has been a lot of talk about women in power. It is not just about women being in power; it is about women in power empowering other women. That is vital. We talk about the ladder of success. I like to think that when women are on that ladder, we lay the foundations for an escalator. If we are on that escalator of success, we lay the foundations for a lift, so that we make the journey of the woman coming behind us faster, smoother and easier, and we celebrate that fact. The fact that 86% of the cuts that our Prime Minister has presided over have affected women is a real disappointment for a woman in power.
Labour is seeking gender equality by 2020 or whenever the next general election is. It might be next year—who knows? The last general election was called quite quickly, so we did not have time to enforce all-women shortlists, but even then, the Labour party still achieved 45% of its Members being women. Of the 262 MPs, 119 are female. Labour has more female MPs than all the other political parties added together. That is something to celebrate and talk about. We cannot have this debate without acknowledging how far the Labour party has come.
In regard to black, Asian and minority ethnic representation, 32 out of the 52 are Labour MPs. Again, the fact that that journey has come about is fundamental to who we are as a party in regard to equality, but there is also a thought process and the measures that we have put in place.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Lady says that this is fundamental to what her party is about. It has had all-women shortlists for 20 years, yet her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) advocates—as my report advocates—that we should perhaps look at extending all-women shortlists, because, as her hon. Friend tells me, the Labour party is still finding it difficult to get women elected to mayoralties and as police and crime commissioners. Why has that not caused a culture change in the hon. Lady’s party if she says that it is part of its culture in the first place?
Dawn Butler
It is a fact that we have two police and crime commissioners who are women in the Labour party. We could do better in regard to elected Mayors, but the need to do better does not negate the fact that we are doing better than the Conservative party, the Lib Dems or any other party. I concede that we need to do better, can do better and must do better, but that does not in any way negate what we have done or mean that we should not celebrate the fact that the Labour party has done so well. As much as that might grate, it is a fact.
The game changer was all-women shortlists. What I often hear, especially from the Conservative party, is, “We want the best person for the job,” or, “We want the best man for the job.” Sometimes the best man for the job is a woman. The best person could be a woman. I find quite irritating the assumption that a woman getting the job is not the best person for the role.
On the whole, I commend the report. It insists that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority conduct an equality impact assessment, which I think is fundamentally important. I hope the Minister will talk about equality impact assessments and how important they are for analysing what happens and who is affected. I hope that the Government will take equality impact assessments on board in all their policies because, at the end of the day, all the women who are in this place stand on the shoulders of other women who fought really hard, who died and who shed blood, sweat and tears—literally. It is important that we ensure that whatever we produce from this House emboldens and empowers society as a whole, but in particular women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office (Caroline Nokes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and, indeed, to be back in this Chamber after a gap of a considerable number of months. I apologise if I am somewhat rusty. I have often said—and I believe that the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), shares the view—that sometimes Parliament is at its best in Westminster Hall, when we are speaking in a consensual and cross-party manner. I think that I recently followed my right hon. Friend, in successive weeks, on “The Politics Show South”. I heard her say one week that she felt that Parliament was at its best when it worked on a cross-party basis in Westminster Hall, and I repeated that the following week. I am sure that the viewers of the BBC’s “Politics South” programme found us slightly tedious, but never mind. We have seen elements of that consensus today. Right hon. and hon. Members, including those who may have spoken and then had to leave, raised a number of really important points, many of which I will struggle to disagree with.
Of course, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate, and all the members of the Select Committee on an excellent report. Unsurprisingly, I have had the opportunity to read and reflect on it and, indeed, the Government response this week.
The issue of diverse representation in Parliament was last discussed in this Chamber just three months ago, in a debate led by my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies). I am sorry that she was unable to be here today, because I also had the opportunity to read the record of that debate and the many important and pertinent comments that both female and male Members of the House made about their struggles to get here and, indeed, some of the challenges that we all face when we are here.
I echo the comment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made about how well Hampshire has done in securing female representation. I believe that we lead the way on diversity, in terms of both gender and BAME representation. We are doing brilliantly on that, but I cannot necessarily point to the reasons why. Back in September, the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) made a similar comment about why she could not necessarily share all the secrets of why Livingston and West Lothian had done better than other parts of the country in securing both female representation and female candidates. I was struck by the comment about the constituency that was, I think, the only one in the country with an all-female line-up at the last election.
I was talking about Hampshire. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and I arrived here in 2010, I was struck by the tales from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about how miserable this place had been when there were only 17 female Conservative Members. That increased to nearly 50 in 2010, and today it is nearly 70. We now have my hon. Friends the Members for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) and for Eastleigh. Between 2015 and 2017, we also had my former hon. Friend Flick Drummond, then Member for Portsmouth South, whom we all very much miss and would like to see back here.
As my ministerial colleagues have made clear in their response to the report and, indeed, in various debates in the House, we want more progress, and that means a gender-balanced and therefore representative House of Commons. I was struck by the comments, which none of us would disagree with, that this would be a better place if we had better gender representation. There is certainly real aspiration—we have heard some today—on both sides of the House to find talent in the broadest cross-section of society. That should also be the case in our local councils, where women are represented similarly to how they are here: they hold only one third of elected positions and comprise only 17% of council leaders.
Local government is often seen as, and indeed is, a pipeline for talented people who might aspire to come to this place. Looking around the Chamber, I can see people who have been representatives on local authorities, as I was, and who, either by accident or design, found themselves on a trajectory that brought them to Westminster, but I argue that there are woefully low numbers of female council leaders and councillors. If we are to look at local government as our pipeline, we simply cannot take it for granted.
Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke hosted an event entitled “Ask Her to Stand”. That is such a crucial part of this. Whether we are male or female Members of the House and whether we are members of large parties or small ones, we all have a responsibility to find women who are interested and active, to encourage them to develop and to foster their talent, so that they have the confidence to come and occupy the same positions as we do. It is a real privilege to be here, and we have to find constructive and positive solutions to some of the more challenging aspects of the job.
I often spend time encouraging women I meet to think about standing, but I was really struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) when she was asking what she should say to young girls in her constituency: should she look them in the eye and tell them that this is the greatest place to work, or should she be honest? It is a really difficult question. I had some young girls from St James’ Primary School in Bermondsey come in here a few weeks ago as part of the “I Can Be” project, and they asked me whether this was a great place to work and whether I loved every minute of my job. I was honest, but I said that the same is true of any job: you will love bits of it and hate bits of it. That is very true in Parliament, but there are some environmental factors. Many Members have referred to both the environment and the culture. I told those six-year-old girls that we have to modernise, and if modernisation can bring with it the removal of the mice, I for one will be a very happy Member of Parliament.
Virtually every Member has spoken about the cultural issues in this place, and I can argue with none of the comments made, especially on voting at midnight. I was going to describe an impromptu surgery, but it was not a surgery. I sat in the Lady Members’ Room between 10 and midnight on Monday and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was there for part of the time. I confess I was asleep for some of the time. I talked to some senior Members from her party about what we could do to make this place more attractive. I will give credit to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who was particularly honest in some of her views. She was right: it is a nonsense that we are here voting at midnight on occasion. Although the issues are serious and important, can any of us attest to being at our best at midnight? I certainly am not, and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn can attest to the fact that about two minutes before the vote I was fast asleep, and probably snoring.
We have a long way to go and I am conscious that I have many words that I want to say but will probably not get through all of them.
Hannah Bardell
I thank the Minister for giving way, and for her comments. One of the cultural issues that we touched on in our report was the representation of women and female parliamentarians in the media— the abuse and attention that we often receive. Speaking for myself, I have not received a huge amount of that, but some of my colleagues have. When we look up at the members of the Lobby during Prime Minister’s Question Time, which is about the only time the Press Gallery is ever full, we see how scarce women are among them. Some of the challenge is in the Lobby and in those who report on our parliamentary work. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do more to ensure that there are more women—and greater diversity—in the media?
Caroline Nokes
Do you know, I really thank the hon. Lady for those comments. The hon. Member for West Ham told me that I would be a coward if I did not stand up in Westminster Hall today and say that part of the problem was the media. The hon. Member for Livingston makes an absolutely valid point about the pale, male and stale nature of those that we see in the Lobby during PMQs. Other hon. Members have mentioned shoes. I cannot appear on the media without being told that I need to lose weight and wear longer skirts. Whose business is that other than mine?
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn made a highly relevant point about Select Committee Chairs. We have a brilliant female Select Committee Chair sitting with us today. However, across the other Select Committees there are too few women Chairs. I remember receiving one of those round-robin emails that we all receive when it is Select Committee election time, from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) when she was standing to be Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. I cannot pretend that she is one of my friends—I barely know her. She sent me an email asking me to support her in that election and I simply replied, “There is one thing that is absolutely certain in an election. If there is not a woman on the ballot paper, a woman will not get elected. By the way, that means I will of course vote for you.” That is an important point. Even when women get to this place, they appear to be somewhat reluctant, for whatever reason, to put themselves forward.
Two of my hon. Friends have left the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) told us a fantastic tale about his all-male upbringing and his background in the construction industry. Even in the construction industry, one can sporadically meet really inspirational women. I attended a reception a couple of months ago, which gives me a brilliant opportunity to mention two female directors of the company Saint-Gobain, who talked to me about the challenges that they face in the construction industry. They looked around this place and said, “It’s not as bad as here, though.” They made a really valid argument.
The hon. Member for Livingston gave us a fantastic insight into Livingston’s proud tradition. She made a valuable point about the banking crash and the evidence that, had there been more women, there would have been different experiences and different challenges, and we all know that that leads to different decision-making processes. I was delighted to hear her reference to “New Dawn”. I was the Chair of the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art when we unveiled “New Dawn”. I wish I could say I had been the Chair when it was commissioned, but I cannot claim that. It was brilliant to have a modern 21st-century piece of art in the Palace itself. Too often the modern art is shunted over into Portcullis House, but we and the artist Mary Branson found a great space where we could celebrate and commemorate the journey that so many women have been on to bring us here today.
The hon. Lady mentioned ladders, and the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) mentioned ladders, escalators and lifts. She is right. Too often there have been examples that we can all point to of women who have pulled up ladders behind them, which is not the way we should go. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken a bit of stick today, but I want to share with Members just one tale of a woman who was prepared to get up a ladder in 2010 to launch my general election campaign in the Romsey and Southampton North constituency. I did not think she would go up the ladder to unveil the poster that we had stuck 10 feet up a wall, but she did. She has been an inspiration to many of us and has been prepared to knuckle down and do some pretty heavy lifting when it has been called for.
I am going to destroy the career of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) by telling the House how much I love her and her outspokenness and the fact that she has been determined to keep banging the drum through some difficult and trying times. She was right to mention that we have to be prepared to admit when there is a problem. Former Prime Minister David Cameron was quite candid. When he was leader of the Conservative party before he became Prime Minister in 2009, he confessed that the under-representation of women and ethnic minorities was,
“a real problem for Parliament and it’s been an even greater problem for my party”.
I know that is 100% accurate because I lifted that out of the report and scribbled it down diligently. We have to be more open and candid. I do not pretend that I have all the solutions—I certainly do not—but the message that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women wanted me to convey is that she is listening to opinions and wants to do more.
I appreciate the disappointment that Members have expressed today about the response to the report. I do not pretend that I am on the easiest pitch trying to defend that—I am clearly not. As I said at the beginning, we approach this in a determined, cross-party and consensual way. The Government Equalities Office has taken a robust approach with business, encouraging organisations to think differently about what they can offer employees, developing strategies to retain and encourage women. The same must apply to the political parties who have to tackle the issue of workplace gender diversity with the same vigour that we are asking of the civil service. As the Minister with responsibility for the civil service in the Cabinet Office, I am conscious that we have some great strategies on returnships and retaining women in the workforce, but that is very much about a variety of solutions in a variety of different places.
I am not sure how much more tolerance people will have for me rambling on. There was a determination that we would speak for only an hour and a half, which I have clearly bust through badly. We have to focus on what the individual parties can do to address the problems. I think that focus is absolutely right. Today has been quite positive and constructive. Just as individual businesses require innovative and niche solutions to their own workforces, so do political parties, and they are best placed to know how to leverage the change within them. Different parties take different approaches to encouraging women’s participation and selecting candidates because they are largely starting from different points.
I was struck by the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley on my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), who has now gone. I knew the answer to the question was women-only shortlists. I knew that they had a massive impact in 1997 and I know it was the Labour party that achieved that. I am clear on that. I am also clear that in most political parties individual constituency associations are autonomous bodies that are absolutely determined to retain control over the selection of candidates, in the same way as I know that Romsey in 2002 was absolutely determined to pick somebody of its own choosing. The same is true for Basingstoke, for Brent Central and for Birmingham, Yardley. We have to allow the parties to have structures that allow those associations to have autonomy. A one-size-fits-all solution will not give us the answer.
I want us to remain open and collaborative, and to talk about successes and what has and has not worked. There is clearly much that we can learn from each other. That is why the Government Equalities Office is commissioning an evidence review, which will encompass the range of approaches taken here and internationally to increase women’s representation. The aim is to provide political parties with a range of possible solutions on which they can draw. That will be supplemented by some qualitative research with women and men in Parliament, to demonstrate the range of experiences, career paths and skills that Members bring to their role. I want it to be clear to prospective candidates that it is just such diversity of experience that makes this place truly democratic.
Turning to the future, next year there will be a great opportunity, when we celebrate the centenary of women’s inclusion in the electorate and in Parliament, to set a marker in the sand from which we cannot roll back. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women will be convening expert academics and colleagues throughout 2018 to establish our aspirations as shared action. I know that she has already approached a number of colleagues here, and will continue to work with them and with peers in the other place. In the light of the new challenges that we face, such as online abuse, which has been mentioned this afternoon, and the constantly evolving role of parliamentarians, we must look towards next year as an opportunity both for an exciting celebration and for addressing some of the difficult aspects of 21st-century politics.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I believe we are all working towards the same aim, and I hope that they will continue to use the privilege of their position here, as I shall, to sustain momentum. Those of us with a deep commitment to diversity will champion the issues in our parties. We must do so with vigour and determination. Each of us is a role model for young people who are thinking about what they want to be when they grow up. That is a privileged and special position to be in. I suspect that the majority of our constituents do not know what brought us to this place, or where we worked before. Perhaps we have a responsibility to explain that journey to them, to tell them about the privilege of being part of what I would argue is the world’s greatest democracy, and to encourage more of them to come forward and stand.
Mrs Miller
It is wonderful to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Robertson. I thank everyone who has taken the opportunity to come and contribute to the debate, and particularly the Minister for giving such a positive response. It is heartening to hear that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women is undertaking an evidence review. We will all welcome that, and we will welcome her involvement, and that of the Minister, in finding a way forward. It is not a choice; it is a necessity. We need better gender representation and diversity in Parliament. It is the responsibility of us all, and such debates help to move the issue forward. I assure all the Members present for the debate that the Women and Equalities Committee will continue to look at the issue in detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Fifth Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Women in the House of Commons after the 2020 election, Session 2016-17, HC 630, and the Government Response, Cm 9492.
Written Statements
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Infrastructure
(6 years, 4 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)
I would like to make the following statement:
Nuclear power generation
New nuclear power stations have an important role to play. As confirmed in the Industrial Strategy, nuclear is a vital part of our energy mix, providing low carbon power now and into the future. The Government’s framework to bring forward new nuclear power stations was established in the 2008 White Paper on Nuclear Power, as was the principle the Government should take active steps to help facilitate the construction of new nuclear.
The overarching National Policy Statement (“NPS”) for Energy (“EN-1”) published in July 2011 made clear that nuclear power is a low-carbon, proven technology which can play an important role increasing the resilience and diversity of the UK’s energy system. The assessment of the need for new electricity generation carried out to support EN-1 remains valuable and continues to be relevant.
My Department’s annual updated energy and emissions projections state that by 2035 overall demand for electricity is expected to have increased. Therefore, with a number of the existing coal and nuclear fleet due to close by 2030, new nuclear power generation remains key to meeting our 2050 obligations. This is in line with the 2017 Clean Growth Strategy. The Government have noted previously that there are technical and commercial barriers to deploying other technologies to produce the same annual generation as that of nuclear power. The need for the UK to continue to transition to a low-carbon electricity market is underlined by the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) Paris Agreement. The Government believe that it is important that there is a strong pipeline of new nuclear power to contribute to the UK’s future energy system.
Government consultation
The Government have today published a consultation on the process and criteria for designating potentially suitable sites in a National Policy Statement for nuclear power between 2026 and 2035. This begins the process towards designating a new National Policy Statement (“the new NPS”) applicable to nuclear plants expected to be deployed after 2025 and capable of deployment by the end of 2035 and with over 1GW of single-reactor electricity generating capacity.
Nuclear National Policy Statements
Applicability of EN-6
The Government consider that the current nuclear NPS, EN-6, only “has effect” for the purposes of section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (“the Act”) for development which forms parts of a project able to demonstrate expected deployment by the end of 2025. Applications for a Development Consent Order under the Act will be considered in the first instance by an examining authority appointed by the Secretary of State to consider any specific project proposals. For the purpose of the applicability of EN-6, Government considers “deployment” to mean the point when a generating station first begins to feed the electricity it generates into the national grid, noting this will likely be at a point before full commercial operation.
For projects yet to apply for development consent and due to deploy beyond 2025, the Government continues to give its strong in principle support to project proposals at those sites currently listed in EN-6. Even if EN-6 is considered not to have effect under section 104 of the Act for such a project, section 105 of the Act would apply to the decision on whether or not to grant development consent for the project.
The Government are confident that both EN-1 and EN-6 incorporate information, assessments and statements which will continue to be important and relevant for projects which will deploy after 2025, including statements concerning the need for nuclear power—as well as environmental and other assessments that continue to be relevant for those projects. As such, in deciding whether or not to grant development consent to such a project, the Secretary of State would be required, under section 105(2)(c) of the Act, to have regard to the content of EN-1 and EN-6, unless they have been suspended or revoked. In respect of matters where there is no relevant change of circumstances it is likely that significant weight would be given to the policy in EN-1 and EN-6.
Applicability of the new NPS
The new NPS, once designated, will “have effect” for the purposes of section 104 of the Act for development which forms parts of a project able to demonstrate expected deployment after 2025 and before the end of 2035.
The Government also consider that a published new NPS in draft form would be considered as relevant to a decision on whether or not to grant development consent under section 105 of the Act.
[HCWS321]
Energy Policy
(6 years, 4 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)
Today we have announced our next steps for the development of advanced nuclear technologies in the UK. The advanced nuclear sector has the potential to play an important part in the UK’s industrial strategy building on our existing economic strengths and competitive advantages in nuclear while shaping new advanced nuclear markets and contributing to tackling the clean growth grand challenge. To help deliver this, the Government will provide up to £56 million for advanced nuclear technologies over the next three years.
The Government launched the first phase of the small modular reactor (SMR) competition in March 2016 as an evidence-gathering phase with the goal of gauging market interest among technology developers, utilities, and potential investors. That exercise is now closed.
My Department received expressions of interest from 33 eligible participants. Officials have worked with these participants to understand the technological and commercial viability of new reactors in development. As an information gathering process, phase one did not involve down-selection. All eligible participants were given the opportunity to engage with the Government to inform policy development.
This exercise provided valuable insight into the advanced nuclear technologies market. We are grateful for the participation of all entrants.
What we have learnt
Phase one demonstrated that SMRs could potentially play an important part in a broader nuclear market. There is a large variety of potential technologies. These comprise technologies which range in scale between micro, small and medium-scale reactors and which span technology types from conventional water-cooled reactors to 4th generation reactors using novel fuels and coolants, as well as fusion reactor concepts. Given this breadth, the Government believe that “SMR”, as commonly understood, is too narrow a description for technologies coming forward after the current generation of nuclear power stations. Instead the Government consider this to be the “Advanced Nuclear” market.
Engagement with competition participants helped shape our thinking for the next steps for advanced nuclear policy. Three key requests came through. The first was that technology developers need better and earlier access to regulators in order to address regulatory requirements by design and to provide confidence to potential investors. The second was support to turn new developers’ ideas into detailed designs, bridging the investment gap between innovation and commercialisation. The third request was to create the right market conditions to enable developers to bring new reactors to market as commercially viable businesses.
Advanced nuclear technologies—next steps
The competition demonstrated that there is the potential for the UK to become a world-leader in developing the next generations of nuclear technologies. The UK’s nuclear sector is well placed to compete globally in this emerging market. The policies announced today are intended as the first steps to achieve that potential.
We are providing up to £7 million of funding to regulators to build the capability and capacity needed to assess and license small and novel reactor designs, as announced in the clean growth strategy: This funding will also provide support for pre-licensing engagement between vendors and regulators.
Over the next three years we will also provide funding to support advanced reactors through a two-stage advanced modular reactor programme. Up to £4 million in Stage 1 will support around 8 reactor vendors to carry out detailed technical and commercial feasibility studies. Subject to Stage 1 demonstrating clear value for money through a formal re-approval process with the Treasury, up to £40 million of further funding could then support 3 to 4 vendors to accelerate the development of their designs. Up to a further £5 million may also be made available to regulators to support this.
The Government will also continue to work closely with the advanced nuclear industry stakeholders to foster the market conditions needed to enable developers to bring privately financed small and novel reactors to market. A crucial element of this is demonstrating commercial viability—in particular, the ability of new designs and delivery mechanisms to attract investment and generate cost-competitive electricity.
Therefore the Government are setting up an expert finance group to advise how small and advanced reactor projects could raise investment in the UK. By bringing together nuclear and financial sector expertise we anticipate that this group will help demonstrate the commercial proposition of small reactors in the emerging nuclear market. The group will be asked to report in the spring.
Subject to further evidence on the commercial viability of advanced nuclear technologies, we will continue to look closely at other market failures which inhibit new reactors competing in our diverse energy markets.
[HCWS322]
Correction
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I wish to inform the House that an error has been identified in the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) in Defence oral questions on 27 November 2017, Official Report, column 21, on the subject of funding defence nuclear capabilities.
To clarify, the UK’s nuclear deterrent has always been funded from the Defence budget.
[HCWS328]
Agriculture and Fisheries Pre-Council Statement
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
The Agriculture and Fisheries Council will take place on December 11-12 in Brussels.
As the provisional agenda stands, the primary focus for fisheries will be reaching a political agreement on Atlantic and North Sea total allowable catches and quotas for 2018.
The primary focus for agriculture will be a presentation from the European Commission on “The Future of Food and Farming”.
There are currently five items scheduled under “any other business”:
stakeholder conference on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and its future: “Beyond 2020: Supporting Europe’s coastal states communities”
implementation of the landing obligation, choke species risk in January 2019
outcome of the conference on “Modern Biotechnologies in Agriculture: Paving the way for responsible innovation”
outcome of the high-level conference on African swine fever (ASF) (Prague, 8-9 November 2017)
tackling unfair trading practices with an aim to achieve a more balanced food supply chain and strengthen the farmer’s position.
On 23 June 2016, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future once the UK has left the EU.
[HCWS320]
Foreign Affairs Council (Foreign and Defence Ministers)
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (Foreign and Development Ministers) on 11 December. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative (HRVP) of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meeting will be held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
The agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) is expected to include Iraq, the middle east; as well as the Democratic Republic of Congo under any other business. There will be a lunch focused on the G5 Sahel joint force and a joint FAC and FAC (development) session on the recent European Union-African Union (AU-EU) summit. There will be a short FAC (development) in the afternoon.
The HRVP is expected to open the meeting with introductory remarks on the Eastern Partnership summit, permanent structured co-operation (PESCO), Libya, Zimbabwe and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
Iraq
Ministers will discuss the situation in Iraq, including winning the peace post-Daesh and managing recent tensions between Baghdad and the Kurdish region. The EEAS will provide an update on the EU Iraq strategy that is due to be released in January. We will underline the need to continue de-escalating tensions between Baghdad and Erbil, ensuring that all parties focus on the fight against Daesh, preventing its re-emergence and working together to build a more stable, prosperous and inclusive future for all of Iraq’s people, including Iraqi Kurds.
Middle east
Ministers will discuss developments in the middle east. We continue to be concerned by the humanitarian situation in Yemen and continued restrictions on commercial and humanitarian supplies entering Yemen while understanding Saudi Arabia’s legitimate security concerns. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have both engaged on this pressing matter. We are also concerned by the recent developments in Yemen which underline the need for a comprehensive political solution. We will encourage European partners to work with us to find solutions.
G5 Sahel joint force
Ministers will meet representatives of countries which have stood up the G5 Sahel joint force—Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Chad.
EU-Africa
Ministers will discuss the outcomes of the EU-AU summit and follow-up to the conclusions the summit adopted on 30 November. The UK will note the opportunity that Zimbabwe has to embrace a free and democratic future. We have shared, with EU and Five Eyes partners, our expectations for the new Government in order for the international community to re-engage and provide support: free and fair elections, economic and political reform, commitment to human rights and a clear message that Zimbabwe is open to international trade and investment.
FAC (development)
Development Ministers will discuss next steps on aid for trade following the publication of the European Commission’s communication on “Achieving Prosperity through Trade and Investment: Updating the 2007 Joint EU Strategy on Aid for Trade”. This discussion will focus on how EU co-operation can help developing economies take better advantage of trade opportunities as a means to finance their own way out of poverty.
The FAC is also expected to adopt conclusions on Thailand and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It hopes to adopt the Council decision launching PESCO and identify initial PESCO projects.
[HCWS324]
Paterson Case
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
Ian Paterson, a consultant breast surgeon who was employed by the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (HEFT), and had practising privileges in the independent sector at Spire Parkway and Spire Little Aston, was found guilty in April this year of 17 counts of wounding with intent. He was sentenced to jail for 20 years.
The Government are appalled by the actions of Ian Paterson and the harm that has affected a significant number of patients. The disclosures about the seriousness and extent of his malpractice are deeply and profoundly shocking.
The Government committed to ensuring lessons were learnt in the interest of patient protection and safety, both in the independent sector and the NHS.
Today, I am announcing the establishment of an independent, non-statutory inquiry into the circumstances and practices surrounding Ian Paterson that have affected so many patients. I have asked the Right Revd Graham James, Bishop of Norwich to chair the inquiry.
The inquiry should be informed by the victims of Paterson and families’ concerns, and seek to learn from their experience. Therefore, the inquiry will look at the local care and treatment for private patients in the Solihull area, and review current and past practices to establish if safeguards for patients treated at independent healthcare providers have fallen short of the standards the public have a right to expect. This will help to inform the broader lessons applicable to care provided by the independent healthcare sector across the country.
The inquiry is likely to consider issues including, but not limited to:
the responsibility for the quality of care in the independent sector; appraisal, revalidation and multi-disciplinary working in the independent sector;
information sharing, reporting of activity and raising concerns between the independent sector and the NHS;
and the role of insurers of independent sector providers (including sharing of data), and arrangements for medical indemnity cover for clinicians in the independent sector.
The inquiry will also draw on issues raised in previous relevant reports about Paterson.
It is not intended to revisit the evidence that we already have about Paterson and that led to his conviction.
The terms of reference and other arrangements relating to the inquiry will be published in due course after a period of engagement.
The inquiry will be formally established from January 2018 and will report in summer 2019.
I am confident that Bishop Graham will oversee a thorough and independent non-statutory inquiry and deliver his recommendations swiftly.
[HCWS323]
Changes in Immigration Rules
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office.
The offer the UK makes to highly skilled international leaders in science, research digital technology and the arts is being enhanced by doubling the number of tier 1 (exceptional talent) places to 2,000 visas per year.
As announced in the autumn Budget, and to support our ambitions on innovation and research and development, the changes also include provisions to enable internationally recognised global leaders in science, as well as those in digital technology, and the arts and creative sectors, endorsed under the tier 1 (exceptional talent) route, to apply for settlement after three years, amend tier 2 rules to allow for faster switching for tier 4 students below PhD level, while also making it easier to employ international researchers and members of established research teams by relaxing the labour market test under tier 2. The changes also provide for additional flexibility within our settlement rules to enable scientists and researchers who are called to assist with humanitarian and environmental crises to be absent from the UK for more than 180 days, if required.
The changes make other amendments to the settlement rules for work routes, for consistency. These relate to the 180-day absence provision, breaks in employment, time spent in the Crown dependencies, and the calculation of the qualifying period.
The rules for entrepreneurs are being simplified following customer feedback, to make them clearer and easier to follow (the requirements themselves are largely unchanged).
We continue to improve and modernise the UK’s border and immigration system, which will now include moves toward further digitisation. These changes are required to facilitate the planned move toward introducing immigration permissions issued in electronic form. This will also allow trials to be undertaken that will test the operation of any new system. The rules are also being changed to permit holders of standard visit visas to transit the UK rather than having to get a different type of visa. This builds on the work, begun in April 2015, to simplify the immigration rules for visitors.
[HCWS327]
National Transfer Scheme
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)
The Government remain committed to helping and supporting children in need of international protection. In the year ending September 2017, the UK granted asylum or another form of leave to almost 9,000 children and nearly 49,000 children since 2010. Last month, we published a safeguarding strategy which sets out our vision and commitment to caring for and supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children. We look forward to working with partners to implement the actions in that strategy.
We have seen a significant increase in the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the UK in recent years and this has placed pressure on a small number of local authorities; particularly those such as Kent and Croydon. On 1 July 2016, the Government launched the National Transfer Scheme (NTS) for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The NTS is a voluntary scheme that supports local authorities to transfer responsibility for unaccompanied children who are already in the UK to another local authority. The scheme seeks to achieve a fairer allocation of caring responsibilities across the country so that all children get the care and support they need.
The NTS has made significant progress. As at 1 October 2017, the scheme had transferred 555 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to other local authorities. The Government are very grateful for the way that participating local authorities have volunteered to care for unaccompanied children through the NTS. However, it is clear that there is more to do to ensure that no local authority is asked to look after more children than its local services can cope with and that the children receive the right level of care. There are approximately 4,500 unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children in local authority care in England and a small number of local authorities continue to look after a disproportionately high number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The NTS is underpinned by provisions in the Immigration Act 2016. However, these provisions currently only apply to English local authorities, which makes it difficult for the other nations of the UK to participate.
I am pleased to be able to announce that the Government are introducing secondary legislation to extend the NTS to the whole of the United Kingdom. The statutory instrument provides a legislative base for transfer arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will allow the relevant authorities in each nation of the UK to participate in the NTS and ensure it is a truly national scheme. The NTS is voluntary and participation will remain a decision for each respective authority. We are committed to working closely with relevant authorities and partners to ensure the NTS takes account of the unique circumstances in each nation of the UK. However, we hope that by introducing this statutory instrument, we will encourage more local authorities to step forward and volunteer to support these children.
[HCWS326]
Tailored Review of ICAI
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
I am today publishing a mandated review of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), in accordance with my responsibility as the Minister accountable to Parliament for it. In line with standard Cabinet Office guidance the review examined the case for ICAI to exist and assessed its efficiency and governance arrangements.
In recognition of ICAI’s role as a scrutiny body, an independent challenge panel was appointed to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the review process, and included members of the National Audit Office and Institute for Government. The Cabinet Office was satisfied that the review demonstrated an appropriate level of independence. The review acknowledges the importance of ICAI’s independence and its recommendations have been formulated to ensure this is preserved. The review gathered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, drawn from Parliament, Government, the wider development sector and ICAI itself.
The review concluded that ICAI is necessary and that it should continue to be delivered by ICAI in its current form as a non-departmental public body with advisory functions. ICAI’s functions are of particular importance given the statutory obligation for independent evaluation of the impact and value for money of aid arising from the 2015 International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act.
The review found that ICAI’s work has contributed to increasing the impact and value for money of UK aid, and that ICAI is appreciated across the development sector for its scrutiny of aid impact. The review made a number of recommendations for further improving ICAI’s effectiveness, including by developing improved measures of its own performance and by adopting a more consultative approach to developing recommendations that will increase their value.
Though the review found that ICAI should continue in its current form, it recommended changes to its delivery model to improve both its efficiency and effectiveness, including making its Chief Commissioner full-time. The review also assessed ICAI’s governance arrangements and found them to be largely in-line with best practice for public bodies.
I am grateful to all those who contributed to the review, which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tailored-review-of-the-independent-commission-for-aid-impact-icai.
[HCWS325]
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Thursday 7th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 View all European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text
Homelessness: Emergency Housing
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support councils to provide emergency housing to help those who have been made unintentionally homeless.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my interests as declared in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, homelessness prevention is at the centre of our approach to protecting the most vulnerable. That is why we are implementing the most ambitious legislative reform in decades: the Homelessness Reduction Act. We have also allocated more than £1 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping through to 2020. This includes providing more than £402 million in flexible homelessness support grant, which local authorities can use more strategically to prevent and tackle homelessness, including for the provision of temporary accommodation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I welcome the announcement that the Minister has made, but I am very concerned about the loss of housing in London. The Mayor of London wrote last year to the Home Affairs Select Committee raising concerns that letting properties in the capital on a short-term basis all the year round could lead to a loss of accommodation. We admire the work done by organisations such as Crisis and The Passage and those that look after people for Christmas only, but does the Minister agree that this is a much greater problem than just at Christmas? Homelessness has become desperate. I have come into contact with people recently and tried to help them, and I know that it is extremely difficult.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend is right about some of the particular challenges faced by London. She is also absolutely right to pay tribute to Crisis and Shelter, both of which are represented on the advisory board that we have just set up in relation to tackling the problem of rough sleeping. We have put £28 million into that and are funding three pilots in the country, as well as the £20 million rough sleeping grant that already exists.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I have by sheer coincidence this week been approached by a young woman in my ward in Newcastle, a 22 year-old with a small child, who has been the tenant of a property for three years, paying her rent regularly and actually improving the property. She has now received notice to quit within three months from her landlord. What advice does the Minister suggest that I give to her and what action will the Government take to protect tenants in such a position from landlords taking action of this kind?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not acquainted with the case that the noble Lord mentioned, but I would be very happy to have a look at it if he wants to share the details with me. We are spending an awful lot of money on homelessness prevention, which is important in this regard. We have trailblazing areas—I think from memory that Newcastle may be one of them. Certainly Gateshead is—but that might not be music to the noble Lord’s ear. I will gladly look at the case that he refers to if he would like to share it with me.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is it possible that we could do something more along the lines of an emergency? Wherever you go in our cities, and whatever Crisis and Shelter do, there are people out there who are distressed and many of them are mentally ill. It is an absolute disgrace and it has nothing to do with human rights. We really have to move very quickly because these people are dying before our eyes.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the massive work that the noble Lord does in this area. He and I visited Sheffield together to see some project work that was going on there—the Cathedral Archer project and others are considerable projects. I agree that there are complex problems attached to this; it is not straightforward. Some of these pilots will look at the complex nature of the problem, with wraparound help for example for people who have left the armed services, who are often homeless. We are working with the Ministry of Justice as well in relation to ex-offenders who have a homelessness problem and are often rough sleeping. The noble Lord is absolutely right in the points that he makes.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests. May I remind the Minister that in the Budget, the Government committed themselves to eliminating rough sleeping only by 2027? Why will it take 10 years?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right about that. We have committed to halving it by 2022. It is a massive and complex problem, as I have indicated. I think it is a realistic timetable for a national problem—it is not just associated with our cities—but obviously we will be watching it. The noble Lord will hold our feet to the fire to make sure that we have halved it by 2022—but it is a realistic timetable.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, we have heard a great deal about urban areas in cities and the capital, but what about rural areas? What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to address the issue of homelessness in the countryside, where there has been a 52% increase in rough sleeping in our rural areas?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for mentioning rural Britain. He is absolutely right that it is an important issue outside the cities and suburbs. We have trailblazer areas in relation to the prevention of homelessness throughout the country: I can think, for example, of Ryedale in Yorkshire and Uttlesford in rural Essex. There are certainly pockets—more than pockets: they are areas—of rural England where this is a real problem. We are putting in resources and are well aware of the problem. I thank the Church and in particular the cathedrals for all that they do in relation to homelessness and for the help that they provide. I have had the opportunity to see that at first hand over the last year and I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question.
Lord Spicer
As the Minister who set up the rough sleepers’ allowance almost 30 years ago and, as it happens, having helped to set up Crisis—Crisis at Christmas as it was then called—around 50 years ago, I must confess that I have reservations about our policy of giving out cash on the streets to almost anybody who asks for it. Will my noble friend therefore say what controls there are on this policy? Who gets the money, how much and why?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
First, my noble friend will be aware that the why is because there are many people who are homeless or rough sleeping who need it. The projects are very carefully monitored and chosen. The projects that have been selected for the rough sleeping grant, for example, are very carefully monitored. They are providing a good service in helping people who are, through no fault of their own, sleeping rough to ensure that they get somewhere on a temporary, and then hopefully a permanent, basis. I applaud the work that the noble Lord did in setting this up, particularly in London where it was first a problem before it spread more nationally. Some of that early pioneering work has helped us concentrate resources and improve on what was done initially.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that one of the major causes of the rise in homelessness is the shortage of supply of housing and the huge rise in the cost, particularly in the rented sector? Will the Government try to address at least that part of the problem by engaging in a programme of massive building of prefabricated housing? As someone who was brought up very happily until my late teens in a comfortable and affordable prefab, I strongly recommend to him that that is a rapid and effective way of addressing a fundamental problem of this 21st century.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I certainly agree that it is a factor. It is a very complex area, as the noble Lord will appreciate, so it is not simply a question of supply. Very often people are coming out of a secure environment such as the Armed Forces or prison and seeking somewhere permanent. The noble Lord is right that it is part of the issue. He will be aware that we are engaged in the most ambitious housebuilding programme for a generation, with a target of 300,000 new homes per annum by the middle of the 2020s. He is right about the importance of modern methods of construction—as we prefer to call these homes now, rather than “prefabs”. About 15% of new homes use modern methods of construction—but he is right that we could get that up and we are looking at doing that.
Social Care: Sleep-in Payments
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support (1) the care sector, and (2) those receiving care, in the light of the retrospective change in guidance on the application of the national minimum wage to sleep-in shifts for care workers.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House of my interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that the historic liabilities associated with the national minimum wage for sleep-in shifts present a challenge to the financial position of many care providers. The Government have been working with representatives of the social care sector to understand how liabilities for back pay for sleep-in shifts impact on the provision of care for vulnerable people. We are exploring options to minimise any impact on individuals and the sector.
Baroness Hollins
The Minister will be aware of the considerable stress and anxiety faced by people with learning disabilities and their families about the likely loss of service providers. People with personal budgets who directly employ support staff fear being made bankrupt if they are found to owe arrears to them. We have been aware of this issue for some time now. Will the Government commit to funding these historical liabilities for sleep-in shifts and end the stress and anxiety which is now prevalent within this sector?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
We absolutely recognise the pressures that this has caused for providers of all kinds, whether they are large providers of social care or those with personal budgets in receipt of direct payments. I should point out that HMRC is working with local authorities where they are providing funding for direct care, so it is not just a discussion between individuals and HMRC. Local authorities are involved as well because they clearly need to look at the budgets they are providing to make sure they are adequate to pay for existing costs. We are looking at all the issues around historic liabilities, but I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Baroness the commitment she is asking for today.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I declare my links with Mencap as shown in the register of interests. Will the Minister tell us what contingencies the Government have put in place to fund the services received by people with a learning disability to cover their financial difficulties arising from the Government’s decision not to fund historic liabilities on account of sleep-in shifts?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
It is not our position that they will not be funded. That is one of the options being explored at the moment. A huge amount of work is going on with providers and all parts of government. In the end, however, the Care Act 2014 means that local authorities have a responsibility to take on the commissioning of and, ultimately, provision for providers, if they are looking at exiting the market, to make sure there is proper and comprehensive provision in the local area.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, it is absolutely right that sleep-ins are defined as working time and therefore subject to payment of the national minimum wage. However, the Government’s November compliance scheme proposal not only failed to offer support for hard-pressed providers but also means that thousands of care workers, who are among the lowest paid in society, could be waiting until March 2019 to get paid what is owed to them. Does the Minister agree that these low-paid workers should not have to pay the price for the Government’s £6 billion cuts in social care or their failure to take action on addressing the social care funding crisis?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful that the noble Baroness has raised the compliance scheme. For those providers that enter it, the scheme offers the opportunity to take 12 months for self-review and then report to HMRC, which will then allow a further three months for the providers to pay. That gives a 15-month leeway compared with the usual default enforcement period of 28 days. There is clearly a balance to be struck between the financial challenges posed to providers and the money that staff, rightly, need to take. I think that the compliance scheme provides that balance so that we can do it in a way that is sustainable.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my wife requires 24-hour care. I am sure that my noble friend is aware of the impact of the backdating of this decision on so many people, not least charities such as Mencap, which will become seriously financially embarrassed unless some help is forthcoming. The amounts are enormous to such charities, but they are really pretty small beer compared with overseas aid, for example, and I hope the Government will look to their priorities in that respect.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I absolutely recognise the picture that my noble friend paints. We know the impact of the decision on backdated pay on those providers of social care of all kinds—charities, families and others. We are looking carefully at this, and there is a market analysis going on at the moment to find out the number of affected providers, the number of affected staff and the overall cost implications. Discussions are taking place with the European Commission to make sure that whatever route we take, we know it will be legally possible.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, these providers have been hit this year with a bill of £400 million. HMRC has given a one-month deferment of its decision, which is not enough time for them either to raise the money or to make alternative arrangements. Does the Minister agree that this can only be solved satisfactorily, without detriment to people with learning disabilities and people who are cared for, if there is a rescheduling of the liabilities? Are the Government looking, with HMRC, at drawing up a longer deferment schedule to allow them to raise the money?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Again, I would point the noble Baroness in the direction of the social care compliance scheme that has been set up, which allows precisely that deferral of payments. It allows for a period of up to 15 months for assessments to take place while providers work with HMRC to provide the payment. I should also point out that although HMRC would usually levy fines in the case of underpayment of taxes after 28 days, those fines have been waived in these cases, as one would expect.
Youth Orchestras
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of youth orchestras in the United Kingdom and the frequency of their performances, and what steps they are taking to support youth orchestras, particularly in the light of Brexit.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the Government support a number of national young music organisations, including the national youth music orchestra, with over £1 million of public funding a year confirmed until 2020. These organisations undertook at least 125 performances across the country in 2016-17. The Government remain committed to supporting our orchestras and classical music organisations across the country and at all scales. Music, as well as art and design, is a compulsory subject in the national curriculum for five to 14 year-olds.
Lord Storey
I thank the Minister for his reply and the importance the Government attach to these orchestras. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that, if we were to leave the EU, the finance given to youth orchestras and to other cultural institutions, for example for touring, will continue?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I can confirm that, when we leave the EU, the existing amounts that we spend on British youth orchestras will continue. For example, the total Arts Council investment, which includes music, has been guaranteed until 2020.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, one answer to the noble Baroness’s concern is the Commonwealth Youth Orchestra, which I think the Government currently support, and I hope they will continue to do so strongly.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is aware that youth orchestras in this country, and indeed elsewhere, perform to an extremely high standard, and that the young people who participate put in hours and hours of work although not all—fewer than half of them—actually anticipate having a career as a professional musician. What we need in order to keep those standards up is a good supply of young people who have the skills to take part. What proportion of children and young people in the maintained sector have affordable access to music tuition for long enough to bed in the skills that they need to perform to that standard?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I cannot give exactly the proportions that the noble Baroness has asked for. I can say that we have music education hubs, which were established after the Henley review into music education in 2011. There are 120 music education hubs in place, and they are funded by the Department for Education and overseen by Arts Council England. They create joined-up, high-quality music opportunities for all children and young people in and out of school, and the Government spend £75 million a year on this.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as patron of the South Glamorgan Youth Orchestra, now the Cardiff County and Vale of Glamorgan Youth Orchestra. Do the Government recognise the importance of music in intellectual development, with a crossover into the sciences and mathematical skills, and therefore that it is very important to have feeder orchestras from junior schools, school transition and so on finally feeding into youth orchestras? Some children do not achieve that but they achieve the intellectual development necessary to underpin our national development of skills.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree with the noble Baroness. I think we realise that music has particular relevance to mathematics and science. That is why music is a compulsory subject in the national curriculum and why we continue to invest in music in our schools.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this takes me back to my trumpet-playing days at school, which I will not inflict on your Lordships’ House. The Minister has heard from across the House great pride in our youth orchestras. Not only is our cultural and social life enriched by them but the economic life of the country gains. I have heard the Minister talk about the funding for youth orchestras, but do the notes in his folder tell him that since 2010 this Government have taken £48 million away from the arts councils that support them? I accept that he understands the importance of this. Does he not therefore think it is time to ensure that every primary school in the country has money available so that they can enhance the cultural life of all pupils?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am tempted to bring my trumpet in to have a duet with the noble Baroness, but I am sure she is better at it than I am. I have said that we agree that art and music are important, which is why they are part of the national curriculum. Arts Council England has increased funding for music since 2014-15, so in the difficult choices that have had to be made we think we have sustained our support for the arts. We recognise that the arts, including music, are important as part of an overall education.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What reassurance can the Government offer the National Youth String Orchestra, of which I am patron, whose concerns over things like insurance cover and the movement of musical instruments across borders after Brexit have led it to consider abandoning its customary European tours?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think the orchestra should check with its insurance broker because I am not sure whether that is a critical factor for travelling orchestras. Much more important is the visa requirements that will be needed after Brexit, and we are working hard with the Home Office to ensure that they are acceptable. The other measure that we are taking is the orchestra tax relief, which allows orchestras to travel.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned at the continuing fall in income from the National Lottery—the lottery benefiting youth orchestras alongside other areas of the art—and, if so, what measures might be taken to reverse this trend?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Earl is a doughty champion of the arts, for which I pay tribute to him. Of course we are concerned that lottery receipts are reducing. I believe work is under way to look at that. I do not have the information to hand but the Minister responsible in my department is looking at it very closely.
Brexit: Negotiations
Lord Robathan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their red lines in their negotiations with the European Union over Brexit.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has set out the goals for our future relationship with the EU—to create a long-term relationship through which the EU and UK can work together for the mutual benefit of all our citizens—and the Government are conducting these negotiations with that ambition, with due regard to not undermining our position by providing a continuing exposition of our negotiating position.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, we can probably all agree that things, shall we say, could have gone better in Brussels on Monday. Will my noble friend reassure the House that the Government remain unwavering in their commitment to honour the decision made by the British people in the referendum last June to leave the EU, and that they furthermore stand by the manifesto pledge, for which nearly 14 million people voted only in June, to leave both the single market and the customs union?
Baroness Goldie
I can certainly say to my noble friend that, while I cannot go into red lines which are germane to the negotiating process, our clear objectives have been frequently restated: leaving the EU, leaving the single market, leaving the customs union, restoring the supremacy of the British judicial system, preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom and forging a strong relationship with the EU for the future with an ambitious free trade arrangement.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, anyone who has been involved in negotiations knows that one of the most important things at the outset is to establish the good faith of all the parties—in other words, their ability to conclude the deal that they are purporting to negotiate. Last week, the Commission and the Irish Government clearly assumed that the Prime Minister was negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom. Actually, she was not: she was negotiating ad referendum to the DUP. In those circumstances, why did she not explain the position to her counterparties on the other side of the table, and why did she not get the DUP alongside, negotiating on their behalf?
Baroness Goldie
The Prime Minister is negotiating for the national interest of the United Kingdom and all its parts with rigour and determination—a determination, I may say, acknowledged by no less a person than President Juncker, who described her as a tough negotiator. That is what I want in Brussels; thank goodness, that is what we have in Brussels.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are many border crossing points between the EU and territory which is outside both the customs union and the single market—namely in Switzerland? Many of these borders are not just soft but completely imperceptible, because Switzerland has trading agreements with the EU. Does that not illustrate what the Government have always said: that the issue of the Irish border can be finally and substantively solved only in the context of the trade negotiations, part two?
Baroness Goldie
I agree with my noble friend that the trade negotiations are critical to the end point, the final shape of what we want to see. We have always been clear that we do not want a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and that we want to ensure that the particular needs of Northern Ireland are recognised, but equally we are clear that whatever solution we come up with must be a solution for the whole United Kingdom.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, should not the only red line that the Government be working to be the prosperity and well-being of the British people, not the dogmatic obsessions of the Brexiteers? When will the Cabinet discuss and decide on a sensible policy, which the Chancellor admits it has not done yet, one backed by evidence, which the Brexit Secretary admitted yesterday it has not got?
Baroness Goldie
I think that there are two strands to that question. What was the phrase, “dogmatic”—
Baroness Goldie
Yes, well that is interesting coming from where it comes from, that observation. I repeat what I said. The Prime Minister is on record as negotiating and, I think indeed, with what has been achieved, is demonstrably illustrating that she is negotiating for the good of the whole United Kingdom, and I applaud that.
On the specific issue of the impact or sectoral analyses to which the noble Baroness referred, the Government have always been very clear that we do not have a series of impact assessments. We never have had that. But we have been clear that we have had a series of sectoral analyses, and we have taken time—
Baroness Goldie
Well, anyone who takes the trouble to go into the Reading Room—which, given the interest in this Chamber, I would expect to be stowed out, with a queue back into the street—will find details of those analyses. We have been clear that it is an overall programme of work that we are engaged on; it is comprehensive, and the sectoral analyses are simply one part of it. It is not exhaustive or the final say on any of these issues.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend Lord Lamont, paragraph 5 of the EU guidelines for the negotiations, which were published on 29 April, makes it abundantly clear that the overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU would be dealt with solely in the second phase of the negotiations. Given that, would my noble friend give the assurance and remind the House that the EU cannot insist on any reference to that future relationship as part of the agreement currently being negotiated on citizens’ rights, the budget or the Irish border?
Baroness Goldie
I think that my noble friend will understand, and understand better than anyone, that I am very hesitant to dwell on details of negotiations. Everyone will understand that they are at a sensitive and very critical stage. You can lay me over that Table and flail me with Dods Parliamentary Companion, but I am not going to be drawn on detail.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the truth is that, whoever we trade with, we will have to go along with their regulations. If we trade with the Americans, we will have to go along with their regulations. Given that there is this great big market of 500 million near us, could the Minister distance herself and her Government from the extraordinary comment of Jacob Rees-Mogg that the regulatory divergence between the UK and EU should be an indelible red line?
Baroness Goldie
At the risk of being tedious, I say to the noble Baroness that negotiations are currently at a very sensitive stage, and it is important that I am not drawn into terminology which can lead to profound misunderstanding. What I want to see happen is the now recognised mutual good will from all parties. We see the mutuality of interest in getting a deal, and I want to see that crystallised during the negotiations—and I am positive that something positive will be coming out of that.
Business of the House
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the debates on the Motions in the names of Baroness Neville-Rolfe and the Earl of Caithness set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.
Better Regulation
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To move that this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to ensure that regulation is balanced, cost-effective, easy to understand, and properly enforced.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sponsoring this debate because regulation plays an important part in all our lives, both for good and, unfortunately, sometimes for ill. In recent decades, successive Governments have recognised the cost of regulation and sought to minimise it while still gaining the associated benefit. Recent initiatives are very well explained in the report that the House of Lords Library has helpfully produced for this debate. I thank the Library for it most warmly; it will prove invaluable, and not only for this debate.
To be clear, I fully agree that important steps have been taken in recent years to ensure regulation is justified and proportionate. Despite this, as is often the case in human affairs, we need to run to stand still. Even so, and despite the apparent political consensus I have described in favour of reducing the burden of regulation, I sometimes detect a common view that regulation is virtuous in principle and that those of us concerned to reduce it are somehow working for an ignoble cause. I believe that to be profoundly mistaken. Regulation in general is, I agree, a necessity. But specific examples are frequently unnecessary; regulation often inhibits freedom and economic activity, making us all poorer. Therein lies the rub. There is nothing for it but to try to find the correct balance, and the way forward is rarely completely obvious.
Today, I do not want to run through the history of regulatory policy, but to raise concerns and to make some general observations that have occurred to me ever since, as a civil servant, I headed the deregulation task force under my noble friend Lord Heseltine. Identifying ongoing problems can be a first step to finding a remedy. In particular, I want to bring to the House’s attention the possible link which I believe exists between disappointing productivity and bad, or poorly enforced, regulation. Then I will turn to the issue of what steps we can take to improve matters. This will be especially important very soon, when we are faced with the tide of regulatory implementation arising from Brexit. We need to find a way of scrutinising it well in this House.
I start with the problem—indeed, puzzle—of low productivity, which has been extensively addressed in this House and in the other place during the Budget debates. The flatlining in productivity that we have seen since 2008 is something of a mystery, like TS Eliot’s cat. I have been reading closely the official papers on the matter from the ONS—not a task yielding a laugh a minute. A brief summary might be that the problem exists, but the exact cause or causes have not been proved. Likely culprits identified by informed observers include poor education and skills, inadequate infrastructure, insufficient housing and R&D, and the impact of digital on revenue and national income statistics.
I believe, however, that the wrong kind of regulation, an excess of it and a tendency to dream up new regulations in response to crises are also contributors. Rather than enforce existing regulations properly and learn from our mistakes in the kind of continuous improvement that I know from my time in retail, too often we see a failure to monitor existing rules and then very costly and intrusive regulation. My objection to the wrong sort of regulation is that it is inefficient, diverting of effort, irritating, time wasting and often expensive for those regulated.
My first example is Grenfell Tower. This was an appalling tragedy of a kind that should not occur. The facts are being carefully examined and there will be a forensic report, but I highlight three apparent regulatory failures from which we might learn. The most serious to my mind was to bring in for tower blocks building regulations that exempted the refitting of old blocks from the requirement to install sprinklers, as required in new blocks. The second was to require new cladding with a focus on energy saving to meet public sector climate change targets, and not to think enough about fire safety. The third was to have a Cinderella system of enforcement of the fire safety rules rather than well-trained professionals.
Cinderella enforcement has been an issue in many of the regulatory scandals of my lifetime, examples of which are Nestlé baby milk contamination, which closed the relevant Cumbrian factory for ever; local authority enforcement of BSE rules; and foot and mouth. For success you need a good enforcement system, and the Health and Safety Commission and, later, the Food Standards Agency have done a reasonable job, with trained staff and a system of simple, easy to understand guidance and a policy of issuing improvement notices before businesses face prosecution. Sadly, local environmental health and trading standards are not given the priority they should be.
Another good way to achieve compliance is to have industry schemes that act as an incentive to virtuous behaviour. An example—a good one, I hope; and I declare this and my other interests in the register—is the red tractor assurance scheme appearing on some £13 billion-worth of British agricultural produce. Had my noble friend Lord Lindsay been able to be here, he would, I know, have talked more broadly about other UKAS-accredited conformity schemes, because they have been used successfully for many years to support government regulatory policy and a risk-based approach in a wide range of important areas such as environmental management, food safety and quality, and healthcare services.
My second example is financial services. The UK’s establishment of the Financial Services Authority was, to my mind, a mistake. My experience at Tesco was despair at the micromanagement it imposed on the detailed wording of consumer products while apparently neglecting investment banking and sub-prime. Regulators should have economic spectacles: they should care about growth and innovation in the economy, but they should also be wary of wealth creation that seems too good to be true. After the crisis, all that changed and, arguably, there has been regulatory overreaction—all very well meant, no doubt—and a double banking of UK and EU regulation. This growth of regulation has been introduced in part to tackle money laundering, but it is sometimes done without regard to common sense. My husband has looked after the affairs of an elderly aunt confined to a nursing home for many years, yet he is often asked to provide proof of her existence and her bona fides.
Having said all that, the new financial services regime is much better than it was in the FSA era. The FCA and the PRA are now in effect part of the Bank of England and can attract better staff as a consequence. They are more strategic and did well in the weeks after the Brexit vote. The FCA has rightly been praised for its work on fintech, with the regulatory sandbox providing a light regulatory regime for start-ups, which has impressed internationally. They now face a new difficulty: the need to secure some form of bespoke deal in the Brexit context. Because of the importance of a Brexit deal for financial services, there is no appetite for lighter regulation. Indeed, I worry that the rules could end up being more onerous. The risk then must be that global operators will decide to move business to New York or Singapore. We need to be a force for good in regulation in the EU while we remain in it, and in supranational discussions and bodies thereafter. Our influence is important.
My third example is product safety. I have previously highlighted the case of Whirlpool tumble driers that burst into flames. Whirlpool, a US company, was in my opinion slow to take its safety responsibility seriously when it emerged that there were 5 million dangerous machines in British homes. I understand that about half have been fixed. We know from debates on the then Consumer Rights Bill in 2014 that the product recall system in this country is not up to scratch. There is a simple solution—central resource and central responsibility, not for all consumer safety, which rightly sits with local authorities, but where we have major national product recalls as faced by Peterborough with Whirlpool. We need a major, centralised enforcement effort in such cases. I was rather hoping that the Minister might agree.
My fourth example, very briefly, is Volkswagen, which was again an appalling example of poor enforcement, not the wrong basic standards or laws. We do not have time to go into this case in detail, but I wonder whether the problem was in allowing manufacturers to set the performance tests rather than requiring independent certification.
Finally, I am following the Data Protection Bill through our House at present and I predict that the scale of the new burden it imposes will eventually cause a backlash of complaint. New rules will apply to pretty well every business or private sector organisation in the country, regardless of size, which collects or holds data about identifiable individuals—that is most small businesses and charities; not a happy situation. We must do what we can to help them.
What do we do about all this? I speak as someone who has spent half my life fighting red tape, sometimes with success. When I ran the Deregulation Unit aeons ago, we had a mantra which I think we could revive: “Fewer, better, simpler”. As Winston Churchill said,
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law”.
The Federation of Small Businesses says that regulation is a top priority for its members. In a recent survey, two-thirds of them thought that the costs outweighed the benefits in terms of reduced profitability, productivity, innovation and so on. They are especially concerned about the flow of new regulation and a de minimis rule that might be coming in for impact assessment. I hope the Minister will be able to provide them with some reassurance.
What else can we do together to make things better? First, we should recognise that regulation, while often necessary, is a cost that hits the bottom line of businesses and diverts management effort. We should be up-front about this. We need impact assessments available to Ministers and senior officials on new rules and regulations before key decisions are taken. The assessments should be realistic and simple and should reflect dialogue and consultation with the real economy, and quote the names of companies or bodies affected and what they think. The independent Regulatory Policy Committee has done good work on economic assessments and business impact, as the NAO has acknowledged. However, it lacks political edge and is somewhat undermined by the fact that its processes do not apply to burdens coming from the EU, to tax or to the national living wage. The NAO suggests that when these are added in, the regulatory burden has actually been increasing, despite the various targets such as one in, two or three out. Perhaps proposals with increased regulatory costs might be required to be approved by a Minister, as is the case with expenditure proposals. He or she could be defined as a champion of lower regulatory costs. A good system is all the more necessary given the great tidal wave of replacement regulation coming our way with Brexit. The process needs to be refreshed, and the moment for that has come.
Secondly, and linked to that, we need to be champions of good, simple, inexpensive regulation across Europe and in international fora.
Thirdly—and this would appeal to most politicians in free countries—we should think small first. It is sometimes possible to have exemptions, such as the VAT ceiling, but we should ensure that administration for smaller firms is clear, simple and online and that charges are lower. Indeed, they often might not be worth imposing at all when you allow for the administration costs. At Tesco every invoice cost £25, so in many cases it paid to be generous. There are millions of SMEs, small charities, trusts and small public bodies such as parish councils and primary schools, who will love us if we can make the regulatory burden easier.
Fourthly, regulation must be easy to understand. The growth in complexity is good for the lawyers and consultants, but in the modern world there is no excuse for a lack of simple clear rules and information.
That brings me to my final recommendation: enforcement matters. As my tale of Grenfell Tower showed, enforcing and resourcing our regulatory systems needs to be an essential part of our deregulatory approach. Again, the Brexit changes give us an opportunity to review this aspect.
I note in closing that unfortunately, none of these ideas appears in the recently published industrial strategy. Indeed, regulation barely gets a mention, despite its importance to productivity. Robert Bork, a famous US lawyer and judge, said that:
“As government regulations grow slowly, we become used to the harness. Habit is a powerful force, and we no longer feel as intensely”,
yet what is proposed would have been “utterly intolerable” in former ages. That could be a prescient warning.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for creating another opportunity to discuss this very important matter. I agree with much of what she said. We have never been at a more important time in carrying out our role to regulate properly, proportionately, wisely and transparently. I am going to pursue a rather different tack this morning.
Even under normal circumstances, the minimum that we should be able to expect from the Government in their approach to regulation is not merely that it is proportionate, providing the right level of safeguarding and reducing the sort of risks that need to be reduced, but that it is transparent enough for everyone to have confidence in and robust enough to invite and withstand scrutiny. I hope that the Minister agrees.
My questions to the Minister today—there are quite a lot—will test whether these assumptions still hold in the light of what the Government plan to do to reduce the scope and functions of the only independent verification body which advises the Government about regulation: the Regulatory Policy Committee, created in 2009. In July I led a debate on regulation, which followed many of the same lines as the noble Baroness. This afternoon it is different. At the end of the debate, the Minister responded to me, in an unsatisfactory way, that the system of regulation was under review. Naively, I thought that that might mean a review which could lead to some improvement. There is common and cross-party agreement that we need to improve the system—to strip out what is redundant, ambiguous and obstructive—and to standardise practice without losing quality. That was the line taken by the Public Accounts Committee recently, when it said that the Government should adopt a more proportionate and efficient better-regulation system.
What has happened in fact, and which is deeply alarming to noble Lords across this House and to industry, is the opposite. Possibly under cover of the challenges of Brexit, possibly driven by it, the Government are planning to reduce the powers of the one independent body which is set up precisely to ensure that regulatory changes planned—whether to create or annul regulations —have the impacts claimed for them. We are talking only about business impact statements here—the very basic currency which has governed the accelerated approach to deregulation in recent years. These changes are planned and are under the radar. Apart from a letter to the chair of the PAC delivered last week, none of them has been publicly revealed, let alone discussed or consulted upon, not even with business interests. Each of them reduces a different part in the process of careful scrutiny and each has massive implications for small businesses—and very much for this House and the way it conducts scrutiny.
The three changes are, first, that the Government plan, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, to impose a de minimis bar of £5 million on what the RPC will look at in the future. This will have the following effect. Between 2015 and 2017, the RPC looked at 700 measures. Had this new regime been in place over the past year, it would have looked at only 18 measures, and it would be for government departments to self-certify those measures as to which side of the de minimis they fall on. This will reduce the work of the RPC by 90%. Had these measures been in place in recent years, the RPC would not have been able to review important regulations relating to fracking, night-flight restrictions, gender pay-gap reporting, pesticides and water quality, to name just a few. That is only one sort of impact.
The Federation of Small Businesses has been in touch with me as well. It says:
“There are rumours that government are introducing a higher de minimis threshold for scrutiny of impact statements”.
How right it is. In its briefing, it asks me to ask the Minister to provide clarity on this and when he will consult on it. Can the Minister ensure that in the wind-up he answers this question? The federation says:
“Our members cite the cumulative burden of regulation as a key problem, and so we are concerned that this change will allow more regulation to slip through the net unscrutinised, adding to the burden rather than reducing it”.
Exactly. Changes which look minor in themselves, which affect every hairdresser in the country, may well not add up to £5 million so will not be scrutinised—but they affect every hairdresser. That is what the FSB wants information about.
The second change is related to that. The Government have changed the terms on which measures of any size can be examined. With the introduction of de minimis, the RPC was concerned—rightly—that controversial measures could slip through, so it was working with the BRE to introduce powers of call-in to pick up controversial measures that would have a perverse consequence, whatever that might be. This, I understand, has now been abandoned as an idea. There will be no provision to call in any controversial measures that fall below the minimum. In a letter that I have seen, sent by the Minister to Cabinet colleagues, this is simply described as being,
“to enable the BRE to work with Departments to avoid unnecessary parliamentary handling risks”.
Thirdly, the Government have decided to abandon the mandatory first stage of consultation, which was developed by the RPC to spot and iron out mistakes, to the advantage of business and societal groups. This would provide greater departmental autonomy, with only one final cliff edge of confrontation. This proposition had been put forward before but was rejected by the then Cabinet Office Minister, Oliver Letwin. Business is very unhappy.
These are my questions for the noble Lord. Can he explain why the Government are reducing the power of the RPC to a minimal, possibly unsustainable, level at a point when its regulatory function needs to be at its most alert? Can he confirm that these changes are not under consideration but are well past that stage and that, unlike what he said to me in an Answer last week, they have been put into effect without public consideration, debate or review? Can he explain why this has not been brought to the attention of Parliament, let alone our scrutiny committees that deal with secondary legislation? Can he explain why he has not consulted business? Can he tell me what the job description of the new chair of the RPC, announced yesterday, in place of the gentleman who has been doing the job for many years, Michael Gibbons, will consist of? Does Mr Browne understand that, if these changes go ahead, there will be virtually no job to do?
I have already put one question to the Minister from the FSB, and here are two more. When will the Government consult on a new business impact target, which is required within a year of a new Parliament? We are now half way through it. When can we expect confirmation of the appointment of the independent validation body? Those are all questions well within the scope of the Minister, and I expect a reply at the end of the debate.
Finally, exactly what role and process do the Government now envisage for the RPC in relation to the Brexit process—not just in terms of the transposition of EU regulations but in terms of the generation of new regulations as a result of the negotiations or beyond? Are we to understand that this scrap of a body that will be left is to be charged with this crucial part of our future, or will more changes, of which we have not been informed, be sprung on us? When I heard about these changes, I found it very hard to believe that even this Government would make them without informing their eyes in business—the people who have to implement them—and this House.
I have mentioned Brexit and the chilling effect it is having across government. It is also a potential means of evasion and excuse and of doing things that might go unnoticed. We must be exceptionally alert to this. The RPC has been entirely dignified and silent about its treatment. This is no way to treat good public servants whose only concern is for good public policy. We ought to be able to look for a regulatory system which is robust but is also concerned with the social—not just business—impacts, and which is statutorily based and protected, and championed by a leading Minister.
This is not a personal agenda; these are issues of enormous interest across the House and outside, and I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for leading this debate. She has huge experience in this field, starting as a government official, then working at Tesco, particularly in retailing and consumer protection law. I suspect that she spent a lot of her life in Europe dealing with regulatory matters, and she has now gained the skill of leading legislation in this House.
Those of us who have spent a lifetime in industry should and do understand the importance of regulation to ensure that fair and free competition exists and that staff and consumers are protected. I have worked in three industries—the coal industry, construction and newspapers. The one Act in my generation that stands out is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I worked for the Coal Board in the 1970s and had the task of drafting the letters for the chairman of the Coal Board to send to the families of miners who were killed in accidents. I reckon that they averaged about 40 a year. Looking back, it was an unacceptable figure, but it shows that we required in this country a substantial movement in health and safety practice. In the coal industry, we probably used to assume that accidents were inevitable, but in my working career I have never assumed that any accident should happen.
Construction has already been mentioned in this debate. Compared with 40 years ago, construction has undergone a transformation. Grenfell is obviously a failure, and we will find out much more from the investigation currently taking place. However, it is not a question of less regulation but of getting better regulation to deal with some of the problems that will clearly be unearthed when the inquiry is conducted and completed. Every incident that we have in health and safety has to be tested and examined so that we can develop regulation and improve what we are doing. Just as important as regulation is the culture, which is one of the things that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act changed. I particularly admire the culture of the aviation sector with its drive to examine every incident and encourage a culture of no scope for improvement in its safety audits—because it knows the consequences of having a margin of error.
My principal industry of newspapers was not unsafe. But I particularly appreciated the area of competition regulation in a sector that was consolidating through mergers at the time. There were considerable opportunities for price fixing, collusion and muzzling competitive forces. They were endemic—but for the fact that there were regulations and competitive authorities to keep an eye on what was being done.
As someone who has worked in industry through most of my career, I certainly believe in keeping regulation simple, up-to-date and easily understood. But it needs to be said, as was stated in the briefing material, that the OECD regards this country as having relatively low levels of regulation compared with other member states. One of the principal sources of comparative advantage for this nation in attracting foreign investment is the system of fairly low-level regulation compared with other countries. That is what has attracted foreign investment into this country, from companies needing to sell their goods in the European market.
It is particularly important for small businesses that we keep regulation simple and effective, because they have the most difficulty in keeping up with regulation. We need their powers of innovation, growth and transformation to contribute to our economy. I certainly am not one of those who propose—indeed, we should strongly oppose—any concept that this country should develop down a Singapore route, with less regulation and unrestricted free enterprise, as a way of developing comparative advantage once and if we come out of the EU.
The coalition made some progress in trying to simplify our regulation policies. There are times when you need slightly more PR-type initiatives such as “one in, two out” or “one in, three out”, because that is a quite effective way of bringing about change in organisations that are not facing up to the need for it. But actually you need more effective long-term measures rather than simply changing the name of the campaign from “Cutting Red Tape” to the “Red Tape Challenge”. Having business impact targets and trying to improve government departments from within are important initiatives.
However, there are a number of problems, one of which is that in order to set realistic targets, you need to include in them the things that matter. I know that the Government have resisted this for a long time, but tax administration being outside the initial impact assessments is ludicrous because most small businesses certainly see the burdens of tax administration as being probably the largest impact that they have to face. They are not going to take much notice of campaigns that try to sideline the things that add most to their costs. Although I support them, we also have to include the national living wage and the national minimum wage so as to indicate where burdens are being put on business in order to get a true impact analysis of what regulation is doing—even when there are downsides to measures that most of us strongly support.
Finally, I want to say a little about the global dimension. The future for this country is very much about international trade and data. This week, I took myself off to look at the impact studies that the Government have produced. It was an amazing experience. You must make an appointment and be met at the Treasury. You have to give up your phone and sign your life away and promise that you will behave yourself, and then you get to see these studies. There is absolutely nothing new in those studies apart from emphasising the huge complexity of what the Government are leading us into with Brexit.
One phrase did catch my imagination. I started at A and looked at agriculture. It stated: “A key consideration is that the cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland is particularly complex and sensitive. The food and drink industry between the UK and Ireland is fully integrated and treated as a single trading unit by business”. Some 10 European systems apply across the agricultural sector, along with 15 relevant agencies. Good regulation will be vital to the flow of goods in the future. Regulation is particularly essential in this industry because when there is a problem, it helps to have good regulation so that businesses can recover quickly and continue to have free movement.
The Government are facing a huge task of converting all the European regulations which apparently are now going to come under our own auspices; it will be a huge enterprise. When moving house, most people clear out the loft first—but we will have a system where the withdrawal Bill will come in, then we will amend it so that we have a transition Bill, and presumably then we will then have to work through all the regulations to ensure that we are in control. What we also have to decide is which European regulatory agencies will apply and which we will participate in. We are half way to Brexit, with 18 months to go. Do the Government have a plan as to which of these agencies they are going to participate in and which they will duplicate? In my experience, it can take two or three years to set up a new department or regulatory agency, and I think that the country deserves to know.
The country could do with increasing scrutiny of regulation, but in a debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, when she was in the Government and defending against various amendments that we had proposed, I said that she was Stonewall Jackson in her defence of the Government. However, I warned her at the time that Stonewall Jackson was killed by his own troops. For all her aspirations on regulation, the difficulty is that, with the huge mountain of work that the Brexit operation will involve, simplifying regulation will be put very much on the back burner.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I heartily thank the noble Baroness for introducing the debate with her usual clarity—not that I agree with everything that she says. I agree with a fair part of it, but there are some aspects with which I do not.
As she said, five months ago, we had a debate on regulation in the name of my noble friend Lady Andrews. That was almost directly in the wake of Grenfell Tower, which, as she said, was a lethal cocktail of failure of regulation, regulators and enforcers to fulfil what is generally regarded as the first duty of the state: to protect its people. In that context, I gave a fairly fundamentalist speech to your Lordships about the attack on regulation, which was often under the guise of better regulation. I declared myself then to be a defender of the nanny state, and I remain unashamedly so. In these slightly more relaxed times, perhaps I should explain that I was in favour of a nanny state that was strict, fair and child-friendly, rather than the opposite. Nevertheless, I stand by my words. I can do no other.
Yet I recognise the need both for constant vigilance about the nature, quality and quantity of regulation, and for the real and positive better regulation agenda. I understand that to be the noble Baroness’s agenda. We need regulation that is accessible, not overly complex, clearly focused on outcome, intelligible and proportionate. Noble Lords will notice that I use the term “proportionate” rather than “balanced”, as in the noble Baroness’s Motion. They are not the same thing. “Proportionate” means not excessively costly or restrictive, relative to the prime objective of the regulation. “Balanced” implies that there is a trade-off between the objective and other objectives—particularly economic costs. That is not the objective of regulation. For example, if a substance or process can be lethal then we need to stop endangering human—or in some cases, animal or plant—life. That is the focus and objective of regulatory intervention in the first place. We should do so based on risk and in the most efficient and cost-effective way, but not by compromising the prime objective. Therefore, it is a question not of balance, but of proportion and adopting the most cost-effective and best available technology to meet the objective. Later today, there is a debate on the natural environment in which I will make a few remarks about pesticides. I will leave those remarks for noble Lords who can stand two interventions by me on the same day.
In a wider context, I am concerned about the Government’s approach to transposing a whole corpus of EU law into British law. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will be before your Lordships in the new year—quite how early is not yet entirely clear. It is time to put up a few markers. I fear the combination of the unprecedented need to rewrite and change the status of such a wide swathe of law and the political tendency influencing the Government—I was going to say within the Government—and of those who seek to use a post-Brexit scenario to move to a UK economy based on minimal regulation, perhaps under the guise of better regulation. They denounce the nanny Euro-state and put our physical security, fair treatment at work and in society, and the future of our landscape and biodiversity at risk, in order to cut regulatory costs. They insist on light-touch regulation or thin self-regulation and reduce the powers of regulators and cut their resources—allegedly so that the UK can compete in a ruthless world market. That is not my vision of post-Brexit Britain, but it is one that has an uncomfortable resonance in some circles not far from the centre of power—for the people more comfortable with regulatory alignment between the UK and Texas than between Armagh and Dundalk.
Already over the last decade, under successive Governments of all hues, we have seen examples of cuts in the powers and independence of, for example, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. More recently we have seen a serious diminution in the resources at local level for trading standards, as the noble Baroness said. Under the guise of better regulation, we have also seen what I regard as the quite absurd mechanistic formula of one in, three out, supposedly to reduce the burden on business, but in fact introducing another completely nonsensical trade-off.
In the Brexit Bill we see the necessary literal transfer of the wording of directives and regulations, but without, as it currently stands, the guiding principles of European regulation that exist in the treaties or, in some cases, in the preambles of directives and regulations. We are withdrawing from the treaties and English lawyers do not like the concept of preambles, but we miss some very important principles by not translating them into English and Scottish law, for example on fundamental rights, sustainability and the precautionary principle, which, as the Bill stands, are not being transferred, although the detailed regulations are. Nor is it clear from the Bill how the regulations, which hitherto have largely relied on European-level enforcement, are to be enforced on the British economy and public institutions post Brexit. I hope your Lordships will have the opportunity to get that right when we receive the Bill.
However, let me be a bit more positive about the agenda that the noble Baroness has set out. Indeed, over her lifetime she and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who is about to speak, have spent a long time looking at the positive side of better regulation—a painstaking process of updating, simplifying and reducing overlap; challenging half-baked cases for new regulations, of which there are far too many; cutting complexity; and, yes, avoiding unnecessary cost, particularly the administrative cost on small businesses. That is not so much the cost of compliance as it is the overhead burden of administration.
To help the process, successive Governments have established a precise, independent and effective method of checking and doing the necessary weeding, certification and assessing of proposals from departments for new or revised regulations. It has not been comprehensive, but where government departments have allowed it to operate it has been successful and has helped to ensure that new regulations have been more cost effective, accessible and workable. My noble friend Lady Andrews has already referred to the unfortunate rumours we have heard that part of that apparatus is being chopped off at the knees and that the role of the Better Regulation Executive and in particular the Regulatory Policy Committee is likely to be reduced—presumably, to put it benignly, in order not to jam up the process of transferral of European regulations through the Brexit process. I repeat my noble friend’s anxiety, because these processes have gained the confidence not only of those who are pressing for regulations but of those who would normally be very apprehensive about them, in particular small businesses. We are in danger of this process losing that confidence.
I worry that we are entering a period where people see the post-Brexit fate of this country as an offshore, low-regulation, low-tax, low-enforcement economy and society. By contrast, if your Lordships are interested, I have a whole list of areas where we should have better, more substantial regulation. On the environment, it should be on soil protection, air and water quality, and pesticides and fertilisers. In housing it should be on the private rented sector in particular and on building regulations. In the legal services, we should have a rather more independent system of regulation not wedded to the professional bodies.
So I, too, have an agenda which may appear to go in the opposite direction to that of the noble Baroness, but I hope that any new regulations in that area meet many of the principles that she has expounded today. I hope that the better regulation process hereafter, in particular through the tedious and complicated process of transferring European regulations into our own laws, meets genuine better regulation objectives and is not, in effect, putting our society at greater risk.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I must begin by declaring my interests. I farm in Northumberland and, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, I chaired the Better Regulation Executive from 2010 to the end of 2015. In that time, I was responsible for the adoption of the one-in, one-out and one-in, two-out processes, as well as the Red Tape Challenge and focus on enforcement programmes. Collectively, these initiatives led to a reduction in regulatory costs for business of around £2 billion per year, as confirmed by the Regulatory Policy Committee—a significant development for the business community at that time. When I took the chair in 2010, 62% of businesses regarded regulation as an obstacle to progress. Five years later, this figure had dropped to 51%. The programme was successful and brought greater discipline to government departments and their legislative ambitions. It definitely stemmed the flow of new regulations. I supported then, and still do now, the principle of establishing a business impact target introduced in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which we debated at length in this House. However, this needs to be realistic, and the cranking-up of the challenge from one in, two out to one in, three out in 2016 was a step too far.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to the tragic Grenfell Tower disaster. The building where our own apartment is, a 10-minute walk from here, apparently has 40% coverage with the same offending panels and in construction may have contravened building regulations. It was rebuilt in 2003, long before the one-in, two-out policy was introduced in 2011. I question whether there is still a systemic issue within the construction industry.
I am absolutely clear that the programme we put in place did not put lives at risk or undermine confidence in our regulatory systems. In fact, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, it is perfectly possible to remove regulatory burdens that benefit employers, businesses, employees and citizens by adopting smarter processes and better-targeted inspections. Enforcement can actually be enhanced.
Today’s debate focuses on the need for regulation to be balanced or proportionate, cost effective, easy to understand and properly enforced, and I support that objective. We need to protect UK citizens, their health and well-being, our environment and natural capital, while creating a favourable business environment. This will be even more important post Brexit. It is crucial that businesses continue to want to reside here in the United Kingdom, to build capacity here and to contribute to our economy after March 2019.
According to the World Bank, the UK is currently the seventh most favourable country in the world in terms of ease of doing business—this is an important benchmark for us—and we want to ensure that we continue to be at the forefront of global business, positioning ourselves as the best place in Europe. This must be in terms of the ease of establishing a business as well as the ease of growing a business.
As the EU withdrawal bill is going through the Commons and heading in our direction, it puts us, as the Prime Minister has said, in an unprecedented position. We have no choice initially but to translate EU legislation into domestic law, but we should take the opportunity to simplify, consolidate and reduce the volume of guidance notes wherever possible to suit our circumstances here in the United Kingdom. However, we must also recognise that we will not be able to access important markets unless we have appropriate regulation in place. Having concurrent regulation with the European Union will help to pave the way for our future trading relationship. The wishful thinking of some Brexiteers that we can demolish regulation at a stroke when we leave the European Union and still trade on the global stage is naive. We need to strike a balance. It will be important to have at least equivalent standards with other countries and the EU if we want to maintain our business relationships. In fact, we need to present ourselves as having high standards of compliance and make a virtue of our regulatory standards. Our own British public expect us to have meaningful and appropriate regulatory standards in place.
Given my particular interest in the agricultural sector, which I am delighted has been mentioned twice already, I could not speak on this topic without referring to the impact on agriculture. I fully agree with comments about the red tractor scheme; these voluntary schemes provide valuable evidence of the status of farm businesses and allow for a policy of earned recognition to be applied to inspection regimes. There is no question that this issue of regulation and bureaucracy is one of the reasons that many people voted to leave the European Union, particularly the farming community. The assumption is that about 40% voted to leave.
In the design of our post-EU agricultural policy, we need to make sure that we reduce the complexity and bureaucracy which has been a feature of the common agricultural policy. We have a chance to create simpler, less onerous structures and we need to take that opportunity. We must resist the temptation to surrender to complex admin systems. The Defra Secretary of State, Michael Gove, has stated that he will establish a new environmental regulator to replace the accountability currently residing with the European Commission to hold government to account. I support this requirement but in doing so government must review the regulatory landscape, in parallel with this decision, and seriously question whether we need three environmental regulators. How confusing would that be?
Finally, I will comment on the structure in place to manage and administer the Government’s regulatory policy. The Better Regulation Executive has a hugely important role but it does not have executive powers, so the title is slightly misleading. The Regulatory Policy Committee also has a crucial function, as was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in auditing economic impact assessments. It is essential in monitoring the business impact target but does not have influence on policy and is not truly independent. Both bodies are subject to the whims of Ministers. The responsibility within government is split between BEIS and the Cabinet Office, while the BRE has not had an independent chair since I stood down in 2015. This structure does not provide sufficient independent challenge. It provides less than in the past, it is potentially confusing and there is overlap. It should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, particularly in light of the huge workload as a result of the withdrawal Bill. As has been mentioned earlier, EU regulation has been exempted from the current scrutiny by the RPC. This will not be the case when we leave the European Union.
When I chaired the BRE, I firmly believed that tax administration should have been included in the target and subjected to the same RPC scrutiny. I still believe that and firmly agree with the Federation of Small Businesses. My view is that we need an even more effective structure to monitor regulation going forward than we have today, not a lesser one.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on securing this important debate. The Government are right to want to reduce regulatory burdens and I commend their intention to do so. I also agree that if we are to have mountains of statutory instruments placed before Parliament as a result of Brexit, somehow the time devoted to new regulatory legislation will need to be controlled. There are only a limited number of hours available. I support the Government’s aim to introduce a more proportionate and efficient system. A somewhat more permissive and hopefully simplified regime is understandable. However, we must be concerned to ensure that we do not then allow all departments a free-for-all to certify measures as having an impact on business of below £5 million and thus bypass scrutiny.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, rightly outlined, there is concern if the impact assessments coming before the Regulatory Policy Committee are truly going to fall from around 700 to around 18. We must surely not reduce our efforts to protect the public, so random assessments of departments’ measures that are not put before the Regulatory Policy Committee are surely absolutely essential. Indeed, rather than diluting the RPC, I wonder whether we should beef up its powers and whether now is the time to consider putting it on a statutory footing, as I believe happens in other countries such as Germany, Norway and the Netherlands, or awarding it independent verification body status. Will my noble friend let us know whether such measures might be under consideration?
In addition, will my noble friend reassure the House that, when making impact assessments, the impact on the public will be more carefully assessed than appears often to have been the case in the past? Additionally, I believe that although there is a laudable intention to ensure that regulation is regularly scrutinised to ensure that it is working as intended, the promised post-implementation reviews have been relatively few and far between. The purpose of regulation is largely to protect the public and wider society, so the absence of sufficient checks is surely of concern when deciding about the impact of regulation.
I am particularly concerned that departments may pay too little attention to the wider impacts on the general public. The department’s answer to Question HL3424, asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, states that,
“societal impacts … are agreed by senior civil service analysts and … signed off by Chief Economists”.
Is that really good enough? Surely the impacts on the wider public are crucial and require more independent input from user groups and others who are perhaps better placed, and certainly well placed, to judge the impact of those regulations. Perhaps we need to find ways to ensure that departments are incentivised to consider and produce such reports.
Regulations should also bear in mind the people who are using them and who are supposed to benefit from them. For example, it turned out that product warnings that something could be fatal were not well understood by the public and that changing the wording to “Solvent abuse can kill suddenly” was rather more effective.
The original idea was that we need regulation, but it would wither away in most sectors to be replaced by competition. However, in many cases there is just too much asymmetry between the parties involved and the public, so ordinary consumers need the protection of well-designed regulation to ensure that they are treated fairly.
An excellent example of such asymmetry in both information and power is, of course, in my area of pensions. Failure of regulation has too often had dire consequences. For example, it is almost 10 years to the day since the Labour Government, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who was then Secretary of State at DWP, agreed to compensate steelworkers and 150,000 others who had lost their entire occupational pensions. Despite years of contributions and assurances that they were protected by legislation, it was discovered that those regulations designed to protect them had actually stripped them of their pensions entirely. The regulations were well-meaning, but failed. There are, of course, many other examples.
Too often, it seems that provider companies may have captured the regulators or the regulatory thinking. It is also important to listen to small firms, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe rightly said, and the impact on wider society must not be ignored. In that context, excessive complexity not only hinders economic activity and creates unnecessary burdens but also prevents consumers understanding what is going on and what regulations are meant to achieve.
However, there is little incentive to ensure simplicity or to avoid adding further to our already complicated web of legislation. A good example of how complexity can be damaging, particularly to small businesses, is in the area of automatic enrolment, where the rules are unbelievably complicated. For a large firm that can pay consultants to manage it all, it is fine, but for a small firm the complexities often cause enormous cost and concern. Simplification is an aim that I hope many departments will follow as we move forward, but there are too many examples in the pensions arena of where complexity has been introduced. I hope that departments will take note of that need for simplification.
Governments must ensure effective oversight of regulated industry, whether energy, nuclear, infrastructure and so on, and there are bound to be some interactions between political considerations and the regulations. Indeed, the complexities of competition and technological advances mean that it is important that Governments ensure regulated industries are operating to achieve the desired policy objectives. But for this to work well, transparency is vital, and transparency can be hindered by that complexity—or, indeed, by the frequent changes that so often occur.
Another example is in the residential landlord sector, where I must declare an interest as a private landlord. There are many important regulations—on gas, electricity and furniture safety, for example—but, despite this, there is inadequate enforcement by local authorities, as has been highlighted by other noble Lords. It is true that many councils have introduced licensing schemes to try to enforce the regulatory requirements, but the unscrupulous landlords do not join in.
In legal services, again the Treasury rightly says that independent regulation is important to make sure markets for essential services work fairly. However, the legal services profession is calling for regulation to be independent of the profession, in order to address not only any possible conflicts of interest but even the perception of such conflicts. The Competition and Markets Authority looked into the legal profession and confirmed that the independence of a regulator from the providers is a key principle that should be taken into account in any review of the framework. Can my noble friend the Minister say when the promised consultation on regulatory independence will be published?
Finally, we have skilled drafters and a professional Civil Service committed to reform and innovation and to effective regulation. But a note for civil servants raised a wry smile when I came across it the other day. After saying, rightly, that regulations should always be,
“transparent, targeted, consistent, and in proportion to the risk”—
absolutely correct—and calling for,
“incentives to encourage those causing the risk to change their behaviour”,
it goes on to say:
“Watch out, by the way, for the implications for middle class journalists. For instance, when designing policies affecting employees, think carefully about their impact on au pairs. Or when changing education policy, how will it affect Montessori schools? You attack the freedom of the press at your peril!”.
I hope, in the context of Brexit, that if we do proceed with this enormous task, the interests of the public will be paramount, rather than us just worrying about the media.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I remember that, when the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, put productivity centre stage, I said in a debate on the economy:
“I congratulate the Minister on emphasising the importance of productivity. If I were his public relations adviser, I would caution against setting himself up as such an easy target”.—[Official Report, 10/9/15; col. 1497.]
The noble Lord now sits in wistful self-imposed exile on the Cross Benches; admittedly, that is not related to productivity.
So when I saw that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, had initiated a debate on regulation, I felt like handing out the same cautionary advice to her. As the Minister who steered the Trade Union Act through this House, I will say that trying to advocate that the Government should pursue a balanced approach to regulation is very bold. However, I doubt that she would want me as a public relations adviser. I will say that it is typical of her frank, human and no-nonsense approach that she has initiated this debate in the sure and certain knowledge that some of us will be in disagreement. In July this year my noble friend Lady Andrews initiated a debate, which has already been referred to, on deregulation. I think her speech was definitive on that subject.
I have direct experience of employment regulation, both as a trade unionist—a member of NALGO and Unison—and subsequently as chair of ACAS; I had in-depth experience of health and safety in the construction industry when I produced a report for the Labour Government on fatalities in that industry; I have taken an active interest in the scourge of short lets in London and the work of trading standards officers; and I live, like millions of others, in an area that is rife with fly-tipping and air pollution, so I hope that I can be allowed an element of indignation that this Government claim to have a balanced approach to regulation. They have created a wasteland where lack of public funding means that even existing protections are not pursued.
The Government charged for employment tribunals, which led to a 79% drop in overall claims, and they are now having to pay back the money. This will be no compensation to those who could not afford to pursue their case. Citizens Advice says that seven in 10 potentially successful cases were not pursued by employees—mainly women and the low-paid. Since April 2016, tribunal enforcement officers have been able to impose financial penalties on defaulting employers in the minority of cases where the applicant won their case but the employer did not pay up. BEIS confirmed that there had been 60 penalty notices as a result of 164 warning notices for failing to comply with employment tribunal orders. In the period of April 2016 to February 2017 the total paid out by employers on these fines was £83,000—not each; that is the total—yet the myth of large payouts is still perpetrated by the press.
The Government reduced protections for workers in small business by amending the Health and Safety at Work Act. Trading Standards has lost 60% of its staff, meaning that tracking down faulty or fake goods is more difficult. That means that bad companies can get away with faults in their products with virtual immunity, while good companies are undercut by fake goods when what they want is a level playing field.
The Government deregulated lettings, and the impact in London on short lets is changing the nature of settled residential blocks, to the detriment of existing residents. The Government maintain that they are supporting a sustainable environment, yet new homes no longer have to be carbon-rated.
Last month, as my noble friends Lady Andrews and Lord Whitty have already said, the Government agreed to introduce with immediate effect a de minimis threshold for the independent scrutiny of regulatory impact assessments. Departments will no longer have to submit an RIA to the independent Regulatory Policy Committee for regulatory provisions where the direct business impact of the measure is less than £5 million per annum. Anything under that threshold will be handled by the departments—which, it is said, should be more proportionate to the scale of the regulation’s impact.
As has been said, the Regulatory Policy Committee is an advisory, non-departmental public body with eight independent committee members from business, civil society—in this context, the TUC—the legal profession, academia and two professional economists. The committee verifies the impact of all regulatory proposals in relation to the business impact target, including non-qualifying proposals. It comments on the quality of evidence, not the policy itself.
The committee had already expressed concern at the continually varying standards of impact assessments and the general disregard for regulatory impacts on wider society. The latest change to a de minimis approach reduces the role of the Regulatory Policy Committee to a rump. I wonder whether this is a deliberate tactic to push the committee members into resignation mode. I am sure that the Minister is far too gentle a creature to collect scalps, but he has said that this more permissive regime will enable timely delivery of legislation, especially that related to EU exit. I find that very worrying. It looks like a clarion call to the buccaneers. What assurances can he give us that the Government will at least adhere to existing standards and that Parliament will still have the opportunity to scrutinise future regulatory changes in a meaningful way?
My report on the underlying causes of fatal accidents in construction nearly nine years ago recommended a regulation imposing a duty of care on persons carrying out work to do so safely. This regulation would have been be enforced by building control surveyors and officers. I said:
“This would extend their enforcement from the safety of what is built to include the safety of the building process”.
I made that recommendation in the context that many areas of construction—particularly, but not exclusively, the small building or refurbishment sector—were,
“out of sight below the Plimsoll line”.
Companies striving for excellence felt let down by those who did not pursue the same standards, and were crying out for a level playing field. I felt that more local oversight would be an important step towards improving safety standards in the hard-to-reach sector. The remit of building control would be extended to include health and safety requirements and integrate them into the building process. The role of the building control surveyor would be to check that the safeguards were included in the particulars of how a client intended to build—and, if they were not, to advise accordingly.
At the time, the Department for Communities and Local Government was consulting on the future of building control. I understood the emphasis at the time on sustainability, but I went on to say that,
“safer construction sites and safe maintenance of completed buildings is no less important and there is an opportunity here to make a step change in construction safety”.
I regret that my recommendation was not accepted and, while not claiming a direct link, the Lakanal House fire, which happened in the same year as my report and in which six people died, led to recommendations by the coroner which, nine years later, have still not been actioned. I watched the smoke from the building from my street, and it made a lasting impression on me. Let us hope that we are not still waiting on action from the Grenfell Tower tragedy in nine years’ time.
In preparation for my report, I spent a number of days with the Health and Safety Inspectorate. Its impact is disproportionate to its numbers. I accept that it is impossible to deal with health and safety simply by increasing the number of inspectors to thousands, but I never expected that the HSE would be cut to ribbons or that the number of inspectors and inspections would be cut. Of that the Government should be ashamed.
In conclusion, the Government have taken away the means for proper enforcement. They have pursued a policy of cost cutting rather than cost effectiveness, and the balance of their regulatory approach has led to a more unfair and a less safe society.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a regulator of long standing—a “quango queen”, if you like—having been involved with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the BBC, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education and, most recently, as chair of the Bar Standards Board. I found them all worth while, because I had some familiarity with, respect for and interest in the organisations involved. The current belief is that only a lay person can be trusted to regulate a profession. I am not convinced; I have found that understanding and communicating with the profession are more important and that a professional person, such as a doctor or lawyer, is likely to be far more unforgiving and demand higher standards of their fellow professionals than a lay person, for they know how much is at stake for the reputation of their profession.
My conclusion is that the structure of governance, much discussed in relation to the BBC, for example, is less important than the quality of the persons set to regulate. Once you have too many strangers to the profession on the board, they take refuge in that meaningless jargon that gives the impression that they are doing something—drill down, low-hanging fruit, going forward, heads-up, pathway, challenging; noble Lords get the drift.
My other conclusion is that regulatory bodies, more specifically bodies that regulate regulatory bodies, have run wild. It is true that the Public Bodies Act 2011 set in train a movement to abolish some bodies and merge others, with some success, and that leaving the EU will save us £471 million in annual budgetary contributions to 21 EU agencies that will be completely redundant for UK purposes, according to a recent report by Fieldfisher. But the Government seem intent to row back on some of the good work by continuing to establish more bodies. We read a great deal about the failures of the relevant regulatory bodies in uncovering failing schools and hospitals; the most notable failure in recent years was the Financial Services Authority in relation to the financial crash of 2008. It is now reborn as two separate bodies, and there is a lesson to be learned there from the shortcomings of one overarching body, possibly too distant from the institutions it was to oversee.
My remarks will relate mostly to regulation of the legal profession, but one may generalise from that. In relation to the structure of regulation under the Legal Services Act 2007, there are too many bodies jostling to be master. The Legal Services Consumer Panel is now in competition with the Competition and Markets Authority, both investigating the market for legal services—although, as someone once said, why should there be only one competition authority? Not only that, but we are to have a new body, the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision, to oversee the adequacy of the anti-money laundering supervisory arrangements of the 22 professional body anti-money laundering supervisors listed in Schedule 1 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Costs will be covered by the many accountancy and legal bodies affected, adding, in the end, to the costs that have to be met by the client, in addition to the already considerable costs run up and passed on by more immediate legal regulation. Even so, the legal groups involved deny that there is any evidence pointing to legal-sector involvement in money laundering, and that this new exercise is therefore unnecessary.
Muscling into the field as well are the Regulatory Policy Committee, the Cabinet Reducing Regulation Sub-Committee, the Better Regulation Executive and the Regulatory Futures Review. This pointed out that the annual spend of the 45 regulatory bodies reviewed was £2.54 billion, of which half is grant funded. It could have looked at over 90 bodies, with a total expenditure of £4 billion, ranging from civil aviation to the Human Tissue Authority. Many were set up in response to disastrous events, such as sports-ground accidents. The review and the executive call for regulated self-assurance—as I said, trust the professionals to police themselves; the chairs of the front-line regulators should not be ruled out because they have legal qualifications. We need fewer business regulations and to reduce the costs, as they called for. The Legal Services Board, established under the 2007 Act, certainly goes far beyond that. It over-enforces and places burdens on lawyers which are passed on to their clients.
The Legal Services Board grew from an OFT report in 2000 about market competition and the Clementi report of 2004 on the regulatory framework of the legal services, which was regarded as self-serving and overcomplex. By the time the 2007 Act came into force, it was all already out of date because of the financial crash. The Clementi report highlighted consumerism, but recent events have taught us that the protection of innocent victims, the public interest and the highest ethical standards on the part of lawyers and bankers are more important than free market competition. Now we have legal services regulation—which is overregulation, duplication, interfering and sometimes without regard to the good practices of the professions—under the umbrella of the Legal Services Board.
Now that we are leaving the EU the legal profession is standing up to promote its past and future strengths and successes, with London as the choice of venue for litigation. That Brexit strategy needs a profession whose standards and integrity are beyond doubt and which is not seen as dominated by government. Yet, ever since the Legal Services Act, the perspective from the rest of Europe and North America has been that the legal profession suffers from government interference. I was shocked at a European conference when a delegate from an eastern European country only newly liberated from communism said to me that it was shameful that the British legal profession had come under government domination. There should be accountability only to Parliament, not to the Government, on the part of the Legal Services Board, and no government hand in appointments to the board.
The Legal Services Board presides over eight professional regulators with very different functions and characters. They apply to them the eight regulatory objectives in Section l of the Legal Services Act, which have no hierarchy. The Act is badly crafted, for there is no clear focus, and mission creep was bound to happen; one objective can be played off against another. Professional standards, although listed, seem to come low down. The fact that the Legal Services Board entertained the notion of abolishing the cab-rank rule and allowing referral fees went completely against the hallmark of the independent profession of the Bar, whose ethos underpins the rule of the law and citizens’ rights. Outcomes-focused regulation, as pushed, scarcely hits the mark. In its first programme of work in 2010, the Legal Services Board promised that, by 2013, legal services regulators in the UK would be seen as world leaders—the opposite, sadly, is true, as I have shown.
Reform is urgently needed, even though the Ministry of Justice reviews have shied away from legislative change. Indeed, at one stage, the Legal Services Board itself stated that its goal was to make its own existence unnecessary. But rare is the quango that self-destructs. The legal regulators’ own working party recommended one single regulator for the entire legal profession, which would make an oversight regulator redundant. It recommended the complete separation of the representative bodies and the regulatory arms because the professions cannot be seen to police themselves. This is a good principle. The Advertising Standards Authority is sadly an exception, in that it is a self-regulating body funded by the advertisers. Will the Minister start reform of this body?
The unregulated sector in law has a problem. There is an unregulated sector versus a reserved activities focus and it is both confusing and possibly harmful for the public. At the same time, it may pose overly onerous regulation on those who in fact need it least. There is no logic to which legal activities are regulated and which are not. I hope that the Minister will tell us that this needs review, too.
The Ipsos MORI veracity index shows a steady climb in the number who trust lawyers—up to 54%—while politicians remain steadily at the bottom. When I was a regulator, I said that I was more regulated against than regulating. This has to stop, and legal regulation is more than ripe for total overhaul.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
When President Jack Kennedy said that you do politics with the people not to the people, I always thought that what he had in mind was regulation. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, when she said that regulation has to be well thought through, well explained and balanced and has to do the job. I add that neither should regulations be an excuse for skeleton Bills or for getting primary legislation through by stealth and hoping that nobody will notice.
After David Cameron’s Government promised an outright ban on fracking in national parks, many considered that they reversed that promise by smuggling a statutory instrument through Parliament. It is regulation that maintains the public good, sets standards, deals with market failure and encourages good business behaviour, and it is often executed through secondary legislation because it is quick. It is the bureaucracy, the cost and working with regulations that are the source of constant dispute and debate between business and the Government, as many noble Lords have explained.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, gave examples from his experience. I suppose that I ought to own up that I benefited from regulation. My company made technical textiles; we developed fabrics that satisfied the very stringent safety standards required in civil aircraft, hotels and public places. Satisfying these regulations helped us to become a supplier to major aircraft manufacturers and hotel chains. Building such a niche is an important element in growing a business—and, yes, I benefited.
Frequently, in an effort to reduce regulation, there is a policy of one in and two or even three out—three out is probably a step too far, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said. Many of us feel that this numbers game and the constant pressure to reduce regulation has led to a reduction in standards. As the excellent Library brief said, the Grenfell Tower tragedy is probably an example of this. As a result, regulation is coming under much more scrutiny. Over the years, there have been efforts to minimise regulation, reduce the cost and quantify its effect but, on virtually every occasion, exclusions and the ill-defined scope and poor research have thrown doubt on the numbers. Noble Lords will remember the Red Tape Challenge and the Better Regulation Task Force. All these efforts eventually became discredited—the national minimum wage, for example, was excluded from a business impact target. We certainly need to improve the system, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said.
This is why the success or failure of regulation very much depends on parliamentary scrutiny. Central to this work is your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and Delegated Powers Committee. I declare an interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We expect a government department to offer well-considered and easily understandable explanations to justify any statutory instrument and its likely impact, whether economic, social or environmental. The public should have an opportunity to respond. This is why your Lordships’ committee has maintained pressure on the Government to do exactly that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, called for a champion. It was partly as a result of the pressure of this House that each department now has a Minister with special responsibility for secondary legislation, with a senior responsible owner—a senior civil servant—accountable for both process and quality. The Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee in the Cabinet Office now overviews all secondary legislation across government. Only last month, we were told that Stephen Barclay MP is now acting as the secondary legislation champion at the Treasury, and we were given assurances that there is now a focus on better management within all departments.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, that the Government’s administrative convenience must not take priority over the interests of the potential respondents to regulation, because poorly prepared regulation can hold back growth and productivity. Perhaps the record occurred in February 2013, when the Department of Health laid regulations to govern the use of tendering in the procurement of NHS services. Your Lordships’ committee received 2,000 submissions, most of which indicated a belief that the regulations did not match up to ministerial undertakings. Quite rightly, the committee reported the SI on the grounds that it might imperfectly achieve its policy objective and, of course, it was eventually changed.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and the problems which arise from incorporating EU regulations into UK law. Clause 7 of that Bill allows Ministers to use secondary legislation to help achieve this. The number of secondary instruments to be scrutinised will easily double or possibly treble. Last year, your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee scrutinised 1,200 SIs. In addition, there will be new regulations for trading with the rest of the world when we are outside the EU. Indeed, ending the flood of regulations from Europe was central to the Brexit campaign. However, it looks as if we are going to have a lot more work as a result of that. Much of the domestication of the acquis will be done through statutory instruments. I repeat that the procedure of explanatory memorandum impact assessments and costs will have to be carefully worked out on each one so that Parliament and the public can judge whether the resulting SI is equivalent to the effect of the EU derived legislation or has to be changed. I add that your Lordships’ committee would not be able to carry out this work effectively without the support of its experienced and hard-working staff.
Several noble Lords have referred to the current concern of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—namely, that two weeks ago, the Minister wrote to the Public Accounts Committee in another place, saying that where the impact is less than £5 million his department’s analysis will be more proportionate. Presumably he is trying to reduce the government workload. I will not repeat the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews and others, but quite rightly the committee has written to the Minister, saying that, irrespective of this threshold, standards have to be maintained. They have to be maintained because this is our major check on the Government. I hope that the Government will give us an assurance that these standards will be maintained; otherwise, the Government—any Government—can look forward to more pressure from your Lordships, because regulation has to be done with the people, not to the people.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, I am honoured to be listed twice in this debate. I feel a bit like New York—so good they named it twice. I first draw attention to my interests as listed in the Lords register, and to the fact that for six years, from 2007 to 2013, I was the chair of the regulatory body for private security.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for introducing this important debate. I hope that she is not regretting it in any way. I strongly agree with her that proportionate regulation is very important—proportionate, that is, to the risk involved; a point made, I think, by the noble Lord, Whitty, with which I strongly agree.
I make the point about regulation being proportionate to risk because I want to speak about regulation in the private security industry, where two factors have dramatically increased the level of potential risk to the public. The first is the change in the number of private security guards, as against police officers, patrolling public space and buildings. As the numbers of police officers have consistently fallen since 2010, the numbers of security guards on the front line have risen, and they far outnumber the police as the front line of defence in our main shopping areas, streets and crowded places.
The second factor, which I need hardly emphasise, is the escalating threat of terrorist activity—to a level which is critically high in terms of risk to the public. The question arises therefore: is the basic regulation introduced to govern private security in 2003 still appropriate, effective and proportionate to the risks now entailed in 2017? The answer to that question has to be no, so what is being done about it?
It is incredible to recall that, as recently as 2010, the then Government declared their intention to abolish the Security Industry Authority—the regulatory body—and deregulate the private security industry. As a result, there was a huge outcry from the major industry bodies themselves and the businesses and their representatives, who told the Government how effective seven years of regulation had already been in raising standards and driving criminals from the sector. Commendably, they succeeded in getting the Government to change their mind. However, they also argued that regulation in the sector needed to develop, that as well as requiring individuals working in the industry to be licensed, businesses needed to be regulated and that we needed to stop unscrupulous operators lowering standards and undercutting quality operators. They argued that the four days of basic training needed to be revisited and that the stringent requirements for companies in the approved contractor scheme should be extended to all businesses.
Importantly, this was businesses not complaining about red tape but taking the lead in being forward-looking and calling for appropriate changes in regulation. The Home Office agreed with them, and the Minister for home affairs in the House of Lords—now a very senior Member of this House—told us in 2011 in this House, and told the industry, that the changes it was calling for would definitely be brought in before the end of the last Parliament. He said that business licensing would definitely happen. However, nothing happened. After this morning’s debate, I cannot help wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and the Better Regulation Executive had anything to do with that.
At the same time, the Leveson inquiry revealed another major weakness in the sector—the unscrupulous and often criminal activity of some private investigators. Regulation of that sector was included in the Private Security Industry Act 2001, but was postponed by the Government in 2010. After Leveson, the then Home Secretary—now the Prime Minister—promised that such regulation, which was strongly backed by the bodies representing private investigators, would be introduced as soon as possible and certainly by the end of the Parliament. Again, nothing happened.
When I raised both of these issues in this House in 2015, I was assured by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, that they would be a high priority for the new Government. Of course, they were not: that was just more false promises. Clearly we have a situation where regulation deemed essential by one government department—in this case, the Home Office—can be blocked by another, even in the face of escalating security threats and rising terrorist activity.
In 2016, a triennial review of the Security Industry Authority was completed; the report and recommendations were handed over to the Home Office. Nearly a year and a half later, we have heard nothing about this, despite Written Questions to the Home Office asking what has happened. I wonder whether the delay and the disappearance of the report have anything to do with my understanding that the independent reviewer has recommended both the licensing of private security businesses and the regulation of private investigators.
Given the risks and threats that we all now face, this is just not good enough. The security guards on the front line against terror have had basic training, and they will do their best: we have seen that in many brave actions this year. However, counterterrorism training, for example, though available, is voluntary. It is not yet an integral part of the four days of basic training that security guards receive. It should be: the Minister in charge of counterterrorism in the Home Office wants it to be. What has to happen to turn intentions such as this into action?
For some years now, the Scottish Government have insisted that security contracts in the Scottish public sector are awarded only to approved contractors, which is to say those who operate to the highest standards. That is surely appropriate to protect the public. The Government in England and Wales, not surprisingly, have not followed suit, so I am truly grateful to the noble Baroness opposite for raising the whole issue of regulation. I suggest to her that she deploy her considerable talents to persuading government colleagues in the trade department and the Cabinet Office that proportionate and effective regulation matters, that it should be taken seriously and that, without it, public safety is being endangered every day.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is a delight to respond to this debate but first I need to declare two interests. I was a member of the Liberal Democrat negotiating team that ensured that “one in, one out” was inserted into the coalition agreement back in 2010. I then went on to become a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government with responsibility for, among other things, building regulations, which have been mentioned in this debate.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has done the House a service by bringing this debate forward. It is not, perhaps, one of the sexy, high-profile issues that we might see in the press. I do not think that a debate on regulation is going to be reported on the front page of the newspapers in the current news environment, but it has been extremely important and will have a major impact on the way that events will pan out should we leave the European Union. Many contributors to the debate have illustrated the point that being for or against regulation is not a sensible point of view; rather, it is about making sure that regulations are pragmatic and proportional. I noticed that the noble Baroness said she was in favour of good regulations and against bad or poorly enforced ones. I should have thought that that was not very controversial.
I want to pick out one point from the noble Baroness’s case, relating to Grenfell Tower. It would be a great mistake for this House to second-guess what inquiries might or might not say about that, but I have already asked the Minister a Question and have had a reply about the failure to implement one part of the current building regulation regime which would have allowed there to be a signed person on-site with responsibility for saying that there had been compliance with regulations. That, perhaps, would have made the process of finding out who was responsible quite a lot easier.
I drew out from what the noble Baroness said that independent certification was a clear need. She said that in relation to Volkswagen, and she said it in relation to drying machines. Some of us might say that about Brexit. On Tuesday I shall see whether my experience is the same as my noble friend’s when I look at the construction industry in particular. Regulations need to be understandable and enforceable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, posed some of the key questions to the Minister in this debate. If we are to have regulations that are proportional and effective, preventing them coming before the RPC seems an extremely strange way of going about it. I hope the Minister will find time to give some answers that the noble Baroness and a large number of other speakers have raised in the debate.
I particularly commend the noble Lord, Lord Curry, whose experience is probably unmatched in this House as a former chair of the BRE executive. I think he brought a dose of realism, based on practical experience, and he also said that there was not enough independent challenge in the system. That, again, raises the question of what is happening to the RPC.
The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, in a good contribution on security, listed all the occasions when she has received firm assurances from Ministers in this House that she should not worry and things will be fine in the end. I hope that in his reply today—when he tells us that everything is lovely and we should be satisfied that Ministers will always use their best judgment and best endeavours—the Minister will bear in mind some of the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, set out.
Good regulation should be about limiting the capacity to do harm—harm by individuals and harm by corporate bodies. That includes physical harm as well as the financial cost to a person who would otherwise be a victim, hindering their capacity to thrive. It is therefore not sound to talk of regulation as simply putting right market failure. We have traffic regulations which say which side of the road we can drive on, but that is not about market failure. We should also understand that the costs to those who are regulated is often easily offset by the savings to those benefiting from the regulations. The House of Lords briefing has drawn attention to the NAO report in September and to the Competition and Markets Authority. The latter has been commented on a little unfavourably in this debate. However, for every pound it spends, it saves consumers £10. We need to understand that proportionality is not simply about cost and not simply about markets. There cannot be mileage in a mindset that dismisses all regulation as the work of the devil and the enemy of growth. On the other hand, neither can it be said that all regulation is good, proportionate and fair and works exactly as it should. As a former Minister and someone who received advice from civil servants I know that regulations are easily generated but that their downsides are often difficult to predict, particularly for those who stay inside the departmental bubble.
That is why successive Governments have pushed hard to get things costed and checked out in advance. That is why we have impact assessments—and as someone who signed a number of those in my ministerial career I can say that they ask many questions, such as: “Have you looked at alternatives? Why are you not following the alternatives? Has there been a consultation? What was the outcome of the consultation?”. Moreover, nothing goes forward—in my time, at least—without the RPC putting its imprimatur on it. It was not a trivial process at all.
What is going to come in its place is something that is gutted and stuffed. The threshold is going to be raised from £1 million to £5 million. Perhaps it is also important to note that that is £5 million net, so bearing in mind that this is self-certified, a department could say, “Well, it might look like £10 million but actually there’s £5 million on the other side that you can’t see, so it comes in below the threshold”. The RPC will have no capacity to call that decision in or to challenge it in any way at all. That is perhaps one foretaste of the risks we run if this system goes ahead. We had another foretaste yesterday in the debate on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill where, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said from the Dispatch Box, the proposition is that Ministers should be left to fill in all the blanks in accordance with their overall duties as Ministers. Naturally, all that will go absolutely fine.
That certification is not so much self-certification as self-satisfaction. I listened to some members of the RPC this week, and it is clear that business does not like the loss of that monitoring process. It fears uncosted and untested changes that are made by well-meaning civil servants and nodded through by busy Ministers who are only too happy to cut a month’s faffing-about with the RPC to get something done quickly. The consumer watchdogs do not like it either because of the risk to standards, about which a number of noble Lords have spoken. Surely the move towards a self-certified, unmonitored and unsupervised process in the hope that the overall duty of care or fitness for purpose rules will be sufficient is shot down in the light of banking regulation and Grenfell Tower regulation. In different ways, those two catastrophes were prompted by a failure of regulation. It was left to the good intentions of people who did not put things into practice.
There are therefore some strategic points for the Minister to consider. As I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will agree, he needs to understand that pragmatism, proportionality and risk should be taken into account rather than an ideological aversion to regulation or, indeed, ideological commitment to a precise number of regulations. There should be holistic costings of all the measures that government proposes and this House considers, with rigorous testing of the propositions by either the RPC or a better and stronger alternative. We also need to make sure that taxation and other matters are clearly taken into account. Finally, and for immediate action, will the Minister please tell us what the Government will do to reverse the drastic cuts to the RPC and the damage that that will do to the capacity of Ministers and this House to keep track of where regulation exists and what it is doing to our country?
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a declaration of interest. I am indeed meant to be a beneficiary of successful deregulation over the last few years, when we have had successive figures about how much has been deregulated to the benefit of businesses. I calculate that on that basis, I should be some £200,000 better off. I am not, but I am meant to be a beneficiary of successful deregulation. I have experience of regulation because I am now a PEP and treated as one with every bank account I have to deal with. However, I benefit from regulation, because I am regulated in one of my businesses by the FCA. While people may whinge about it, it provides an important architecture for businesses and our business benefits from it.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has been a great champion of these issues and has a tremendous track record. I agree with much of what she said, and her prescriptions are similar to the things I will say; in fact, I may have been influenced by her in the first place. However, I disagree with her on one point. She argued that productivity is being held back by a surfeit of poorly enforced regulation and other forms of regulation. I do not believe this to be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made the point in his excellent speech that the OECD classifies us as one of the low-regulation countries and that low regulation is frequently cited as one of the reasons why we have high levels of foreign direct investment—whatever the arguments about that are. There is no evidence that there is an impairment of productivity caused by regulation. In fact, the opposite is more readily identifiable from the evidence. More regulated countries, including the US and other parts of Europe, are able to exercise greater levels of productivity by sometimes better use of management, skill and innovation and use of capital features. So that is not an argument. Some of this is not about the economic issues, although they are important.
It is worth acknowledging that we have had some excellent contributions. We miss certain voices, which have been prominent in this debate, such as that of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, but some interesting points have also been made about different industries. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, talked about legal services. I suspect that the rise in trust in the law may well be as a result of the regulator she complains about. However, it is certainly encouraging that the level of trust in such an important sector as legal services is increasing.
My noble friend Lady Donaghy made an interesting speech about the construction industry, and my noble friend Lady Henig made an important contribution about one of the most successful models of regulation in this country: the security industry. I have direct experience of a company which, when the regulations came in, did not believe that they would be taken seriously, and went to the wall as a result. That was a jolly good thing. The SIA has done a wonderful job. I regret that the Government have not been more forthcoming on points which are clear about how that industry has developed a regulatory structure of great strength as a result. I know of many cases that support that. There are stories about companies, even brand names such as Kroll, and some of its alleged conduct. Especially in this modern digital world, it should come under a proper form of regulation.
The economic case for ensuring that we get regulation right is not as strong as the other case based on safety risk and other sorts of market failures. That is not to say that it is not important, but when the Federation of Small Businesses tells us that 20% of small businesses said that regulation was one of their top issues, that means that 80% said that it was not. We understand the relative importance of this. When businesses say that tax administration rates and other sorts of issues are more important, it indicates the level of priority.
The fact that we can do something is a case for doing it, but we need to put the importance of regulation in its context. Where it is most required is to deal with issues such as defining standards, competitive dynamics, failures, risk, imbalances, and those sorts of things—many of which my noble friend Lord Whitty talked about. We have to consider that regulation has to have a clear purpose and be easy to understand; there should be much more obligation on regulators to make sure that their regulations are understood.
We have touched on some key issues. The architecture of how we make sure we get good regulation is really important. I share the deep concern of others who wonder how the Government’s interpretation of how they should respond to the Public Accounts Committee’s exhortation to improve and streamline regulation, or even their understanding of their own manifesto to get better regulation, can in any way be helped by undermining the useful architecture that is evolving in our country. The idea that the Regulatory Policy Committee should change in the way that the Government suggest, whether over the de minimis issue, giving government departments the authority to be able to define, however they wish, to establish the level of impacts or the assessments, or the controversial requirements such as the first-stage consultations, are problems, and I urge the Government to think again about how they look at the Regulatory Policy Committee. There is consensus on that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Curry, that it is time to strengthen, not weaken, the structures we have, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, also made an excellent case. We need not just to ensure that we do not give departments absolute and unfettered ability to define this process but we should look at putting it on a more independent and possibly statutory footing. The definitive case was made unbelievably well by my noble friend Lady Andrews, and I urge the Minister to prioritise her questions when he answers. My noble friend Lord Haskel properly identified the statutory instruments, which are becoming an ever increasing problem in this House; they are being used in particular for departmental convenience and not for the public interest.
What is to be done? Of course, we have to beef up the independent structures, as endorsed by the National Audit Office, and we need to include EU tax administration, the national living wage and the national minimum wage. We have to be truthful about the impacts. It is essential that we get a handle on what is happening, particularly as we go through Brexit. It is crucial to think small first and be easily understood, along the lines of what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said. It is also utterly crucial that we enforce the regulations that we have. I declare my interest as a landlord. The number of landlords who are prosecuted as against the number of complaints that are made shows that we probably do not enforce the regulations properly. The Residential Landlords Association found in 2016-17 that only 496 landlords were prosecuted but there were 105,359 complaints. I would be interested in knowing how we can process these complaints effectively.
I turn to the subject of the national minimum wage and the categories of workers. Each year 70,000 internships are unpaid, all breaching the national minimum wage rules, yet alongside the entirety of the issues surrounding the national minimum wage, there have been only 13 prosecutions. I worry about this because Grenfell raises a number of particularly tragic issues. As a result of Grenfell, we decided to look at fire safety in relation to the short-term renting of private homes, such as those offered through Airbnb. It seems that the Government believed that the fire safety order of 2005 covered this. The problem was that none of the agencies—the Government, the local authorities, the fire brigade or the fire safety authorities—thought that they had responsibility for it, so no one was doing anything. Counsel to the Health and Safety Executive then provided us with an opinion saying that the safety order—the law that the Government think applies—does not apply. There is a regulatory break, so there is no regulation whatever. This is a major issue and I would like the Government to clarify the position. There is also the major question of who enforces the enforcers. We have a big problem with the gap there and I would like to see the Government try to address it.
Questions were raised about the European Union. We have to get some understanding of how the changes will affect us. There is a variety of EU regulations and I would be interested in knowing which UK bodies will assume the investigatory role of the European Commission. What work have the Government done on that? How many bodies do they estimate will need to transition?
Finally—I make this point now, as I do in all my contributions—I would be very grateful if the Minister could give one clear answer or proper guidance on how we should measure the Government’s achievements on better regulation. It is very important that this is not just about exhortation; anything that we can use to test what better regulation means would be very welcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and other noble Lords in offering my congratulations to my noble friend on securing this debate. As others have made clear, she brings much experience to this field, having served as a civil servant on the better regulation unit with our noble friend Lord Heseltine, in the private sector and as a Minister. I welcome this opportunity to discuss a topic that continues to be a high priority for the Government. It is one in which my noble friend has a long interest.
I am new to this subject but I am grateful for the accreditation that I got from the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who described me as “a gentle soul”—at least I think those were the words she used. She tells me she said “a gentle creature; “soul” is probably too generous a word. As a gentle creature, I hope that I can at least bring the appropriate steel to these matters where necessary. I stress that I am new to the better regulation portfolio. I have yet to meet Anthony Browne, the incoming chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee, but I hope to do so shortly—possibly next week, depending on his and my diary commitments. However, I certainly pay tribute to the outgoing chair, Michael Gibbons, who has done an excellent job for the committee since its inception in 2009. He has completed two stints, serving for eight years, and I and the rest of the Government pay tribute to him for that.
I also completely understand that regulatory reform has become a much more sensitive and emotive issue in the light of the Grenfell tragedy. In due course we will certainly want to reflect on the current inquiries, but at this stage I do not want to say anything that might pre-empt or second-guess what might come out of them. We obviously await the outcome with concern and interest, but at this stage the Government are looking anew at regulation and considering in this Parliament what the better regulation framework should look like.
I also make it clear that our regulatory reform agenda does not come at the cost of people’s safety, and nor would it ever do so. Our aim is to deliver smart, proportionate and balanced regulation, while ensuring that essential protections are retained. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, preferred the word “proportionate”; my noble friend used the word “balanced”. I agree that words are important but I believe that both “balanced” and “proportionate” can be used. It is important to make it clear that we want to have the appropriate regulation while ensuring, as I said, that essential protections are retained. Regulation should also be proportionate to achieve the outcome required and at an appropriate cost to the business that bears it; this provides an environment that supports the generation of growth, competitiveness and jobs, as my noble friend alluded to.
It is also appropriate that we make it clear that we will decide in due course, in this Parliament, how the better regulation system will operate. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, an important committee that does very useful work in this field. My first experience of any committee was the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I think the noble Lord has also served on it and, as he will remember, it had no role in looking at the merits of secondary legislation; it could look only at its vires and so on. In that sense, it sometimes felt like an outer Siberia of committees. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has a more effective role in this area. We would certainly want to make sure that not just that committee, but Parliament as a whole, has a proper role to play. However, I think the Government can provide the appropriate assurance that this will not be achieved through reducing necessary public protection.
As we consider how the better regulation system will operate, we will continue to discuss these matters. We have discussed them before and will continue to do so with others in due course. I give an assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that we have discussed such changes with various business groups, despite what she said. Officials have met the key business groups over the last two months. Only last week I attended a meeting with the FSB, the CBI, the EEF and the IoD, and I understand that the de minimis rule was mentioned following recent conversations. I seek to reassure business that any changes that we allow will also allow closer scrutiny of the most important measures.
Baroness Andrews
The Minister has answered my question in part, but does that mean he will reconsider establishing a call-in process? Business is most concerned that these measures will fall under the barrier of £5 million and will not be looked at.
Lord Henley
Final decisions have not been made; the noble Baroness will have to be patient in these matters. She referred to a letter from me to colleagues in government, but obviously we will not comment on leaked documents.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, the letter came to me in good faith by mistake. It was not a leaked document.
Lord Henley
I do not know how the noble Baroness received it, but she will be aware that it was an internal letter from me to colleagues within government. As far as I am concerned, that amounts to a leaked document.
Lord Haskel
I can shed a little light on the subject. The letter was from the Minister to the Public Accounts Committee in another place.
Lord Henley
I think the noble Lord is referring to another letter. The postal service has been quite busy. I will come to the comments of the Public Accounts Committee in due course. I am referring to what amounts to a leaked document.
Lord Stunell
The Minister talks about coming back to this in due course, but I understand that the new regime is in place now. Is there a hiatus between the new regime and him coming back to consider matters?
Lord Henley
The noble Lord is correct that the new regime is in place, but that does not mean that all proposals are finalised; these matters can always be considered in the light of representations made, even by the noble Lord. He and I were in the coalition Government together; we worked together in the past. I am sure we can take account of comments made here, and I would be more than happy to listen to him.
I want to make it clear—not commenting on leaked documents—that our proposals actually increase scrutiny by bringing significant deregulation measures into scope. They focus the system on measures with large impacts. This brings me to the Public Accounts Committee, whose recommendations it is worth commenting on. The 2016 report said:
“The Better Regulation Executive’s rules for assessing and validating the expected impact of a regulation are the same, regardless of the scale of the regulation’s impact. The Better Regulation Executive … has established a complex bureaucracy across Whitehall that diverts departments’ resources away from potentially more productive efforts … Of the 95 regulations that the Regulatory Policy Committee has scrutinised during this Parliament, 64 of them have an individual expected net impact of less than £5 million”.
The committee then recommended that we should change the rules to allow a more proportionate approach whereby significantly more effort can be applied to the assessment and validation of the small number of regulations with the greatest impact. That is what we are doing with the de minimis rule.
That is why we took this action and why I wrote to the Public Accounts Committee only last month to inform it that we intended to follow its recommendations and adopt a more proportionate and efficient better regulation system by introducing that threshold. Obviously, we can always reconsider those matters, but that is why I wrote. It will allow the RPC to focus on the measures that matter most. If it had been in force in the last Parliament, 90% of the costs would still be subject to independent scrutiny.
It is only right that regulation should be kept under constant review as products and technology change. Where regulatory requirements are not clear or easily understood, it can lead to confusion and potentially an increased risk to the public. Over the last 20 years, Governments have been working on getting the delicate balance or proportionality right and the costs and benefits of regulation right. That has included the establishment of the Regulatory Policy Committee, as I mentioned earlier, which gives independent scrutiny of the evidence for regulatory changes when they are debated in Parliament.
There were previous government initiatives to review the stock of legislation. Going back to the beginning of the coalition Government, which the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Stunnell, will remember, there were the Red Tape Challenge and the cutting red tape reviews. The noble Lord, Lord Stunnell, took credit for introducing the one-in, one-out measure, which I think he accepted served a useful purpose in encouraging the process, even if another noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—did not like the idea and said that it led to getting rid of something purely for the sake of it. But it encouraged the others and served a useful purpose.
Those reviews sought views from the public to help identify outdated, unnecessary or overly complex legislation and led in due course, as both noble Lords and others will remember, to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. My noble friend will remember that because she took the legislation through the House. It introduced a requirement for the Government to set a business impact target, focused on the economic impact of regulatory change on business activities, and the need to report annually on its achievements against that target.
These initiatives have delivered some real improvements in how people, businesses and public bodies are regulated, and have also encouraged a cultural shift in government departments towards more appropriate and smarter regulation. The one-in, one-out or one-in, two-out proposals played a part in that. For example, my own department’s business perceptions survey last year showed a decline in the proportion of businesses that believed that the overall level of regulation in the UK was an obstacle to their success. It went down to 49% in 2016, from 62% in 2009.
As I said earlier, the Public Accounts Committee produced a number of recommendations about how we can further improve our regulation system, following the report from the National Audit Office last year. We have been reflecting on those conclusions, including ideas about how to make our approach more proportionate.
Lord Mendelsohn
Will the Minister clarify the changes to the RPC that are in effect? Is he suggesting that the change to the regime is more permissive, less permissive or exactly the same as what stood before? To be clear on the purpose, is he saying that the changes were directly as a result of those suggestions from other committees? Were some of the changes requested by departments to have freedom and flexibility, or were they in any way related to the pressures in the system as a result of the EU exit?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not accept that the EU exit has led to those changes. I said that the Public Accounts Committee had made some recommendations. We considered those and brought in the de minimis rule. We are not bound to keep that. We could change it if necessary, but it gives the RPC a freer hand in what it does and allows it to focus its efforts more appropriately on the job that it does very well.
I can also give an assurance, since there was some criticism of our attitude to the RPC, that we are still committed to it and its work. We are making sure that it has the appropriate number of members. It currently has eight members and it will continue to have eight members. Announcements will be made in due course as to whether some members have been reappointed, or where necessary new members will be brought in, so that it can continue to do its work.
I am beginning to run out of time and I do not want to deprive my noble friend of the chance to say a few words at the end of the debate. However, I should like to deal with one or two of the other questions that have been raised.
I think I have more or less touched on it, but the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to the letter from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, the chair of his committee, about the threshold. We acknowledge the good work of the committee and I am aware of the letter from my noble friend. I think that it was received in the department on 28 November and I intend to respond to it shortly. I can reassure the noble Lord that the department will continue to provide appropriate analysis of its policies to the committee.
Perhaps I may also give an assurance to my noble friend Lord Altmann on pensions auto-enrolment. As a former member of the Department for Work and Pensions, where I have also served, she will know that auto-enrolment has been a great success. Some 8 million people have now enrolled and the Government are conducting a review to build on this success and make sure that the programme works in the long term. The review will be led by the Department for Work and Pensions supported by an external advisory body. I am told that it will report by the end of 2017, so my noble friend does not have to wait for long because that really does mean pretty soon.
Concern was expressed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, about the RPC’s processing not applying to tax or the national minimum wage. I can give them an assurance that HMRC has a separate body, known as the Administrative Burdens Advisory Body, to consider reducing the burden of tax administration, so there is a role for it which provides scrutiny.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, was concerned about what plans we have for EU exit. This is a concern that comes up in every Question and debate in the House. We have made it quite clear that the withdrawal Bill will be designed to ensure that EU exit will take place with certainty and that we maintain continuity and control. The Bill will help to maximise certainty for business on what regulation will apply on exit and to maintain important protections for consumers.
As always, I apologise for the fact that I have not been able to address every point that has been put before me, but again as always I promise to write to noble Lords on any issues that I have not addressed. I end by thanking my noble friend once more for introducing this debate.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am delighted to have led such a constructive and interesting debate with a lot of fine examples. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, I have no regrets at all about tackling this subject.
Indeed, there has been some important common ground on this often disputed subject: for example, on simplification; on the battle against complexity; on a risk-based approach, which we probably should say should be proportionate and balanced; on enforcement of the law—to my mind, investing in enforcement is a good investment—and on thinking small first. It is not a sexy area, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, but it is an important one, especially in the Brexit context. I was very glad to hear from my noble friend the Minister of the progress made, not least on culture, and I look forward to hearing from him in due course on the vexed issue of tumble-driers.
Many noble Lords referred to the plans to reduce the powers and reach of the Regulatory Policy Committee. This, it seems, is still a rumour, but it is a profound disappointment to me because it is not a step in the right direction. Many others have said this, including my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lords, Lord Curry, Lord Haskel and Lord Mendelsohn. However, I think that we should be generous to the Government. It may be that, in the light of this debate, they will think about what can be done at this moment of Brexit to keep the flow of unnecessary regulation in check and ensure not only that necessary safety standards but also economic impacts are taken into account in the decisions we make in the interests of prosperity and productivity.
It was a pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I think that he is quite wrong. My fear is—and this is one of the reasons I voted to remain—that without a detailed debate in Brussels, we will actually regulate more heavily.
I have run out of time, but I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Let us hope that our efforts today will move the dial.
Social Care
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on social care made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for care and mental health. The Statement is as follows:
“This Oral Statement is the Government’s response to the recent Opposition Day debate on social care on Wednesday 25 October. Since that debate, the Government have announced further plans for the Green Paper on care and support for older people on 16 November. This Oral Statement reiterates the substance of that announcement while providing further detail to the House in some specific areas.
An ageing society means that we need to reach a longer-term sustainable settlement for social care. This is why the Government have committed to publishing a Green Paper by summer 2018, setting out our proposals for reform. An inter-ministerial group is overseeing this work. It builds on the additional £2 billion over the next three years that we have already provided to meet social care needs. In developing the Green Paper, it is right that we take the time needed to debate the many complex issues and listen to the perspectives of experts and care users, building consensus around reforms that can succeed. This is why we are starting a process of initial engagement over the coming months through which the Government will work with experts, stakeholders and users to shape the long-term reforms that will be proposed in the Green Paper.
The Government have asked a range of independent experts in this area to provide their views, including the leads of the two most recent reviews on social care, Andrew Dilnot and Kate Barker. We are also engaging closely with key stakeholders, along with people who use services and their carers. The Government will be hosting a number of round tables to hear a range of perspectives from those representing different constituencies, including carers, service recipients and providers, health services, financial services providers, local government and working age adults. Once the Green Paper is published, it will be subject to a full public consultation.
The Government also recognise that there is broad agreement across Parliament that reform of social care is a priority and look forward to working with parliamentarians to hear a range of views. We have already written to the chairs of the relevant all-party parliamentary groups to invite them to meet with us to discuss their priorities and perspectives for reform.
The Prime Minister has been clear that the consultation will include proposals to place a limit on the care costs that individuals face. To allow for a fuller engagement and development of the approach, with reforms to the care system and the way it is paid for considered in the round, we will not be taking forward the previous Government’s plans to implement a cap on care costs in 2020. Further details on the Government’s plans will be set out after we have consulted on the options.
The Green Paper will focus primarily on the reform of care for older people, but will consider elements of the adult care system that are common to all recipients of social care. We are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities and complex conditions are able to live healthy, independent lives and to participate fully in society.
Many of the issues and questions about the sustainability of the care system will be relevant to adults of all ages. To ensure that issues specific to working age adults with care needs alone are considered in their own right, the Government have committed to taking forward a parallel programme of work on working age social care which is being led jointly by the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government. This work will also be overseen by the inter-ministerial group to ensure close alignment with the Green Paper.
Carers are vital partners in the health and social care system. It would not make sense to pursue strategic issues related to carers in isolation from the wider work on the future of social care. They will therefore be a key part of this Green Paper. A sustainable settlement for social care will not be possible without focusing on how our society supports carers. I am committed to making sure that the issues raised with us through the call for evidence on carers in 2016 are central to any proposals for the wider social care system. Alongside this, we must continue to work to improve the experience of carers today. The Government remain fully committed to supporting carers to provide care as they would wish and to do so in a way that supports their own health and well-being, employment and life chances.
Ahead of the Green Paper’s publication, the Department of Health will also publish an action plan for carers in the new year, setting out priorities for a cross-government programme of work to support carers over the next two years. In the short and medium term, we are taking important steps to ensure that we have a stable adult social care sector. We are promoting quality care across the system and supporting the wider networks and services that keep people living independently for longer.
It is important to recognise that quality across the adult social care sector remains good overall. The October 2017 State of Care report found that 80% of adult social care settings had been rated as good or outstanding. However, the Care Quality Commission also underlined that there are substantial variations in the quality of care, depending on where people live. The Department of Health is working with the adult social care sector to implement “Quality Matters”—a shared commitment to take action to achieve high-quality, person-centred adult social care. Through our programme of sector-led improvement, we are supporting councils to make savings and improve services by promoting good practices, including new approaches.
Looking beyond social care provision, it is important to highlight the broader support and services that help people to live independently. This means that well-adapted, specialised housing is becoming increasingly important. The disabled facilities grant is a means-tested grant to help meet the cost of adapting a property for the needs of a person with a disability or support need. The autumn 2017 Budget provided an additional £42 million for the rest of the 2017-18 financial year, taking funding for this year to £473 million.
Getting social care right means a better system that everyone can have confidence in, where people understand their responsibilities, can prepare for the future, and know that the care they receive will be of a high standard and help them maintain their independence and well-being. The Government want to take the time to consult and build consensus on a long-term, sustainable settlement for the future, which includes looking at the quality of care being delivered, the funding of the system and how it will be paid for in the round”.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for reading out the Statement in response to the October Labour Opposition debate on the social care funding crisis.
We are told that the Statement builds on the extra £2 billion over the next three years provided by the Government to “meet social care needs”. However, for the record, the Minister will know that independent think tanks such as the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund, care providers across the social care sector, voluntary organisations such as Age UK, and organisations representing the staff who deliver the services have all shown clearly the inadequacy of this sum to meet existing and rising demand and to address the funding crisis. Government cuts to local authority budgets have meant cuts to adult social care funding since 2010, which are set to reach £6.3 billion by March 2018. That is the scale of the funding gap that needs to be addressed, and we know that social care did not get even a mention in the Budget. Can the Minister explain to the House why such a key issue was left out?
On the Green Paper and the Government’s preparations for yet another round of consultation, the Minister will accept that this stop/start Green Paper has been a very long time coming, particularly when viewed in the light of the agreed Care Act provisions that were first promised for full implementation in 2016. On 16 November, the Minister told the House that a group of independent experts, including Andrew Dilnot and Kate Barker, would support government engagement with stakeholders. Today’s Statement says that these two are among a range of experts who will “provide their views”. An inter-ministerial group has also been set up. What role will these key experts—who have widespread respect and authority among key stakeholders —play in overseeing the review and consultation? Will they be involved at the heart of the review or will they just feed their views to Ministers?
The Minister will know that it is particularly upsetting for those of us who were involved in the painstaking work on the Care Act to be lectured again about how complex the issues are and on the need to “build consensus around reforms”. That consensus was part of the Care Act and the Government chose not to go ahead with it. We know, too, that they consulted on their proposed care “floor” during the general election; it was roundly rejected by the electorate, causing huge despair and consternation among the millions of disabled people and their carers struggling to cope. Meanwhile, many people are still faced with the catastrophic and rising costs of paying for care.
I mention carers specifically. The Minister is right to acknowledge that they are vital partners in the health and social care system, but the reality is that they have now been waiting nearly two years for the national carers strategy to be updated, refreshed or called to action, with promised deadlines being set back time after time. Last summer, carers were finally told that the strategy would be morphed into the end-of-the-year Green Paper. It was not a satisfactory situation, but carers organisations put huge effort and time into consulting with carers across the country to meet the deadline—only to then receive the announcement of the delay of the Green Paper to summer 2018.
Katy Styles, a carer and campaigner for the Motor Neurone Disease Association, contributed to that consultation and hoped that her voice would be heard. She said:
“Not publishing the National Carers Strategy has made me extremely angry. It sends a message that carers’ lives are unimportant. It sends a message that Government thinks we can carry on as we are. It sends a message that my own time is of little worth”.
We now have the promise of an action plan in the new year. Does the Minister acknowledge that he now has to be straight and play fair with carers and provide them with a date for the action plan? Can he be more specific about the scope and funding that will be allocated to the action plan?
Finally, Age UK estimates that there are 1.2 million people currently living with unmet care needs and that almost a quarter of all adult social care services receive the poorest safety rating from the Care Quality Commission. Can the Minister tell the House how the Statement will help people going without essential daily care, such as help with washing, dressing and toileting, to receive a better quality of care?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness for her response and her questions; I will deal with them in order.
First, she asked about funding. She is quite right to point out the £2 billion of extra funding that was announced in the March Budget; of course, we have had two Budgets this year, so extra funding was included in a Budget this year. I should also point out that that was the latest tranche of additional funding, which totals over £9 billion over three years, taking into account the additional funding announced in recent financial Statements. The precise purpose of the funding is to address the fact that we have a growing and ageing population. The number of people requiring care packages is rising, and often the complexity of those packages is becoming more acute—hence the need for more funding, as we all recognise.
Experts will be fully engaged in the Green Paper, providing advice to Ministers and supporting engagement. There is no point in having such an august group and not drawing on their expertise. I do not think that there is any contradiction in the way that I have described their role. We would not want to involve those people—and they would not want to be involved—if they were not going to be listened to.
On carers, I acknowledge the delay in the carers strategy and I understand that that must be frustrating for those who have invested so much time in it. I have two things to say in response. First, it is right that the position of carers is considered in the round, with care costs. Secondly, that is why the action plan is important: it provides a staging post between now and the intention to introduce fully fledged policy proposals in due course. I am afraid that I do not have a specific date or a funding package for that, but I will write to the noble Baroness with as much detail as I can find and place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I declare my interest as chairman of a learning disability charity, providing services to around 2,000 adults in England.
On the long-awaited Green Paper, I welcome the Government involving independent respected experts in the field, including Andrew Dilnot, Kate Barker and Caroline Abrahams. However, we are sorry that the Green Paper will not have any element of care for working-age adults when published.
I want to raise a few issues that were mentioned by the Minister in the other place in her answers to MPs. She called for all party groups to be involved and said that there could be no change without consensus. That is exactly what I wanted to hear and it makes sense. The Minister knows our views on this.
On carers, in a debate earlier this week the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, talked about the worth of carers being equivalent to the NHS budget. I also praise carers and I am delighted that they will be involved in this review, but I am somewhat disappointed, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. They went through quite a lot of consultation for the carers strategy and there is a certain amount of irritation that they might have to revisit all this work. If they have caring responsibilities, it is not always easy for them to get to a central place. I hope some mechanism can be found to ensure that that is captured, but also to see whether anything should be changed.
The Minister also agreed that health and social care cannot be considered independent of each other—another area of agreement. Will the Government consider introducing a statutory, independent budget monitoring agency for health and care similar to the Office for Budget Responsibility? This would report every three years on how much money the system needs to deliver safe and sustainable treatment of care. It could even be the first stage in the integration of health and care.
With the delay of the Green Paper, it is unthinkable that the Government are now leaving the social care sector in this state of uncertainty. They have completely failed to address the critical crisis in social care and now there are more than a million vulnerable older people without the support they need. With a funding gap, as we heard just now, of at least £2 billion by 2020, I wonder how much worse things will have to get before the Government will act. To put that in a more balanced way, does the Minister have any sense, whatever the outcomes may be from the Green Paper, of when we might want to see some of those becoming reality? Local authorities will also tell you that they are desperate for a solution. I echo what I said before: how long does the Minister reckon we will have to wait to see something change?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Again, I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. I will try to deal with them in order. As I set out in the repeat of the Statement, there will be a parallel programme for working age adults. It is important to note that that feeds into the same inter-ministerial group. I emphasise that in terms of its profile in the overall work programme. It is of course separate from social care for older people, but it is a parallel programme.
The noble Baroness is quite right about the need to build consensus. We all know how much we need sustainable reform in this sector. Governments of all hues have tried it. We really do need to get there now. I cannot give her timings at this point of course, but it is becoming urgent as our population changes.
I completely agree with the noble Baroness on carers. I pay tribute to those carers of all ages, including young ones, who take on extraordinary responsibilities and dedicate their lives to caring for others. It is an amazing thing to do. I recognise her frustrations at the delay. I hope contributing to the Green Paper should not involve much additional work, although inevitably there will need to be some updating. As I said, I will write to noble Lords to give more details about the carers action plan, which is intended to be a bridge between now and the consequences of the Green Paper and the options it lays out.
Finally, we do not agree, as the noble Baroness knows, that there is a need for such a body on health and social care. She is of course right about integration. That is why metro mayors, such as the one in Manchester, are taking on these combined responsibilities. It is why integration is built into the better care fund. This is a direction we need to push down to provide proper, holistic, wraparound care for older people.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as vice-president of Hospice UK and my role with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. I will ask the Minister three short questions. Will the voluntary sector be closely involved, given that there is a £1 billion contribution to care from hospices and the voluntary sector, which looked after 212,000 patients last year, providing health and social care that otherwise would have fallen to statutory funders? Secondly, given that falls are the major cause of deterioration in the health of older people, and the lack of social care in preventing falls and in being able to take people out of hospital afterwards, will the Minister assure me that this will look at the flow through hospitals and the requirements of social care provision in an integrated way? Thirdly, while the Minister has mentioned young carers, will he specifically provide assurance that this will also look at child carers, some of whom might be at primary school age? They are often forgotten when people look at the burden on carers because they are, in a way, invisible apart from in the school sector.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I can absolutely provide that reassurance on the voluntary sector. The noble Baroness is quite right to highlight the vital role it plays—it is essential and critical to this sector. On falls, she will know just how important reducing falls is. The disabled facilities grant is increasing. It is not a well-known bit of government spending and not talked about much, but it amounts to about half a billion pounds a year. It can have a really big impact by keeping people in their homes for up to four years longer, reducing falls by 40%. It is something we have had the opportunity to discuss in this House recently. It is critical. She is quite right to focus on the frontier between health and social care and making sure that it flows and works well.
On child carers, I will write with more details about what the action plan covers, but clearly we will make sure that it looks at all carers, because a carer could be of almost any age. As she pointed out, it includes very young children as well as people in their 80s and 90s. A true carers approach would encompass all of them.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement. I refer to my registered interests. I will ask my noble friend about two issues. The first is respite care, which seems too often to be missed, particularly when there are reduced services. Services have been cut back for many service users. When family members have to manage the burden we need to have some discussions on extra respite support. Secondly—I am a broken record on this—we need seriously to look at the value we put on paying care workers a proper return on the work they do, given the extra responsibilities being put on them all the time.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising both those points. She is quite right about respite care. Local authorities have a duty to provide it, but I also note that there is pressure on the system. Indeed, the issue of one particular respite home, Nascot Lawn, has been raised. It is something I am interested in and I am looking at it. I will take that point away. We are trying to look at the care service in the round, so respite care must be part of that.
My noble friend is right about paying care workers properly. We have increased the national minimum wage, now moving on to the national living wage, precisely to provide a proper recompense for people who work in that sector and, critically, to start to provide a proper career structure so that people can move on, add to their skills and progress while staying in the caring profession.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I was pleased to be a member of the Select Committee on the Long-Term Sustainability of the NHS, the title of which was extended to include social care. The consultation seems to be constructed to continue the siloing of social care away from the broader care system between the NHS and social care. Will the Minister confirm that the whole relationship and integration of the NHS and social care will be included in the consultation? Will he confirm when the Government will respond to our Select Committee report, which was published last April?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. I apologise again for the lateness of our response to the Lords committee. What I hope is now the final version is with me for approval, and I hope it will be provided very soon.
On the Green Paper, we all want more integration between health and social care. We know that is important for the people who are increasingly using those services who are in older age, have comorbidities and are moving in and out of different settings of the time. Social care is paid for on a different basis from the NHS. That is critical. We have to get a sustainable financial basis on which we distribute social care while thinking about how it interacts with the health service. The Green Paper is trying to crack a nut that, frankly, has eluded Governments for the last 20 years.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for referring to Nascot Lawn. I was not going to raise it today because that is about care for severely disabled children under 18, but I want to pick up on my noble friend’s point about adult care for people with disabilities and long-term conditions. As we know, their care needs are very different from end-of-life needs. Both the current social care system and the Dilnot proposals were focused on end-of-life care, so I welcome the parallel work stream, but will it operate to exactly the same timescale and report back?
I have a further question on housing. Your Lordships’ House will remember that the recommendations of the Lords Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability included a whole chapter on housing. It is not just about the disabled facilities grant, which is important; it is also about Building Regulations ensuring that enough of our homes are built so that, as people age and their needs change, houses can be adapted easily if need be. Will that recommendation be forwarded to the group to look at?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Once again, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue and I am pleased that she supports the parallel work stream. I will come back to her with details on the timing—I am afraid that I do not have those with me today—but I stress the importance given to it and the fact that it is reporting to the inter-ministerial group is significant.
The noble Baroness’s question on housing goes slightly beyond my remit. I know that building regs have changed over time to encourage more homes to be built, but I will have to come back to her with more details on that point.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, sadly, the fastest-growing part of the prison population is the elderly. The lack of provision for them is one of the disgraces in the current prison system. Has the Minister considered, as part of the carers strategy, whether prisoners might be employed and trained as carers for the elderly, because that might transform the situation?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That is a novel suggestion. We usually talk about young people going off the rails, but I did not realise that that was true of the prison population. I have not heard such a proposal. I shall certainly take it back to my colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Community Health, who is leading the carers strategy, so that we can look at whether it might be possible.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, in the context of our demographics, with the current baby-boomer generation foreseeably entering the age at which they will need care in the next 10 to 15 years, no money has been set aside, either at public sector or at the private sector level, to cope with the rising costs of care. Councils have increasingly rationed care so that they exclude preventive expenditure to help people avoid extreme need. Whatever happens with this review, does my noble friend agree that families will need money set aside if they are going to pay for care? There is no automatic provision. There is a state pension; there are huge incentives for private pension provision, but there is nothing to build up money that would pay for care. Will my noble friend comment on the urgency of helping families understand the importance of, for example, using some of their ISAs as an allocated fund for future care? People in their 60s and 70s have ISAs and pensions. Perhaps we might allow tax-free pension withdrawals for care, so that, at some point soon, we help families put money into a fund that can last into their 80s and 90s and be there for care—in case it is needed—or perhaps be passed on to the next generation, thus starting an ethic of saving for care as well as pensions.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
As ever, my noble friend makes excellent and wise suggestions, which I am grateful for. She highlights an important point, which is that social care is a co-funded service for most people. Most people make a contribution to their social care and the state will often make a contribution, too. Therefore, vehicles that allow people to save up in advance, whether through pensions, ISAs or the other means that my noble friend has suggested, are an excellent idea. I am sure that they will be part of considering the financial sustainability and build on products that are already in the market, whether equity release or deferred payments, so that people can go into their old age with confidence that, whatever their care needs, they will be able to afford them.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I think I heard the Minister mention in the Statement that his ministerial colleague had written to chairs of relevant all-party parliamentary groups to invite their participation in preparatory work in the department leading up to the publication of the Green Paper. Does he think there may have been an oversight here, because, as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing, I have received no such letter? I know that the Minister has seen the report of the APPG entitled, Creative Health: The Arts for Health and Wellbeing, and was kind enough to speak warmly of it in the House last week. Will he and his colleagues in the department study the substantial evidence presented in that report that engagement with the arts can confer considerable benefits in the field of social care in terms both of quality of life for people receiving care and their carers, whether family members or professional carers, and of value for money? Will he investigate the possibility of the APPG on Arts, Health and Wellbeing being involved in the process that he has mentioned?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I will certainly be happy to do that. I absolutely endorse the ultimate finding of that report about the valuable contribution that the arts have to make. I shall investigate whether a letter has perhaps gone astray.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Have Her Majesty’s Government given any thought to a far-off, divine event, by which I mean the total merger of the services aspect of social services with the NHS, thus cancelling out a great deal of imperial rivalry between the two bodies? At a personal level, such rivalry often means a whole platoon of people beating a path to a patient’s door, unco-ordinated with each other and duplicating each other’s services.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I think that everyone in this House endorses the idea that health and social care should be better integrated. That statement is easy to make but difficult to achieve, as I think we would all agree, not least because the funding bases are very different. The NHS is taxpayer funded and free at the point of use; social care is funded on a different basis. That is one of the factors, as well as the bodies responsible for commissioning and so on. A practical way forward is to seek integration at a local level. That is happening now, for example, in Greater Manchester, which has powers over both services and is looking to integrate, and it lies at the heart of NHS England’s five-year forward view, which is about bringing services together in 44 areas, known as STP areas, to provide that level of integration. Patients do not want to have to flit through different bodies all the time. They want a sense that there is one service looking after them throughout their needs.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may underline the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, a few moments ago about the care for very elderly prisoners in our system. I have heard some shocking stories of failures in that regard. I hope that my noble friend can make some inquiries.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I feel a sense of responsibility for seeking an assurance that all the evidence and issues that have been submitted to the various reports, not least Dilnot and the carers reports, will be put together as part of the consideration and that we will not reinvent the wheel. This is a well-trodden path; some of us are quite disappointed that we have got only to Green Paper stage. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said only on Monday, we know what the problem is and what the answers are, so why cannot we just get on with it? Can we have an assurance that all that work will not be wasted?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am happy to provide that assurance. Inevitably, there is economic modelling that will need to be updated from previous reviews. It is the reason that, in particular, Dame Kate Barker and Sir Andrew Dilnot have been invited to play a role as well as others, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows. We do not want to have to reinvent the wheel and we know what we want to achieve. The difficulty is that, as Governments have found throughout the years, it is easier to say that than to do it. We all want to get through that process and hopefully achieve it this time.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the light of all the previous comments I want to raise a couple of issues. I welcome having another look at social care in general and the fact that the Minister says that the Government are looking at integrated care. That is not the experience of men, women and children on the ground; I declare an interest in that I have a son with autism but I receive no service, so I do not really need to declare that. I think an awful lot of parents are like me and my husband: their families manage it themselves. The level of support for social care for adults with autism or a learning disability has been decimated over the last 10 years in various ways. How will this new approach to social care ensure that there is some reverse, so that there is dignity and honour for those individuals who go through the social care process and system?
Does the Minister agree that it is really important to ensure that there will be some reparation, almost, for the loss of services in the past so that adults, particularly those with a learning disability and autism, have access to services such as simply going to the library? My noble friend Lord Howarth mentioned the arts earlier but there is also music, as was pointed out earlier in the Chamber. There is a variety of ways in which social care is now more innovative, and that access should be available to service receivers in all parts.
My final point is about the communities that do not automatically understand the new approach or the latest fads and reports. They do not follow the system. How will we ensure that all kinds of communities understand that there is an approach to integrated social care, and that they will not be left behind simply because they do not understand the system or are not au fait with it, or if they are not politically correct and shouting the loudest?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness put it beautifully in saying that the people we are talking about, who are on the receiving end of care, need to be treated with dignity and honour. I wholeheartedly agree with her.
I will separate integrated care into older people and working-age adults, as the noble Baroness did. On older people—and on health and care in general—I encourage her again to look at the five-year forward view and the plan for integration. In the recent Budget, we funded more than £200 million of capital programmes to help move a handful of local areas to what are called accountable care systems. That is where you look at the health of a population, which is quite an important step forward towards integrated care. I agree with her that that is not necessarily the everyday experience.
On disabled working-age adults, we may talk about the ageing and growing population but I believe that they are the fastest-growing group of care users. There is of course excellent work going on at the local authority level; I had the privilege many years ago to chair a special school in Wandsworth and saw the fantastic work it did with a peripatetic autism service there. But I know that there is huge variation, which is why the parallel programme of work that I talked about is so important.
Finally, the noble Baroness talked about hard-to-reach communities, and I could not agree more on that. One of the ways of reaching them is to engage with those who give voice to those communities. I would be delighted to discuss that with her, to make sure that we are listening to every voice we can as we move ahead.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, way back in the early 1980s when I was working as a community doctor, I was also chair of social services in my borough. The main topic of conversation and angst then was how to combine health and social care budgets so that patients could receive proper care. How many more decades do we have to wait for this country to get its act together and do something about it? Other countries in Europe have good social care; why cannot we?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
First, I think we do have good social care in this country. That was the CQC’s finding, and it is important for us to recognise that we are building from a position of strength. Secondly, I agree with the noble Baroness on her point about integration. It has taken too long and that is what we are all focused on doing. I hope that she will join in this process so that we can build a true consensus as we move ahead.
Israel: United States Diplomatic Representation
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made today in the other place in response to an Urgent Question in relation to Jerusalem. The Statement is as follows:
“We disagree with the United States’ decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem and recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before a final status agreement. We believe it is unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region. The British Embassy in Israel is based in Tel Aviv and we have no plans to move it. Our position on the status of Jerusalem is clear and long standing: it should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Jerusalem should ultimately be the shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states. In line with relevant Security Council resolutions, we regard east Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
We share President Trump’s desire to bring an end to this conflict. We welcome his commitment today to a two-state solution, negotiated between the parties, and note the importance of his clear acknowledgement that the final status of Jerusalem, including the sovereign boundaries within the city, must be subject to negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We encourage the United States Administration to now bring forward detailed proposals for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. To have the best chances of success, the peace process must be conducted in an atmosphere free from violence. We call on all parties to work together to maintain calm”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. Through this act, Donald Trump has abandoned America’s role as a peace-broker between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, and done serious damage to his country’s relationships with other regional powers. I therefore welcome the Government’s Statement and the convening of the United Nations Security Council tomorrow. Alistair Burt said in the other House that all the Government’s efforts were to support the move towards statehood for the Palestinians. He also said that this unilateral act would lead to a new role for others to play. Just what steps are the Government taking to work immediately with our other allies to try to fill the mediation role which the United States has now deserted?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I say, the position of the United Kingdom is consistent, clear and long standing: the status of Jerusalem should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Jerusalem should ultimately form a shared capital between the Israeli and Palestinian states. We have made clear our disagreement with the decision of the United States. We are simply anxious that nothing should be done to possibly inflame tensions in the area, because the United Kingdom is committed to the Middle East peace process. Just to be absolutely clear, we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and with a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees. We shall work with our international partners to try to facilitate the attainment of that objective.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the view of Her Majesty’s Government, and of the UN Security Council, that east Jerusalem is occupied territory? Will the Government not now consider this an opportune moment to follow the recommendation of your Lordships’ International Relations Committee and recognise Palestine as a state?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Again, we have always taken the view that there has to be a precursor to such recognition, which is a negotiated settlement that offers the prospect of peace. Sadly, that is not where we are at the current time.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the response given in another place, but I hope she will understand that for many of us it is not an adequate response to the situation we find ourselves in. Many of my colleagues on these Benches still harbour hopes of a two-state solution. I have said on a number of occasions that I believe it is dead, and it may be, as some have suggested, that the President of the United States has just buried it. He has not so much released a genie from a bottle as unleashed the demons of the region—and by his actions, not his words. Do Her Majesty’s Government understand that words and disagreement are no longer enough? It is necessary to take action, and the only action this country can reasonably take is the one identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay: to recognise the Palestinian state immediately, unequivocally and, if necessary, unilaterally because anything else will simply not be understood by the Arab world—indeed, by the Muslim world as a whole—and we will find ourselves conniving at terrible actions simply because we were not prepared to move and do something.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with him. The position of the United Kingdom Government is very clear regarding our approach to the Middle East peace process, and to the Israeli and Palestinian states and authorities. We are also clear that we can play a role in facilitating. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we do act in concert with international organisations and are pleased to do so, but we can be merely facilitators. We cannot interfere or be coercive.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and confirm that east Jerusalem is, in fact, occupied territory? In the light of the fact that this issue will affect communities across the UK too, will she commend the statement made by Jewish Voice UK? It stated:
“We at @J_VoiceUK would like to make clear that we are bitterly disappointed in @realDonaldTrump’s decision to recognise #Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the embassy. He has effectively alienated the entire Palestinian people”.
Baroness Goldie
I do not want to reiterate to the noble Baroness points that I have already made. The United Kingdom’s position is very clear. We believe that at the heart of this there has to be a negotiated settlement. We are disappointed by the United States’ decision, and that disappointment has been conveyed to the United States. We do not think it was a particularly helpful intervention. At the same time, we are very clear as the United Kingdom about what we are able to do and what we want to continue to do. I think what everyone in the Chamber wants to be reassured about is that the peace process is still alive, that there can be hope and that there are powers in the world acting in concert which want to make that peace process a reality.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, ask the noble Baroness to clarify whether the Government consider east Jerusalem to be occupied territory. I welcome the Answer that she repeated as a Statement. I hope the implication is that there is no impact from the Trump decision, and I hope Britain will stand steadfast against any complicity in destabilising the region. I am almost hanging on to the thread when I say that Britain itself has not played an adequate role in creating a peaceful Middle East. In the light of the Prime Minister’s brazen support for the Prime Minister of Israel in celebrating Balfour’s naked declaration, does she believe the prospect of peace in the Middle East and a free Palestine has been lost for ever?
Baroness Goldie
I think I can really deal with only the last part of the noble Baroness’ question. The answer to it is no. We think the peace process is relevant and important and that there is international will and resolve to make it become a reality. We may disagree with the United States’ approach in this matter, and we made that disagreement clear, but that does not in any way detract from our willingness and our desire as a Government to do everything we can to support the continuance of the peace process, and to do that in a positive and optimistic manner.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I give a warm welcome to President Trump’s announcement. Am I not right in thinking that in the past 50 years Israel has suffered three massive, unprovoked attacks by its Arab neighbours, who have tried to wipe if off the face of the earth, and is under constant attack by the terrorist organisations Hamas and Hezbollah? In these circumstances, why are we taking advice from Israel’s enemies on where the United States puts its embassy?
Baroness Goldie
I refute the suggestion made by my noble friend that we are taking advice from enemies of Israel. I have made it clear that we do not agree with the decision of the United States. It is not a decision that we intend to support. We shall retain our embassy in Tel Aviv. The overstraddling and all-important issue here—and this is where I disagree with the previous question from the noble Baroness—is that I do not think this is detrimental to the peace process. If there is resolve on the part of Governments and powers to contribute to that process in whatever way they can, it can become a reality.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Does the Minister agree that it is time for a dose of realism? One hundred or so countries have recognised Palestine without it making any difference. Given that Israel has the right to choose its own capital, just as the United Kingdom does, and that all the instruments of government are in Jerusalem, what is the point of having an embassy far away? It is as if Chancellor Merkel had an embassy in Belfast.
Baroness Goldie
The United Kingdom Government decide where our embassy will be. In Israel, it will be in Tel Aviv.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, is it not now very clear that the President is being advised by the wrong set of people and that soliciting opinions from a family member with close links to President Netanyahu to the exclusion of professionals is going to lead to unmitigated disaster and—I echo others in your Lordships’ House today—bordering on serious instability?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Viscount will understand that it is not for the United Kingdom Government to tell the United States Government what to do. The United States has made its decision in this respect. President Trump has indicated that he still believes in a negotiated two-state solution. It is helpful to hear that. Clearly, he wants to contribute to the peace process if he can. People may have different views about the decision that he has made in relation to his attitude to Jerusalem and the location of the US embassy, but at the same time there is evidence that President Trump wants to make a positive contribution to the peace process.
Zimbabwe
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate recent dramatic events in Zimbabwe. I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords, not least those of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who served with distinction as a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am grateful to the Minister for answering this debate.
No one who observed the events leading up to the resignation of President Mugabe and the swearing-in of President Mnangagwa could fail to be deeply moved by the peaceful, restrained, cheerful and tolerant way in which Zimbabweans reacted to the army intervention and by their desire to see a peaceful change of presidency. They have set a wonderful example to other countries, but now their expressions of hope for the future present a challenge to the new Government because, sadly for Zimbabweans, over 37 years of rule Mr Mugabe increasingly demonstrated Lord Acton’s famous saying that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The effect on the people of Zimbabwe has been disastrous. That exercise of power, corruption and violence has reduced a country rich in natural resources to poverty and devastation.
It is important to refer briefly to the past before looking to the future. I was Minister for Africa in the Thatcher Government formed in 1979. By that stage, the country had faced a devastating civil war with more than 25,000 people, black and white, having lost their lives. It followed the unilateral declaration of independence led by Ian Smith, who had refused to contemplate African-majority rule in his lifetime. By 1979, the country was exhausted by conflict. The international community looked to the UK to assert authority, end the war and negotiate majority rule and independence for the country.
The Lancaster House conference, under the outstanding leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, led to an agreed constitution and broadly free and fair elections in 1980. Mr Mugabe became Prime Minister with a clear majority. He started with the good will and support of Britain and the international community. We had created conditions which seemed to offer the people of Zimbabwe an opportunity to achieve peace and prosperity.
Now, after 37 years as Prime Minister and later President, Mr Mugabe has left a country devastated by violent and despotic rule. His actions ranged from the massacre of 20,000 Ndebele in the 1980s, the looting of mineral and other resources, and the rigging of elections, to confiscation without compensation of 4,000 farmers’ land, destroying the lives of thousands of farm workers. All this has reduced a once relatively wealthy country to conditions of extreme poverty, hyperinflation and unemployment.
Today, according to the World Bank, 63% of households are below the poverty level of $2.50 a day; 25% of children are orphans; 33% of women have experienced sexual violence; growth is only 0.7%; and unemployment is over 80%. Moreover, some 3 million to 5 million Zimbabweans have emigrated, mainly to South Africa, but with some 113,000 in the United Kingdom. Despite all this, there are still 20,000 British nationals in Zimbabwe, ready to play an active part in its recovery. The country is burdened with $9 billion of debt, the infrastructure has been ruined and, above all, agricultural production, in a country once described as the bread-basket of Africa, has collapsed.
Zimbabwe is now at a critical turning point. The people are hoping for a better future, bringing jobs, prosperity and democratic participation. What are the prospects? I look forward to hearing the Government’s assessment and views about what tangible indications of progress will enable us to work with the African Union, South Africa, China, the US, the EU, multilateral bodies such the IMF, and others in response to any appeals for help and support. The record of the new President and his colleagues is not encouraging. Is the ZANU-PF elite likely to share power? I suppose the inevitable question is, “If the so-called crocodile were to be a leopard, would he change his spots?”.
Africa is capable of producing great leaders. Look at the contrast between Mandela and Mugabe. Mandela had powers of leadership, inspiration and forgiveness which set an example to the whole world. The African continent has a dramatically expanding population and an encouraging overall record of economic growth this century. The sub-Saharan continent has seen annual economic growth of 5.4% between 2000 and 2010, and over 3% since then.
Zimbabwe’s neighbour Botswana is a good example of a peaceful democratic country. Given leadership, time and a clear plan of reconstruction, Zimbabwe can be the same, but only if the President and Government can rise to the opportunity by taking courageous measures of political and economic reform. Can the Government tell us what they consider the key decisions are that Zimbabwe needs to take to fulfil the people’s hopes and enable the international community to help them? It is a good starting point for Britain that DfID has consistently provided humanitarian aid to the people over recent years. What measures are now needed to restart the economy and restore confidence in the future?
It would have helped if Zimbabwe had started with a transitional Government of national unity. Instead they have a cabinet of the ZANU-PF elite, with army chiefs in key positions. But the President, at his inauguration, said:
“We want to grow our economy, we want peace, we want jobs”.
He also said that he wants prosperity and democracy. International bodies and the community will be looking for the restoration of the rule of law, an independent judiciary, land reform and respect for property rights. The Government will need to repeal the law which discourages foreign investment. Measures for economic reform are essential. But there will be no longer-term improvement unless plans are also made to restore the integrity of the electoral system, preventing vote-rigging and ensuring participatory democracy, which includes free and fair elections.
Reconstruction will take a long time but the international community, with Britain playing a constructive role, must establish the benchmarks for these reforms and a consistent plan of action before it can step in to help. If the Zimbabweans of the diaspora, with all their acquired skills, begin to return to Zimbabwe, a positive signal will be given to the world.
I am glad that the Commonwealth has already indicated that Zimbabwe will be welcomed back after 15 years of absence, provided it applies to join and demonstrates in due course its commitment to the principles of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Local Government Forum still maintains a useful link with Zimbabwe by working for participatory democracy at both the urban and rural levels. The new Government of Zimbabwe should be reminded that in 1991 the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was held in Harare, at which all members, including Zimbabwe, recommitted themselves to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, a free press and freedom of speech. Now it needs only to abide by the Harare declaration to be welcomed back into the Commonwealth. Do the Government support Commonwealth ambitions to welcome Zimbabwe back into the association once the criteria are satisfied?
Zimbabweans live in hope of a better life. Can the international community, led by the African Union and South Africa, persuade the new Government that they have an opportunity to save their country and to set it on a new path? To achieve that, the Zimbabwe Government have to show that they put their people’s interest above everything else. It will be a long process of reconciliation and building of trust.
The people of Zimbabwe face a long haul. They are looking for a Government who will need the courage to dismantle the corrupt power of the elite of ZANU-PF and to move in stages towards appropriate systems of democracy and the rule of law. The diaspora, with its new skills, will be ready to return if encouraged by reforms. The international community, with Britain playing a constructive role, stands ready to help. But the will has to come from the Government and people of Zimbabwe. These long-suffering people deserve a better future. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, Zimbabwe is a country where the majority of people are in severe poverty but where the leaders have revelled in their own personal wealth. There is a new President, so what happens next?
The UK is strategically placed on the international stage to accelerate its work at the United Nations, with the African Union and like-minded countries, to help Zimbabwe develop the essential foundations of development and prosperity. Those foundations are respect for human rights and the rule of law. Evidence shows that countries which respect them tend to be more prosperous, democratic and stable. Corruption is less likely to take root.
As this short debate falls within the 16 Days of Activism to eradicate violence against women and girls, I particularly congratulate our embassy in Harare for the work it has already done in facilitating action against gender-based violence and in support of women’s empowerment. But we could do more to give it the opportunity to translate objectives into reality as it works with the Government of Zimbabwe.
Despite the provisions of the 2013 constitution, violence against women and girls remains widespread, and perpetrators continue to benefit from impunity. Victims of rape rarely report it, due to stigma, societal attitudes, and corruption in law enforcement and the judiciary. Police sometimes have not acted on reported rape cases if the perpetrators were aligned with ZANU-PF or if the rape was used as a political tool against non-ZANU-PF members.
Where the Zimbabwe Government have done so little to help victims, we have stepped in. We have already worked alongside Sweden, for example, to provide support for medical, legal and psychosocial services to survivors at Gwanda hospital in Matabeleland South province. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we will do so much more to use our Engaging Africa policy to enable Zimbabwe to build a prosperous future in the interests of all its people.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, in my two minutes I shall make two points. Under Mugabe, Zimbabwe declined from bread-basket to basket case. It is mired in the corruption and cronyism that have led to national bankruptcy—and it need not have been. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, south of the Limpopo is South Africa, where President Mandela’s national reconciliation gave a very different model. I visited Zimbabwe regularly in the 1980s and saw the apparent prosperity. I confess to having been rather starry-eyed about Mugabe. But I was in good company; so were the international community, the IFIs and even white farmers, who were ready to give him the benefit of the doubt in spite of the Matabeleland massacres. Democracies decline gradually but, as we have seen in Zimbabwe, dictatorships end in apoplectic fits.
Secondly, given that we all want Zimbabwe to move towards a prosperous democracy, how should we now respond? Cynics will no doubt say that the crocodile cannot change its scales and that people who are now ringing the bells will soon be wringing their hands. It is true that the President arrives with much negative baggage, and we should respond with caution and conditionality. Next year’s elections are vital. Private investors will be wary but the IMF, the World Bank, the EU, the Commonwealth, China and South Africa—remembering that the Zulus are cousins of the Ndebele—should be ready to help.
We must proceed with hope. Much is positive. The infrastructure and tourist potential are good, and there is much good will to the UK. My final question is: how do we encourage the many talented Zimbabweans of the diaspora to return and help rebuild their country? Many of course will have built new lives for themselves and their families outside Zimbabwe, including in the UK. What incentives and guarantees, including possibly subsidising their salaries, can we provide? The diaspora can make a major contribution to the new Zimbabwe.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, there is no doubt that President Emmerson Mnangagwa has a monumental task to dig his country out of the economic hole into which it fell during the 37 years that it was led by Robert Mugabe. With unemployment at over 80%, there are high expectations that Mnangagwa can deliver a new vision. Just this afternoon, the Finance Minister, Patrick Chinamasa, delivered a progressive, thoughtful and encouraging budget. Clearly, job creation and agricultural reform are going to be high on the economic agenda, but restoring confidence has to be the key objective to attract investment—not just international investment but, most importantly, the confidence of the Zimbabwean people so that they can be encouraged to invest in rebuilding their country. Zimbabweans are talented and industrious people, and they must take the lead.
Zimbabwe’s GDP per capita is approximately $1,000, compared to $6,000 in Botswana. Some economists believe that Zimbabwe should adopt the Singapore model that was successfully implemented by its first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew. By doing so, Zimbabwe could transform itself and catch Botswana up in just 16 years. The country needs not just economic support but technical support in justice, health, education, police and other services. Restoring trust after so many years of repression will be a massive challenge, and I welcome the appointment of the special adviser to the President on issues of national healing and reconciliation, similar to what President Nelson Mandela did in South Africa. Finally, I hope that this new chapter in Zimbabwe will herald the country rejoining the Commonwealth.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I have come to your Lordships’ House today from Lambeth Palace, where I have been chairing the Zimbabwe round table. Also present at that meeting was the Bishop of Harare, the right reverend Dr Chad Gandiya, who is staying with me on his brief visit to this country. Yesterday Bishop Chad met with Rory Stewart, the Africa Minister. My conversations with Bishop Chad have further informed my own thinking on Zimbabwe—a country with which I have a long association, particularly through close links between my diocese and four of the five Anglican dioceses in Zimbabwe.
I shall set out two priorities that I hope will be borne in mind by Her Majesty’s Government in approaching the situation in Zimbabwe, and I am encouraged that the Prime Minister has described this nation as Zimbabwe’s oldest friend. The first is the need for vigilance. It remains to be seen whether the recent events, though thankfully peaceful, are a change for the country as a whole or simply an internal reordering of ZANU-PF. Whether the army will intervene again is also unknown. Zimbabwe is still in transition. In this connection, I shall quote the wise words of another Zimbabwean bishop, the Bishop of Matabeleland, the right reverend Cleophas Lunga, who wrote to me last month:
“I believe that inadequate transitions create reoccurrences of conflicts and reconciliation becomes elusive”.
Reconciliation and accountability are therefore both needed now in equal and urgent measure to encourage governance that is focused on serving the people rather than self-serving.
Secondly, I wish to highlight the constructive role that the churches in Zimbabwe have played and will continue to play—in particular the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church in Zimbabwe has both a national reach and a rich network of local relationships. It has implemented successful development programmes and will continue to do so. It is also well connected with the wider Anglican Communion, particularly in this country. It is and will continue to be an effective partner for all who wish to see Zimbabwe flourish, with justice and freedom for all. We must use well this opportunity to help Zimbabwe to achieve the better tomorrow that has been so long and forbearingly awaited.
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, the change of regime is an opportunity for the lives of Zimbabweans, in Zimbabwe and in exile, to be transformed. The British Government can help with governance reform, with our Chinese friends and others. There is no greater opportunity than now to revive trade and investment opportunities, and to that end our voice in the International Monetary Fund will be very important. I share the view that Zimbabwe’s readmission to the Commonwealth is desirable and I hope that the necessary conditions and processes can be achieved.
Finally, I hope that the change of regime may help the process of resolving the problem of the pensions owed to former Crown servants who responded to the British Government’s request to stay at their post at the time of UDI, which they did, and at the time of the Lancaster House conference, which they did. As we have already discussed in and debated in this House, not least thanks to the late Lord Waddington, the pensioners have not been paid. They are grateful to Rory Stewart, the Minister for Africa, and his predecessors, particularly my noble friend Lady Anelay, for their attention to this issue, and to the officials in the Foreign Office and DfID for their commitment to finding a solution to this very difficult problem. Sir Nicholas Soames has tabled Early Day Motions in the Commons on this subject and the noble Lord, Lord Luce, a former vice-president of the now dissolved Overseas Service Pensioners’ Association, has worked to resolve the matter. I hope that the new arrangements will allow a just solution to be achieved.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, notwithstanding what has gone on in the past, I welcome the new Prime Minister’s words on creating a democratic society that will seek to solve the difficult problems in the country. While I understand that the British Government will not interfere in the affairs of Zimbabwe, but stand ready to assist the country and its people if the promises made come to fruition, it is imperative that safeguards are in place to help the many women and girls living in Zimbabwe. With an estimated population of just over 51% female, their voices need to be heard at this time of upheaval and change. More importantly, preparations need to include women and girls in any new progress towards a better-run country run for the benefit of all its citizens, whatever their gender.
The Human Rights Watch World Report 2017 found routine human rights abuses against women, girls and widows where,
“widows are routinely evicted from their marital homes and their property confiscated with little recourse to the formal justice system”.
At this moment, with the ruling party in power and even some military personnel given positions in the newly formed Government of Zimbabwe, what is the next move for the UK Government? What safeguards are in place and what may DfID do to help the women and girls of Zimbabwe who—like many women and girls, including widows, in many other countries—shoulder many of the injustices and hardships that a regime such as the previous Administration impose on their people?
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said in his opening remarks, which were an elegant and eloquent analysis of the problems faced by Zimbabwe and the international community in its efforts to offer assistance. He used the phrase “move in stages”, and I think that is what we have to bear in mind. Many people would like fast changes in all sorts of different directions. It will not happen in that form. We must recognise that we will move in stages to help a country and population in dire need of assistance.
The first stage that the international community should give serious consideration to is the question of international debt, so that the moment that the international community is asked, it can step forward to help financially. Many people, organisations and companies will offer their assistance from outside Zimbabwe. We have to listen to and recognise the needs of the local population. That should be our priority case—recognising that there will be all sorts of offers—because they are the people who have suffered for so long. One thing that has already been identified is finding ways to bring the diaspora back to Zimbabwe, because they have abilities which could and should be used.
Another criterion, as well as helping the population of the country above proffers of assistance from all sorts of people from outside, is that any assistance should be judged on the basis on which it brings the Ndebele and the Shona together. That is key, because it will develop the country more effectively.
We all in this Chamber wish Zimbabwe well and hope to see it change and, as an international community, we should offer assistance, not impose it.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
My Lords, the number of speakers in this debate demonstrates clearly the seriousness with which this House takes events in Zimbabwe and how much it cares about the people of Zimbabwe. I hope that whoever organises government business will take note of this and that, soon after the Christmas Recess, we can have a proper, full debate on this issue, of which there are many facets.
Once it became clear that President Mugabe was standing down, euphoria spread throughout the country. I am by nature a political optimist, but in this case I remain a political pessimist. Nothing which has happened changes my mind. No effort has been made to try to recover some of the millions looted by Mugabe and his cohorts, there is nothing to show that the Government have changed. There was heady talk at one stage of a Government of national unity with ZANU and ZAPU working together. It simply has not happened. We are faced with an extremely difficult situation. I understand that endemic corruption cannot be disposed of quickly: you cannot flick a switch to change things or turn the tap off, it will take time. What do we do with that time?
Suggestions have been made that Zimbabwe might be welcomed back into the Commonwealth. Under no circumstances should we welcome Zimbabwe back unless there is proper change. There is a short time between now and the election. We do not know what will happen, but we in this country must hold our nerve, not fall for the blandishments that things have changed. We have got rid of Mugabe and put in his place the crocodile. I would prefer neither of them, so I hope that the Government will take this seriously so that we can debate it further, with greater clarity, in future.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, perhaps it is because we are originally from near each other in the Highlands that I share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I fear that we are guilty of wishful thinking on Zimbabwe. There has been no regime change; evil still prevails. I had hoped that Mugabe would have died 20 years ago and been given a warm welcome in that special place in hell reserved for genocidal monsters. That might have spared Zimbabweans some of the years of starvation and cruelty which they have suffered, but only if all of his vile regime was brought down with him. But dying 20 years ago would not have saved the 20,000 people of the Matabele who were hacked to death, burnt alive or thrown down the wells by him and the commanders of the North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade. That genocide happened within two years of Mugabe taking power.
Mugabe ordered the genocide, but who masterminded it? Why, none other than Emmerson Mnangagwa, the new President. All the senior army officers are desperate to keep the land, property and goods that they have looted. That is why they have moved against Mugabe, not because they want a new democracy.
Let us have no rose-tinted spectacles about Zimbabwe rejoining the Commonwealth or lifting sanctions in the near future. Indeed, I think we need hundreds more sanctions against all the leaders of this vile regime in Zimbabwe. Mnangagwa and all his ZANU-PF cronies are equally evil as the Mugabe family. There must be no concessions to Zimbabwe at the moment, but a redoubling of our efforts to bring them down and get them before the International Criminal Court charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. Mladic and Milosevic killed 7,000 in Bosnia. They were evil. They went before the criminal court. Mugabe and his cronies killed 20,000 Matabele.
It is only then that Zimbabwe can emerge from the darkness of mass murder, looting and starvation into a new world of hope.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, it would be an unmitigated disaster if the transition of leadership did not deliver positively for the kindly, long-suffering peoples of Zimbabwe. We must all harness our best endeavours to draw attention to the short, medium and long-term needs of that country and then assist in any practical way possible. The re-establishing of the agricultural and tourism sectors would be a natural first step to create immediate economic order.
Urgently needed is more investment in farming, as well as imaginative ways to bring in expertise and capital to make the new generation of smallholder farms more productive. I envisage joint ventures or other forms of co-operation agreements, with emphasis on local content. For example, a German farm company is working on outgrowth schemes. It supplies seeds and fertilisers, invests in irrigation and some processing and then takes its fees out of export earnings. The key is to guarantee a minimum price but share in the proceeds. This model works well in Colombia, which endures similar challenges.
There is likely to be a land audit next year. Consolidation of the title deed system would offer new farmers collateral to raise finance. This would require co-operation from displaced commercial farmers who have issued claims against new owners. The tobacco market has shrunk, so commercial farmers have to find new cash crops. Food supplies to the region would be a good target, with emphasis on processing and added-value industries. Then there is the revitalising of the tourist and mining industries, possibly the assistance of immediate aid and longer-term assistance for capital development and professional aid. However, addressing essential human rights and electoral improvements should proceed in tandem. Let that be a prime focus of Governments and NGOs. The Ghanaian and Namibian Presidents’ remarks are to be welcomed, but Zimbabwe’s future progress requires more than warm words. These patient peoples must be supported to guard against any further slippage on their path and destiny to a future of truly representative democracy, for which the military’s role should be recognised.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have friends in Zimbabwe who are still farming. They have a legal right to farm—that has been confirmed by the courts and by letter from the Government—and they have struggled under immense difficulties. Over the past months, they have been intimidated physically and verbally. Their access road to the farm has been shut off; they have had squatters on their land; their trees have been cut down and their cattle have been stolen—they have to lock every animal up at night. Their dogs are regularly stoned. There is chanting at the gates outside the house. But then there was a ray of sunshine. I got a text this week from my friends, who said that there were not enough hallelujahs in the “Hallelujah Chorus”. The squatters have gone; they have been moved on. There are no pigs or goats, or people cutting down their trees. My friend has started planting again. The army moved in. Everything that he asked the police or courts to do, they did not do; he was left out. But now, with the change of regime, the army seem to be bringing back some measure of the rule of law. It is a small beacon of light in a very dark situation—but at least, for the first time in a debate on Zimbabwe, I am able to tell you that there is a ray of light.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, President Emmerson Mnangagwa has appointed a new 22-member Cabinet but, sadly, it is full of old ZANU-PF faces. Zimbabwe’s army chief, Constantino Chiwenga, having orchestrated the military takeover last month, is expected to be elevated to the vice-presidency. Mnangagwa has been criticised for the controversial appointment of Perence Shiri as Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs, despite his notoriety for having led a military operation against opponents of Robert Mugabe in the early 1980s. There are no opposition figures or prominent technocrats from outside government, despite huge public expectation that the Cabinet will have new blood, skills, and competences to spearhead Zimbabwe’s reform agenda and economic recovery.
The opposition leader, Tendai Biti, said that until the appointments were made, Zimbabweans had given the power grab the benefit of the doubt. “We did so”, he said,
“in the genuine, perhaps naive, view that the country could actually move forward. We craved for change, peace and stability in our country. How wrong we were”.
There is no greater hope for change than among the Marange villagers. They are deeply concerned that the wealth realised from the diamond fields by the Zimbabwe Consolidated Diamond Company did not benefit the villages in any way. Thousands of villagers have signed petitions, protesting at violence against the women of Marange, the senseless killing of civilians, and shocking levels of cruelty perpetrated by security personnel. They are calling for President Mnangagwa to set up an investigation into the human rights abuses. That would be a start.
Many observers believe that events in Zimbabwe will be a warning to other long-serving leaders that they should not assume that they can act as de facto monarchies, handing over power to their families as death approaches. Officials there dryly commented:
“Leadership is not sexually transmitted”,
when Mugabe’s plan to hand over power to Grace spectacularly nosedived. With 13 long-standing African rulers now aged between 65 and 84, there will be more transitions taking place, one way or another. We can only hope that Zimbabwe will lead the way through democracy and the rule of law.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, after Mugabe’s brutal 37 years in office, there is only one rightful way for Zimbabwe to achieve a legitimate Government, and that is through free and fair elections. Rory Stewart, the Minister for Africa, visited Harare shortly after Mugabe’s departure and met the new president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Opposition and civil society. What response did he get to his call for a full programme of political and economic reform, with human rights and rule of law being prioritised? Ten days ago, the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson met EU and African Union leaders, after which he said that he was encouraged by the new president’s words on reforming the economy. However, last week Mnangagwa announced a fresh Cabinet, with key roles given to veterans of the ruling ZANU-PF party and senior soldiers, and no posts for the Opposition. Clearly, that did not meet his promise to reach out to all patriotic Zimbabweans.
Just hours before the Cabinet announcement, Boris Johnson said the UK could take steps to stabilise Zimbabwe’s currency system and extend a loan to help it clear the World Bank and African Development Bank debts, but he said that such support depended on “democratic progress”. What is the Minister’s assessment of the new Cabinet, and how does she think it will affect the hopes for democratic, economic and human rights reform?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and the noble Lord Luce for tabling this debate, and for the insightful contributions. They have emanated from authoritative sources, and have greatly helped the quality of the debate. Recent weeks have been momentous for Zimbabwe, and I take this opportunity to set out what the UK Government think that that could mean for the future of the country and how we are working with our partners to encourage this to be a moment for reform and recovery.
President Mugabe ruled Zimbabwe for 37 years. To put that in context, we have seen six British Prime Ministers in that time. President Mugabe’s rule was characterised by economic mismanagement and political oppression. Almost two-thirds of Zimbabweans are now living below the poverty line, existing each day on less than the cost of the cup of coffee many of us will have bought today. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, eloquently raised those matters. Mugabe’s resignation on 21 November, prompted by action from the Zimbabwean military, is a huge moment for the country. The world has seen on television screens and newspaper front pages what it means to the people, with jubilation on the streets of Harare and across the country. This moment offers an opportunity for Zimbabwe to forge a new path, free from misrule. The key question now is whether this moment will be seized. Will we see Zimbabwe put back on to a positive track?
The United Kingdom has always been committed to the people of Zimbabwe. We want the new president’s approach to be guided by the interests of all Zimbabweans, and we are working to encourage that. We have a clear message: the international community stands ready to support Zimbabwe, but this will happen only if we see a break from the past and genuine political and economic reform. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, rightly identified that imperative. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the recent visit of my right honourable friend the Minister for Africa, Rory Stewart, who visited Harare on 23 to 24 November, the first United Kingdom Minister to visit Zimbabwe in almost two decades and the first Minister from a Foreign Government to meet newly inaugurated President Mnangagwa. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the Minister was clear with the president that the only way for Zimbabwe to have a legitimate Government was through free and fair elections. On his visit, the Minister also met opposition leaders, human rights activists and civil rights groups to hear their vision for their country.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, was interested in the United Kingdom’s impression of the new President. Well, if the new leadership demonstrates a commitment to political and economic reform then the United Kingdom stands ready to do all we can to support Zimbabwe’s recovery. We need to see free, fair and democratic elections, and we welcome President Mnangagwa’s commitment to holding them next year.
The visions that the opposition leaders, human rights activists and civil rights groups set out to the Minister were full of hope. They were optimistic that this moment offered a chance for a better future for all Zimbabweans, not just an elite group. They were clear that the constitution was central to this vision and that elections would be the first test of the intentions of the new Government. Under the constitution, elections will be held in the summer of next year. The next few months are critical for ensuring that those elections are a credible democratic process. Zimbabweans must be allowed to participate without fear of violence or reprisal, they must be able to challenge those in power and they must go to the polling station with the knowledge that, for the first time in decades, their voice, and therefore their vote, counts.
The transformation required in how elections are conducted can come only from within Zimbabwe, but there is an important role for the international community to help the country choose the right path. That is why we have been working with the region and our partners in the EU to ensure that we are consistent in our messaging to President Mnangagwa and his Government about what we believe should be their priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Luce, posed the question about what Her Majesty’s Government think are the key decisions that Zimbabwe needs to take. They are: free and fair elections; economic reforms and a renewed openness to foreign trade and investment in order to boost the living standards of all Zimbabweans; and a genuine commitment to upholding human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, raised that issue and I think we all understand exactly what he was referring to. This needs more than warm words; it has to be demonstrated by a tangible illustration of it actually happening.
My noble friend Lady Anelay, in connection with the broad issue of human rights, raised the very important matters of gender-based violence and the question of women’s empowerment. She argues that we can do more to use our Engaging Africa policy to assist that objective. I was extremely interested in her observations and I will certainly bring that to the attention of my colleagues—perhaps I could have a meeting with her to explore the potential of that approach. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, also raised this issue.
We have also been working with the international community to consider what we can do to incentivise and support these reforms. If we see positive action from the Zimbabwean Government, the UK stands ready to assist. The Foreign Secretary had useful discussions on this with regional leaders at the EU-AU summit last week and with the Zimbabwean delegation.
We have been encouraged by President Mnangagwa’s words during his inauguration speech when he promised to reform the economy and give investors the security of title that they need if Zimbabwe is to fulfil its potential and create the jobs that are so sorely needed. He made a solemn pledge to,
“serve … everyone who … considers Zimbabwe their home”,
and to hold free and fair elections. For as long as the President acts on his words, then Britain is willing to work alongside him and offer all the support that we can.
In the remaining time, let me deal with some of the specific contributions that arose. In relation to whether Zimbabwe will be invited to rejoin the Commonwealth, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Hughes, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, it would have to first indicate to the Commonwealth Secretariat that it would like to return. The final decision is for all Commonwealth members, not the UK alone. The UK would be willing to support re-entry, provided Zimbabwe meets the admission requirements, including demonstrating commitment to free and fair elections. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra spoke about what needs to be demonstrated—well, my noble friend mentioned pessimism but I will be more charitable and say realism. I hope this reassures both noble Lords that there is no free pass here; there are steps that must be observed.
On the matter of general UK support, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Loomba, DfID, on the part of the UK Government, has programmes promoting democratic and economic governance in Zimbabwe. We stand ready to support any new Administration who seek to improve human rights, transparency and domestic accountability.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark made a powerful contribution. He said that the United Kingdom is Zimbabwe’s oldest friend and talked about vigilance and the role of the churches. I was very struck with the words that he quoted from his colleague the Bishop of Matabeleland; there was a great deal of wisdom in these words and I am sure that they will have been noted across the Chamber and in Hansard for others to read.
My noble friend Lord Goodlad raised the important issue of former Crown servants and their pensions—those people who gave stalwart service to the country of Zimbabwe. I know that my right honourable friend Rory Stewart is aware of this issue. I say to my noble friend Lord Goodlad that I think it is important it is on the radar and I know that it will be looked at closely.
My noble friend Lord Hayward raised the issue of the economic situation in Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that Zimbabwe faces its most serious economic crisis since 2008 because of the simultaneous cash, liquidity and fiscal crisis, difficulties in getting hard currency, the declining value of local bond notes, which has resulted in fuel shortage and widespread panic-buying of essential goods. I was struck by the wise words of my noble friend that we should offer assistance and not impose. That reflects entirely what the United Kingdom Government feel.
I also listened with interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the suggestions that he made on the economy. These sounded very constructive and will certainly be of interest.
My noble friend Lord Caithness made what I thought was perhaps the most optimistic contribution in the debate. Initially I thought he was perhaps coming from the stable of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Then my spirits lifted because it was very clear from that contribution that there is hope, and the transformation in the lives of the friends to whom he referred was quite remarkable. We all hope that may be the harbinger of things to come.
In conclusion, the events of the last few weeks have been momentous, not just for Zimbabwe but for Africa. The country has an opportunity to set itself on a new path, free from oppression and economic hardship. Zimbabwe is currently financially crippled, but it is a country full of natural riches and, most importantly, highly capable people, full of hope and in themselves, as far as I can gather, determined and committed to the future of their country. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, encapsulated that very powerfully. The UK has long supported the people of Zimbabwe and we stand ready to help them make this hope a reality.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will she follow up the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Goodlad with regard to the pensions of those in the former Zimbabwe Civil Service? I gave certain undertakings from that Dispatch Box on this matter back in 1980. Are they being honoured?
Baroness Goldie
I can only offer to do what I indicated to my noble friend Lord Goodlad I would do; my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are aware of this issue, as is the Minister for Africa, Rory Stewart. I will make sure that the noble Lord’s concerns are reiterated.
Plans to Improve the Natural Environment and Animal Welfare
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Caithness
That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to improve the natural environment and animal welfare.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register, and that I serve on the committee looking at the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The committee is still taking evidence, and the views I express are entirely my own.
Life on this planet depends on air, water and soil. Ours is the first Government to make a firm commitment,
“to leave the natural environment in a better state than we inherited it”,
so they need to take action on these three fundamentals.
In England, in addition to Defra, Natural England and the Environment Agency are the statutory bodies protecting the environment. Natural England has the general purpose of ensuring that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. The Environment Agency is responsible, inter alia, for regulating major industry and waste and water quality and resources. It is extraordinary that there is no duty on the Environment Agency to report on how it is improving the natural environment. Will the Government ensure that all public bodies have that duty in the future?
Clear, transparent, scientific-based evidence is vital so that the right policies are put in place. It was on such evidence that Mrs Thatcher was the first to lead the world in the campaign against hydrofluorocarbon greenhouse gases. I was delighted to read that the Government are continuing her policy, and recently we became one of the first nations to complete ratification of the Kigali amendment to the UN Montreal protocol.
About 70% of the surface of our planet is water, of which over 96% is salt water. The environmental quality of our oceans is essential and a very real concern. Overfishing is certainly one problem; pollution is another. Oceans are the dumping ground for the run-off from our rivers and what we put in them. Plastic, one of our great inventions, is also one of our worse pollutants. Plastic litter has more than doubled on our beaches since 1994. One in three fish in the English Channel contains pieces of plastic and, by 2050, the oceans will contain more plastic than fish by weight. The environmental charge on plastic bags and the promised action on microbeads are welcome actions by the Government.
In comparison to air and water, nothing has been done about that other fundamental asset—soil. We know that 95% of food production relies on healthy soils. Antibiotics come from soil, as does a quarter of the world’s biodiversity. The red warning light is blazing at us. Loss of topsoil and agricultural land is a problem across the world, especially at a time of rising populations.
Over the last 200 years, we have lost 84% of our fertile topsoil in East Anglia. It is estimated that what remains could be eradicated in the next 30 to 60 years. In the lives of our children and grandchildren, the bread-basket of the UK could become an infertile wasteland, with few farms and very limited biodiversity.
On average, soil degradation costs the economy of England and Wales £1.2 billion every year, and that will rise. Soil has to be a top priority from now on, and we need an action plan quickly. Farming, especially arable farming, will have to change.
Fortunately, for the last 25 years, the Allerton farm project run by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust has carried out detailed science-based work and research which demonstrates conclusively that commercial farming can be undertaken, and the land managed, in alignment with ecological needs. As it fits intrinsically with the need for our farms to be more productive while restoring the soil, will my noble friend the Minister use this project as a template for the whole country in the proposed environmental 25-year plan, and when will it be published?
I hope that conservation covenants will also be part of that plan. No farmer should receive taxpayer support unless the farm is in a conservation covenant or is part of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. It is positive news that Natural England is working with the Rural Payments Agency to overhaul delivery to make that scheme simpler and more effective.
In our lifetime, our biodiversity has continued to decline, as have the numbers of our songbirds. The latest State of the UK’s Birds report was released on Tuesday and makes depressing reading. I know that the CAP has contributed to that but nevertheless, for Natural England and the many NGOs involved, these are two glaring failures. Natural England’s policy document of last year, Conservation 21, presents an opportunity to improve the situation in the future, but more needs to be done.
Again, the Allerton project has scientifically demonstrated what to me was obvious. Our wildlife needs our support to flourish. If we provide the right habitat, a better food supply and sensible control of predators, then all wildlife can and will flourish. Without all three of these actions, bird numbers decline. In this country, we have wiped out the apex predators, which has helped lead to a massive increase in the numbers of the mesopredators. To keep the balance, humans have to take over the role that apex predators have played. A good example of predator control policy success is in South Georgia, one of our Overseas Territories. As a result of this project, the most southerly songbird in the world, the South Georgia pipit, nested again on the mainland of South Georgia in 2015 for the first time in living memory.
We are told that the curlew in the lowlands of England will be extinct within eight years. SongBird Survival and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust accept that there should be robust, properly targeted predator control. Other NGOs should do the same or accept responsibility for the continued decline and extinction of some species. Will the Minister instruct Natural England to follow the Scottish Government’s example and introduce a predator control option in future agri-environment schemes?
I hope that natural capital will also feature in the 25-year plan, as it can help make the change from the current inefficient support to farmers to one where landowners and land managers receive public money for public goods. In itself, it is not a cure-all remedy, but it should be a part of Defra’s toolkit of measures to ensure that there is always a net gain for the environment.
Any Government must be held to account against a clear set of environmental standards. In previous debates, I have called for such a body when we leave the EU, so I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement on 12 November that a new, independent, expert and adequately resourced body is planned to do this and that there will be a consultation in the new year.
Private gardens in the UK, especially in urban areas, are an essential part of the green lungs of the environment and equate to the size of the county of Somerset, bigger than all of the country’s nature reserves put together. Research shows that, in Greater London, gardens equivalent to the size of two and a half Hyde Parks are lost every year. This continuing loss of habitat is putting biodiversity and wildlife at even greater risk. Where is the line to be drawn, and are the mayor’s plans further endangering our urban environment?
This leads me to the important question of the rural-proofing of central and local government policies. There has been an improvement, but there is still a long way to go before it is truly embedded in every policy decision, especially planning. Our planning system is letting the environment down. Planning should be altered to ensure a net gain for the environment, as that offers the chance to reverse the dynamic of development versus the environment. Obtaining permission to plant 600,000 trees in Northumberland has taken more than two years and cost more than £100,000. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that is too long and too expensive, and deters those who might want to introduce similar schemes; and thus I hope he will take action.
I turn now to the second part of my Motion, on animal welfare. I congratulate the Government for confirming that they are committed to the very highest standards of animal welfare and that animal sentience will be properly and legally recognised when we leave the EU. The Government are going to modernise statutory welfare codes and increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty offences. I also welcome CCTV in slaughterhouses, but can the Minister confirm that, in the UK, all animals are properly stunned before slaughter?
High standards are also being encouraged by the farming industry. Although other countries have assurance schemes, none of them is audited to the same degree or to the same standard as farming’s red tractor scheme. A key factor in achieving good animal welfare is having well-trained staff. It is reassuring that red tractor standards require that certain tasks that might affect animal welfare, such as giving injections, are only performed by staff who have been properly trained and deemed by a vet to be competent to carry out the procedure. Should some of these schemes be made compulsory for all farmers? I admit to injecting sheep when I was a jackaroo in Australia. I certainly was not trained to do it, but I wish I had been; it would be better if we all were.
Food cost as a percentage of the average UK household budget has remained steady for over 15 years but is likely to rise as we build in even higher standards than other countries. However, this might put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage in our new trade deals. Are the Government aware that not just trade but fair trade is required?
We in this country are fortunate to be able to have this debate. The environment is an expensive mistress and not many countries have the resources available to spend on it that we do. We want and need secure, sustainably produced food; clean waters in our aquifers and rivers; restored soils with natural fertility created by healthy biota; a resilient, diverse countryside teeming with wildlife, actively managed, accessible to all, supporting health and well-being for everyone. Such a biologically healthy landscape, resilient to disease and one that can adapt to and mitigate climate change through its ecosystem restoration is also one from which we can all benefit.
However, we cannot achieve our aims by just letting Governments simply impose and police rules and regulations. For real and lasting change, the behaviour of all of us, as individuals, needs to alter. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his introduction and for setting out the starkness of the challenge but also the possibilities of our succeeding in it. My intervention will be a little more depressive. I have the terrible feeling that the likely post-Brexit changes in our regulatory structure are likely to undermine what appear to be the noble Earl’s objectives and those spelled out by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State. I start, for example, with the interrelationship between what regulatory aspects of farming and land use apply here in a new and different trading pattern.
It is certainly true that the CAP, particularly in its earlier stages, was pretty detrimental to much of our natural capital, with overintensive use. However, in recent years the EU’s environmental objectives have countervailed that. Indeed, the CAP itself, through its cross-compliance arrangements, has moved closer to protecting the environment as a natural good. Legislation such as the habitats directive, the birds directive and the water framework directive will all need to be transposed into our own legislation, but they have been positive and will continue to be.
On animal welfare, mainly the UK has pushed EU standards higher, but we need to ensure that we can maintain them. If we are to move into a different trading pattern and the EU ceases to be our major trading partner, and we abandon near-alignment with EU legislation and instead seek to do deals around the world, particularly with America and South America, where the standards are considerably lower, our exporters there will have to meet standards different from those of imports here from America, Brazil or Australia, and will not meet the same standards of environmental objectives and animal welfare. If we prioritise those markets, there will be big pressure for us to down-prioritise our own environmental welfare standards.
The other aspect is the withdrawal Bill and how we deal with it. Yes, the EU legislation will be transposed one way or another into UK law as regards individual regulations, and of course we have already transposed most of the directives in one way or another. However, the whole element of the regime protecting the environment that exists in EU law will not be so transposed. First, there is the question of enforcement. The noble Earl referred to Michael Gove’s commitment to a new statutory environmental body but it is not clear what powers that will have. It will have not only to deliver the strategy for a better environment and protection of our natural capital, but will also have to be the main enforcement mechanism for duties which have hitherto been conducted by EU-level institutions. Can the Minister enlighten us about any further thinking in relation to that body? When will we see what is proposed, and will we see it at the same time as the 25-year plan or are we expecting it earlier?
In relation to the withdrawal Bill, while we are transposing the letter of many regulations, some of the key principles are not being so transposed either because they are found in the treaties, from which we are withdrawing and to which we will no longer be a party, or because they are in the preambles to directives and regulations, which English law does not like and does not transpose. In the environmental field, these include such vital principles as the precautionary principle, the principle that the polluter pays and general principles of sustainability, and, in the animal welfare area, the principle that farm and pet animals and most wildlife are sentient beings. In default of these principles being explicitly transposed into English and UK law, can the Minister please tell us how they will be observed, enforced and used as guidance in the interpretation of regulation post Brexit?
Of course, not all existing EU or UK legislation is conducive to preserving or enhancing our natural landscape and protecting our wildlife—some does quite the opposite. Take pesticides regulation, for example. The use of chemically based pesticides, often on an industrial scale, can be damaging to our soil. Pesticides and fertilisers have had a greater effect than excessive ploughing on the deteriorating quality of our soils over the past 200 years, referred to by the noble Earl, as well as on our waters and water-based wildlife, and on our air, posing a threat to human beings and wildlife as a result, with direct and indirect reductions in biodiversity.
More targeted use of chemical-based pesticides does not remove those threats, although it reduces them. Ultimately, only a major move from chemical-based pesticides and herbicides will reverse the negative effects on health, biodiversity, soil and water. However, I am afraid that at EU level, at UK level and, even more so, in the councils of some of our potential future trading partners, the influence of large chemical companies is likely to mean that such a move is blocked. I ask the Minister what the plans are for pesticide regulation post Brexit and for the development of less intensive, less chemically based crop management measures.
The repatriation of agricultural policy to the UK, whether Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast, gives us the opportunity to move away from current hectarage-based subsidies towards overall environmental management, so that farmers, foresters and land managers are brought into a system which, as the noble Earl said, rewards them for contributing to the public good with better land management—better management of the water system and better landscape protection. Therefore, we can move away from the basic farm payment to support for sustainable land management.
However, that switch will be difficult. The Government need to do it gradually. They need to plan for it and farmers need time to adapt to it. It should also be done in a way that continues to recognise that food production is still a major policy objective and that land managers have a major role to play in it. In my view, we should probably keep in aggregate roughly the same quantum as under the CAP to support land managers, but it should be differentially distributed, contributing to environmental objectives, and probably be geared more to smaller farmers than to large-scale landowners.
I would like to hear the Minister’s reaction to those points and would particularly like to hear when we will see the 25-year plan.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I note, first, that I am a board member of the Marine Management Organisation.
Normally in these debates I have to remind people that there is a marine environment and that it is as important as the land environment, but the noble Earl has already stressed the marine environment. Perhaps because of David Attenborough and his current series, we are all rather more aware of marine than we were in the past.
I will make a couple of points in that area. The first is about our future management of stocks. Although certain parts of the industry may be quite strong in their bravado about the quantity of fish resources in European waters that are within in the UK EEZ, none of the precious stocks takes any notice of political boundaries and—to state the obvious—they circulate. Their spawning grounds are often in other areas of the North Sea or western waters. It is really important for the Government to make absolutely clear that, in our future relationships if Brexit happens, our decisions are not only science-based but that we continue to make decisions about fisheries, quotas or the technical methods in liaison with other European states—whether Norway and the Faroes outside the European Union or our current European partners. That is essential. There is no room for competitive removal of stocks from within our waters in future years.
The other area that knows no boundaries is plastics. I will not go into that any further because other noble Lords have mentioned it, but I welcome the Government’s intention to stop one-use plastics, which will be of huge benefit not just to marine life but to our terrestrial environment and ecology as well.
However, I want to bring to the House’s attention, although it may not be needed, one bit of really good news that has happened recently. It is the decision by the international community, particularly in the far north of the planet, to declare the Arctic Ocean as a non-fishing zone until scientific evidence—which I doubt will ever justify it—can be considered to decide what happens. This is a major step forward. I was privileged to chair the Arctic Committee of this House a couple of years ago and it was one of our key recommendations. I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether we will be a signatory to that agreement or how we will help it to be implemented, because it is a very positive step. It is the one time perhaps that the world has decided to do something before the problem arises rather than afterwards.
I welcome very much the Secretary of State’s intention to replace the current methods of enforcing environmental law at European and national level such as the Commission and the European Court of Justice. The Energy and Environment Sub-Committee that I chair today received a letter from the Secretary of State going through that. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, we do not know yet what those powers will be; I understand that this is going out for consultation in the new year. We must make no mistake that the real power of the Commission and the European Court of Justice, particularly the Commission, is the power of infraction. Ministers are concerned that they are not found to have failed to implement or go against European or national laws, and are concerned about the fines enforced. The power of any organisation to fine will determine whether it cuts the mustard or not. It is unlikely that the organisation will have those imperatives but that is what is needed. It would be wrong if we did not implement our own laws that have been agreed and passed by Parliament.
No one has yet mentioned clean air although I am sure that other noble Lords will do, but we have been extremely laggardly in terms of applying our own legislation. It has a direct effect on people’s health and on us as we go about our business in the capital and other cities. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the progress of addressing that breach as it returns to British courts.
On animal welfare, again I welcome the various pronouncements made by the Secretary of State, but I regret that the amendment tabled in the House of Commons to recognise the sentience of animals was rejected and I do not agree that our current legislation covers this point broadly enough. It is something that we will have to consider when the withdrawal Bill arrives in this House. But the real problem I have on the animal welfare side is much as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said. I am sure that the Minister will encourage us not to have any fears in this area, but if the Secretary of State for International Trade or Ministers in DExEU were talking to us, I suspect that we might be given a different message. If we seek to make trade deals, particularly with South America, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, which have already contested some of our agreements in the WTO over tariff-rate quotas, we will find it very difficult indeed to maintain our animal welfare standards. They are not recognised by the WTO as valid barriers and ways to exclude trade, so we will find it difficult to reconcile the different views that exist around the Cabinet table. Until those views at Cabinet level are reconciled, I do not think we can take it for granted that the Defra view, which I applaud in many ways, will be the one that finally holds sway.
I was going to talk about EU vets. Again, I welcome the introduction of video cameras in abattoirs and it will be a great step forward when that happens. However, we need the 95% of our meat hygiene vets who are European Union citizens to believe that they are welcome in this country and can continue to give us the benefit of their knowledge, resources and scientific skill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his absolutely superb opening speech. I agreed with 99% of it and I particularly liked his stress on soil. Many years ago I used to listen to “Gardeners’ Question Time” with a Yorkshire gardener called Geoffrey Smith. No matter what he was asked, whether it was about aphids on roses or leaf drop, he would always say, “The answer lies in the soil, laddie”—even if it was a woman asking the question.
The 1% where I disagreed with my noble friend was on the need for a super-duper new environment agency. I will pop out in a wee while and fetch from my desk a superb op-ed piece from the Times written by my noble friend Lord Ridley. It points out that we already have all the best environment agencies in the world and that we do not need to create any more. However, almost every day we hear a new pronouncement by a worthy and knowledgeable body on the sort of animal welfare and countryside environmental regime that it wants to see once we are in charge of our own policy once again.
I read all of these reports and articles and I am concerned that far too many people and organisations have unrealistic ideas about how the whole countryside can be transformed overnight into a paradise where all farmers are farming organically but still making a profit, where they are running their farms as if they were in the upper tier of the Countryside Stewardship scheme, where all endangered wildlife returns to pre-war levels, where all non-native invasive species are exterminated and where there is unlimited money to satisfy the aspirations of every single-issue pressure group that is dictating how the countryside should be run. It is unrealistic and it cannot happen in the real world.
However, today I will focus briefly on animal welfare issues. I, too, welcome the introduction of cameras in slaughterhouses and I hope that ministry vets will be ruthless in closing down any and all halal slaughterhouses which are flagrantly breaching the law by slaughtering animals without even the slightest pretext of stunning. I know that this is a sensitive issue and I respect religious rights and freedoms, but the rest of us have the right not to eat meat which has been killed in this way. The public would be appalled if they knew about the massive amount of halal meat which actually gets into non-Muslim food chain.
The Government have said, quite rightly, that we will be able to enhance even more our animal welfare rules once we are out of the EU. Let us absolutely clear about one thing: the UK already has the tightest and most humane animal welfare rules in the whole of the EU, the whole of Europe and possibly even the whole world. While I am happy to consider tightening them further, we must not then let in meat products which have been produced under systems that we have banned here.
Way back in the late 1980s, I was a MAFF Minister. We were under enormous pressure to ban sow crates and tethers. We resisted, on the basis that the whole EU should do it, but the majority in the Commons was for a ban. So we had to ban them, and the rest of the EU looked on and laughed at our stupidity. What was the effect of the unilateral ban? Quite simply, more British pig farmers went out of business and we imported more pigmeat from the EU—produced under the same so-called cruel system that we had banned here.
One thing I learned in MAFF—now Defra—is that we have the finest vets in the world and some great chief veterinary officers. I liked the CVO’s statement last week that there was nothing wrong with proper battery cages. But apparently the supermarkets have said that they will not sell any eggs produced in battery cages in future—or will they? Is this another big lie? They said that they were not selling any of the eggs from Holland that were contaminated with the insecticide fipronil, but that was true only to the extent that they were not selling them in boxes of six or a dozen—all the poisonous eggs were in their ready-made sandwiches and meals.
So, if the supermarkets decide that they will not sell battery-cage eggs, putting some of our farmers out of business, they must not be allowed to import battery-produced eggs and hide them in ready meals and salads. I suggest that the same principle must go for all other foodstuffs. We need to concentrate on the real issues of trade, not on fripperies such as chlorine-washed chicken; so long as it is labelled and people have a choice, I do not see what the problem is. Quite frankly, I would prefer to eat chlorine-washed chicken than some of the stuff that was slopping about on the floor of the 2 Sisters Food factories that we read about a couple of months ago.
Similarly, if we ban live animal exports, we must ensure that we do not permit live animal imports. Let us be clear: we can move live animals round this country safely, without any problem. We can move them just across the Channel and still enforce standards of watering and feeding, and treat them humanely. However, we cannot enforce the rules in the rest of Europe, where animals are driven across Europe for days on end and are not fed, not watered and are treated cruelly. Of course, any ban on live exports should apply only to animals for slaughter and not to breeding or pedigree animals, where we need an exchange under the highest possible welfare standards. Perhaps, when we are in charge of our policy again, we can bring back the wonderful minimum value rule for horses, whereby horses or ponies worth under £300 could not be exported live for slaughter.
I believe in completely free trade—but it must also be fair, as other noble Lords have said. If we impose higher welfare standards on our farmers, there must be no question of any food or food products coming into this country that are produced under systems that we have banned here because we think that they are cruel. Brexit gives us a chance to impose that high level playing field across the board.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is always very useful for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, because it pushes up my adrenaline levels, which is obviously very good for speaking. So I thank him for that. I thank also the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for securing the debate and allowing us to air our concerns before the Brexit legislation comes to your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords have mentioned that we are now at a crossroads and that it is incredibly important for the natural environment and animal welfare to figure strongly in our minds as we go through the processes of the next few months. We will face a number of choices on these issues and it is clear that there is a lot of divergence. Do we improve our environmental and animal protections and safeguard nature, or do we burn them in a bonfire of red tape to secure trade deals with the USA and Donald Trump? Do we bring in tough new laws that recognise animals as sentient beings deserving of legal protection, or do we regulate so that we can swap our battery-caged eggs for their chlorinated chickens?
We have educated consumers; I think that there will be an outcry if our food standards drop to any extent. Then, there is the most important choice of all: do we leave for our children a healthy planet—an abundant, thriving natural world—or do we continue to damage, devalue and destroy the very living systems on which all of us depend for survival? The noble Earl mentioned the loss of biodiversity. Here in Britain we have lost 50% of our wildlife since 1967—and that is speeding up; we are losing more and more.
We have to make stark choices over the coming months. We have to recognise that our decisions will have an impact downstream in not just a few years’ time, but decades’ time. We will be held to account. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a point about air pollution. I have been working on air pollution since the year 2000. I raised the issue with then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, and with the second Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Not very much was done. Now it is a crisis. Greens look ahead. We have policies that other political parties will pick up in 10 or 20 years’ time. Perhaps they should take some advice now about things that will be real crises in a decade or so.
I cautiously welcome the commitments the Government have made already on the direction of travel for environmental policy. They have committed to making this the first generation that leaves the natural world in a better condition than we inherited it—I find it quite difficult to read that without smiling. The Secretary of State seems to have a genuinely held commitment to the environment, making pledges that Greens like me might once have been laughed at for being “naive” and “idealistic”. I have heard him talk about reforming the CAP, for example, so that it addresses market failures and ensures that “ecosystem services”—those essential things that nature provides for free—and “public goods” are properly valued. We have the opportunity to create a system that properly rewards sound environmental stewardship and punishes an “industrial farming at all costs” approach. We can create a system that works for small farmers, small holdings and lifestyle farmers, as well as bigger farmers, and allows small farmers to use their land to do much more than just produce food—to encourage biodiversity and to improve the soil. But it is early days and the so-called “greenest Government ever” have quite a test ahead of them on their environmental principles.
The noble Earl closed with the point that we all have a responsibility as individuals, which is absolutely true of course, but the Government have to help us. They can make it easy for us to do the right things. The plastic bag tax is a classic example: 5p has made all the difference to whether people use single-use plastic bags. The Government have a real opportunity to do similar things to help us grow in the right way. We also have to remember that most political parties think in terms of constant growth being an asset and a good thing. That is not true. It goes against all common sense. We have a finite planet and resources. We have to understand that when we put in place all our legislation.
When the going gets tough, we cannot allow Ministers to make grandiose policy pledges without any real delivery plan, as has happened so many times in the past, and then scurry away when reality bites so we cannot see them again and cannot hold them to account. The Secretary of State told me recently to judge him by his actions, not his words. I like his words so far, but I will judge his actions fairly. If he does not live up to what he is saying, I will judge him very harshly indeed. I will be very happy if my caution is unnecessary. I hope we can have a very good dialogue when we consider the Brexit legislation and that the Government will be in listening, not just in transmit, mode.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the EU withdrawal Bill. It will be a key battleground for many of us. There will be a lot of amendments on the issues we are discussing in order to retain a positive environment here in Britain and animal rules, many of which are currently enforced by the EU. Maintaining the polluter pays principle, for example, is fundamental, as is recognising animal sentience. The news is that there will be a Statement on this issue; I look forward to hearing it. We have to have robust, independent enforcement mechanisms. It is simply not true that we have enough enforcement. Once funding comes from the Government, nothing is independent. We need some sort of mechanism that enforces the law.
It is going to be quite exciting here: I think a lot of amendments on these issues will be forced to a vote, and the Government will lose some of them. Ministers will no doubt say that the withdrawal Bill is not the place to raise these issues because they do not fit in. My question is: if not then, when? What the Government could do is publish their plans for alternative legislation before the Bill comes to this House. That would be a positive thing to do and help us understand the direction of travel.
I have read that MPs have been briefed by Gavin Barwell, Mrs May’s chief of staff, that care for the environment is to be the unifying principle across a range of policies designed to rehabilitate the Conservative Party’s reputation. That is wonderful. If the Government are honest in their claim to care about our environment, they should deal with the issue of plastic. The noble Earl mentioned a very useful fact which I will use in future and pretend is my own—the point at which the amount of plastic will outweigh the number of fish in the sea. A plastic bottle deposit scheme, for example, would be such a positive thing. Recycling rates are falling in the UK—they fell last year—so we are not the caring, responsible country we often like to think we are. These issues are far too important for us to leave to the whims of the Government.
I challenge the Government to set out their legislative plans for the environment and animal protection ahead of the withdrawal Bill coming to the House. I ask the Minister to make that commitment today.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for introducing this debate on two very important subjects. The natural environment and animal welfare are interlinked in many ways. The trend of recent years towards mass-produced food and factory farming has had a detrimental impact on the environment, antibiotic resistance, climate change and animal welfare. Brexit gives us a golden opportunity for change.
How a nation treats its animals is a litmus test of its humanity. We in the UK like to think of ourselves as a nation of animal lovers. Indeed, I understand that Members in the other place receive huge postbags about animal welfare.
I want to focus today on animals in agriculture, where the welfare challenges come from the push for ever cheaper food which influences the way that animals are farmed. I must declare an interest: I served on the Farm Animal Welfare Council for nine years and during that time served on several working groups that travelled around the country going to farms. In the main, I was struck by how much farmers cared for their animals. However, there are some areas of farming where it is a struggle to make ends meet. The cost of employing people today means that farming has become more isolated, with a high incidence of depression in some cases. Calling for improved animal welfare means calling also for support for farmers post Brexit, where they need it, and ensuring that they are able to make a decent livelihood. We need to ensure that supermarkets, where most of our food is bought, give farmers fair prices and do not put over-high mark-up on their products.
While we live in a global society, dependence on the internet for communications and the dangers posed by cyberwarfare to transit of goods mean that the more we can produce our own food the better. Producing our own food means supporting our farmers and creating employment here. After all, they are the front-line custodians of our countryside as well as of what we put on our plate.
Much of our animal welfare legislation is driven by EU law, and Brexit will mean this reverts to national legislation. Under the Lisbon treaty, animals are considered sentient beings. That means that it is acknowledged that animals are not inanimate goods but can feel fear, hunger, pleasure and pain. The EU withdrawal Bill removes this classification—I know that there has been considerable discussion about this in the other place. While I know that we have reassurance from the Government that, post Brexit, our animal welfare laws will be strengthened, I do not see why the Bill cannot be amended to include this. There has been enormous support for it from many in the veterinary profession and we need to listen to them.
As my noble friend Lord Blencathra has already said, it is no good having high welfare standards for animals raised in the UK if we allow the import of animals not raised to those standards, which is the situation at the moment. This undermines our farmers and makes a mockery of our welfare legislation. All meat entering the UK should have been raised to UK standards. This should apply to not just fresh meat but, as my noble friend said, processed meats—ham, paté and salamis—and pies and suchlike that contain meat. We should require our supermarkets to trace their products, to ensure that they are all raised to the high standards we require.
I welcome the fact that the Government’s Industrial Strategy White Paper contains positive recognition of the importance of UK food production to the country’s economic prosperity, including the intention to,
“put the UK at the forefront of the global move to high-efficiency agriculture”,
and to,
“grow the markets for innovative technologies and techniques”,
such as the use of drones. However, I strongly believe that farming methods need to be looked at. Generally, where animals are being routinely vaccinated it is because they are kept in crowded, stressful situations. This may well be contributing to the transfer of resistant bacteria to people. Ensuring that animals can perform their natural behaviours and using antibiotics only therapeutically is surely a sensible, long-term preventive step to help protect our own health as individuals, communities and a nation.
On the issue of health, I also want to raise the benefits of encouraging a reduction in the consumption of red and processed meat—something that has been linked to decreasing the incidence of heart disease, obesity and certain cancers. This has an impact on not just our health but our environment. Overall, the livestock sector accounts for between 8% and 18% of global emissions, about as much pollution as comes out of the world’s car exhausts. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world’s domesticated ruminants—cattle and sheep—release annually 100 million tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
So which areas of welfare could be improved upon? I would like to see live export for slaughter, which has been mentioned already, banned. In these days of chilled lorries it is inexcusable to travel animals to the continent for slaughter. This causes them much stress and fear, while many of the continental slaughterhouses do not conform to the standards that we would like to see here. This should be stopped. EU legislation has caused many local slaughterhouses in the UK to be closed down. This has meant that even here in the UK, animals can end up being travelled for many hours. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this area should be looked into? Slaughtering animals at the nearest point to production is best.
While I am on the issue of slaughter, we need labelling to identify meat from animals slaughtered without stunning. While I too respect religious practices, those of us who do not wish to eat meat slaughtered without stunning should be able to buy meat in this country, confident that it has been properly stunned and slaughtered in the kindest way.
I am conscious of time so would like to add a few of my other concerns to the Minister’s list. In pig farming, I am concerned about the enforcement of legislation around tail docking and straw provision. I would like to see a move towards free-farrowing systems as the norm. Today’s dairy cow can be a very stressed animal. Every dairy cow should be able to go outside; their calves are usually separated within 24 hours of birth. However, a high-yielding cow produces enough milk for six calves, so could there not be a system designed to enhance a cow’s life by enabling her to mother? Where sheep are castrated surgically, I would like to see analgesia and pain relief used. Stocking densities for broiler chickens should be looked into, too.
While I recognise that there may be cost issues surrounding higher standards of our food production, animal welfare and our natural environment must not be compromised. As I said earlier, the farming community is the custodian of our countryside. Our natural environment, food quality and quantity and animal welfare are all interwoven. We cannot afford not to get it right and we all have our part to play.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important debate and I welcome its introduction by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It touches on the future of the natural environment in the UK and around the world. I declare my interest as director of a small environmental company and president of ACOPS, an NGO.
Her Majesty’s Government have a responsible role, nationally and internationally. As the noble Earl pointed out, this is about large-scale and small-scale phenomena.
This debate rightly considers animals as well the traditional areas of environmental science—plants, oceans, the atmosphere and the natural environment. Particularly when thinking of urban areas or arid lands, natural life is a vital part of the process and the environment, but often in very small areas. It is a great improvement that nature in urban areas is now more important, but it is not always consistent with the fact that areas of green space available to schools in urban areas have been progressively reduced. I hope the Minister will be able to touch on that point.
The importance of the natural environment has steadily increased in politics as the general public have become more concerned about its deterioration, as scientific monitoring data has confirmed some of the worries and fears. The public are also very well aware of the loss of biodiversity and amenity. Many species are no longer available and the amenities that many people recall—rock pools on beaches and clean beaches—have deteriorated.
The political and scientific organisations concerned with the environment have changed over the past 50 years, both nationally and internationally. Where necessary, organisations have come and gone, depending upon different types of pollutant. The UK set up its first royal commission to cover the environment in the 1960s, but it no longer exists, and the other broad environmental body set up by the Conservative Prime Minister Mr Major has also gone. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out, we have an excellent roll of contributions by Natural England and the Environment Agency, but the point of the original royal commission was that it looked at the whole process, many sources of pollutant and many scientific aspects, and we should consider that again. Looking at the manifestos of the Conservatives and the Labour Party, I did not see the suggestion of an overarching organisation which, as a scientist, I think is necessary.
The worst direct damage to the natural environment has led to action in the past and turned countries that were considered to be highly polluting, such as Japan, into model countries. The change in Japan was stimulated by the effects of water pollution in Minamata, and in the UK it was the London smog or even the River Thames in the 19th century. It has taken longer for people and organisations to respond to longer-term environmental damage. For example, radiological pollution from nuclear accidents has a very long-term effect, and it took decades before long-range acid rain began to be controlled. Polluted waters similarly cause great problems around the world and there continues to be a problem in rivers and coastal waters. Ozone in the stratosphere has already been mentioned. That was quite a success in the sense that it was identified and that has led to the Montreal protocol; however, there are continuing problems. There was an interesting article in Nature last week about the risk of some organisations suggesting that we put particles in the atmosphere as a means of controlling the dangers of excess carbon dioxide and climate change. One has to look at the different processes.
Air pollution from vehicles, shipping and fossil fuel energy is coming from different sources. It has immediate and sometimes local impacts on health. Those suffering with breathing issues, such as asthmatics, are particularly sensitive to the air pollution in cities. As we all saw last week, pollution can sometimes be bad enough to affect really healthy people, such as the cricket players in Delhi. I once, long ago, did a study in Lancashire and there was a headline in the local newspaper, “Air pollution stops play”. I could taste it without needing instruments, as I could stick my tongue out and measure the sulphurous rain that was coming down in southern Lancashire.
The question, then, is how these new types of pollution should be dealt with and by whom. The solution for certain types of pollutants comes from a combination of scientific understanding, government regulation and action by business to produce non-polluting products. Where appropriate, people’s involvement is also critical. Sometimes these combinations are successful, for a limited period, for example with air pollution caused by damage from fossil fuels. But then, problems arose when certain scientific and industrial organisations pointed out that vehicles that at one time seemed to be clean and to be contributing to low carbon were actually contributing to NOx and other emissions. These complicated interactions of different processes require different organisations. We need to consider how to have overview of all those organisations.
If your Lordships read the Guardian or another newspaper this morning, you would have read about the problems with the solid waste the UK sends to China. The Chinese Government no longer want it as much, which suggests that we need to have whole new industries to deal with the question of waste. We had a meeting here in the House of Lords a couple of years ago, organised by ACOPS. Many of the organisations were concerned about plastic, but it was noticeable that the representative from the chemical industry was lukewarm about the kind of changes that might happen. The Government will need to play a very strong role to push this forward.
Last week, the International Maritime Organization, at which the Department for Transport is the UK representative, met here in London to set up its working group on reducing carbon emissions from ships’ diesel engines. Shipping now produces as much as 13% of total carbon emissions, about three times more than aviation. Much shipping is involved in transporting plastic waste, so dealing with our waste differently would be one way to reduce carbon emissions.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this important debate today. He made an excellent speech, as did my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I declare an interest as a former farmer, a former president of the Staffordshire and Birmingham Agricultural Society and a current member of the National Farmers’ Union and the GWCT.
Brexit presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place policies that work for farmers, the environment and consumers, and to address animal welfare issues. Thus states the NFU, and I am in complete agreement. Agriculture and its associated businesses form the UK’s largest manufacturing sector. A friend of mine whom I met with today—a very serious lawyer, Sir Nigel Knowles—confirmed to me that the industry generates over £112 billion for the UK economy and provides employment for more than 3.9 million people. Horticulture, including vegetable and salad production, is reliant on considerable numbers of foreign workers, and therefore the industry has a major interest in any future policies post Brexit regarding immigration. Without the availability of these workers, that sector will encounter very serious problems.
Many farmers with whom I discuss current farming affairs voted to leave, but nevertheless are very concerned about life without subsidies as currently paid to them. In recent years we have seen wealthy individuals and corporations investing heavily in agricultural land, very often in the UK’s prime growing regions. Completely unrealistic prices have been achieved: as much as up to £20,000 per acre, I believe, in Lincolnshire, with an average today, I think, of about £10,000 per acre. Please feel free to label me a complete cynic—many on my side do, I think—but, even with the single farm payment, such a land cost cannot possibly enable the landowner to make a return. In my view, it is part of wider tax planning issues. They are attracted by that but it has very little to do with genuine investment in farming. I believe that, post Brexit, such landowners should receive no subsidies. After all, their operations are geared to be superefficient, with the latest in modern machinery and various technologies outside the reach of small and medium-sized farmers.
When I was a student on a farm in the early 1970s, my boss, an exceptional but often grumpy Shropshire farmer called Rowland Ward, who was a pioneer in many agricultural areas, told me that one could not make a decent living farming under 200 acres. Today I believe that figure is more like 2,000 acres. Today many counties have sold off their agricultural small- holdings, small-holdings that provided an entry into agriculture for countless young people in the past. The young would-be farmer finds it nigh on impossible to get a foot on the farming ladder these days, yet they are the basic future and seed-corn for farming. Maybe they could be beneficiaries of a suitable new scheme to encourage them into farming on their own.
I firmly believe that there must be government support for agriculture in rural areas but geared towards assisting the small to medium-sized farmer and grower who is the backbone of UK agriculture. Coupled with this must be schemes to encourage farmers and landowners to improve their environment, protecting soil and water resources for future generations along the lines of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment. We need to produce more homegrown food, and to achieve that we must have sustainable and improving natural resources. We must establish an improved habitat, and on that note I wonder whether now is a great opportunity to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act to rebalance man’s management of modern-day nature in what is a very changing environment, and indeed much has changed from the time when the current Act was passed.
We need to encourage growth in the numbers of songbirds and other species through a range of measures, not least by controlling predators to sustainable numbers. Buzzards are everywhere; I counted nine in the area over the wood behind my house last Sunday. They do not just pick up carrion; magpies play havoc with the local songbird population while goosanders, mergansers and cormorant numbers have exploded over recent years with dire consequences for the stocks of their prey species, namely salmonids and other fish. From these comments, noble Lords will no doubt realise that I am unlikely to be on Chris Packham’s Christmas card list.
I believe the Environment Agency should be broken up, with waste issues being transferred to local authorities, and the National Rivers Authority should be re-established to oversee and police the country’s water resources and deal with issues relating to flooding. This worked very well in the past.
A special case should be made for the less-favoured and challenging farming areas and their communities. These are some of the most beautiful and iconic parts of our nation and support a wide range of flora and fauna. Income in these areas is derived from farming certain breeds of livestock with special qualities and producing specialist wools, meats and cheeses. Tourism is a major driver of those far-off local economies, an integral part of which are the shooting and fishing sports that attract substantial sums of foreign and home-based money, supporting local people with employment, hotels, B&Bs, filling stations and shops, to name but a few. I recommend noble Lords to take a trip to towns like Leyburn and Hawes and see what they have done.
Recently the BBC’s “Countryfile” programme featured a small community in a less-favoured hill area in the north of England where, threatened with the demise of its rural bus service and closure of its post office and shop, pub and filling station, and therefore faced with the possible exodus of local inhabitants, the community resolved to get together and run the lot. The bus service and filling station help to subsidise the loss-making parts of the enterprise. Surely this is the way forward in such communities, so why do the Government not consider setting up a scheme to soft-fund such initiatives with seed capital? Such a scheme could perhaps be part-funded by a levy on wind turbines.
This country is a world leader in animal welfare. We produce and sell, at home and abroad, our finest beef, lamb, pork and other meats, which we produce to the highest standards. So why on earth will the Government not ban non pre-stunned ritual slaughter? The veterinary profession judges it to be cruel, many of the public are appalled by it and I personally find it completely abhorrent. I would never send an animal of mine to such an end. Both the NFU and the Government seem keen to ignore the issue, possibly because we export to countries that require meat that is ritually slaughtered. However, this is a serious animal welfare problem that simply must be addressed. What discussions on this issue have my noble friend and his department had with the various religious groups that require ritual slaughter, and what was the outcome of those discussions?
In conclusion, we in this country have the most superb opportunity to improve and support agriculture, the natural environment, our rural communities and animal welfare post Brexit. We must grab it with both hands.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness will not be displeased if I add a little on the issues of animal welfare that have featured so far in his debate, which he introduced so effectively.
There are so many types and breeds of animals for whose improved welfare we should strive as we prepare for Brexit and the prospect of stronger powers here at Westminster to use on their behalf, for they are vital to our welfare. Our domestic pets deserve the highest place on the agenda for improvement and change. They give love and friendship to so many. They serve disabled people with unstinting loyalty, giving them freedom to work and enjoy recreations that would otherwise be denied to them. As people live longer and need close companionship, our pets will become ever more important.
Many great men have recognised the significance of the bond between humankind and the animals we take into our homes. Dogs, cats and budgerigars vied for Winston Churchill’s considerable affections. Indeed, if he had had his way, pigs—whom he greatly admired—would also have been invited to join the Chartwell menagerie, within careful limits.
I personally know of no one to whom our domestic pets in general and cats in particular matter more than my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. Unfortunately, he is precluded from speaking in this debate by engagement elsewhere. I speak for him as well as myself. Years ago, during a general election campaign in the Thatcher era, my noble friend and I amused ourselves by drawing up a manifesto setting out the measures that would be needed to attract the support of animals if these dear creatures had the vote. What would have to be in such a manifesto today to get cats to put their cross against a Tory candidate? They would rightly look for stringent measures to keep dread diseases away from our shores. Enhanced border checks of cats and kittens are required, along with a central register of feline immigrants and tick and tapeworm treatment to prevent the import of foreign infections.
No less important to fluffy voters would be a crackdown on appalling breeding practices that bring to birth cats sentenced to a lifetime of pain by disfiguring features such as a flat face. It is time to stop the unregulated breeding of cats, which our country has hitherto permitted. The Government should back a public education campaign to highlight the sheer wickedness of insupportable breeding practices. Next, cats parted by misfortune from their owners would want to be reunited as quickly as possible with them. In microchipping, we have the answer to that devastating separation. It should be made compulsory. As for other menaces that cats want curbed, they would welcome the forthcoming consultation on air weapon licences and the prospect that fewer of their number will be peppered cruelly by shots fired by guns for which, at the moment, no licences are required in England.
The wise election candidate in search of votes from domestic animals would give strong backing to a revision of the pet travel scheme, known generally as the pet passport. It has many benefits, but dogs as well as cats need action to deal with the sharp rise in the number of very young, badly abused immigrants. Many puppies arrive in Britain unvaccinated, having travelled in appalling conditions, to be sold online. Investigations over the years by the Dogs Trust have shown how puppies, sometimes under the age of 15 weeks, are often sedated to smuggle them across borders and how data on passports is falsified. The abuse of the pet passport must be tackled urgently, with tough new penalties on illegal trading. Too many of these poor creatures are sold from puppy farms here in the UK via normal-looking homes which are, in fact, just a shopfront for unscrupulous puppy-dealing rings. Young canine voters would welcome what has already been done to crack down on irresponsible advertising in this area but would want more to be done to educate their potential owners, especially at this time of year, about the dangers—and to get potential owners to ensure that they are buying a healthy, happy and vaccinated puppy from a responsible breeder.
Some 17 million cats and dogs in every part of our country bring joy to nearly half of all households. The vast majority of them are loved and cared for by responsible owners, but there are some whose start in life is cruel, who become stray or abandoned, and who are mistreated or injured. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend, who I know is a champion of their interests, what the Government are doing to improve their welfare. I hope that I have almost persuaded noble Lords that our much-loved, sentient pets should be given the vote.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his introduction to this debate, and for securing it. I welcomed his emphasis on matters of soil. I think that the only thing that he did not mention was the lack of soil scientists. For years, academics have not really pursued soil science, and it has really been lacking in graduates, postgraduates and professors. Could the Minister comment on that? The noble Earl mentioned private gardens. The other thing that he needs to bear in mind is what an enemy neatness is to all sorts of biodiversity and wildlife. There is nowhere for a hedgehog to shelter; a thrush cannot get a worm out of Astroturf. The obsession with neatness needs to come to an end, if we are to have any sort of wildlife in our gardens.
I do not intend to say anything more about animal sentience today, other than to ask the Minister whether he feels, having heard the sentiments around the Chamber, that the Government are storing up trouble for themselves by resisting including the concept of animal sentience in the withdrawal Bill. Is it a technical resistance, or do they think that it will have negative implications in the event of a trade deal with countries with low-welfare regimes? Surely it cannot be that the Conservative Government are still keeping one eye on a hunting Bill.
I very much like the idea of a manifesto for animals, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. He mentioned pet passports several times, and I would add to the list the fact that the Government have not resolved the issue of the pet passport yet. I am sure that all his animal voters will worry considerably that they will spend six months in quarantine in future if the matter is not resolved. Indeed, during our debate on animal welfare, the Minister was kind enough to say that it was very much work in hand. Does he have any updates to add to that?
On the natural environment, we tend to mark the turning of the seasons very much by birds—the first day of spring is the cuckoo; one swallow does not a summer make; and fieldfares for autumn. I join other noble Lords in mentioning that the most recent The State of the UK’s Birds showed terrible declines; migratory and farmland species are still under particular pressures. I hope that, despite our possible withdrawal from the EU, we will continue to be a very active member of the convention on migratory species. The UK is a signatory in its own right, as well as with the EU. Of the migratory birds that come to our shores, coastal shore birds are some of the most threatened. We must ensure that we continue to play our part in protecting their habitats. The birds and habitats directive has played a crucial role till now; we would have had even steeper declines if we had not had that. How will that be replaced? What sort of legal protection will there be for these essential feeding and breeding grounds?
I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—and it seemed to me that it was a bit of a counsel of despair. He seemed to say that, particularly for larger farmers, it was really unrealistic to imagine that we could have much of a change and that those of us who look forward to a big change in the way that our land is used are living in la-la land.
I wish that the noble Lord had attended with me a very interesting seminar that was run this morning by the National Trust and Green Alliance with farmers. Together, they have done a tranche of very interesting work into payments for ecosystems services, especially soil and water, and how those payments could be a powerful tool to improve the environmental performance of farming. Of course this is not an original idea but what was interesting is the depth of the studies that they have done with farmers, water companies and the private sector. It involves several shifts—not drastic, radical ones—in farming methods, with increased use of cover crops, reduced application of nitrate fertilisers and a spring wheat, winter barley regime. All those put together can have a dramatic outcome in reduced costs for water companies, and so for consumers; in cleaning out nitrates from drinking water; in increased profits for farmers; in greater resilience in the supply chain, and in an improved environmental footprint for food companies. I hope the Minister will be able to look at the ideas which the National Trust and Green Alliance have laid out in their publication on protecting our assets and be able to work with them to take this further.
Another great example of a shift in thinking which has resulted in multiple benefits comes from the group of farmers who set up the pasture-fed livestock initiative. It seems such an obvious idea for an island that is ideally suited to growing grass, and it was for those farmers themselves. Livestock forage on grass. Oddly, very few animals are fed on pasture alone these days. Cereals and soya produce fatter animals faster, but with a much higher carbon footprint of course, and an undoubted loss of flavour and texture. The fact that Welsh lamb is so prized is due to its still ranging extensively on a rich mixture of grasses and herbs—unlike the bland meat that you can get from grain-fed sheep, which just does not compare. The same goes for beef.
There are also really good welfare reasons why this regime scores so highly. One example is poultry kept under trees. Farmers Weekly did a study last year and found that, as opposed to poultry kept in a bare field, those kept under trees had improved ranging, less injurious feather-pecking incidents and fewer egg seconds. So there were welfare and economic benefits. The environmentally best systems are providing better produce, better welfare and lower carbon footprints. Consumers would really like to search them out but the trouble is that they have been let down by the failure of successive Governments to get behind labelling schemes that make absolutely clear what the production methods involved are. If we exit the EU, the Government must urgently get behind an effort to label British produce accurately and properly according to its production method.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, the natural environment is one of the most precious things that we can claim custody of, and passing it on to our descendants in good shape ought to be a top priority of any Government. In many ways, I am disappointed that being seen as responsible stewards of the environment is something that the left monopolises. There is nothing more authentically conservative than wanting to pass on what we were given in better shape than we found it.
To this end, I am delighted with the actions of the current Secretary of State. I do not recall seeing such a flurry of new policy in his brief since my party entered power, and I wholeheartedly support his initiatives. Some of them are certainly long overdue, such as the issue of putting CCTV in slaughterhouses. It is worth putting in a word about the story published some weeks ago about the Government allegedly rejecting animal sentience. It was, frankly, untrue. The MPs who voted against transcribing an EU measure into British law were not voting against animal sentience, which involves an obligation already recognised. The rapid spread of that false information—according to some estimates, it was viewed by 2 million people—is very concerning. I fear that the damage may already have been done, which is a shame. Thankfully, the other place will, I hope, soon pass some new animal welfare policies which I think could allay people’s fears.
I turn to a long-standing strategy laid out for our marine environment. The establishment of marine protected areas around our overseas territories has been an incredible success and a real achievement of this Government. Protecting 4 million square kilometres of ocean is a legacy for us all to be proud of, but there is more to do.
The most recent Environmental Audit Committee report on marine territories warned:
“British seabirds off the Chagos Islands are better protected than they would be flying off Cornwall”.
The 2015 manifesto committed to completing a network of marine conservation zones all around the UK, but not all the recommended sites have been designated. When will this work be finished and in place?
We should also discuss the Brexit dividend that can be realised by good policy. To make the best use of our many powers, Ministers will have to be proactive in probing each new responsibility, and I think Defra will have the most of any department.
As regards farming, the chance for a full overhaul of the common agricultural policy is a golden opportunity to realise some benefits and orient our subsidies towards paying for sustainability, not landholding. The most frustrating aspect of a policy essentially designed to subsidise continental farming has been the relentless grinding down of smaller, sustainable farming in favour of larger and more commercial landholdings.
We will, of course, need to subsidise farmers after Brexit to maintain our food security. As my noble friend Lord Cameron reminded us last month, we are only ever nine meals away from anarchy, but we ought to pay based on responsible land management. Too many large farmers treat their lands as private goods. In reality, they ought to have to work to justify the sums paid out, and they can do that by providing a public service.
In conclusion, I would like to ask my noble friend: when will a comprehensive plan be laid out for the Government’s new agricultural subsidy policy post Brexit?
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House that I was a minute or two late for the start of this debate due to circumstances beyond my control.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for obtaining this debate. I should like to devote my remarks to trees and woodland. The natural world naturally wants to grow, reproduce and expand. It is, of course, affected and restricted by climate, disease and natural competitors, but its greatest enemy by far is man—us.
The 25-year plan, when it is finally produced, will no doubt produce some excellent guidance, but we already have a plethora of reports and policy statements from various organisations. What really matters is what we do on a daily basis. The word “improve” in the title of this debate sounds very positive, but in this modern world it is not so much what you do that matters; it is what you do not do.
If you care for the environment, you do not build HS2, a high-speed railway, right through the heart of a relatively small country with an existing rail network. It is hugely expensive and increasingly discredited and opposed. For the next 16 years, throughout any plan that is produced, HS2 will be gobbling and trampling its way through our countryside, removing trees, and damaging and destroying 98 irreplaceable ancient woodlands. It will be a constant reminder of a massive blunder made by government. It is truly an infrastructural albatross.
Trees should never be felled without good reason. At the moment, more than 50 horse chestnuts on Tooting Common and more than 70 lime trees in Sheffield are being felled without any reasonable justification. Not only is this a worry, but it highlights the lack of power of tree officers in local authorities. I am convinced that to properly protect our trees, particularly in urban areas, the role of the arboricultural officer in local authorities should be enhanced and respected.
Whenever we plant trees, it is essential to make adequate financial provision for maintaining them. The Government’s excellent pledge to plant 11 million trees in the course of this Parliament is very welcome, but unless they are properly looked after, many will die and both time and money will have been wasted. Planning permission should never be granted unless tree planting and landscaping have been included in the scheme and—just as importantly—guarantees are given that they will actually be carried out.
We must place the highest possible priority on the protection of our ancient woodlands and the expansion of woodlands in general. The Woodland Trust’s latest briefing makes depressing reading. It says that the rate at which new woodland is created is “at an all-time low” and that we are probably entering a state of deforestation. This must not be allowed to happen.
Every local authority ought to map its ancient woodlands and maintain a register of them. This would greatly simplify their identification and protection when planning proposals are made. In terms of planning, I understand that some 709 woodlands are currently at risk. As far as our ancient woodlands are concerned, we need to change the wording in the planning guidance to say that loss or destruction of ancient woodlands becomes—and these are the crucial words—“wholly exceptional”, thereby putting them on a par with our built heritage. Perhaps the Minister, who I am sure will agree with this, will comment on it when he comes to wind up or later on.
Finally, and perhaps most urgently, we need to improve our biosecurity. We have had Dutch elm disease and, more recently, ash dieback. There are many other very nasty diseases, any of which could be devastating to our native trees, just waiting to take advantage of any gaps in our system of importing and transporting trees. Speaking at a symposium on biosecurity recently, the chief plant health officer, Dr Nicola Spence, said her top pest and disease concerns currently were xylella, plane wilt, longhorn beetles, pine processionary moth, emerald ash borer and the birch bark borer. That is quite a list. Of these, she said that she was very, very concerned about xylella. This is a disease of olives and other plants. It is difficult to detect, although we have developed good skills for doing that, which others should copy. Importantly, she said:
“It is crazy moving high-risk hosts unchecked”.
We must look at this whole area afresh and urgently in the light of Brexit and tighten our rules. Other countries are not as careful as we are, and we must take advantage of being an island. We need more awareness and more restrictions on imports, and possibly bans in some areas. Perhaps a quarantine system should be considered. We should grow much more of the trees we need. Public awareness is vital in spotting disease, and I urge the Minister to ensure that his civil servants keep excellent lines of communication open with the Arboricultural Association, whose members, I suspect, will be the first to detect any problems.
Many nurseries and landscape and garden designers, aware of these dangers, are already deciding to limit or stop the importing of trees. They are now awaiting a lead from government, and will be interested in the Minister’s response. The Woodland Trust, the Arboricultural Association and the Forestry Commission have produced position statements on biosecurity, supported by Defra and the industry as a whole. I will leave the last word to the Woodland Trust, which says in its policy statement:
“It is far more practical, cost effective and beneficial to the environment to prevent a pest or disease epidemic than deal with the consequences of an outbreak”.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I will speak briefly in the gap. I had not put my name down because I did not think that I would make it to the start of the debate, but as it happens I just made it. I will speak briefly and will confine myself to one point; I promise not to be what my noble friend Lord Framlingham might call a Back-Bench borer.
My point is simply to say that we must not on this issue sound like what Spiro Agnew called the “nattering nabobs of negativism”. We have heard negative things about the environment throughout this afternoon, and all too often this is how we talk about the environment, in terms of things getting worse. While there is a lot wrong with the environmental condition of the planet and the country, some things are going in the right direction, and we should build our policy on the successes there have been.
When I was a child, the River Tyne had no salmon in it or otters or ospreys, but now it has all three. That is a dramatic improvement that I have seen in my lifetime. I now farm my own farm in such a way that tree sparrows have come back. I have planted the largest wildflower meadow in the north of England, which I am proud of; it is absolutely buzzing with bees and other things. We also have hares and curlews breeding again. So you can improve the environment while farming—not profitably, in my case, but at least not with significant losses.
I spent a glorious couple of dawns this spring in Weardale watching the lekking display of the blackcock. If none of your Lordships have seen this, it is our British bird of paradise. These males gather together and do sex and violence for about three hours in the dawn light. The place I went to had five males 10 years ago; it now has over 100. The noise of the curlews calling was continuous—there was literally not a moment during those dawns when you could not hear a curlew in the background. That is largely because of gamekeepers in that area. My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned Allerton, where the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust is showing that profitable farming can live alongside great conservation and great improvement in soil quality. I was taken there recently by Alastair Leake of the trust in Loddington, who dug his spade into the ground and showed me how deep the worms go there because of low-till or min-till agriculture.
My noble friend mentioned South Georgia; I was lucky enough to go there last year and it is a paradise of wildlife: there are unbelievable numbers of king penguins, fur seals, elephant seals, albatrosses and petrels. But it is not a pristine wilderness—it is a restored masterpiece. A hundred years ago there were no fur seals, almost no elephant seals, hardly any king penguins and no whales—we saw right whales and humpback whales around the coast. Why? Because we used those things as a renewable energy resource. That is what we were doing to that ecosystem. We have now restored it, so it can be done.
We should remember to build our policy on the environment on the success stories of how we have solved these problems rather than simply continue to talk about them as if they were insoluble and as if there was nothing we can do.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for securing this debate. We have heard some deeply thought-provoking speeches this afternoon—I particularly liked the one we just heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. There is much to celebrate and look forward to.
As the UK prepares to leave the EU, the welfare of animals is at a critical crossroads. Selecting the route ahead will determine the welfare of billions of animals. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to confirm or reject our country’s reputation as a global leader in animal welfare science and standards.
I welcome the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on microbeads. This is an essential step forward. Soil protection is equally important, as is changing the culture of farming. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in asking when exactly the 25-year plan will be published.
I shall concentrate my speech largely on two animal welfare issues. I acknowledge that the Government have accepted the arguments made on both sides of the House and by animal charities for increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty offences from six months’ to five years’ imprisonment. This is a great step forward. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on imported pets. As we approach Christmas, many parents will be tempted to buy their children a puppy as a present. It is important to have a proper licensing regime for pedigree dog breeding so that those who fully embrace the care and quality of their dogs and puppies are not tainted by those who smuggle in puppies from abroad. Owners need to know that their puppy has been well cared for and is not unwell. Owners can find that their dog does not thrive. They end up spending many hundreds of pounds on veterinary bills because the dog has had a very bad start in life.
The number of illegally imported puppies has been rising year on year. In 2014, officials found 208 “illegally landed” dogs, and that number rose to 688 in 2016. If there were a proper licensing system for pedigree dog breeders, owners would have confidence that the licence number of the breeder they were obtaining their puppy from would provide some security regarding the dog’s welfare.
The health and well-being of illegally imported animals cannot be guaranteed, and charities have suggested that many may have been bred in horrendous conditions. Liberal Democrats are concerned about the possible implications for animal welfare in the UK as a result of the Brexit vote. Approximately 80% of our animal welfare rules are part of European law. EU laws cover issues such as farm animal transportation standards, animal slaughter standards, consumer information laws, a ban on cosmetic testing on animals, and so on. They are all issues of great importance, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The task of transferring EU laws on agriculture, the environment and animal welfare into UK law is enormous, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already told us. We know little about the new environmental standards body, which, again, has already been referred to. Can the Minister give us some more information on that body?
I now turn to the issue of battery-raised hens. I am indebted to Compassion in World Farming for its extensive briefing on a number of issues. Barren battery cages for laying hens have been prohibited in the UK since 2012, but the use of enriched cages is permitted. As we have heard, all major UK supermarkets have either stopped selling enriched-cage eggs or have pledged to do so by 2025. Unfortunately, the Chief Veterinary Officer has recently been reported in the press as supporting the use of enriched cages. He is quoted as saying that colony—that is, enriched—cages,
“have a lot going for them and there is good evidence that that’s the case”,
and as describing the move away from enriched cages by UK supermarkets as “regrettable”.
The Chief Veterinary Officer’s position is in marked contrast to that of Germany and Austria. Germany is banning enriched cages with effect from 2025, with certain exceptions allowing the use of these cages until 2028. Austria is banning enriched cages from 2020. It would be extremely unfortunate if the UK moved in the opposite direction by suggesting that these cages can provide acceptable welfare outcomes. Enriched cages fail properly to meet hens’ needs. The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that due to the limited space in enriched cages, the limited height imposes severe restrictions on the birds as they are unable to perch.
The Chief Veterinary Officer also argues that confining hens indoors in cages has advantages in protecting them from bird flu. That presupposes that bird flu is mainly spread by wild birds, but a 2016 statement by the Scientific Task Force on Avian Influenza and Wild Birds stressed:
“Typically, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks are associated with intensive domestic poultry production”.
It is recognised that in some cases free-range hens are best brought indoors until an outbreak of bird flu has ended. However, that is very different from saying that, to combat bird flu, it may be better for hens to be indoors throughout their lives in enriched cages. From a welfare point of view, it is preferable to keep birds outdoors and to bring them indoors for limited periods when strictly necessary. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response on that issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, made a valid contribution on the transporting of live animals to the continent for slaughter, to which other noble Lords also referred. In this day and age, it is totally unacceptable and unnecessary. It is time that this problem was tackled. As an asthmatic, I can identify with the comments and contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton. Air pollution is on the increase and needs effective and realistic legislation to bring it under control. I agreed with almost all the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. It was extremely valuable. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I also attended the debate this morning run by the National Trust and the Green Alliance, and can confirm that the issue of water management has to move up the agenda and become much more important.
The needs of small farmers must not be ignored or overridden by the large conglomerates and massive landowners, and I agree with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, about large landowners. Both are important for our country’s food production and land management, but I fear that the small farmer’s voice may be lost in the clamour. I look to the Minister to reassure us that small farmers will not be overlooked.
The opportunity that presents itself to abolish the CAP is unique and tremendous. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about unrealistic expectations on the part of many organisations involved in the multitude of threads of prospective legislative change. I am much more optimistic that those organisations will have a positive impact on the negotiations. If we are all committed to a better deal for farmers and others involved in land management, we can reach a win-win outcome for the majority, but it will take a long time. There is a need to acknowledge the different views of everyone involved and to make sure that their voices are heard.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for tabling the debate today and giving us an opportunity to shine a light on the Government’s announcements on animal welfare and the environment. I can see why the Government are suddenly keen to talk up the recent promises of the Secretary of State. Since his somewhat surprising appointment to the Defra role, he has clearly been on a charm offensive, which it would be churlish to criticise. Of course, we welcome many of the new commitments as far as they go. Clearly we would, because Labour’s policies have been consistently strong on animal welfare and environmental protection over the years.
Our recent manifesto set out ambitious plans to tackle climate change, create sustainable living, promote biodiversity and clean up our air and water, which indeed proved very popular with voters. Our manifesto also contained specific proposals to increase sentences for animal cruelty, prohibit third-party sales of puppies, enforce the ban on ivory trading, cease the current badger cull and ban the use of wild animals in circuses. It also made it clear that we would maintain the ban on fox hunting, deer hunting and hare-coursing which was of course originally introduced by a Labour Government.
Compare that with the Conservative manifesto, whose most memorable animal welfare policy was to seek to reintroduce hunting with hounds. According to the Times, this was insisted on by the Prime Minister against the advice of her then Secretary of State. Once again it demonstrated the Prime Minister’s lack of political judgment as it proved to be a toxic policy on the doorstep for the Tories and swung a considerable number of votes towards Labour. However, it remains Tory policy which could be enacted at any time, and I am sure that many on the Benches opposite, including perhaps the Minister himself, would welcome a vote to overturn Labour’s hunting ban. In his response, can the Minister update the House on the status of this policy and whether a new vote on the hunting ban is being actively considered either in this parliamentary Session or another?
Clearly the Secretary of State has learned some lessons from the Tories’ disastrous election campaign. He is a new convert to the environmental cause, but we welcome all repenting sinners. He has spoken some fine words and issued an impressive array of press releases promising reform, but it is on his actions, and those of the Government, that he will be judged. None of his announcements so far will become real unless it is backed by legislation, but few of them are in Bills scheduled for consideration in the Queen’s Speech. That does not make it impossible, but more of an uphill struggle to create parliamentary time for new legislation on issues which may not be everyone’s priority.
For example, there has been some talk of an animal welfare Bill, and we would welcome such an initiative if it was designed to deliver the assortment of animal welfare improvements mentioned. Can the Minister say whether such a Bill is now being considered and what the timescale might be? Does Defra realistically have the resources to prepare such a Bill, given the huge cuts in staffing the department has already suffered and the fact that a fisheries Bill and an agriculture Bill are expected early next year, as well of course as all the ongoing Brexit preparations? I raise these concerns because the Government have form on making promises on animal welfare issues which never materialise in practice. We have been waiting for a piece of legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses for some years now, but somehow it always ends up pushed back to the bottom of the pile.
The EU withdrawal Bill provides a huge opportunity to set the scene for the Government’s approach to the environment and animal welfare in the future. We will have an opportunity to discuss this is detail in the new year and obviously I look forward to that. But in the meantime we can learn a lot from the progress of the Bill in the Commons. The Government voted against amendments to ensure that EU-derived environmental protections could be altered only via primary legislation, thus protecting them from being watered down by Ministers through secondary legislation. They failed to support an amendment enshrining the right of animals to be treated as sentient beings. The Secretary of State has since suggested that the Bill is not the right legislative vehicle for bringing Article 13 into UK law, but like many other noble Lords we profoundly disagree with this analysis. As my noble friend Lord Whitty pointed out, the Government voted against amendments to ensure that the precautionary principle, which is vital to food standards and public health, and the polluter pays principle, which ensures that large industries pay for their environmental impact, continue to apply after Brexit day. While clearly there is still some way to go with the Bill, all this does not feel like a Government committed to maintaining and enhancing environmental standards.
In contrast, we have set out a clear set of objectives to protect the environment post Brexit. We have worked with stakeholders and a wide range of charities to firm up our proposals. For example, our amendments would ensure that we continue to participate in key EU regulatory and research agencies that benefit our environmental work. They would ensure that all the animal welfare standards enshrined in Article 13 of the treaty are maintained. They would require that the new body to deliver environmental standards has teeth to properly hold government to account, give citizens access to legal redress and fine those who breach the regulations. They would ensure that the UK maintains international air quality standards with the recourse to court should UK air quality break the rules. They would require us to continue to collaborate fully with the respected EU scientific and research institutions. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt that we need to assess whether our institutions continue to be fit for purpose in facing modern scientific challenges. I could go on, but these are the kind of measures that we would expect the Government to pursue if we were serious about improving the natural environment, post Brexit.
I agree with other noble Lords that whatever the good intent of the Defra Ministers, there is a real fear that they will be overridden by more powerful Ministers and departments in the coming months. Animal welfare standards will inevitably be caught up in the Brexit trade negotiations. We have already seen the differences among Ministers exposed on issues such as chlorinated chicken—of course, it goes much wider than that. No one wants to reduce animal welfare standards on our food or the food that we import, but there will be huge pressures on our Trade Ministers and the outcomes of that are not yet clear. Michael Gove has made it clear that he will not tolerate a reduction in standards. Of course, we welcome that—but hands up all those who think that he will still be the Defra Secretary of State in 12 months’ time? As I look around the House, I do not see many volunteers. As we already know, the Prime Minister does not share his enthusiasm for the environment.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, we all saw the press reports that Gavin Barwell at No. 10 has instructed MPs to appear more caring by talking up the environment. Unlike these latecomers, we have a track record on the environment of which we are proud, as well as huge ambitions for a sustainable economy and environment in the future. That will include a focus on repairing the rural economy, investing in rural science, creating green jobs and truly cherishing our scarce resources. It will include a modern approach to animal welfare, to embed high standards and drive out cruelty and exploitation. It will be led from the top and require all government departments to play their part; it will not rely on the energy of one Minister in one small department. Ultimately, that is why people who care about the environment and animal welfare will vote for a party with a consistent record and a coherent plan for a sustainable future—a party, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, with a chance of being elected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for securing the debate on the Government’s plans to improve the natural environment and animal welfare. I declare my own farming interests, as a set out in the register.
As the Secretary of State made clear in his speech at the WWF Living Planet Centre, protecting and enhancing the environment is essential, not only because the natural environment underpins our well-being and prosperity but because we have a moral obligation to do so. I agree with the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Suri: this is a contemporary view, as well as a highly traditional one that my party has held for generations. That is why the Government have an ambitious vision to enhance the environment within a generation. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, when he spoke of the engagement of the next generation. We have a responsibility because of the next generation, but we also want to ensure that they feel as strongly about this crucial matter as I believe all of your Lordships do. Before noble Lords start to say that we do not, we also have some of the most robust animal welfare legislation in the world, about which my noble friend Lord Blencathra spoke.
I sometimes think I am in a different country from some noble Lords opposite, who seem determined to think this country is so appalling. We live in the best country in the world. Perhaps it is why we are in government and the noble Baroness’s party is not. We have already announced a series of measures to strengthen our current standards.
I am sure your Lordships are eager to see the 25-year environment plan. So am I. However, given last year’s referendum result, we have taken further time as we shape our environmental policy for the next generation. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is important that we publish soon; that is why we hope to publish early in the new year. In response to my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we will consult as widely as possible on the nature of a new independent statutory body to hold the Government and, potentially, public authorities to account on environmental commitments.
We are also proposing a new policy statement on environmental principles to apply post EU exit. These principles, which underpin EU legislation, are already central to government environmental policy. It depends where we pitch on this issue as to whether we are a pessimist on optimist. I hope the pessimism—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, used that word—will be allayed because it is important to us all that we succeed.
We want to enhance our natural environment to secure the benefits it provides through cleaner air and water, beautiful landscapes to explore, protection from flooding, and high-quality sustainable food and fisheries. We must ensure that the environment is resilient to the impacts of climate change. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, yes, be idealistic, but it is imperative too that we address these things. I do not think it is just idealism; it is vital that we address these matters.
As we shape our farming policy we must enhance soil productivity, health and resilience, which my noble friend Lord Caithness emphasised. He also spoke about the Allerton Project, which I endorse. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I was hugely impressed, having been there, with the science going on at Harper Adams University. We are very fortunate to have world leaders in this area. We will develop new strategies for the cost-effective monitoring of soil health as part of a broader need to improve the quality and productivity of our food system. Our 2013 agritech strategy brings together researchers and agrifood supply businesses through our centres of excellence to work on the products and systems of the future.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the Government remain of the view that decisions on the use of pesticides should be based on careful scientific assessment of the risk, with the aim of achieving a high level of protection for people and the environment. One of the points of my visit to Harper Adams was that there can be much greater precision with agritech. Use of pesticides there is much reduced, but we are also ensuring good food supply.
The 25-year environment plan will ensure that we use the natural capital approach, something I think my noble friend Lord Caithness is eager to establish. It considers the benefits the environment provides. It will help us to reform support for agriculture and to improve fisheries policy. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is right to refer to the importance of the agrifood sector: it is the backbone of the countryside and rural communities. With 70% of the land in our country farmed, we must and will work closely with farmers and landowners to secure a vibrant farming sector, with a complementary aim of enhancing the environment.
I believe we are making progress, as I hope your Lordships will agree. I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to some of that progress. Our proposed ban on microbeads has been welcomed by your Lordships, but I am encouraged that Greenpeace says it will be the strongest in the world. The legislation on microbeads has been laid and will come into force with a ban on manufacture in January 2018 and a ban on sale from June 2018. We have also engaged the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee to review evidence on microplastics in other products causing harm to marine life. We are proud to be taking an ambitious stance on tackling single-use plastics, so much referred to by your Lordships. Britain will lead the way by looking to tax and charge the most environmentally damaging single-use plastics. Alongside tackling ocean plastics, the Government have designated more than 23% of UK waters as marine protected areas, as my noble friend Lord Suri mentioned.
We continue to demonstrate our commitment to sustainable fishing, and implementing the discard ban plays a crucial role in helping the UK to achieve sustainable fishing levels by 2020. UK fishermen have played an important role in the recovery of North Sea cod, which is another of example of how, if we do the right thing, recovery is possible. We look forward to North Sea marine annual planning delivering further benefits to the sustainable management of fish stocks. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to the Arctic fishing ban. An agreement was reached earlier this month to prevent unregulated fisheries developing in the central Arctic Ocean and has been welcomed by Governments and environmental NGOs.
Recently, we also launched a consultation on proposals to introduce a total ban on UK ivory sales, putting us at the heart of global efforts to address the drastic and terrible decline in elephant populations.
The past decade has seen a step change in how the UK responds to invasive non-native species. We now have a co-ordinating secretariat leading the awareness-raising campaign, Check, Clean, Dry, aimed at encouraging anglers and boaters to reduce the risk of moving invasive species between waterways. Our efforts to prioritise species and bring forward action plans were tested recently when one of our top threats, the Asian hornet, was found. My department had a team on the ground within 48 hours and had successfully eliminated this specific threat within 10 days.
Plant pests and diseases threaten our natural environment as well as the UK’s timber, horticultural and tourism industries. We are committed to protecting our borders from pests and diseases and building the resilience of our trees and plants. My noble friend Lord Framlingham spoke powerfully about the essential role that trees fulfil in the natural environment. The Conservative manifesto pledged 1 million trees in urban areas. Nothing could be more important to us in urban areas than trees, not only for their assistance with pollution but because of their beauty. We also pledged 11 million trees across the nation. From 2012 to 2019, we will have invested more than £37 million in tree health research. Our long-term national strategy to manage ash dieback is based on science, international best practice and advice from the UK Chief Plant Health Officer. We provide leadership, but the active support of communities and people is essential. We will enhance biosecurity by supporting Grown in Britain. From my meetings with many in the horticultural world, I know that there is much greater engagement with and understanding of the importance of biosecurity.
We also have responsibility to tackle invasive species in the UK Overseas Territories. We supported the South Georgia Heritage Trust, which, remarkably, eradicated rats from the island by 2015. The endangered South Georgia pipits are now returning in considerable numbers. I hope that a similar approach on Gough Island for Tristan albatross and Gough bunting will be successful. This has been successful only with predator control. My noble friend Lord Ridley highlighted some of the successful domestic advances, as well as those in South Georgia, and we should learn from those.
The Government recently published the Clean Growth Strategy, setting out how the UK is leading the world in cutting carbon emissions to combat climate change while driving economic growth. I am very pleased that the recently announced planting of 600,000 trees in Northumberland and 200,000 trees in the Lake District will not only help store carbon and manage flood risk but generate jobs and boost the local economy.
The UK has ambitious targets in place to reduce emissions of damaging air pollutants by 2020 and 2030. We aim to cut early deaths from air pollution, an issue which I know has exercised your Lordships. At one point it was suggested that air pollution is increasing. I will look into this, but my memory of all the statistics is that since 1970 we have been very successful in reducing the five key pollutants beyond nitrogen dioxide, which remains a considerable concern. However, nitrogen oxide emissions fell by almost 20% between 2010 and 2015, for instance. Indeed, let us not forget why NO2 now has to be addressed.
We are tackling the impacts of climate change by ensuring adaptation is rightly integrated across the policies and programmes of the Government. This involves the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission on the resilience of our biosecurity and ecosystems, as well as on flood risk management and many other aspects. But this is not just for central government; we will need to engage the support, leadership and commitment of local government, businesses and communities if we are to achieve our aims.
I turn to the important issue of animal welfare. We will not only maintain but, where possible, seek to improve high animal welfare and health standards. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides the country with robust protection. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is pleased, as I am, that this was undertaken during her party’s tenure in government. I say to her and to my noble friend Lord Blencathra that my Secretary of State has been clear that we need to ensure that we do not compromise our high environmental and animal welfare standards in pursuit of any trade deal.
I am pleased to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, about so many of our proposals on these matters. We know that the Secretary of State recently announced that we will shortly publish draft legislation for comments to increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years in prison. We will also tighten the rules regarding dog breeding, pet shops, animal boarding, performing animals and riding stables. Irresponsible dog breeders and dealers who exploit this trade must be stopped. We will introduce new regulations on the welfare of dogs in dog-breeding establishments. More dog breeders will require a licence to operate. Statutory minimum welfare standards will be applied to licensed breeders, which will be enforced by local authority inspectors.
It will be made clear that any business selling pet animals online will also need to be licensed. We will continue to work closely with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group—I met it last week—on minimum standards for online pet sellers. We will raise minimum welfare standards across all licensed establishments and have been working with local authorities to ensure that inspectors receive the right training to enforce effectively the new regulations.
My noble friend Lord Lexden raised the issue of irresponsible breeding. We have had an Oral Question about this, but I say again that the breeding of animals with defects is irresponsible, and we will seek ways in which we can counter it. I am working closely with the Kennel Club and the breeds societies on this because it needs to be addressed. My noble friend mentioned flat-faced cats, but there are many dog breeds as well.
Turning to the import of puppies, we are determined to crack down on animal traffickers and put a stop to the abhorrent illegal trade in puppies, and abuses of the pet travel scheme. Enforcement teams at our ports work in partnership to identify and seize dogs and puppies which are not compliant with the relevant controls. I meet the Dogs Trust regularly—I did so again earlier this week—and I endorse its work. We are working in collaboration with it. With its support, I put out a press release in my name earlier this week on the importance, particularly at this time of Christmas, of parents and families considering very carefully where to buy their puppy, the hierarchy of rehoming centres and the importance of seeing the mother with the puppy and of preferably buying from a Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme breeder. We are working very strongly on that.
In addition, we have been working on modernising welfare codes on cats, dogs and horses. The codes will be laid before Parliament shortly. I take this opportunity to thank stakeholders groups who have helped us for their work.
I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Lexden said about the bond between mankind and animals, and I know my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood would say the same thing. It is part of our ethos in this country.
We are delivering on our manifesto commitment to require CCTV in every slaughterhouse in England and have recently concluded a public consultation on this issue. We have a manifesto commitment that, as we leave the EU, we can take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter.
In the context of improving animal welfare at slaughter, my noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Blencathra raised religious slaughter. The Government have been clear that we prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. However, over many years Governments of various complexions have respected the right of Muslim and Jewish communities to slaughter animals for food in accordance with their religious beliefs. Leaving the EU may provide us with an opportunity to decide whether current labelling rules on welfare and other matters are best suited to UK consumers and businesses.
We are raising standards on farms by modernising the English statutory welfare codes, a move which has been welcomed by industry. The updated codes of practice will provide clear guidance to producers on how to comply with current legislation. We will also, of course, ensure our high animal welfare standards are underpinned by robust science and evidence. I endorse the work of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which my noble friend Lady Hodgson mentioned. This committee, comprising academics, producers and veterinarians, will scrutinise the updated farm welfare codes. We will continue to work closely with Defra’s delivery bodies, including the Animal and Plant Health Agency.
Many noble Lords raised animal sentience. I reassure noble Lords that this Government’s policies on animal welfare are driven by our recognition that animals are sentient beings. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State confirmed only this morning in the other place, we are committed to ensuring that we recognise the principle of animal sentience and to providing appropriate and strong protection in UK law. We will shortly be bringing forward a proposal about the appropriate legislative vehicle for that protection. I will ensure that my right honourable friend is made aware of noble Lords’ contributions. I think he will be pleased to receive them.
Our care for animals is now, and will be, second to none. Consumers at home and abroad will know that our food is produced to the very highest standards. We want to generate a thriving farming and fishing industry that delivers improved environmental and animal welfare standards and the best food in the world.
The noble Baroness mentioned hunting. I hope that, with all the things I have outlined, she will understand that we are very busy with other priorities.
It is our generation’s responsibility to address and rectify the actions previous generations sometimes unwittingly took which have caused such damage to our natural environment. The consequences of not addressing them are so grave that we must devote all our energies, both in this country and globally, to protect and enhance the environment for generations to come. I know all noble Lords have been watching “Blue Planet”. It is required viewing for all generations.
I share my noble friend Lord Caithness’s view that this is not solely the responsibility of government, although I take that responsibility; it is for each and every one of us to play our part.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the terms of my Motion made this a very wide debate. Early this morning, I had a 30-minute lecture to give your Lordships, and I am therefore extremely grateful to each and every noble Lord who took part in this debate and covered the points that I had to omit from my speech. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply, which he took at a good canter that we could all keep up with and not at a flat-out gallop.
One thing that I wanted to raise which must now be for another time was invasive non-native species. I mention that now because one of them, the grey squirrel, handicaps every forester’s desire for our broad-leaf woodland. Without control of the grey squirrel, we will not get the trees that we all want so much. As we all line up ready to sign my noble friend Lord Lexden’s cats manifesto, I hope that the cats in turn will sign up to a self-denying ordinance to stop killing 55 million songbirds every year.
The Government have to take action at the international, national, regional and local levels. This evening, we have seen those who see this as a gloomy challenge but also those who see it as an opportunity and are optimistic about the future. I sit firmly in the latter camp. We have all been gloomy in the past only to be proved wrong. I repeat what my noble friend the Minister said in ending his speech, that this is not just about government; it is up to each and every one of us to change our attitude to the environment. I beg to move.
Islam: Tenets
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, as part of their strategy against Islamist terrorism, they will encourage UK Muslim leaders to re-examine the Muslim tenets of abrogation, Taqiyya and Al Hijra and to publish their conclusions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, this Question is yet another attempt to start some sort of open discussion in this country about the nature of Islam. You can say what you like about the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but you get into serious trouble if you try to touch at all on the subject of Islam and what it really is. I repeat that I am in no sense an expert on Islam, but I am advised by four people who are.
I have been encouraged by what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in two speeches last autumn. He said that in order to defeat terrorism, we need to understand the mindset of those who perpetrate it; that if we treat religiously motivated violence solely as a security or political issue, it may prove impossible to overcome it; that it is wrong to say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam; and that until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religions, we will see no resolution. I make it clear that the most reverend Primate was speaking not only about the darkness which is erupting within Islam, but about the Christian militia in the Central Africa Republic and the Hindu treatment of Christians in south India. No doubt he would now add the Buddhist persecution of the Rohingya Muslims.
Before coming to the detail of this Question, I suppose I should repeat some of the absolute basics of the Muslim religion. Islam does not, as so often averred, mean peace; it means submission to the will of Allah, the Muslim God. Islam and its sharia law are an indivisible legal, religious and political system, taking all authority from the Koran and from what Muhammad did and said in his lifetime. So it is a complete way of life, and does not sit easily with our western liberal democracies and our separation of powers between legislature, Executive, judiciary and Church. Within this very broad generality there are a number of very controversial Muslim tenets, three of which I have put into the Question on the Order Paper, and two more of which I will mention. I very much hope that peaceful Muslim leaders do not accept any of them and that they will say so forcefully. The point is that the jihadists most definitely do accept them and take their evil inspiration from them.
The first is abrogation, which holds that the later verses in the Koran cancel the earlier peaceful verses—the verses of the sword cancel the verses of peace. So, for example, the much-quoted early verse, “Let there be no compulsion in religion”, is nullified many times in later verses. Taqiyya is more controversial but in its aggressive interpretation holds that Muslims living outside the Muslim world are encouraged to deceive their hosts in order to further Islam. A worrying example of Taqiyya took place on 18 September 2014, when 119 British imams and Muslim leaders wrote to the Independent newspaper to assure us that the beheading of the British aid worker David Haines,
“cannot be justified anywhere in the Quran”.
To back this up, they quoted from surah 5, verse 32 of the Koran as follows:
“Whosoever kills a human being ... it is as if killing the entire human race; and whosoever saves a life, saves the entire human race”.
The Taqiyya, or deception, becomes clear when you fill in the dots. The missing passage reads, “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land”. So the Koran actually says you can be killed for spreading mischief in the land, which to the jihadist is doing anything that frustrates his evil purpose.
My third tenet is Al Hijra, which is taken from Muhammad’s example after he had accepted his multifaith hosts’ hospitality in Medina for five years and had become strong enough to force them to choose between exile, converting to his new religion or death. He ordered the death of several hundred people and Islam went on to conquer most of the known world. One of our so-called Trojan horse schools in Birmingham is actually called the Al-Hijrah School, so the tenet is alive and well in the UK today.
The two other Muslim tenets that I want to mention and ask our Muslim leaders to address are, first, the ambition to create a world caliphate and, secondly, the death penalty for leaving the Muslim religion, or apostasy. As for the caliphate, I can do no better than recommend a courageous article in the Daily Telegraph on 19 August this year entitled:
“Don’t blame the West, the terror won’t stop until Muslims reject the caliphate”.
The point about that article is that it was written by Mr Ed Husain, who was a militant Muslim for five years, so he knows what he is talking about. I will put a copy in your Lordships’ Library.
Death for apostasy applies in 13 predominantly Muslim countries but not here, so I trust that our Muslim leaders will have no difficulty in declaring it to be un-Islamic. Who are the Muslim leaders who the Government should encourage to re-examine these tenets? There is no Pope in Islam and its many sects and divisions make it very difficult to deal with. Presumably we will not be consulting the 119 imams who wrote to the Independent. There was a group of 130 leading Muslims who issued an unprecedented statement through the Muslim Council of Britain, refusing to perform the funeral prayers for the three terrorist attackers at London Bridge last June who were shot dead after killing seven people and wounding 48 others. Perhaps the Government could try them or the Muslim Council of Britain itself. I am advised that the Union of Mosques and Imams should also be approached. However, I do not have much doubt that the Government will not accept my suggestion and that, if they do, our Muslim leaders will not collaborate. This would be a pity because, if these tenets stand as part of the Muslim religion, Islam cannot possibly be a religion of peace and we should not go on pretending and hoping that it is.
We should instead be taking some initiative now which will help to avoid the eventual Muslim takeover of our society, at least in our major Muslim conurbations. You have only to look at the Muslim birth rate to see that that is now a real possibility. The latest figures I have from the ONS show that the Muslim population in England rose 10 times faster between 2001 and 2016 than did the rest of the population, by 107% compared to 11%. In six of our top Muslim conurbations, it rose by an average of 130%, and 33% of our Muslims in England are under the age of 15, compared to 18% of the rest of us.
The Government continue to tolerate sharia law here, whereby a Muslim man can have four wives, each of whom he can divorce by merely saying “I divorce you” three times. Of course, the Muslim wives cannot do the same.
Written Answers from the Government reveal that they do not have a clue what is being preached in sermons in our mosques or what is being taught in our madrassahs, or Muslim schools. What is more, they do not intend to try to find out.
Whenever some of us try to raise the issue of Islam, we are told that it is we who are undermining the Prevent programme or interfaith dialogue—dialogue with what faith?—even that we are spreading hate towards the Muslims and making them feel insecure. Speaking of the Prevent programme, it seems to me that our Muslim communities could be doing more to stand up to and expose their violent co-religionists, because only 8.6% of tip-offs to the programme or the police come from within those communities. If they co-operated more, they would be less distrusted by their non-Muslim neighbours.
In conclusion, as a leading Muslim said to a friend of mine recently: “We do not need to go on blowing you up. All we have to do is to wait until we can take you over through the power of the womb and the ballot box”. I hope he was not right.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who are here to speak. At least we are talking about Islam. That seems to be a step in the right direction and I look forward to all other contributions, however much some contributors may disagree with what I have said.
Lord Patten (Con)
The noble Lord’s exegesis on Islamic theology was concerning and, in one or two parts, I think confusing. I do not criticise him for that because I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher. I therefore cannot judge how much scholarly water some of his assertions hold, but I must say that I have previously reflected whether it might be a good thing if many of our government ministries had a moral philosopher or two on their staff to advise Ministers about the rectitude of the course that they were about to enter into.
I do know that there is no text in the great books of the three Abrahamic religions that directly promotes or sanctions terrorism. While the record shows that Judaism has been pretty restrained over the millennia in the matter of religious violence within or without its communities, alas, one cannot say the same about the Christian religion in England—Catholics and Protestants in particular were going at each other for hundreds of years, busily burning and then, to make a change of pace, disembowelling each other in the interests of religion. I am extremely sorry that that ever happened.
Right reverend Prelates are extremely busy doing stuff in their dioceses, but it is a pity that we do not have a right reverend Prelate on their Bench to listen to what is going on this afternoon. Perhaps the most reverent Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and his brother of York might look at this issue, because we really need their wisdom here. In exactly the same way—there are not so many formal Jewish rabbis in this place—it would have been good to have a noble Lord, Lord Sacks, as it were, to give his views.
Mercifully, the bad habits of the Catholics—and I happen to be one of those; that is a declaration of interest and complete transparency—and Protestants in dealing with each other was dropped a few centuries ago, although sometimes the theological debate can still be pretty robust between us. Christians have, in a phrase, grown out of it. Now in the final long, drawn-out act involving the Islamic world, we must be equally robust in asserting that terrorism and religion do not sit together. One is not an excuse for the other; only perverted minds seek to use religion for their perverted ends. I wonder how many so-called Islamic terrorists have actually read the Holy Koran in detail.
What is to be done? We have lots of advice on this. The new de facto Sunni ruler of Saudi Arabia, Prince Mohammad bin Salman, has just started bouncing around about the issue with his characteristic vigour, and said on 26 November of Islamic terrorism:
“We will pursue it until it disappears completely from the surface of the earth”.
Heigh-ho! That really is hyperbole on stilts at a time when Saudi Arabia is violently and in the name of religion pursuing proxy wars against other brands of Islam all over the Middle East and Africa, from Yemen to Libya and back. Such terror simply begets other terror.
A very important issue that was not touched on by the noble Lord in his concerning introductory speech is how much a debate on Islamic terrorism must begin with a clear recognition that, all too often, it is a case of Muslim on Muslim—Sunni on Shia with, for example, that terrible attack on the innocent Sufis in the Sinai at holy prayers in their mosque a week or two ago. Then of course, in the Middle East, Alawites and Ismailis feel a degree of fear, and feel threatened. However, we in this place and in the West cannot enforce what we see as reason on the Islamic world, nor can we be thought to be lecturing it about deep-seated and sometimes fracturing theological debates which we do not perhaps understand. I certainly do not understand some of them. In the end, the Islamic world has to sort itself out and, just as the Christian world did in England and elsewhere, grow out of the kind of stuff that it seeks now to do with us. I do not expect this to happen very soon. I happen to have a very close Muslim friend, who I have known for 20 or getting on for 25 years. We were speaking only yesterday, and I asked him how many decades it would take for the Muslim world to come out of this present epoch. He paused and said, “It won’t take decades—it will take centuries”. That is a very foreboding thought, grim but realistic. Dealing with Islamic terrorism, or what claims to be Islamic terrorism, is going to be how we live for a very long time.
The only approach to this is to treat all terrorism equally, wherever it comes from. Terrorists are terrorists by definition, regardless of their purported cause. Our security services do a very good job in keeping an eye as much as they can, particularly when things are going quiet. If you just go across the water to Ireland north and south of the border, there is that old saying that there is always a “pike in the thatch” from people on both sides of the religious divide. I believe that that is the case there—and sometimes, when things are quiet, we have to be extremely concerned.
Sometimes defending life means ending life, and that excellent and experienced Minister from his time in Iraq onwards, Mr Rory Stewart, has reminded us about that in another place. Our defences must ever be strengthened, which is why the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill making its way through your Lordships’ House, enabling us to target groups such as Daesh or al-Qaeda, is so essential to delivering safety at home and our foreign-policy aims abroad. But it is always where things seem to be quiet that terrorists will suddenly appear.
As somebody who works in financial services in the City of London, I rejoice to see how they have been put at the service of religion in making it a centre for Islamic finance in this world. My noble friend Lord Sheikh knows much more about this stuff than I ever will. We are very complacently saying that it is terribly good that we have all this going on in the City of London, but those people who use terror look to places like that and businesses like that with venom, so we must not let our guard drop.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who has always been a thoughtful Member of your Lordships’ House. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on introducing this topic. We have sat next to each other for many years and of course we have often disagreed, but the thing about the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is that everyone thinks he is wrong, but he wins in the end—as he did with Brexit—so we have to listen to him carefully. Let us hope he does not this time, but that is another issue.
Ever since 9/11, I have taken the view that Islam will be used by the terrorists for what they do, but it is not an Islamic problem; it is a political movement which I and others have called Islamism. Islamism has a very tenuous connection with the religion and its religious texts. I do not read Arabic, so I will not comment on whether abrogation is a good or a bad thing, but I will say this: if we are to understand what is happening by way of jihadist terrorism, we have to understand that it is first of all a civil war within Islam. A lot of damage is done by the Islamic terrorists to fellow Muslims. Indeed, ever since 1973, which was the third and last defeat of the Arab nations to abolish Israel, it has been clear that the modernist, socialist alternative in the Arab world had lost credibility. The Middle East went back to religion; it thought that the only answer was to go back to religion to find a solace or a solution.
Ever since then, we have had this schism in the Islamic world, in which those who want a purer, more fanatical regime—Wahhabism or Salafism—have wanted to subvert Muslim majority societies and replace whoever rules them with a harder version of sharia law and enforcement of religious morality and so on. The human cost to Muslim societies has been much, much bigger than we can calculate compared with what has happened to our societies. Since 1973—nearly 44 years ago—the Middle East has been in a continuous war-like situation. I will not cite all the cases, but in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, in Nigeria and Sudan in Africa and in Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt in north Africa, there have been continuous war-like situations. It is entirely an internal civil war.
One reason why I believe this civil war has been carrying on—I wrote about this in a book about 10 years ago—is that we have not solved the vacuum created by the disappearance of the Ottoman Empire in 1921. I have recently also written about how we can think of the last 100 years’ history as solving the problem caused by the First World War. Each empire that disappeared—such as the Romanov or the Hohenzollern empires—caused problems that had to be solved in the rest of the century. The Romanov problem was solved finally in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Hohenzollern gave us lots of problems but those problems were tackled by the end of the Second World War. The Ottoman Empire disappeared in, as you choose, 1918 or 1921, or whenever it was. We have not resolved that problem. We drew up the arbitrary Sykes-Picot line and created countries but we have not resolved the vacuum that that left.
I take up a technical issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, concerning the caliphate. As noble Lords know, a continuous caliph was established soon after the Prophet died. The caliph was a spiritual leader and, very often, the ruling emperor in the Islamic world. Muslims used to offer prayers to the caliph at Friday prayers until the last caliph disappeared. In India, there was a movement called the Khilafat movement because it was suspected that the British might either abolish the caliphate or replace it with one of their own infidel appointees. As it happened, Kemal Atatürk abolished the caliphate. However, its abolition has created a huge vacuum which we ought to take very seriously. It is as if the papacy had been abolished while the Catholic Church had been kept. We cannot imagine that but that is precisely what the effect is. After 1921, for the first time in the 1,200-year history of Islam, there was no caliph. That psychological shock has not been taken on board. If I were to suggest a policy that we ought to follow, it would insist on there being a caliph approved by the entire Sunni community, not some upstart like Baghdadi who made himself a caliph with absolutely no qualification or pedigree. There are rules regarding who can become a caliph. We have missed a trick here. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire has not been resolved and we have not understood the politics involved here.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, as we are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has previously raised the question of Taqiyya and Al Hijra in the House at Questions, where I thought he had a good hearing. However, his subsequent attempt at securing this debate for the same question shows his deeper interest in the issue.
First, I wish to talk a little about the two main tenets that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is concerned about. I am a Muslim and I attend prayers at a local mosque as regularly as I can. To my knowledge, the term “Al Hijra” refers to the migration of the Prophet Mohammed—peace be upon him—from Mecca to Medina and it is the mark of the Islamic calendar.
For the benefit of noble Lords’ knowledge, today is the 18th of Rabi al Awal, the ninth month of the Islamic Hijra calendar year 1438. According to major English dictionaries, including the Collins English Dictionary, Al Hijra is an annual Muslim festival marking the beginning of the Muslim year. It commemorates Mohammed’s move from Mecca to Medina and involves the exchange of gifts. I have never met any Muslim who understands any other meaning of the term “Al Hijra” than the above mentioned internationally recognised meaning. In the light of this, it makes no sense for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, or anyone else to ask Muslim leaders to re-examine the term.
There are two different opinions within the Muslim faith on the term “Taqiyya”. I understand from scholars of the Sunni school of thought, which has the largest following among British Muslims, that they do not believe this tenet exists and therefore would never practise it. However, those sects who do believe in Taqiyya consider it to be an extreme measure for extreme circumstances. According to them, Taqiyya is about concealing your own religious beliefs when confronted with the threat of persecution and death, comparing it with the Jews who had to conceal their identity in Nazi Germany or Christians in present-day Syria. It is a defensive response to a threat of attack, which cannot be used for other purposes.
However, as many noble Lords are aware, in any debate relating to Muslims or Islam in this House, the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, always finds its way to somehow link the Islamic faith with violence and terrorism. Would the Minister not agree with me that the vast majority of the 2 billion Muslims living around the world, including the 4 million living in Britain, are peace-loving and law-abiding citizens?
The small minority of those who get involved in terrorism in the name of Islam are either misled or do not have basic knowledge of Islam; nor do they practise it. A report was recently released by the Oasis Foundation, which is a Christian group of schools. Having compiled evidence from the United Nations and MI5, among others, the report found that religion is not the main cause or motivation of these individuals. Indeed, high numbers of them do not practise the faith that they claim to fight for and have little or no understanding of Islam. Many were found to be engaged in activities that are strictly forbidden in Islam, such as the consumption of alcohol and drugs. I encourage noble Lords to take some time to read this report. I anticipate that it will make uncomfortable reading for those who seek to promote the falsehood that Islam is a religion that leads people into violence. To suggest that these individuals have any understanding of the type of terms put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, today is quite laughable.
Over the past few years, we have seen a huge rise in Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism, as it has been defined in the recently published Runnymede report. The report finds that anti-Muslim prejudice has grown further and wider and Muslims in the UK are increasingly disadvantaged in all areas of life. Would the Minister not agree that the way the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, uses his ill-informed narrative to demonise the great religion of Islam and blames this religion for all the ills of the world actually fuels anti-Muslim sentiments that lead to hate crime?
In conclusion, I suggest if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, wants to understand the teachings of Islam properly, then I am happy to host a meeting to introduce him to people who are able to offer comprehensive teaching of Islamic doctrine. Finally, I ask the Minister to remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, of our nation’s commitment to protect and honour the rights of minorities and that freedom of religion is a core value central to our democracy.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has performed a useful function in introducing this sensitive and delicate subject so that we can, at any rate, discuss it. I want to focus my remarks on political Islam and its links with the many jihadist organisations that, as we have heard, inflict terror on other Muslims and on the non-Muslim world.
I have learned a lot from a lecture given on 15 November in New Haven by Sir John Jenkins. I hope that the Minister has read it and I certainly recommend it to other noble Lords. Sir John, an accomplished Arabist and British diplomat, was consul-general in Jerusalem and subsequently Her Majesty’s ambassador in Syria, in Iraq and finally in Saudi Arabia until 2015. He took an active part in the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry. In March 2014, he was appointed by the then Prime Minister Cameron to lead a policy review into the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islamism. Sir John was assisted by Charles Farr, who since December 2015 has been the chair of the JIC—the Joint Intelligence Committee—in the Cabinet.
The review was completed in July 2014 but the report was never published. Only a summary appeared, and that was in December 2015, 18 months later. However, that summary concluded with a damning statement:
“Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security”.
Astonishingly, Prime Minister Cameron merely made a Written Statement to the House of Commons, in which he said that the Government would,
“keep under review whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/15; col. 418WS.]
The text of the Jenkins lecture is indeed illuminating to somebody from outside, like me, and I found it disturbing. First, Jenkins dismisses as “almost worthless” any attempt to place the Islamists,
“on some scale of relative extremism or moderation”.
I certainly do not intend to speak of the religion of Islam. Any analysis of its kaleidoscopic complexity and didactic variations is well beyond me. The Sufi version of Sunni Islam seems to me to be closer to what Christians could recognise as a monotheistic religion of peace and love. In the atrocity of 24 November this year in Egypt, for which Daesh has claimed responsibility, 305 Sufi Muslims—including 28 children—were shot while praying in a mosque in north Sinai.
Last Friday, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, the most ancient mosque in Cairo, and himself a Sunni, condemned this attack. This is an important step forward. Hitherto, due to the intimidation to which they are subject, very few of that great majority of the Muslim clerics who abhor the violent and cruel terrorism of political Islam as much as we do have spoken out against it.
Political Islam and the various Islamist terrorist bodies affiliated with it can no more claim religious justification for their horrific acts than could the IRA for its acts of murder during the Troubles. On 29 September 1979, Pope John Paul II, who was visiting Ireland, appealed to,
“the moral sense and Christian conviction”,
of the Irish, at his mass in Drogheda, with the words:
“Nobody may ever call murder by any other name than murder … On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence”.
That it took so long for peace to return did not mean that the Roman Catholic Church ever endorsed, justified or excused murders committed by the IRA.
I have long seen the relationship of the Muslim Brotherhood to the military wings of the Salafist Wahhabi creed, such as al-Qaeda and Daesh, as rather similar to the relationship that once existed between Sinn Fein and the IRA. The Muslim Brotherhood, originally partly based on the theories of Italian fascism, was founded in 1928 in Egypt by al-Banna, who promoted ultimate martyrdom through death in conflict. Its final aim, proclaimed by the Islamic State in April 2014, is the installation of a worldwide theocratic state, or caliphate, under Sharia law.
Theocracy is, by definition, the antithesis of democracy because, once in place, it cannot be removed by the electorate. This conflict can be most clearly observed in Iran, where a supreme leader—in this case, Shia—with the revolutionary guard as enforcers, keeps a careful check on the semi-democratically elected Government of President Rouhani. Jenkins points out:
“Links between the Brotherhood and the Khomeinist trend in Iran go back as far as the 1950s”.
The Muslim Brotherhood operates with much tactical skill. It assassinated President Sadat in October 1981 after he had made peace with Israel. It achieved full power in Egypt through the ballot box in January 2012, only to be ejected by popular protest, supported by the army, in July 2013 following economic chaos. Jenkins concludes that,
“if Egypt had fallen to the Brotherhood, the whole of North Africa would have eventually become a bastion of political Islamism”.
It is said that in 2005, after the 7/7 attack on London transport in which 56 people died, the Brotherhood claimed to be working to prevent further attacks on Britain. That is perhaps why HMG have left them alone. It should be noted that the European leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ibrahim Munir, has lived in London for many years. I understand that he is likely soon to become the group’s world leader.
The Anderson report on terrorism, published on Monday, makes extensive reference to the background of the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi, but fails to refer to the fact that his father, Ramadan Abedi, was part of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and a former al-Qaeda operative in Libya. Last week, 33 members of the US Congress wrote to Secretary of State Tillerson urging him to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organisation. I believe that the time may have come for us to do the same here.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on securing this debate. His introduction was quite interesting, although I was a little disappointed that what began as a calm disquisition on Islam turned, as it moved on, into a kind of diatribe. That is an inevitable danger. If one talks about Islam as a whole, rather than concentrating on a particular aspect of it, there is a danger of spreading oneself too thinly and covering a lot of ground. Therefore, as, I hope, a good academic, I want to concentrate on the Question itself.
The Question that the noble Lord has asked—every word is carefully chosen, although occasionally mischievous, and certainly interesting—is whether the Government will encourage Muslim leaders to re-examine the three Muslim tenets of abrogation, Taqiyya and Al Hijra, and to publish their findings. I want to look at those three concepts. What are the Islamic tenets on these three concepts? Do they need to be revised or re-examined and, if so, along what lines?
The first is “abrogation”. I am sorry that the noble Lord used Arabic for the other two tenets, whereas he left this one as “abrogation”; in Arabic the word is “Naskh”. Naskh is simply a theoretical tool to interpret the Koran. Where the different verses of the Koran—or the verses of the Koran and the Hadith—do not match, you need a rule for interpretation. The rule generally is that the later Koranic verses supersede the earlier ones, as they do in the Hadith. That is what abrogation means.
Taqiyya is a much trickier concept. It largely means “covering up” or “dissimulation”. It means that when a Muslim is in a crisis situation or likely to face intense persecution, he is allowed to lie about his faith. He can say, “Look, I’m not a Muslim”, if Muslims are going to be attacked. At one level, he would seem to be disloyal to Allah to whom he has agreed to submit, but on another level he is excused because his life is in danger. As the Oxford dictionary puts it, it is really a precautionary dissimulation of religious belief. But again, it has been reinterpreted, as all these tenets have been. It was reinterpreted after 9/11 to mean that a Muslim has a religious obligation, not just a religious permission, to lie and to lie not only to survive but to proselytise his own religion.
The third idea is the idea of Al Hijra, which refers to Muhammad and his companions migrating from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE to set up the first Islamic state. The Muslim calendar counts dates from the Hijra, and Muslim dates have the suffix AH, which means “After Hijra”. In recent times, the concept of Al Hijra or Muhammad’s move from Mecca to Medina is taken to mean that Muslims have an obligation to move from a secular society to one that allows you to practise religion or be suffused with the religious spirit—or to oppose colonial rule. That is what happened, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggested, in India during the time of British rule, when several Muslims on religious grounds said that they would rather move to Afghanistan from India rather than stay on because they suspected that colonial rule was not going to give them freedom.
My point in all this is simply to say, first, that the re-examination of these concepts is going on and that no encouragement is required because circumstances compel Muslim leaders to reinterpret those concepts, just as Hindus and Christians have been compelled. Secondly, government intervention in these matters is always ill-advised because it politicises scholarship. Scholarship loses its sense of detachment and integrity. More importantly, the Government have no competence in the matter. If someone interprets Al Hijra in one way and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, interprets it in another and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in another, how will the Prime Minister decide which one to encourage and which to discourage? It is not the Government’s business. To give the Government religious authority is the worst thing that any liberal, or even non-liberal, society can aim to do.
The third difficulty is why only these three tenets? These three are not really crucial. I can think of half a dozen others, so why just these three? And more importantly, why only Islam? What about Hinduism? The noble Lord, Lord Desai, wrote a book about the Bhagavad Gita—a secular reading of a religious text. Lots of Hindus whom I know are deeply uneasy about it because they would like it to be seen differently. The question is why concentrate only on Islam. Even verses in the Old Testament breed the spirit of violence and hatred. The New Testament is just as bad in some cases—apart from the “Sermon on the Mount”, it contains other passages that can be just as obnoxious. So why concentrate on only one religion?
The next question that worries me is: will it assist the cause of anti-terrorism? It will not. Terrorists are not just guided because of these three tenets. They are guided by other considerations, such as being unhappy with our foreign policy or a sense of alienation growing up in our society. There are all kinds of reasons, and religion is simply being used as the language of expression, not as the source from which the inspiration is derived. When religion is simply being used as the language of expression, the causes lie elsewhere. If we are looking for a reinterpretation of the tenets in the hope that that would stop terrorism, there is no such possibility of that happening.
The last point that I want to make is that Islam, like any other religion, has both violent and non-violent traits. That is just as true of Christianity. How could the religion of simple peasants lead to the largest empire, of many different kinds, in human history—the British colonial, the French and all that? How could it justify slavery? If we think of Christianity, the enormous amount of good as well as harm that it has done simply cannot be explained away. Every religion has the potential for both. Which potential is being actualised depends on the circumstances. Muslim countries—it is not Islam as such but Muslim countries—are passing through a phase of identity crisis, deep alienation and anger against the West for its foreign policy or for its support of native tin-pot rulers, so obviously they are going to take the form of aggression.
The simple point I want to make is that, if we want to have this sort of discussion as part of an anti-terrorist strategy, the Government’s strategy—which I would have loved to discuss—leaves a lot to be desired. The Prevent strategy is not the answer, and to fit anything into that mould is not the way to proceed.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may say respectfully that we have limited time in this debate. All noble Lords have prepared for it incredibly well and have great points to make, but we need to allow time for the Minister to reply to them. I would ask noble Lords to honour the time allowed for speaking.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my disquiet and resentment at the wording of the Question for this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has referred to Islamist terrorism. I feel that to use “Islamic” or “Islamist” relating to any form of terrorism is completely wrong. Islam is a religion of peace and does not allow any form of suicide attack or terrorist activity. A terrorist should be referred to as a terrorist without reference to any religion. During the IRA activities, it was inappropriate to associate terrorism with a particular religion. It would be greatly appreciated if one were careful about using appropriate language in your Lordships’ House, otherwise it may cause offence to the people of this country.
I received numerous complaints from Muslims when it became known that this debate had been tabled. Islam is indeed a religion of peace and I promote this fact in my coat of arms. Even when we greet somebody, we use the phrase As-salāmu ‘alaykum, which means “peace be upon you”. I would like to emphasise that it is written in the Holy Koran that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala has said: “Whoever kills a human being, it is as though he has killed all mankind, and whoever saves a human being, it is as though he has saved all mankind”. This is very similar to what is written in the Talmud. Islam and Judaism, like other religions, both value the sanctity of life.
There are more than 3 million Muslims in this country and nearly all of them are peace-loving people. They have been successful in every walk of life and have contributed to the advancement and well-being of this country. I appreciate and understand that a tiny minority have acted very badly and committed criminal offences. What they have said and what they are doing is totally un-Islamic. Islam teaches us to celebrate the difference and diversity which God has purposefully created in our world.
The Question of this debate refers also to UK Muslim leaders. I consider myself to be one of the Muslim leaders. I am very active in combating extremism and radicalisation among all communities, and I have attended and spoken at numerous meetings. I have been involved in initiatives and have taken positive action to deal with the issues of radicalisation and extremism. To deal with them requires a holistic approach and we must all work together. It should involve the community, local authorities, schools, universities, prison authorities and the police. Mosques, Imams and Muslim centres also have a vital role to play. We must also take steps to combat radicalisation through the use of the internet, notably through social media, and for this we must work with organisations that can do so effectively. Because of the shortage of time, I cannot enumerate the steps to be taken, although I have prepared an extended report on these issues.
I am also actively involved in promoting interfaith dialogue and I am a patron of five Muslim and non-Muslim organisations which are involved in these activities. In the Holy Koran, Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala has said: “O mankind! We have created you from male and female and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another”. As Muslims, we should get to know one another and people from other communities, as commanded by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala.
Radicalisation and extremism cannot be dealt with by looking at theological issues, because we need to take positive steps. I am proud to be a practising Muslim. I have studied the Holy Koran and the Sunnah. I doubt very much if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has made a deep study of Islam. I feel that a debate such as this, tabled by him, can create discord and lead to further problems.
In verse 106, Surah An-Nahl refers to the notion of Taqiyya—hiding one’s faith in life-threatening conditions—as only self-defence. Mainstream Islam does not accept the current situation anywhere in the West as threatening Muslims to an extent that they would need to hide their faith identity to survive. This question is therefore completely irrelevant. In regard to Al Hijra, in verse 97, Sura An-Nisa refers to Taqiyya in compelling cases where Muslims cannot practise their faith for fear of persecution and threat to their life. In such extreme circumstances, they are advised to leave the land of hostility for a safer place. Again, no such conditions exist in the West to compel Muslims to migrate away from the West. This is again totally irrelevant and taken out of context.
In Islamic terminology, abrogation means lifting a ruling indicated by a sharia text, on the basis of evidence from the Holy Koran or consensus of the Sunnah. In most cases, the abrogation was to make things easier for Muslims or increase the rewards. As a Muslim, I say that it is totally unnecessary to re-examine the three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I want to emphasise that any act of terrorism is not in our name.
Finally, I urge everyone in the country to be united and stand together to combat any form of radicalisation or extremism, in whatever form it comes.
Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the name of God, most gracious and most merciful, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for giving me this opportunity. For the last 10 years, I have had discussions with him on TV channels, as well as in this House; I do not agree with him, but I thank him for the opportunity to speak. I want to correct him on a few things. I wish that he would respect the Prophet Muhammad as I respect the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ.
There are a number of things that I need to clarify: first, the caliphate. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is very knowledgeable; I do not wish to disagree with him, but in cases of the Ottoman Empire, Mogul Empire and North African empire, the caliphate did not exist after Sayedna Umar, Uthman and Ali—that is it. The deliberate concept of mischievous Muslims who can have four wives in the United Kingdom is nonsense. British law is the superior law in this country. Nobody is allowed to have four wives. Saying that Muslims are breeding more children and will take over is using the same language that Nazis used against Jewish communities before the Second World War. It is done deliberately when there is hatred against Muslims for their birth rate. As for someone killing someone who leaves their religion—in this country, nobody can do anything above the law. I am a Muslim; I am British. My law is the British law, which is for everyone. To be mischievous and say, “These Muslims have some other laws in this country, they will breed children, they will take over this country”, is a deliberate attempt to frighten people.
On the secular rule that Muslims are told after Al Hijra to leave|, I hosted Christian communities from Ethiopia here last night because of the human rights situation there. Abyssinia was a place where the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, asked his companions to go and live under a Christian ruler because he allowed them to live in peace, just like the majority of the 20 million to 30 million of us who are living here in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the United States.
Looking at some of the figures, in America the Internal Revenue Service is quoted as saying that $200 million was spent by the Islamophobia industry last year, most of it by groups designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate crime groups. We need to put things into context.
I do not have to preach to anyone what the Holy Bible, which I respect, says in the Books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua and both Books of Kings. They talk about slaughter and genocide. If these fanatics—ISIS or Daesh—picked up the Bible and said, “This is why they invaded Iraq and kill Muslims. because this is the teaching of the Bible”, it would be complete nonsense. Whatever the religion, whether Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism—one of the most peaceful religions on earth, but we see what is happening in Myanmar to the Rohingya communities—Islam, Judaism or Christianity, it is the individuals who abuse the texts and the religion for their own violent, political purposes.
This is a great country. Frankly, we do not need Islamophobes, because every time we see people from Britain First and other groups create this hatred, attacks on Muslim, European and ethnic minority communities go up. When the Minister replies, will she tell us the figures on how much hatred and hate crime goes up when these groups use this bad language? Only last week a Muslim woman was refused service in McDonald’s because she was wearing a hijab. Visible Muslims with beards, or even those in the Sikh community with turbans, are attacked. People who speak European languages are abused on buses. We have seen the videos.
In this wonderful, democratic place, we should be talking about the great contribution communities have made. When my father came here after the Blitz this country’s industry had disintegrated. In the steel industry, the textile industry, the infrastructure, the health service and the transport industry, ethnic minorities, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs from Europe and the Commonwealth came here and made this country the Great Britain that it is today. During the Labour Government we had the third largest economy; I used to go around the world proudly telling people that. Even today Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world. Yes, we have criminals, but if we start pointing the finger at all the Muslims first, then it may be the Jewish communities after, then maybe the Sikh communities after that. Then we might say, “All these coloured people, different people who do not look like us, do not have green eyes like us, are responsible for our social deprivation, unemployment and economic crisis”. That is what the Nazis did. That is what Hitler’s people did.
I just hope that we come to our senses and talk about the great contribution. This is a great country—Muslims and non-Muslims, all of us, stand together. Terrorists murdered 37 of our citizens.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests as in the register, in particular my directorship of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Oxford University. Having spent a great deal of time thinking about these things and then listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will have the same nostalgic feeling that I have had, because so many of the things that I heard him say were exactly those that I grew up hearing from Dr Ian Paisley about Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland. “They’re going to breed us out”, was one of the favourite ones. “They kill people because of apostasy. Look at the Spanish Inquisition, and poor Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer burnt at the stake in Oxford for their Protestant religion”—indeed, he called his church in Belfast Martyrs Memorial because of all the Protestants who had been murdered by the Catholic Church. He was not so strong on mentioning the Catholics who had been murdered by the Protestants, but there you are: we see it from our own perspective. There were many other similarities as well.
Then came the demand: if Catholics are actually opposed to the IRA, why does the leadership of the Catholic Church not come out and say so in unequivocal terms? It is very much what the noble Lord has said about the leadership of the Muslim community. And so, one month after Lord Mountbatten, then a Member of your Lordships’ House, was murdered by the IRA, Pope Jean Paul II became the first reigning Pope to come to Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to, he said:
“I appeal to you, in language of passionate pleading. On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and to return to the ways of peace … To Catholics, to Protestants, my message is peace and love. May no Irish Protestant think that the Pope is an enemy, a danger or a threat”.
He appealed to young people to turn away, and so on. Within days, the IRA gave him his reply: it dismissed it. In that reply, it pointed out that the problem was a political problem and not a religious problem: it was not killing Protestants because they were Protestants, and the loyalists were not killing Catholics because they believed in transubstantiation; it was a political problem.
Sometimes, people will say, “Ah, but it is a completely different thing if you’re dealing with Islamist terrorists”. I think people sometimes need to explore the issues that they are talking about rather than simply presume. I went and spent some time talking to Abu Qatada, the European leader of al-Qaeda. I started talking to him in prison, necessarily through an interpreter, about the fact that, for me, religious faith was very important. He said, “Look, that’s fine. We can talk about religious faith if you like, but this is not a religious problem. This is a political problem. It is a political problem of what is happening in my part of the world and has been happening for a very long time”. The more I have looked at it, the more I have become convinced that he was correct—in fact, he was actually prepared to do what the IRA had been doing: to come out and say that violence would not get the political outcome they wanted. He asked me to take a personal message to the office of the Prime Minister here in the United Kingdom—the Prime Minister at the time was Gordon Brown. I took the message, but there was no interest on the part of the British Government in exploring whether Abu Qatada was prepared to come out and say, “This business of the use of violence is wrong, counterproductive and a mistake”. They were prepared to do it eventually, after a lot of pressure, with the IRA, with people like John Hume, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, but they were not prepared to do it with Abu Qatada.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, as he very often is, is absolutely correct to make the connection with the end of the caliphate, because, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, a very short time after that some young men in Egypt said, “We’re going to come together”. Was it for the purpose of martyrdom? No. It was for the purpose of reinstituting the caliphate.
In all our religious and political backgrounds, there is great variegation. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had another long conversation, as I have had before, with Rached Ghannouchi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahdha in Tunisia. This man is a democrat. He has demonstrated clearly that he is committed to democracy. In fact, I sometimes think he has more understanding of the basics of democracy than I find with politicians in this country because, as he says, it is not just about votes and elections; it is also about having a culture of liberal democracy that makes sure those elections are used to good purpose. He is absolutely right, of course. That is not the same as the Muslim Brotherhood everywhere but, if we paint everyone with the same brush, we will find that we make the situation worse rather than better.
That is my appeal: that we do not get mixed up about the fact that people will see religious faith from many different perspectives. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said, people will interpret the scriptures written in the past in a very different way now, if they have made progress, and in the same way if they see things in a fundamentalist way. We have to address the fact that there are political problems and that we in this country have our responsibility to resolve some of those wider problems. Sadly, the events of the last 48 hours and the pronouncements from Washington have made our job much more difficult in addressing the political problems, when they should have been making them easier.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for providing the opportunity to discuss government strategy against terrorism. It is on that issue rather than Islam and its meaning that my contribution concentrates. Listening to the general tone and tenor of what the noble Lord said I do not know whether he regards, for example, Members of this House and the Commons who are Muslims, along with Sadiq Khan as the Mayor of London, as stealthily working towards a future Muslim takeover of this country, to which he made reference, or as fellow law-abiding and peace-loving British citizens—full stop.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, framed his Question for Short Debate around one specific area rather than more generally. As the briefing from the House of Lords Library for this debate reminded us he raised almost the same Question, only orally, at the beginning of this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, replied then that:
“The Government’s strategy for tackling Islamist terrorism is firmly based on strengthening our partnership with communities, civil society groups and faith organisations across the country”.—[Official Report, 24/1/17; col. 552.]
I assume that when she comes to reply, the Minister will indicate not simply what actions the Government may have taken this year in pursuit of that strategy, but what the hard evidence is to show that whatever the Government have done since the beginning of this year, it has had a positive impact on strengthening partnerships, civil society groups and faith organisations across the country. Actions are not the same as impact; it is the impact of their actions on which I seek a government answer.
I presume that the Minister will also indicate in her response that the Government are seeking to tackle terrorism across the board, including from supporters of the kind of organisations in this country that now appear to have a surprising degree of unwelcome support from the President of the United States of America.
It has been helpful to have it confirmed in the recent report by David Anderson QC that our security and intelligence agencies seek to ensure,
“consistent assessment and investigation of all terrorist threats, regardless of ideology”.
Questions have been raised in a number of quarters about the effectiveness of the Government’s Prevent strategy. Home Office statistics apparently show that only 5% of the 7,631 people referred to the Prevent counterextremism programme in 2015-16 ended up with specialist support to turn them away from terrorism. What lessons do the Government draw about the effectiveness or otherwise of the Prevent strategy, and the way it is being applied and implemented, from that figure of just 5%? The Government must have a clear answer to that question, since the Minister told this House last January that “we regularly review Prevent”.
Are the Government really satisfied that they are allocating sufficient resources to combat the threat of terrorism, whether through preventive programmes or through the work of our security and intelligence agencies, including the police? In his report this month on the attacks in London and Manchester, David Anderson QC quoted the director-general of MI5 as saying in describing the work of his staff that:
“They are constantly making tough professional judgments based on fragments of intelligence”.
Mr Anderson then went on to say:
“The reason why the judgements can be ‘tough’ is that they are made against a background of imperfect information, and yet frequently require staff to choose which of a number of current and potentially deadly threats is most deserving of scarce investigative resource”.
What do the Government read into the use of the word “scarce” by Mr Anderson? Is it that sufficient resources have been made available or that sufficient resources have not in reality been made available? In that context, let us remind ourselves that we are talking about national security and the safety of our citizens.
One of the three considerations that Mr Anderson chose to mention in his report in saying,
“no responsible person could offer a copper-bottomed assurance that terrorists will always be stopped”
was,
“current CT resourcing of around £3 billion per year”.
In her Statement to Parliament on Tuesday the Home Secretary said,
“We will shortly be announcing the budgets for policing for 2018-19, and I am clear that we must ensure that counter-terrorism policing has the resources needed to deal with the threats we face”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/17; col. 915.]
In his report Mr Anderson, referring to CT policing, says,
“the indicative profile of their grant allocation over the next three years sees a reduction of 7.2% in their budgets”.
What parts of policing activity and what numbers of officers and staff do the Government include in their definition of counterterrorism policing, in respect of which the Home Secretary has said the Government will ensure they have the resources needed? Which police activities do the Government not consider to have a role in countering terrorism and are therefore not covered by the Home Secretary’s statement about ensuring the provision of the necessary resources? Does the Home Secretary’s commitment about resources, which she gave on Tuesday, cover, for example, community policing, or is community policing not considered by this Government to play an important role in countering terrorism?
I would appreciate clear answers from the Government to these questions, not least because the executive summary of the Anderson report states that MI5 and CT policing recommendations,
“include commitments to better data exploitation, to wider sharing of information derived from MI5 intelligence (including with neighbourhood policing) and to the consistent assessment and investigation of all terrorist threats, regardless of ideology”,
which some might not unreasonably conclude means that community and neighbourhood policing have an important role to play in countering terrorism.
I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for providing me with the opportunity to raise the points and questions I have raised.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for securing it. There have been some very interesting contributions this evening and quite varied views, which is always the case in a debate. First, I thank noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lord Sheikh, who play an active part in communities and in promoting interfaith understanding, because that work is so valuable. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for what he said at the start of his contribution. I am not nostalgic for those days; I look back with sadness. Noble Lords will detect that I have no hint of an Irish accent, and that is because I came to this country in the 1970s as an Irish Catholic. Those were unpleasant times for Irish Catholics in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I have many interesting discussions on that dichotomy. I join noble Lords who stated that terrorism has no place in Islam: it does not. It has no place in Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Hinduism or any religion, and to conflate the two is quite dangerous to society.
Over generations, we have built something quite incredible in this country: a successful multiracial, multifaith democracy. That success is underpinned by British values, which the mainstream majority share and celebrate, including freedom of speech, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. As the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, said, Britain is home to diverse communities who are free to practise their religion in accordance with the law. The noble Lord also talked about the 2 billion law-abiding Muslim citizens across the globe. He is absolutely correct. There are also people within our Parliament such as the noble Lords in this Chamber and of course the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and my noble friend Lord Sheikh for describing the various tenets of the Muslim religion in the Question for debate, and the dangers of government asking Muslim leaders, or indeed any other religious leaders, to re-examine the tenets of their religion, because they are quite free to practise it.
The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Hussain, and my noble friend Lord Patten talked about Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism. I saw that in Manchester, and of course we see it in every attack: these attacks are indiscriminate and Muslims suffer in them. The noble Lords, Lord Hussain and Lord Ahmed, talked about the aftermath of such attacks and how Muslim communities suffer further in the spikes in anti-Muslim hatred that we see afterwards. Those points were well made.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made a point about sharia law which the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, corrected him on. Sharia law is not promoted by government. It has no jurisdiction in England and Wales, and the Government have no intention of changing that position. Regardless of religious beliefs, we are all equal before the law. That is a really important point. The Government do not prevent people from seeking to regulate their lives through religious beliefs, and nothing in law prevents people doing that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will encroach on my response time.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Is the noble Baroness therefore saying that sharia law is not running de facto in our land through the 87 Muslim tribunals? This is all very well documented.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am saying to the noble Lord that people in this country abide by British law. It is as simple as that. Sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales. I think I made it very clear that we do not prevent people from regulating their lives through religious belief—for example, in the sense that a Catholic might. I hope I have made that point clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, touched on what the Government are doing to tackle Islamist terrorism. We are absolutely committed to tackling it, and our strategy is firmly based on strengthening our partnership with communities, civil society groups and faith organisations across the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord said, the most effective way to counter the poisonous narratives of terrorists and extremists is to give the community the capacity to resist those narratives.
In the small amount of time I have, I will touch on the various questions that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, posed. The first was on Prevent, and its outcomes rather than its aims. We have undertaken 169 community-based projects, delivered in 2016-17, reaching more than 53,000 participants; 44% of those were delivered in schools and were aimed at increasing young people’s resilience to terrorist and extremist ideologies.
Around one-third of the people who are supported by Channel are linked to far-right extremism; it is very important that the noble Lord brought up that point. He asked why so few Prevent referrals become Channel cases. As I have said, one-third of the people supported by Channel are linked to far-right extremism, and the Channel process is provided only to those who genuinely need it. About 14%, and he might think that figure is low, were discussed at Channel panels in 2015-16. A further 50% of the referrals, over 3,700 people, were referred on by the assessment process to other support services. Without that rigorous assessment, the vulnerabilities that many of these individuals might have might go unsupported. Around 36% of referrals require no further action, and that is broadly similar to those found in other safeguarding mechanisms. For example, out of the 621,000 children referred to social services in 2015, 35% required no action either before or after assessment.
The noble Lord questions whether Prevent is working. We believe it is. Apart from the statistics that I have just given him, since February 2010 300,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material have been removed from the internet. The Prevent statutory duty has prompted a significant step change in the delivery of Prevent work in sectors. The number of front-line staff who have received training has increased significantly, with over 850,000 front-line staff, including NHS staff and teachers, trained in spotting signs of radicalisation, while since 2012 over 1,000 people have received support through Channel.
More than 150 attempted journeys to the Syria/Iraq conflict area were disrupted in 2015. This includes action by the family courts. The courts protected approximately 50 children from around 20 families from being taken to the conflict areas in 2015.
The noble Lord asked about the Anderson report. The Home Secretary has asked David Anderson to provide an independent stock-take of progress in a year’s time. However, as the noble Lord said, implementation is linked to resources. We will shortly be announcing the budgets for policing in 2018-19, and the Home Secretary is clear that we must ensure that counterterrorism policing has the resources needed to deal with the threats that we face.
The noble Lord asked about providing more resources to MI5. The Government have actually increased funding for MI5. In the 2015 spending review a 30% uplift on counterterrorism spending was announced. This is equivalent to over £3 billion over the period to 2020. The additional funding was to meet the increased threat from Daesh and of marauding firearms attacks.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, asked me about the Muslim Brotherhood review. He is correct to say that a review was conducted. Having taken advice, Ministers decided against publishing the report for national security reasons, given the sources of some of the data in it. The UK has taken and will continue to take concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood very seriously. We have published a summary of the main findings of the report, and they support the conclusion that membership of, association with or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.
We will keep under review what is promoted and activities undertaken by the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK in Arabic as well as in English. We will challenge extremists’ poisonous narratives, promote positive alternatives that steer vulnerable people to better ways to get on in life and continue to refuse visas to members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood who are on record as having made extreme comments, where that will be conducive to the public good. In line with our existing policy guidelines and approach to extremism in all forms, we will seek to ensure that charities with links to the Muslim Brotherhood do not give support or finance to the Muslim Brotherhood instead of undertaking their lawful charitable purpose. We will strengthen liaison arrangements with international partners to ensure that allegations of illicit funding or other abuse of charities are robustly investigated and appropriate action taken. We will enforce the EU asset freeze on Hamas, and keep under review whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.
I have gone over my time and missed out half my speech, but I think that I have addressed noble Lords’ points, which are important ones to address. I finish by thanking all noble Lords for taking part in the debate.