House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
The Government’s vision for future fisheries policy as we leave the European Union was set out in our July 2018 fisheries White Paper. A sea of opportunity exists for all of the United Kingdom’s coastal communities, provided we ensure that we vote to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting the scene, but will the Government support the amendment to the Fisheries Bill tabled by me and colleagues that will promote the fairer distribution of fishing quota, more environmentally sustainable fishing methods and a much better and greater opportunity to revitalise coastal communities such as Lowestoft?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is an impressive advocate for fishing communities, not least his own in Lowestoft. He is absolutely right: as we leave the European Union, we must reallocate additional quota in order to ensure that under-12 metre vessels get a fairer share of fishing opportunities, not least because the way in which they fish is of course environmentally sustainable, and also contributes to the growth and prosperity of communities that have been neglected for far too long.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Over the years, the face of the fishing industry has changed, as is reflected in the town of Fleetwood. We export 70% of what we land, and we import the vast majority of what we consume as a country. With a view to preventing fish rotting at the borders, what is the Secretary of State’s assessment of how tariffs or trade uncertainty could impact the industry after we leave the common fisheries policy?
Michael Gove
The agreement that the Prime Minister has negotiated with the European Union allows us to have tariff and quota-free access to the European Union. We can have the best of both worlds—not only, once more, full control over our exclusive economic zone with additional fishing opportunities, but the opportunity to ensure that that excellent produce finds a market in Europe and beyond.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Under the withdrawal agreement, what is to stop the European Union saying, “Unless you allow us to carry on plundering all your fish as now, we’ll put you into the backstop”?
Michael Gove
I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend, but I think he misunderstands the nature of the backstop. If the backstop were ever to come into operation—of course we hope it would not—no fishing vessels from any European nation could fish in our waters without our permission, and at the same time we would have full access to their markets. I repeat: the backstop is not a desirable outcome, but were we in it, we would be master of our own seas, and also able to export our fish to foreign markets.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I represent the constituency of Strangford and the fishing village of Portavogie. Will the Secretary of State outline to me what progress has been reported to him regarding the voisinage agreement, issued by his Republic of Ireland counterparts? In the past few months, they seized two Northern Ireland boats—British boats—and their crew.
Michael Gove
The fishermen of Strangford and the Ards peninsula are people close to my heart. It is absolutely right that since the recent actions we have been in touch with the Irish Government specifically in order to ensure that we can have a fair allocation of fishing opportunities across the island of Ireland and its waters. The Republic of Ireland Government know how seriously we take this issue, and how urgent it is to reform.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I was amazed and disappointed this week that the Government whipped their MPs to vote for a huge loophole in post-Brexit fishing rules that would allow a cruel and inhumane method of fishing to continue. The 5% loophole that allows electro pulse beam trawling is cruel and destructive. It destroys our seabeds and kills juvenile fish, and it is so intensely destructive that it breaks the vertebrae of cod. Will the Secretary of State now work with the Opposition to bring forward a brief statutory instrument to close this loophole that allows UK boats to use this cruel and inhumane fishing method?
Michael Gove
We always want to work with the Opposition to ensure that the highest standards of environmental and marine welfare are maintained, but I should say that it is one of the opportunities that leaving the European Union gives us to ensure that Dutch vessels that have been using pulse fishing in our waters end that cruel practice.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Agriculture Bill will underpin an ambitious new system based on paying public money for public goods. This will support a profitable farming sector that produces world-class food while protecting and enhancing our precious countryside.
Chris Davies
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the farmers of Brecon and Radnorshire, and indeed the farmers of the United Kingdom, that whether there is a deal or no deal, their future will be of paramount importance once we leave the EU?
Mr Goodwill
I can reassure my hon. Friend that farmers will be of paramount importance no matter which scenario we end up with. With regard to upland farmers, I can reassure him that my Department is in close contact with the sheep sector in preparing for these scenarios. Indeed, at yesterday’s EFRA Select Committee I specifically referenced the effect of EU most-favoured nation tariffs on sheep exports in a no-deal scenario.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Government talk about a trading relationship that is “as close as possible” with the EU, but they have repeatedly rejected the best way of securing it, which is a permanent customs union and strong alignment with the single market. Given that 90% of Welsh lamb exports go to the EU, will the Minister listen to Welsh hill farmers and press for the closer economic relationship that they need?
Mr Goodwill
Along with all the other options, the House rejected that option last night. It is a fact, of course, that 30% of the lamb produced in the UK is exported to the EU. Indeed, a large proportion of Welsh lamb, with its smaller carcases, meets that market. We are well aware of the problems that would occur. Of course, the best way to avoid that situation is to vote for the deal.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the horse, and we heard yesterday that 87 horses were killed on our roads last year. Will it be possible under future farming policy to extend bridle-paths? Will the Minister consider extending the period for the registration of existing paths so that none are lost and so that our overstretched volunteers and authorities have time to confirm them?
Mr Goodwill
Yes, I am aware that a number of stakeholders are not aware of that deadline. I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss that. One of the public goods that we could deliver through the Agriculture Bill is better public access, which could include bridleways to join up existing paths so that not as many horses have to use the roads.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Looking at farming policy, the Government announced recently that they would allow farming produce into Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland tariff free. What is the Minister’s opinion on the European Union reciprocating that?
Mr Goodwill
By not only announcing our tariff regime for other borders but making it clear that we do not wish to have a hard border across the island of Ireland, we hope that the Republic of Ireland will show a similarly flexible view and that the European Union will not impose any restrictions that the Irish Government would not wish to follow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We are discussing farming and food, so there must be a case for hearing without delay Mr Richard Bacon.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Speaker, because I can lip read, I know that you want me to ask a question about pork and pork products, and it is true that we have a very successful industry, but it is—unfortunately, from the point of view of this question—unsubsidised by the British taxpayer. However, farm payments are central to farm policy. One of the horses running in the 14.50 at Cheltenham recently was called Single Farm Payment. Unfortunately, the horse came last. Can Ministers tell us what implications there are for farm payments, or do they feel that, as usual, delays were inevitable?
Mr Goodwill
I can report to the House that performance of the basic payment scheme in 2018 was much better than in previous years, with 98.8% of payments being made. We have guaranteed that the system will apply for this year and next year. Moving forward, we will have an exciting new scheme under the Agriculture Act—as I hope it will then be—that enables us to green the economy and make basic payments to more environmental schemes.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), said in a recent Delegated Legislation Committee:
“The Government look forward to negotiations on the UK’s future economic partnership with the EU, during which we will be able to discuss the relationship between the UK’s new GI schemes and the EU schemes.”—[Official Report, Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 26 March 2019; c. 10.]
We now have confirmation that brand protections for high-quality products, including Scotch beef, Scotch lamb and Scotch whisky, have become bargaining chips in the big Brexit bodge, and that there will be no support on day one of a no-deal Brexit. What financial compensation will be offered to Scotland’s food and drink producers for this UK Government policy blunder?
Mr Goodwill
I have to say that that is a load of nonsense. British consumers rely on geographical indicators to ensure that products they buy from the continent are kosher—are the right thing—and I think they would expect the same from us. I think there would be very productive negotiations, and I hope that we would reach quite rapid decisions on most of them.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
There is a crisis of species decline in this country. While we can all see the virtues of operations like rewilding and species introduction, it is in the farmed environment where we will turn it around. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that in the Agriculture Bill and in Government policy, there will be a drive towards the right incentives to protect species and reverse the decline in biodiversity?
Mr Goodwill
It is not just that that is within the Agriculture Bill; it is front and centre within it and central to the way we will continue to support the agriculture industry and deliver the public goods that taxpayers want.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I very much agree with the Minister when he talks about the importance of Europe as an export market for our lamb producers and hill farmers, but last night 160 of his colleagues voted for a no-deal Brexit, including the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). A no-deal Brexit would expose lamb exports to a 12.8%, plus €171.3 per 100 kg, tariff. Will that be good for sheep farmers?
Mr Goodwill
The best way of preventing a no-deal Brexit is to vote for the deal. Nothing yesterday was supported by the House. The deal is the best thing for agriculture, the future and our long-term relationship with the European Union.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem is that the numbers participating in countryside stewardship continue to plummet. Morale at Natural England is at an all-time low, and there is the real problem that no money is going into environmental land management schemes. What will the Government do to move us towards an environmental payment scheme?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in some ways. We have not delivered the support for those environmental schemes that we should have delivered. I am pleased that the Rural Payments Agency has now taken that over from Natural England. I met its chief executive this week. If we cannot to get the money out on time, other farmers will not be incentivised to join those schemes, so my priority is to improve the situation, as we did with the basic payments scheme.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government’s progress report was published this month, and of 19 targets assessed, five are on track and 14 show progress, but at an insufficient rate. The Aichi targets are multifaceted and global in scope, and they include a mixture of processes and outcomes, which are not always specific. Their assessment requires a degree of interpretation and judgment. Nevertheless, the report identifies progress, but there is more that we need to do.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Minister for that response. As she says, we are on track to miss 14 of the 20 targets. Given that they are meant to be achieved by 2020—next year—what talks has she had with the Treasury to achieve target 20, on mobilising financial resources? Will they be reflected in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review?
Dr Coffey
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State just pointed out, one of the changes that will be coming as a result of our leaving the European Union is that the UK—England, certainly—will have a new way of doing environmental land management, and the public services will be paid for by taxpayers. Many of the targets are quite nebulous—[Interruption.] Because they are not particularly specific and are open to interpretation and judgment. We are working carefully on that and have made excellent progress on marine conservation. We are doing global work to ensure that, when the next targets are agreed, which will happen next year for 2030, the UK will lead the way in ensuring that 30% of oceans are marine conservation areas.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very much enjoyed that meeting and visit. He and I are committed to ensuring we do more to protect the wonderful species that are part of our natural habitat, including our marine habitat. We will work hard to do exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) is seeking to achieve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Only about 4% of the world’s oceans are protected. Although I hear what the Minister just said about the aim to increase that, what work can we do with our overseas territories to increase that far more quickly, not least to have an overall target of reducing plastic in the oceans?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Once we designate the marine conservation zones, which I believe will happen in the next two months, the UK will have comfortably exceeded the 30% target that we have set ourselves for the rest of the world by 2030. One of the key things that I do at G7 Environment and in other forums is speak to other nations to see what more we can do to get more designations. The hon. Gentleman is also right about plastics. He will be aware that at the spring statement the Chancellor specifically referred to the overseas territories. Ascension Island will be moving its entire economic zone to fully protected status, and we will continue to work on the Blue Belt programme, which I think will be one of the greatest achievements of this Government.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
We have heard that the UK is on track to meet only five of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets. This is an environmental and climate emergency. Does the Minister—and the Secretary of State—agree with the around 50 councils and thousands of young people who have declared an environment and climate emergency? Will they today commit to join Labour in declaring a national environment and climate emergency?
Dr Coffey
We are already ahead of the game, with a 25-year environment plan published last year, and the strategies and the work that are ongoing. We are making significant improvements in improving our natural environment, and I genuinely hope that the whole House comes together and gets behind the plan to ensure that we leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.
Sue Hayman
The question was: will the Minister commit to join me in declaring a national environment and climate emergency? The answer, to be honest, was a bit of a fudge. Labour is going to bring this forward, with or without the Government’s support. Will the Government think again and commit to announcing an environment and climate emergency, and will they commit to meeting the youth strike action for climate representatives?
Dr Coffey
DEFRA will account for more than half the achievements under the Paris agreements, so I can assure the hon. Lady that work is very much under way on improving the climate and also the environment. This is about actions rather than words. I pay particular tribute to those who joined the Great British spring clean this weekend and who will do so for the next few weeks. I am very happy to work with young people, as we are with our Year of Green Action 2019. We are already working with the Step Up To Serve brigade, which we will be doing with the National Citizen Service.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
We regularly have detailed discussions on the seasonal workers pilot with colleagues across Government. I will continue to work closely with Home Office colleagues in particular to ensure the successful operation of the pilot.
Kate Green
Farmers say that the pilots began too late for this spring season, and the Home Office does not appear to understand the needs of the sector. On 14 February, James Porter of the National Farmers Union Scotland told the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee that the pilot was too small scale and needed to increase immediately to 10,000 places. Will the Minister have discussions with his Home Office colleagues so that the labour needs of the sector can be met as a matter of urgency?
Mr Goodwill
The first workers under the scheme will be arriving in April. Indeed, I met one of my officials who had just come back from Ukraine to ensure that the scheme works well. There will be 2,500 workers coming in each year, and I will also meet with the president of the NFU this afternoon to discuss what views she may have on that.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Mr Goodwill
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Let me make it clear that EU workers already here will be able to stay. During the implementation period, people will be able to come to live, work and study from the EU and there will be registration scheme. Indeed, in a no-deal situation, European economic area citizens will be able to live and work here without a visa for three months, and they can continue to stay here, applying for European temporary leave to remain for 36 months after that, so we are still open for EU workers to come here in every scenario.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Two thousand five hundred—what an absolute and utter joke. The farmers and growers in my constituency are laughing at it. This is where an obsession with immigration gets us: to crops left to wither in the field. The NFU says that 90,000 workers are required for a feasible working scheme. When will the Minister get serious about meeting that target?
Mr Goodwill
I have already said that we will continue with the possibility of EU workers coming here. I know that a number of Bulgarians and Romanians continue to come here, and there are about 29,000 seasonal workers in the country. Of course, the best way to make sure that we get into a stable situation is to vote for the deal.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
This issue is bigger than just seasonal workers on farms: throughout the rural economy, there are people working in food processing, logistics and a wide range of other sectors. We still need people from the EU to come here, so will the Minister assure the House that our immigration policy post Brexit will continue to be open and welcoming?
Mr Goodwill
I can absolutely give that assurance. There are 400,000 EU nationals working in the UK food chain, and we would be delighted for them to stay here, work and contribute to our economy. Indeed, I am told that one reason why some may not come is the weakness of sterling, but if we get the deal through, I would not be surprised if sterling hardened.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
The Government announced in December that we would ban third-party sales of puppies and kittens in England, and the necessary regulations are being prepared. The ban will address welfare concerns associated with the sale of puppies by dealers and pet shops and will build on recent improvements to the licensing of dog breeding and pet sales.
Nigel Huddleston
As puppy smuggling is punishable as an animal cruelty offence, will the Minister confirm that legislation to introduce five-year sentences for animal cruelty remains a priority for this Government and will be introduced as soon as possible?
David Rutley
I can confirm that that is absolutely the case. As soon as parliamentary time allows, the Government will introduce legislation to increase those sentences from six months to five years. Like my hon. Friend, I have zero tolerance for the abhorrent crime of puppy smuggling. I look forward to discussing the matter more fully with him in the Westminster Hall debate that he has secured for next week.
Kerry McCarthy
I was inspired suddenly, Mr Speaker.
I asked the Minister about this when he appeared before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday: he says that he will bring back the sentencing Bill and the animal sentience Bill when we have parliamentary time, but we have spent an awful lot of parliamentary time sitting around, twiddling our thumbs and waiting for Brexit votes. He could bring forward that legislation very soon, could he not?
David Rutley
We look forward to bringing it back to the House as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Yes, five-year sentencing for animal cruelty must be brought in as soon as possible, but my question is about puppies being smuggled in from abroad. Under EU legislation, five puppies can be brought in legally. Very often, fraudulent veterinary certificates are issued, puppies come in very young and with no socialisation, and it is criminal gangs that profit. When we leave the European Union, can we cut the number of puppies that can come in legally from five to two?
David Rutley
I thank the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for raising that point, as he has done several times in the Committee. I can assure him that once we leave, we will be able to look at the number of puppies that can be brought in.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I have discussed certain issues with Home Office Ministers; I am thinking particularly of recent discussions about hare coursing. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is for chief constables to determine how offences are enforced, but I welcome the move by police and crime commissioners to increasingly make that a priority for their local constabularies.
Bill Esterson
Foxhunting is illegal in this country, yet it is allowed and even encouraged by some landowners. This is not trail hunting; it involves the pain and suffering of animals before they are killed. Will the Minister confirm that she supports the prosecution of those involved in this cruel activity, including landowners—even if they are Members of this House?
Dr Coffey
I think the hon. Gentleman was about to make an allegation against somebody. It is important that evidence be provided to the police, and it is for them to make a recommendation to the Crown Prosecution Service. If anybody is breaking the law on this sort of activity, I fully welcome prosecutions being made.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
What investigations is the Minister making on what drives rural and wildlife crime, so that the police can understand it and respond appropriately?
Dr Coffey
Both DEFRA and the Home Office fund the national wildlife crime unit and support its work in investigating crimes. They undertake analysis and share intelligence with police forces. There are six wildlife crime priorities—badgers, bat and raptor persecution, illegal trade in species covered by the convention on international trade in endangered species, poaching and freshwater mussels, but more can be done locally, and I am aware that hare coursing in particular concerns many Members of Parliament.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Minister will be aware of the devastating impact that dog attacks on livestock can have for farmers. What discussions are the Government having with colleagues about possible amendment to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to better enable police forces to address the matter?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is already an offence to leave an engine running unnecessarily when the vehicle is stationary on a public road. Local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices to drivers who leave engines running after being asked to turn them off. Westminster Council is probably the most successful at this, but I encourage local authorities to use their powers so that more people stop idling unnecessarily.
Bambos Charalambous
What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor about the need to establish ring-fenced funding for local authorities to implement measures to protect our children’s health where they are disproportionately affected by toxic air in areas where they live, learn and play?
Dr Coffey
The Government are investing more than £3.5 billion in the strategy to improve air quality. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this matter is devolved to the Mayor of London. I know that he is seeking to be active on this, but there is more that local authorities can do today that is self-financing in order to improve air quality, including on this issue of idling.
Stephen Morgan
Given that the Secretary of State accepts that air quality is a matter of social justice and health inequality, why is he doing so little to support low-income households to switch to cleaner forms of transport?
Dr Coffey
I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets that impression from. We have offered grants to people who want to switch to electric vehicles. We are investing several billion pounds in different strategies to help people make that switch. We outlined other issues of air quality in our clean air strategy, which the World Health Organisation has said is something that every other country in the world should follow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Will the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) not seek to intercede at this time? His question might not be reached, but he has a similar inquiry. Get in there, man.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Dr Coffey
I have met Highways England with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), on several occasions. The chief executive holds a fortnightly meeting to discuss air quality and the progress that it is required to make under our air quality plan, and I am convinced that I can organise a direct meeting for my hon. Friend with him to discuss his specific issue.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Air quality around schools is a concern, and in my constituency and west Cornwall we are working up a plan to plant 20,000 trees with our school children by the end of 2020 to improve their air quality. Will the Minister meet me to see how we can deliver that ambition?
Dr Coffey
I welcome anyone who wants to plant trees. I think it is fair to say that the scientific evidence does not definitively say that trees help air quality, but they are good in so many other ways. It is about improving the local environment. We must continue to do more to ensure that children are not affected by poor air quality, and I welcome activities around the country to achieve that.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
There is no formal assessment of the cost of rural crime, but NFU Mutual, the highly respected insurance organisation, has estimated the cost of rural crime at £44.5 million in 2017.
Matt Western
Two weeks ago, I was due to meet the National Farmers Union and farmers from my local community. Unfortunately, on the day, one of the farmers could not attend because the previous night 19 ewes had been slaughtered in his fields. I understand that across Warwickshire we lost 27 ewes, slaughtered in the field, with entrails left there. It is a growing problem in our communities, among our farmers, with a significant economic impact on them. Part of the problem is down to lack of law enforcement and police numbers. Will the Secretary of State advise me on what I should say to farmers in my community about how to prevent this in future?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. He once more brings to our attention a horrific series of crimes. I would hope that he and I will be able to talk to the local police and crime commissioner to ensure that they have the resources and powers required. If anything more is required, I am more than happy to talk to Home Office colleagues to ensure that the incidents he has drawn to the House’s attention are not repeated.
Mr Speaker
I call the former president or patron of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, Sir Nicholas Soames.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
I am very keen to see rare breeds survive, which is why I suspect the leader—ex-leader, rather—of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), is bobbing.
More to the point, tomorrow is the last day on which the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be in her post. Clare Moriarty is an outstanding public servant. She is going on to become permanent secretary at the Department for Exiting the European Union. On behalf of my ministerial team, and I think Members across the House, I ask us all to record our thanks to an outstanding public servant for everything she has done to ensure that the environment, rural affairs and food have been at the heart of Government policy making and have been carried forward with the high standards of professionalism that we expect of a civil servant.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I thank my right hon. Friend and join him in paying tribute to an obviously very distinguished civil servant. One has to wonder what she has done to earn such a poisoned chalice.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that of all the landscapes in Britain, one of the most greatly cherished are the uplands? Does he agree that, inevitably, there is a good deal of concern and anxiety at this time as the Brexit policies unfold? Will he agree to receive a delegation from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Moorland Association to discuss with him some of the more pressing issues that are causing serious concern in an already hard-pressed community?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Our uplands are one of our environmental glories, and it is critical that those who live and work in the uplands and those who, for a variety of reasons, feel that their way of life and some of the economic activities that sustain communities in the uplands might be under threat, have the reassurance of knowing that this Government are on their side. I would be delighted to convene such a meeting.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The House will be aware that we increased the amount of money being spent on flood defences between 2015 and 2021—£2.1 billion across those six years—better to protect more than 300,000 homes. The hon. Lady will be aware that there are formulas for how we can allocate money to projects. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) opened up the doors with a partnership funding approach, which is largely working. However, I am very conscious that the hon. Lady is doing diligent work on behalf of her constituents to get better flood protection.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend draws attention to just one of many ways in which farmers are making sure that our natural environment is enhanced. Our new environmental land management schemes should better reward farmers and allow other landowners, such as the RSPB, to continue their good work.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Michael Gove
I absolutely agree that we need to take the issue of air quality more seriously. It is absolutely the No. 1 environmental threat to public health, and that is why our recent air quality strategy, which I launched with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, was applauded by the World Health Organisation as an example for other countries to follow.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Michael Gove
My predecessor in this role, now Leader of the House, introduced a national litter strategy, and since then a number of organisations, including Chichester council and my hon. Friend, both of whom I must congratulate, have been energetic in making sure that we deal with this scourge. My Department will do everything possible to make sure that every single arm of Her Majesty’s Government is committed to making sure that our natural environment is cleaner and greener as a result of joint efforts.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) might invite the Secretary of State to Chichester to observe the situation at close quarters; I feel sure that he will say yes.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will have seen that it emerged in The Sunday Times last week that the Department for Transport has pressurised Heathrow to hide information about the noise levels that the hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow will experience if and when runway 3 goes ahead. Does he share my concern, and that of my and many other Members’ constituents, that people have been kept in the dark about the noise that runway 3 will bring, which will be way above WHO recommended levels and way above what most people experience at the moment?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady asks if I have read The Sunday Times; I tend not to read the Sunday newspapers—it is better for my health. She asks a very serious question, and I will raise it with John Holland-Kaye, the chief executive of Heathrow.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Dr Thérèse Coffey
The Government are absolutely committed to that aim. We are making good progress on regulations to achieve that, on cross-Government strategies, and on working with industry to do precisely what my hon. Friend wants. I praise the volunteers who went out litter-picking to keep the beach clean; I used to play on that beach as a child, and it is great to see that it is in safe hands under the stewardship of my hon. Friend, working with the local community.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State agree to meet Humber MPs to discuss making funding for a national flood resilience centre in the Humber area a priority in the comprehensive spending review?
Michael Gove
The Minister with responsibility for the environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has already done so, and of course I would be happy to do so at any time.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Government have a fantastic track record on improving standards for animals. In 2015, the compulsory microchipping of dogs was brought in. However, there is an anomaly: there is no such provision for cats. The Secretary of State knows that I have a private Member’s Bill on cats that would mean cats were treated in the same way as dogs. I am grateful for my meeting with him last week. Will he assure me that the Government will do everything that they can to take the issue forward, so that cats get the same treatment as dogs?
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Most studies now indicate that we have an excess of incineration capacity to deal with residual waste. Is there not a danger that, if we build more incinerators, waste that would otherwise be recycled will be diverted to those incinerators?
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The UK has some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world, but American attitudes to farm animal welfare remain very backward. Given that there is now a cross-party consensus in this House that we should enshrine recognition of animal sentience in law, should the Government not require the United States to pass equivalent legislation at federal level as a precondition to any trade deal?
Michael Gove
That is a very good point from someone who was an excellent Minister. I so enjoyed serving with my hon. Friend. As ever, he shows that his commitment to animal welfare and to the highest standards in farming remains undimmed. We are very lucky to have him in this House.
Mr Speaker
We all know the Secretary of State is extraordinarily polite. Some people might think the Secretary of State is cultivating the hon. Gentleman for a purpose in the future. I know not what or when—no idea what that might be.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The east of England is a dry region with many houses planned for the future. Dr Robert Evans of the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University tells us that many of the streams he regularly monitors are already drying up. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that we have enough water for future houses in the region?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is also a wonderful addition to the House of Commons. I would like to cultivate him. He is a tall poppy in this House and certainly no blushing violet. He makes a very serious point. I have been talking to Anglian Water and others recently. The Environment Agency chief executive, James Bevan, has pointed out that water scarcity is a significant environmental danger. We need to work together to deal with it.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
My farmers warmly welcomed the launch of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme today; in fact, James Porter, who was mentioned earlier, is one of my farmers and welcomes the scheme. I will be meeting them next week to see how we can further improve it. Will the Secretary of State agree to continue conversations with the Home Office to ensure that the system can be monitored, increased and made permanent?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. Were it not for the advocacy of my hon. Friend and her constituents, we would not have the seasonal agricultural workers scheme in place already, and I pay tribute to her for that work. It is her constituent who has been responsible, working with her, for bringing the scheme in. In stark contrast to the destructive and cynical sniping from the Scottish National party, Scottish Conservatives have been delivering for Scottish farmers.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that not a penny of the £3.8 billion ring-fenced for agriculture in the proposed new scheme will be spent on schemes that are currently funded from non-CAP sources?
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I was going to ask, Mr Speaker—I am going to extend it—whether you are a gardener. If you are, you will understand the value of healthy soil. Does the Secretary of State agree that soil is so important for delivering flooding control and healthy food, and for holding carbon, that we should give it top priority in the Agriculture Bill, call it a public good and pay farmers to deliver it?
Michael Gove
Mr Speaker, can I thank you for granting my hon. Friend a long extension? She is absolutely right. Soil is at the heart of the fight against climate change, it is at the heart of good agriculture, and it is absolutely critical for making sure that our environment flourishes.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State still believe, as he has told me twice already, that other European countries are looking enviously at the United Kingdom’s attempts to withdraw from the European Union?
Michael Gove
Other European countries are looking enviously at the United Kingdom Government and piteously at the Scottish Government, whose contortions on constitutional questions continue to lead other European statesmen to wonder why a great country with so many talented people is in the hands of such a parcel of rogues.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
In light of Dieter Helm’s recent comments, how much weight does the Secretary of State give to food security in developing future farming policy?
Michael Gove
I have enormous respect for Professor Helm, but food security is absolutely central to my Department’s and this Government’s mission.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Both farmers and consumers are concerned that future trade agreements will lower UK food standards. How will the Secretary of State ensure that future trade agreements maintain and improve our food quality standards?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that, and I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be talking to the NFU and other farming unions later today about how we can make sure that standards are protected.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church Commissioners’ rural estate is almost entirely let, predominantly on secure tenancies, which include shooting rights. The Church Commissioners’ ability to influence shooting activities, as long as they are legal and do not breach tenancy terms, is very limited.
Rachael Maskell
Bishop Wood is being used for shooting—land leased by the Church Commissioners to the Forestry Commission. Blood sports in exchange for blood money for the Church of England. What steps have the Church Commissioners taken to ban blood sports across their estate?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I know that the hon. Lady wrote to the Church Commissioners, and they replied to her on 6 March. It is a long-established practice of the Forestry Commission, who are the tenants of the land that she refers to, that they inform people locally when a shoot is to take place, but I can make additional inquiries on her behalf. The Church Commissioners do not have a wide-ranging policy on shooting, because in the majority of cases shooting rates are contained within farm tenancies, many of which are lifetime tenancies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Speaker, you will know, as I know, that those who lease land from the Churches have a responsibility as lessee to control pests on that land—grey squirrels, foxes, pigeons, crows and so on. Does the right hon. Lady agree that those tenancy agreement terms, and that pest control, have to be enforced?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Without doubt, the hon. Gentleman is right. The Church Commissioners do have a responsibility to ensure that the terms of any tenancy are conformed with. To be perfectly clear about conservation, the Church of England is strongly committed to conservation, especially in its own green spaces. I am sure we all remember the campaigns that were fought to provide a haven for the hedgehog in churchyards, for example, and the Church’s commitment to work with Natural England on bat conservation. Conservation is at our heart.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church Commissioners vote annually on the availability of strategic development funding. The funding is a 10-year programme, and the £270 million of overall funding for the programme that was agreed in 2016 is to be sustained over the period.
Ian Austin
Mr Speaker, you will recall from your celebrated visit to Dudley the beautiful sight of Top church, dominating the town’s skyline. I am sure you will want to join me in thanking the Church Commissioners for designating Top church a resourcing church, and for granting £2.5 million to pay for more staff, support for vulnerable people, its work in the deprived community and—together with support from the Heritage Lottery Fund—urgent repairs and much-needed restoration.
May I take the opportunity to say how grateful we are to the brilliant Bishop of Dudley, the Rt Rev. Graham Usher; our Archdeacon, the Venerable Nikki Groarke; the resourcing church leader, the Rev. James Treasure, and of course Maureen Westley, who has been the driving force behind the church for years, and the whole congregation at Top church?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Amen to that, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will take those thanks back to the Church Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman’s question gives me, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, a chance to remind the whole House of the Church Commissioners’ commitment to helping communities, especially some of our poorest communities, to refurbish and regenerate their churches.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How much of the strategic development fund is spent on building churches in new residential housing estates?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is a very important point that the strategic development fund is there not only for the restoration of very fine examples of English architecture, such as Top church in Dudley, but to establish new churches, often in communities where there has been no provision for places of worship. I reassure my hon. Friend. If he has candidates in his constituency, perhaps he would like to place a request through me to the commissioners, if that is what he seeks.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
A recent article in The Guardian stated that Scotland’s largest private forestry owner is now the Church of England. There are growing concerns in Scotland about the effects of that type of concentrated land ownership. Can the commissioner shed some light on what assessment the Church made of the impact of that investment decision on local communities?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The investment in forestry was part of the Church of England’s commitment to respond to its ethical investment strategy and move away from investments in, for example, oil sands and companies that may be producing products that do not accord with our commitment to tackle climate change. Investment in forestry obviously is a positive contribution to the climate. As part of the assessment of those investments, we take into consideration the communities that live in the places where we are invested.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
It is vital that there is no foreign interference in the UK’s elections, and transparency about who is spending money to influence voters is an essential safeguard. The Electoral Commission monitors party donations and campaign spending to ensure that the laws on foreign influence have not been broken. Where there are specific allegations that the UK’s political finance law has been broken, the commission can investigate, issue civil sanctions and refer cases to the police or the National Crime Agency for criminal investigation.
Mr Sheerman
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but from previous questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) she will be aware of Russian influence. We know that that influence is happening and has happened. Many of us worry that we are not well enough organised to identify it. When can we get a coalition with GCHQ and security services that will reassure Members that interference, which we know is going on, can be stopped?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Electoral Commission’s regulatory remit is confined in law to UK-based parties and other campaigners. It liaises with the UK Government and security services, working to ensure that our elections are free from foreign interference and to address the issue of threats to our democracy. Those questions might be well addressed to Government Ministers.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The hon. Lady has a unique relationship with the Electoral Commission; I perversely do as well now, and I have fast-track communication with it. I have lots of complaints about the Electoral Commission, but I raise one small thing. Let us try to repair the organisation one step at a time. Can we insist that it dates all its guidance and documents in the bottom left-hand corner, as we do in any other part of Government? Whether it is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, there is always a date, but that is not always the case with Electoral Commission documents. Let us please just put that right.
Bridget Phillipson
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am sure that the issues he has raised this morning will have been heard. I will ensure that the commission responds in full to the issues he has raised.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
This is a growing area of concern. In its recent report on digital campaigning, the Electoral Commission recommended greater transparency on the sources of digital campaign materials and those paying for them and that the commission should be given greater powers to compel information from social media companies.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
To increase the number of apprentices, the House service has taken a number of steps. That includes expanding the range of apprenticeship programmes on offer from two to 14 since September 2018 and upskilling existing employees by enrolling them on apprenticeship programmes. The expansion of apprenticeship programmes will continue. Ongoing engagement and planning for apprenticeship roles across all House teams will ensure more quality apprenticeships are created.
Robert Halfon
Mr Speaker, you have led the way in ensuring that young people are employed in the House in your scheme, and in supporting apprenticeships, but as we are the House of Commons and the Houses of Parliament, can we please set an example to our nation and not just coast along in terms of employment of apprentices and make sure we meet our 2.3% public target? I urge you, Mr Speaker, and the senior Clerk to rocket-boost apprenticeships so that we have hundreds of apprentices in the Houses of Parliament.
Tom Brake
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his work to raise the profile of apprenticeships in the House. He will know that the House intends to increase the number of apprentices from 14 to 38 by the end of May. He will also be aware that that does not hit the 2.3% target, which the House intends to do by 2021.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
What rates are House of Commons apprentices paid? The Government’s minimum rate is £3.70 per hour for under-19s and those over 19 in their first year. I would be interested to know how much apprentices in the House, who do a very important job, are paid. Would it not set an example to give them a much higher rate so that the rest of the country could do so as well?
Mr Speaker
And if the hon. Lady is not satisfied, we might have to look at it again, preferably sooner rather than later.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the regional and national diversity of apprentices? We are a UK House of Commons and House of Parliament. It would therefore be good if apprentices from across the UK feel that they can access the schemes. We should also ensure that we are more diverse by ensuring that we have more women apprentices—they can become Clerk of the House or serve as head of security. Diversity is extremely important. We cannot just preach it; we must also practise it.
Tom Brake
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He may be aware that the House works with Amazing Apprenticeships, an organisation that goes out nationally to 3,500 schools and colleges. Among other things, it is creating a short film about what happens in the House, which I hope has a positive impact on his diversity concerns.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
It gives me very special pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) because it allows me to extend to her my very best wishes for her wedding on Saturday. I am sure the House joins me in that.
The Church of England is working with stakeholders to produce guidance for churches to be published in May. The guidance should assist churches in making the best use of the joint accord between the Government and the Church to support digital connectivity. Two hundred churches have taken up the opportunity of the new technology, adding to the existing 300 that had already done so.
Mrs Murray
I thank my right hon. Friend for her good wishes. Is she aware of any specific problems that discourage parishes from taking up the opportunity to improve connectivity in rural areas such as South East Cornwall, and at the same time increasing parish income? If so, can the Government do anything to help?
Dame Caroline Spelman
It is largely about awareness or perceived barriers—some people think it is impossible to be a candidate, but I reassure my hon. Friend that it is perfectly possible to install digital technology infrastructure even in listed buildings. I encourage her to raise awareness locally. Two churches in the Truro diocese were granted facility in 2017, but two is not many in the whole diocese. Anything that can be done to encourage other churches to look at the opportunity to improve broadband coverage in their area would be gratefully received.
Scott Mann
It is a pleasure to be coupled with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). I wish her the very best in her coupling this weekend—a proper Cornish wedding in Westminster.
After discussions with the Church Commissioners officer, I am aware that there are no reasons why church spires cannot be used for boosting broadband signals in rural areas. I recently had a good meeting with Cornwall Broadband, a local provider, which would like to open a dialogue with the churches in Cornwall to utilise their spires. Would the Church Commissioners be interested in that dialogue, and what advice can the right hon. Lady offer to facilitate those discussions?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church Commissioners would be interested, but the initiative comes very much from the diocese; I encourage them to make contact through the diocesan office. Some diocese have progressed faster with this opportunity, particularly in East Anglia—almost 300 churches in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex alone have installed this digital technology, for example. One of the key barriers is not knowing where the notspots for mobile and broadband signals are. All colleagues can get involved: if there is a tall church building in the vicinity of a notspot, perhaps this technology is for them.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
The House of Commons catering service does not currently stock Plymouth Gin, but will seek to stock some for the Mayflower 400 commemorations.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, which will warm the spirits of people in Plymouth. Plymouth Gin is a fantastic gin, and Mayflower 400, which marks the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower from Plymouth to America, is a great opportunity. In these tough times, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we look not only at the standard-strength gin, but Plymouth Gin’s Navy strength as well? We could all do with a little bit extra in these tough times.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He may be aware of moves within the House to look at the availability of alcohol in this place; I am not sure whether the House will want to entertain the idea of double or triple-strength gins. However, he has put his point on the record and I will take it back to the catering services, including whether they want to stock the double or triple-strength gin that he proposes.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As the House authorities are aware, wholesalers have a monopoly, particularly when it comes to putting beer into Strangers Bar. Red Squirrel Brewery, which is in my constituency, managed to get it in there after five years, but only after having to go through the wholesaler designated by the House. The margins made it almost unprofitable for it to put the beer in there. That is wrong: there should not be a monopoly in this House.
Mr Speaker
I say to those observing our proceedings that that interesting inquiry does relate to alcohol, but not to gin. It is a sort of side observation from the right hon. Gentleman, borne of his personal experience, for which we are grateful.
Tom Brake
I assume that it is in order for me to respond very briefly, Mr Speaker. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman has put on the record his concerns about how the process works, but he will also be aware that Members do at least, through the guest beer option, have the possibility of bringing their own specialist beers to the House.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
There are a number of significant anniversaries this year. It is the 25th anniversary of women’s ordination as priests, the 50th anniversary of women being made readers and the fifth anniversary of women being consecrated as bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury has held a special service at Lambeth Palace to celebrate the anniversary, and events have also been taking place in diocese.
Mark Menzies
Throughout 2018, celebrations were rightly held in honour of the centenary of the women’s vote. What plans does the commission have to carry on in that vein for the 25th anniversary of women’s ordination to the priesthood?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Our plans are to pursue our determination to encourage more women into the priesthood. For the record, I share with the House the fact that the number of female clergy is now at a record high: women now make up nearly a third of the 20,000 active clergy. More importantly, there are those in the pipeline: more than half those entering training for the priesthood in 2018 were women.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
The commission found Vote Leave guilty of multiple breaches under electoral law and imposed fines of £61,000 in July 2018. Vote Leave made representations to the commission in June 2018, when it was notified of the commission’s proposals for penalties. The commission considered these representations carefully, in accordance with its published enforcement policy, before deciding on the penalties to be imposed. Vote Leave took up its right of appeal to the county court, and the appeal is listed for July 2019.
Dr Whitford
The Leave campaign was found guilty of sending almost 200,000 unsolicited texts to numbers it had harvested from a football competition with odds of 5 million, million, billion to one. Anyone who is good at trillions can tell me at the end. In view of the threatened economic damage from Brexit, does the hon. Lady really think that a fine of £40,000 is enough to put others off?
Bridget Phillipson
The Electoral Commission works closely with the Information Commissioner and others in making sure that our rules are followed, but the Electoral Commission, in terms of its responsibilities, continues to urge the Government to introduce legislation to strengthen its sanctioning powers for future referendums and elections. Its view is that the current maximum fine of £20,000 per offence could well be seen as the cost of doing business.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
Parish churches will be welcoming parents and families especially back to church this weekend for Mothering Sunday. What better year to record with grateful thanks all of those involved in making it possible for mothers to have their names on marriage certificates? Even though Mothering Sunday takes place during Lent, it is a feast day. In preparation for Lent, the Church has developed a free Lent pilgrim app and emails, and the campaign material is also available on Alexa.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. As she knows, Easter is a special time for us Christians as it represents the absolute core of our faith. There is something unique and special about spending it in church, so can she outline what work the Church of England is doing to reach out via social media and the internet to families who may not normally be church attenders to come and share that special joy with us?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church has been winning awards for the range of innovative resources it uses to develop support for local churches and encourage their communities to use them. For example, there is achurchnearyou.com, a finder website that has more than 10 million visitors a year and has seen a big increase in the number of people using the site and spending time on it.
Hard copies of the Church’s materials are also available. Should the rigours of Brexit be too much, it is not too late for Members to avail themselves of the “Pilgrim Journeys” book of daily readings to get us through to Easter.
Supporting Disabled People to Work
(5 years 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
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on the National Audit Office’s report “Supporting disabled people to work”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
The Department welcomes the National Audit Office report, which acknowledges the Department’s work to build our evidence base and deliver tailored support through jobcentres with partnership working, including healthcare services that deliver for disabled people. Between 2013 and 2018, disability employment has risen by 930,000, but there is more to do to deliver on our commitment set out in the “Improving Lives” paper. As the Secretary of State announced earlier this month, we will review our goal of 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027 to see if it can be made even more ambitious.
We know that personalised, tailored support and tackling the misconceptions and the barriers that people may face are effective in getting disabled people into work. Our initiatives give claimants the opportunity to access personalised support to help them to move closer to work and to help to achieve cultural change, including through our Disability Confident scheme, supporting employers to provide job opportunities. Since the “Improving Lives” paper was published in 2017, the Department has launched the Work and Health programme, which will support some 220,000 disabled people, and the intensive personalised employment support programme, which will start at the end of this year. Access to Work supported some 33,860 people last year, up 13% to a record high, and more than 11,000 employers have signed up to the Disability Confident campaign.
The Department routinely evaluates its labour market programmes and ensures that the evidence is used to provide the most effective interventions that help people move closer to the labour market. We will continue to build our evidence base by testing a range of initiatives and using this evidence to inform our future strategy. With universal credit, that is transforming the labour market prospects of disabled people, not only through earlier and more intense engagement, but by allowing them to move into and out of work without the fear of losing their benefits or having a new health assessment. This year, we will also introduce new disability employment adviser leader roles to support work coaches to build their skills and capabilities.
In conclusion, stakeholders will be at the heart of our future work. Together we will continue to do all we can to unlock disabled people’s potential.
Marsha De Cordova
Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you for granting today’s urgent question?
Today, the National Audit Office published a damning report evaluating the Government’s progress in supporting disabled people into employment. The NAO concluded that, two years into the Government’s work, health and disability strategy, the Department for Work and Pensions lacks any clear measures or implementation plan to promote the employment of disabled people.
The report found that the number of disabled people out of work has remained stagnant—at 3.7 million—for the last five years, highlighting that the increase in the number of disabled people has not been matched by a decrease in the number who are out of work. The report also found that the Government have yet to evaluate the effectiveness of their employment support programme. Indeed, the head of the NAO has said that the Government
“has yet to make a significant dent”
in the number of disabled people out of work. The disability employment gap has stayed at a little above 30% for the last two years. Recently, the Secretary of State announced “a more ambitious plan” to increase the employment target beyond 1 million in the next 10 years. Given the NAO’s conclusions today, how does she expect to deliver that?
The NAO also found that the case load of work coaches is set to double as a result of universal credit. How will the Minister ensure that disabled people do not receive a worse service, and what additional resources will be made available, aside from just disability employment leads?
We all know that the Access to Work scheme is effective, but many employers are unaware of it. Will the Minister commit to expand the scheme and to remove the current cap? The Government’s Disability Confident scheme lacks any credible performance measures to ensure that disabled people get the right support, as well as any quality standards or independent evaluation. Will the Government now commit to getting the scheme independently evaluated? Will they also start to record the number of disabled people who are in work as a result of it?
Finally, it has been two weeks since there was a Minister for Disabled People. When will one be appointed?
Justin Tomlinson
The NAO report did welcome our approach to offering tailored and personalised support. We know from speaking to disabled people of all ages that that is something they very much welcome. All of us in society have our own unique challenges and opportunities as we navigate through life and particularly as we seek work. From the many visits I made during my time as the Minister for Disabled People, I know just how powerful the case is for doing everything we can to help disabled people into work, and particularly young disabled people, who want to have exactly the same opportunities as their peers.
The NAO report also welcomed our test-and-learn approach. There is no global, off-the-shelf book that says exactly how we can help every single individual. We have to develop new, innovative ways, and that was welcomed, as was our commitment to continue partnership working, particularly to support local, excellent initiatives that help to unlock people’s potential.
I do not recognise much of what the shadow Minister said, because there are 930,000 more disabled people in work over the last five years. This is real people having the opportunity to work; these are record numbers. Over 400,000 workless disabled people a year move into work. That is a welcome figure. However, we recognise that more needs to be done, which is why the Secretary of State was passionate about saying that we will review that target of 1 million more by 2027, and I will support that.
We are focusing our efforts on personalised and tailored support. We are increasing the number of disability advisers and their training. The personalised support package will unlock local initiatives. The work and health programme is helping 220,000 disabled people. We are doing joined-up working with the Department of Health and Social Care. Our proactive work supporting employers has also helped. I recognise the point about raising awareness of Access to Work, and we do need to do more on that, but we had a record number of people last year—up 13%. The cap has gone from 1.5 times average earnings to twice that amount, at about £57,900. I welcome the cultural change among employers who recognise that, with just a few small changes, it can be a win-win situation. I felt that as an employer, and a number of times when I engaged with businesses of all sizes. Those businesses benefit, as do disabled people, and we will continue to do all we can.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome what my hon. Friend has said. My constituent, Lacey-Rose Saamanthy, a Harlow resident, is deaf and she was recently offered a role at Broomfield Hospital as a catering assistant. However, her offer of employment email did not make it clear that that offer was conditional on a risk assessment, and it was subsequently retracted. To me, that is outrageous. The risk assessment identified a number of risks that Ms Saamanthy believes could easily have been mitigated. Will the Minister explain the role that disabled employees can play in the workplace, and help stop such outrageous discrimination against a deaf person who was offered a job but who then had that offer rescinded?
Justin Tomlinson
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s work in supporting what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) have done to introduce disability apprenticeships. He mentions a terrible case, and disability employment advisers can help to provide constructive advice to employers—particularly small employers that do not have HR departments—and give them confidence to ensure that all people, regardless of their disability, can contribute to those employers.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Although I have enjoyed our debates on this subject over the years, the Minister knows that it should not be him at the Dispatch Box but a new, dedicated disability Minister. The fact that the Prime Minister has not even bothered to replace the Minister for Disabled People after nearly two weeks is a shameful indictment of a Tory Government who have collapsed into crisis and chaos. They are so consumed by their Brexit folly that they are completely ignoring the day job. That is costing the country dearly, and it adds insult to injury for those disabled people who have been left unrepresented and impoverished by Tory policies.
We should not be surprised by the NAO report. Will the Minister explain why his party dropped its ambitious policy at the last election to halve the disability employment gap? We see in the NAO report that the Government’s new watered-down goal of having 1 million more disabled people in work cannot be used to measure the success of those efforts—even the Department for Work and Pensions acknowledges that. What is the Minister’s assessment of the NAO’s conclusion that his Department has no idea of what works when it comes to disability employment support? Why have all the schemes to support disability employment been underspent?
Finally, the NAO report does not cover the interaction between disabled people and the benefit system. Does the Minister see that cutting disability benefit support—as this Government have done with employment and support allowance and universal credit—while not having a clue about what impact their employment programmes are having, is the height of irresponsibility, and a neglect of the needs of disabled people?
Justin Tomlinson
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am happy to be here answering this urgent question, and I am passionate about this role. As I said, my work in this area, both as a former Minister for Disabled People and today, is particularly guided by meeting young disabled people and their families, and there is a passion and determination for them to have the same opportunities as others. In some cases that involves full-time work; other times it can be as little as one hour a month, but for some people that is life changing, and the Government are committed to that. It is right that the Secretary of State reviews our ambitious target of an extra 1 million disabled people in work, and it is the actual number that counts. Every one of those 930,000 disabled people involved with this scheme in the past five years now has the opportunities that so many others take for granted.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the sign-up rates of various different packages, but I gently remind him that they are voluntary—we do not want to mandate anything. That said, however, through the personalised support package there is the opportunity to look for local initiatives. All our constituencies have examples of best practice, and through the personalised support of the individual work coach, we can unlock access to those initiatives, linking them to local employers and giving people—particularly those who have been away from the jobs market for a long time—the very best chance. As I said, I have seen the joy of individuals who work for as little as one hour a month, and what a difference that makes to their life.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I know that you, Mr Speaker, regard the report by the all-party group on acquired brain injury, “Time for Change”, as required reading. I hope the Minister will, too. It sets out how hundreds of thousands of Britons across all our constituencies are affected by head injuries, with physiological and psychological effects. Neurorehabilitation can help those people to recover and lead purposeful, meaningful and fulfilled lives, but I have to say that that requires Government Departments working together to bring these hidden disabilities to light and to give people new chances and new lives.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my right hon. Friend. This is a very, very important issue. I know that the former Minister met stakeholders, as have I. My right hon. Friend has been a real champion in raising, in particular, hidden disabilities and long-term health conditions. It is absolutely right that we have joined-up working, which is why we are working so closely with the Department of Health and Social Care through the joint Health and Work Unit. Many claimants need a combination of support to unlock their full potential.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The disability employment gap fell steadily in the years up to 2010. It has since got stuck at a level just above 30%. David Cameron, in the 2015 election campaign, promised to halve it by 2020, a pledge that was quickly abandoned after the 2015 election. What does the Minister now believe will happen to the disability employment gap over the next five years?
Justin Tomlinson
The right hon. Gentleman is one of the most constructive and proactive Members of the Opposition pushing on this very important area. When we came to office, disability employment stood at 44.1%. It has now gone to 51.5%. That is up 7.4%, with the gap closing by 3.6%. I expect that trend to continue over the next five years.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I was very pleased to sign up my constituency office to the Disability Confident scheme, because I know, as a former employer in a small business, that there are practical and awareness barriers. Will the Minister update the House on some of the practical measures he is implementing to help employers employ disabled people who really want to work?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for showing real, tangible commitment to supporting this and to creating new opportunities for disabled people. The Government rightly have to lead on this, but we also need employers to be proactive offering work experience, interviews and, ultimately, jobs. The key message we give to employers is that it will benefit them. We have huge skill gaps in this country and often with just very small changes they can benefit. I am not just preaching as a Minister, but as somebody who ran my own business for 10 years and benefited from making very small changes to get some excellent new members of staff. We will continue to work and to give as much advice and support to businesses as we can.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Labour Members fought very hard in this Chamber to keep the Remploy jobs going. I had a Remploy factory in my constituency, which was a lifeline to so many people. I am sure the Minister has the best intentions, but I have heard these platitudes before. Can the Minister tell us how many Remploy people who lost their jobs are now in work?
Justin Tomlinson
I will have to write to the right hon. Lady to give her the exact figures, but the principle we have to look at is giving individuals who are more than two years away from the jobs market, real and intense support to help them get there. At the moment, the best route is through the specialist employment support. Last year, we had 1,520 starts, of which 600 people were able to get at least a placement for 13 weeks, leading to permanent jobs. We need to continue to do everything we can on personalised support and linking up with local employment opportunities.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As a former disabilities Minister—I had other roles within the Department as well; it was not just disabilities, but that was the lead issue—I say to those on the Front Bench, and I hope the Prime Minister is listening, that we should have a Minister for this role as soon as possible. I do not understand why that has not taken place.
Disability Confident is a great success. As parliamentarians, we can push it forward in our own constituencies, as we have in my constituency of Hemel Hempstead, so that people have the confidence to get into work and employers can employ the right people.
Justin Tomlinson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We can help to raise the awareness of Disability Confident. We can do our own Disability Confident events, and we can write to employers to encourage them to sign up and to work with local organisations that support disabled people to find job opportunities. It should be a real priority for all of us.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The National Audit Office makes it clear that there is no evidence that the £386 million spent on Disability Confident has resulted in a single disabled person getting into work. Would it not be better to devolve that resource and extra responsibilities for employment programmes to local and regional government—such as in Southwark, where we have a Labour council committed to becoming a full employment borough—to allow them to innovate to get more disabled people into work?
Justin Tomlinson
To be fair, I think the figures speak for themselves: 930,000 people in the last five years have gained—[Interruption.] However, I accept the thrust of the point about looking at local solutions and empowering local communities, because they know their job market and where the skills gaps are. I accept that principle. We are moving in that direction through the personalised support package so that work coaches can look at local initiatives. There is a lot more work in that area. I very much welcome that question.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
One of my constituents who is disabled has written to me, suggesting that this Government are putting less into disability benefits than previous Governments, and my constituent is very concerned that there could be an impact from Brexit. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is more money going into disability benefits and that the Government will continue to support those with disabilities, no matter what happens regarding Brexit?
Justin Tomlinson
Our support for people with disability benefits is now at £55 billion, up £10 billion in real terms since 2010. That is a record high. The amount that we are spending on employment support for those with disabilities is showing a real-terms increase following the spending review and will continue to do so.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope that the Minister would agree that this is a bit of a wake-up call, but what the Government have been doing is not all bad and I welcome some of the moves that are happening. As chair of the Westminster Commission on Autism, may I offer more of a partnership? The neuro-diverse community and people on the autism spectrum are differently abled. We have some wonderful organisations such as AchieveAbility and Genius Within that are going out looking for people who are a bit quirky in their thinking, who think differently. The gig economy and some of the techy areas are looking for these people. They are very valuable assets and we need to encourage them. Will the Minister meet some of these people, whom I can introduce him to?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has done a huge amount of work in this area. These are the sorts of points that were picked up in the Maynard review. We have worked very closely with a lot of the leading autism charities. They rewrote the training guidance for our frontline staff and fed into the autism toolkit within jobcentres. He is absolutely right: if employers are savvy and look at their skills gaps so that they can match them to the huge amount of talent and potential of people with autism, they will benefit. That is the key message to employers. We are not looking for favours; we are looking for a win-win for the disabled individual and the business.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I recently visited Remploy in my constituency in Arbroath. It does a fantastic job of transforming lives and supporting and getting people with disabilities into work. It had its first placement on a farm in Angus recently. Does the Minister agree that the Government have fantastically ambitious targets and that we should ensure that all industries wish to widen their talent pool?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for championing this cause in her constituency. She highlights the point that a lot of these local organisations are doing a great amount to support disabled persons, building up their skills so that they are ready to enter the workplace. We all need to try to unlock as many doors as we can with employers, so that there are more opportunities that everybody can benefit from.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I was proud to speak at the Disability Confident conference in Nottingham last Friday and I pay tribute to the work of local DWP staff and local employers such as Nottingham Trent University, which is sharing its experience of improving the accessibility of its recruitment and retention practices. When the charity, Leonard Cheshire, surveyed disabled people in work or previously working, only 23% had received support from Access to Work, and the vast majority had had to wait more than three months for their application to be approved. What is the Minister doing to ensure that everyone is aware of the Access to Work support that is available and that they can get that support promptly?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for taking the time to pay tribute to the frontline staff in jobcentres, who do a huge amount of work to support disabled claimants. That often goes unnoticed, but it makes a real difference to those claimants. A record number of people received support from Access to Work last year, and I welcome the 13% increase, but we will continue to step up our efforts to ensure that businesses—particularly small businesses, which provide 40% of employment opportunities—are aware that both financial support and advice are available to unlock the potential of disabled staff.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Will the Minister build on the point that he has just made, and congratulate all the businesses—such as Brentwood Community Print in my constituency—which, entirely off their own bat, go out and provide work for people with disabilities, and help them to rebuild their lives and find a way forward?
Justin Tomlinson
I am delighted to pay tribute to Brentwood Community Print. It has recognised that it can benefit from being an innovative business in terms of recruitment, and I hope that many other businesses will look and learn the lessons that it has set out.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The head of the National Audit Office has said that it is “disappointing” that the Department for Work and Pensions still does not understand “what works” when it comes to helping disabled people into work. However, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), may I invite the Minister to visit the brilliant ISCAL factory in my constituency? ISCAL is a leading manufacturer of tissue coasters and napkins, and offers supported employment opportunities to people with mental and physical disabilities. It really is transforming lives.
Justin Tomlinson
The NAO welcomes the fact that we are offering precise and tailored support, and that we are using innovative methods and a test and learn programme. There is no global definition: there is nothing that we can take off the shelf and say “This will work for everyone.” There is no one size fits all. Everyone is an individual, and everyone has individual challenges and opportunities.
We are rightly investing in that innovative research, and will use our findings to share best practice and roll it out. We welcome the fact that the number of disabled people in work has risen by more than 930,000 in the last five years. I am thrilled to hear of the success of the hon. Lady’s local initiative, and I will certainly suggest to the Department a potential future visit.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I was delighted to attend a Disability Confident event in one of my local jobcentres in Galashiels, whose staff do a tremendous amount to get disabled people back into work. Can the Minister confirm that the financial support that disabled people currently receive is more generous than the support that they received under the system that we inherited?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is another champion in his constituency, ensuring that disabled residents have the maximum opportunity that so many of us take for granted. We are spending £10 billion more in real terms on disability benefits than we were in 2010, and that is making a difference to some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is good to see that the Minister survived his grilling from the Work and Pensions Committee yesterday. Has he seen the report from the think-tank Demos, which has found that there is a “chronic” lack of trust between disabled people and the Department, and that 60% of disabled people do not believe that it understands their concerns? What will he do to address that perception?
Justin Tomlinson
It is always a pleasure to appear before the Select Committee, and in particular to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s challenging and probing questions. We, as a Department, are incredibly passionate about working closely with stakeholder groups with real, frontline experience, not just listening to them but allowing them to help to shape the development of our policies and training guidance, so that we can do everything possible to unlock all people’s potential.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is important for us to get disabled people into work, but it is equally important for that work to pay. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look not just at the benefits system, but at how it interacts with general measures such as the higher income tax threshold which support better take-home pay for all?
Justin Tomlinson
I think all Members will welcome the thrust of the point that my hon. Friend has made. It also gives me an opportunity to emphasise the benefit of universal credit to people with fluctuating health conditions. They do not keep crashing out of the benefit system and having to go through health assessments again and to reapply at a time when their health should be their primary concern. Universal credit offers that flexibility and tailored support.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The DWP is the biggest-spending Government Department, but its spending is opaque. I have tabled questions about whom it pays in my constituency, and I cannot get a straight answer. Excellent local businesses such as Empower are helping disabled people. I want to work with local providers and the Department to provide placements, but I cannot get through to the Department. Will the Minister help?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is a really good question. Through the principles of the personalised support package, we have to find ways to support those local initiatives. There is not a one size fits all and a lot of that support will match the local market. That is a very important point and I will make sure that he has a meeting with the appropriate Minister.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
At a Disability Confident event I hosted some time ago, we saw some great examples of very talented people being employed by local employers. What work is the Department doing to ensure those employers are recognised not just for the fact that they have done something good but because they have taken on some brilliant people?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly in the area, and that is exactly why the Secretary of State has been so passionate about saying that our target has to be ambitious. We owe it to every single one of those individuals looking for work, whether full-time work or the occasional bit of work. It makes a huge difference and we are incredibly proud that the number of disabled people in work has risen by 930,000 in the last five years—a record high.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The report says that people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities fare worse than the rest. A number of parents in my constituency who have young people with learning difficulties in adult education find it very difficult and are in despair that their children are not going to find work. What more can the Government do to ensure that efforts are particularly focused on young people with disabilities getting into work?
Justin Tomlinson
That is very important because those with learning disabilities have about a 6% expectancy of finding work. Very early on in my time as a disability Minister, I met some young adults with a learning disability who desperately wanted that chance and that is what drove me to set up the Maynard review with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), so we could unlock the potential of the apprenticeship programme. I am delighted that last year that came live and now people with learning disabilities who would not necessarily have got the grade C in maths and English are benefiting from apprenticeships, giving them a real, tangible chance of getting the work they so desperately want.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for his commitment and dedication to the role and particularly commend the speed of response to correspondence, which is an outstanding example that other Ministers should be encouraged to follow.
How many disabled people are employed in the DWP?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend and I do understand the importance not just of responding to individual MPs’ correspondence but offering an opportunity to meet, particularly on the more complex cases, and there are many Members I can see here today whom I have met in recent weeks on a variety of issues. We are all first and foremost constituency MPs who are here to champion those in our communities who have challenges. On the question about how many disabled people are employed in the Department, I will have to write to my hon. Friend because I would not wish to give somebody of such experience anything other than the exact answer.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) about young people with learning disabilities and their ability to access the job market and get employment, can the Minister explain why this report from the NAO did not recognise what the Minister has just said from the Dispatch Box—the review that has been carried out has not had the effect he has just claimed it has?
Justin Tomlinson
To be fair, that is looking historically and this came in last year—so it is the first wave of people starting to look—but it is all combined with making sure employers have the confidence that they can take on people who may have some challenges. Often it only means small changes, but we are incredibly proud that we will leave no stone unturned, so that not just the 930,000 people who we have seen over the last five years, but more people, of all disabilities, will have an opportunity to work.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
This disappointing report today surely underlines the need for a Minister for disability, so following up on what other Members have said and the reports in today’s paper that there will not be a Minister until after Brexit, when will the Government reassure the public that they are actually acting on this and care about disabilities?
Justin Tomlinson
I can reassure the hon. Lady that nobody cares more than our Department, led by a Secretary of State who is very passionate about this, and I have been very happy to support the various parliamentary debates and meetings that have gone on since then—and if we would like Brexit to be wrapped up, I urge all colleagues on all sides of the House to support the Prime Minister’s deal.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) mentioned the great opportunity of the Remploy factory in her constituency, but unfortunately in my constituency, in Springburn, that opportunity was stripped from my constituents when the Remploy factory was closed in 2013, putting 50 disabled workers out of work. Indeed one of those workers was found dead on the day the factory was closed; it was another callous and shameful episode of the coalition Government. So will the Minister commit to extending the protected places scheme for disabled workers, particularly at Blindcraft in my constituency, where 250 people work producing world-class furnishings and high-quality joinery? It is a world-class example of how this can actually work as a proper sustainable model. I encourage him to go and look at that particular example, to extend the protected places scheme and to broaden that opportunity for disabled workers. It is a wonderful factory.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting what is clearly a very successful local initiative. This goes back to some of my earlier answers, in that we are committed to finding ways of getting support to those innovative local initiatives that are making a real difference on the frontline, and I will feed in to the Department his suggestion of a visit.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
Will the Minister organise a meeting with me and his colleagues from the Department for Transport? The Ring and Ride service, which is used by thousands of disabled people and pensioners in the Black Country, has been put at risk after its operator collapsed into administration. The service is a lifeline for the many disabled people who use it to get to projects to boost their skills and confidence, and for the pensioners who use it to meet friends, do their shopping and get to social events or projects that prevent loneliness and isolation. It is really important that this service should be saved.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the importance of that, and I will certainly ensure that an appropriate Minister meets him to see what support can be offered.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Tory vice-chairman, the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), is reported to have said that no Minister for the disabled will be appointed until the Brexit chaos has passed. Will the Minister tell us why that is? Three Members have asked this question already, but to no avail. It is disturbing that the Minister seems to be blaming MPs for the lack of a disabilities Minister because they have not supported the Prime Minister’s doomed deal. What signal does he think this sends to disabled people about the Government’s priorities? Why are disabled people paying the price for this Government’s Brexit chaos?
Justin Tomlinson
As I said in my earlier answers, I am happy to attend and support debates and meetings. I am also proud to have served as the Minister for disabled people a few years back, and my passion has not diminished one bit. We all collectively owe it to those people who need that extra bit of support to do everything we can, and I am proud to do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the Minister for his honest endeavours on behalf of disabled people. They are much appreciated. Can he outline whether there are any grants for small and medium-sized enterprises to make accessibility issues easier? If not, would he consider such a scheme?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He has been a passionate advocate over the years in a number of the debates that I have responded to in this area. He is a real credit to his constituency. The Access to Work programme and the personalised support package can help to unlock opportunities within small employers. That is a really important area of work, and I am glad that he has taken the time to highlight it.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Citizens Advice has identified that some disabled people could be worse off under universal credit by as much as £300 a month because the work allowance is not available to disabled people who are assessed as fit for work unless they have children. Will this damning report finally make the Government address this huge shortfall?
Justin Tomlinson
What is clear is that, under universal credit, over 1 million disabled families will be on average more than £100 a month better off. On universal credit, for the first time, people with disabilities or long-term health conditions, particularly those with fluctuating conditions, will remain in support rather than crashing out of the system and then having to apply for new forms and re-navigate a new health assessment. This is incredibly important, and it is repeatedly highlighted by stakeholders with genuine experience of what goes on.
Households Below Average Income Statistics
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement on the poverty statistics published today. These statistics cover a range of poverty indicators. In a year when inflation was relatively high, average incomes were flat but still remain at a record high. These numbers show that between 2016-17 and 2017-18 relative poverty after housing costs has decreased by one percentage point; absolute poverty after housing costs is unchanged in percentage terms; and absolute poverty and relative poverty before housing costs have increased by one percentage point.
Since we entered government in 2010, income inequality has fallen, and we have lifted a total of 400,000 people out of absolute poverty, but of course no one in Government wants to see poverty rise. After all, we all came into politics to help people plot a path to a better life. That has driven me since I entered this place in 2010 in the midst of a national economic crisis, because I know it is vital that the Government support their citizens and provide them with the opportunities they need to succeed. I sit in a Department that has huge power to do that. I have seen what a force for good universal credit can and will continue to be when we roll it out further. I know how committed my Jobcentre colleagues up and down the country are; I have had the privilege to visit many of them over recent months. They truly do change lives for the better—no matter what the Labour party sometimes says.
Colleagues in this House are rightly proud that this Government have cleared up Labour’s economic mess and helped over 3.5 million people into work since 2010. Behind every employment statistic is a person or family whose mental health, wellbeing and life chances are improved by being in the workplace and having the security of a regular pay packet. It means that 665,000 fewer children will grow up in workless households, providing them with the support of an income, meaning that they are less likely to grow up in poverty, and giving them a role model in work. It means that there are now nearly 1 million more disabled people in work than in 2013, and I want to be more ambitious to ensure that even more disabled people are in work. It also means that millions more people receive a much earned pay increase, with wages now growing at the fastest rate in a decade.
That is the record of a Conservative Government who provide opportunities for all, rather than trapping people on welfare. Remember that every Labour Government left office with unemployment higher than they inherited. Under the previous Labour Government, 1.4 million people spent most of the previous decade trapped on out-of-work benefits, meaning that spending spiralled out of control with benefits increasing by 65% in real terms. Trapping people who can work on benefits does not help them; it holds them back. Every household paid an extra £3,000 a year to cover that splurge, and that included the lowest earners who were paying income tax. It was vital in such circumstances that the Government brought spending under control.
Colleagues know that our careful management of the economy means that we continue to improve our support for the poorest and the lowest paid. Today’s statistics capture household incomes up to April 2018. Since then, we have had nearly a year of real wage growth. The Government have also made significant changes to increase the incomes of the poorest since then, injecting an additional £1.7 billion per annum into universal credit alone at the 2018 autumn Budget. Those changes begin to take effect next month, when we will also give the country’s lowest earners a pay rise, introducing the highest-ever minimum wage. From April, we will be increasing work allowances by £1,000 for families with children and disabled people, which will enable 2.4 million households to keep more of what they earn, increasing the national living wage, which will rise to £8.21 an hour from next week, and increasing the personal allowance to £12,500, taking millions of the lowest paid out of paying income tax altogether. But I know we can do even more, and I want to do more.
Since coming into post, I have been determined to deliver a compassionate welfare system that supports the most vulnerable. In January, I announced that we will no longer be extending the two-child policy to apply to children born before 6 April 2017 and that we would trail support for up-front childcare costs with the flexible support fund, allowing parents to start work before paying for childcare through universal credit. We have also committed to building an online system to enable private landlords to request that a tenant on universal credit’s rent is paid directly to them, supporting the most vulnerable to manage their money. We are also looking at how to ensure that the main carer in a household—usually a woman—receives the UC payment.
This month, I further pledged to scrap personal independence payment reassessments for 287,000 disabled pensioners, to introduce a personalised and streamlined assessment service to improve the experience for people claiming health-related benefits, to pilot a single assessment for UC and PIP, and to consider how we can best reduce the number of claimants who appeal decisions on PIP and work capability assessments by ensuring that we do more to make the right decision the first time around. In addition, the Chancellor has already announced our aspiration to end low pay, starting with a new review into the future of the national living wage.
I will continue to work with colleagues across the House to further improve our support for those on the lowest incomes, because I know that no one in Britain should have their future determined by the circumstances into which they are born. Every single boy and girl born in this country should be able to reach their maximum potential, escape any societal constraints, dream big and reach the highest heights. Every single man and woman should be able to go into the workplace knowing that a better future awaits them and their family—that endless possibilities and ambitions are within their grasp. Every town and city in this country needs to know that this Government are on their side, that we match their aspirations, and that by working together we will make every community a better one to live in. These are ideals that are at the heart of this Government—at the heart of the work that I do every day—and we will not stop until we have completed this mission.
I am determined to tackle poverty, in particular child poverty, and as I look at the next steps on welfare policy and at the DWP budget, including at the spending review, I will of course look at what more can be done to address poverty. This is what it means to be a compassionate Government: one that supports work, lets dreams become reality and helps those in need. We will work tirelessly to deliver that. I commend this statement to the House.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The figures published today are truly shocking. They highlight the devastating impact of austerity on families throughout the country. It is a national scandal that 14 million people, including 4.1 million children, are living in poverty in one of the richest countries in the world; yet the statement was marked by complacency and denial. As universal credit has been rolled out throughout the country, we have witnessed a sharp increase in food bank use. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and that increase is a source of national shame. We see families unable to feed their children. As a former schoolteacher, I know what it is like when children are hungry in school: they cannot learn, they are unhappy and worried, and they do not want their parents to know how worried they are. It is a scandal that has to be addressed.
In the face of such human misery, we hear the Secretary of State attempt to justify austerity and the Government’s clear political decision to balance the books on the back of the poor and disabled. It is a disgrace. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that continuing the benefits freeze for a fourth year will mean families will be on average £560 worse off. On 10 January, the Secretary of State said that the freeze was
“the right policy at the time.”
If it is not the right policy now, why is it being continued until April 2020? And why was there nothing in the statement to address that?
In the past, the Government have responded to our criticism of the rises in relative child poverty by saying that it is absolute poverty that matters. Well, we all know that we have to look at all measures of poverty, so what is the Secretary of State’s response to the figures released by her Department today, which show that in 2017-18 the number of children living in absolute poverty before housing costs increased by 300,000, and after housing costs by 200,000? It is truly shocking that the number of people in absolute poverty before housing costs increased by 600,000 in that same year.
Evidence of the crisis in poverty in our country is clear, yet last year the Secretary of State criticised what she said was the political nature of the report by the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, when he delivered it last November. That was a shocking statement—as if somehow poverty has nothing to do with politics. After her own Department’s figures have shown a 600,000 increase in the number of people in absolute poverty in 2017-18, will she now accept that he was simply telling the truth about poverty in this country?
The number of pensioners living in poverty rose by 100,000 in 2017-18, which means it has increased by 400,000 since 2010, under the Conservatives. Will the Government therefore reconsider their plans to force mixed-aged couples to claim universal credit rather than pension credit when one partner has reached state pension age but the other has not? Or are they determined to go ahead and break the Conservative party manifesto promise on that?
The Secretary of State claims that health and wellbeing are being improved. I ask her to think about those on zero-hours contracts. There are individuals with three zero-hours contracts who cannot secure a pension because the different contracts do not meet the threshold. She talks of universal credit as a force for good. That is laughable to those who have studied universal credit and those who are experiencing the misery of it. We have seen delays, five-week waits and an inability to deal with fluctuating incomes, meaning that people on the same income are getting very different levels of benefit from the social security system. When will the Government wake up to the poverty crisis besetting our country and deliver to people the security they need?
Amber Rudd
It is because we care so much about the changes in poverty that I have come here to make a statement about today’s statistics and to answer questions.
It is because of the Government’s commitment to the triple lock that pensioner poverty is at a near-record low. I gently point out to the hon. Lady that the only reason we are able to fund the triple lock is that this Conservative Government are running a strong economy. A focus on how we deliver benefits, whether to pensioners or working-age people, is absolutely key to being able to deliver those important contributions.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, but its analysis shows that universal credit will reduce the number of people in working poverty by 300,000. That she continues to attack universal credit shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the changes it brings to people’s lives. I urge her to engage with her jobcentre and speak more to the work coaches and clients. If she does, she will find, as I have, how positive the response to universal credit is. Many people I know are still concerned about it, but in my experience, and that of many other MPs from across the House, once people have engaged with universal credit—once they are on it—they realise it is a much more positive source of income than the previous benefits.
There are many different sources of poverty. One area we have particularly made sure we put more money into is the lowest-income children in schools, because that is a way to bridge the gap between people born into different households. Under this Government, the education attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and all other pupils at key stage 4 has narrowed by 9.5% since 2011. The pupil premium, which most colleagues will be aware of, is incredibly important for focusing additional funds on pupils on the lowest incomes. This combination of initiatives, funded by this Government, will help to reduce the poverty gap.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
To what extent does the growth of tax credits actually reduce wages?
Amber Rudd
I would invite my right hon. Friend to come to my Department and find out a bit more about how universal credit works and how the taper rate has changed the benefits system—how people who start a job and earn more receive less from their benefits but only on a very gentle trajectory. The taper ensures there is not the sort of trade-off he is hinting at from the previous system of tax credits.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. There has long been a debate in this place about whether we should measure absolute or relative poverty—in that regard, I wish she would look at the work of the Social Metrics Commission—but, regardless of the measure, the Government are presiding over a trend of rising impoverishment. The relative child poverty rate, before housing costs, is up 400,000, and the absolute rate is up 300,000 in a year. This takes the rate before housing costs to its highest level in almost 20 years. After housing costs, we see a stagnation in relative terms and a 200,000 rise in absolute terms, while severe poverty and material deprivation are both up 4% to 5% for all children.
The Secretary of State must know the impact that policy, particularly social security policy, has on poverty levels—she spoke about the power of her Department in this regard. When there is investment, poverty levels drop, and when there are cuts to individuals, levels rise. That is why ending the benefit freeze this year would have been the best place to begin to stop—and, in some cases, to reverse—the rising poverty trend. She could also have lifted the two-child cap, which is a cut directed at children that is impoverishing them. Why has she not done the right thing in these areas?
The Secretary of State has taken some welcome steps, and she has moved further than any of her five predecessors I have dealt with, but I know that she understands that she must go further. These figures should put a rocket under the discussions that she is having with the Chancellor ahead of the spending review. Work should be a route out of poverty, but it currently is not. What does the Secretary of State see as her key anti-poverty policy, and what is her anti-poverty target for the next year, given that whatever type of Brexit occurs will harm family budgets and affect living standards?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his partially constructive comments. We are looking at the Social Metrics Commission’s assessment of poverty. It is an interesting approach, because it puts the measure of poverty back towards what people spend their money on, as well as what they actually get in. It is a fair point for the hon. Gentleman to raise with me, and I will come back to him when we have some further conclusions.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted difficulties for families with moving into full-time work. We have made a commitment to make the process more straightforward by providing more free childcare. We have ensured that more money per year is invested in childcare; that has gone up from £4 billion to £6 billion, providing 30 hours of free childcare for people with three and four-year-olds. That is an important change to ensure that people can go into full-time work. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the difficulty for people on low incomes in part-time work, and we recognise that. We are trying to make it easier for people to go into full-time work, because there are much lower instances of poverty when two parents are in full-time work, and that must be people’s goal.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that growing up in a workless household is one of the most damaging factors for a child’s life chances? Consequently, will she commit to investing more in universal support to help people with difficulties to overcome them and move into long-term employment?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Households with nobody in work are much more likely to be in poverty, and they are a bad role model for everybody else. It is important to ensure that we engage successfully with households so that everybody has the opportunity of getting a job. There are now 665,000 fewer children in workless households since 2010.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Is not the most horrifying omission from the Secretary of State’s statement that we live in a country where people are cold, hungry and pushed into destitution? When does she expect to be able to come to the House and report on the numbers of people in destitution? As claimants have contributed so much to the revival of public finances by having cuts to their living standards, will the Secretary of State allow herself to be judged by how much she gets when the Chancellor starts allocating funds, and ensure that those moneys first go to the poor, who contributed most?
Amber Rudd
The right hon. Gentleman is more aware than many people that the Chancellor has put a lot more money into the welfare system. When it is fully rolled out, the system will be £2 billion more generous than it was previously. The right hon. Gentleman knows more than anybody else that, important though welfare contributions are and as committed as I am to ensuring that universal credit works for everyone, the causes of poverty are not allayed by benefits alone. That is why we have made such a commitment to invest in the poorest children through the pupil premium and to invest an additional £33 billion a year into the health service by 2023. All these additional investments will help people on the lowest incomes to have a better quality of life.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is right that we look at the pressures on people’s incomes in the round? That means that we should look at the cost of childcare, which the Government are addressing, and at taking people out of tax, which the Government are addressing. We should also look at putting up wages for the poorest people on the lowest wages, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that the national living wage is rising, which will benefit a lot of people on low incomes?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right. Next week the national minimum wage will go up to £8.21, which is the highest it has ever been. Furthermore, the level at which people start to pay tax is rising to £12,500. It was not very long ago that people on very low incomes—as low as £6,500—could be paying tax, and that has changed under this and the previous Government.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is welcome to see the Secretary of State gradually repairing the damage that has been done by her predecessors as a result of caps, cuts and freezes, but she will accept, I am sure, that she has a long way to go to match Labour’s excellent record of taking 1 million children out of relative poverty. Will she pay particular attention to the high risk of poverty among larger families? I welcome the first step she has taken in relation to the two-child policy, but she will know that larger families face a particular risk of poverty, so will she look at removing the two-child limit altogether?
Amber Rudd
Since entering government in 2010, we have removed 400,000 people from absolute poverty. I have acknowledged—this is why I am here today—that today’s statistics are disappointing. I am highlighting that there is more to be done both in terms of other services around benefits and in terms of my engagement with the Chancellor. The hon. Lady raises the important point that it is often people with the largest families who have difficulties, and I will be looking at that area ahead of the spending review. However, we will not be changing the two-child policy, which is still an important part of having fairness in the benefits system for the people who pay the tax as well.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
One of the regular challenges that those in poverty face is in finding suitable accommodation, as the Secretary of State referred to in her statement. What work is she doing in talking to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we deliver the quality homes that people need, at an affordable price, across the country?
Amber Rudd
That is such a good point from my hon. Friend. He is right that we need to constantly address poor-quality accommodation, as well as making sure that that accommodation is affordable. I am engaged in conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we address this together.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Recognising the direct link between this Government’s punitive welfare reform agenda and rising levels of absolute, grinding poverty, over seven months ago leaked documents showed that the Department began a study of factors driving the use of food banks. It is due to be concluded in October—what are the interim findings?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady is right—we are looking at the factors to do with food banks. I want to take a very open approach to finding out what is going on and what the drivers are, because sometimes there are quite a lot of conclusions. I want to make sure that there is an opportunity to do some myth-busting and find out what we can do to allay this.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I have been listening carefully—have I got this correct? Since 2010, 400,000 people have been taken out of absolute poverty, 665,000 fewer children are in workless households, 1.7 million people are no longer paying income tax because of the increase in the personal allowance, and the national minimum wage is now at record levels.
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for so succinctly summing up the good news for us. I would add that income inequality has also fallen.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
No child in modern Britain should grow up in poverty, and frankly it should be a source of shame for Ministers that today we are seeing child poverty rising, even by their own preferred measures. We are constantly told that work should be the best route out of poverty, yet for too many children that is simply not the case. Even today we have seen the percentage of children in poverty with working parents rising again. Will the Secretary of State not acknowledge this and change course?
Amber Rudd
It is because I have acknowledged that these figures are disappointing and because I want to address this that I have come here to set out what we are doing, what we have already done, and what are going to be the important changes to make to the welfare system to ensure that we do address it. I am committed to making sure that we reduce poverty, and I will be putting in place the levers whereby we can do so. However, these figures are now nearly two years out of date. I have made sure that we are starting immediately to invest the money that the Chancellor put aside for us—£1.7 billion a year—to reduce the taper rate, increase the work allowance, and make sure that we address some of these issues.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s new commitment to tackling child poverty, which these figures show is getting significantly worse. Will she look at the option of universal credit claimants forgoing their final benefit payment after they have got into a job, in exchange for an up-front payment to fill the five-week gap before entitlement to benefit, which is forcing so many families to use food banks at the moment?
Amber Rudd
The right hon. Gentleman has raised that with me before. I am always looking at ways to improve the way we deliver universal credit. I have said that I will look at that, and I will continue to engage with everybody across the House to find ways of improving the delivery of universal credit. I feel that the advances that are available to people on day one when they apply for universal credit are the way to ensure that people have access to money as soon as they need it. That is working well, with over 60% of claimants now taking advantage of it.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
But the problem with that answer is that, as the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee said when he visited the Glasgow South West food bank a couple of weeks ago, people are not taking the advance payment because it is a loan, and they do not want to be in more debt. How much does it cost to administer advance payments, and would it not be better if they were the first payment for all claimants?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman can call it a loan; I can call it an advance. The fact is that it is a way of getting money that will be paid to the claimant to them in advance of the date they would receive it. I do not see it as a loan in the same way. I am looking at ways to ensure that work coaches in jobcentres can position it in the right way, so that claimants do not face it with fear, as he described. I want people to have confidence. This is the money that they will be receiving. If they want to effectively receive 13 payments over 12 months, that is a choice they can make.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
In the light of these figures, it is no surprise that StepChange reports that over 20% of its clients have no disposable income to pay off their debts, and they are borrowing for essentials such as food and heating. What is being done to assist the increasing number of people in that situation?
Amber Rudd
I know that the hon. Lady is quite an expert in this area. My colleague the Pensions Minister met StepChange this week. We are committed to ensuring that sufficient advice is available to people who need it, to help them budget. A lot of people come on to universal credit with quite significant debts. One of the issues we have addressed is reducing the debts that people have to repay out of their universal credit from 40% to 30%. We have also set up the Single Financial Guidance Body. We are very aware that people often arrive with debts, and we want to help them manage those debts, so that they have sufficient income to manage on the universal credit they receive.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Successive Chancellors have been lobbied by me and my colleagues to raise the personal allowance, which the Secretary of State alluded to, and that is welcome and good news. The problem now is that it is totally irrelevant to those in part-time employment and on very low pay, because they earn less than the personal allowance. What is she doing to raise the skills level and ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises offer training, to grow the skills base, so that people are not welfare-dependent at all?
Amber Rudd
That is a very good question. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have raised the personal allowance, which has been very successful, but I would like us to do more to help people move on in work from a small number of hours or to a higher skills level. I will be looking at that over the next few months. Some provision is available, and some jobcentres do a fantastic job of engaging, to help people into better jobs or more hours, but I would like to look at that, to see what else we can do.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Government always say that being in work is better, but in-work poverty and food bank use are rising. The Secretary of State says that she will look at the minimum wage. Will she make it £10 an hour?
Amber Rudd
I want more people to be able to have the security of full-time jobs and better-paid jobs. That is why I said earlier that we would be working on what else we can do about in-work progression to ensure that people do not stay on low wages but can progress and that we can get the advantage of a growing economy. This Government are committed to making sure that we have better jobs and more jobs, and we are proud of the employment record we have created.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has the audacity to claim that
“no one in Britain should have their future determined by the circumstances into which they are born”.
That is simply not the case, because a third child born on 5 April 2017 will be entitled to benefits, but a baby on 6 April 2017 will not. Religious faith families and ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by the two-child limit. She has set up an unacceptable, unjustifiable two-tier system for families in this country, and women will still have to prove if they have had their third child as the result of rape. Why does she think that is acceptable?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady has raised this with me many times, and I repeat to her that I do think the system is right. She also has to think about the people on low wages, who pay taxes, who will say to us—as an MP, I have had people say this to me, and I expect people have said it to others as well—that they have to plan for their third child or fourth child, and have to work out whether they have the funds to do so. I think it is right that people who are on benefits have to make the same assessment for their families.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
In 1998, child poverty was at 3 million. By 2010, that was reduced to 1.6 million, but now it is 3.7 million. That was an historic achievement under Labour; now this Government have not only reversed it, but made it even worse. The Secretary of State calls it “disappointing”, but I call it a disastrous—an absolutely disastrous—failure by this Government. The reality is that that reduction was not achieved by accident; it was done by massive, sustained, above-inflation increases in social security support. The Government have broken that link with their welfare cap policy and their arbitrary restrictions on welfare spending. Will the Secretary of State accept that that is the simple reality of the situation? Until they reverse that idea and return to a welfare system based on automatic stabilisers and an inherent right to support per person, that will not be changed at all.
Amber Rudd
I am sorry, but I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I think we have the right welfare system. It protects the most vulnerable, provides the safety net we need and helps people into work. Under the Labour system, people were abandoned on out-of-work benefits and were not helped. Under this Government, we ensure that they engage with jobcentres and work coaches to make sure that they have the opportunity of a job.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Sums of £23 a week, £25 a week and £20 a week are all amounts that the Government have told my Lewisham West and Penge constituents on universal credit they should be able to live on after rent and basic utilities. With over 72,000 emergency food supplies given to Londoners over a six-month period, will the Secretary of State take responsibility for the shambles of universal credit and stop the roll-out?
Amber Rudd
I remind the hon. Lady that, under Labour, unemployment rose every time. Under this Government, we are ensuring that there are jobs available, with more people in work than ever before. I would hope that the work coaches at her jobcentre are able to help people into work, because there are jobs available, and that, ultimately, is what will help her constituents and her families have a better quality of life.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and I were in this House when the Conservatives repealed the Child Poverty Act 2010 and when George Osborne announced £12 billion of welfare cuts, which have not been restored, so she can be “disappointed”, but she cannot be surprised that child poverty is up by 200,000, with 65% of children in single-parent families in poverty. Is it not time that she came to the Dispatch Box and confirmed that no child in a single-parent family will be worse off under her system?
Amber Rudd
We have still lifted 400,000 people out of absolute poverty since 2010, but I acknowledge that there is more to do. Over the past two Budgets, the Chancellor has put in substantial additional sums: £1.7 billion a year is now coming in for the next three years. I hope that these changes will make a significant difference to improving the delivery of our welfare directly to people in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Previous Labour Governments had a commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Will the Secretary of State say by what date her Government plan to eradicate child poverty in this country?
Amber Rudd
I am committed to making sure that we reduce poverty and focus particularly on child poverty. We must also remember that the issue is not entirely about welfare benefits; it is also about having a strong economy, in which wages grow and better quality jobs are available for everybody. I reassure the hon. Lady that I am focused on making sure that we reduce poverty.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
It is disappointing that any child should be born in poverty, but the situation is not evenly spread. There is 42% child poverty in the Flint Castle and Holywell Central wards in my constituency; three other wards are in the high 30s. What strategies does the Secretary of State have particularly to tackle areas with high levels of deprivation and child poverty?
Amber Rudd
I would hope that personalised attainment support from work coaches will help provide what the right hon. Gentleman is looking for. Furthermore, the pupil premium in schools should help to focus on children from the most deprived areas, so that they get the extra funds at school to give them the additional support that they need.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State realise that the majority of households affected by the two-child benefit limit are in work? She is pushing them into poverty. Why?
Amber Rudd
The best way for poverty to be solved for families is for parents to be able to access full-time work. I know that the hon. Lady is referring to the fact that some of the people have access to work, but it is more important that they are also able to get into full-time work, which will help them reduce the poverty in their families.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State may talk of her compassion, but the facts are brutal, with rising poverty levels and the experience of children who live in poverty. Does she find it awkward that last week a report commissioned by the Government on the causes of homelessness found that among the key drivers were “reduced welfare and benefits” and “rising levels of poverty”? If she does find that awkward, what is she going to do about it?
Amber Rudd
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have now seen a plateauing in the number of homeless people. We have a successful homelessness reduction strategy. I acknowledge that the number had gone up, but we are now seeing it come down, which shows that the homelessness strategy is working. We are committed to making sure that we continue it so that there are fewer homeless people across the country.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has to get real about the impact of her Government’s policies on real people’s lives. Since April 2016, the price of butter has gone up by 23%; of sugar by 17%; and of bread by 11%. Benefits, however, have been frozen at 2015-16 prices. Why will she not take action to lift this punitive benefit freeze for its final year?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady has focused on an important driver of these statistics: the surprising rise of inflation. In the year in question, inflation was 2.8% when it was not expected to be. That was one of the factors contributing to the rise in the number of people in poverty in that year. However, I believe that the changes that we have made since then will help to address that, so that people can have higher levels of consumer purchasing power at home.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of her statement, for the sentiment in it and for her commitment to reducing child poverty.
My family was once relatively comfortable: we were three children, and my father was working. But that changed. Overnight, we became a single-parent family with three children, and the two-child cap could have driven my mother and the three of us into poverty. Will the Secretary of State look at how the cap can be modified to allow for the fact that people are not always aware of what the future holds when they have their children?
Amber Rudd
I recognise that for single parents it can be hard to manage on funds, and to manage childcare and being able to access work. That is why I am pleased that one of the things that the Government have done is to increase the amount of free childcare that is available. I hope that a single mother in that situation would be able to access more work than she would otherwise have been able to do.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The statistics show that pensioner poverty by all measures is up by 100,000. The Government are trying to cut thousands of pounds each from disadvantaged older people through the pension credit changes. Will the Secretary of State give the House a vote on those changes, and can she explain why the Government consistently attack and abandon older people, not least women born in the 1950s?
Amber Rudd
Because of the triple lock, we have protected pensioners’ income. Over the past three decades, pensioner poverty has halved. They are most respected by the Government and we know that we must always look after pensioners.
I say to Members on both sides of the House that universal credit is helping people to get into jobs, with work coaches having a personal approach to individuals. If they have not had the opportunity to engage with their work coaches in jobcentres, I urge them to do so. We know that that work is being successful: Joseph Rowntree recently said to us that 300,000 people are likely to come out of poverty as a result of universal credit. That is good progress, and we will continue to build on that.
Business of the House
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
Subject to the House approving the motion on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this evening, the business is as follows.
The business for tomorrow will be:
Friday 29 March—Debate on a motion relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
The business for next week will be:
Monday 1 April—Business motion relating to the resolution of the House dated 27 March, followed by motions relating to the resolution of the House dated 27 March, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—that old potato—followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Protecting against the Effects of the Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Tuesday 2 April—Motion relating to the first report from the Committee of Privileges, followed by consideration of Lords amendments relating to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Geo-Blocking Regulation (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Wednesday 3 April—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Electronic Communications (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by general debate on the 50th anniversary of the continuous at sea deterrent.
Thursday 4 April—Debate on a motion relating to the introduction of the 2019 loan charge, followed by debate on a motion relating to restrictive intervention of children and young people. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 5 April—The House will not be sitting.
Colleagues will note at this moment in time we are not bringing forward the motion for the Easter recess. I know that Members have many responsibilities to carry out in their constituencies and in other matters, but the House rightly needs time to address our exit from the European Union. Our constituents will expect Parliament to work flat out to do so. I will seek to provide further clarity on the recess dates as soon as possible. I wish to express all of our thanks to the civil servants, House staff and the staff of Members who are continuing to ensure that we are well supported at this important time.
I want to provide the House with further clarity on tomorrow’s sitting day. Should the House agree the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister later today, it is intended that the hours will be the same as for a normal sitting Friday, with the House sitting at 9.30 am, and the moment of interruption at 2.30 pm.
If agreed by the House, tomorrow there will be a motion relating to the UK’s exit from the EU. The motion tabled will comply with the Speaker’s ruling, but the only way we ensure we leave in good time on 22 May is by approving the withdrawal agreement by 11 pm on 29 March, which is tomorrow.
The European Council has agreed to an extension until 22 May, provided that the withdrawal agreement is approved by the House of Commons this week. It is crucial that we make every effort to give effect to that and to allow the House to debate this important issue. We do not want to be in the situation of asking for another extension and, of course, for the requirement to undertake European Parliament elections.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the statement, which we received only about two minutes before I came to the Chamber. I am not sure how much discussion there was with the usual channels; certainly, the business managers have not seen the content of the motion. I would like further clarity on behalf of the whole House on whether this is in fact meaningful vote 3. I understand what the Leader of the House said about complying with the Speaker’s ruling—I do not know whether you, Mr Speaker, have had any discussions about the motion or whether this is in fact meaningful vote 3. I understand that the Government have to comply with what the EU has said, but we need more clarity on what exactly this motion is about and whether it is the meaningful vote, the agreement or the full package.
Again, I do not think this is the way to conduct business in the House on such an important matter. The Leader of the House has given the times, but only just, and there are people who have to make adjustments—I am talking not about Members but about the staff of this House, such as the doorkeepers, and all the civil servants.
I want to say thank you. There was a new process yesterday, and staff—the Clerks and all the staff of the House—rose to the occasion. It went very smoothly; we voted in the correct Lobbies, and we voted on the green sheets, which made a nice change from the pink sheets. I thank staff for working late to get the result to us on time, and we waited patiently for that. Yesterday was interesting: it was not just about process—to me, it was a confluence of process and principle. We know that the House can do that, and we know that it can be a modernising place.
Yesterday, the Leader of the House will have heard Opposition calls for an Opposition day. When will the next Opposition day be? This is a two-year Session.
I am not sure whether the Leader of the House was in the House yesterday when my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) made a point of order about the Minister for Disabled People. I do not think one has been appointed. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), stepped up today for the urgent question, but I do not think he is the Minister for Disabled People. There are 13.9 million disabled people who need a Minister who will champion their needs. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware that we have had seven since 2010.
There are also a number of other vacancies. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and the hon. Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Watford (Richard Harrington) have all resigned their positions. Those were key roles, dealing with the middle east and north Africa, public health and primary care, and business and industry. A number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries have also resigned. It is about time that we had an updated list of ministerial responsibilities. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could provide one.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the survey carried out by Sir John Curtice for the independent agency NatCen Social Research. He was one of the few people who correctly called the result of the election. He found that 85% of those who voted remain and 80% of those who voted leave in 2016 think the Government have handled Brexit badly. Among our voters, just 7% believe that the Government have handled Brexit well. The Government keep saying to us, “This is the mandate from the people,” but all hon. Members know that the Government have had no problem U-turning on their manifesto commitments. I will give two examples: the means test on winter fuel payments and, just four days after the manifesto was published, the U-turn on the so-called dementia tax.
Yesterday, during Prime Minister’s question time the Prime Minister said:
“We have a deal that cancels our EU membership fee”.—[Official Report, 27 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 311.]
That is not strictly correct, because the withdrawal agreement is littered with references to how we will have to pay into the EU to secure benefits. For example, page 51 of the March 2019 agreement mentions communications infrastructure.
Earlier this month the European Parliament voted to guarantee funding for UK students who are already on the Erasmus+ programme, and in the event of a no-deal Brexit it promised to continue supporting European students who are on that scheme in the UK. There are 17,000 students in the UK who planned to study in Europe under Erasmus+, and they still face uncertainty about whether they can do that in September. Where is the Government’s commitment to our future, and to those students who want to work in the EU? May we have a statement from the Secretary of State about whether funding for those students will be guaranteed?
I have heard nothing in any statement about revelations in The Guardian that the Government have spent £12 million on a penthouse for the trade envoy. May we have a statement on whether that public money has been properly spent? Will we spend that sort of money in all countries where we have a trade envoy? When will the Government respond to the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), which concluded that more than 3 million Europeans living in Britain could be left in legal limbo after Brexit? The Committee proposed amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. May we have a statement from the Government about whether those people will be protected, and a timetable for the progress of key legislation that needs to pass through Parliament before exit day?
Monday 25 March was International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, and it is vital that we remember that history and treat everyone equally. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) said yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions that 15 Conservative councillors who had been suspended for posting racist or Islamophobic content online have been let back into the Conservative party. Some of those members referred to people as “cavemen” and to Saudis as “sand peasants”, and they compared Asian people to dogs. A man puts on an England shirt, scores a goal, and is racially abused: we stand with Raheem Sterling.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree that any form of racism is abhorrent and must be stamped out wherever it is seen. The hon. Lady asks about the statement I have just made, and the motion for tomorrow. As I have said, we recognise that any motion brought forward tomorrow must comply with the Speaker’s ruling, and that discussion is ongoing. A motion will be tabled as soon as possible—obviously by later today—to allow the House to consider the motion in the name of the Prime Minister.
The hon. Lady asks about Opposition days, and I take this opportunity to thank all Members across the House, and to mention the tremendous work by civil servants that has gone into the secondary legislation programme. We are tabling a number of statutory instruments related to Brexit to ensure that we have completed our secondary legislation programme. All statutory instruments needed for exit day have now been dealt with appropriately, and Members have spent more than 120 hours debating more than 230 EU exit SIs in this Session. The sifting committee has considered more than 220 proposed negative SIs, and recommended more than 60 of those for upgrade to the affirmative procedure. I am very grateful for that huge amount of work.
The hon. Lady asked for an undated list of ministerial responsibilities, and I will seek that as soon as possible. She asked about European citizens, and I am sure she will be pleased that the Government have brought forward, through the Immigration Minister, a UK-wide campaign for the EU settlement scheme. That will include billboards and radio advertising, to ensure that everyone who is eligible knows how to apply and get the status they need. It is this Government’s priority to ensure that EU citizens who have built their lives here and contributed so much to our society know that they are welcome in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady asked about the new residence in New York, and I assure her that we secured the best possible deal and value for money on a property that will help to promote the United Kingdom in the commercial capital of our largest export market, and a trading partner for years to come. She will appreciate that diplomatic and trade-related activities around the world generate billions of pounds in the United Kingdom. We are also in the process of selling the consul general’s current residence, which will reduce the cost of creating that new centre of expertise. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her comments about racism. She rightly always stands up for those who have been racially abused, and I will always support her efforts to stamp out racism wherever we see it.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on what further help the Government can give to small businesses? The lifeblood of our local parades is often the convenience store and the post office, yet under permitted development, freeholders can change a property from a commercial to a residential premises, which gives very little security to leasehold convenience stores.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Our high streets and small businesses are so important to the communities that rely on them, and we must recognise the challenges they face and support them to survive and thrive. The planning system has a vital role to play in that, and the spring statement announced further changes to permitted development rights. We are extending the period of temporary use from two to three years, to give start-ups more time to establish their businesses.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for whatever that was supposed to be. I have the real business for next week here—a blank sheet of paper. The Government do not have a clue what is going on any more; they are totally at the mercy of events, parliamentary arithmetic, and all sorts of party shenanigans. Only this morning have they confirmed that we are sitting tomorrow, and—at last—that the Easter recess will be cancelled, although we do not know about the second week. They cannot even say who will be at the Dispatch Box next Wednesday as Prime Minister. This is beyond a shambles—perhaps the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) should be at the Dispatch Box announcing the business. He could not make a worse mess of it than this, and it is almost as if he is the Leader of the House anyway just now.
The only thing that everybody wants to hear from the Leader of the House is whether the Government are bringing back the meaningful vote tomorrow, because what is on the Order Paper clearly is not that. The right hon. Lady has until 5 o’clock today to table a proper motion. Will she do that, and will we have the meaningful vote tomorrow—yes or no?
The Prime Minister’s “back me then sack me” strategy has spectacularly failed—she cannot even get her departure right, even when everybody wants her gone. The race to replace her has begun. I understand that 22 right hon. and hon. Members will feature in that leadership race, but the Leader of the House is not among the favourites this time. Perhaps if she promises to resign immediately after she gets elected, her chances will be significantly boosted.
Our constituents are watching this with increasing horror. They are confused, frustrated, bewildered, and increasingly angry. This is what these Conservatives have done to us. They have divided a nation and paralysed a Parliament. Thank goodness that the people of Scotland have a get out card and a way out of this madness. As it becomes apparent that a UK solution for Scotland to remain in the European Union is disappearing, more and more people are recognising that only a Scottish solution will rescue our EU membership.
Andrea Leadsom
Before I respond to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I must put something important on the record: I understand that I am over two weeks late in wishing him a very happy birthday—[Laughter.] Wait for the punchline. I can more than make that up to him, however, because today is a bumper edition of Cake Thursdays in the office of the Leader of the House, as we have four birthdays over the next few days. I hope that he will swing by after business questions for a slice of Colin the Caterpillar—other cakes are available.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s very serious and important points, I would like to put on the record that, in spite of his slightly less than generous remarks, the Prime Minister of this country has done enormous service. She has absolutely shown her determination at all times to put her country first and to make sure that we leave the European Union in line with the referendum. I think all Government Members support her in doing that.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that if the withdrawal agreement is not voted for tomorrow, on Monday my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will take control? There is nothing to stop him, under our procedures, now whittling down the options to one option. Almost certainly, given the results last night, that will be permanent membership of a customs union. There is nothing to stop him putting that in a Bill. There is nothing to stop him making that an Act of Parliament. The choice will then be between—I say this to my colleagues—permanent membership of a customs union or a general election. And that, as they say, will be that.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend sets out very clearly that on Monday my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will in fact be carrying out my role, if not that of the Prime Minister, in determining the order of business for the day and in seeking an agreement from the House on a way forward. I certainly feel that this House needs to agree to fulfil on the 2016 referendum. The Prime Minister’s deal offers the means by which to deliver on that referendum, but at the same time, for those who do not want to leave the European Union, the closest economic and security partnership. It is a compromise and I do urge colleagues right across the House to back it.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the two Backbench Business debates for next Thursday. We still have a hefty queue of 17 unaired debates, so any additional time is always welcome. Can she promise us that we are not sitting next Friday? I am already rearranging my diary for tomorrow and am hoping to use next Friday for that purpose. When she said the House would not be sitting on Friday 5 April, did she really mean it?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is a very knowledgeable and experienced Member of Parliament. He will know that the business statement always sets out what is known at the time. But, of course, this is Parliament and things change, so I cannot promise or absolutely guarantee. Nevertheless, what I can tell him is that, all things being equal, the House will not be sitting next Friday.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
As we prepare to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of the second world war, will my right hon. Friend consider how Parliament can best play its part in recognising the many servicemen and servicewomen who so bravely defended our country in its darkest hour?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to all those who suffered so much for our freedoms. We should always value their sacrifice for us. I will certainly take away and consider how the House can mark the outbreak of the second world war, as she suggests.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Leader of the House is aware that there has been a fantastic campaign over many years to save Huddersfield Royal Infirmary from being closed as a fully functioning hospital and downgraded to a much smaller local hospital on a different site. There was news this week from the Secretary of State for Health about saving Charing Cross Hospital, which has exactly the kind of challenges that we have in Huddersfield. There is obviously a change in mind, purpose and objectivity in terms of this new Secretary of State, so may we have a debate on the future of local hospitals?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises his success in his local campaign for Huddersfield Royal Infirmary. He has made a really important point. We all have local hospitals that we are very keen to support. I encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall debate, because I am sure many hon. Members will have their own local hospital issues, as indeed I do, along with my excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), with regards to Horton General Hospital.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May we have an urgent statement from the Universities Minister about the disgraceful situation at Bristol University, where the free speech society has been told it cannot have a speaker—the person who drew up the extreme speakers’ league table in which Bristol University came 10th—unless it has an independent chairperson and another speaker to balance up the views of the person who lists extremism in universities in league table order. This is from a university which is said to have hosted no fewer than nine extremist speakers on its campus. It is a disgrace and we need to have an urgent statement about it.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I know all of us across the House support the idea of freedom of speech at all times, but nevertheless within the law. That is a very important balance to be struck. In particular, we all believe that freedom of speech in universities, to enable young people to learn about and be exposed to different views, is absolutely vital. My right hon. Friend might well like to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss this matter directly with Ministers.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thought the deal was a package of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration that cannot be split. However, the Leader of the House only mentioned the withdrawal agreement in relation to tomorrow’s business. Can she confirm that, to secure an extension of the article 50 process to 22 May and to comply with section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this House has to approve both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on the future framework by the time the House rises at 2.30 pm tomorrow?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say to the hon. Lady is that we are looking very carefully at bringing forward a motion later today that, very importantly, must comply with Mr Speaker’s ruling. That will be brought forward as soon as possible.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Two hundred thousand nurses have left the NHS in less than a decade and there are 42,000 vacancies, which is 12% of the nursing workforce. Notwithstanding a small number of apprenticeships, the fact that this is widely perceived as a graduate job has robbed nursing of those who long to care and once learned to do so. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate, mindful of the words of John Ruskin, who said:
“The highest reward for a person’s toil is…what they become by it”?
It is time for a debate on practical skills in which we can challenge the view that only academic accomplishment brings fulfilment. It is time, Mr Speaker, to elevate the practical.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises the vital role of nurses. It is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the amazing work they do for so many people. What I can tell him is that there are now 16,300 more nurses on our wards than there were in 2010 and over 50,000 nurses in training. The introduction of the new nursing degree apprenticeships and nursing associate roles will help us to build the workforce we need.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Let us try again, Mr Speaker. Is what the Leader of the House announced for tomorrow meaningful vote 3, or more attempted trickery and potentially illegal trickery by the Government by separating out the withdrawal agreement from the political declaration? Does she understand that that will be completely intolerable? It would not only be potentially illegal, but would ask this House to vote for a completely blind Brexit. Does she also understand that she and the Prime Minister could put this House and the country out of our misery by bringing back meaningful vote 3 and making it conditional on a public vote? Why is she so frightened of the views of the British public?
Andrea Leadsom
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I absolutely supported the people’s vote that took place in 2016. I am absolutely determined, along with the Prime Minister, to ensure that we deliver on that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
At 5 o’clock, we are going to be asked about the sittings of the House motion for 29 March. It is very unusual for us to have such an emergency sitting on a Friday. It seems rather strange that the Government have not decided what the motion is for that day. If a motion cannot be moved because you would not allow it, Mr Speaker, is the Leader of the House guaranteeing that she is still going to move the motion at 5 o’clock for the Friday sitting? Is that definite or is it optional?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend should refer back to the business statement that I just made, which still stands.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
There seems to be some shenaniganating going on here. The Leader of the House is being very coy, which is not normal for her; she is normally more up front. Maybe we can tease it out of her: is the plan to bring forward just the withdrawal agreement for the motion tomorrow? If that is the case, a lot of us in this House will think that that does not meet the requirement of the withdrawal Act, which states quite categorically that the Government will not be able to ratify the withdrawal agreement unless
“the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown”.
Unless she is going to say now that tomorrow’s motion is properly in line with the Act and would allow ratification, frankly tomorrow is a complete and utter waste of time, and we would be better off voting against her motion later today.
Andrea Leadsom
I have tried to be as open as I possibly can on this. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the fact is that a motion that comes forward tomorrow must enable us to meet the European Council conclusions, which say:
“Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act…should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement.”
It must also comply with the Speaker’s ruling, and it must enable the House to move forward. Quite genuinely, of course it will meet UK law, and the reality is that it has not yet been finalised, but it will be brought forward just as soon as possible, in time for the House to discuss the business motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this evening.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In North Kivu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there have been more than 1,000 cases of Ebola, resulting in more than 500 people dying. This is an incredibly serious situation with implications for the very large city of Goma and for Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and further afield, as well as of course throughout the DRC. Will the Secretary of State for International Development or one of her colleagues make a statement to this House? I remember how in 2014, there were regular updates on an equally serious situation in west Africa. I believe that this has international implications and we need to hear about it.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very concerning matter and he is absolutely right to do so. The Government are working with the DRC and the World Health Organisation to tackle the latest outbreak of Ebola. UK aid has played a crucial role in supporting the response since the outbreak was first announced in August 2018. That support has provided funding and expertise to the World Health Organisation for response activities in the DRC and for regional preparedness. We are the leading donor by far for regional preparedness in neighbouring counties such as Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan. Preventing the spread of the disease not only saves lives, but provides the stability necessary for economic growth and security.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I have recently been contacted by a constituent—an EU citizen—who worked here for many years before suffering ill health. She was previously entitled to housing benefit and employment and support allowance, but after these were absorbed into universal credit, she lost her entitlement because of stricter residency criteria. Many EU citizens have been plunged into poverty because of these benefit changes and no longer feel welcome, so can we please have a debate on the impact that universal credit is having on EU citizens living here?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is raising a specific constituency issue, and I encourage her to raise that directly with the Department for Work and Pensions. I would say, again, that the Government’s priority is to make sure that EU citizens who have built their lives here and who have contributed so much to our society should continue to feel that they are very welcome here. That is the top priority and it is why we have introduced the EU settlement scheme to make sure that, as we leave the European Union, what we do will be entirely fair to those who have contributed so much to our society and our communities.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Yesterday, we did things differently in this House. We voted on eight options, most of which we had never given five minutes debate to, which I found rather upsetting. We had not had any legal advice on any of them and they were all, quite wisely, roundly thrown out by the House. Does the Leader of the House agree that when we look at the figures, which are quite stark, we see that meaningful vote 2 had a majority of 123 over the top prize winner yesterday and had significant majorities over everything that happened yesterday? Given that the two options that I supported yesterday dropped off the list, may I ask if it is possible, if we are going down this beauty contest route, that we ensure that something that got more support in the House is not ruled out by you, Mr Speaker, that we all have to look at what we might wish to support, and that you, Mr Speaker, will look at the ruling on the one that had the top number of 391 —over the second referendum’s 268—and ensure that that is now not ruled out because of some ruling by yourself?
Mr Speaker
Order. That has very little to do with the business of the House for next week. I do not say this in any spirit of discourtesy to the hon. Lady, but I am perfectly conscious of and capable of executing my responsibilities in relation to that business and all other business. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is in the lead on the matter. Procedural propriety has been observed and he is perfectly clear with other colleagues as to the basis, sanctioned by the passage of the business of the House motion, on which we will proceed in these matters. I am sorry if the hon. Lady is not clear about the matter, but there is no basis for that ambiguity.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for her comments. She, like me, would like to see resolution; we would like to see the UK leave the EU in an orderly fashion. Again, I urge all colleagues to find it in their hearts to consider finding a way forward urgently so that we can give businesses and citizens some certainty.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On 12 May, it will be the 25th anniversary since the devastating passing of the former leader of the Labour party, John Smith. I have applied to the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for a debate around 12 May, but given that it is a significant anniversary, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would consider providing some Government time in this place so that we can commemorate the death of John Smith properly.
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in having fond memories of the late John Smith and I applaud him for raising that in this Chamber. I will of course look at this, but he will appreciate that there are often calls for Government debates to pay tribute to particular individuals and it is not always possible to offer time.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Angus has seen over 15 bank closures in the past eight years. It is one of the worst affected areas of the country for closures and Kirriemuir in my constituency will see its last bank in the town gone in the summer. Can I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in this place around having banking hubs in each town, so that consumers have choice about access to cash, and around the role of the post office, because this is a real, urgent issue for my constituents?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises important issues on behalf of her constituents and she is quite right to do so. While banks are obviously commercial businesses, the impact of closures on communities must be understood and mitigated wherever possible. That is why we support the industry’s access to banking standard, which commits banks to carrying out a number of steps before closing any branches. We also welcome some of the innovative solutions that banks can find to ensure that they can continue to provide banking services to communities when they do close branches. She will be aware that the Post Office has reached an agreement with the banks that allows more banking customers to access a wider range of services at the post office than ever before. I encourage her perhaps to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can discuss this more, directly with Ministers.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I was privileged to join Councillor Glyn Williams, Mayor of Bottesford, for an event at Bottesford Town football club to celebrate the role of volunteers in the community. May we have a debate to recognise and thank all volunteers for their strong contribution to our communities?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I pay tribute to all those who do so much volunteering for our communities, and in particular to the Mayor of Bottesford for his contribution. We recently had a debate on this subject in Government time, because I know that Members like to seek such an opportunity from time to time, but I will certainly look at the issue again.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The people of West Oxfordshire—and, no doubt, all our other constituents—are puzzled when new homes are built without some of the features that one would expect in a modern age, such as full fibre to the door or environmental features such as solar panels. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the planning system and what should be required of new homes in this day and age?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that many Members will agree with my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that building the homes our country needs is our top domestic policy priority. We want everyone to be able to afford a safe and decent place to call their own, and we want to help many more people on to the housing ladder. More than 222,000 new homes were built last year, the highest number that we have seen in all but one of the last 31 years, and the average cost of installing solar panels at home has fallen by about two thirds since 2010. As he may know, we have committed more than £1 billion to next-generation digital infrastructure, and we have also committed ourselves to providing full-fibre connections for most homes and businesses by 2025. However, I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss his ideas directly with Ministers.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I know that, when the February recess was cancelled, many members of the House staff were very unhappy about having to cancel leave at short notice. The Leader of the House has been deliberately opaque about the Easter recess. What talks is she having with the trade unions about the possibility that staff will have to cancel leave at short notice again?
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Lady will know, recesses are always subject to the progress of business and no motion was tabled in relation to the Easter recess. Although the dates were announced, the motion was not tabled. Discussions are taking place constantly, and the House staff are very aware and extremely professional. I pay tribute to them for their commitment to supporting us at all stages. It is the case, however, that, unless a motion is tabled, a recess is not confirmed.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Yesterday was a very busy day in this place, but I was pleased to see in my inbox an email from the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), announcing another £48 billion of investment in our railways. I know that you, Mr Speaker, are a stickler for punctuality, so you will be pleased to hear that from Monday onwards—thanks to that same Minister—if my train is more than 15 minutes late, I, and other Chelmsford commuters, will be able to get some of our money back. Please may we have a debate about the Government’s outstanding track record and investment in infrastructure?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has raised a number of points about the railways. She is absolutely right to do so. We will be spending nearly £48 billion on improving our railways to deliver better journeys. That is vital. When people buy their ticket, they deserve a reliable service that gets them to their destination on time. She may be aware that we have launched a comprehensive review of our railways in order to build on the success of privatisation and to ensure that we get the best from both public and private sectors.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
In a throwaway line during Health questions on Tuesday, the Health Secretary withdrew the Government’s threat to demolish Charing Cross Hospital after seven years. We have been partying in west London since then, but now the hangover has set in. May we have a debate on health service funding, so that the Government can explain how they intend to deal with the £600 million backlog of works at our three local hospitals, the £30 million-worth of cuts to our local NHS this year, and the extra £10 million that we are paying to subsidise the private Babylon GP at hand digital service promoted by the Health Secretary?
Andrea Leadsom
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to celebrate the fact that the NHS has now published its long-term plan, and the fact that a record level of Government funding behind it will enable the NHS to continue to deliver world-class care to patients at every stage of their lives. He is, as I understand it, celebrating the protection of his local hospital, and I am delighted to share in his pleasure, but at the same time he must appreciate that this Government have done more for the NHS than has been done at any time in its history, with the biggest-ever investment. Under this Government, the NHS is surviving and thriving.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
At a time of great uncertainty and angst, may we have a debate about things that make us happy? A survey released this week shows that East Renfrewshire is the happiest place to live in Scotland. May I extend an invitation to the Leader of the House? If she is looking for something to spark joy, Marie Kondo-style, I suggest that she make her way north for a warm welcome from me and from my very happy constituents.
Andrea Leadsom
Well, the people of East Renfrewshire did unseat the Scottish National party MP and elect a Conservative Member, so it is not surprising that it is Scotland’s happiest place to live. However, my hon. Friend has made a very good point. We all need to make time for the little things that make life happy. I should be delighted to visit him.
Mr Speaker
We could have a debate on the definition of happiness. I will offer a starter for 10: victories for Arsenal football club and Roger Federer.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Notwithstanding the sunny disposition of the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box, she is still being sleekit about tomorrow’s business. Will it be meaningful vote 3, and is she going to split the withdrawal agreement from the political declaration? If it will not be meaningful vote 3, what is the flaming point of tomorrow?
Andrea Leadsom
If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, I would have to add to your examples a win by Northampton Saints. As for the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is simply the case that the motion has not yet been finalised. It will be tabled as soon as possible, but let me say again that it needs to comply with UK law, with the European Council resolution, and, of course, with the decision that was made by you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Fish, Mr Speaker! Not kippers, which have much to recommend them, but bass. May we have an urgent debate on minimum fishing net size? Too many immature bass are being caught before they have had a chance to spawn, which is putting both the sport of recreational fishermen and the businesses of inshore fishermen at risk.
Andrea Leadsom
I know that my hon. Friend is a keen fisherman, and he never tells a fisherman’s tale, does he? No, never.
I think that we are all keen supporters of this important recreation. It is one of the most popular sports and it certainly adds to the happiness of the nation. The key point about leaving the European Union in this context is that we will be leaving the common fisheries policy, which means that we will be in charge of our own regulations. That will help our UK fishing sector and it will also help our recreational fishermen.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Happiness, Mr Speaker, is clearly Newcastle United beating Arsenal on Monday and I look forward to watching that here in the House.
Just as in the House, civil servants and local authorities are having to deal with the consequences of Government incompetence over Brexit. Key Whitehall staff have been moved on to Brexit and are unable to perform their daily duties. Newcastle City Council, for example, is expected to produce a Brexit plan when the Government do not have one. May we have a debate about the impact of Brexit resourcing on the delivery of the public services on which so many of my constituents depend?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady has given me an opportunity to pay tribute to the amazing work done by civil servants, and by officials in all local authorities, to prepare for leaving the European Union in all circumstances. They have done the most amazing job. She says there is no plan, but that is simply not true. There have been getting on for three years of work to prepare for all eventualities, involving thousands of civil servants who have shown their absolute commitment to taking the UK out of the EU in line with the referendum result. I will certainly not hear of anyone not pulling their weight or not doing a good job.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
May we have a debate about the Police Scotland youth volunteers? Because I was in Parliament last night, I was unable to get to the annual award ceremony for the Moray group. A debate would allow us to celebrate and recognise the great work of group co-ordinator Yvonne Squair and the dedicated work these youth volunteers do in communities across Moray and Scotland.
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in commending Yvonne Squair and all the dedicated Police Scotland youth volunteers for the work they do. The PSYV are groups of young people based across Scotland, supported by adult volunteers and led by a police constable. They do great work volunteering at community and national events across Scotland. He might well like to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can commend them further to Ministers.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Ind)
My constituent Andrew Lindup was killed in a hit and run in December 2016. By the time the driver was arrested, it was too late to breathalyse him and gather evidence for a charge of dangerous driving, for which he could have faced up to 14 years in prison. Instead he got just six months for failing to stop. There are serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of sentencing for this offence, particularly when the driver causes a death. May we have an early debate on this issue? Bereaved families must know that we view this crime with the utmost concern.
Andrea Leadsom
May I first say that that is an absolute tragedy and I am very sorry to hear about it? The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that in this Chamber. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can discuss it directly with Ministers.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I like the idea of a happiness debate. People are so fraught around here. Nobody asks “How has your day been?” Instead they say, “How bad’s your day been?” So that is a great idea.
While we try to deliver Brexit, that is in danger of crowding out other issues. As people know, 850 people have been affected by the loan charge legislation, involving £33 million. It has led to bankruptcies, breakdowns and, sadly, suicides. Is it possible to have a statement from a Treasury Minister next week in order to see what changes can be made to alleviate their misery?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point. This issue has been raised with me directly by constituents of mine. A debate is being arranged by the Backbench Business Committee so that Members may discuss that very issue with Ministers and I encourage him to take part in that.
On my hon. Friend’s other point about Brexit squeezing out other legislation, I would like to highlight that, so far in this Session, 51 Government Bills have been introduced, 43 of which have already received Royal Assent—important legislation ranging from the counter-terrorism Act to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, the overseas crime production orders Act and of course the voyeurism offences Act. Some of these things really improve the lives of all of our constituents, which we should celebrate.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It appears that the country faces the imminent prospect of a new Prime Minister, so may we have a debate on the qualities required for leadership and whether it is appropriate for someone who describes Muslim women as “letter boxes” and historical prosecutions of child sexual abuse as
“spavving money up the wall”
should ever be considered appropriate for the highest post in Government?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady talks about a debate on leadership qualities. I certainly think that all across this House welcome good leadership where people treat each other with courtesy and respect and seek to progress the interests of all our constituents.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
As a west midlands MP, I have been delighted by the resurgence of the UK automotive industry in recent years, but I was concerned to read this morning the report from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders showing production at a six-year low, with investment running at just 10% of six years ago. This is a sector where 80% of the vehicles produced are exported, so may we consider the decisions we might take in this place to provide certainty and to renew confidence in that vital manufacturing sector?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to raise the concern over the slowdown in the car manufacturing sector. Of course businesses are crying out for certainty; they are crying out for this House to settle the issue of how we leave the EU. Again, I urge all colleagues across the House to consider the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement in order that we can move on and give certainty to businesses and to our constituents.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
On 4 March, I raised a point of order after the press had been briefed about the Government implementing key parts of my Food Insecurity Bill. Mr Speaker, you stated that Ministers are expected to announce important policy changes to this House and that it was unsatisfactory that I had not been directly informed of developments. I then received a response to a written question on the matter with some very scant detail stating that it is not usual practice for the Government to make statements on private Members’ Bills. Can the Leader of the House ensure that somebody—anybody—from the Government responds to me fully on this matter?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to say that I was not aware of the situation the hon. Lady speaks about. If she would like to write to me after business questions I can certainly seek a proper answer for her.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Paul Raybould was a constituent of mine, for many decades he was an active trade unionist and he was a very worthy opponent of mine for the Labour party at the last general election, so it was with great sadness that I heard of his death earlier this week at the age of 55. May we have a debate about those who may for decades campaign for what they believe in, perhaps even stand for election to this place and not get elected here, but still contribute to making sure that this is a vibrant democracy?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that the whole House will join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his opponent at the last election and sending our sympathies to his family at this time. He is absolutely right that, among the passionate debate and disagreement, especially during political campaigns, we all have respect for those who put themselves forward for election. My hon. Friend is right that they make an invaluable contribution to making our democracy as strong as it is.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I was surprised that there was no statement from the Government on the report this morning from the chief inspector of probation into the shocking performance of the transforming rehabilitation programme. She states that not enough attention has been given to keeping victims safe, she speaks of poor-quality work generally in the community rehabilitation companies, and she says the privatised contracts have been a failure. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come forward with a statement to this House so that we can question him on this shocking report as quickly as possible?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I can tell her that the Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), is meeting with probation officers today and will of course look very carefully at what Dame Glenys’s report shows up. We are now providing support and supervision to an additional 40,000 offenders leaving prison and have invested an additional £22 million a year in services for offenders on release. We will be creating new arrangements for offenders to build a more stable and resilient probation system. We will set out our detailed proposals later this year, but they will take very careful account of the report the hon. Lady mentions.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Happiness, Mr Speaker, also has to be Nadal beating Federer, I think.
The Wellington monument is an iconic symbol on the Blackdown hills in Taunton Deane and very much the gateway to the south-west. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all the people involved in a fantastic project to restore that monument, which celebrates one of our greatest war heroes, the Duke of Wellington? It is proving to be much more than a monument. We are nearly at our £4 million target and, in recognition of its importance in so many ways, the National Trust has made restoring it one of its three top national priorities.
Andrea Leadsom
Good. My hon. Friend is a great champion of her constituents in Taunton Deane and they are very fortunate to have her. This very worthwhile project is undoubtedly pulling the community together. I understand that the Wellington monument will be the tallest three-sided obelisk in the world. I am sure that we all wish her constituents great success with its refurbishment.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Leader of the House mentioned tomorrow’s 11 o’clock deadline. Can she clarify when the vote is expected, so that we can make our travel arrangements?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes. As I mentioned earlier to assist the House, tomorrow will be a normal Friday sitting day starting at 9.30 am and finishing at the moment of interruption at 2.30 pm.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Residents in Westruther in my constituency have set up a community enterprise scheme to buy the local pub and convert it into a community café, community hub, post office and shop. These local facilities—shops, pubs and post offices—are at the heart of local communities in my constituency and elsewhere, but they are increasingly being lost. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to praise the volunteers behind this scheme and similar ones, and to recognise the important work they are doing to keep the heart of their communities alive?
Andrea Leadsom
That sounds like an excellent initiative, and I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in wishing the Westruther community all the best with their plans. He is right to raise this issue, and I agree that it is the hard work of local people that keeps smaller communities going. I am sure he is as delighted as I am that the Chancellor recently announced the package for a borderlands growth deal which, in addition to the Scottish Government commitment, would provide the area with a total funding package of £345 million.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)
May we have an early debate on democracy and accountability across Europe, highlighting in particular the achievements of the European Parliament, which has done so much on roaming charges, clean beaches, air quality and many other issues? In that debate, could we have clarification from the Government on what preparations are being made to fight the European Parliament elections in this country on 23 May if there is a need to extend beyond 12 April?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the work of the European Union in achieving so many good things right across the EU, including in the United Kingdom. It is this Government’s determination to ensure that we continue and build on that good work, as indeed we have already done in certain areas. For example, we have introduced shared parental leave ahead of other parts of the European Union. He asks for further information on standing European elections. As I said earlier, the EU Council has said that if we can agree to progress with the withdrawal agreement this week, we will have until 22 May to legislate for the withdrawal agreement Bill in order to avoid having to fight the European elections.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The Eden Project would like to come to Morecambe. At this moment in time, £1.1 million has been raised for the feasibility study and the Chancellor has given £100,000 straight to the Eden Project from the Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend help me to secure a debate on the Floor of the House about the benefits of Eden North, the Eden Project in Morecambe?
Andrea Leadsom
That sounds like an excellent idea. Having visited the Eden Project some years ago, I know that it would be a wonderful thing for it to be able to move to my hon. Friend’s constituency and to others. I would certainly encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss this with Ministers.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Shocking figures today show that life expectancy for women in poorer areas has declined badly under this Government. This shameful inequality in our society is quietly worsening. May we please have an urgent statement outlining concrete action so that everybody can reach a good age, not just the prosperous?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to suggest that it is our aspiration that everybody in society is able to enjoy a long and healthy life. That is why the Government have prioritised ensuring not only that more people are able to get into work and have the security of a pay package but that, through universal credit, people are supported when they are unable to work. We have also made significant investment in our NHS to ensure that it can help to support people to lead longer and more successful lives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Two weeks ago, 50 innocent people were killed in Christchurch simply for practising their faith. It is clear that the rise of the far right is a growing threat to freedom of religion or belief across the world. Indeed, the Minister for Security and Economic Crime, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), speaking in his role as the security Minister, said that a similar far-right shooting could absolutely happen here in the United Kingdom. After the fact, the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, called for a global fight to root out racist right- wing ideology. I believe that the UK must join that fight. Will the Leader of the House therefore agree to a statement or a debate on this extremely important issue?
Andrea Leadsom
We were all shocked and appalled at the horrifying attack in New Zealand, and I reiterate that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of New Zealand. The Home Secretary has been very clear that the far right has absolutely no place in Britain. The British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far right, which is the antithesis of the values that this country represents: decency, tolerance and respect. Through our CONTEST policy and our counter-extremism strategy, we are dealing with the threat of extreme right-wing terrorism and the wider harms caused by the far right, including seeking to deal with community tensions, hate crime and public order issues. This is of course about keeping our communities safe and secure, and there will be many opportunities to discuss this with Ministers in the coming weeks and months.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Given the motion that has been tabled for tomorrow, may I offer the Leader of the House an opportunity to provide some clarification? Should the withdrawal agreement be separated from the future framework, it is not the intention of the Government to seek to place the responsibility for that fracturing on the conventions of this House and the decisions that have been made under those conventions, is it?
Andrea Leadsom
No. I repeat what I have said in answer to a number of questions, which is that the motion is being carefully considered in order to deal with the need to meet the Council resolutions within the law of the United Kingdom and to meet the ruling of the Speaker. As soon as that motion has been finalised, it will be brought forward for the House to consider in time for this evening’s business motion.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
There have been around 130 preventable new cases of HIV in Glasgow among the drug-injecting community since 2015, and the British HIV Association is the latest organisation to come out in support of a drug consumption room. Will the Leader of the House make some time for discussion of my ten-minute rule Bill on this subject—the Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities Bill—which would provide the UK Government with a legal route to allow Glasgow to get on with the job of reducing harm and preventing deaths from drug injecting?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is quite right to raise this really important matter. HIV is an appalling health problem and we want to do everything we can, not just here in the UK but globally, to eradicate it. I would encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can raise this directly with Ministers—
Andrea Leadsom
She has a private Member’s Bill, and time has been allocated for that, but as she will appreciate, the order of private Members’ Bills is subject to the order in which Members have put them forward.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has not been as clear as she might have been, but it appears to be the case that tomorrow’s vote will not be a meaningful one because the Government seem to have separated the withdrawal agreement from the political declaration. The House needs to approve both in order for them to be put on a statutory basis, but it has been suggested that if the House debates and approves only the withdrawal agreement, that might be sufficient for this country to remain within the European Union until 22 May through an extension of our timetable to depart. Can she confirm whether that is correct?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman asks me a very specific question about a motion that has not yet been finalised. That is something that I am not in a position to answer at the moment. I apologise to him for not being able to answer it, but I have responded to many Members in the same vein and I have sought to be as transparent as possible in saying that the motion will be brought forward as soon as it is finalised.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I acknowledge the Leader of the House’s warm words about civil servants, but may we have a debate or statement next week to mark what will be the 10th consecutive year of the public sector pay cap and pay restraint for public sector workers? This situation is typified by workers at Tate Modern—now the most successful UK tourist attraction—who are now balloting on industrial action after years of pay restraint. When are public sector workers going to get a decent pay rise?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman and all right hon. and hon. Members should celebrate the fact that wages are growing at their fastest rate for a decade, and that the national living wage will rise again from April, taking the total annual pay rise for a full-time worker since its introduction to over £2,750. Most importantly, we now have over 3.6 million more people in work because of our reforms of welfare and our determination to back businesses. Significant improvements to people’s living standards are under way, and all hon. Members should celebrate that.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Last week, in the midst of this Brexit mess, the University of Nottingham held an event to celebrate their European staff. The vice-chancellor told colleagues that the university will remain open and welcoming even if—especially if—the political climate does not. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the University of Nottingham? Does she share my shame that a major employer should have to go to such lengths to reassure EU citizens that they are welcomed and valued? What will she do to ensure that EU staff working here in the House know that we value them and want them to stay?
Andrea Leadsom
The best way for this House to show that we want to support the EU citizens who are here is by supporting the Prime Minister’s deal. That will ensure that EU citizens who have come to the UK to make their lives here and have contributed so much will be able to continue as before. Importantly, it will also ensure that UK citizens who have made their lives in the EU can continue as before, too.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
While the House quite rightly continues to discuss Brexit, the knife crime epidemic across our nation continues unabated. On Tuesday alone, six people in London were stabbed in six hours, and people were stabbed in other parts of the country too. It just goes on and on. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said at the Home Affairs Committee that there was a lack of interdepartmental co-ordination. It has taken a month to get the knife crime summit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) pointed out in an urgent question last week. When are the Government going to get the necessary grip on things and come to this House to make statements on a regular basis? The knife crime summit is on Monday, so can we at the very least expect a statement by the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister to tell us what happened and to allow us to ask questions?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman often raises this incredibly important issue, and he is absolutely right to do so. The Government are determined to get a grip on the problem of serious violence, and he rightly points out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a summit on this subject on Monday. He will appreciate that the business of the House is not under the Government’s control on Monday in terms of statements and so on, but I will nevertheless take away his request and see what can be done.
As for his call for the Government to get a grip, that is exactly what the Government are doing. At the spring statement, the Chancellor announced £100 million for police and crime commissioners so that they can urgently divert resources to deal with serious crime. At a more strategic level, we have our serious violence task force, and our Offensive Weapons Bill will introduce new knife crime prevention orders that will help the police to prevent people from carrying knives. We are also extending stop-and-search powers, police forces are undertaking co-ordinated national weeks of action to tackle knife crime, and we are launching a consultation on a public health approach to tackling violent crime. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that this Government are absolutely determined to get a grip, but I will certainly take away his request for a statement following the summit.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The statutory instrument needed to create a new state aid regime after we leave the European Union was due to be debated in Committee on 25 February, but it was withdrawn at short notice. In the four and a half weeks since that date, several other statutory instruments have been laid and debated, including SIs from the Department responsible for state aid. Without a state aid regime that functions properly, businesses that rely on state aid, and those who work for them, will be in serious difficulty, and that will have a profoundly negative impact on our economy. Will the Leader of the House tell me why there has been such a long delay and when the SI is likely to be brought back and considered?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will know that that statutory incident has in fact been debated and agreed in the other place. As I said earlier, the programme of statutory instruments that we sought to finalise by the date of exit has been completed on time, and any others will be considered in good time for leaving the European Union, as necessary. To be clear, a statutory instrument may not be needed for exit day—I am not commenting on this particular one—but all the statutory instruments that need to be in place by exit day will be.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Today marks the 13th anniversary of the formation day of the Royal Regiment of Scotland as a new regiment in the British Army. Of course, it may be relatively new, but it is also the most senior regiment of line infantry, combining some illustrious names in the Army’s history, including the Royal Scots, the King’s Own Scottish Borderers, the Black Watch, the Royal Highland Fusiliers, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and the Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons). It also includes two reserve battalions in the 51st Highland Volunteers and the 52nd Lowland Volunteers, and I am proud to have been a member of the latter. I joined the regiment in 2006—the year it was formed—and it was a formative part of my growing up. Will the Leader of the House join me in marking this occasion, and may we have a debate on the huge contribution that the regiment has made over the past 13 years?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the Royal Regiment of Scotland, its great contribution, and all the regiments that now form a part of it. We owe a real debt of gratitude to all those who do so much not only to keep us safe, but to support international humanitarian exercises and work for our communities.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On 14 January, ahead of the first meaningful vote, the Prime Minister said that the link between the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement
“means that the commitments of one cannot be banked without the commitments of the other.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 826.]
Does the Leader of the House agree with the Prime Minister?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady asks me about a specific statement that the Prime Minister made a few weeks ago, and what I can say to her is that any motion that is brought forward will of course comply with the law, with the European Council decision and with Mr Speaker’s ruling.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Next week is World Autism Awareness Week, so may we have a debate in Government time on the difficulties in accessing employment and apprenticeships for adults with autism spectrum disorders and what this Government are doing to help?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is vital that we do everything we can to support people with autism, many of whom can have extremely rich and fulfilling lives and may need some support to do that. There was a debate on autism quite recently, but the hon. Lady may like to seek a Backbench Business debate so that this important issue can be discussed further.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Last August, Siobhan McLaughlin won her case in the Supreme Court giving her access to widowed parent’s allowance for her children, which she had been denied because she was not married to her late partner of 23 years. The Court ruled that the purpose of the allowance is to diminish the financial loss caused to families with children by the death of a partner, and that it is unlawful to deny the allowance to an unmarried parent. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on why, seven months after the Supreme Court judgment, unmarried parents are still being denied this support after the death of a partner?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important issue, and if she would like to write to me, I can take it up directly with the Department on her behalf. Equally, she may prefer to raise it directly with Ministers.
Points of Order
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to go into the details, but I have shown you an email that I have sent to a senior police officer and that the Leader of the House is only just getting the opportunity to read. I am not going to go into its contents, but I will say this, because I know that it will concern you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, a member of staff, not from this place but from the other place, sent me an email to thank me and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for raising our concerns about the security of everybody who works in this place. I cannot help myself if there is a catch in my throat, because this is a young woman who works in an office in the other place, and she described in a very moving way how she and other members of staff in this place are being spat at and abused as they come into work, obviously because of the political situation.
I know that nobody will feel anything other than disgust at what is going on. I would like to think that some people—the majority—might be concerned about what has happened to people like me and others, but some think we deserve it. In any event, I know that the Leader of the House does not think that, and I thank her for all she has done. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Deputy Speaker, who has reached out and done everything he can. But do you know what, Mr Speaker? There have been fine words and many promises, but there is no doubt about this situation, especially following a further incident in this House—last night there was a second incident involving the same person as before from a known far-right group.
In short, Mr Speaker, given events tomorrow and no doubt next week, can you assure us all that everybody, whoever they are, from cleaner to peer, will be kept safe in and out of this place?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, and for showing me a copy of the relevant email, which I have just read at the Chair. I hope I can offer her and all colleagues the assurance sought. I make two points. First, as I indicated to the House that I would, I have had arranged for me a meeting between me, other senior colleagues and, indeed, a variety of colleagues to whom this matter is of concern, with the Parliamentary Security Director and the chief superintendent on the parliamentary estate. However, I have to acknowledge that that meeting is taking place only next Thursday, so it is some way off, but that was convenient for diary purposes for everybody involved.
My second point is that, although this does warrant further investigation and colleagues would not expect me to shoot from the hip, I am concerned by the idea, which has now been put to me not only by the right hon. Lady but by another hon. Member last night, that there has been at least one case—let us not get into an argument about how many, but at least one—of an individual coming on to the parliamentary estate and behaving in a threatening or abusive manner towards Members and staff. Although it is of course a treasured principle that there should be a presumption of public access to the estate for our citizens and people who want to visit here, it is axiomatic not only that they go through security but that they pose no threat to anybody here. If there is evidence of a person or persons in relation to whom we cannot feel that sense of security, I believe it must be right for preventive action to be able to be taken, because if there is a clash between someone’s right to visit here and our right—the right of us all, Members, staff and MPs’ staff—to be safe, the latter has to trump the former. I hope that is helpful.
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House wants to come in, and it is absolutely right that she should.
Andrea Leadsom
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the exchanges yesterday in which you quite rightly said you would convene a meeting, it might be of some reassurance to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that the director of security let my office know this morning that there will be significantly increased security tomorrow, for precisely the reason the right hon. Lady mentions. Our security teams here in the Palace are very aware of the concerns.
I remind all hon. Members that the behaviour code that forms a part of the independent complaints procedure applies to everybody, whether they work here or visit here, so if anybody feels that they are being treated in an unhelpful or derogatory way, that invokes the behaviour code that this House signed up to last July.
Mr Speaker
That is a very helpful underlining of the concern and the route map to resolution if colleagues are offended or insulted in that way. I had not made that point, and it is very helpful that the Leader of the House has done.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of this point of order. Yesterday, I was quite shocked, when attending a meeting of colleagues, to find at least two—one male, one female—in tears at the prospect, yet again, having twice taken the difficult decision to vote against a three-line Whip, of being put in the position of having to decide whether to do so or not. At what point will there be some protection, particularly for younger Members, so that they are not put in that situation by being asked to come back again and again and again to vote on the same proposition?
Mr Speaker
I think the right hon. Gentleman’s point—of which, as he says, I had no advance notice—stands in its own right. Many people will feel that it is a powerful observation. There are a number of reasons for the long-established convention that the House is not asked to decide the same question more than once in the same Session. The reason invoked by the right hon. Gentleman was not, from my study of history, part of the original rationale for it, but in my own view it is a powerful reinforcement of the continuing case for the convention. He has made an extremely important point, and it is something on which colleagues at all levels need to reflect.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand why the Leader of the House is not able to give us details of exactly what is going to happen tomorrow—I think it has not yet quite been decided—but as soon as it has been decided and a motion has been tabled, it would be good if the whole House was able to know what that motion is. For instance, would it be possible to put it up on the annunciator once the Government have tabled their motion, so that people would be able to table amendments and to consider whether they think it is appropriate to vote for or against the motion that we sit tomorrow? It would be good if the Government were able to do that by 5 o’clock, before we start that debate, which I understand could go on until any hour tonight. Would you like to make some kind of provision about manuscript amendments in relation to tomorrow’s proceedings, Mr Speaker, as we still have no idea what the business tomorrow is really going to be, other than that it will be broadly to do with Brexit? The worst of all possible worlds is if we just keep on going round and round and round and round in circles, still riding the same hobby-horses.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case, and it will have been heard by colleagues. For my part, in so far as he exhorts me to seek to facilitate manuscript amendments and so on, I am inclined to say to him that I shall always profit by his counsels. I always have done and I dare say I always will do.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about people being in tears, I think all of us here are grown up enough to be able to see that we need to do what we feel is absolutely right when we vote. The great Mr Forth used to say that whipping was optional. It is important that we bear in mind that we cannot allow the sensitivities of colleagues over feeling pressurised one way or another to stop us having a full choice. I am aware of 30 colleagues who have changed their minds on the meaningful vote, so I absolutely do not feel that those of us who have not committed to it yet should not have the ability to change our minds and have it back again. I am feeling rather frustrated that the two options that I supported yesterday will probably not make their way through the beauty contest, as I have described it, and I therefore reserve the right to wish to have meaningful vote 3, if am to pair it off against what I now see as the ugly sisters of the options.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady expresses her disappointment with the verdicts of the House on propositions legitimately submitted to it yesterday. She did that earlier in our proceedings and has thought it worthwhile to repeat and underline her point. She is perfectly entitled to her view, but it will have to be considered by colleagues alongside that just proffered by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. Conventions exist for a purpose, and I very politely say that the validity of a convention is not dependent upon a headcount at a particular time. The whole point of having a rule is that it is judged to be of value. The fact that somebody suddenly thinks it is not convenient does not mean it should be discarded.
Mr Speaker
No, I am not debating the issue with the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] No, it is not a debate. She has raised a point of order. I have answered it. The right hon. Member for New Forest East very courteously raised his, and it was answered, and other colleagues might also wish to raise points. We always need to have a sense of other.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This follows on from the point of order made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We do not know whether tomorrow’s business will be the meaningful vote—the Leader of the House quite reasonably told us that we would see the motion at 5 o’clock—but it is being heavily briefed to the press that we are likely to be presented tomorrow with the withdrawal agreement without the political declaration attached. Do you think this acceptable and permissible, Mr Speaker, given what has been agreed with the EU and the clear strictures in clause 13 of the EU withdrawal Act? Will it be in order for the Government to bring that forward?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As to the legality of such a proposition, I would have to look to others to advise. People can take their own counsel on this subject; I certainly would do so. If he is asking me whether I have seen any such motion, the answer is that I have not—I have seen no motion appertaining to tomorrow’s business beyond that which lies on the Order Paper suggesting that we might meet tomorrow. In terms of a substantive motion for tomorrow, I have as yet seen none. I am happy to tell him that, as the Leader of the House knows, I met a couple of very senior colleagues this morning who were exploring possibilities and consulting me. A conversation was had, as people would think was entirely normal and proper. I have not since heard from either of those senior right hon. or hon. Members, but I might do so during the course of the day.
As to the question of what people are briefing, I should observe that briefing is very much a phenomenon of our age: brief, brief, brief, create an impression, establish a narrative, try to dictate the course of events thereby—people do this all the time. I have not been briefed on any such plan, however, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to have changed my mind from the position that I enunciated on 18 March and reiterated on 25 March, and that I underlined again from the Chair yesterday. It remains the position so far as the convention is concerned. As the Leader of the House said—almost as a holding statement—during the business statement, we shall have to see what further work is done during the course of the day.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Once it becomes clear what the Government intend—once they have submitted their motion—would it be possible for you to make clear to the House the significance of the motion?
Mr Speaker
Yes, it is certainly important that we know what we are debating. The Leader of the House has announced that if we sit tomorrow there will be a debate on a motion relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I am not cavilling at that; I simply state it as a matter of fact. It could of itself be a perfectly orderly motion, but it is not specific, and is not intended to be specific, in terms of referring to a particular part of the Act. The House will obviously need to know what it is and is not debating, and I hope there will be greater clarity about that in the course of the day.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of my being unable to be at business questions to raise this point, but I have spoken to several members of House staff who have quite reasonable and significant concerns about having holidays cancelled. As Members, we appreciate that we have to come here, despite the somewhat arcane procedures of this place, and lose out on holidays over recess—though it would be helpful if you could reiterate, for the benefit not just of the House but of journalists and the public watching, that recesses are not holidays and that, although Members and staff occasionally take holidays, for most of us they are a time to go back to our constituents, with whom we are getting very limited time at present.
Leaving that to one side, what can Members do to make sure that the voice of the staff of this House and the other place is heard, and that if their plans are being cancelled at significant cost to them they will be properly recompensed? From the conversations I have had, it seems that that is not the case. Members understand that that is something they have to suck up, so to speak, but I do not believe that House staff should be messed about and not recompensed for holidays and time with their families that they are losing out on because of the current state of affairs.
Mr Speaker
As far as staff are concerned, one would expect them to be fully recompensed. That is the working principle here. I cannot comment about others. I mean no disrespect to them, but journalists, who are not employees of the House or Members, are a different matter, and the responsibility there is someone else’s. As far as those here are concerned, however, the working assumption must be that people are properly recompensed. I understand the anxiety that many people will feel, however, and I hope there will be clarity sooner rather than later.
Insofar as the hon. Lady asks where people should go with their concerns, or what recourse they have to ensure that those concerns are expressed, I would say that the trade unions and staff associations are obvious bodies to express concerns to. Those institutions regularly interact with the House of Commons Commission and the Clerk of the House, who is head of the House Service, not to mention the Director General of the House. There are, then, avenues, and they are quite well known, and the trade unions in this place are perfectly well aware of how to get their messages across—and it is absolutely right that they are got across.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I right in interpreting the business of the House motion to mean that we could be debating it until any hour tonight prior to the Adjournment debate, that the Government need not announce tomorrow’s business until the end of the Adjournment debate and that therefore it could be quite a late hour, should they choose to put in a lot of people to speak to the business of the House motion, before we have any concept of what we are debating tomorrow?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman’s understanding is correct. That could happen. It is what would be called a worst-case scenario, but I believe it to be so. I think that the Leader of the House is cautiously optimistic that that scenario will not transpire, but I cannot rule it out.
Bill Presented
Domestic Properties (Minimum Energy Performance) (No.2)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir David Amess presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to ensure that domestic properties have a minimum energy performance rating of C on an Energy Performance Certificate; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April; and to be printed (Bill 369).
Backbench Business
Beer Taxation and Pubs
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered beer taxation and pubs.
I am delighted to have secured this important debate, alongside the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating us this time.
In the short time that I have available, I hope to set out a compelling case as to why the Minister should recommend to the Chancellor that he cut beer duty in future Budgets, reform business rates and continue to look at new ways of reducing the disproportionate tax burden on pubs and breweries. Representing a Black Country constituency as I do, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group—the largest Back-Bench all-party group in this House—I know what an important issue this is for many of our constituents. My own Dudley South constituency is home to three very distinct and individual brewers: Bathams, dating back to the 1860s; Black Country Ales, which is a much more recent and fast-growing brewery; and Ma Pardoes, one of the original Campaign for Real Ale breweries.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his great work as chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, of which—like many other hon. Members—I am a member. Does he agree that, although it is very welcome that the Government extended rates relief to pubs, it is disappointing that they did not also extend it to small music venues, where people often also drink the occasional beer?
Mike Wood
Of course, the business rates relief extension was part of the support for high streets and community pubs in particular. I think there is a particular value to that, but I certainly would not be opposed to the kind of measures to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
When we last debated beer duty in this House—in Westminster Hall in October 2017—I said that there were 75 pubs in my constituency. I am afraid that there are now only 73, despite my very best efforts.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about disappearing pubs in his constituency. A person does not actually have to be a drinker to enjoy the benefits of pubs. Jo Cox, our late and much missed friend, talked about the loneliness agenda. I am a non-drinker, but I am very upset that we are losing the Goldsmiths Arms in East Acton, which has been there since 1826 when it was a coaching inn. The petition to keep it open has been signed by 2,180 people, but under this Government it often feels that people power and planning law are in conflict, and greedy developers often have too much power on their side.
Mike Wood
I would caution against trying to turn this into a party political issue, because although the number of pubs is still reducing at far too high a rate, it is a rather slower rate than was the case before 2010. There are a number of factors that lead to pub closures, some of which are more in the control of the Government and public authorities than others. Where the Government can act to slow down, stop and reverse pub closures, I would very much encourage them to do so.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the closure of a public house often has a far more devastating effect in a rural area, where the pub is the centre and heart of the community, often acting as a shop, a music venue and a tavern to the local people?
Mike Wood
My right hon. Friend is quite right. I will speak about the particular importance of rural community pubs later, but pubs are often key to local identity even in our towns and high streets. In fact, more people probably give directions with reference to pubs than to road names.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a superb speech, as always. On the subject of the decline in the number of pubs, we should not forget that one area of enormous growth in the industry over the last 10 years is the proliferation of craft brewers. I am sure that every single Member here has an excellent craft brewery in their constituency, and these breweries often run tap houses. Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of the small brewer’s relief to the growth of craft brewers, and will he make that part of his discussion with the Chancellor and the Treasury?
Mike Wood
My right hon. Friend pre-empts the later part of my speech, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North is similarly indicating that she may just touch upon this topic later. Yes, the rise in the number and variety of smaller breweries, and particularly craft breweries, over the last decade and a half has been one of the key features of the sector. This is partly down to the success of the small brewer’s relief.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He is absolutely right about rural pubs. However, the importance of the last pub on the council estates in many of our towns is often overlooked. The last pub has closed on many of those estates, and that has a huge impact on the facilities available for people to get together. Although I entirely support what he says about rural pubs, let us make sure that we do not forget the issue with regards to council estates.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Perkins, if you want to speak, we are on a five-minute limit. I do not want to have to drop people down the list; I want everybody to have the same fair chance. If those who are speaking would take fewer interventions, it would help us all.
Mike Wood
I consider myself duly reprimanded, Mr Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that, once again, I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), as I have also seen the impact of derelict pubs of varying sizes standing monument within housing estates and town centres across the Black Country.
Stephanie Peacock
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his powerful speech. The Black Bull pub in Barnsley East closed last year, and the 250-year-old building is due to be demolished. Does he share the sadness, and what does he think we can do to improve the situation?
Mike Wood
I share the sadness whenever a well-used pub closes for any reason, and there is a particular impact on the community when that pub is a heritage building in a town, city or village.
Last autumn, 116,000 people up and down the country signed the Long Live the Local campaign—many of them emailing their MPs. It was launched by Britain’s Beer Alliance, and quickly garnered public support from licensees, beer drinkers and many more groups. I know that the success of that petition due to everybody who united behind the campaign was pivotal in persuading the Treasury of the need for action to support beer and pubs. I am delighted that the Chancellor listened to those passionate calls and froze beer duty once again.
The beer and pub sector is vital to our country. Nearly 900,000 people up and down the United Kingdom rely on the industry for work; 43% are younger people aged 16 to 24, and more than half are women. Supporting the pub trade is a fantastic way to reduce youth unemployment and develop skills among young people. This House saw at first hand the impact of apprenticeships across the hospitality sector and the opportunities available, during the apprenticeship showcase in National Apprenticeship Week.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point about the opportunities for people in the industry. Does he agree that this is one of those industries where someone can quite literally start behind the bar and end up as the chief executive or the chairman of quite a big company?
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend is spot on. When I was helping to judge the parliamentary pub chef and young pub chef of the year competition this time last year, we spoke to a number of people who were not yet in their mid-20s and were not only running their own kitchen but, in a number of cases, were now running multimillion-pound turnover businesses in their own right. There are very few other sectors where people can go into an industry at a young age with next to no start-up capital and have such opportunities for rapid career progression resulting in running their own business.
Brewing is also a true success for home-grown British manufacturing. A staggering 82% of all beer consumed in this country is made in this country, and we have over 1,800 breweries in the UK, 149 in the west midlands alone. In my own constituency, the sector accounts for 1,068 jobs, 315 of them held by people under 25. It contributes over £34 million in gross value added to the Treasury’s coffers, for which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is very grateful. Nationally, the sector adds nearly £23 billion to the UK economy and contributes almost £13 billion in taxation to the Treasury. Some of us would argue that that is a little disproportionate. One in three pounds spent in pubs goes straight into Treasury coffers, with an average of £140,000 for every pub in the country being raised for the taxman every year. I therefore strongly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of a review of small brewer’s relief.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Small brewers such as St Peter’s in my constituency have a proven track record in exporting their beers all around the world. They could expand, open up new markets and create more jobs if export volumes were excluded from small brewer’s relief. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury should consider this exclusion as part of their review of small brewer’s relief?
Mike Wood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is one of those that needs to be considered. I understand the Treasury’s concerns about the risk of fraud, the ability to actually enforce it, and particularly, at the moment, legality under the current European duty framework.
Beer duty has divided this House in the past, but there is now a general agreement on all sides that it is already high and we certainly need to avoid rises. When the hated beer duty escalator was introduced by Gordon Brown, beer duty rose by a staggering 42%, while beer consumption in the UK fell by 16% overall and by nearly a quarter in our pubs. Almost 7,000 pubs called time for good, and more than 58,000 beer-dependent jobs were lost. This was a very expensive policy failure, and the price was paid by beer drinkers, publicans and employees alike. I am delighted that, as a country, we are now drinking more beer but also paying less tax on it as a proportion of the cost. However, the amount of this beer being sold in pubs continues to fall, and while the rate of pub closures has slowed, as I said, they are still closing at a disturbing rate.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend on his speech. Pubs are very important in my constituency, where the brewery Shepherd Neame is the largest employer as well as the producer of excellent beer. I see colleagues nodding. Lower-alcohol beers are becoming increasingly popular, so does he agree that there may be a case for looking at the threshold at which brewers get duty relief for such beers?
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) would also agree, with St Peter’s being a major advocate of this argument as well. The European Union, within its beer duty framework, is in the process of changing those thresholds. I would hope that the Treasury, regardless of what form of Brexit we end up with, will make sure that, at the very least, we follow the mechanisms that are already in place, amending the threshold for low-alcohol beers to one where it is rather more viable for brewers to produce at that strength. Encouraging people to go down from over 4% to around 3% is better for their health, and if we can make sure that it is fiscally better for the brewer as well, then so much the better.
As CAMRA has made clear, one of the opportunities as we leave the European Union—we know from last night’s discussion that there is an element of disagreement as to what should happen next—is that we are able to take back control of our excise duty regime. This gives the Chancellor an opportunity to look afresh at how we tax beer in pubs, in particular—how we can use fiscal measures to help pubs to thrive, to support responsible drinking, and to redress the competitive disadvantage that our community pubs have as against, in particular, supermarkets that are able to stack drinks high, sell them below cost, and use them a loss-leader.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Colin Shevills of Balance North East, who commissioned an independent survey of publicans, that it is cheap alcohol—cheap booze—in the supermarkets that is most dangerous to our pubs and causing more closures than alcohol duty?
Mike Wood
There is a range of factors. Beer duty is certainly part of it, but business rates are a massive factor in the pressures affecting our pubs. For these pubs to flourish, to remain the beating heart of our communities, and to continue to compete as businesses, they need the investment that comes, and is only possible, if the tax burden is kept at a sensible level.
Mike Wood
I really cannot—I ought to have finished by now.
The three duty cuts and two beer tax freezes that we have seen under successive Conservative Chancellors have secured thousands of pub jobs and hundreds of pubs. They have boosted confidence in our brewing and pub businesses, which have continued to invest in the sector. They have increased beer sales, boosting the Treasury’s total tax take from beer. This is a win-win situation, and I encourage the Minister and the Chancellor to win even more by giving us a fair deal on beer taxes. I ask the Minister to encourage the Chancellor to go further. Hard-pressed UK beer drinkers still pay 40% of all Europe’s beer duty despite drinking only 12% of the beer consumed. One could argue that 12% is possibly not yet enough. Crucially, seven in 10 alcoholic drinks sold in pubs are beer. By helping British beer, we are helping British manufacturing and also helping our community pubs. We have to address business rates. We need fundamental reform. The relief announced in the Budget last autumn was enormously helpful, with about 80% of pubs benefiting, but they are still hugely overtaxed. Despite only making up about 0.5% of total business turnover, our pubs represent nearly 3% of all business rate payments.
Beer and pubs are a great British success story. We can help them to prosper and to succeed if we can spare industry and consumers from the burden of high beer duty and unfair business rates, and use our duty framework to support our community pubs. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this debate, thank Members for supporting it, and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With a five- minute limit, I call Ruth Smeeth.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I congratulate my friend, the chairman of the APPG on beer, the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). It is an honour to serve as his deputy and as the Labour lead in the House on the issue of beer.
I must declare an interest—not one in the register—in that I am the hon. Member for the Titanic brewery, the best small brewer in the United Kingdom.
Ruth Smeeth
I think I am going to be heckled throughout by my hon. Friend and neighbour.
Titanic has benefited hugely from small brewer’s relief, which I will touch on in a moment. First, I would like to put on record my thanks to Keith and Dave Bott not only for the support that I receive from them, but for the investment they have made in my community. They have ensured that small brewers have had a voice in this place, and others, for many years.
It is a pleasure to talk about a B-word that has nothing to do with Brexit. I think we can all agree that we have spent enough time on that for a little while. Instead, I would like to talk about the value of pubs to our society.
While the sector supports more than 1 million jobs in the country, and we heard various statistics from the hon. Member for Dudley South about it, we need to touch on the other things that the pub sector delivers, such as the impact on loneliness—especially providing somewhere for older gentlemen to go—and on our communities.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Member recognise the importance of linking community pubs with craft breweries, such as Loch Lomond and Lennox breweries in my constituency, which reduces social isolation and consumption of alcohol at home?
Ruth Smeeth
There is a huge opportunity for us to debate the benefits of off-licence versus on-licence, the support that people get when they enter a pub and the responsibilities of the landlord. That is especially the case when we talk about loneliness.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was stirred to action by the hon. Lady, my good friend, using the words “older gentlemen”—I qualify, but I am not lonely. The way to keep the pubs in our communities alive is for people to visit them. If we get more people going to the pubs, they will live longer. That is very important—and, by the way, that includes me.
Ruth Smeeth
I thank my friend for his intervention. I think a pint of Steerage from the Titanic brewery will definitely help him live longer.
Pubs bring everyone together in the community. Whether it is fundraising for local charities, increasing awareness of illnesses or just everyone coming together on a Sunday evening, pubs are at the heart of our communities when other institutions are falling away.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an excellent speech about the importance of the pubs at the heart of our communities. We are losing so many community pubs because of the terrible imbalance in our business rates regime. I am sure she will come on to it, but does she agree that this disparity—pubs pay 2.8% of the entire business rates bill but account for 0.5% of turnover, an overpayment of £500 million a year—desperately needs addressing?
Ruth Smeeth
I will touch on taxation in a moment.
I want to talk about the role of pubs in British culture and society, because they are a core part of who we are. People enjoy coming to the UK for tourism—an issue that we need to discuss even more as we head towards Brexit—and there is nothing more English or British than holding a pint. Tonight at the Sentinel business awards, which I cannot attend because of the debates in the House, everyone will toast their awards with a pint of local beer, because it is part of our community and our culture.
Ruth Smeeth
I am afraid that I have run out of time for interventions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said, there are some stark figures about the impact of taxation on the sector that we need to acknowledge. Amazon UK paid £4.5 million in corporation tax last year. Black Sheep brewery, chaired by the wonderful Andy Slee, a Stoke-on-Trent constituent, paid £8 million in beer duty. Amazon UK has a turnover of £1.98 billion. Black Sheep brewery has a turnover of £19 million. Minister, there is an issue here. In 2016, eBay UK paid £1.6 million in corporation tax. Titanic brewery paid 25% of its turnover to HMRC—£2 million.
On the disparity in business rates, following the rate revaluation last year, Titanic brewery pubs’ rateable value went up by 20% across Staffordshire. The Amazon warehouse in Stoke-on-Trent fell by 10% in rateable value. There is a disparity, and it is simply not fair for online and offline businesses. Breweries and pubs cannot move off the high street, nor would we want them to.
Small business rate relief has been touched on, but I am going to run out of time. All I can ask the Minister at this point is to look at the requests made by the Society of Independent Brewers about the impact of the changes. We are at a cliff edge, and unless this is smoothed out, investment to enable smaller brewers to reach the next level will stop. I reiterate my invitation to the Minister earlier this year to come and have a pint with me at Titanic brewery at his earliest convenience.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I declare an interest, as president of the all-party parliamentary beer group. It is great to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). I do not think she heard, but when she told us that she was the MP for the Titanic brewery, I shouted, “I suspect she’s sunk a few of those.” I know I have.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
It was not a good joke the first time you said it.
Mr Evans
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I live next door to a pub; there cannot be much more commitment than that. At times, I feel that I should pay my council tax for the pub rather than the house I live in. I celebrated my 50th birthday in that pub, and I welcomed you and your wife Catherine to the pub. Only a few weeks ago I was at the superb Caledonian brewery in Edinburgh and sunk a few of its pints while celebrating Wales on their march to the grand slam.
It is great to have a debate in this place where we are all coming together, rather than knocking six bells out of one another. The pub is such an important focal point for people. I live in a rural village, and it is great when people can get together. Pubs do so much to raise funds for numerous charities, and they are a place for sporting groups—whether it is darts teams or football teams—to come together.
Mary Robinson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and to him and his colleagues for securing this debate about beer taxation and pubs. The wider aspect of this is pubs as a community hub. It is Mother’s Day on Sunday. Our pubs will be full of people celebrating, dining and drinking and having a great time. Does he agree that the loss of these pubs would be a real detriment to our society?
Mr Evans
Absolutely. I hope that many people will be taking their mums out to pubs in their communities to thank them for being their mums; we do not need any other excuse than that. We hardly pass a pub these days that does not have a board outside informing people that Mother’s Day is coming up and they should book early to avoid disappointment. There are so many occasions when one can go to a pub and celebrate. In fact, any day with a “y” in it will do, as far as I am concerned.
Pubs bring people together. The best way to see that is to go to a village where the only pub has closed. It tears the heart out of that village. I know the pressures that pubs are facing, whether due to business rates, which are crippling some small pubs, environmental standards—it is right that they have to meet those—or investment in new fridges.
Pubs generate a lot of economic activity, and not just through the sale of beer, which is a fantastic product. They provide jobs in rural areas where jobs can be scarce. In particular, they provide badly needed extra income for younger people who are perhaps at college and can be flexible with their time.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a wonderful speech, as I knew he would on this topic, which he knows only too well. Has he considered communities that have gone even further and bought their pub? The community-owned pub is now a really important part of some villages. I congratulate the Plunkett Foundation, which does an awful lot of work to tell communities how they can buy their own pub.
Mr Evans
Yes. At times, there must be immense pressure for pubs that have closed to be turned into a block of flats, because there is a lot of money in housing, but there is an opportunity for them to be turned into a community pub, if the community come together to raise money and keep it going. There are countless examples of those throughout the country, and it means that the community still have a focal point where they can come together. I hope that more publicity will be given to those opportunities.
I have three breweries of different sizes in my patch: InBev, which makes Stella Artois, Thwaites brewery, which was moved from Blackburn into the Ribble Valley, is much smaller but is the famous brewery with the shire horses—there is a lot of corporate responsibility within that company—and Holmes Mill, which brews the great Bowland beers in the heart of the Ribble Valley.
Bob Stewart
My hon. Friend speaks with forked tongue. I have been to the pub beside his house with him twice or three times, and it is a wonderful pub, but when we go next door he always leaves behind the lady who lives in his house. She is called Alexa. He has never taken her.
Mr Evans
I am not mentioning Alexa.
It is a great pub—it was actually the CAMRA pub of the year in 2013—but I have other pubs such as the Freemasons at Wiswell and the Parkers Arms in Newton. A lot of pubs rely on offering food as well. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) mentioned that she does not drink, but people do not have to drink alcohol to go to these places because there is so much more on offer.
Mention has been made of taxation on beer, which is huge. At £13 billion, it is massive. Almost 1 million jobs are provided by the industry. We need to look at ways of lowering that taxation. There is something wrong when taxation goes up, people drink less and less money actually goes to the Inland Revenue. There should be a common-sense approach to lower taxation, increase sales and ensure that HMRC gets more money out of that.
Taxation is high if the alcohol by volume rate is high; it drops only at below 2.8%. We need to look at ways of increasing the rate to 3.5%. It would encourage more people to drink lower strength alcohol and have a great time; it would incentivise them to do that. It is worrying when a lot people drink high ABVs—5%-plus. Drinking a pint of beer is good for one’s health, but drinking too much beer with a higher ABV is not.
Tomorrow night, I was due to be in a pub celebrating a big event, but that big event is not happening; it is being deferred. All I can say is that, on 22 May, I hope to be saying, “Cheers, Brexit!”
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this very important debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), and I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing it.
I am particularly interested in this subject for several reasons, including as a constituency MP with a medium- sized family-run brewery in my constituency, J. W. Lees —John Willie Lees—which provides employment for about 1,100 people, owns 140 pubs across the north-west and north Wales, and is a major contributor to our local economy. My interest is also as the daughter of a landlady. My mother ran the Owain Glyndwr pub in Corwen, north Wales, during the 1980s, and then she was allowed to return home to the Duke of York in Heyside, Oldham—they were both John Willie Lees pubs —where I spent many hours, most of them happy, helping out with bar work in the evenings and at weekends.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way because she has just reminded me of something. I have been to the Owain Glyndwr pub in Corwen, when I was working at Theatr Clywd over the way. As an actor who toured the country for the best part of 50 years—I probably visited everybody’s constituency, apart perhaps from that of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—I have visited many taverns in many towns and, much to my wife’s surprise, people know me by name. The tragedy is to revisit a place—as we know, at one period some 50 pubs a week were closing—and find that the heart of the community has been torn out because the pub has closed. In Kirby-le-Soken in my own constituency, two of the pubs closed, but they have now reopened. Should we not celebrate the fact that some publicans are being innovative and creating new business, and we should support them through taxation?
Liz McInnes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a lot of publicans are having to be innovative in the way they run their pubs to keep them open. I do not know when he visited the Owain Glyndwr, but if it was in the 1980s, I may well have served him.
Liz McInnes
Then it could well have been me who poured his pint.
As the hon. Gentleman has just said, pubs are at the heart of our communities. For me, there is no greater pleasure than going down to my local on a Sunday evening—I try to make it my night off from politics—fending off all the queries about Brexit and what on earth we are all doing in this place, as well as providing a sympathetic ear for the landlord’s often expressed concerns about business rates and the future of his pub.
The facts are simple: pubs are closing at a rate of two to three per day. Our high streets are already struggling from the effects of bank branch closures, post office closures and the rise of online shopping. This is just piling on the problems in the face, I am afraid, of this Government’s increasingly incoherent policy on the future of our high streets. Pubs are being taxed left, right and centre with duty, business rates and employment taxes, as well as full VAT at 20%, while people are shopping online, staying at home and not coming out to socialise with others. This is not good for society, and a healthy pub is the heartbeat of its community.
The Campaign for Real Ale is calling for a fundamental review of the tax system to stem the tide of pub closures. CAMRA welcomes the Government’s business rate relief introduced in the 2017 Budget, but has said recently—just this month—that more action is needed to ensure the survival of the remaining 50,000 pubs. I am pleased that the Treasury is reviewing small brewer’s relief, which hon. Members have already mentioned. I look forward to hearing the results of the consultation, which closed on 17 March.
While small brewer’s relief has been helpful in the start-up of many new micro-breweries, it has also meant a reduction of one third of brewers, such as John Willie Lees in my constituency, which are squeezed between the large international brewers, with huge economies of scale, and the smaller brewers that benefit from a beneficial duty rate. As has already been mentioned, business rates do not help, and many pubs are closing because of high costs.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend think it would be good if the micro-brewers agreed with the family brewers a proposal for a new structure of duty relief that would have weight with the Treasury? SIBA was in contact with family brewers last year, but the talks broke down. Does she agree that if the industry could agree a scheme, that would have considerable weight?
Liz McInnes
I think that is a very sensible suggestion, and I hope my hon. Friend has fed it into the consultation. As I have said, I am looking forward to hearing the results of the consultation. I do not want to set up the small brewers against the medium-sized brewers, but I think we need to find a solution to this issue.
We have heard already from CAMRA and the British Beer and Pub Association that for every £3 spent in the pub, £1 goes straight to the taxman. The beer duty freezes in 2017 and 2018 were a welcome measure, after the damaging 3.9% increase in March 2017, but British beer remains overtaxed. Britons pay nearly 40% of all the beer duty paid in EU nations, but we consume only 12% of the beer. The beer duty rate in Germany is 12 times lower than the UK rate. A modest cut in beer duty in the next Budget would create thousands of additional jobs and help to ensure the sustainable future of our surviving pubs. This has been supported by the over 115,000 people who have signed up to the recent Long Live the Local campaign.
Finally, I want to finish with a point that was also made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. If the Government were to increase the threshold for lower strength beer to qualify for duty relief from 2.8% to 3.5%, this would stimulate further investment in lower alcohol products and increase the range of low and no-alcohol alternatives available to encourage the healthy social drinking that our pubs—our community hearts—so desperately need.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). This debate has been very good humoured, and it is a pleasure to take part—I’m fed up with this place at the moment! Beer duty has been mentioned, and I should declare an interest: the headquarters of the Campaign for Real Ale, which is in the forefront of the campaign on beer duty, is in my constituency. However, I want to focus on pub business rates.
Generally speaking, people do not go to the pub to get drunk these days. There are so many other things: some pubs run mini-libraries or toy libraries, while others run campaigns to support local people in need or help charities. Some hold darts matches. They are a focal point for many people who have nowhere else to go to meet friends and can be a place for celebrations with relatives as well. A pub is so much more than just the price of the liquid in the glass, and we really have to get that over. That is why I want to focus on the premises in which the liquid is served. A reduction in beer duty would be good, but as a wine drinker I want to focus on how we keep pubs in business so that we all have somewhere to go.
I took part in the previous, very well attended, debate on this issue in Westminster Hall. I am trying to get a meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to raise this important issue and some of my constituency’s pubs and landlords have come to meet my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who is on the Front Bench now. But the reality is that those people do not feel that there is a real awareness that the much welcomed reduction in business rates will not reach all the parts that other beers cannot reach. In my constituency, the reduction reaches a mere 50% of the pubs, on average. Many of the pubs have contacted me about a massive hike in business rates; they have to cut staff or close their businesses altogether. That cannot be the message that the Government intended to send out.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
This, of course, is not the first time we have had a debate about pubs; we have had them for years, although we never seem to make much progress when it comes to their taxation. The other affected area is the working men’s clubs, a lot of which are now dying out. It is important that the Treasury has a good look at the situation to see whether it can help pubs. At the end of the day, pubs are a catalyst for the community. The hon. Lady is on the right track.
Mrs Main
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the community aspect in his valuable intervention. Some pubs threatened with closure are taken on as community assets, but it is incredibly hard to make the business case, given how business rates are. No matter how willing the community is, there are only so many pints of beer that anyone can drink to help provide the income it needs, unless we want to encourage people to be blotto night and day. We have to ask whether the business model is workable, and for many pubs it just is not.
The cut of 33% in rates for businesses with a rateable value of under £51,000 was a major step, but in areas such as St Albans it is not having an impact. Areas with high property values such as St Albans are almost totally overlooked. Many people have mentioned heritage and beautiful buildings: pubs in my area are under a huge threat of being turned into domestic properties. That is a real worry. They are struggling at the cliff edge, and we have to address the issue now.
The 2017 business rates formula for pubs uses a methodology for setting the rateable value based on fair maintainable trade. Nobody seems to understand how that works. The rateable value is driven mainly by the pub’s turnover and it takes into account property valuations. That means that even small pubs in St Albans are having huge hikes in business rates because they happen to be settled among much higher-value domestic properties. The formula does not take that into account, so it penalises small business operators.
The hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) mentioned micro-breweries: the formula also penalises the independents, which is a real problem. We may lose some of the quirky pubs on our high streets that offer that level of interest and difference and prove a huge pull for tourists who come into areas such as St Albans and appreciate pubs such as The Boot and Ye Olde Fighting Cocks, many of which have historic backgrounds and architecture to match. That means that it is difficult to expand or increase footfall, because they are extremely small.
Save UK Pubs has compiled a useful document outlining the increases that pubs face. I have given it to the Minister before, but I will send it to him again in case he has lost it. The Boot, which I have just mentioned, is an absolutely tiny heritage pub—some people have bigger sitting rooms. People there reckon they would have to sell an additional 22,000 pints to cover the additional £51,000 in business rates that they now have to pay—a 280% increase. That is unsustainable.
If the Chancellor came up with the model, he certainly was not looking at St Albans when he did. Christo Tofalli of Ye Olde Fighting Cocks told me that unless there is proper reform of the relevant taxes, licensing laws and duty costs, his pub will be finished. He bought this beautiful, historic pub; people can work out from its name that it goes back a long time. Bringing it back to life has cost him a huge amount of personal investment. Having pulled it back from despair, he expects people in this House to get how important a pub is. It is not necessarily a drinking outlet—there are plenty of those. A pub is family to some people and part of the community to many people. Once it has been turned into a posh house, as happens in my constituency, it will never come back. I put in a plea for the Minister not to hide behind all the different things that have been done. It is not enough, and we need to look at the situation again.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who called at the end of her speech for more to be done to support our pubs—the theme of this entire debate.
Pubs are absolutely crucial to our communities and certainly to my constituency. Chesterfield has 105 pubs, and 1,419 people there rely on beer and pubs for their employment. In Chesterfield alone, £15 million goes into the local economy through wages paid to people who work in our pubs. Alongside the economic value that pubs provide—we have talked about the huge tax contribution that they make—pubs also make an incredibly important social contribution. As we have heard from other hon. Members, when a pub closes on an estate there is no longer a focal point for the community.
What is the first thing that comes to mind when we think about soap operas? We think of The Rovers Return or the Queen Vic, which are the hub of their communities. When people visit our country, the first thing they want to do is visit the local and have a pint of British ale. We cannot overestimate the incredibly important role that pubs play in our social fabric.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech. In the market town of Otley in my constituency, there are two grade II listed pubs—the Black Bull Inn and The White Swan, operated by Star Pubs & Bars. It has ruined the heritage of those pubs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that goes against the heritage and tourism that we need to engender? Should we not have more local powers to ensure that that sort of thing cannot happen to grade II listed heritage pubs?
Toby Perkins
I certainly feel strongly that the owner or landlord of a pub is its custodian for the local community. Pubs valued by a community have often been lost as a result of the irresponsibility or inadequacy of the people who have run them. When pubs close, that has a huge impact on the local community. Sometimes, we have got too bogged down with the numbers; where pubs close is also important. We have heard about the importance of rural pubs, and I mentioned previously the importance of pubs on the local estate.
The Brampton Mile is a famous area in Chesterfield with 17 pubs within a single mile. Some have attempted to visit them all in a single night—I cannot entirely remember how it ended, but it started well. When a pub closes in an area with a huge number of pubs, the impact may not be the same, but when there is only one pub in an area, it is incredibly important, and we feel strongly about that. Some 243 people in Chesterfield signed the “Long Live the Local” petition.
Here in Parliament, we recognise how important pubs are. The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) who started the debate, is chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary pubs group. This year, we held the first ever parliamentary pub of the year competition. I was delighted that so many MPs entered. There was a fantastic array of entries. My own entry, the Chesterfield Arms in Chesterfield, was a finalist, but was ultimately defeated by the Four Elms pub in Cardiff, Central. It was an event in which we came together and celebrated the role that pubs play in our communities.
There are always claims that if the Government only taxed businesses less, the pubs would do better. As a former shadow Business Minister I recognise the extent to which such calls are heard. The Government were elected in 2015 on a manifesto that promised a fundamental review of business rates. I appreciate that that commitment disappeared from the 2017 manifesto, but the Government have not considered themselves to be held to many items in that manifesto. The system of business rates disincentivises investment, whether in pubs, manufacturing or retail. When people make their premises better they pay a higher tax bill, which flies in the face of the sort of investment that we all want to see. I would love the Government to put less focus on reducing corporation tax at the expense of business rates. Corporation tax is businesses paying tax on profits that they have made, whereas business rates are a tax on owning a property. At a time when pubs and so many retail units are closing, the taxation policy achieves the opposite of what the Government intend.
If I had more time, I would talk about the pubs code, and I look forward to the review that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), is undertaking. Pubs are crucial to our communities, and I am delighted that this debate has taken place. May we all continue to trumpet that crucial role.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). As a nation we need to have a balanced approach to the provision of alcoholic drinks, their sale, their taxation and the licensing of pubs. I will take this opportunity to make a cautionary remark: it is well publicised that there are proven consumption levels that should not be exceeded in order to minimise the risks to our health. The key is to enjoy drink in moderation and, best of all, in the local pub.
Our pubs provide a social meeting place, encouraging people to meet and converse with others in convivial surroundings. The majority of pubs in Scotland are convivial— although some may not be—and an important part of our infrastructure. In the United Kingdom, pubs and drinks producers are also major employers, with approximately 900,000 employees. Many of those businesses—and of course the consumer—will benefit from the rates discount of one third for small retailers in England and Wales from April 2019, and in Scotland we have had the small business bonus for a number of years, which has been of great assistance, but neither scheme goes far enough to assist pubs. Another good thing is the freezing of beer, cider and spirits duty for yet another year—I thank the Chancellor very much for that.
I have previously expressed my support for the freeze on duty, given my constituency includes Grants of Girvan, producing whisky and Hendricks gin, Caledonian Bottlers in Cumnock, and the small Ayr Brewing Company, which produces excellent real ales consumed and enjoyed by many.
Even though we are discussing beer, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Scottish whisky industry, which remains a great British success story. Exports are worth some £4 billion per annum, comprising almost a fifth of the UK’s food and drink exports. Duties on alcoholic drinks are forecast to raise £12.3 billion in 2018-19. Surely the Chancellor has a bit of wiggle room for some kindness towards the pub trade.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the whisky industry which the Government have supported so well by freezing the duty for the last two years. For a constituency such as mine, which has Diageo, Strathearn distillery and others, that provides vital support, domestically and with exports. Does he agree that our pubs supply not only great drinks but fantastic food, like the Kirkstyle Inn in Dunning in my constituency? That food can bring families in and, combined with local music, can make the pub the heart of the community.
Bill Grant
I completely agree, and pubs are great outlets for locally grown produce which we can be very proud of in the UK, in particular in Scotland.
As with all good news, there is a negative. One of our local businesses raised concerns with me recently about post duty point dilution and the proposed ban on this. I am aware that it will hit some businesses hard and cost them dearly to maintain their standards, only to fund the Exchequer, where their methods involve this practice. I ask the Minister to consider whether any flexibility can be applied when the legislation is drafted this year.
Sadly, pubs are still closing. In the village of Patna in my constituency, we have gone from four pubs to one over the last 15 years, in Drongan from three to one and in Rankinston, the village of my birth, we have had no pub for many years. We have seen the sad demise of these much loved institutions. Indeed, in the last decade almost a quarter of UK pubs have closed. However, it is not all bad news—in Cumnock, the 1906 Bar in the square has just been refurbished and reopened as an excellent eatery and pub. The Kirkton Inn in Dalrymple—you may know it, Madam Deputy Speaker—has recently been purchased and refurbished. The owners have breathed life back into and it is now an excellent pub and eatery. I wish individuals behind those business ventures every success.
There are many reasons for pub closures, including lifestyle choices, supermarket prices and ease of purchase from convenience stores. Despite the temptation of the aforementioned, I very much enjoy supporting my local pubs, but I cannot be the saviour of every pub—we all need to participate. If we want them, we have to use them, although as always the beer should be consumed in moderation.
The issue of business rates comes up constantly, and I have been approached by bar owners and publicans in my constituency who are concerned by the cost, despite the small business bonus scheme. They face long delays when they appeal their rates, and they find it very hard. CAMRA has long campaigned to reduce the rates for pubs. How often can we repeatedly punish these wee facilities in rural communities and towns and treat them as a cash cow for taxation? We need to take a serious look at the issue.
Communities still value their local pubs and eateries as part of the social fabric of towns and villages. I recognise the work the Government have undertaken recently, but I urge the Minister to continue to recognise the value of pubs, the employment they create and the safe, supervised environment they provide for the consumption of alcohol and engaging with others. We cannot afford to lose many more and it is vital that the value of pubs to the local community is reflected in the taxation applied.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), my near neighbour, on securing this debate. He mentioned Baynhams beer, of which I am a regular consumer and supporter, and Ma Pardoes pub, where I am a regular visitor. In fairness to all the other Black Country beers and drinking places, I must say that it is a fantastic area for anyone who loves their beer. The sheer range of craft and real ales there is phenomenal.
I particularly welcome the debate because it is framed in the context of the taxation regime for pubs. We need a change in that regime, but that alone will not protect our pubs and their heritage unless it is allied with a change in the supervisory and regulatory relationship between pub tenants and pub-owning businesses.
Let me touch first on the tax regime, although Members have covered most of this. There is obviously a case for looking at alcohol duties. The fact that high-alcohol beers and ciders are taxed at hugely different rates is in itself a reason for looking at them. The fact that high-alcohol spirits are taxed at a lower rate is another reason for looking at them. Ultimately, it is the job of the Treasury to have a comprehensive review of these duties. That should be designed first to promote social drinking, secondly to sustain pubs and lastly to sustain Exchequer revenues.
Ruth Smeeth
My hon. Friend has touched on the fact that there are differential duties. Does he agree that it is ludicrous that there is still, in effect, a subsidy for cider producers whose products contain high levels of alcohol, when that is not the case for beer? There needs to be a level playing field across the sector.
Mr Bailey
I agree with my hon. Friend. Given the increased consumption of cider and the increased tax revenues from it, I would have thought there was a case for looking at the relative taxation levels of the two drinks.
Business rates have been mentioned. I will not go over the details, but we have a ludicrous situation whereby someone who invests in their business and increases their turnover often gets a huge increase in their business rates as well. One example given to me involved somebody who took over a pub that had traded at £200,000. He raised that to £700,000 but then found that his business rates had gone from £8,400 to £37,000. He did get that reduced to £24,000, but the mere fact that he had such a big increase and that it was then revised would seem to demonstrate that the process for evaluating business rates is deeply flawed. I recognise the Government’s attempts to do something about that, but we really need a comprehensive review of business rates so that they are geared in such a way as to promote and reward investment rather than penalise it.
Mrs Main
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have had similar experiences, with pubs putting in the investment and then finding themselves penalised. However, they say that when they put in a challenge, it takes a long time and it is difficult to get an explanation as to why the final figure is arrived at. There is not the transparency over the rateable system that there should be.
Mr Bailey
I totally agree. The process is opaque and would often appear to be perverse as well. There is a big case not only for revising it but for making it far more transparent so that anybody investing in their business can get a clear idea of what the potential financial penalty—if that is the word—would be on their investment.
I want briefly to touch on the pubs code and the Pubs Code Adjudicator, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) mentioned. I am the former Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and a member of its predecessor Committees, and we examined time and time again the relative balance in power between the pub tenant and the pub owner, as well as the relatively low level of income that tenants running even the most successful pubs obtained from all their efforts, relative to the revenues accrued by the pub-owning business.
The pubs code was agreed by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in the previous coalition Government, and I give him credit for that. A Pubs Code Adjudicator was appointed to adjudicate and to try to ensure that there was a fair balance of risk and reward between the two parties. It is fair to say that the appointment of Paul Newby was controversial, and a lot of concerns were raised. On the basis of the evidence we are getting back from tenants, those concerns were well founded. The changes do not seem to have affected the rate of pub closures whatsoever; indeed, the number of tenants who are still finding that the reward they get from all their efforts is totally inadequate does not seem to have changed either.
I welcome the fact that the Government are about to undertake a review of the working of the code and the adjudication. The essential thing is for the Pubs Code Adjudicator to act as an adjudicator and not just to enable negotiation between the pubco and the tenant, which actually reinforces the imbalance of power between the two. All too often, pub tenants find themselves negotiating against not only the pub company but their solicitors as well, and they are not in a position to have equivalent legal advice.
I conclude by saying that saving the pub involves two things: a radical transformation in taxation, but also the reinforcement of the legal protections for the pub tenant against the pub-owning business.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for bringing this debate before us. As other Members have said, this is light relief compared with the dark place we have been in for far too long—let me put it that way.
Many of the points I would have made have already been made, so I will crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and tell a little anecdote from the past. As some Members know, prior to appearing rather unexpectedly in this place, I was much involved in amateur dramatics and the local pantomime group—I have, indeed, been the dame in my time. On a Thursday night—to go back to the halcyon days of pubs—we would repair to a particularly famous old pub in my home town. At 11 o’clock, the barman, Sandy, would say, “Well, well, boys and girls, I think we will need to lock the door.” He would shut the massive, great door, turn the key and then carry on pulling the pints. One Thursday, I turned to a new member of the cast beside me at the bar and said, “Goodness me, do you think the bobbies might come knocking on the door tonight?” He laughed and said, “Ha, I’m an off-duty police sergeant,” which caused a slight reaction around the bar. Then, a voice further down the bar said, “That’s nothing. I’m an honorary sheriff’s substitute.” They were lax days, but I just wanted to tell Members that anecdote.
There are two points I want to pick up on in my brief contribution. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) made the point that publicans and their staff are trained, and they know the danger signs when somebody is drinking too much. As often as not, they will refuse to serve them, or they will get them into a taxi and get them out of the place. How much better is that, as she said, than having some lonely bloke drinking himself into a stupor at home on cheap White Lightning or cheap wine? We all know that far too many household fires are caused by somebody being blootered in their seat and dropping a fag down the back of the settee or whatever. There is therefore a safety aspect to this.
If someone goes on holiday to Spain, Italy, or wherever, if they are like me, fairly quickly they think, “I’ll pop down the village”. It is a hot day, there is a place with nice wee tables outside, and they have a pint of lager. Let us switch that the other way round. Visitors come to the highlands of Scotland and find no pubs—are you kidding? Tourism is crucial to the highlands, and the one industry that is fundamentally sustainable in the long term. If there are no pubs, the visitor experience will be much impoverished, to say the least, and the bad news is that the next year, people will think, “Perhaps I’ll not go there again”. Pubs have a far wider role than has yet been touched on in this debate, and I echo all that has been said about pubs being part of the social fabric of our communities.
Bob Stewart
The Jolly Woodman in Chancery Lane in my constituency is the nearest pub to my house, and it provides quality real ale. People come from miles around to visit that pub, and that is the sort of reaction we want to pubs in our areas.
Jamie Stone
I could not agree more, and I hope that one day the hon. Gentleman will take me to that splendid place and introduce me to the delights of that nectar.
I have said enough. As soon as I have the opportunity, I shall invite the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling)—he is not in his place at the moment—to my constituency, and introduce him to its local delights, of which there are many. I hope there will carry on being many, because if we lost them it would be a tragedy.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing this debate, and I congratulate my local Coatbridge brewery, the Veterans, on its successful launch on Armistice Day 2014. It was built by ex-servicemen, and I visited it recently.
Many years ago, I worked in the pub trade for 10 years as a barperson and landlord, and it was the most enjoyable job. I wish to thank my local, the Windmill Tavern in Tannochside, because it was the customers who made my job so happy. I also thank Gates Bar in Bellshill, where I worked part-time. We had many debate nights when we would be pulling pints and talking politics—multi-tasking.
In those days the pubs were busy. Day and night people were out socialising and enjoying a pie and a pint. Changed days—30 years later we have empty pubs and landlords who struggle to compete with the off-sale market given the price of a pint and the price of socialising. Sadly, although we still love our local pubs, I have also seen a change in the hotel and catering trade. Staff wages are low and zero-hours contracts are used and abused. What really annoys me is when staff tips are taxed, and in most cases managed poorly. In conclusion—in the tradition of last orders—can we look at beer taxation, eradicate zero-hours contracts, and stop taxing the tips?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I did not expect the last two speeches to finish that quickly, but I am sure I do not qualify for the extra time. If I could I would use that time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I accept that you would not let me under your rules.
I commend the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for so ably setting the scene and being generous with interventions, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate. From the fore I wish to be clear that I am aware of this House’s duty to encourage people to drink sensibly, and our policies, taxation, and legislation must carry a message that a sensible balance must be achieved by those who choose to drink alcohol. For that reason I, along with other Members, oppose supermarket cheap deals on alcohol—the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) referred to that, as have others—because that is clearly a contributory factor to those who have problems with alcohol. Some people buy too much and then imbibe too much. They end up in A&E, and with broken families due to their abuse of alcohol.
I fully support my local pubs, and I want to ensure they have that support in every corner. They have contributed a lot to the local economy in Northern Ireland. With local pubs it is clear—either use it, or lose it—and we cannot continue with the losses that we have unfortunately experienced over the years. I also understand the benefits of drinking in a pub that is a safe, local environment. As others have said, that might include someone who is able to reach over, take someone’s keys and call them a taxi, or an Uber, which is what young people use today, or someone who says, “Okay Billy, or Pat, that’s enough for tonight”, as opposed to them drinking in the home where there is no limit to what can be consumed. I believe that most pubs encourage responsible drinking, which is why I am in favour of this motion.
When we consider the pub industry in Northern Ireland, the figures are clear. We have around 1,216 pubs in Northern Ireland, and the pub and beer sector alone contributes £390 million in gross value added to the economy. It sustains more than 16,000 jobs and £200 million in wages, and the total tax contribution is around £260 million annually—that is some contribution.
There is little doubt that the industry makes a key contribution to the supply chain in Northern Ireland, generating additional value, jobs and wages for the economy. The sector has been in a precarious trading position over the past few years, as demonstrated by the instability of its gross value added performance over time. That is also reflected in the fact that Northern Ireland’s pub sector is the only one in the 12 UK regions to have experienced negative capital expenditure in 2016. That cannot be ignored. It contributes three times more in business rates than its profitability in the economy. The business rating approach to pubs in Northern Ireland is based on old case law that determined that pubs were more profitable than other businesses. Valuation is therefore based on an archaic law that no longer has any basis.
I can well understand the argument that, as things stand, the sector is paying too much relative to its contribution to the economy. We can demonstrate clearly that it is certainly not more profitable than other businesses. The difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the mainland is clear. The sector contributes 2% to non-public rates in Northern Ireland, but accounts for just 0.7% of the profitability of the local business economy. Northern Irish pubs account for just 1.6% of UK pub sector GVA, but pubs contribute 2.5% to UK business rates and 2.5% to the overall direct tax burden for the sector across the UK. It would seem to me that this is an overtaxed business area as it is, and that does not take into account the fact that, with people finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet, pub beer can be swapped for home beer. The mentality of “I can drink more if I drink at home” is not what we seek to endorse. We are trying to make sure that people stay in the pub.
I am not in favour of a cut to alcohol taxes per se, but I do believe that a cut targeted specifically at our pubs, bars, hotels and restaurants should be considered, as the social benefit would surely outstrip the initial duty cut cost. The industry is struggling, and my fear is that more local pubs will close. It is important that we do not encourage youngsters to chance their arm at supermarket self-service so that they never experience the safety measures that come with drinking in a local pub, where the tap stops, the keys are removed and there is no trouble. I fear for a generation who will only experience alcohol as a means to get wasted and not as a social event. I believe that pubs have a role to play, and we need to ensure that they can continue to trade and to step into people’s lives—and possibly even save lives. This is about social interaction and drinking sensibly. It is about having pubs in our areas.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and other Members on ensuring that this debate took place. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all those who have contributed to what has been a very good-humoured debate with very little disagreement. We need to support our local pubs, and we need appropriate taxation regimes that ensure, in particular, that responsible drinking can take place.
I want to talk about a few issues in relation to Scotland and make some wider points on tax. In Scotland, we pioneered minimum alcohol pricing. It mostly affects cheap supermarket alcohol and ensures that, for example, incredibly cheap high-alcohol-content ciders that are sold in supermarkets have to be sold at a higher price. That, however, is not what we would in an independent Scotland. In an independent Scotland, we would be looking for a comprehensive review of alcohol taxation overall. In fact, we asked the Government to do that, and we moved such a provision in a previous Finance Bill. We can only look at individual elements of alcohol taxation for a few years before an overall review is needed. We think that that review should be based on the amount of alcohol in each drink, and that taxation should therefore be levied on an appropriate basis.
I know that this debate is about beer and the taxation of pubs, but in pubs 42% of alcohol sold by value is wines and spirits, so it is important that that is considered in any decisions made. Given that women consume three times as much wine as beer, it is important to consider wine in this context and not just beer. As someone who likes a pint rather than a glass of wine I am on the other side of this argument, but I understand that an awful lot of people are concerned about wine taxation.
On post duty point dilution, which has been mentioned by a number of Members, I am pleased the Government are bringing forward a review. I have been approached by constituents who are keen to see a change. It would be useful if the Minister, in his summing up, could let us know what is happening with the timescale for that. I am not clear about the timescale going forward, although the Government may have talked about it in the past.
I think there are three different reasons for taxation in general: to generate revenue for the Government; to discourage negative behaviour; and to encourage positive behaviour, particularly in the case of reliefs. In assessing taxation on alcohol and pubs, the Government need to think of those three things going forward. What do they want to encourage? What do they want to discourage? How much revenue do they need to generate from any decision that they take? I think the view around the House is that responsible social drinking is the way forward, rather than people drinking at home and choosing drinks with incredibly high alcohol volumes.
On business rates, in Scotland we have the friendliest environment for business rates in the UK. Two out of every five pubs in Scotland receive the small business bonus and pay zero or reduced business rates as a result. In Scotland, 90% of properties also pay a lower poundage than they would if they were in the rest of the UK. We have done everything we can to ensure that we have the most competitive taxation regime for properties.
Let me just say a wee bit on the contribution of beer and pubs to the economy in Scotland, which is £1.7 billion a year. The brewing and pub industry supports the employment of 60,000 people in Scotland, which is significant. In my constituency, although I do not have breweries, I have the first pubs for Fierce Beer, six°north and BrewDog, so it is nice to be able to give them a shout-out.
I appreciate the tone in which this debate has taken place. If the Minister could answer my question on the post duty point dilution review, that would be incredibly useful. If he could also commit to a review of alcohol taxation in general, that would be great, but I am not sure that he will be able to go that far today.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, this is not the first time that we have debated many of these issues, but I very much agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that this has been a good-humoured debate, albeit one with rather too many puns. This debate is also important, as so many Members from right across the country have said, because the UK pub is renowned around the world—the oldest one was established right back in the 11th century—and an essential feature of our national life.
We have already gone through many of the statistics, so I will not do that now, but I very much agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) that much of the economic impact of the pub and brewery sector is indirect as well as direct. We have talked a lot about the impact on employment. It was very interesting, in particular, to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and about her working life. It was also the first taste that I had of working life. Working in a pub and restaurant I was paid the princely sum of £2 an hour before Labour’s minimum wage was introduced.
This sector is very important, supporting around 1 million jobs in the UK. Those who work in it contribute many payroll taxes as well. However, pubs are really also community hubs, as so many hon. Members have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) referred to the role that they can play in combating loneliness. We have heard about how pubs can help older gentlemen—I do not know why I am gesturing in the direction of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—and how they are open to mothers in the run-up to Mothers’ Day.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
We recently had a consultation in the west of Wales on the reconfiguration of health services. Dr Rhys Thomas, one of the lead consultants, informed us that one of the biggest public health challenges that we face is loneliness, so there is a public health aspect to this as well.
Anneliese Dodds
I absolutely agree with that point. There is now evidence of that. Work has been undertaken, commissioned by CAMRA, which set out clearly that there is a positive impact of people using pubs in the kinds of ways that we have been talking about during this debate. The point has also been made that many people who use pubs are not necessarily drinking alcohol. They use them in a whole variety of ways. I would also mention the fact that many pubs—particularly community pubs, and I will come back to that point later—are setting up special sessions for people with different conditions, such as dementia, so they are very important institutions from that point of view.
We have seen some worrying developments, which many Members have referred to. We have seen pubs closing at an alarming rate. Last summer, we saw figures showing that 18 pubs a week are closing. Those closures are occurring at the same time as the closures of libraries, post offices, banks and many local shops. They are happening in rural areas, as has been mentioned, but in urban areas as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) noted very movingly what happens when the last pub leaves an estate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) raised the same issue.
Members on both sides of the House rightly referred to the importance of local pubs, but also drew attention to the challenges they face. The first of those challenges relates to the tax system, and involves beer tax, small brewer’s relief and business rates.
We are in a peculiar position when it comes to beer tax. I agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has said that
“The UK’s current system of alcohol excise duties is a mess”,
and that the way in which we tax our alcohol does not necessarily
“fully correct for the social costs of alcohol.”
I hope that the Minister will spell out what the Government intend to do in the longer term, because a longer-term approach is needed, given the developments at EU level that were mentioned earlier and given the development of the low-alcohol beer sector, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and many others. Those developments are significant, but the tax system has not yet responded to them.
Many Members, including the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), referred to the corrosive impact of low-quality, high-alcohol products which are drunk at home and are cheaper to drink at home.
We had an interesting discussion about small brewer’s relief. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) spoke of its importance to small breweries, but I think we should also look carefully at its calibration in the light of the unintended consequences that were mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) made some good suggestions, and I hope that they will be noted in the review that is currently being undertaken. Despite those pressures, however, we are seeing incredible innovations, especially in the craft brewery sector. I want to plug the micro-pub movement which is taking place in my constituency, and our amazing covered market as well.
Many Members referred to business rates, which have been extremely damaging to pubs and to many other businesses that are based on bricks rather than clicks. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, and many other Members, talked about the imbalance in that regard. A business pays corporation tax only when it has become profitable, but the Government appear to have focused on reducing the corporation tax rate. My party would not take that approach, because we value the high streets and we value bricks-and-mortar-based businesses. Of course, that does not just apply to pubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned the impact on music venues, many of which are, in practice, in the same place as the local pub. We need to look at these issues in the round, and, in fact, we should look at them in relation to council tax as well. That is why we have committed ourselves to a proper review of local taxation, which we think is well overdue.
However, pubs face many other impediments that are not related to tax. That point was made very forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). The pubs code, which was intended to level the playing field for small pub tenants, has not operated in the way in which many of us hoped that it would. It appears that the situation is being manipulated, which is immensely problematic, because, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), tenants are still subservient to pub companies. That is also a big problem for the social mobility referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), because it means that people who start off pulling pints cannot end up as pub owners.
I should like to hear from the Minister when the compulsory review of the pubs code will be announced. I thought that it was to be announced this month. Can we also be assured that the process will be open and accountable? We need to restore trust and accountability to the process. We also, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), need to make sure communities are aware of that social value process so they can take over those community assets when they want to; many communities are not aware of it.
Many of us have said this debate is a refuge from Brexit, but, sadly, it is not entirely of course. That is first because the workforce is very important to the pub sector and we are all aware of many of the concerns about what will happen if in particular we have a threshold of £30,000 to get workers into the UK. UK Hospitality has said the current proposals are illogical. We need to deal with this challenge. Also, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) rightly referred to the importance of exports from our brewery industry in particular; we must not impose any additional bureaucracy on those exporters, particularly in growth fields and innovative parts of our brewing industry.
I hope the Minister will respond to my points in his remarks, particularly on the beer tax, small brewer’s relief, business rates and some of the legal issues.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate. As numerous Members have noted, it has felt rather like finding a good pub on a long walk when we are feeling weary and looking for a welcome break. The debate has been conducted in a very good-humoured manner throughout. I was first elected at the end of the coalition Government, and pubs was the only vote I believe that that Government lost in all those years, whereas today we are united on this topic but it is just all the other votes we seem to be losing.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for sponsoring the debate. Like the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), he spoke about the Black Country’s long association with beer and brewing. I grew up in the shadow of Banks’s brewery in Wolverhampton and spent my teenage years, like the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), working in pubs that my hon. Friend’s constituents might drive out to Staffordshire and Shropshire to visit. I also thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) for her contribution; I have had a few drinks near her constituency in the Potteries, not least on the night I lost my first election in 2010. Given the scale of the result I probably should have drunk a pint from the Titanic Brewery.
But I do not want to be too negative about what we find today, because there are many great positives about beer and the brewing industry across the United Kingdom, many of which have been heard over the past couple of hours, not least the flowering of the British craft beer industry. That has brought fresh life to the market, creating a new generation of entrepreneurs, many of whom I know from my own constituency, a former brewing town, Newark-on-Trent, which has seen several new breweries created in recent years. This has given people across the length and breadth of the country unprecedented choice and, as we have heard, word has spread across the world and exports have risen very significantly.
Toby Perkins
The Minister is right that the small business brewing relief is an example of Government forgoing a bit of tax and a huge industry flowering on the back of that. Might he take note of that example for some of his other decisions?
Robert Jenrick
It certainly is, and I will talk shortly about the relief the hon. Gentleman mentions, which has played a significant part in that flowering and which I believe we can make better and fit for purpose for the future.
The value of beer exports has risen now to £500 million a year, and we heard earlier about the tremendous results also with respect to Scotch whisky and other spirits.
Small brewer’s relief gives the smallest brewers across the country a 50% reduction in duty and, as we have heard, it has helped fuel the explosion in the number of local breweries; we now have over 2,000 breweries across the country. At the autumn Budget we announced a review of this relief to give brewers the opportunity to share their thoughts on a relief that is now 17 years old and which has not been reviewed systematically over the course of that period. We have opened the review and had over 500 responses which we will carefully consider and report back on in due course.
Our motives at the Treasury have not been to extract more revenue from the sector, and certainly not to end the relief. However, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) and others mentioned, there is some evidence that although the relief has been hugely positive in some respects, it has limited the growth of some businesses that would like to expand and employ more people and that are concerned about the cliff edge that the relief creates. I hope that we will be able to work with breweries and organisations such as the Society of Independent Brewers to work through that and to do something positive for the industry.
With respect to beer duty, we have taken a number of steps over the past nine years to improve the situation in a country that has been widely acknowledged to have high levels of alcohol taxation. We removed the beer escalator, and we have either cut or frozen beer duty in six of the last seven fiscal events, so that the duty on a pint is lower now than it was in 2012. In real terms, this long-term and significant action by the Government has kept prices low for everyone, in contrast to the period from 1997 to 2010, during which beer duty increased by 60%. This was underlined at the most recent Budget with another freeze on beer duty, meaning that the price of a typical pint of beer is now 2p lower than if prices had risen with inflation. I appreciate that there is always more that we could do this respect.
We are also focusing on other alcohol, such as cider and spirits. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) talked about the importance of spirits to his constituency and to many others across Scotland. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about their importance to the wider Scottish economy. She also asked me a question about post-duty point dilution. We have given this matter considerable thought for some time, and we announced at the Budget that we will be bringing this practice to an end from April 2020. She also asked, as did the hon. Member for Oxford East, about a wider review of alcohol duty more generally. This is a complex area, and there are clearly no easy answers. There are certainly few answers that are fiscally neutral and that would create no losers, which would be important to many who work or own businesses in the sector. It is perhaps premature to conduct a review at this moment, because the greatest flexibility will be available to us after we leave the European Union. A future Chancellor might then have the choice to take action.
We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) about responsible drinking, and they asked whether we could lower the duty on low-alcohol beers. We are somewhat constrained in that respect by EU law. The EU alcohol structures directive sets the maximum threshold for reduced duty on low-alcohol beer at 2.8%. Her Majesty’s Government charge a reduced duty of 6p a pint on beers with a strength between 1.2% and 2.8%. Until we leave the EU, we cannot raise the threshold for low-alcohol beer above 2.8%, but this is something that we will work on with our partners across Europe, and we could have further flexibility in the years ahead. The Government have taken action in some specific circumstances—with respect to white cider, for example—and our approach is that we will continue to take action as necessary where there is clear evidence that certain alcohol duty rates are causing difficulties for society.
We have heard a great deal about pubs, which are, as we heard from numerous colleagues, the bedrock of many rural and urban communities. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) rightly highlighted, they boost the economy, create jobs and, crucially, act as hubs for our communities. We have heard about their importance in tackling loneliness, and about the issues for older people, whether older gentlemen or others. They are great places for people to work and start their careers in. The pub industry currently employs about 450,000 people, many of whom are younger people, as has been said.
Bob Stewart
I rise, again, as an older gentleman. We have been talking about what pubs do. Let us imagine people who live in pretty awful accommodation—a bedsit or something like that. The local pub can provide a really nice, friendly, warm environment. That is the sort of place that those people can go to, and in my view that is the real advantage of local pubs.
Robert Jenrick
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend just said.
I will talk briefly about business rates in the short amount of time available to me because they have been an important element of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) brought some of her publicans to see me at the Treasury to discuss the matter. We have taken several actions to support pubs by lowering their tax burden. The most important of them—this comes into effect on 1 April—is the Chancellor’s Budget announcement that the business rates bills of small and medium-sized retailers, including pubs, will be cut by a third. The policy has been set for maximum impact among retailers and pubs with a rateable value of £51,000 or below. I appreciate that that will have less impact in communities such as my hon. Friend’s, where rateable values are high, but 90% of retailers and between 70% and 85% of pubs across the United Kingdom will benefit, with pubs seeing a tax saving of up to £8,000. We also previously had the £1,000 discount for small and medium-sized pubs, and many pubs will also benefit from up to 100% small business rates relief or the 100% rural rate relief. Of course, all ratepayers are benefiting from the switch from RPI to CPI.
The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) mentioned the request of many, including the industry, to create a rate of beer duty that differentiates between people drinking in a pub and people purchasing beer in a supermarket or convenience store. I can see the strong argument for that, but it is unfortunately not possible under EU law. Duty is levied on production, not on the place of consumption. However, we might be able to turn to that should we have sufficient flexibility.
I conclude by thanking the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, both of whom gave superb speeches. This debate unified the House and demonstrated the important role that pubs can play in our communities. I will certainly relay the strong feelings from across the House to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor with respect to the next Budget and the future of beer duty. The House’s voice is clear that it wants, like people the length and breadth of the country, further and continued support for beer, breweries and our important pubs.
Mike Wood
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today. We have had well over 20 contributions from Members representing six out of the seven parties in the House and all four nations of our United Kingdom. The contributions from the Minister, the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), showed the breadth of agreement and support for British beer and pubs and the need for us to support them where we can.
If people watching this debate take away just one message, I want it to be that British beer and pubs are a force for good in so many ways. As the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and for Aberdeen North said, they are good for jobs and local economies. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for St Albans (Mrs Main) pointed out, they are good for communities and for families. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) said that pubs are good for charities and for community sport, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) said that they are good for promoting local investment, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said that they are good for attracting tourism.
There are other non-economic benefits, too. As the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) pointed out, they are essential for tackling loneliness and strengthening the social fabric. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to the vital role that good community and high street pubs play in offering a safe place for responsible drinking. Pubs are a force for good in so many ways. Think just how much more good they could do if we can get the tax burden under control, give our beer and pubs a fair deal, and support these key industries and the role that they play in our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered beer taxation and pubs.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered use of permitted development and the nationally significant infrastructure project regime for shale gas exploration and production.
First, may I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this important debate, which I am honoured to lead? I also thank colleagues from all parties who have turned up to contribute, even though we have had a rather long and difficult week.
This debate follows two over-subscribed Westminster Hall debates. Last October, the Government consultations on giving shale gas exploration permitted development rights and classifying sites under the national significant infrastructure regime came to an end. The Government have yet to publish their responses to those consultations and are instead choosing to push the issue into the long grass. The first two Westminster Hall debates on this subject made one thing clear: Parliament has a view and would like to be heard. The proposed measures to give shale gas exploration permitted development rights and to classify sites under the national significant infrastructure regime are a bad idea for many reasons, but I shall focus on two central points.
First, to give fracking companies access to permitted development rights under the mantle of nationally significant infrastructure deprives local communities of a voice. Secondly, and even more fundamentally, fracked fuel is a fossil fuel. To support the new development of any fossil fuel is a travesty, given that the threat of global warming should urge us all to rethink completely how we produce our energy.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that the hon. Lady has secured this debate and congratulate her on the way she has started it. Does she agree that the context of the Government encouraging fracking is bad enough, but the way in which they have treated renewables, by making them so difficult through the planning process and completely cutting away the subsidy regime, means that renewables are now at a standstill? It is a disgrace.
Wera Hobhouse
I could not agree more. We have such a long way to go before we become carbon zero and it is so important. What are the Government doing promoting fracked fossil fuel over renewables? We are living through a global climate crisis.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She said that fracking is a new fossil fuel sector, but is it not right that shale gas would simply displace imports, rather than create additional demand on gas-fired power generation?
Wera Hobhouse
I have been involved in the fracking debate for a long time—since 2014—and just to say that it is a bit less of a fossil fuel than the gas we are importing is the wrong argument. It is a fossil fuel and it contributes to global warming; we should not explore these old-fashioned ideas about how to produce our energy.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we should not open up a new fossil fuel front and increase the contribution to climate change; she is absolutely right about that. On planning, my local authority has now twice voted overwhelmingly against fracking in nearby West Lancashire, which affects my constituency as well, but the authority’s views are completely ignored by the approach the Government are taking. Does that not demonstrate that significant local interests should be taken on board? It cannot just be a national Government issue in respect of permitted development rights.
Wera Hobhouse
Absolutely. There are two big wrongs here: first, it is a fossil fuel industry that we should not support; and secondly, we are overriding local communities and not allowing their voices to be heard. I feel for the communities in Lancashire and the way they have been treated. It is simply wrong. As somebody who used to be a local councillor, I cannot agree more on how wrong it is if local councils and communities are not being heard.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her powerful speech. On community engagement, does she recall a former Conservative Minister saying that fracking could take place in the “desolate” north? This is not good enough. My constituents do not want fracking and communities should be listened to.
Wera Hobhouse
Absolutely. To classify different regions of our country in that way is appalling.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am enjoying the comments of the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, but for balance could she remind the House which country is top of the league table in the G20 for decarbonisation?
Wera Hobhouse
This country has made great strides, and we are leaders, but we will fall behind badly if we do not keep up that lead. That is what worries me. Things have gone badly wrong in the last three years. We are living through a global climate crisis and we must align our policies to become carbon zero before 2050. I am sure the Government have read the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
I have been campaigning against fracking since 2014. In Bath, not only is there concern about global warming; there is concern that fracking will interfere with our hot springs, causing unknown damage to the water table, our unique geology and the natural springs that are the very reason for Bath’s existence and prosperity throughout its rich history. There are additional concerns about the wider environmental damage, such as earth tremors, gas leaks and the huge water consumption the process requires. I do not know whether people have read the recent reports about water shortages. Why are we encouraging an industry that wastes water in this way? What are we doing? Why are we not listening to the environmental concerns?
Kevin Hollinrake
My point earlier was about displacement: we use gas anyway, so this is not about more gas, but about whether we import it or produce it. There are 23 million homes in the UK connected to the mains gas network. Is the hon. Lady’s home one of them?
Wera Hobhouse
My home is heated through a community energy centre. That said, I am talking about how the gas is produced. I am saying that fracked gas is a fossil fuel but that there are renewable gas alternatives that we need to explore and invest in, and which the Government should be prioritising.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate to the House. I appreciate the point the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is trying to make, but we have been building an unprecedented number of houses in the last few years, and the 15,000 to 18,000 in my constituency will all have gas boilers. They did not have to. They could have been heated by air source heat pumps, for example.
Wera Hobhouse
I completely agree. Getting to carbon zero is a massive challenge and we must start today. We must think about how our new houses should be built, because the retrofitting of these properties will cost even more. All Departments need to put their minds to it.
These problems are not unique to Bath or the UK. We know from the United States that fracking operations can result in the contamination of the water table. The effect is wide-ranging. Sometimes people cannot even drink their own tap water because of the health risk. A report in 2016 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated exactly how the hydraulic fracturing fluid used to split the bedrock can contaminate groundwater and release gases displaced by it. Communities across the USA have been forced to try to mitigate these problems. We should not even go there. Why should we risk water contamination?
Added to all this is the amount of industrial infrastructure that will scar our countryside if these proposals are pushed through. Giving permitted development rights to shale gas exploration would in effect remove the control that local authorities usually have over the planning process.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
On building infrastructure around these sites, does the hon. Lady agree that it is slightly hypocritical that the development arm of CDC Group—the Government-backed development bank—that invests in infrastructure outside Britain would not invest in shale gas because of the infrastructure and climate change risk, but for some reason we are happy to do it in our own country?
Wera Hobhouse
I certainly agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy around this issue. A wind farm was built over the communities of Greater Manchester in my old authority, and I remember people talking about the infrastructure that was built just to access the hills in order to put up the wind turbines; it was terrible. Fracking platforms need to move around all the time, and the infrastructure that we need to build to enable that is absolutely incredible. I do not think that people have ever put their minds to that point.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is probably aware that satellite data over the United States shows that 5% of the methane from fracking is leaked through fugitive emissions. Given that methane is 85 times more powerful than CO2 for global warming, that makes fracking nearly twice as bad as coal for global warming. Does she therefore agree that under no condition should we go ahead with fracking?
Wera Hobhouse
I certainly agree that we do not really have comparative data. Fracking is hailed as this new thing that would reduce global warming, but it absolutely does not.
Giving permitted development rights to shale gas exploration would mean local communities being removed from the decision-making process. That is one of my biggest concerns. This issue was picked up by the report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which concludes:
“Shale gas development of any type should not be classed as a permitted development. Given the contentious nature of fracking, local communities should be able to have a say in whether this type of development takes place, particularly as concerns about the construction, locations and cumulative impact of drill pads are yet to be assuaged by the Government”.
Wera Hobhouse
I really have to get on now.
Since the Government proposals were announced, 300,000 people have signed petitions against them and 40 councils have passed motions to reject them. With such widespread opposition, giving fracking companies access to permitted development rights would not simply speed up the process; it would serve to muzzle opposition, effectively silencing local communities. This is outrageous and I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in voicing their strongest opposition.
The consultation that looked at making larger fracking sites part of the nationally significant infrastructure regime is entirely incoherent and, frankly, dangerous. According to the Select Committee report, there is no precedent for this classification. Shale gas extraction sites fail to meet the criteria that normally determine nationally significant infrastructure. The report suggests that this issue would undermine the ideals on which nationally significant infrastructure was founded, and would damage the relationship between fracking companies and the communities they are placed within. Combined with permitted development rights, this adds to the Government’s callous attempt to take the decision-making process away from local communities. Shale gas exploration and extraction would be a decision for private companies and the Government, bypassing those who are most affected by it.
Let me turn to the climate crisis. The big problem that we face is the Government’s energy strategy and our continued reliance on fossil fuels. Fracking is not sustainable, and even classifying it as a transitional fossil fuel does not stand up to the science. It recently emerged that investing in fracking would produce as many carbon emissions as 300 million new cars. It is blatantly obvious that the Tory Government favour fracking over renewable energy. The Environmental Audit Committee found that investment in renewable energy had fallen by 56% in 2017, which was the greatest decline of any country that year. In May 2018, investment in renewables was at its lowest in 10 years, despite the claims by the Government that renewable energy is booming. That must be wrong if we must now urgently turn our attention to becoming carbon zero before 2050.
The recently released IPCC report states that globally we must become carbon zero by 2050, if we are to limit a global temperature rise to 1.5 °C. Scientists have concluded that a temperature rise that is higher than that will bring irreversible damage. The IPCC report gives us 12 years to completely transition away from fossil fuels in order to prevent this from happening— 12 years. With the proximity of that deadline, how can this Government argue that now is the time to be rushing into a massive national project of shale gas production? My view, which I hope will be shared by others in this House, is that they absolutely should not. We must reinvest in renewable energy. This Government have removed subsidies for onshore wind and have spearheaded a 65% cut in subsidies for household solar panels. The 2017 Budget ruled out additional investment in renewables before 2025. Yet communities up and down the country are asking for more investment in renewables. Only a few weeks ago, our streets were filled with schoolchildren who were making their voices heard and saying that the climate crisis is the biggest issue for them.
We urgently need a culture change. All Government Departments should have sustainability and a zero-carbon target at their core. As a developed country, we should lead the fight against climate chaos, but this Government have gone in completely the opposite direction. Policies such as those proposed by the Government stand in the way of progress. This Government cannot keep prioritising big oil over the urgent need to combat climate chaos. They have to drop these proposals. As a country, we must legislate in a way that restricts fossil fuel industries and instead invests heavily in renewable energy. There is no time to lose. We owe it to ourselves and future generations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House will be aware that a great many people wish to speak and we have limited time, so we will have a time limit, immediately, of five minutes.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
It is a great privilege to be able to speak in a debate of such importance to my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for applying to the Backbench Business Committee for it. It follows in the path of a similar debate that I held in Westminster Hall at the end of last year. That debate, too, was heavily oversubscribed. I will therefore focus my comments on one or two significant areas.
I was elected in 2010. At the point of my election, it became very clear that shale gas activity—or, at that time, just gas activity—was taking place in my constituency. I would urge caution on Labour Members before they make this whole thing very political, because it was the actions of the previous Labour Government that delivered shale gas to my constituency. I say to the Liberal Democrats that it was a huge privilege to work in the then Department of Energy and Climate Change as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), who is in his place today. Much of the work that was done on putting in traffic lights and some of the regulatory framework should have been done by the Labour Government before they gave the green light to proceed with shale gas and fracking, but none of it was.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I hope he can confirm that in those years we allowed local democracy to function. I opposed people who were arguing for permitted development, and opposed the idea that this should be some sort of national infrastructure project. We put on, after vast consultation, very strict regulation with regard to seismicity, and we had his support for that. Will he continue with that support?
Mark Menzies
That is why I called the Westminster Hall debate last year and why I am on my feet today. It is absolutely critical that permitted development, which has a place in our planning system, is for, say, a small extension to a bungalow or a conservatory, not for an enormous industrial estate that will produce tens of thousands of tonnes of pollutants, have thousands of vehicle movements per year, and so on.
I thank the Minister and the Department for listening to the case that I and local people put with regard to the Roseacre Wood site in my constituency. That was a long-running case that had gone through a number of stages in the planning process, including two planning inquiries. We made the case that the site was unsuitable, primarily because it was up country lanes, and regardless of how we tried to cut it, the traffic management plan simply did not work. I am not sure where traffic management plans fit in under permitted development. A fundamental reason why a site was turned down would not be a consideration under permitted development. If the Minister is looking for a reason why this proposal does not stack up, he should refer to Roseacre Wood and the decision tree that kicked in. It was turned down on those grounds, and therefore the Government simply cannot proceed with the permitted development proposals.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The present Government have a policy of localism and wish to see devolution increased. If the Government are to be consistent, does he agree that, on this issue, they should let local communities decide?
Mark Menzies
I absolutely agree. The Minister has a difficult decision to make, because the planning system for shale gas simply cannot continue as it is. After various appeals, the planning process for Preston New Road and Roseacre has been going on for years. It is not good for local communities to have this hanging over them, nor does it favour local democracy, because the powerful can hire lawyers and basically game the system to suit them. The planning system in its current format must change and needs review, but permitted development is not the route to go down.
On the issue of local democracy, a lot of nonsense is talked when it comes to Lancashire County Council. It is said that Lancashire turned the Preston New Road site down and then Ministers forced it on them, but the reality is that planning officers at Lancashire County Council recommended that the site should go ahead on planning law grounds. Those people who were complaining about the Secretary of State giving Preston New Road permission to proceed cannot then celebrate when the same process refuses Roseacre Wood. The planning system sometimes gives us what we want, and it sometimes gives us the opposite of what we want. I am afraid that we cannot trim our argument to suit our case.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point. Does he agree that if the permitted development changes went through, they could have a detrimental impact and undermine public trust in our planning system?
Mark Menzies
Absolutely. Time is against me, so I will not give way again.
It is important that the Secretary of State bears in mind the concerns raised by local communities and Members such as me, and that we work together in a constructive way to ensure that permitted development is taken off the table, because it is not a sensible route to go down. The planning system must be reformed to ensure that there are consistent and transparent opportunities for input from local communities, that the process does not drag on for years and create a shadow over parts of our countryside, and that we give planning guidelines on what a suitable site looks like and what sites people should not frankly waste their breath considering.
I want us to move towards a situation where renewables provide the overwhelming majority of electricity output, alongside a contribution from nuclear. Until we get some movement on battery technology and other forms of the next stage of renewables, gas will play a part. On the cold day in February when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, gas does not play a part. Shale gas can only play a part if we can say hand on heart that it is done safely, that it has robust regulation and that it is taking communities with it, not being done to them.
I call on the Government to continue the work that has been done. Let us celebrate the huge amount of positive change that has taken place as a result of listening to concerns from Members such as me and ensure that permitted development is not a tool that the shale gas industry can deploy as part of the planning process.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I came to this subject 10 years ago as a neutral, because I have a scientific and engineering background and am usually driven on issues such as this by the evidence, rather than political or ideological reasons. I deeply believe that we need a very varied energy mix for this country, and obviously as much renewable as possible, but I still think that nuclear power has an important role to play because it is much safer nowadays. In a very unstable world where we still need carbon fuels—with Russia and countries in the middle east and north Africa producing oil and gas—it is very important that we have our own indigenous carbon fuels that we can turn to as and when we need to. I was therefore quite agnostic when it came to the development of shale gas production in Lancashire.
I thank the House of Commons for producing an excellent paper on shale gas and fracking on 6 November, because it has provided a great deal of background on and insight into the issue. Until fairly recently, the issue hinged on exploratory development in Lancashire and, if I may, I will look back at what has happened in Lancashire in the past. On 1 April 2011—getting on for nine years ago—Blackpool, which is not far from my constituency of Preston, experienced seismicity, or a tremor, of 2.3 on the Richter scale, which was far too large. On 27 May 2011—again, nearly nine years ago—there was a subsequent tremor of 1.5 on the Richter scale. We were told that this was due to fluid injection into a fault zone, and that the fracking company, Cuadrilla, had already mapped out parts of Lancashire and knew exactly where the fault lines were so that it should never occur again.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. As a fellow Lancashire MP, I am sure he also hears from his constituents about their concerns about earth tremors and earthquakes caused by fracking. In response, the Government have brought in a traffic light warning system. Many of my constituents are concerned that that traffic light warning system is maintained and stays in place, despite the pressure from some fracking companies. Do his constituents tell him the same?
Sir Mark Hendrick
Yes, my constituents do feel the same, which is why I have risen to speak on this important subject. The city of Preston is obviously very close to these fracking sites.
To move on, the Government have insisted that controls are in place so that operators will have to assess the location of faults before fracking, to monitor seismic activity in real time and to stop if a magnitude greater than 0.5 on the Richter scale is detected. The figure of 0.5 is the one promised throughout the time that the developers were going through the exploratory phase and the development phase before they turn to production in Lancashire.
It is good to see the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) in his place. He was the Secretary of State at the time, and I recall being present in his office when he gave a great number of assurances about how fracking would be conducted in Lancashire. Of course, things have turned out rather differently from what he said at the time. He was the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change between 2012 and 2015, and he made the following statement to The Guardian. He said:
“I wanted to make sure that…we have tough regulations to tackle things like methane emissions and any pollution to make sure that we have got things like water sustainability right.”
He went on:
“If we are going to do fracking we have got to make sure that it does not hurt our environment and local communities benefit from it.”
We have yet to see local communities benefit from it. With coal, people in the north dug the coal, but it was those in the south and around London who made the profits from that. I do not want to see the same happen with fracking.
Since then, local communities have been subjected to much higher levels of seismic activity. Over a two-week period in November 2018, there were something like 30 recorded events of seismic activity with a 1.1 magnitude tremor. That is twice the level indicated by the former Secretary of State, the Government at the time or Cuadrilla itself. The people of Lancashire have had enough of this. I came to this as an agnostic, and as somebody who wanted to believe that 0.5 was the level Cuadrilla was going to stick to. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Brian Baptie, head of seismology at the British Geological Survey, told journalists at a briefing in 2019 that the limit could safely be raised to magnitude 1.5 since that was a level similar to vibrations caused by a heavy bin lorry. I am sorry, but that is not what was promised. Since then, 50 geoscientists have sent a letter to The Times, on 9 February 2019, arguing that we should increase the limit even higher. That is not acceptable, and the people of Lancashire will not accept it.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
As the House will know, my constituency of Arundel and South Downs is the most beautiful in England— 250 square miles of Sussex countryside, with no large towns but only small villages and small market towns. Half of it is in the protected landscape of the South Downs national park.
Nevertheless, there is oil extraction in my constituency, and it is entirely uncontroversial. There are small oil wells, and I have never received any complaint about them. I assume that oil tankers visit regularly to take the oil off site, but because the wells are located sensibly the public do not get excited about them. My neighbour’s constituency of Chichester has an oil well in the national park itself. It is similarly uncontroversial because it is near a main road, not a community.
Public interest in the proposed fracking in West Sussex takes two forms. There is concern about below-the-ground activity: will it have an impact on local water sources, for instance? Then there is concern about the above-the-ground activity: what will the exploratory drilling and then any potential further drilling mean for future traffic movements that will affect neighbourhoods? My experience is that communities get particularly exercised about proposals when they fear that the countryside in which they live is about to become industrialised and that there will suddenly be significant lorry movements through otherwise quiet country lanes and villages—not just during the exploratory period, but potentially afterwards, if large sources are discovered.
It fell to West Sussex County Council, as the responsible local authority, to assess whether one proposal for exploratory drilling, near Wisborough Green, a beautiful village in my constituency, was appropriate. The council looked at the proposed traffic movements down very narrow lanes and was very unhappy about the impact. Ultimately, the council, taking no view on the merits of fracking or drilling otherwise and not having a policy of animus against the extraction of the mineral, nevertheless thought that the lorry movements were inappropriate. It rightly reflected the concerns of the local community.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Traffic is a concern not only at drilling sites: the Knostrop treatment works in Leeds is one of only three places licensed to treat fracking waste water, which would discharge into the River Aire. There is concern there about not only traffic movement, but discharge into local rivers. There is an issue not just at drilling sites but also at treatment works.
Nick Herbert
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. There are, of course, wider environmental objections; those might be addressed separately by suitable, strong regulation. My concern is whether it is appropriate for exploratory drilling and potential subsequent extraction of shale gas to be allowed by permitted development. I do not oppose permitted development rights in principle; it is sometimes appropriate for such rights to be applied. I support the application of those rights for the conversion of office buildings to residential premises because that has produced a large amount of housing that would not have been available otherwise.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The 2017 Conservative party manifesto that Conservative Members stood on spoke about a revolution in shale gas and liberalising the planning regime.
Nick Herbert
The hon. Gentleman is right. We stood on many other manifesto proposals that have not seen the light of day. I gently suggest to the Minister, my good friend and near neighbour, that this is one proposal that it would be wise to keep firmly locked away in the bottom drawer. It would not be wise to allow that activity to come under the permitted rights regime, and that would not be an appropriate use of that planning procedure. It is appropriate for local authorities to be able to assess the impact of traffic movements and so on an activity in their area. Conditions can be put on permitted development, but that is not the same as having it looked at by the local authority.
All such issues are a question of balance, but I have discovered, in 14 years as the Member of Parliament for my beautiful constituency, that there is no non-controversial way to generate energy in our country. Yes, we all want more solar, but large-scale solar panels in beautiful countryside can excite just as much opposition as drilling. The question is whether activity is located appropriately. Some of the proposals that have been made in my constituency have been for inappropriate locations and the impact on local communities has not been thought through. Others are uncontroversial because they have been located more sensibly.
I do not have an in-principle objection to the extraction of oil or gas and I am not entering into the debate about the merits of fracking in particular. It is likely that there will only be oil, not gas, in my part of West Sussex in any case—although I may be wrong about that. I know that there is concern about the potential, random industrialisation of the countryside. We cannot allow that to happen through one tick in a ministerial box, and then find that we have no control over it subsequently except in protected areas of national parks. Local authorities have to have the ability to take a view about the impact of, for example, traffic movements, to decide whether levels are appropriate and, potentially, to impose conditions. That is why we should retain the existing planning regime for this activity, and why I would strongly suggest to the Minister that this is not a proportionate or sensible policy that he should pursue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, especially in respect of solar power and community energy renewables.
When I was Secretary of State and had to deal with these issues, some people in the coalition thought that shale gas was the answer to everything and would reduce energy prices. They were extremely keen to push it forward. I was not one of those people. I was helped in my far more cautious approach by colleagues such as the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and others on the Conservative Benches, who realised that we had to be extremely cautious about the environmental issues and the local planning issues. One reason I am proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for calling this debate is my concern that the controls agreed by the coalition—being very strong on local democracy and risks such as seismicity—are in danger of being removed. I was concerned that this relatively new industry had to be safely regulated, for the environment and to take account of local issues.
When we looked at seismicity in particular, we took advice from the experts. We had advice from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering about what would be the right approach to regulation on seismicity. We consulted widely. I published the report that was given to me, and I asked for people’s opinions on it. We took a precautionary approach even to the evidence.
I came to the view, and accepted the recommendation, that the traffic light system was the way to go and that we needed a precautionary approach, not least because the geologists and experts were telling us that even a small seismic event underground could damage the casing of the wells and the bore holes of the fracks. I therefore accepted that we needed to be cautious, and it was important to give that reassurance to the public. We decided that we would go ahead, but only on that explicitly cautious basis.
In the ministerial statement I gave in December 2012, setting out that cautious regulatory regime, I said that it could perhaps be looked at again in due course. However, for the benefit of the House, let me be really clear about what we were saying at that time. We wanted a significant amount of evidence—this had to be evidence based. So far we have had very few fracking experiences in this country, so we do not have anywhere near the number of data points or the amount of evidence that we would need to possibly allow anything to go forward.
Wera Hobhouse
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interesting to compare the Government’s planning approach to fracking with their planning approach to renewable energy?
Sir Edward Davey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Government proceed to allow permitted development, that will be in sharp contrast to their planning approach to onshore wind. I had almost weekly battles with the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who was trying to stop onshore wind. We won most of them, but after the 2015 election the Government made it almost impossible to build onshore wind in England and Wales. That very negative approach to renewables stands in stark contrast to what the Government appear to want to do on fracking.
I bring that to the House’s attention because those are completely the wrong priorities, not least because of the climate change crisis. If anything, I have got more sceptical about fracking over the years, because the evidence—particularly after Paris—is that we need to be even more rigorous in reducing our fossil fuel usage. Now that we have gone from a 2° target to a 1.5° target, we have to push the renewable agenda further forward.
I would say to the Minister that when we were thinking about shale gas, we were thinking about making sure it was linked to technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which are now in abeyance. Without CCS, there is much less of an argument for fracked gas. Moreover, renewables technology has increased and improved dramatically. Prices have come down much further. We have seen storage technology come on. We are not going to need the gas that people thought we would need just a few years ago.
The relaxation of regulations, whether on seismicity or planning, is completely unjustified, and I hope the House will send a clear message to Ministers. However, I would go even further. Given that we have had such progress on renewables and storage, the case for fracking gas is much weaker than it was just a few years ago. I urge the Government to rethink their priorities. Let us bank and capitalise on the amazing success of new green technologies; let us not look backwards.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on opening today’s debate. I agree with much of what she said. I, too, oppose fracking, for two reasons. First, it poses a threat to my constituency, and I object to it being there. Secondly, I do not see the case for it from an energy policy perspective.
There is, however, an important distinction to make, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) tried to introduce to the hon. Lady during her speech. We should not conflate fracking—where we get the gas from—with the role of gas in our energy system in the interim. I absolutely understand the point she made about methane leakage and the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas. Fundamentally, however, the decision over whether to go big on fracking now in the UK is an immediate decision—it is a planning decision and an energy policy decision—and there is a clear argument against it. However, if we conflate that immediacy with the more measured approach that we need to take to removing gas from our energy system, that risks diluting what is a very important debate.
Fracking has no role in our future energy mix because, as a consequence of decisions taken by the Chancellor over decommissioning costs in the North sea, there has been a resurgence in North sea oil and gas exploration. That is helpful in meeting the UK’s short-term domestic needs, meaning that the expected economic upside of fracking will no longer be realised. Add to that the rapidly decreasing cost of renewables and storage, and the exciting opportunity of embracing hydrogen, which I would far rather were the mainstay of the Government’s future gas policy, and one can start to make a compelling case for not requiring fracking, whatever the safety arguments might be. There is simply no role for it in the UK’s future energy mix, but there is an interim role for gas.
I commend to the hon. Member for Bath, and other Members, the work that I have been doing with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) on the future of the gas grid. There is a real opportunity to introduce low-carbon gases into the natural gas mix in our gas system immediately, and to start to decarbonise, which will have a profound impact on the decarbonisation of heat. The longer-term goal is the arrival of a hydrogen based gas system that would meet the needs of decarbonising heat, and will also have an exciting role in transport and for inter-seasonal long-term energy storage.
Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) mentioned carbon capture and storage. The real opportunity with hydrogen—particularly pre-combustion carbon capture and storage technologies—is that instead of CCS being something that one spends £1 billion a time on, if it is linked to the production of hydrogen and the emergence of a hydrogen economy, CCS becomes more affordable because it is part of that whole package, which is an exciting proposal.
I hope the Government can admit that what might have seemed liked a good idea five years or so ago, is no longer a good idea. The world has moved on, and we could be embracing many much more exciting opportunities if we just ditch fracking.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). The Government are considering bypassing local authorities entirely and removing the need for planning permission for fracking, because fracking has little or no support in our communities. Ministers have been hypnotised by the success story in the United States, without considering the critical difference between the US and the UK, which is that the US has vast tracts of low-density land that it can exploit. For fracking to be a viable part of our energy mix in the UK, two things are necessary—tracts of land with low population, and broad-based community support—but we have neither.
The Bowland shale gasfield, which is by far the most sizeable in the UK, is where the viability of fracking will live or die. It covers land from Lancaster in the north to Sheffield in the south and Whitby in the north-east. One well—just one—has been introduced to that basin, in the teeth of opposition, and even that has lain dormant for many months due to tremors. The gasfield covers almost all the major metropolitan centres of the north of England: Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and, on the right side of the Pennines, Derby, Sheffield, York and north Leeds. It is an absurdity that the Government think that a fracking basin that covers a population that runs into many millions is viable.
Rather than recognise those inherent flaws, which are caused by trying to impose an industry with a dubious environmental record on a highly populated sweep of land, the Government are instead trying to override the local population entirely. If communities cannot exercise their democratic right to oppose fracking through the planning system, how can the Government maintain the presence of localism? There is no broad consent for fracking in the way that there often is for other uses of the national infrastructure projects regime.
Rosie Cooper
Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that it was the elected members on Lancashire County Council who voted not to have fracking at Preston New Road, and that it is the Government who turned their back on those people—my constituents? Despite all their nods to localism, what the Government are saying is that localism and local opinion is well and truly buried.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There can be no pretence to localism when the Government are riding roughshod over the voices and rights of local authorities and local people, not least because of the documented seismicity risks. Since October last year the Preston New Road operation has triggered three red level tremors and 57 earthquakes, not to mention the risk to aquifers. Denying the local community a meaningful say is utterly anti-democratic and perverse.
It is not too late for the Government to rethink their approach and recognise that the obstacles they find in their way should not just be bulldozed through inappropriate legislation. At a fundamental level, the prospects for an advanced shale gas industry in the UK are completely and utterly flawed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am now introducing a three-minute time limit to make sure we get everybody in.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today. It is a pleasure to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). It is also a pleasure to see so many people who have been involved in this discussion ever since I joined this place, particularly in my capacity as chair of the all-party group on the impact of shale gas. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on selecting this debate and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing it.
This is an incredibly important debate. Already, we have heard fantastic contributions from those on the Government Benches, and, in fairness, from those on the Opposition Benches. I think what we are seeing is the emergence of a cross-party consensus that we have a problem with fracking in our country. If there was a traffic light system to be applied today to this House, it would be flashing red that there is no majority for permitted development NSIPs—nationally significant infrastructure projects—or probably even for pursuing fracking in general in this country.
I say that not because I am an anti-fracker per se. I did not start in that place. My second job after I left university was as an oil and gas analyst for three years, so I came at this issue, like others in this debate, from an agnostic perspective. The problem with fracking is that when we unpick it and the economic prospectus on which it is based, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) indicated a moment ago, it falls apart. I am a pro-business Conservative. I believe in trying to fix our energy solution, and I believe that we cannot move straight to renewables, however laudable that may be, but if the prospectus on which we are talking does not work then at some point we have to say practically and pragmatically that we should go no further, and that we should invest our personal energies, our money, our capital and our effort in something else. That is why I am convinced that fracking does not have a place in the future energy mix of the United Kingdom and that the Government should abandon it. It is wasting time.
There are three problems with fracking. One is a people problem. The knowledge that people have about fracking has increased. As it has increased, support for fracking has decreased. The problem now is that there is a perception that the system is being pranged. The Government’s NSIP and PD proposals suggest that we could get them in in the same way as if we were building a kitchen extension.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this process has to be more organic, and that if people want this it should come from the ground up, rather than from the top down?
Lee Rowley
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We absolutely have to give local communities their own say. The community I represent in Marsh Lane has been clear that it does not want this proposal. It should not be forced upon them. It should not be compelled to take the 14,000 lorry movements over the next five years just for exploration. It should not be required that a light industrial estate be plonked in green belt that has been largely unchanged for the past 200 years and in a village of 800 people.
In the time I have left, I am going to read into the record again the actual bulk that will be there for five years: a 2 metre high perimeter fence; an additional 4.8 metre high combination of bunding and fencing; two to three cabins of up to 3 metres in height; acoustic screenings of up to 5 metres in height; up to four security cameras of 5.5 metres in height; a lighting rig of 9 metres in height; a 2.9 metre high power generator; two water tanks of up to 3 metres in height; a 10 metre high emergency vent; a 4.5 metre high Kooney pressure controller; a 4 metre high blow out preventer and skid choke manifold; and, for six months, a 60 metre high rig. That is in the middle of green belt. That is next to a field which, just a few years ago, was rejected as the site of a car boot sale for 14 days a year, but apparently we can stick a light industrial estate in the field next door. Fracking does not work in this country practically, economically or for the landscape.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who argued very well for his community. I recently said in this Chamber that I wanted to be able to look the next generation of Debbonaires in the eye when they are 18 and say that I had fulfilled my promise for us to stop climate change—for us to be the generation of policy makers who halted it and even managed to reverse it—but we are not going to do that unless we stop taking new fossil fuel sources out of the ground and invest instead in renewables.
Bristol has declared a climate change emergency. Local communities in my constituency are taking part in many different initiatives to do their bit, but local communities can do only so much, and we need national leadership. I really would like the Government to consider following Bristol’s lead and that of many other local councils around the country and declare a national climate and environment emergency, as Labour did earlier today, and take the policy actions that are needed. That includes stopping fracking.
In 2015, the Government declared that there would be no fracking in national parks and sites of special scientific interest, but I sat on a Delegated Legislation Committee—oh goodness, the thrill of those DLs—in which Government Members were suddenly shocked to realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) was pointing out that the Committee was about to pass a regulation allowing fracking under national parks and SSSIs in certain circumstances. The most that they were able to muster was an abstention, but we voted against it. That was not what we were led to believe when the Infrastructure Act 2015 passed through Parliament. The public and Members were led to believe that there would be no permitted fracking under national parks and SSSIs. As well as the argument about climate change, there is an argument about protecting the countryside.
Most of all for me, however, the argument is about climate change. I want this to be the generation of politicians who declared that national and international climate emergency and put it into every single one of our policies, making sure that with every single decision we take, we think about how it will either contribute to or mitigate climate change. The young people I met outside in Parliament Square three weeks ago and in my constituency on other climate strike demonstrations and in schools want us to do that. They want us to stop fracking and to invest in carbon-neutral technologies. They want us to be the world leader that I know we can be, and I urge the Government to follow their lead.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My comments centre on the need for gas, and I am on a slightly different page from the other people that I have heard speaking in the debate. I think that we will need gas, and it is a question of whether we import it or produce it. In my view, it is much better to produce it than to import it for many reasons, including the environmental benefits of producing rather than importing. However, as the Minister knows, I am against permitted development rights and nationally significant infrastructure project status for shale gas exploration.
The need is clear: we import half our gas today, and that will go up to 70% by 2030. Increasingly, it comes from all over the world—principally from Norway, but it includes Russia—and is used for 23 million homes. Gas might have a long-term future. Carbon capture and storage and the H21 programme in Leeds, where we are going to convert methane into hydrogen, mean that even in a zero-carbon future by 2050—which I am supporting, and I wrote to the Prime Minister on that basis—gas can still play a part.
I am concerned, of course, about how this issue affects my constituency. That is why I went on a self-funded trip to Pennsylvania to look at the infrastructure there. I met protesters, producers and regulators. I saw from Pennsylvania that fracking can be done well or badly. It is compatible with the landscape if it is planned properly. That is why I helped North Yorkshire County Council to produce a minerals and waste plan that had clear guidelines about surface protection in protected areas, no fracking surface activity in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and restrictions on proliferation. There should be a maximum of 10 well pads per 100 square kilometres. Some people think that that is a lot, some think it is not very much. In my constituency, I have conventional gas extraction. There are three well pads there that operate on that density, and most people in my constituency do not know even know that the well pads are there. In the short term, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) said, there is industrial activity, but that goes away. People who come to Kirby Misperton to see it would see a clump of trees—that is all they would see of a fracked well pad.
People should at least be cognisant of the reality of shale gas exploration. There are some problems that need to be solved. We need a proper, Government-backed remediation plan. It is not fair for landowners to pick up the tab if this goes wrong in the longer term, which is a likely event. We also need to do more to enable local communities to benefit directly from the disturbance and the nuisance that will doubtless be experienced: that benefit should go directly into householders’ pockets.
I am against both NSIP and PDR. This is the wrong thing to do. The Select Committee said that quite clearly, and the Government should withdraw their plans to push ahead with exploration of this kind.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my fellow member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Our Committee produced a report that focused not on whether fracking was good or bad per se, but on whether the planning guidance was right, and whether local communities had any real say and could address the impact of fracking through the planning system. As the hon. Gentleman said, we concluded that proposals on NSIP and permitted development were totally wrong. They are completely contrary to the localism agenda that the Government set out in the Localism Act 2011. During the Bill’s passage, the then Secretary of State talked of
“a ground-breaking shift in power to councils and communities”.
It appears from these proposals that that has gone into reverse.
In coming out against the proposal on permitted development, the Committee said that because of
“the contentious nature of fracking”—
which has already been demonstrated by a number of speakers—and the impact on local communities, those communities
“should be able to have a say in whether this type of development takes place”.
That, I think, is fundamental. Communities should not be excluded from the process.
It was very different when the Government introduced planning regulations on onshore wind. They said then that in order for a proposal to go ahead, it must be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities had been fully addressed and that the proposal therefore had their backing. So communities can veto proposals on onshore wind, but they can have no say in exploratory applications for the purpose of fracking.
As for NSIP, when we asked, “Why do the Government want to make these changes?”, the only answer that we received was, “Councils are probably delaying the consideration of applications.” We had plenty of evidence to show that that was not true, and that NSIP would not speed up the process at all. Indeed, we heard from Lancashire, where there had been complaints about the process taking a long time, that regulation 22 had had to be used four times, and the consultation had had to be paused and then started again because of extra information that the applicant had had to provide in response to questions from the public. There was no deliberate delay on the council’s part; the delay was part of the proper consultation and consideration.
The Minister took up his role after the consultation had started, and he never looks very comfortable when this matter is being discussed. I suspect that he is coming at it with a new eye; I hope that that is the case. I ask him to listen and to take account of the weight of opinion across the House, among his hon. Friends as well as Labour Members, and to conclude that whatever the merits of fracking per se, these two proposals are a row-back from the localism and the democratic agenda that we ought to be pursuing but are abandoning now.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
There is no doubt that shale gas exploration, or fracking, has caused great concern up and down the country, but what is also of concern is the feeling that this Government are trying to move the goalposts and lock people out of being able to express their concerns. People from many different communities and, indeed, with many different political perspectives have been united against this heavy-handed and undemocratic approach, including people in my own area. On 18 October last year, Labour, Conservative and independent Cheshire West and Chester councillors voted unanimously to oppose the Government’s approach, and that cross-party consensus is building in communities throughout down the country. It is high time the Government stopped this dash for gas and listened to what communities are saying.
Justin Madders
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
By transferring responsibility for these decisions to a permitted development or centralised system, the Government are, in essence, making it easier to apply for permission to carry out fracking than to apply for a two-storey side extension to a semi-detached house. Friends of the Earth has warned that the plans
“pervert the planning process and could make England’s landscape a Wild West for whatever cowboy wants to start drilling and digging up our countryside.”
The Campaign to Protect Rural England calls it
“an outright assault on local communities’ ability to exercise their democratic rights in influencing fracking applications”
and adds that it
“reads like a wish list from the fracking companies themselves.”
If we are truly going to take back control, we should have a genuine democratic procedure, not a stitch-up that benefits a few private interests.
The Prime Minister has said that our climate is the most precious thing that we can pass on to the next generation, and we would all agree with that, but how can those fine words possibly be consistent with these proposed changes? The Committee on Climate Change has stated categorically that supporting unconventional gas or oil extraction is incompatible with meeting our binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008. We have spent months in here trapped in a Brexit mess of our own making, and all the while the impact of climate change both at home and abroad is happening around us. Are we so wrapped up in our own squabbles that we fail to fully appreciate the enormity of this?
Last month, February, was so hot I was walking around for several days in a T-shirt, which was very nice at the time, but actually the Februarys I remember growing up in were pretty inhospitable. So while I was warmed by the rays of the sun I was haunted by the thought that once again we were experiencing unseasonably warm weather, and then I thought about the constituent who told me their daffodils had arrived in December, the recent reports that the world’s insect population is declining rapidly and the fact that places as nearby as Spain have lost 1 million hectares to the desert in recent years.
I fear that when we put all that together it is clear that we are sleepwalking into a climate catastrophe, and that unless we really begin to face up to the fact that we need to shift away from carbon-producing energy sources and we need to do it now, we will be the last generation to enjoy the benefits of industrialisation and it will it be the next generation who suffer the consequences of our selfish inaction.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Shale gas is 95% methane, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methane is 85 times more powerful than carbon dioxide for global warming, although the Government have kept to the 2013 figure of 36 times. That means that given that fugitive emissions are 5%, fracking is almost twice as bad as coal for global warming, and NASA has satellite imaging showing that the amount of methane has grown exponentially, having plateaued in the 1990s. So if we are to fulfil our Paris commitments, we cannot go forward with fracking. But instead, we see safeguards, tax incentives and the displacement of renewables; we see the end of onshore wind, nothing much in terms of solar, not having the Swansea tidal lagoon and so forth. We should be going in a completely different direction.
Apart from the global warming issues, there is the issue of water. The Minister will know that millions of gallons of water with hundreds of toxic chemicals used as lubricants are pumped into the ground, and half of it then has to come back. Often it is carcinogenic or even radioactive. We simply do not have the infrastructure to treat that water; we have nowhere to put it, as they do in the United States. President Bush bypassed the clean air and clean water directive to allow fracking so that he would have a strategic gain over Saudi Arabia. We are not in a position to do that sort of thing. We cannot deal with the lorries, the transport and the wider environmental infrastructure.
When I was a member of the Council of Europe I put forward a paper, “The exploration and exploitation of non-conventional hydrocarbons in Europe”. It was adopted by France, and the Macron Government decided on that basis to abolish, and not continue with, fracking. I have a fracking Bill now, which I urge the Minister to look at. It says that at a minimum we should ensure that fugitive emissions are limited overall to 1% and 0.1% at the wellhead with capping and no flaring.
Our children are telling us about climate change. We should take that seriously, but with the possible advent of Brexit we may be in the hands of big multinationals using tribunals to fine us. If once they start fracking we withdraw tax concessions, they will fine us. In the case of Lone Pine v. Canada they charged the Canadian Government hundreds of millions of dollars because Quebec had a moratorium on fracking. Similarly Wales does not want to do any fracking, and if we go ahead with Brexit and with fracking as we are planning it, we will be under the cosh of multinationals as well as breaking our Paris commitments and ruining the future for our children.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). For me, the context of this debate is quite simply the deeply worrying issue of climate change. We face a stark choice if we are to avoid extreme and potentially unstoppable change to the climate: do we continue to develop and exploit fossil fuels, or do we leave them in the ground? It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop dangerous climate change if we do not leave fossil fuels, including gas, in the ground. We can and must take a more responsible and sustainable approach, and that is why we need to stop the exploitation of shale gas.
I also want to talk about the issue of local planning, which other Members have spoken about today. There have been test wells in eastern Berkshire and other parts of the south-east, as was mentioned earlier. Many residents in Reading, Woodley and the Thames valley have deep concerns about our local environment. In our area, there is a long history of concern about the effects of noise and pollution from major infrastructure projects such as the expansion of Heathrow and large-scale gravel extraction. The very last thing that residents in our part of England need is a major new environmental threat.
I am conscious of the time, but I just want to add my support for a range of other points that have been made today. In particular, I would like to support and endorse the concerns that have been expressed about the relative weakness of the planning system and about the Government’s policy on energy—particularly renewable energy—and their deeply mistaken policy of cutting the feed-in tariff and not investing in wind power, solar energy and other renewables such as the tidal power project in Swansea bay. These mistaken energy policies stand in stark contrast to the policies of many other Governments, including the last Labour Government.
Matt Rodda
I am afraid I am running out of time.
We have just 12 years left to reduce carbon emissions dramatically. Local communities around the country have serious and substantial concerns about fracking. Given the climate crisis and the need for radical change in energy provision, and given the indisputable local concerns, shale gas exploitation has to stop, and it has to stop now.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
We hear a lot from some people about the benefits of firing on with unconventional gas extraction, but not, rather surprisingly, from some Conservative Back Benchers today. Perhaps the Government should listen rather more closely to the voices in their own party on this issue. We have heard about the jobs that it will create and the energy gap that it will fill, and many of these extravagant claims are being made with quite Trump-esque glee. This seems somewhat at odds with the reality of what this messy, dirty process would offer. If the UK Government want to take an evidence-based approach, they will also be forced to take a little more seriously the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supporting climate change. They must balance this fact against the rather weaker case for pressing down on the accelerator in the rush to frack the English countryside.
We can argue one way or the other about the level of risks involved in the shale gas extraction process, including the possibility of groundwater contamination and the danger of induced earthquakes. There are a lot of unknowns that need more research, and I do not wish to dwell on the points that have been made very ably by others today. However, we do know that these are genuine concerns, because there are examples of these things happening in areas where fracking has been more rapidly pursued. This has led to many countries, including the Netherlands, announcing plans to bring shale gas extraction to an end. And we have to ask ourselves why even the citizens of the city of Denton in Texas, which is among the pioneers of fracking, have been trying to have it banned from their own backyard.
Neil Gray
I am opposed to fracking, and the majority of my constituents are opposed to it. The majority of MPs who have spoken today also oppose it, largely because of the concerns expressed by their constituents. Can my hon. Friend reflect on the position that my constituents are in, given the approach that the Scottish Government have taken, compared with constituents of other colleagues across the House, given the approach that the UK Government are taking?
Deidre Brock
Absolutely. I think that all of us who represent Scottish constituencies are pleased by the much more cautious, evidence-based approach that the Scottish Government have been taking, and I would hope that the UK Government could learn from their example.
Perhaps a more thorough regulatory regime will reduce the likelihood of some of the worst public health and safety hazards that we have seen in the States and elsewhere, but frankly I would not trust this Government to ensure that the checks and balances were robust enough, and the rewards are simply not worth the risk. I hope that care will be taken properly to address the public concerns that have been expressed across England, but listening to people is not a great strength of this Government. Instead, the UK Government seem intent on slashing red tape and fast-tracking fracking through the planning process, bypassing local democracy and those pesky protestors who get in the way of things. I do not have a lot of faith in the Government putting public interest before that of big business.
Even if it were established that fracking could be done safely, and even if the considerable environmental impacts of the process could somehow be removed, no amount of regulation would prevent it from being a fresh new source of greenhouse gas emissions, and that is really not the way to go. One can disregard the evidence on climate change, deny its existence, look the other way and whistle a happy tune but, like all destructive diseases, the longer it is left, the harder it becomes to fight. Climate change is the biggest man-made crisis facing this planet—far bigger, even, than the bourach known as Brexit. The schoolchildren who took to the streets calling for action are right, and they deserve to be listened to. They are fed up with politicians carrying on as normal—people who are stuck in the past, but who have the power to rob them of their futures.
It is undeniable that we have a long way to go to move away from our reliance on oil and gas, both economically and in our lifestyle choices. Offshore gas will still play a role in the UK’s energy mix for the foreseeable future, and I recognise the continued importance of the jobs that are currently dependent on the industry. However, Governments must pull together internationally to tackle climate change, and that will require us to move on from our fossil fuel dependence, not embrace new forms. Diving headfirst into onshore fracking explorations is completely the wrong direction for energy policy.
The good news, however, is that we do not need desperately to seek more gas under people’s homes in order to keep on the lights. We have the onshore and offshore renewable technologies needed to establish a successful and sustainable energy industry. Scotland is leading the world in marine renewable energy and is lucky to have a highly skilled workforce to deploy and the wind and the waves to be harnessed. With a quarter of Europe’s tidal and offshore wind resources and 10% of its wave potential, this is where the unwavering focus for Government support should be.
Powers to issue and manage onshore oil and gas licences is devolved, and the debate over fracking takes on a different flavour at Holyrood, where a majority opposes progressing fracking and underground coal gasification developments. The Scottish Government have conducted extensive research and continue to engage widely with the public on the issue. After more than 60,000 responses, 99% were opposed to fracking. My constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith are not known to be shy of an opinion, and they have told me how appalled they are at the thought of unconventional gas exploitation damaging our local shores, and I agree. I welcome the Scottish Government’s cautious, evidence-led and transparent approach to policy on this issue. I urge the Minister to do the same and to put an end to this damaging dash for gas.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this important debate, which has produced a great degree of consensus across the Chamber. The Government should accept that fracking is both dangerous and exacerbates global warming. In Labour’s opinion, fracking should never be allowed, and it should certainly not be approved via permitted development or the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime instead of achieving local planning permission. Permitted development and the NSIP regime bypass both local decision-making processes and local people. To propose such systems for fracking determination is absolutely reckless.
On permitted development, such is the madness of the Government’s approach that even their own MPs have said it is nothing short of irresponsible and downright bonkers. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) spoke for just about everyone when he asked whether there is anyone on earth who thinks that fracking is equivalent to putting a small extension on the side of a bungalow.
The current planning position is that those seeking to develop shale gas exploration need to secure full permission. Decisions must be made in line with the national planning policy framework, and local planning authorities should also have a section on mineral extraction in their local plan. Those involved need to follow the minerals section of the online planning practice guidance, because it covers the principal issues that mineral planning authorities should address, such as noise, dust, air quality, lighting, visual impact and so on. It is not clear whether the impact on agriculture, safety, heritage, flooding or safeguarding land would be analysed or protected under the permitted development regime.
We recognise that there are exemptions to the proposed policy in respect of national parks and so on, but we think that the intrusive nature of shale gas exploration means that wherever it is intended to be, it should have to go through the local planning permission system. Also, the consultation is not clear about exactly what conditions would be applied to shale gas exploration, as they will be outlined in legislation, which obviously we have not seen.
We think fracking should not go ahead under permitted development, either with prior approval or not—and we are not alone. The Government’s approach to fracking has been criticised by almost everyone, apart from the fracking companies themselves and some Conservative Members. The Royal Town Planning Institute said:
“Blanket permissions for shale gas exploration in England are completely unsuitable and fly in the face of good planning”.
The institute has warned that the scale and sheer complexity of exploratory drilling “dwarfs” development covered by permitted development rights, ignoring the hugely sensitive local issues and environmental hazards associated with shale gas exploration.
The Government’s consultation on permitted development for shale gas exploration closed in October 2018, as did the consultation on approving planning permission for fracking under the NSIP regime, so where are the Government’s responses? How long are we going to have to wait? The NSIP regime suffers from many of the same drawbacks as permitted development, and using the NSIP regime to give planning consent would also override the local planning process. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has called on the Government to ensure that planning applications for fracking remain at the local level, as councils are best placed to understand their area. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), excellently confirmed that point earlier.
The vast majority of consultation submissions were anti the Government’s approach. For example, Lancashire, Bolton, Brighton and Surrey are among the councils that have opposed the permitted development change, and some have called the proposals “an affront to democracy”. The Local Government Association responded to the Government’s consultation by saying:
“We do not support the proposal for a permitted development right for shale gas exploration. This will bypass the locally democratic planning system. People living near fracking sites—and who are most affected by them—have a right to be heard.”
My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) made that same point excellently.
A permitted development right for shale gas exploration would fundamentally undermine the local planning process and stop councils consulting on issues that are relevant to fracking applications, such as the potential for seismic activity, which we know has actually happened, and water pollution; the disposal of waste water; well construction and integrity; and water availability. Those points were made well by the hon. Member for Fylde, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders).
To date, the Government simply have not addressed the serious areas of concern that I have outlined, so it is time for them to think again, not only about permitted development for fracking and using the NSIP regime for determination, but about fracking itself. Conservative plans to force through dangerous fracking would release CO2 equivalent to the life emissions of almost 300 million cars. That would hugely add to climate change and undermine the Paris agreement, which is exactly what my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda) confirmed in the debate.
Community and environmental groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England and Friends of the Earth, have fought back against the Government’s proposals, including by taking them to court, but they have ploughed on regardless, including by withdrawing support for safer sources of energy, such as nuclear, tidal and onshore wind, as referred to in points made excellently by the hon. Members for Wells (James Heappey) and for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire).
In power, Labour will listen to the voices of communities throughout the country and ban fracking. Instead, we will invest in new renewables, end barriers to onshore wind and support new nuclear as part of a sustainable and secure energy mix. We strongly urge the Government to reject both the NSIP regime and permitted development as routes to achieve consent for fracking.
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this debate, which I will call “shale 2”, as it is a repeat of the Westminster Hall debate promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley). It is clear from today’s debate that passions remain as high on this subject as on that heady afternoon.
I know the hon. Lady was not trying to position herself as the sole custodian of our precious countryside. My party overwhelmingly represents the British countryside and recognises the precious nature of our green and pleasant land. As an unapologetic environmentalist myself, I share that view. Being genetically from Yorkshire—although I was brought up in the north-west and educated in the north-east—I also have the interests of the northern half of this country at heart. I now happily represent a part of the same bulge of chalk as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) —I also have oil production that goes on unnoticed and uncomplained about by my constituents—so this is a matter of extreme importance to me.
I emphasise that no final decision has been made on whether to bring these proposals forward. The consultations have now closed and the Government are currently considering the representations made and will issue a response in due course. These consultations are part of a range of measures to make planning decisions faster and fairer for all those affected by new shale gas development and to ensure that local communities are fully involved in the planning decisions that affect them.
As right hon. and hon. Members will know, my remit as Housing Minister in relation to shale gas development is focused on planning policy and delivering the related manifesto commitments. Given that hon. Members have raised matters beyond my remit, including energy policy and reported seismic events, I will refer those matters to the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), for a response.
Mr Betts
The Minister has talked about having faster applications. Can he explain how precisely that would be done in a way that allows communities to be fully consulted? Furthermore, as I understand it, the Government have done no impact assessment on their proposals. Does he intend to do one at any stage?
Kit Malthouse
I will come to those exact issues, if the esteemed Chair of the Select Committee will give me a moment.
In summer 2018, we consulted on whether permitted development rights should be expanded to include shale gas exploration development, including the circumstances in which this might be appropriate. I would like to make it clear that any potential permitted development right granted for shale gas exploration would not apply to hydraulic-fracturing operations or the production stage of shale gas extraction.
I should also emphasise that any permitted development right would cover only the planning aspects of the development and would not remove requirements under other regulatory regimes from the three regulators: the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the Oil and Gas Authority. It is important to note that all permitted development rights contain specific exemptions, conditions and restrictions to control and mitigate the impact of the development and to protect local amenity, and any potential permitted development right for shale gas exploration would be no exception.
A right could include things such as limits on the height of any structure, areas where a permitted development right would not apply and noise and operation controls. The consultation sought views on this.
Kevin Hollinrake
Would permitted development rights allow a producer to construct a well pad pretty much wherever they wanted to put it?
Kit Malthouse
The consultation asked exactly that question of whether there should be a restriction. I know my hon. Friend suggested—in the last debate and in this one—having density restrictions on well pads in particular areas. We will answer that question when we respond to the consultation.
The permitted development consultation and the NSIP consultation mentioned by my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister ran for 14 weeks and closed on 25 October. The Government are currently analysing the representations to the consultations and will publish a response in due course.
All hon. Members have highlighted the importance of community engagement in the planning process. I reassure the House that we remain profoundly committed to ensuring that local communities are fully involved in the planning decisions that affect them and to making planning decisions faster and fairer. These are long-standing principles that I am adamant we will stick to. However, we understand that communities feel that they are often not consulted closely enough before planning applications are submitted by developers to the local planning authority. That can lead to opposition to developments and a longer application process.
Engagement with communities at the pre-application stage gives local people an earlier say in the planning process and makes developers aware of issues of importance to the community that may need to be resolved. The planning system in the UK already provides an extensive legislative framework for community involvement. However, there is scope to do more. That is why we published a separate consultation—sadly, unmentioned this afternoon —on whether applicants should be required to conduct a pre-application consultation with the local community prior to submitting a planning application for shale gas development, which could further strengthen the role that local people play in the planning process. The consultation closed on 7 January. We are currently analysing the representations that we have received and will publish a response in due course.
We also welcome the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report of its inquiry on planning guidance relating to hydraulic fracturing and shale exploration. The report was published on 5 July 2018. We are considering its conclusions and recommendations, and will respond—to use a well-utilised word in this House—shortly.
I thank all hon. Members who have participated in this interesting and fascinating debate. Domestic onshore gas production, including shale gas, has the potential to play a major role in further securing our energy supplies. The UK must have safe, secure and affordable supplies of energy with carbon emission levels that are consistent with the carbon budgets defined in the Climate Change Act 2008 and our international obligations. The written ministerial statements on energy and planning policy made by the Secretaries of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 17 May 2018 reiterated the Government’s view that there could be substantial benefits from the safe and sustainable exploration and development of our onshore shale gas resources.
We remain expressly committed to ensuring that local communities are fully involved in planning decisions that affect them and to making planning decisions faster and fairer at the same time. We have now delivered on our promise to consult on how best to develop our planning processes for both the exploration and production of shale gas development, while ensuring that communities remain fully involved. We are currently considering the responses from those consultations and will respond in due course.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their powerful contributions to this important debate. There is real anger across the board about the Government riding roughshod over local communities, and not allowing local people a voice on shale gas exploration sites. Across the board, there are concerns about the environmental impacts, particularly the industrialisation of the countryside, water contamination and seismic activity. But most of all—I wish the Minister would listen—there is a concern that fracked fuel is a fossil fuel. The Government should entirely change direction and invest in renewables instead. Let us change direction, take some action on climate change and ditch fracking.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered use of permitted development and the nationally significant infrastructure project regime for shale gas exploration and production.
Mr Speaker
Order. Colleagues, I have to inform the House of some corrections to yesterday’s recorded votes. In respect of Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles’s motion (D) on Common Market 2.0, the Ayes were 189, not 188. In respect of Mr George Eustice’s motion (H) on EFTA and EEA, the Ayes were 64, not 65. In respect of Mr Kenneth Clarke’s motion (J) for Jemima on customs union, the Ayes were 265, not 264, and the Noes were 271, not 272. The published lists of how Members voted will be amended. The decision on the Question in each case is unchanged.
Business of the House
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I am pleased to report to the House that the Government’s motion for tomorrow’s debate complies with the test set out on page 397 of the 24th edition of “Erskine May” that motions that are the same, or substantially the same, must not be put to the House more than once in a parliamentary Session. The previous meaningful vote motion encompassed both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. This motion covers the former but not the latter. I am glad that the principle of the House determining a motion definitively once and for all in each Session has been accepted and upheld, and that that principle cannot be circumvented by the assertion of a notwithstanding clause or even a paving motion. In short, the motion is new, substantially different, and in conformity with the requirements of my ruling of 18 March, reiterated on 25 and 27 March.
Sittings of the House (29 March)
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That this House shall sit on Friday 29 March 2019.
May I start by saying that I recognise that changes to the sittings of the House agreed at short notice can create inconvenience to Members and their constituents? I know how important constituency work is to all of us, and I regret not being able to give more notice. I do, however, believe that all of our constituents expect the House to continue to make progress at this crucial time. To be of assistance to the House, I can again confirm that, should the House agree to this motion, it is intended that the sitting hours tomorrow will be the same as for a normal sitting Friday, with the House sitting from 9.30 am and the moment of interruption at 2.30 pm. Should any urgent questions be allowed, these would take place from 11 am and the debate would resume following those urgent questions in the usual way. As I said earlier today in my business statement, I join those who recognise the hard work and dedication of the staff of the House and of our civil servants. I thank them for their support to us in this place, and I am very grateful to them in advance for their work tomorrow should this motion be agreed.
As I said to the House during my business statement earlier today, the motion tabled by the Government this afternoon has been prepared in order that it complies with your ruling, Mr Speaker, while also reflecting that the European Union will agree an extension to article 50 until 22 May only if the withdrawal agreement is approved by 11 pm on 29 March. It is crucial, therefore, that we make every effort to give effect to the Council’s decision, and tomorrow’s motion gives Parliament the opportunity to secure that extension. I think we can all agree that we do not want to be in the situation of asking for another extension and facing the potential requirement of participating in European Parliament elections.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Could the Leader of the House read out the motion, so that we know what we will be debating tomorrow?
Andrea Leadsom
The motion has been tabled, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to find it in the Table Office. [Interruption.] I am happy to read it out. It is quite lengthy, so I hope Members will bear with me. It reads:
“That this House notes the European Council Decision of 22 March 2019 taken in agreement with the United Kingdom extending the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which provides for an extension to the Article 50 period to 22 May 2019 only if the House of Commons approves the Withdrawal Agreement by 29 March 2019; notes that if the House does not do so by that date the Article 50 period will only as a matter of law be extended to 12 April 2019 and that any extension beyond 22 May 2019 would require the UK to bring forward the necessary Day of Poll Order to hold elections to the European Parliament; notes that Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement refers to the Political Declaration between the UK and EU agreed on 25 November 2018, but that the EU has stated it remains open to negotiating changes to the Political Declaration; notes that the House is currently undertaking deliberations to identify whether there is a design for the future relationship that commands its support; notes that even should changes be sought to the Political Declaration, leaving the European Union with a deal still requires the Withdrawal Agreement; declares that it wishes to leave the EU with an agreement as soon as possible and does not wish to have a longer extension; therefore approves the Withdrawal Agreement, the Joint Instrument and the Unilateral Declaration laid before the House on 11 March 2019 so that the UK can leave the EU on 22 May 2019; notes that this approval does not by itself meet the requirements of section 13(l)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and resolves that it is content to proceed to the next steps of this process, including fulfilling section 13 of this Act.”
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I note that the motion talks solely about the withdrawal agreement and not the political declaration. Has the Leader of the House had any thoughts or information on whether an amendment that included the political declaration would be acceptable or in order?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that motions are amendable, and the selection of amendments is a matter for the Speaker.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for reading out the motion; that is helpful for the House. So far as I understand it, if the motion were carried tomorrow, the Government would not be able to ratify the withdrawal agreement treaty. Is that correct?
Andrea Leadsom
No. It would mean that the withdrawal agreement Bill would then be before the House.
I think we can all agree that we do not want to be in the situation of asking for another extension and facing the potential requirement of participating in European Parliament elections.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I am at a loss to understand how this House can put into law section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and then the Government can offer us only one part of that. What advice has the Leader of the House had on whether what the Government are doing is legal?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will appreciate that Mr Speaker’s ruling ensured that this would not be a meaningful vote. She will also appreciate that, since it is for this Parliament to decide on the laws and amendments to them, it will be a matter for discussion tomorrow, followed by the discussion on the withdrawal agreement Bill, should that be approved, to rectify any outstanding matters. I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to support this motion, so that we can leave the EU in an orderly way that gives businesses and people the certainty they need.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). It may help the House and provide some reassurance to the shadow Leader of the House if I confirm that we will be sitting tomorrow with a very clear purpose in mind: so that the House has time to debate the motion tabled by the Government this afternoon. That is our only intention for tomorrow’s sitting.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Article 184 of the withdrawal agreement refers to the political declaration and they cannot be separated, so if the political declaration is changed later, the withdrawal agreement would need re-approval. I accept the ruling of the Speaker with regard to this question, but I just make that point about the substance of the question, because it is going to be very important for the debate tomorrow.
Andrea Leadsom
I can assure my hon. Friend that the motion seeks to ensure that we can meet the requirements of the EU Council for the extension that will enable us to consider these matters further.
In conclusion, I very much hope that the House can support this motion, and that it will agree to sit tomorrow so that we can make the important decisions the country expects us to take in its interests. I commend this motion to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Leader of the House has moved the sittings motion, and I have selected amendment (a) to it in the name of Valerie Vaz. I just thought I would get that on the record.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the Leader of the House has given us the business for tomorrow—it is helpful not only that she has read out the motion, but that it has now been circulated—but has there been any indication whether the Attorney General’s legal advice on whether what the Government are doing tomorrow is actually legal could be placed in the House of Commons Library or published for Members before the debate starts at 9.30 am tomorrow?
Mr Speaker
The Attorney General can offer an assurance on that front. I know that he is satisfied, but it is for him to say.
The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I say on the proposal the Government are making that when the House listens to the rationale behind it and hears the full context of it, I am sure the House will accept that it is not only perfectly lawful and perfectly sensible, but designed to give this House the opportunity of availing itself of a right that the European Union has given us to avail ourselves of an extension until 22 May. The view of the Government is simply that we could not let the time limit expire at 11 pm tomorrow without allowing this House the opportunity to avail itself of that right, and it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly lawful.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will happily take points of order. People sought the judgment of the Attorney General, and the Attorney General has provided it. I would not dream of pronouncing on the matter of law—that is not something with which I need to preoccupy myself—or on the matter of the desirability or otherwise of the motion, which is a matter for the House. My concern was solely with the propriety of the convention and the importance of its being upheld and asserted. I am satisfied that the propriety of the convention has been upheld and asserted. Colleagues must make their own judgment on the political substance of the matter.
Mr Speaker
Of course I will take a point of order from the right hon. Gentleman before we proceed with the debate on the sittings motion.
John Redwood
Given that the Government now say that, if the motion passes, we will go straight on to the Bill, can we insist on the Bill being part of the documents for tomorrow’s debate, because it would be very important to know what we were in for before being asked to vote for it?
Mr Speaker
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that whether the Government intend to tag—using the term that is commonly used in relation to House of Commons motions—the withdrawal and implementation Bill to the motion is a matter for their determination. My understanding is that that Bill was drafted some time ago. I do not think that hot wet towels over officials’ heads or any burning of the midnight oil will be required. The document exists, but whether it is the Government’s intention to table it tomorrow for the benefit of colleagues conducting the debate is a matter for them.
Sir William Cash
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have very kindly referred to the withdrawal and implementation Bill, which I have raised on a number of occasions over the last few weeks. In its most recent report, the European Scrutiny Committee has insisted that that Bill be made available, because it is quite unfair on the House to be making decisions about a Bill that it has not seen, and I understand that other Committees take a similar view. Will you be good enough perhaps to give the Government a firm nudge in order to produce that Bill forthwith?
Mr Speaker
Yes is the short answer. It is a matter for their judgment; it is not a matter of a ruling. However, in light of the fact that colleagues are expressing a desire to see the Bill, I think it would be out of keeping, shall we say, with the legendary—some would say exemplary —courtesy of the Attorney General for the debate that might well be opened by him to be staged without the benefit of that important document. Knowing the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) as well I do and for as long as I have, I have a feeling that if the Bill does not appear tomorrow, in time for the debate, this will not be the last we will hear of the matter.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems that, as so often in this whole saga over the last couple of years or so, the Government have got themselves into a bit of a procedural mess. It is plain that tomorrow’s motion will not be a section 13 motion under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. But the motion does state very clearly—I am reading the operative bit—that this House
“therefore approves the Withdrawal Agreement, the Joint Instrument and the Unilateral Declaration laid before the house on 11 March 2019”,
so even though it is not a section 13 motion under the 2018 Act, it is absolutely plain from the Government’s own wording that this is a decision in principle on whether or not the House “approves”—the operative word—the withdrawal agreement. Have I understood that correctly, Sir?
Mr Speaker
Yes, and that decision would be followed by consideration of the relevant legislation.
Mary Creagh
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Section 13 is in front of me, and it is extremely clear. Paragraph (1) says:
“The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if…the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown”.
That is the original legislation that we fought for—the right for this sovereign Parliament to have its say on both things together. As I put it earlier, these are two horns on the same goat. The goat’s head cannot be divided as the Government are seeking to do. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented reverse-ferret of the commitments that have been given by Ministers to this place: that we should have our say on both items together. Is it not extraordinary, Mr Speaker, that this comes right on the day when we know that far-right demonstrators will be gathering in Parliament Square?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has made her point with considerable force, educating me in the process—I am grateful for that—with the use of the expression “reverse-ferret”: apparently one with which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is well familiar, but of which I was previously unaware.
I do not seek to trivialise the hon. Lady’s point. She has made her point, but there is not a procedural issue for the Chair. There is a political issue for the judgment of the House, but not a matter for adjudication by the Chair.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It appears clear that if we pass the withdrawal agreement, that will satisfy the European Union in terms of the extension to 22 May. However, the withdrawal Act requires both the agreement and the political declaration to be passed prior to ratification— that much is clear. May I ask you whether it would be orderly for the Government to bring forward an implementation Bill that sought to knock out the requirement for the political declaration to be passed, therefore bypassing the political difficulty that they found themselves in?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that that would be orderly. Whether it would be desirable, whether it would secure the approval of the House, and whether it would cause commotion or earn disfavour, are all separate matters. I am looking narrowly at the question of procedural propriety. We do not know—or at least I do not know, I confess—quite what the withdrawal and implementation Bill currently contains or what, at a point in its passage, it might contain, but it is of course open to the Government to bring forward a piece of legislation that differs from and possibly even changes the provisions of another piece of legislation. The House will have to make a judgment about whether that is something that it accepts. I put the matter, I hope people will agree, entirely neutrally.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If the House were to reject the Government motion to approve the withdrawal agreement tomorrow, would that mean that the Government were not able to bring back to the House a separate position between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration in future, but would have to bring back the same position that has already been ruled by you to have been considered in the past?
Mr Speaker
The Government would not be in a position to bring back the same or substantially the same proposition if their proposition tomorrow were defeated. I am very clear in my mind about that.
By the way, reference was made earlier—I think by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)—to amendments. The question he had in his mind was whether an amendment could be tabled to ensure that the motion required both sets of questions to be considered. Of course, the answer is that an amendment could be tabled but the selection of amendments is a matter for the Chair. I am clear that the convention that the same question shall not be put again in the same Session will be asserted and upheld.
Andrea Leadsom
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have rightly pointed out the same question point. But another point that is very important is that in agreeing tomorrow’s motion we will trigger the automatic extension to article 50 to 22 May, and if we do not agree the withdrawal agreement tomorrow, we will not. That leaves in doubt the future of the arrangements with the European Council.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that, like me, you will have looked closely at section 13 of the withdrawal Act which has been mentioned by other hon. Members, as well as at section 20, which interprets various phrases used in the Act. I wonder if the fact that neither “political declaration” nor “future framework” is defined in section 20, but that the “withdrawal agreement” is defined in section 20, may have something to do with the Attorney General’s thinking.
Mr Speaker
Well, I fear that the hon. and learned Lady invests the Chair with powers that he does not possess. I am well familiar with the notable and widely observed oratorical style of the Attorney General and that, to some extent, I can comfortably and with enthusiasm predict: what I cannot do is say what is in his mind. That is not known to me. It may be known to a great many people in Torridge and West Devon, and it will be known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is not known to me.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the business for tomorrow, the Leader of the House mentioned the tabling of amendments. Can you please indicate whether amendments will be taken in a singular fashion, as they have been in the past, or will they be taken in a multiple fashion, as they were on one sheet of paper last night?
Mr Speaker
There will be a business of the House motion in the standard form governing the proceedings. I would hope that that would offer the hon. Gentleman the comfort that he seeks. Amendments can be considered to it.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will be asked to agree the withdrawal agreement on the presumption that it will subsequently agree the political declaration, yet it is clear that the House has not agreed the political declaration in the past, by 230 and 149 votes. How is it in order to ask us to agree the withdrawal agreement on that assumption?
Mr Speaker
The responsibility is that of the Government to table the motion that the Government wish to table, subject to the overriding constraint of procedural propriety. The hon. Gentleman asks how it can be orderly; it can certainly be orderly, and it is for the House to decide whether it endorses it. The motion that it is proposed by the Government to have debated tomorrow is not the same, or substantially the same, as that which has previously been disposed of by the House—for the benefit of those observing our proceedings from beyond the Chamber, I use the term “disposed of by the House” in the sense in which we use that term in Parliament, meaning treating of, decided by.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify—or perhaps somebody on the Treasury Bench can—whether the Prime Minister resigns if she wins tomorrow or whether she has to get both parts before we see the back of her?
Mr Speaker
I have no knowledge of that matter, which is on a very different pay grade.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government now having tabled the motion for tomorrow, is it possible that you could give us an indication at this time—I realise that this session could proceed until any hour—as to how you intend to treat possible amendments and any time limit for the submission of amendments, including manuscript amendments?
Mr Speaker
Ordinarily, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the attitude would be that amendments should be submitted before the rise of the House. There is, however, a degree of unpredictability as to how long this session will run today on the sittings of the House motion, and therefore I am open to the possibility of manuscript amendments.
Forgive me, my response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was perhaps not entirely self-contained. He was quizzical about the matter of amendments, and I said that the business of the House motion governing the proceedings tomorrow was a relatively standard business of the House motion, but it might be worth while my opening that envelope and explaining what that means.
Because there is a business of the House motion, after the moment of interruption, the questions will be able to be put, and that means that such amendments as have been selected, if there is more than one, will be able to be voted upon by the House, so there is no danger of our running out of time for deciding upon amendments. I have, at this stage, no way of knowing whether I will select one amendment or multiple amendments, but the hon. Gentleman need not be concerned on that front.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Probably like many people following this—or trying to follow this—I am having great difficulty understanding how the motion, which says itself that it does not meet the requirements of the withdrawal Act, can actually lead to us approving the withdrawal Act. My understanding now is that it seems to be saying that, for the purposes of the European Union, we will have approved the withdrawal Act, but for the purposes of British law, we will not have approved the withdrawal Act. Can such a position have any basis in reality? Can it be orderly for it not to have any basis in reality?
Mr Speaker
I genuinely do not want to cavil at what the hon. Lady is saying, because she is asking me a perfectly fair and reasonable question, but the way I would characterise it for colleagues, and I hope carry them with me in doing so, is as follows. It may seem a fine line, but there is a clear distinction between procedural propriety, with which the Chair has to be concerned, and legal exegesis, with which the Chair need not be concerned. Those matters are separate and distinct. Many right hon. and hon. Members of the House will be well versed in and have opinions about both those things, but my concern is with procedural propriety and the orderly conduct of business. Whether something makes sense in law and satisfies the hon. Lady’s palate in that regard is another matter.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is being done late in the day, and many Members are just getting news of this provision, as they have been involved in meetings and other parliamentary proceedings. Will you ensure that this information is widely disseminated and that the Library provides some independent advice? This looks to me like trickery of the highest order. Can we ensure that all Members are fully briefed and fully understand what is going on here, and what the Government are trying to do?
Mr Speaker
Certainly the Library can be asked to provide information and a note on this matter, copies of which can be made available, and I have every expectation that something will be provided. I had earlier discussions with and have just spoken to the senior Clerk at the Table, whose professionalism will be universally respected across the House. Those who serve us will do all they can to ensure that all possible material is available to colleagues as they undertake this deliberation. That is a very reasonable request, and I hope the answer suffices.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are intrinsically linked, could we be getting into a situation where we could comply with European law, but not with our own legislation?
Mr Speaker
That is conceivable. Is that outwith the bounds of reality? No, it is not.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we be reassured by the Attorney General that if we approve the motion to the satisfaction of the European Union, whatever we do in this House will become irrelevant because the European Union would regard us as having approved a motion that we have not in fact approved using our own purposes?
Mr Speaker
For the record I can say that the Attorney General is shaking his head, and he dissents from the hon. Lady’s proposition. Forgive me, because I think the House will want to move on, but I hope she will accept it if I say that that is a political point. It is an important point, and I am not knocking it in any way, but it is not germane to the remit of the Chair, nor—if I may politely say so—is it material to the sittings of the House motion with which we are now dealing.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having just read the motion, I wonder whether an opportunity might be given for the Government to clarify a really important point. If the EU agrees that, if the motion is passed tomorrow, the UK will be granted an extension until 22 May, at that point it will no longer be possible for the United Kingdom to apply for a further extension, because we would have failed to make the arrangements necessary to take part in the European elections. Therefore, to pass this motion will preclude the United Kingdom from asking for any further extension. It would be helpful to the House if a Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and clarify that point.
Mr Speaker
I must say to people listening that I am mightily glad that the right hon. Gentleman was not asking me to adjudicate on that. It is very helpful that he has excused me from any responsibility. I do not sense that the Attorney General, who is comfortably seated on the Government Front Bench, is looking to come to the Dispatch Box, or indeed that the Leader of the House is inclined to do so. I think I can safely say—I do not think I will be accused of disclosing a state secret—that as things stand the Attorney General is intending to declaim from the Dispatch Box tomorrow.
The Attorney General
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise out of respect for the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). This is clearly a matter that I shall address tomorrow morning in full. It requires serious consideration, as virtually everything the right hon. Gentleman says in this House is entitled to. I will address that point in full tomorrow.
Mr Speaker
Colleagues, the motion has been tabled, moved and spoken to in a perfectly orderly way. I suggest that we now hear from the shadow Leader of the House.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (a), at end, to add
“but that sitting shall not be used for proceedings on consideration of the Overseas Electors Bill.”.
I thank the Leader of the House for the statement, the second business statement we have had today. Mr Speaker, you say that the public are watching up there in the Gallery. They are watching our proceedings throughout the world. They should know that none of us on the Opposition Benches—not a single hon. Member —received a copy of the motion. I came into the Chamber 10 minutes before these proceedings were due to start and it still was not in the Table Office, so it is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has asked for it to be read out as though it were a bedtime story.
The treatment of this House is absolutely disgraceful. Members are going about their business, but have now been told that they have to come back for tomorrow’s motion. This underlines the Government’s disrespect for the House of Commons and for Parliament.
I have had the chance to look at the motion while sitting here on the shadow Front Bench. [Interruption.] I am not going to say anything until this exchange is over. Is that okay for the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler)? [Interruption.] Good. I need to know whether you, Mr Speaker, are content to see that the law is actually being broken. The motion states that the House approves what was put before the House
“on 11 March 2019 so that the UK can leave the EU on 22 May 2019; notes that this approval”—
the House is going to note this—
“does not by itself meet the requirements of section 13(l)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and resolves that it is content”—
hon. Members need to know that they are signifying their content—
“to proceed to the next steps of this process, including fulfilling section 13 of this Act”,
even though it does not comply with that section of the Act. Is that in order? Is the motion in order? On the face of it, it does not comply with the Act.
The shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has made it consistently clear that he does not want the separation of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. That is not just his view; it is the view of the Prime Minister. I just wonder whether asking the Prime Minister to resign to get the withdrawal agreement through is the price that the Government are paying. On 14 January, she told the House that there was
“absolute clarity on the explicit linkage between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.”
She added that
“the link between them”—
the two documents—
“means that the commitments of one cannot be banked without the commitments of the other. The EU has been clear that they come as a package.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 826.]
The Prime Minister was right then. It seems that she is wrong now. That is why we on the Labour Benches will not be supporting the motion.
This is no way to run a Government. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will come back here, but she has a duty to tell the truth to the House. She has made it clear, on that basis, that the two documents are linked together. We are now presented with a motion that breaks that link. On the face of it, that breaks the law: it breaks the European Union withdrawal law. This is the Government playing games. Parliament, our constituents, future trading partners and the country will not countenance this.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry, because other colleagues will want to speak, but I want to make this very simple point: it is not for the Chair—and I absolutely respect what the shadow Leader of the House said—to pronounce on whether a motion, in terms of its effect, is lawful or not. The House makes a judgment on the merits or demerits of a motion and the law is ultimately interpreted by a court if there is a challenge. I am making no assertion of lawfulness or unlawfulness. The Attorney General is entirely comfortable in his own mind and will doubtless articulate that tomorrow. My concern is with the narrow confines of order and procedural propriety. I make no assertion beyond that.
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In one breath, the shadow Leader of the House complained that she had not seen the motion until she walked into the Chamber, and in the next, she said that the Opposition would not be supporting the motion. Until they have heard the arguments that can be made to support the motion, how can they so quickly come to a point of view unless they are playing political games with the future of this country and this deal, which delivers on the vote of 17.4 million people? It is game playing, Mr Speaker, and it has to stop.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has made her own points with conviction, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) a few moments ago and either the Attorney General’s unwillingness or inability to respond to him, would it be in order for my right hon. Friend or somebody else to put in an urgent question to be answered tonight so that we can get a proper answer to what are very important questions?
Mr Speaker
I think that matter is governed by Standing Orders, so the short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is no, that is not possible. It is perfectly possible for there to be urgent questions tomorrow. He may say that that is too late and that it does not fit with his timetable, but I am simply making the point that there is no bar to urgent questions on a Friday. Typically, if there are such, they would come on at 11 o’clock—there were three, in fact, last Friday, if memory serves me correctly—but obviously, urgent questions interrupt a debate without changing the time of the end of the debate. That is the factual position. The opportunity is there, but there is a time consequence.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) might have inadvertently misled the House when she said that she had only just got sight of the motion. I have been having quite detailed discussions with the deputy Clerk of the House about procedures for the next few days. Indeed, he took me to the Table Office, and there was the motion for me to have a copy of at 4 o’clock, so I am surprised that the hon. Lady took an hour and a half to find this out.
Mr Speaker
The shadow Leader of the House can answer for herself, but I simply say to the hon. Lady that if she is referring to the motion for tomorrow’s debate, that motion certainly was not in the Table Office at 4 o’clock, as far as I am aware. I discussed the matter with the Attorney General, and I can assure her that it certainly was not there at that time, or absolutely not in anywhere near its final form. I think I am quite clear about that. As to the sittings motion, that is a different matter.
The Attorney General
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise out of respect to those asking questions about why the motion was late. I do apologise to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—I was anxious to get it to her and to others as soon as I could—but I was particularly concerned that the motion should comply with your ruling, Mr Speaker. Therefore—I hope you will permit me to divulge this—as a result of some discussion with you, I am afraid that it was concluded only shortly before the time we came into the House. [Interruption.] Well, I cannot speak for that, but I say to the House that I am sorry it was late, but it was a matter that needed to comply with your important ruling, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
These things are subject to change. There was a version of the motion earlier this afternoon. The Attorney General and I met, as is perfectly reasonable and proper, and then there was a later version. However, I am quite certain in my own mind that the motion was not in the Table Office at 4 o’clock, and I think that the shadow Leader of the House has been misrepresented, if I may politely say so.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for withdrawing what she said earlier, although I think the shadow Leader of the House would have liked an apology. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has withdrawn what she said. [Interruption.] I am happy with that. We will leave it there.
Valerie Vaz
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am really sorry, but I am not happy with that. The hon. Lady called me a liar. She effectively said—[Interruption.] Let me just explain. I am in front of the Attorney General. I can get an affidavit or a written statement from the very nice person in the Table Office. I went in at 10 to 5 and I asked for a copy of the motion. I walked round to your office, Mr Speaker, to ask for a copy, and I have not received it. So I think that the hon. Lady does owe me an apology.
Mr Speaker
I think that the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said that she thought that the shadow Leader had inadvertently misled the House. The simple point is that, as we now know, the shadow Leader did not mislead the House. That is a matter of fact.
Mr Speaker
Are we returning to the motion? Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak on the motion, or is he seeking to raise a point of order?
Hugh Gaffney
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you can help me. We have been accused of playing political games. At what time did you meet the Attorney General to talk about the motion?
Mr Speaker
I saw the Attorney General a number of times during the day. I would just say to the hon. Gentleman—I do not mean to be discourteous to him—that I think colleagues will recognise the Speaker regularly meets the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the Government Chief Whip, the Opposition Chief Whip and a variety of other people. There is nothing particularly unusual about that. I met the Attorney General at half-past eight this morning; I then met him at 2.30 this afternoon, and then again at—if memory serves me correctly—approximately 4 o’clock, 4.15, or thereabouts. So we had three meetings during the day, and in the course of the three meetings I supplied the Attorney General with just one cup of tea.
Who else wishes to speak in the debate? I call Mr Christopher Bryant.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Who would have thought that a debate on whether we should sit tomorrow would get everyone so wound up?
In one sense, this is very simple. We are simply deciding, at a moment of national crisis, whether or not we should sit tomorrow, notwithstanding the normal practice of the House, which is that we only sit on Fridays for private Members’ business. I do not think that a single Member of the House would resent the Government’s motion proposing that we should sit tomorrow, because we know that this is a very important moment for our country, and we need to get this right. However, as every good architect will tell you, form must always follow function. My anxiety is that when the Government announced that we were going to sit tomorrow, they should have told us what we were going to sit for. We should have had plenty of prior notice, not the negligible notice that we have had.
I understand, and take in good faith, the difficulties that the Government have had in trying to get to this moment, but I think that the motion that we will debate tomorrow is problematic in many ways, and I think that that gives us reason to ask whether we should really be sitting to consider this matter tomorrow. [Interruption.] No, this is not a point of order. I am taking part in the debate. This is a debate on a motion which is before the House.
I have a problem with the function that we are being asked to address tomorrow. First, the motion expressly does not meet the requirements of our own law, passed in this House, namely section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which clearly binds together the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. Indeed the Prime Minister herself had repeatedly said the two things could not be separated out, and for that matter senior members of other Governments elsewhere in Europe have also said the two things go together. Indeed the Prime Minister’s express point was that if they were separated out, we in the UK would be losing the benefits we gained. So I have an anxiety about that element.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Chris Bryant
May I finish the point? The second problem I have is that the motion, to my mind and according to what the Leader of the House herself said earlier, is only there to appease the EU’s desires. Well isn’t that an irony; this is not exactly taking back—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have the highest regard for the hon. Gentleman, but we are in danger of eliding into tomorrow’s debate. I am not casting aspersions on the hon. Gentleman, who is a consummate parliamentarian, but the issue before the House now is the motion moved by the Leader of the House, which is a sittings motion: the issue is whether we should sit tomorrow for the period specified. A very occasional reference to what we would be meeting to discuss is one thing, but to devote a speech to the merits or demerits of tomorrow’s motion goes way beyond that, and I do not want this debate to be the debate we are proposing to have, and that the Leader of the House is advocating having, tomorrow.
Chris Bryant
Mr Speaker, if you had just told me to shut up I probably would have done so; you could have done it a bit more briefly, if I might say. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that although I always profit by his counsels he has already devoted some minutes to the substance of tomorrow so it ill behoves him to lecture me on brevity. He has spoken for quite a long time, not on the sittings motion but on the substance of tomorrow. Wrap it up, man.
Mr Speaker
Resume your seat. I say very gently to the hon. Gentleman, let it go, make your point—which we always enjoy hearing—finish the speech, and let others take part. I do not need any backchat from the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Bryant
What the Leader of the House is proposing in this motion is that we should adopt a new precedent. There has been much talk of precedent in the last few days in terms of the way we proceed here, and I believe in precedent, which is why I believe we should very rarely set the precedent we are setting for tomorrow. I think for instance we should abide by the precedent that when a Government lose a major policy they fall, and that when a Government Minister proposes a motion they vote for it. All of these are precedents that have been abandoned.
I am happy for us to sit tomorrow, but I would just say that if it is absolutely clear, as has already been stated, that tomorrow’s motion is not a meaningful vote, it is then a meaningless vote and consequently there is little point to us sitting. And the one precedent that I am absolutely sure the House will always have abided by in the past and will probably abide by tomorrow is that when the Government come up with a policy—a change of mood, a change of style, a different way of doing business—that is too clever by half, they always lose.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I will confine my remarks exclusively to the motion before us this afternoon—I am sure you will be pleased about that, Mr Speaker—and I will leave it to others to continue to debate the merits of the motion tomorrow.
I do not think I have ever seen in the last 18 years a start of a business motion which has been preceded by endless points of order. That more than anything demonstrates the mess this place is in—the absolute guddle we have in procedure and process. All these points of order are trying to examine and define and find out exactly what is going on. I am pretty certain all of our constituents, who are taking a great deal of interest in our proceedings just now, are absolutely bemused and mystified, frustrated and increasingly angry about the way we do our business in this House, with all these issues trying to come to the front of our attention. It has almost got to the point in this House where it is so broken and the debate is so corrupted that we are now having debates through points of order. I can barely imagine that we have reached that stage just now; it demonstrates how badly broken things are.
The sitting tomorrow is all about the Government’s latest wheeze to get their doomed Brexit deal through. They are inviting us to consider the withdrawal agreement without the political declaration attached. It is a meaningful vote, but it is a sort of Schrödinger’s meaningful vote: it is both alive and dead at the same time. After three years without any attempt to create any sort of secure consensus on the way forward, and after two months of defeats and this House taking control yesterday, this is the last throw of the dice for the Government tomorrow. It seems that even the Prime Minister offering herself as a sacrifice to the Brexiteers this week was not good enough for them. As the First Minister put it so elegantly in the Scottish Parliament today, this is a Prime Minister who threw herself on her sword and missed. It cannot get any more calamitous than that.
There is just one more issue about tomorrow. As Scottish National party Members, we are all, as you would expect, Scottish Members of Parliament. That means that there are particular issues when it comes to our travel arrangements. We spend more than half a day getting to this House and half a day getting back—that is one full day of travelling just to be able to come down here and do our business. This Government have so disrespected all of us who have to travel great distances. Confirming only this morning that the House will be sitting tomorrow is totally unacceptable—
Pete Wishart
This is just part of the pattern that we expect from some hon. Members. “Just go home!” “Go away!” That is what they feel about us. I would be happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman, and the way that we can elegantly achieve that is to secure independence for our nation.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a point about travel. I say to him, my constituency neighbour, that our constituents in North Perthshire and South Perthshire will be plenty happy for us to be here making some of the biggest and most important decisions in this Parliament in modern political history. These decisions cannot wait any longer.
Pete Wishart
I am pretty sure that the electors of Perthshire would be delighted if we were here making decisions, but that is the exact opposite of what we are doing. We have probably not made any decisions in this House for the past few months, and he is responsible for that.
Lastly, I totally and utterly support the shadow Leader of the House when she said that it is absolutely disgraceful that we were presented with tomorrow’s motion only 10 minutes before this debate was supposed to start.
Martin Whitfield
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the business of the House motion makes reference to complying with Acts and the European Union documents, yet the motion that we are debating tomorrow acknowledges that we are not going to follow UK legislation and that we will catch up at some point in the future?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely, and I raised the question this morning with the Speaker about what exactly we are doing about section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The hon. Gentleman is right. We have not seen the withdrawal and implementation Bill. We are expected to make critical decisions about the future of this country and about how we should progress Brexit without knowing what the Bill is. The Government are offering the ultimate blind Brexit. We are expected to give them a blank cheque to negotiate the political agreement as they see fit. This is the last throw of the dice for them. This is the only place they have left. The meaningful vote is dead, but they have tried to resurrect it by splitting it into two parts.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about a blind Brexit. Does he agree that the way in which the motion has been tabled goes against the spirit of this House, where we have been trying to expand and understand where there is consensus, and that it instead contracts the debate by trying to separate the debate about the future? That is at the very core of the debate, and this is why we do not want to leave without knowing where we are going to. It is like moving house and leaving your home without knowing where you are going to be living.
Pete Wishart
I have heard that analogy before, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right.
We can compare what happened yesterday when this House was able to consider all sorts of measures and ways forward in order to see whether there was any sort of consensus across the House on how we should determine and progress these ideas. Tomorrow, on the other hand, is all about trying to satisfy Conservative Back Benchers, with no attempt to reach out to the rest of the House. That is why I believe that tomorrow’s motion will ultimately fail. This is the last chance for the Government to bring it back, and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) can be certain that the Scottish National party will be here to take part in tomorrow’s debate even though we have hundreds of miles to travel. We will ensure that the motion fails tomorrow and that the interests of our country are maintained and progressed, and we will look forward to that. As an exercise, this is totally and utterly consistent with the chaotic cluelessness that lies at the heart of this Tory Brexit. This Tory Government have divided that nation and taken us to the brink. The SNP will be here tomorrow, and we will be voting the motion down.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I have learned to read the details of European Council conclusions. Last Wednesday night, Donald Tusk sent out a message that an extension—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but I said it before to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who took it in pretty good spirit—[Laughter.] Well, reasonable spirit. With the greatest of respect to the hon. Lady, whose experience of the European Parliament is well known, this is not a debate about tomorrow’s motion. I have said this before and I will say it again: this is a debate on the sittings motion. That is all we are debating now. If the hon. Lady would like to make a few remarks—[Interruption.] No, I am telling the hon. Lady what the situation is. The debate is on the sittings motion. If she would like to make a speech on that motion, she can do so, but this is not about tomorrow’s debate.
Vicky Ford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some of the points of order that have already been made this evening suggested that we should be voting on both the withdrawal agreement and other parts of the agreement, but Europe has made it clear that it needs a decision tomorrow on the withdrawal agreement. Let us agree that that is what we need to do tomorrow, and I will be here to do that.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
In a point of order a few moments ago, Mr Speaker, I asked you whether there was any mechanism by way of an urgent question that we could get a response from the Attorney General to the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It is important that we get an answer before we conclude this evening’s proceedings, because how we vote tomorrow could, as my right hon. Friend said, have an effect on any further delay that the European Commission might consider. Can we ask the Attorney General to make a statement on that during the course of this debate?
Mr Speaker
In so far as it is germane to the right hon. Gentleman’s view as to whether the sittings motion should pass, it is a reasonable point for him to raise. I can say only that the Attorney General can respond now, but I think it became clear in earlier exchanges that he was minded to address such matters tomorrow.
Mr Speaker
If the right hon. Gentleman concludes that that is not good enough, that may inform his view of the sittings motion. I explained the situation on the sittings motion to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and I say the same to the right hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for what he said.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
There are plenty of people in the Gallery today who will be here to see the magnificent historical features of this building. They should pay particular attention to the parts that are currently held up with scaffolding, which represent the places where MPs have been banging their heads against the walls for nearly three years in trying to make sense of the chaos that the Government have created. No MP resents coming into this place, because it is a pleasure and a privilege to be here to represent our constituents, but it is extremely disruptive when the Government are so chaotic and when they refuse to plan ahead and to communicate well in advance so that we can make proper arrangements. We saw that in the February half-term, when MPs with childcare responsibilities and other responsibilities were disrupted, and we are likely to see it in the Easter recess as well. Again, no MP has an issue with being here—it is a privilege to be here—but we have arrangements to make, so clarity would be appreciated.
When the Leader of the House returns to the Dispatch Box, it would be helpful if she could help me to understand something. Currently, the local government elections are due to take place on 2 May. If, for whatever reason, the business is not passed tomorrow, we might be heading towards a position in which we have to elect Members to the European Parliament. The European elections are currently scheduled for the end of May. Would the Government intend to reschedule the date of the local government elections to coincide with the European elections that take place 21 days later?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I shall not speak for long. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I am very happy to sit tomorrow, even though it means a day not spent in the glorious city of Newcastle, but I am concerned that in effect the sitting tomorrow has been designed purely to circumvent British law—not to pass new laws, because the Leader of the House knows that she does not have the numbers to do that, but to circumvent laws that we have already passed. I hope she will address my final point. It seems to me that, for the House to sit in order to cede control of the process to the European Union goes against not only the spirit of the 17.4 million who voted for Brexit but the spirit and intention of the House.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Tomorrow, 29 March, had long been trailed as the Brexiteers’ brilliant independence day. It was the day that they had trumpeted for two and half long years, but it turns out that, actually, on 29 March we are going to be here in the House of Commons because the European Union demands it. The humiliation of Brexit will soon be very complete indeed. Rather than all that they promised, we have now seen, at the edge of the cliff, the horrors of Brexit and the disaster that is coming our way.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems the Government’s tactics have gone from, “Vote for the deal or it is no deal,” to “Vote for the deal or it is no Brexit,” to “Vote for the deal or there is no recess,” and now it is “Vote for the deal or there is just no going home at all”? The solution for those of us from Scotland who are stuck in the big Brexit house is to become independent and get out of here.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I hear cheers from the Tory Benches for Scottish independence. Is that a first? Are the benefits of Brexit finally coming to us?
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend will, like me, remember that tomorrow was also supposed to signal the start of the festival of Brexit, at which the Attorney General, doing his best Gilbert and Sullivan, was going to be out there as the compere, talking about all the wonderful achievements of post-Brexit Britain? What happened to that?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The humiliation for the Brexiteers is greater and deeper than any single Scottish nationalist could have imagined. Not only are they here because the European Union demands that they be here, but they have to put off their festivals as a result of the European Union’s demand. It is humiliation for them.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
As this is a debate on a sittings of the House motion, might it be in order for my hon. Friend to list the things that we could debate instead of this fixed-up motion that the Government have introduced with 10 minutes’ notice? I am sure my hon. Friend would like to adumbrate a great many things that could be on tomorrow’s Order Paper; would he care to give the House a bit of that?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. In a number of business questions sessions, I and other Members have asked the Leader of the House for time to make progress on the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman was led astray from the path of virtue when his hon. Friend exhorted him to list matters that it would be worthy to debate tomorrow. I can advise the hon. Gentleman on that matter: the sittings of the House motion specifies the purpose for which the House will meet, and an amendment to it specifies a purpose for which it should not meet. It is clear from the motion what it is about, and this debate is not an opportunity to dilate on a vast range of other matters, which may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman but which are not consistent with the terms of the motion. If I have somewhat truncated the hon. Gentleman’s speech as a result, I am sure he is sad, but that is the reality.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I was rather enjoying your own speech there, Mr Speaker.
To finish, I want to underline the humiliation that is the House of Commons turning up at the demand of the EU. I wonder if the 50ps might get melted down tomorrow and turned into something a little more useful. God bless ya.
Amendment (a) agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House shall sit on Friday 29 March 2019 but that sitting shall not be used for proceedings on consideration of the Overseas Electors Bill.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way to emphasise a point you made earlier concerning tomorrow’s motion, where it says the House
“resolves that it is content to proceed to the next steps of this process”?
Given that the next steps of the process very much depend on the EU withdrawal and implementation Bill, is there any way we can emphasise to the Government the importance of that Bill, which exists in draft form, being published so that, in resolving to move to the next steps, we can know what those steps are, particularly as some of us are of the view that we might see in that Bill the introduction of retrospective legislation to change certain parts of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018?
Mr Speaker
This matter was touched on earlier. Whether the Bill will be published in time for the debate I do not know—it remains to be seen—but the very strong wish of the hon. Gentleman and some others that it should be has been noted.
I note in passing to colleagues that 29 March is itself Brexit neutral. I say that because, if memory serves me correctly, tomorrow, 29 March, is the birthday of the noble Lord Tebbit of Chingford and of Sir John Major.
Mr Speaker
And, very importantly, it is the birthday of the hon. Lady’s daughter, and doubtless of a great many other people to boot, Brexiteer and remainer alike. [Interruption.] I cannot name them all, I am afraid. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), but I am afraid that my knowledge is not that great. It was a good try.
Housing
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I am sorry to see Members leaving the Chamber, because we are about to discuss the Government’s top domestic priority, which is of far more concern to many people up and down the country than our endless talk of Brexit. I have entitled this debate “Housing” because I did not want to be confined to any specific part of the housing debate and wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to address any question within the housing space.
It is absolutely clear that we have a very big housing problem, and have had a very big problem, for some years. I have been attending seminars, roundtables and conferences on housing for at least seven years. I first went to the QEII Centre to hear Adri Duivesteijn, the godfather of the self-build and custom house building movement in the Netherlands—a former Dutch Member of Parliament who then became the mayor of Almere, a community in the Netherlands that I think I am right in saying the Minister has visited. Since then, I have been to many events of various kinds, and everyone has their own diagnosis of the problems and their own solutions, but generally they all mention land, planning or finance. They often mention the role of the volume house builders, the way in which local council planning authorities are stretched and the difficulty in getting access to land.
Many of these points have a great deal of truth about them, but the issue can be encapsulated much more simply in the following sentence: the supply of housing does not rise to meet the demand for housing. In many other areas of life, it is true that supply generally does rise to meet demand. In what I would call orthodox, rather than classical, economics, if someone is making what economists call supernormal profits—profits that are in excess of what one might expect—two factors generally combine to bring those profits down to normal levels. One factor is that other actors in the marketplace will see the opportunity of those high profits and will move in. In other words, new suppliers will move in, with competition, increasing choice for consumers and driving down the profit margins. But that is not the situation that we have in the United Kingdom. In fact, over the last 30 years, the situation has steadily become the reverse of that. We effectively have permanent supernormal profits.
Some 30 years ago, in 1988, 66% of houses in this country—a large fraction of the total—were built by SME builders, which were represented by excellent organisations such as the Federation of Master Builders. The situation now is that less than 20%—perhaps 15% or 17%—of houses are built by SME builders, with all kinds of extra problems that make it more difficult for them to engage. Now a very small number of very large companies build most of the houses; for the most part, they are the members of the Home Builders Federation.
The strange thing is that if one asks consumers what they think and what they want, as has been done several times by independent, authoritative opinion pollster organisations that have been commissioned for the purpose, they will come up with the following result. Somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of people do not want to buy the products of volume house builders. The figure of 75% comes from a YouGov survey conducted by the National Custom and Self Build Association, which is a trade body for, as the name suggests, self-building and custom house building, whereby houses are manufactured offsite—perhaps a better way of putting it is “high-tech offsite construction”—and then delivered to a site where they are constructed. The figure of 67%—the two thirds of people who do not want to, or would prefer not to, buy the product of the volume house builders—comes from the volume house builders themselves. Their own research tells us that most people do not want to buy their product. Now, in a vaguely competitive ecosystem where there was choice for consumers, that would be corrected by new suppliers coming in and providing something that consumers did want.
Let me be very clear that the numbers themselves suggest that between a third and a quarter of consumers do want to buy the product of volume house builders. If they wish to do so, they should be free to do so, as long as those products are built to the right standards in terms of health and safety and building regulations. I have no issue with that at all. It is true that, over the last 30 to 40 years, houses have got smaller and more expensive than they were in the not-that-distant past. However, if people wish to buy the product of a volume house builder, they should certainly be free to do so, as long as those volume house builders operate within the law; I do not object to that at all. But fundamentally, the two things required for this ecosystem to function are low barriers to entry and consumer choice, and those are the two things that are fundamentally absent.
We all know what the consequence is. I have tested this with nine-year-olds in primary schools in my constituency. I say, “What happens to the price of something if there is not enough of it?”, and every had goes up and they say, “It goes up.” Then, just to make the point really clearly, I say, “And what happens to the price of something if there is too much of it?”, and every hand goes up and they say, “It goes down.” It is not difficult to understand—it is intuitive to the point where a nine-year-old can grasp it. That is what has happened to the housing market, if one can call it a market, in the UK. I suppose that an economist might say that of course it is a market, but a very oligopolistic one—in other words, something approaching, but not quite, a monopoly.
That means that the suppliers making supernormal profits can keep on doing this for a very long time without let or hindrance. At the same time, the average price of an average dwelling has gone from three and half to four times income a generation ago to about eight times income now. That depends on where one is in the country, of course. For South Norfolk, the last figures I saw from the National Housing Federation—admittedly slightly out of date now, but they will not have changed that much—were about 8.2 times average income. The same numbers suggested 8.2 times average income in Harlow in Essex, 13 times average income in Hertfordshire, and 17 times average income in Oxford—and in some of the really hot boroughs in London, it was completely off the charts. Even in the poorer parts of the country where incomes are lower and properties are less desirable, it is now five and half to six times average income in many cases.
I pumped my parliamentary salary into one of the websites just to see what a lender would lend, and I was quite horrified that the first number that came out was five and half times income. That would not have been possible a generation ago. We have had more money chasing roughly the same amount of houses, and, not surprisingly, the price has gone up. That has a number of consequences.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that house builders need to be looking at the cost of living in a property over the time that residents would own that property and meeting carbon reduction or zero-carbon targets, so that when the house is sold the cost of living in that house has changed?
Mr Bacon
Yes, I do, although if one went on a sales course, one would be told “Benefits, not features.” One does not explain that a vacuum cleaner does 3,000 revolutions per minute rather than 1,500, as nobody cares—one explains that it cleans one’s house better. In the same light, I would not bang on about carbon, making people feel kind of morally inferior—I would explain that one could have the choice of having a house that would cost nothing to heat, and ask why anyone would want one that cost a lot to heat.
I had this out very specifically at the Policy Exchange think-tank with the land use and planning director of Barratt. I asked about what it did for its customers in this regard. I said, “Is it really true that you have a conversation with your customers in which you say, ‘Now madam, we’ve got a variety of houses available for you, this one over here that will cost you roughly £1,400 a year for heat and hot water, and this one over here that is insulated to, or nearly at, passive house standards that will cost you almost nothing to heat—perhaps, with mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, £80 or £150 a year. Which one would madam prefer?’ Do you really offer them that choice?” Of course, he turned his back on me and stomped off rather than answer the question.
Anna McMorrin
Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that we need to change our building regulations in England, and also in Wales, where this is devolved, to make sure that housing is built to low-carbon or zero-carbon standards to ensure that this happens across the board? We have house builders that are really taking advantage by putting up houses that come at a ridiculous cost to our climate.
Mr Bacon
Yes. I do not want to be building houses that we will be knocking down in 30 or 40 years’ time because they are so dreadful. That is utterly pointless. The hon. Lady mentioned building regulations. At the Local Authority Building Control conference, where I gave an address, I needed only to say the word “Persimmon” and people fell around laughing as if I was as funny as Tommy Cooper—perhaps there are people who think I am—because it is a byword for poor practice in the building industry.
I have heard the chief executives of volume house builders criticise Persimmon for its bad practice. We all know what happened to the sainted Jeff Fairburn. Because of his compensation scheme, he was being paid—I will say this slowly—£130 million in emoluments by the shareholders of Persimmon. So egregious a scandal was it that he got so sick of being followed round by someone from the BBC with a microphone asking him to justify it that he eventually resigned, which was a red letter day for many of us who are campaigning for higher quality. In a competitive environment where the company could not afford to pay one chief executive that much money, that money should have been going into larger spaces, better quality material and better thermal performance. There is a huge distortion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He and I have discussed on a number of occasions how houses should be built in the future. Modern house building should ensure better air quality, better insulation, better heating, better windows and better doors. It is also about the location—for example, the green areas around the house and access to shops. A house has to be a home. I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. I know that the Minister and the hon. Gentleman have read the APPG’s report and are aware of its recommendations. Does he feel that those are a way forward for housing?
Mr Bacon
I do, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. There is a lot of evidence that if people live in better, more spacious, healthier homes, there are lower costs for the NHS and lower sickness rates; it is better for employees and employers. There are lots of other ancillary benefits of having better homes, as well as their being good in themselves.
I am keeping a close eye on the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker. I planned to start with a preamble, which I seem to be doing without too much trouble, and then get into the specifics of what I want to say to the Minister about the Right to Build Task Force, but I will say one or two more things before I do that.
The situation we face is one in which an entire generation have basically given up on the chance of either owning a property or even being able to afford to rent one. In general, and especially in the big cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester, people spend an absurd proportion of their income on rent. When it is costing people over 50% of their net monthly salary to rent a ghastly little bedsit where the mattress is hanging over the sink—I do not exaggerate; I saw such an example on a Channel 4 documentary a while ago—we obviously have a big problem.
I was at a dinner at the London School of Economics where a professor was talking about a graduate student of his who was about to start working in the Bank of England on a not inconsiderable salary, but he was going to be living at home with his mum. The chap from KPMG around the table said, “Well, that’s nothing. We start our graduates on £45,000, and they can’t afford to buy anywhere.” Then the chap from BlackRock said, “Well, that’s nothing. We start our graduates on £75,000, and they can’t afford to buy anywhere, certainly not within a decent distance of our office.” It has got completely out of sync, and the Government have to fix it.
There is, of course, a political problem for our own party. I will address that later, but it is perfectly obvious that if people cannot get somewhere to live at a price they can afford, they will not vote for a party that cannot provide that for them. We need a fundamental change. We have dug ourselves a big hole over the last 20 to 25 years, and it will take us 20 to 25 years to dig ourselves out of it. If we are not careful, we will be in the same position in 20 to 25 years, only worse, unless we have the right policy proposals for fixing it. That is what I want to come to.
When I came off the Public Accounts Committee in 2017, it was to spend time on the Right to Build Task Force, an initiative set up by the National Custom and Self Build Association to help local councils, developers, community groups and landowners who want to bring forward self-build and custom house building projects on serviced plots of land—that is to say, where all the difficult bits such as fresh water, sewage, electricity, broad- band and so on are already dealt with—in order to increase supply and give people more choice. That is what I have spent most of the last two years in this place doing.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
In Cheltenham, the overwhelming majority of the house building taking place in the town centre is for retirement apartments. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we want to maintain the culture, vitality and vibrancy, we have to ensure that young people can afford to live there as well? Will he join me in congratulating the Government on providing, through the home improvement fund, millions of pounds for a Portland Place development in Cheltenham that subsidises marginal viability schemes, to ensure that young people can truly live in the town centre and contribute to its vibrancy?
Mr Bacon
Yes, I do, although I could easily get into a long discussion about viability that would consume the rest of this debate, which I cannot do. There are big problems with the whole concept of the way in which we calculate viability. However, I congratulate the Government on helping Cheltenham bring forward what sounds like a very important scheme.
The Right to Build Task Force has been going for two years. We have scraped together £300,000, courtesy of the Nationwide building society’s charitable foundation, the Nationwide Foundation. Over 50 organisations have been helped, of which 60% are local councils, with the rest being community groups, landowners and developers. There is a whole range of examples of its work. Aylesbury Woodlands in Buckinghamshire will have a project where 15% of all the new homes are custom and self-build. Cornwall has an ambition to bring forward up to 1,000 serviced plots across the county. I am looking around for my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who arranged the meeting we had with the Prime Minister on this very subject and who is a passionate believer in more serviced plots. North Northamptonshire has a plan whereby as many as 10% of homes could be custom and self-built across several different local authorities. There are rural areas such as Eden in Cumbria, which is looking at a range of opportunities for affordable homes for local people. King’s Lynn and North Norfolk, in my own county of Norfolk, has agreed an action plan to drive up delivery across the area with landowners and smaller builders. A lot is going on already, but the thing is that there could be very much more going on.
This is the fundamental point. It is a quote from Andrew Baddeley-Chappell, a former director of Nationwide building society, who is now the chief executive of NaCSBA, while still chairing the Bank of England residential property forum. He has said:
“Custom and Self-build can deliver more and better homes that more people aspire to live in and that communities are happier to see built.”
An exegesis of that would basically cover most of what I want to say.
If we want more homes, we have to build them in a way that people want. At the moment, the problem is that most local people feel they have no say or voice in what gets built, where it gets built, what it looks like, how it performs—its thermal performance and therefore what it costs to run—and, absolutely crucially, who gets the chance to live there. If we change all that, we change the conversation. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the former shadow Secretary of State said, we need to turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs. Prince Charles put it even better when His Royal Highness referred to BIMBYs—beauty in my backyard. We need to create an environment in which people actually welcome housing. We have reached the tipping point now in that more people want it than do not, because people have begun to realise how serious the crisis is.
As the Minister would expect, I have a small number of specific asks. The first is that we should have more Government support for the taskforce. We have already had some. I persuaded my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), when he was the Housing Secretary, to lend us a civil servant—a qualified planner and career civil servant. He would prefer me not to mention his name, but I will because we are so indebted to him. His name is Mario Wolf, and he directs the work of the taskforce. We are very grateful for the loan of Mario Wolf from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. He has done an enormous amount with very little in the way of resources. I mentioned some of the work earlier.
It is of course true that if we had more Government support, we could do more. The Help to Buy programme, which I will come on to in a moment, has so far spent £10.6 billion, and plans to have spent £22 billion by 2021. In other words, 35,000 times more is spent on subsidising demand than on a scheme to subsidise supply, albeit indirectly by helping to facilitate and increase choice for consumers—except, of course, that the Government are not actually paying for it; Nationwide building society is paying for it. I hope to have a discussion about that with the Minister at some point, because we are of course implementing Government policy. If hon. Members read the housing White Paper, they can see that we are implementing Government policy. If they read the Homes England strategy, it is very clear that the strategy calls for diversification of housing.
The second thing I would like the Minister to consider is a review of the planning guidance on custom and self-build housing—the guidance that supports the revised national planning policy framework—because at the moment it is outdated. Three things need urgent attention. On land allocation, many councils do not even know if they are allowed to allocate land specifically for custom and self-build housing, even though they are, and councils such as Bristol City Council are already doing so.
We also need clarity about what counts. Some local authorities are gaming the system, and in some cases local authorities are not clear what counts towards their legal obligations to provide permissioned plots of land. Some councils are allowing the conversion of holiday lets into private dwellings under the happy delusion that that counts towards meeting their legal obligations under the right to build legislation, and some of them may be in for a rude awakening at some point.
There is also the issue of viability. For as long as one has viability assessments, the Government need to look carefully at how they should work in relation to custom and self-build; they will not necessarily be the same as for market housing. I would be grateful if the Minister engaged with the taskforce on updating the guidance generally, so that it is more fit for purpose.
My third request is about the Planning Inspectorate. It is absolutely imperative that Government planning inspectors properly apply the current provisions of the legislation when they determine planning appeals and when they examine local plans. There is clear evidence that that is not happening as it should—mostly because planning inspectors are unfamiliar with the law in this area, which is still quite new. The obvious answer is to have training for inspectors. The Secretary of State has agreed with me at the Dispatch Box that we should do that, although it has not happened yet. I urge the Minister to pursue that and engage with the taskforce in identifying exactly what training is required.
We need something to help raise consumer awareness. Most people would like to commission a project of their own at some point in their lives; 1 million people would like to do that in the next 12 months, yet only 12,000 to 15,000 do. The reason is that it is very difficult to get a serviced plot of land. If getting one were as easy as it is to go into a Ford dealership and buy a Ford Fiesta, far more people would do it.
We are spending a significant amount of public money on housing, but at the moment I am not convinced that we are not simply making the problem worse. Help to Buy will have spent £22 billion by 2021 on helping 360,000 households. If we divide one figure by the other, we get £61,111—that is per household. We should be spending that better. At the moment, we are propping up an oligopoly that performs well financially for itself, with some horrible results, while making itself unpopular with consumers who cannot afford its products.
Mr Bacon
I am sorry, but I will not give way—only because of the lack of time; I need to leave the Minister a couple of seconds.
What did Adam Smith say?
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
The aim of public expenditure on housing should be to lower barriers to entry and increase choice, so that people can have the houses they want. If we get this right, we can engender a revolution in this country in how housing is done. If we get it wrong, we will pay a high price at the ballot box: almost nobody between the ages of 20 and 40 can easily, at a price a normal person can afford, dream of having their own place, even though 86% of people in this country want to. We need to design and redesign a system that allows them, and everyone else, to achieve their aspirations.
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
That was a remarkable example of a combination of encyclopaedic knowledge and conviction about what my hon. Friend rightly says should be not only the Government’s top domestic priority but the entire country’s primary moral mission: to build the homes that the next generation need and which are currently denied to them.
It is unusual for me to hear strains of my own speeches read back to me. I know that my hon. Friend has not been to listen to many of my speeches, but what he said resonates strongly with me: many of the themes he laid out in his preamble and diagnosis I am myself going around the country promoting—not least the dysfunctionality of the house building market. The one element that he omitted, but that I am sure he is aware of, is that the situation is not helped by the fact that in the crash of 2007-08, 50% of all small house builders were wiped out—removed from the market—having produced, as my hon. Friend said, more than half of all new homes. That proportion has now dropped to about a third, I think.
Both in coalition and since, the Government have done their best to try to push output up from a low of 124,000 in 2012 to 222,000 last year. The forward indicators for next year are looking pretty good as well.
Anna McMorrin
Why did the Government scrap the requirement for homes to be carbon neutral, when that would go a long way towards helping with living costs and budgets, as well as meeting climate targets?
Kit Malthouse
I totally acknowledge the role that high environmental standards have to play in a sense of social justice about housing. I went to a factory run by Accord Housing, which produces 1,000 modular homes a year. So good are the environmental standards in those homes that they have lower arrears because people can afford to heat them. That is definitely something on which I want to focus.
I want to address some of the questions that my hon. Friend raised. He is right that we need to do something about the way in which the house building market functions at the moment, and my job is to wander around being disruptive, supporting new entrants and players to create the competitive landscape that he is looking for—competing on quality and type; being disruptive on technology and encouraging modern methods of construction, including off-site manufacture and new techniques, so that new entrants find it easier to overcome the barriers to entry that he mentioned; and being disruptive on finance.
My hon. Friend is a little negative about Help to Buy, but I ask him to take care. Many tens of thousands of young people have accessed homes for the first time when the market was denied to them before, because of a Government-backed effective bank of mum and dad. While there will be assessments of that scheme, there is no indication at the moment that it has pushed up prices.
Mr Bacon
Of course people who are given cash will be grateful, but if there is a subsidy for demand rather than supply, we will not fundamentally solve the problem. Would it not be a good idea to wean people off Help to Buy and towards Help to Build, so that we subsidised supply? If we subsidise something we get more of it, and what we need more of is supply.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right. It is possible—although I know it is strange—for Government to do two things at the same time. Help to Buy affects a very small percentage of housing transactions—about 4%—and the indications are that it has not had a particular impact on prices. We continue to review the policy in the light of its success—some 160,000 people have now accessed homes who otherwise would not have done so.
In the last minute or so I want to return to my hon. Friend’s questions. He asked five specific questions. First, will we look at a review for the taskforce? Given that we are going into a spending round, with what may be small amounts of money in the scale of the spending that I have available, I would be more than happy to do so. I am of course also more than happy to look at planning guidance review and particularly land allocation. In particular, we could perhaps think about communicating more widely to local authorities. I would be happy to help him by sponsoring some kind of event to promote the idea and to help local authorities to learn.
On viability, when I was on the Treasury Committee we did a housing inquiry in which I posed the question to Kate Barker and David Orr whether we should do away with the viability test as part of the planning system, and both of them thought that that was a good idea. In the meantime we have standardised the viability test to see where we get to.
On the Planning Inspectorate, my hon. Friend is right. We are trying to talk to staff about how they can be more consistent in their decision making and apply it more regularly across the country.
Finally I would be more than happy to join my hon. Friend in raising consumer awareness, and I congratulate him on what was a tour de force of knowledge of housing policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Closure of the Wellingborough Driving Test Centre
Zebra Crossing on the Green, Writtle
Westminster Hall
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
Disclosure of Youth Criminal Records
(5 years 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
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the First Report of the Justice Committee, Disclosure of youth criminal records, HC 416, and the Government response, Cm 9559.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank the House for giving us the opportunity to debate the report, and my friends and colleagues on the Select Committee on Justice who contributed to it. I am glad to see such a good turnout when other things are happening today as well.
This is an important issue, and not merely a technical one. Although some of the law and regulations around it are complex, we have concluded that it directly affects people’s lives and that the current state of our arrangements is frankly unsatisfactory and unfit for purpose. The gist of what we say is that change is needed, and so far we detect a lack of urgency in addressing that. As a consequence, injustice and, frankly, social harm are being done by the failure to modernise a system that has not kept pace with developments in a number of areas.
I will first address the background to our report. In October 2016, the Justice Committee in the previous Parliament decided to launch an inquiry into disclosure of youth criminal records, partly as a follow-up to the inquiry that we had conducted on the treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, a substantial report in itself, and partly because of a number of representations that we had received from the non-governmental organisation sector. I refer particularly to the evidence that has been given to us by Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, and pay tribute to the work that those organisations do in this field.
In consequence, we had an inquiry in which we took oral and written evidence, but we also held a private seminar with individuals who had been personally affected by this problem. I think many policy makers would benefit from seeing and hearing from those people face to face about the real effects of the system upon them. They were able to talk about the effect on them of their childhood offences—that is the point, as we are often not talking about recent offences, but offences committed when people were children—being disclosed when they were adults, often some time down the track.
One of the many unforeseen consequences of the dissolution of Parliament in May 2017 was that the Committee was unable to produce its report, so one of our first decisions in this Parliament was to revisit it and produce an updated report on what we regard as an important issue, basing it on the evidence that our predecessor Committee had already heard. We published a report on 27 October 2017.
Having set out the chronology, let me give an overview of the background to the system. The criminal records disclosure regime, as I am sure many hon. Members know, is operated by the Disclosure and Barring Service, or DBS. For certain professional jobs, and certainly for work involving contact with children or vulnerable adults, the DBS has, for perfectly good reasons, to provide a standard or enhanced disclosure certificate, which can disclose all criminal records. That includes criminal records that otherwise would be regarded as spent.
There is a so-called filtering system, which allows some spent criminal records to be filtered out of disclosure so that they will not be revealed on the standard or enhanced DBS certificates. The idea behind the filtering system was that it was supposed to allow the disclosure regime to operate in a more proportionate manner, but the evidence that we have heard drives us to the conclusion that, in practice, the filtering system incorporates some significant exceptions, meaning that many offences are not filterable throughout the lifetime of an offender.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the UK system for disclosure of childhood criminal records is among the harshest in the world when compared with equivalent developed countries? Although I am a believer in a firm justice system that punishes crimes appropriately, I do not think it is fair for people to have to live for the rest of their lives with the consequences of terrible mistakes they may have made in childhood.
Robert Neill
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend; that is precisely the problem. The disclosure system is an immensely blunt instrument and forgets that, as well as being a punishment, any sensible criminal justice system must encourage reform and rehabilitation. Whatever the no doubt good intentions behind it, the way the system operates is counterproductive in that regard.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
For people who perhaps did not have the most advantaged background, let us suppose there is a fight in a school playground that leads to the police being called. That might lead to a conviction for actual bodily harm that is non-filterable. Yet, if they had been born in more affluent circumstances, I am quite sure the police would never have been called and that person would never have gone on to have their life blighted in the same way. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that this fact is not an impediment to social mobility?
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes a characteristically significant and thoughtful point. I can think of instances both from my constituency casebook and from childhood friends of mine who got into exactly that situation. That is not what the system was intended for. He is right that it is without doubt discriminatory in a number of regards.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is recalling childhood friends of his own, but will he also reflect on childhood today? There is a whole suite of crimes and temptations resulting from social media—let us think of sexting, where someone might get a criminal offence aged 15 or 16 for inappropriate behaviour with a girlfriend or whoever. Can it really be right that an employer, years later when the person is into their early 30s, should need or want that information? If the employer gets that information, what exactly are they expected to do about it? I am thinking of us, employing young people; do we really want to know that that happened 10 years ago?
Robert Neill
That is, again, an entirely fair and perceptive point, and it is quite true. One of the other issues that we have not yet touched on, but that I hope we will in the course of the debate, is the way that the system no longer reflects modern technology and the ability to Google to find out other things about people. None of that was there when this scheme was set in place. Surely the objective is to be proportionate and to be relevant, but that is not the case at the moment.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this impactful debate. He has mentioned the impact of new technology, particularly Google, and it is a matter for great concern that everything that has happened in an individual’s past is stored in perpetuity on the internet. Does he agree that the fact that information is easily available for so long can render the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 essentially toothless, and that that is something we ought to look further at in this place?
Robert Neill
Again, my hon. Friend raises a fair point—it is not the immediate subject of our inquiry, but it is a good point. Perhaps, in our joint work on the Select Committee, that is something we could look at taking forward, because there is no doubt that that legislation has also failed to keep in touch with changes in science and technology.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Further to exactly that point, although it is not directly relevant to the discussion here, we must all accept the fact that that information is held independently and above that which we can legislate for in this place. I am aware that work is coming forward from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to address that, but, in all honesty, although we can tamper at the edges and change things in ways that make us feel better and directly make the lives of young offenders better, unless we can control how information about private individuals is used, we can have very little effect on the future.
Robert Neill
That is certainly true, and it indicates the need for a much more joined-up and holistic approach to dealing with this matter. I am sure it is something we need to return to and address. Although it can only deal with a part of that problem, disclosure and barring needs to be resolved itself. The updating of the whole approach to dealing with criminal records, disclosure of information and the regulation of social media is important, because all of them can get in the way of helping people to turn their lives around.
The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) about examples from other countries is significant. Our criminal justice system has some of the worst reoffending results among our comparators, and one reason for that is the difficulty of getting people back into employment, education, homes, work and relationships. To a greater or lesser degree, the mechanistic operation of the current disclosure and barring system can be a bar to people moving on in those directions, all of which, the evidence overwhelmingly shows, make people less likely to reoffend. We are getting in the way of that.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cumulative impact of disclosing youth criminal records is an avoidable barrier to employment, education and housing, which can be devastating for a young person and can lead to long-term adverse effects way into adulthood?
Robert Neill
Yes it is, and the evidence, as I will perhaps demonstrate if I make a bit more progress, shows exactly that. That is entirely the problem that we find. The particular difficulty is that the system is not only mechanistic but is in practice arbitrary—there is no real discretion—and has no right of appeal to speak of. None of those can be just.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and others pointed out, certain things can be filtered out, but that is arbitrary. A single conviction can be filtered out, provided it did not result in a custodial sentence, was not for a listed offence—broadly, a serious offence, although that is probably not the issue most of us would take, as other bits come into it later—and that more than 11 years have elapsed since the date of the convictions. All the evidence suggests that, nowadays, for young men in particular, maturity and desisting from criminal behaviour kick in around the age of 25. Eleven years back from that, they could have been convicted as a teenager for exactly the sort of stupid incident that my hon. Friend referred to, which would then not be filterable at a time when they sought to move into education and work. That is an obstacle, as the evidence clearly shows, and it is no longer realistic, in our submission.
Single offences can be filtered provided that the sentence was non-custodial and was not a listed offence, as well as that more than 11 years have elapsed since the date of the conviction, or more than five and a half years if the person was under 18. That could still be within a key time when they were moving into their mid-20s and getting jobs.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Are there not two further problems? First, the Government’s response seems to be that employers should exercise discretion, but many small employers play safety first, do not exercise discretion and just treat any disclosure as a bar to employment. A second area that causes considerable problems for many people is that if they move between police areas, that can cause considerable delays as their case moves between those areas, and again they lose out on those opportunities. That is economically inefficient, and it is also devastating on their lives in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Robert Neill
That is absolutely right, and it tallies with some of the examples given to us directly by people who have been through the system. I agree entirely that it does not make sense.
Let us look at the remaining bits of the system. We have filtering for single convictions. Single or multiple cautions for lesser offences can be filtered out once six years have elapsed, or two years if the person was under 18 at the time. That structure is complicated enough, frankly, but we then get to what we cannot filter, including convictions and cautions for listed offences and multiple convictions for lesser offences, no matter how long ago they happened and regardless of the circumstances.
Those of us who have practised criminal law can think of many instances in which it is perfectly possible to charge more than one offence arising out of the same set of facts. For example, actual bodily harm and a theft, both of which ended up in a conditional discharge or a fine; two offences of theft; or two assaults, because more than one person was involved in a stupid fight. Those are multiple and cannot be filtered, however much time has gone by. That, to us, seems to be nonsense. The view of many witnesses to our inquiry is that the system is complex and arbitrary. It is a blunt instrument, it is restrictive and it is disproportionate. It has exactly the problems that the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I completely agree on the need for flexibility in the system. If we are interested in rehabilitation and support for offenders, there is an argument that, for example, schools should be told something of the past activity of an individual, particularly if mental health issues were involved, so that they could provide the necessary support to make sure that the individual was looked after.
Robert Neill
It is ironic. At the moment we have a box-ticking exercise in which a conviction can be disclosed. As the right hon. Member for Warley rightly said, an employer may well have 200 applicants for a post so will simply play safe and delete anybody who has ticked the conviction box, regardless of how relevant that is for the job that they seek to employ a person to do. That is a burden for a small employer.
However, frequently when people apply for jobs through large employment agencies, it is almost as if an algorithm exists and that anyone who ticks the box is automatically filtered out by the computer system before their application gets any farther. None of those show the level of discretion that was perhaps anticipated when the scheme was drawn up. But it is not fair to push the burden on to employers. There is an obligation on the state and Government to set up a fair and appropriate regime that gives them comfort that they can make appropriate checks and that equally helps people to rehabilitate themselves.
The other point is the disproportionate impact on young people. That may seem obvious, but I do not think it is really recognised by those who run the system. The qualifying period of five and a half years is a great proportion of a child’s life, and is perhaps one of the most critical portions of a young person’s life as they grow up, mature and move into the employment, work and qualification phase. To have this hanging over them then, rather than further down the track, could not come at a worse time. There is not enough recognition of that.
The Law Commission gave compelling evidence to us, observing that the filtering regime might be well regarded as disproportionately harsh on young offenders. Our report concluded that too many childhood offences are unfiltered, undermining rehabilitation and denying children—which is what they were at the time they committed the offences—a second chance. We urge the Government to revise that as a matter of urgency. We also heard powerful evidence on the adverse effect that childhood criminal records have on employment, education and housing, as well as on insurance and visas for travel—everyday things, not the obvious things that we think about. We heard clear evidence of the discriminatory and adverse impact of that.
John Howell
My hon. Friend mentioned insurance, which includes car insurance. We rely on cars for our jobs, for pleasure and for all sorts of things. The way that insurance companies look out for these people is not very helpful at all and can leave people in difficult situations.
Robert Neill
Absolutely. Because it is blunt, employers and insurers will inevitably take the risk-averse approach. I do not entirely blame them for doing that; the system does not help them to be proportionate and more careful in their judgment than would otherwise have been the case. We also concluded that there is clear evidence of particular impacts on black and minority ethnic children and those who came through the care system, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham hinted.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making extremely good points. This is a thorough and excellent report on changing things for young people in the justice system. He mentioned young people in the justice and care systems. Does he agree that many issues arising at that time in a young person’s life are almost a cry for help because of adverse childhood experiences, particularly trauma? We need to do more within the system on help and remediation rather than directly on punishment.
Robert Neill
That, too, is a fair point. Certainly my experience as a lawyer representing people coming through the system was that there were instances of serious behaviour that had to be punished, but very often—this was particularly the case with younger offenders—offenders are also victims of other offending and there are underlying causes that too blunt an approach, such as that which we have, does not help.
We made a number of recommendations. Rehabilitation periods under the 1974 Act should be reduced. There should be an urgent review of the filtering regime, for the reasons we have set out. There should be a presumption against disclosure of so-called non-conviction intelligence, which is held on the police national database. That is legitimate for intelligence purposes, but there should not be arbitrary disclosure of it in the way that happens at the moment, particularly where the allegations on the database were made during someone’s childhood. Individuals should have a right to apply for a review prior to disclosure of their criminal record. That exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not in England and Wales, and we see no reason for that distinction.
The Ban the Box approach, which has been pioneered under recent Governments and is used by some employers, delays the point at which a job applicant discloses criminal records to a prospective employer. That is sensible because it allows the employer, first, to look at the application on its merits and then, if disclosure is appropriate, to see whether the conviction makes any difference to the person’s employability.
John Spellar
The hon. Gentleman is rightly and very ably identifying all the issues that the current system causes for individuals and their families and therefore the impact on society if they fail to be rehabilitated. Is not there also an overall, macroeconomic issue, particularly as a number of employers are expressing concerns about shortfalls in labour either leading up to or following Brexit? Artificially restricting people from working and, indeed, from advancing is not just bad for those individuals, shocking though that is, but very bad for society and the economy.
Robert Neill
That is an unanswerable point, because we can see that people who are kept unwillingly in economic inactivity—
Robert Neill
Low-paid and unsatisfactory jobs create burdens at every level, so the point is entirely true.
Robert Neill
Let me just make one more point and then I will give way. I want to deal with the Government response to our report and then I will happily give way again.
Those were the guts, to put it inelegantly, of our recommendations. The Ban the Box approach should be extended to all public sector vacancies, with a view to that becoming in due course mandatory for all employers. That would be the right response. We pointed out also that the disclosure regime may well fall short of the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child, which prioritises the best interests of the child and requires states parties to promote the establishment of penal laws and procedures “specifically applicable to children”. The broad-brush approach here does not seem to us to meet that test.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned Ban the Box in a positive light, and I am sure everyone in the Chamber would welcome it, but does he acknowledge that the problem with that initiative is, first, that it is voluntary and, secondly, that it is about the recruitment stage? The fundamental point about the work by the Select Committee and others who have raised this issue is that, beyond recruitment, there are questions about whether things should be disclosed to employers in the first place. It would be important for the Government not to lose that principle, which is rightly being raised by the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee.
Robert Neill
That is true. We do not see Ban the Box as a silver bullet; there is no single silver bullet. It is a sensible initiative and one that has been started, but we see it as a base on which to build rather than a solution itself. However, it would not be too difficult for the Government to extend it eventually along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. It is of course to be welcomed that Ban the Box has, as I understand it, been adopted in principle for civil servant recruitment, but I wonder how many people who are former offenders the Ministry of Justice would be able to employ in its own Department. This is just a proposition: to what degree within procurement could there be concomitant employment of ex-offenders in, say, maintenance contracts and other contracts that the Department releases?
Robert Neill
We talked about extending the initiative to all public sector vacancies, and I can see the logic of making this a condition of public procurement more generally. It is an interesting point that the right hon. Lady fairly raises. Like her, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. These levers are within the Government’s gift and there would be no requirement for primary legislation or anything of that kind.
Against that background, we were disappointed in the Government’s response. It was not entirely negative, but it did seem to us to lack a degree of urgency. It cited the litigation on criminal records that was ongoing at that time in the Supreme Court as a reason not to go into too much detail on most of our important recommendations. There was almost a predictive text response of, “It would not be appropriate to consider these matters until there has been an authoritative judgment from the Supreme Court.” That has now changed, as I will come to.
I recognise and welcome the positives in the Government response. The Government accepted parts of the report, in particular the commitment to improving information and guidance and exploring options for promoting Ban the Box—one of those has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—and there is willingness to work with the insurance industry to ensure that it operates more fairly in relation to spent convictions. I say to the Minister that that is all good, but we need more.
A concern for us was how policy is difficult to drive forward because it sits uneasily between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. That is a classic case of a desirable change falling through the gap between two Departments. If we are committed to more cross-governmental working, more could and should be done.
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I pay tribute to his leadership of the Select Committee. He has not touched so much on the conclusions in the report about people aged between 18 and 25. The report said that consideration should be given to extending the filtering to young people. My view is that that is a bridge too far and we should focus purely on under-18s, but does he want to say anything about whether he thinks we should look at a filtering system for young people in that category?
Robert Neill
As my hon. Friend will remember from his time on the Committee, that is linked to earlier work in relation to young adults in the criminal justice system. I made the point earlier that we now know from overwhelming evidence that maturity and desistance from crime tend to kick in, particularly among young males, at age 25 or so. That is where that suggestion comes from. I agree. Rome was not built in a day, and we have to operate the system in a way that maintains public confidence and the confidence of employers where there are legitimate grounds for caution. Let us be honest: sometimes there are, and there always will be. We put the point in the report as part of the broader context. I hope that when, in due course, we get time to debate important issues of domestic legislation, rather than having the groundhog approach that we seem to have on other matters at the moment, perhaps that more holistic approach to young offenders will be appropriate, but it is not a reason to hold back the specific recommendations that we make about younger people, which we suggest should be moved urgently.
The Supreme Court judgment was cited as a reason for the Government not wishing to commit themselves. I understand that, but the Supreme Court has given its judgment, so the Government can move forward with a clear conscience. That judgment was of course in the joined cases of P, G and W and Lorraine Gallagher, who, being overage, could be named in that context. All the cases challenged various aspects of the filtering regime and dealt with a number of the issues to which we have referred. They all involved people who had been convicted of or reprimanded for relatively minor offending, and the disclosure of their criminal records had created barriers to employment, or there was a reasonable expectation that they would do so in the future.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the multiple conviction rule and the serious offence rule, without a mechanism for refinement, were not
“in accordance with the law”
as required by paragraph 2 of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to respect for private life, as they did not allow proportionality to be considered in any particular case. It is that bluntness and lack of proportionality that we think now need to be addressed urgently.
The Government, to our regret, appealed against that decision rather than acting on the Court of Appeal suggestions. They lost in the Supreme Court on the principal matters. The legal approach was somewhat different. They succeeded in one appeal but, broadly, the Supreme Court agreed that there should be a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 against the multiple convictions rule. We call upon the Government to deal with that declaration of incompatibility and reform the law accordingly to bring it into accordance with our convention obligations and, frankly, the requirements of the 1998 Act.
Similarly, the mandatory disclosure of childhood reprimands was upheld in the Supreme Court, but on different grounds. Lord Sumption, who gave the Supreme Court’s lead judgment, looked at the second part of the test for lawfulness under article 8(2) of the convention, on whether the measure is
“necessary in a democratic society”.
In other words, he looked at whether the measure is proportionate. It failed that test.
Lord Sumption found that the legislation involving strict, predefined categories could in principle be proportionate, and that most of these could pass the test. However, he went on to decide that two features of the regime were disproportionate: the blunt instrument effect of the multiple conviction rule, and allowing the disclosure of reprimands for serious offences when they were given to children. Those are two specific areas where it seems to us that there is no excuse at all for the Government not acting to fall into line with the judgment of the Court. We believe there is good reason for them going beyond that, too.
Since then, we have been in correspondence with the Government, drawing attention to these facts and the incompatibility, as we see it, of the Government’s current stance with the Supreme Court judgment. We urge the Government to deal with our outstanding recommendations and, in particular, to set out what steps are being taken to ensure that the DBS suspends the unlawful elements of the current regime without delay. We seek from the Government—perhaps the Minister can help us today—an update on how they now intend to address those elements of the regime to ensure that it fits the legal proportionality test in a meaningful and workable way.
The debate comes against that background. The Secretary of State replied, as always, in courteous terms, but mentioning the need to balance giving employers necessary information, which I concede, with respect to the individual’s right to private life. The Government said they will consider the Committee’s recommendations, but need to fully consider the implications of any change. They said that they are not able to respond formally at this time. When will they be able to respond formally? Lives are being damaged at the present time by this needless failure to comply.
That is why we are pressing for urgent action. The Government can deal with this very easily, it seems to us. They can use section 10 of the Human Rights Act to present to Parliament a remedial order to amend those parts of the disclosure regime that are incompatible with article 8 according to the Court’s judgments. Remedial orders to amend legislation and remove any incompatibilities can be statutory instruments. That does not, therefore, involve primary legislation and the time that that would involve. There is precedent for statutory instruments having been used on a number of occasions.
If the Government do not take that step, they cannot really expect anything other than further legal challenge, and I do not want to see the Government putting themselves in that position. I hope they will take those remedial orders to bring our law into compliance, and that they use the opportunity to make an urgent and comprehensive review of the whole regime, particularly the impacts on those who offend as young children or young adults. That is long-overdue for all the reasons that a number of right hon. and hon. Members gave in interventions. I hope that sets the scene and enables colleagues to participate and raise their points, which may even shorten things as the debate goes along.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am hugely grateful to the Justice Committee for this excellent work and the way in which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) outlined the importance of this area.
My concern with criminal records arose from the review that I did for the Government on the disproportionality of black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals within the criminal justice system. When I began that work, I did not really understand the effect that our criminal records regime was having on disproportionality.
It is important to fully understand that while this is an issue for all young people, whatever their backgrounds in the criminal justice system, we also know—following work done by the Department for Work and Pensions over the past two decades and a range of other research—that we are unfortunately still living in a society where people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds have a penalty in the public sphere, in relation to employment. That penalty, unfortunately, is that there are still aspects of discrimination when ethnic minorities apply for employment, particularly for those who have a criminal record.
That is why this issue came under the purview of the report that I was asked to do by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and that I was pleased to present to Theresa May when she took over as Prime Minister. It is important to emphasise that I conducted that review in a cross-party spirit, as did the advisers to the review. I am pleased that the issue of disproportionality in our criminal justice system remains an issue that concerns all political parties in this House. It is above the day to day of politics.
Reoffending is estimated to cost the taxpayer between £9.5 billion and £13 billion per year. A third of those on jobseeker’s allowance in our country have previous convictions. We note very sadly that recidivism rates among black men in our country are the highest in the system, with 45% going on to reoffend within two years. That is extremely concerning.
However, this issue really came across to me when I met the Trident team of police officers in the Metropolitan police, who deal with gang violence day to day. They were the ones who said to me, “Could you put this into your review? We are aware of a group of offenders who reach about 25 or 26 years old and want to move away from their criminal past but continue to reoffend because, as they grow up, they cannot get a job due to the regime that we have.” That testimony of police officers dealing with those young men day to day persuaded me that this cohort get trapped into a life of crime at the point at which they want to get out of it.
I therefore did some further research. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a quite well known child psychologist on Radio 4, Professor Peter Jones, Dr Aamodt and many others have now established that the brain continues developing well into a person’s 20s before it concludes—perhaps not concludes, because I hope we are all still learning. It is now understood that adulthood really kicks in somewhere between 25 and 30, so for all those reasons it is important to think about the age of maturity.
Theresa Villiers
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is medical evidence that, up to the age of about 25, the brain’s development indicates that young men in particular are prone to an inappropriate attitude to risk? The research is clear about that, which reflects the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) with the criminal justice system. That is another reason that we should frame disclosure rules on youth criminal records differently from those related to offences committed later in life.
Alex Chalk
The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, as is his wont, but we need to keep our feet on the ground. I understand the point when it comes to 13 and 14-year-olds, but does he agree that there has to be a cut-off point for any measure, which we traditionally think of as 18? I say that because the brain may still be developing in a 24-year-old, but it would not garner public confidence in the system, and might undermine it, if such people were able to have their serious conviction for violence, or whatever, filtered.
Mr Lammy
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I will explain why. In my review, I talk about the German system, which makes an assessment of maturity and particularly focuses on the years between 18 and 21. He will probably recognise that in a previous era, and for some hon. Members present, the age of maturity in this country was 21; it fell down to 18. If we are to make evidence-based policy, it is important to keep that live, because of what the science suggests, although it may be that social media and other things are taking the age of maturity in the other direction.
Why does that become important? It was particularly important in my review because we should be very concerned that immature 18-year-olds are sitting in adult prisons with hardened criminals, being seriously groomed to commit more serious crimes. That is why, in Germany, they have gone in a different direction, and why I suggested that we could look harder at the psychological evidence for where the age of maturity lies.
To return squarely to the issue of criminal records, that is also why other regimes allow the young person, as they get into maturity—most often at the end of their 20s and the beginning of their 30s—to come back before a public official, such as a judge or a parole board, to make the case that they have been out of crime for several years, and that they have a wife and children, and have that record expunged or sealed. I recommended the Massachusetts system, because it allows the flexibility for responsible adults to make the judgment. For some young people, I am afraid that the judgment would be that it would not be sealed.
Let me be clear: a record is never sealed from the criminal justice system, the police or the courts. It is about whether it should be sealed from employers and where the burden is. If it is not to be sealed from employers, we must understand clearly that we are asking the taxpayer to pick up the bill. I repeat that one third of people on jobseeker’s allowance have committed criminal offences. That was my concern.
I ask the Government to reflect hard on the Taylor review, which looked at youth justice. The Government will be aware that he said:
“As a point of principle, I believe that rehabilitation periods for childhood offending should be far shorter than for adult offenders. My proposals”
are
“to replace existing court sentences with tailored Plans developed by Children’s Panels”.
He coined the phrase that our system is tougher than Texas—it is one of the toughest regimes in the world.
The Select Committee report is really about balance, where the judgment should lie and whether it is out of kilter. The Supreme Court decision could be interpreted narrowly by the Government, but from reading the report, the Committee’s mood suggests that it is an opportunity, notwithstanding all that is going on in Parliament, for the Government to take a broader view and to review our criminal records regime.
My view is that there should be a balance between a rules-based system, which is largely what we have, and which is clearly cheaper—that is effectively why we have it, because there is time and one makes a judgment about spent convictions and disclosure—and a system that is slightly more sophisticated and might cost slightly more. There is a question about who pays. In the Canadian jurisdiction, the individuals seeking to get their criminal records looked at again pay for the system. In my view, a parole board, a magistrate or a judge could make the assessment.
I remind hon. Members that a 12-year-old child convicted of shoplifting two items of make-up on the same day will have to disclose that for life to work as a traffic warden; a 14-year-old reported to the police for sending naked pictures of themselves to a classmate, about which the police take no further action, could have to disclose that for life to work as a teacher; a 16-year-old cautioned for having sex with a 15-year-old partner will have to disclose that for life to work as a vet; and a 17-year-old given a four-month custodial sentence for breaching an order will have to disclose that for a year and a half when seeking to work in most supermarkets. The question is whether that balance is right.
I urge the Government to reflect hard on what we see of the job market, the double penalty that exists for minorities, and why recidivism rates are so high—because people are effectively trapped in unemployment. I want to make the case clearly that we have to give our young people from urban communities hope. The challenge of getting employment when someone reaches the age of maturity is a fundamental part of that. I urge the Minister to think hard about this area.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I will make a few comments about the impact of what we looked at in the report on education, housing and the insurance market. Those issues are adequately set out in the report, so I will just bring out a few points.
My starting point is the need to provide proper rehabilitation and support for people who have obtained a conviction, however they obtained it. If we do not come from that position when we discuss the subject, we are lost. Therefore, as I mentioned in my intervention, there is a great need to ensure that education institutions are aware of an individual’s particular needs. It may be that an individual has an admittedly spent conviction that came about because of mental health capacity needs. It is absolutely appropriate for the education establishment to know about that to provide the necessary support to make sure that he or she can be looked after in the best way.
It should not be possible, however, for an institution to act as in the case of the nurse who, at the age of 15, received a conviction for actual bodily harm for tackling a school bully. As a result, her place to study nursing at university was revoked and she had to appeal, which meant that she had to go through the process of explaining what had occurred. The decision was reversed, but after that woman had looked for jobs, she said she had found that her career progression was inhibited because of that spent conviction. That is where the unfairness in the system emerges, and it is why we need some of the flexibility that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) mentioned.
The second area that I will touch on is housing. I need to tread carefully here, being a member of the Ministry concerned. However, there is a great case for making sure that the allocation of housing and the schemes to organise that allocation do not create avoidable barriers when it comes to providing people with accommodation.
We all know that accommodation is one of the best routes to stability and to providing an individual with a job and a good background. We need to encourage individuals to find accommodation. So I will just finish on housing by asking the Minister whether he can explain what conversations have been had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to take this process forward and to make sure that the issue is being addressed.
Lastly, I will look at the issue of insurance, which we have already discussed briefly. In that area, we found a number of examples of avoidable barriers. One of them, which I mentioned in my intervention, related to a complaint involving motor insurance, where the insurer had cancelled an existing customer’s policy on discovering that she had a spent conviction. The woman involved complained about that because it was she who had revealed that she had a spent conviction. The ombudsman found that it was unfair and unreasonable for her to be punished for her honesty in making sure that she disclosed that information. I think that the insurer in that case was fined.
Nevertheless, that example is a very good one of how the insurance industry has not been properly managed to tackle this issue. I know that in their report the Government said that they were talking to the Association of British Insurers, for example, about trying to deal with this issue. I would like to know how those discussions are going and what we can look forward to.
Those are just three areas where there is an impact on the lives of individuals, and I think all of us have recognised that this issue is not one for a nice legal discussion but something that affects the lives of individuals in a big way. I am glad that this report has done its job in tackling the issue.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.
As a fellow member of the Justice Committee, I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), on securing this incredibly important debate. I will speak briefly about the employment prospects of those with youth criminal records.
Over 11 million people in the UK have a criminal record. As we have heard, many of their convictions are disclosed through the Disclosure and Barring Service checks when people seek certain types of employment. In 2014-15—the year that the statistics on which the Committee’s report is based were drawn from—around a quarter of all the standard and enhanced DBS checks that flagged up a previous conviction related to people who were under 18 when they had committed an offence.
As my Committee colleagues and I have discussed in recent debates about short sentencing and rehabilitation, a progressive and modem justice system must ensure that those who have committed crimes previously are not unnecessarily punished time and time again, particularly as a result of the disproportionate impact that a conviction can have on their ability to secure employment.
As noted by the charity Unlock, a criminal record acquired by a young person can continue to impact them for the rest of their life. That is not an exaggeration. In the past five years, over 1 million criminal records that related to offences from more than 30 years ago were disclosed through DBS checks. Although a criminal conviction does not necessarily act as a bar to employment, that is still potentially 1 million people unable to pursue the career path of their choice. Of course, those individuals who have committed serious offences need to face restrictions on the jobs that they are able to undertake, but we should consider the implications of the current system for the vast majority of individuals with historical minor offences on their record.
The case studies used in the Committee’s report underline that. There was the teacher who had committed two offences 38 years earlier: the first was petty theft, which was described as a silly prank and for which they received a conditional discharge; the second was actual bodily harm after they had got into a scrape and pushed someone to the ground, and for which they had been fined £10. That individual explained that
“since then I’ve become a teacher. I was a Deputy Head for some 20 years, but now I’ve started supply teaching, I have to explain these as if I am now a criminal.”
Moreover, the statistics that we have reflect only those people with criminal records who have applied for DBS-compliant jobs. There could be countless other people who have been put off from applying for jobs because of embarrassment or a reluctance to reveal previous convictions.
I fully endorse the Justice Committee’s recommendation in the report that suggests that Ban the Box should be extended to all public sector vacancies, and that the Government should consider making it mandatory for all employers. Previously advocated by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2015, the Ban the Box campaign seeks to remove the criminal record tick box from job application forms, and instead candidates would be asked about criminal convictions later. That might seem like a small move and, as others have said, it is not perfect, but it would open up job application opportunities to those who might not otherwise consider making such an application.
Meaningful rehabilitation must be precisely that. It must be holistic, both inside and outside prison environments, and enable people who have offended in their youth to be fully able to pursue careers, rather than leaving them blighted by criminal convictions from decades earlier. The Government’s response to the Committee’s report acknowledges that, on release from custody, people are six to nine percentage points less likely to reoffend if they enter employment, and I welcome the steps taken in recent years to roll out Ban the Box across civil service vacancies.
On Tuesday, the Committee took evidence from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who I see is no longer in his place, following his review of the treatment of and outcomes for black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system, and he made a very powerful argument here today. The Ministry of Justice’s employment and education plan from 2018 notes that criminal record checks may cause additional stigma for those in the BAME community, and we must do more to address that.
As my fellow Committee members have already referred to, it is often some of the most vulnerable people who have been affected by the rules around the disclosure of criminal convictions. Take the case of Sammy Woodhouse, a woman who was the victim of childhood sexual exploitation but was given a criminal record, and who has painfully had to relive her trauma following the disclosure of her convictions. Sammy has been a tireless campaigner and has undertaken a huge array of admirable work since waiving her anonymity, but the fact remains that no matter how much people such as Sammy want to use their experiences to help others in vulnerable situations, the barriers to employment in those areas still exist for them, because they have that criminal record against their name. But it is precisely people like Sammy whose experiences, no matter how horrifying, could help others in similar situations. By treating people like Sammy as victims rather than criminals, we would give them the opportunities that they rightly deserve.
I agree with the Select Committee report’s conclusion that the principles of youth rehabilitation are undermined by the system for disclosure of youth criminal records. We are capable of making significant progress on that issue: the Ban the Box initiative should be rolled out fully across the public and private sectors, combined with an appropriate DBS system that ensures records are disclosed only when the conviction is relevant to the job being applied for and proportionate to the offence. We all need to be able to have faith in a holistic, empathetic, rehabilitative justice system that gives young offenders a chance to move on from past mistakes.
I again thank the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, for his work on this issue. I look forward to working with him and other Committee colleagues to further our efforts in this important area.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I will start by apologising profusely for not having been present at the beginning of the debate, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), whose speech I missed a great proportion of, and to the Minister. My day job is slightly fraught at the moment, and I was engaged in the Chamber when the debate started.
Were this debate about anything else, I would not have come, but I feel more passionately about this subject than about practically anything else in the criminal justice sphere, and I have campaigned on it for many years. It goes to the heart of what our criminal justice system is for: yes, it is about punishment, rehabilitation, and keeping the public safe. But is it really about ruining the lives of young people who come before it because they are silly, unwise and have not yet grown up, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said? Does ruining their lives serve any real, practical purpose for the rest of society? Many years ago, I came to the conclusion that it does not, and that we have the system out of kilter with the rest of the criminal justice system and with all notions of proportionality, so I really wanted to speak in this debate. I am going to go into the way the filtering system works—in some detail, I am afraid.
Of course, the criminal justice system needs to keep a record of what has happened and what crimes have been committed, but as far as I am concerned, unless there is a public safety element, nobody else needs to know. Criminal records are currently disclosed either by an individual—in person or on a declaration form—or via a check. The Disclosure and Barring Service issues official criminal record checks in England and Wales, and there are three levels of check: basic, standard and enhanced. There is a so-called filtering system that allows some spent criminal records to be filtered out, so that they will not be revealed in standard and enhanced checks. That system was supposed to allow the disclosure regime to operate in a more proportionate manner. However, it incorporates some significant exceptions, which means many offences are non-filterable.
Filtering operates in a mechanical fashion with no discretion, and there is no right of appeal. A single conviction can be filtered provided that it does not result in a custodial sentence, that it is not for a listed offence—that is, a serious offence—and that more than 11 years have elapsed since the conviction, or five and a half years if the person was under 18 when convicted. Single or multiple cautions for lesser offences can be filtered once six years have elapsed, or two years if the person was under 18—I hope you are still with me, Mr Walker; it is clear as mud, isn’t it? Convictions and cautions for listed offences and multiple convictions for lesser offences cannot be filtered, no matter how long ago they happened and regardless of the circumstances of the offence. Of course, many of the real injustices that Members have highlighted fall into those categories. In 2014-15, there were nearly 60,000 enhanced DBS checks in which cautions were disclosed, of which 8,500 related to under-18s.
Why does this matter? We have heard from many Members, including the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), that employers are very risk averse. They often assume that if there is a flag, they simply cannot hire, and we know that employers do not interview people who have ticked the box. As Lord Kerr has said,
“it is wholly unrealistic not to recognise that many employers, faced with a choice of candidates of roughly similar potential, would automatically rule out the one with a criminal record.”
A criminal record acquired as a youth is, in effect, a life sentence. Although a person can change and learn from their mistakes, their criminal record cannot. In the past five years, more than 1 million criminal records that relate to offences from more than 30 years ago, when the person involved was between 10 and 35, were disclosed through enhanced or standard DBS checks.
We have also heard from the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge that people do not apply for jobs, because they are embarrassed by their criminal records. We have no method of working out what effect that has had on people’s lives—we cannot prove a negative—but it is clear that, in many ways, it is affecting people’s employment possibilities. The DBS system anchors people to their past and serves as a second and continuing sentence. The system affects people with a criminal record more profoundly, and for longer, than elsewhere in Europe—or the world, as we have heard.
Our predecessor Committee held a private seminar with eight individuals who had been personally affected by the disclosure of criminal records. All had found that their employment prospects were adversely affected by their childhood criminal records, and they told us heartbreaking stories of repeated rejection before they succeeded in getting a job, frequently one that was well below their level of ability. It is not only employment that is affected by criminal record checks: most social housing providers ask about criminal convictions, and since 2011 have had the right to apply blanket bans. Croydon Council states that if a person has
“been involved in relevant criminal behaviour”
they
“will be disqualified from going on the housing register…Relevant criminal behaviour includes conviction of an arrestable offence in, but not restricted to, the locality of the dwelling.”
In addition to a criminal conviction, failure to prevent others from committing crime can be used as a reason to refuse housing. Bromford has said that
“where the unacceptable behaviour is committed by a member of the household other than the applicant or any person living with them”
it
“will rely on the failure of the applicant or person living with them to prevent or deter the unacceptable behaviour as a reason to treat this as unacceptable behaviour.”
University and college admissions are severely impacted. Although I am pleased to say that the criminal conviction box has now been removed from UCAS applications, many universities continue to ask all applicants for any criminal records, regardless of the course they are applying for. We have heard extensive evidence about how criminal records can affect insurance for cars, housing and travel, which can restrict self-employment opportunities. People with unspent convictions also pay disproportionately more for the insurance that they are able to obtain, and we have heard compelling evidence that it is often difficult for them to rent a house, as well. These young people are leaving the criminal justice system, and money and rehabilitation hours will have been spent on them. The last thing we want to do is cut off their opportunities to retrain, get a job, a house or a car, go on holiday or travel for work. We are ruining every aspect of their life, so it is important that we look at this issue holistically.
I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Tottenham was able to speak about his report—which I was intending to quote from extensively, but given that he has done so, I will skip that section of my speech. However, I will say that I was having an informal chat with a group of staffers recently, who were in their early 20s. As we would expect, they were well-spoken, well-educated young people who had had many opportunities in life and done well for themselves. I was talking about this subject, which I talk about quite often, and I asked them, “When you were a teenager, did you ever get into trouble with the police? Did you ever do something on the edge of what you should have been doing?” Every single one of the male staffers to whom I spoke recounted an episode that might have landed him in trouble with the police at the time he was involved in this slightly risk-taking and unwise behaviour. Had they been boys who were of a BAME background or were just less advantaged—less able to talk for themselves and less able to get their mum down to the police station to argue on their behalf—they all might have ended up in the criminal justice system, rather than just outside it.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue in the manner that she has. It is way more effective than I would be if I raised the same point. Does she know that there is a general statistic that child psychologists have found, which is that 70% of young people have committed a crime at some point? The vast majority were never arrested or caught. It is part of that journey to adulthood. Is she aware of this issue, which I have raised in the context of marijuana? Young people are sitting in a campus university as we speak, probably smoking a joint, and if you called the police, people would think you had gone mad. The same young people walking down Brixton High Road or in Salford will get arrested or a criminal record. That is the hon. Lady’s point.
Victoria Prentis
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. It is right that young people should be cut some slack generally, but it is not right that some people are cut greater slack than others. That is what I found very disturbing about his report. I was particularly disturbed by his section on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, where the numbers of people in the community as to the numbers in the criminal justice system are truly astonishing. I was also disturbed by the effects on black women in the criminal justice system. I encourage anyone interested in this area to read his report properly, because there are some burning injustices in how the system operates. Like him, I have two teenagers at home at the moment, and how they behave and the risks they take are always a worry. We really do not want silly behaviour to ruin the rest of their lives. I cannot commend his marvellous report highly enough.
I am concerned that over the years, those of us who have campaigned in this sphere have not had big enough asks. I remember getting very cross, when I was first elected to this place, when campaign groups said, “Let’s ask for convictions to not be in boxes or asked about after two years.” I thought, “God, that is two years of a young person’s life when they should be working, going to university, getting car insurance and all the rest of it.” Those are not years or time that they should have to wait. The period when a young person comes out of the criminal justice system is the most important time that we have as a society to set them right and help them into a useful and fulfilling life. We cannot slam them by making box-ticking get in the way of everything they do.
In the report, we made recommendations. One was on consistency with the aims of the youth justice system, and it is important that we view this as part of a holistic whole. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge talked passionately about the impact on employment. Clearly the Ban the Box campaign should be extended to all public sector vacancies. The Government should consider making it mandatory for all employers. Why do we have boxes? What are they for?
We made a recommendation on the impact on education, housing, insurance and travel, stating:
“We recommend that educational providers do not automatically use information about spent criminal records to deny access to courses…We urge providers to do everything they can to support students with childhood criminal records”.
Local government guidance for housing authorities should be amended as a matter of urgency. Guidance from the Association of British Insurers could easily be strengthened to leave insurers in absolutely no doubt that they must not expressly or implicitly request customers to disclose spent offences. With travel, we recommend that where there really are safety concerns, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should raise them with relevant Governments. If there are safety issues, that is different, but that is not the case in the vast majority of cases. The 2014 revisions on rehabilitation periods do not go nearly far enough. For some detention training orders and youth rehabilitation orders, the rehabilitation periods have increased to a completely disproportionate level.
The Committee concluded that the operation of the filtering system is wholly inappropriate for the records and should be radically revised. The Law Commission’s detailed and authoritative report on non-filterable offences is excellent and we endorse its conclusions. We discussed the potential advantage of allowing an application to have a record sealed, and I suspect the Chair of the Committee mentioned it at the beginning. I am sure the Minister will talk to us later about his plans for revising the filtration system. We hope that the recommendations of the right hon. Member for Tottenham in the Lammy review will be taken into account in the production of a new and more appropriate system.
Our final recommendations were about the disclosure of police intelligence and the discriminatory impact of the disclosure regime. I endorse those recommendations absolutely. I have trespassed a long time on this debate, and I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Walker, given I arrived late. This report is one of the best pieces of work that has been done by the Justice Committee. I very much hope that the recommendations are taken into account. Next week, I am going with a group of concerned colleagues who span the whole political spectrum to see the Home Secretary about this issue. I very much hope that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are able to work together at the pace of the faster, not the slower, of those two great Departments and that we will sort this out once and for all.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I begin by thanking the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—he is my hon. Friend in this circumstance—not only for his chairing, but for his contribution today. We work as a very strong team on the Justice Committee, and it is good to focus on key issues. I am sure the Minister will respond to them in a positive way in due course. I also thank those who contributed with oral or written evidence or who were involved in the informal seminar, as has been mentioned, where we met people who had committed offences that had impacted on their lives for a considerable period in terms of employment, housing and other services.
I want to focus on one simple issue: employment, which is central because work is one of the key planks for preventing reoffending. There are key issues to do with housing, drug and alcohol rehabilitation and maturity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, but ultimately the ability to get and keep work, to have self-worth in doing that work, and to progress through work, is critical.
We focus in the report on training, employment and through-the-gate services, including prison and youth offender institution training and community rehabilitation companies in adult prisons and elsewhere. Those are critical in helping people to get into work, but whatever the system does with that training, someone ultimately has to get a job with a public sector body or an employer. When an individual goes before a public sector body or employer, it might see that they have a criminal conviction that may be 10, 15 or 20 years old, and an initial value judgment may be made on that basis. That will stop someone accessing employment. Whether it is earlier or later in their life, that may lead to reoffending or stop them contributing in a way that is important to society as a whole.
The key question that I will focus on is one that a number of Members have touched on: banning the box. The Disclosure and Barring Service, which we have discussed, is important in relation to a series of jobs, but it does not relate to all jobs. Ban the Box is a simple idea that could, if adopted through Government and the private sector, help to ensure that we gave people an opportunity to show what they were worth prior to judging them for what they may have done 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
The simple idea, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) mentioned, is that disclosure happens after the job interview and job offer. The right to refuse is still there, but the judgments are made on the merits of the application and the individual in front of the employer—not on a conviction that may have happened some years ago. In his review, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham emphasised the difficulties that BME individuals face, because those who have convictions will also encounter other prejudices. It is important that we tackle those head on and up front.
Ban the Box is an initiative of Business in the Community, which is a branch of the Prince’s Trust. It had the support of the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, in February 2016, and was taken forward by the current Prime Minister. It has had significant success with, according to my latest figures, 120 employers signing up and some 828,000 roles being taken forward. Many private sector companies, such as Adnams Brewery, Barclays Bank, Boots, Cambridge University Press and Fujitsu, as well as Bristol City Council and Nacro, have taken people on, and operate the Ban the Box scheme to ensure that they do not discriminate at the point of application and interview of individuals.
We made key recommendations in conclusions 1 and 2 of the report. As my hon. Friends mentioned earlier, we agreed
“with the recommendation of the 2015 Parliament Work and Pensions Committee that Ban the Box, which applies to all criminal records, should be extended to all public sector vacancies, and that the Government consider making it a mandatory requirement for all employers.”
That is important, because we identified in conclusion 1 that
“the laudable principles of the youth justice system, to prevent offending by children and young people and to have regard to their welfare, are undermined by the system for disclosure of youth criminal records”
and by discriminatory practices that stop people getting employment, and which banning the box will address.
Those are the key recommendations. I have four or five fairly straightforward questions, which will give us an indication of the Minister’s thinking, and of whether the Government’s response and rhetoric match the aspirations that they have set themselves—it is important that they do. The first is simply this: how many employers do the Government believe to be operating a Ban the Box principle for their employment practices? Does the Minister keep a record of, or have access to, the number of employers who have that scheme in place? What is he doing to ensure that we expand and progress the scheme? What initiatives has he taken, or does he have planned, with major trade organisations, the CBI, perhaps the Trades Union Congress, businesses, the British Retail Consortium and a range of agencies to promote the idea of banning the box?
The Government’s response to the Committee helpfully said:
“The Ministry of Justice…will continue to explore options for promoting Ban the Box across both the public and private sectors, primarily by ensuring we lead by example.”
When I held a ministerial job, I may well have signed off such words, but I am interested in what they mean in practice. What initiatives are planned? What effort has gone in? Is it something that the Government have said in response to the Committee, and perhaps even—dare I say it?—to get through a debate such as today’s, but will file away tomorrow and not worry about? What is the plan for the future on those issues?
Great play was made in the response that in
“early 2018, we will publish an employment and education plan”
to promote Ban the Box. Early 2018 is a year ago. What has happened in the past 12 months? What progress has been made in Government? Does the Minister know? Could he tell me—not today, but perhaps in writing afterwards—how many of the Departments before us in this great House of Commons operate Ban the Box principles? Do any not operate those principles?
Government is not just the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments; it is also health trusts, health boards, arts councils and a plethora of quangos. Has that been pushed by the Minister? Has he brought together the chairs of quangos to ask what they are doing about Ban the Box, and whether they have extended it to their organisations?
What about local government? That is a big issue and part of the public sector. The Government have said that they will look to encourage the public sector to ensure that Ban the Box is adopted. What has the Minister done to encourage local councils to undertake that policy? The issue of procurement was also mentioned. The Government remain the biggest spender in the private sector across the country, commissioning builders, construction firms and purchasers. Have they checked with their suppliers about banning the box?
The simplest thing of all may be just be to make this mandatory. Then the Minister would not have to worry about extending it, and trying to push it forward and promote it—he would simply have to find a mechanism to check those who do not do it. If discriminatory practice emerges, the possibility of its being an offence could be explored, or at least the possibility of naming and shaming. As we recommended in our report, that might be the simplest way to make it a mandatory requirement for employers. I am interested, in a helpful way, in the progress the Minister has made, and what other progress there will be. Does he accept that it should be a mandatory requirement for employers as a whole?
I was asked by the Welsh Government last summer to undertake a review of prison, education and employment issues centrally. I undertook that review during the latter part of last year. The review was submitted to the Welsh Government in October of last year, and they helpfully published it last Thursday. One of the recommendations in my review of the Welsh Government’s responsibilities was that they should support the Ban the Box campaign in their own operation, procurement proposals and suppliers. I hope they will do that in Wales as a whole in response to my recommendations.
That review was commissioned by Baroness Morgan of Ely, an Assembly Member and Minister in the Welsh Government. It is now being taken forward by Kirsty Williams, who is also a member of the Welsh Government. I am very hopeful that my recommendations on Ban the Box will be adopted by the devolved Administration. However, the Minister has responsibility within the prison system and the youth justice system in England and Wales. Has he discussed that with his colleagues in Scotland, or with officials in Northern Ireland pending the resumption of the Assembly? Can we get a co-ordinated response across the United Kingdom on this issue?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, the Chair of the Justice Committee and the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) have all pointed out, this is about people’s lives. We have an opportunity to make people’s lives better by judging them not on the offences that they have committed, but on the people they are and the skills they bring when they apply for the job.
[Sir David Amess in the Chair]
Welcome to the Chair, Sir David. You may have a shorter stint than you imagined, but I am sure it will be a productive and helpful one.
The key thing is the important Ban the Box recommendation, which is based on evidence and has cross-party support. I hope the Minister will respond to my questions by giving an indication of how the Government will take matters forward in a positive way.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
Let me begin by emphasising two guiding principles for the United Kingdom’s judiciary. The first is:
“It shall be the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young persons.”
The second is:
“Every court in dealing with a child…shall have regard to the welfare of the child.”
I do not believe that a single hon. Member present would disagree with those principles.
The Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report acknowledges the over-representation of BAME and looked-after children. Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who has superior knowledge, has already spoken about the incredibly important issue of the over-representation of BAME children in the youth justice system, I will focus on the issues that the Committee raised about discrimination against looked-after children in the judicial system. The sum of the Government’s response to the discrimination against those children is acknowledgment but nothing else. As for children with mental health issues or issues such as autism, they appear, sadly, to have been forgotten in the Government’s response, as they have been in the Government’s justice policy. I do not believe that that is acceptable.
Looked-after children in care are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They have been removed from their homes because life there is no longer beneficial or safe for them, and many have been abused physically or mentally—often both. It is difficult for adults to come to terms with abuse, but for children it can often be impossible to understand what has happened to them and how they feel. It is often those who are closest and most trusted by these children who commit these abuses. These young people deserve care and understanding, but unfortunately the current system of disclosure of youth criminal records does not deliver that.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. I declare an interest as the father of a formerly looked-after child. Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrase “looked-after” is one of the biggest oxymorons in our language? Of all the cohorts of young people we have discussed this afternoon, none makes as great a case for changing the criminal records regime as those children, who have been let down the most often—not just by their original parents, but by the state.
Ms Rimmer
I agree absolutely. I feel very passionate about this. “Looked-after children” are the most abused and ignored in our society, and they continue to suffer throughout life.
The Criminal Justice Alliance told our Committee that children in care are far more often criminalised than those in family homes. In family homes, minor infringements and indiscretions are dealt with in the home, but children in care do not have such a readily available support system. The records system does not provide context for the young person’s actions, nor does it distinguish between severity of crimes. Just for Kids Law cited the case of a nine-year-old who had been physically abused and transferred to a care home, where he would frequently react badly and assault members of staff because of the high levels of abuse that he had suffered as a child. With help, he managed to do well at the home and when he was moved into foster care, but the charges of common assault against staff that he received during that traumatic time will follow him for years—a constant reminder of the abuse that he suffered and an additional barrier to flourishing as an adult, along with the many other barriers that looked-after children face. He is likely to face difficulties in work, education and social housing applications because of his record.
The impact that a caution can have in later life is often not explained to children. Convictions are often for offences that sound relatively serious, even when the behaviour is at a relatively low level. Just for Kids Law told us that children often focus on the fact that they are receiving a caution rather than on the category of offence. In some cases, for example, children have accepted cautions for non-filterable offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, whereas if their case had gone to court, it would have received greater scrutiny and they would have been far more likely to face a charge of common assault. Such cautions will limit people’s access to the job market, because a simple yes/no tick-box is often all the opportunity they will have to state their case in an application, and DBS checks will not provide the full context of their conviction. Barred from employment, many will find their options limited and may be pushed into reoffending in adulthood.
The issue extends to children with mental health issues or issues such as autism or post-traumatic stress disorder, who can struggle to understand what is being said to them or the ramifications of what they are agreeing to. Children with dyslexia may struggle even to read the documents placed in front of them. The director of CRB Problems gave us the example of a person who suffered from autism and entered the judicial system at a time when we did not provide the help or care that we do today and when support was hardly available at all. He received two convictions that cannot be filtered under current rules—a failure of our past system and a failure in how the disclosure of youth criminal records works today.
That example highlights a key problem with the disclosure of youth criminal records: it holds people prisoner to the understanding that we had in the past. People who might be treated with more compassion and understanding as a child today are held to a different standard as adults. I am not talking just about people charged five to 10 years ago, but about people who were charged as far back as the ’50s, ’60s or ’70s. In those days, our understanding of the issues that children with mental health issues face was miles behind what it is today, as we know from the National Police Chiefs Council’s evidence on the policing of children and young people.
For all those reasons, it is important for the Government not just to acknowledge the findings and recommendations in the Justice Committee’s report on the disclosure of youth criminal records, but to act on them. I am sure that Ministers will stand up and argue that they have taken action, but I will pre-emptively respond by quoting from the written evidence submitted by the Greater Manchester Youth Justice University Partnership. Statement 3, on “The effects of reforms made in 2013 and 2014”, reads:
“Available evidence suggests that recent reforms have not had a significant impact.”
To put it plainly, we need to be doing far more.
I conclude by going back to the two guiding principles in our judicial system that I set out at the beginning of my speech: that the principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young people, and that every court that deals with a child must have regard to the child’s welfare. Along with our report and with the many people and organisations that provided evidence, I argue that we are not meeting those two principles in how our youth disclosure system works, particularly for children with mental health issues and for children who are or have been looked after. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am not saying that to accuse the Government or score political points, but to implore the Government to work with us and other key organisations to deliver the reforms that are needed now, not in a few years’ time—reforms that would bring dramatic and meaningful change for some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the Justice Committee, its Chair and the hon. and right hon. Members who serve on it for the excellent report they have published. I also thank the Committee and House staff who do the painstaking work of writing the report and the recommendations. I was a member of the Committee from 2010 to 2015. I can honestly and sincerely say that today’s debate has been one of the best I have attended in the nine years that I have been in Parliament. Every Member of Parliament who has spoken today has spoken with real passion, conviction and sincerity and with a real desire to change a very important aspect of people’s lives. It will be a pleasure to be able to say that we were in the debate today.
Before I go into the details of my speech, I want to acknowledge all the Members who have contributed. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) eloquently went through the whole report and explained in detail for us, and those watching, what the report said. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his review, which I will refer to later in my speech, and for the work that he has done. The report emphasises the high proportion of BAME children in the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the impact of housing. Let’s face it: to have a decent life you need a decent home to live in. That is such an important factor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) talked about the importance of employment and jobs, without which it is difficult to survive in life. I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) was able to hotfoot it from the Chamber. Clearly, with the work that she does, she is in the thick of it, as they say. Her contribution was absolutely brilliant. She went through the whole system and what needs to change. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, she eloquently put the case for race and class and the effect that it has on whether people end up in the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) alluded to the issue of class and he also made a succinct point. I understand that everybody has commitments and I want to acknowledge their contributions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson), a former Justice Minister, talked about education and employment, which are crucial. He touched on whether a conviction should be disclosed when someone applies for a job or whether it should be left to the end of the process, after someone has been considered on merit. That is an important point. Last but not least, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) rightly talked about children in care. A lot of the children also have mental health issues and autism. We know that the child and adolescent mental health services in our local authorities have long waiting lists for children to be assessed. As she was speaking, I was reminded of a case that I had when I was a prosecutor many moons ago.
A young man of 14 or 15 was in a care home. He attended court to give evidence against his mother’s ex-boyfriend, who had been charged with indecent assault on his younger sister. He turned up at the court and, on seeing him, his mother went over to him and punched him in the stomach twice, and he burst into tears. He went back to the care home and set light to a curtain. He quickly realised what he had done and tried to put it out, but the fire brigade was called. That goes to exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston talked about. Because the young man was in a care home, the police and prosecuting authorities got involved. I wanted to recommend no further action on the grounds of public interest. Sadly, my boss overruled me and said that we must proceed, so we came to a compromise and she at least agreed to a caution. That illustrates the point that if that incident had happened at home, the outcome would have been different; sometimes when children do things in anger at home, nothing happens.
For me, listening to all the speeches today has been important, and I hope the Minister and the civil servants are paying attention. I will now return to my scripted speech.
At the heart of any proper youth justice system is an attempt to rehabilitate an offending young person while protecting their fellow members of society. Although those two aims do not need to be opposed to each other, a knotty issue they throw up is deciding what information those with convictions and cautions must disclose later in life. In many cases some disclosure is essential to ensure that offenders are not exposed to vulnerable people in dangerous circumstances. Unfortunately, it is increasingly clear that our balancing act between personal rehabilitation and societal protection is worryingly skewed in favour of the latter. In fact, our wrong-headed, punitive approach means that we might be shooting ourselves in the foot, as forcing people to disclose largely irrelevant information years after a crime often deepens pre-existing social divides, as we have heard.
As was noted in both the 2017 Justice Committee report and the Government’s response last year, forcing people to disclose their criminal record is a power that needs to be carefully applied. Past convictions can have an impact on a person’s capacity to find housing or to take up a place at an educational institution, and can have an impact on finding work. Sadly, by forcing people to reveal past convictions years after they have served their time, we throw up barriers and prevent them from becoming fully integrated members of society. For some, it leads to long periods on benefits, at significant cost to the state. Even worse, many return to the kinds of criminal activity that we should have provided every opportunity for them to escape, and end up in prison, at even greater cost to the national purse. Locking individuals into negative patterns is particularly foolish and cruel when they committed crimes as young people.
We are well out of line with other countries internationally. A 2016 report by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice compared the treatment of childhood criminal records across Europe and America and found that the system in England and Wales was distinctly more punitive. A criminal record acquired by a child in England affects them longer and in more restrictive ways than in any of the other jurisdictions studied. Not only do we criminalise an unusually high proportion of children, but the processes by which those criminal records can be hidden from employers are arcane and inflexible.
The 2017 Justice Committee review provided persuasive justification for wide-scale reform, listing 21 conclusions and recommendations. Although the Government’s response addressed each of the recommendations, I am afraid that in too many areas they chose to kick the can down the road. One justification for that was that they chose to take their case to the Supreme Court to defend our system of disclosures, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, the Government or the MOJ should have followed the Court of Appeal and dealt with the issue and not pursued it to the highest courts. It comes as no surprise to those of us who agreed with the findings of the original Select Committee report that a Supreme Court judgment this year found that our disclosure scheme is contrary to article 8 of the European convention on human rights on two key fronts: the rule that requires the automatic disclosure of all convictions where a person has more than one conviction, and the requirement that some childhood cautions be disclosed indefinitely. Importantly, we have a mechanism by which previous offences can be taken off DBS checks—a process termed “filtering”. However, that process also has major flaws. The current filtering will remove a spent childhood conviction from a DBS standard or enhanced certificate only when five and a half years has elapsed since the date of the conviction. It must also be the individual’s only offence and it must not appear on the list of exempt offences that will never be removed from a certificate.
I—and clearly, going by what they have said today, other right hon. and hon. Members—urge reform on all three counts. Although five and a half years is significantly less than would be required for an adult—there is an 11-year wait before filtering can take place—that is still an incredibly long and pretty much arbitrary period. It means that it is difficult for 19-year-olds to get jobs because of offences—often minor—committed at the age of 14. That makes no sense, especially when they have not committed other offences. During those years, most of us are growing, changing and maturing, and the law should be flexible and forgiving enough to recognise that.
The fact that convictions remain unfiltered if there has been more than one conviction or when the conviction is on the exempt offences list also holds back young people at a crucial time in their lives. The offences include those involving a degree of violence, drugs, and some sexual offences. That is a broad range of offence categories, and putting them on an unfilterable list prevents individual discretion and creates a single rule totally at odds with the need to achieve personalised restorative justice for young people. We need a child-specific system that recognises that the offences in the list are diverse and complex.
Robert Neill
I very much agree with the hon. Lady. Does she agree that her point about the need for a different approach for younger people is strongly reinforced by the conclusions in the February 2017 Law Commission report, which states precisely that the system bears disproportionately harshly on young offenders, and argues that some offences that might justifiably be non-filterable for adult offenders should be filterable for young offenders? She says that a different approach is needed, and the commission also said so.
Yasmin Qureshi
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the Law Commission’s recommendation. I hope that the Minister and Ministry of Justice civil servants will also be listening, and will be reminded of what the Law Commission said. I hope they will take those things on board and that we will not find that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said happened when he was a Minister, civil service-speak means we do not quite know what will happen.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has spoken about the Lammy review, which he carried out. I will touch on it, because it is important. I am worried that its findings, which are relevant to the issue that we are discussing, are being ignored, as many other recommendations have been ignored. When we look at how unequal outcomes are for BAME children and for those in care when they pass through the criminal justice system at a young age, it is clear that there is something particularly wrong about tying them for the rest of their lives to crimes that they committed as children—worsening pre-existing inequalities. I hope that the Minister will be able to throw some light on that, and suggest what actions the Department is taking on issues set out in the Lammy review.
Another issue emphasised by the Select Committee was the need to recognise that young people mature at different rates up to their mid-20s—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who is not in her place at the moment, concurred and reinforced the point. While I welcome the Government’s acceptance of that basic fact, will the Minister clarify what concrete steps are being taken to enshrine that recognition in law? Further, now that we have received confirmation that the Government’s disclosure rules are in breach of international law, can we have some clarity on the timescales on which the Government hope to bring their regulations up to date? Scrapping the current exempt list and the two-offence rule would be great first steps and I should like to know whether the Minister recognises that the Government need to make up their mind, make up for their inaction and move quickly. Finally, do the Government plan to take steps to introduce a review mechanism by which individuals can apply to have their convictions filtered? That would allow for a genuinely case-by-case approach to justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, for securing a debate on an important report. I pay tribute to all the Members who have spoken today and, indeed, all members of his Committee for their work. It is a pleasure as always to serve opposite the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I know and welcome her commitment to this area of work, and to working collaboratively and in a bipartisan way when we have a common goal to achieve.
The Chairman of the Select Committee and many others present today have worked hard to champion the potential of children who offend, and their capability to move on from their previous behaviour to live rich and fulfilled lives—and, indeed, to make our shared commitment to rehabilitation a reality. My hon. Friend is right to say that although the issue is technical and legal, it is about more than that. It affects real lives and, as hon. Members have said, continues to affect them for years after the offence is committed. We are grateful for the Committee’s recommendations.
My hon. Friend set out with his typical eloquence and polite forcefulness how the system operates and what he feels does not work well. As hon. Members have said, at the heart of the debate there is a question of balance—striking the appropriate balance, as the shadow Minister said, between protecting the public and giving young people the opportunity for rehabilitation and to have a second chance and a future.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice recently set out his vision for a criminal justice system and the principles that should be at its heart. I am clear that the criminal justice system must have multiple aims—to deter, to ensure that there is both punishment and rehabilitation, and to protect society from crime. That means the system must be proportionate and, in the case of disclosures, relevant to those objectives. My right hon. Friend set out the need to move away from debates about soft or hard justice, and to think instead about smart justice that achieves what we would all want for society. That means knowing that, alongside appropriate safeguarding measures for children and vulnerable people, employment for those who have previously offended can support public protection. There are, as the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) said, few better tools for reducing reoffending than a regular pay cheque. We have made it clear that we want more employers to look past someone’s offending history and see their future potential, and I believe that rehabilitating people and getting them into employment is the best outcome for us all.
On taking office in 2016, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a pledge that the Government would fight against social injustice and give people back control of their lives. She set out a vision whereby all British citizens could go as far as their talents took them. Nothing should hinder that, and it should also apply to children who commit crimes or make an error. This must be reflected in the disclosure of criminal records.
I agree with the core position laid out by the Committee: employers should not regard the disclosure of a criminal record as an automatic barrier to employment. A balanced judgment should be exercised, having regard to factors such as a person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago it was, and the relevance to the application or post in question. The Committee’s report goes beyond this and rightly highlights the need for proportionality, clarity and fairness, as well as seeking to ensure that the systems designed to protect the public and facilitate rehabilitation keep up to date with the reality of the modern world.
The Secretary of State for Justice has already identified that one of the best ways to help those who have offended to get meaningful employment is by working more closely with employers and expounding the benefits of hiring those with criminal convictions. That is why—to address one of the key themes in hon. Members’ speeches—I am happy to see the Government leading by example by rolling out Ban the Box across the civil service in 2016 and continuing to encourage its implementation across both the public and private sectors.
Whenever I see the right hon. Member for Delyn in a debate that I am speaking in, my heart both rises and sinks. It rises because he brings great expertise and knowledge of this subject; it sinks possibly for exactly the same reason, as I know he will ask me various challenging questions. He asked a number of questions, and I will try to answer some of them—if I do not answer them all, I will happily commit to write to him next week with detailed answers.
David Hanson
I am glad to see I serve some purpose, if there is anything wrong with the Minister’s heart—rise and/or sink, depending on his mood. He just mentioned the roll-out across Government, and it is important that he puts on record, either now or by letter, whether any Department is not operating Ban the Box.
Edward Argar
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not aware of any Department not doing it. There may be some roles, perhaps in the policing or security aspects of Government, where there might be more complex considerations. I undertake to write to him with a clarification on that in due course, when I will answer a number of his other questions.
Robert Neill
Further to that point, will the Minister also commit to letting us know whether any of the Ministry of Justice’s contractors are not operating Ban the Box? The Ministry has considerable procurement leverage in these matters. Subject to the caveats about security, we would like to know that, too.
Edward Argar
I am happy to include that, if it is appropriate, when I write to the right hon. Member for Delyn—I will copy it to the Chairman of the Justice Committee, who makes a good point. I do not know whether that data exists, but I will endeavour to get it. The right hon. Member for Delyn also asked, I think, about the direct impact on the Ministry of Justice. My understanding is that of those people with a previous conviction who applied through the approach that has been taken in the civil service since 2016, 92% subsequently secured employment, which is a positive outcome.
Beyond the guidance for employers, I am proud of the rehabilitative support we have offered in the past. As I say, I will write to the right hon. Member for Delyn with some detailed answers to his questions about the specific list of activities undertaken to ensure that responses and commitments went beyond responses and commitments and followed through into actions. One thing that he mentioned, to which I can respond directly now, is about the education and employment strategy, which was published in 2018 and was explicit, as I understand it, in referring to this. I will give him the detailed action plan that sits beneath the strategy.
I am proud of the rehabilitative support we offer to people who have offended in the past. Our education and employment strategy, published in 2018, sets out how we will transform our approach to ensure that those in the adult custodial estate develop the skills they need to secure employment on release. We are giving governors the power to commission education provision and engage with employers to take on ex-prisoners—for example, via the New Futures Network.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the debate about the age of maturity and its impact on criminal justice. There is a live debate on whether it should be 18, 25 or somewhere in the middle, reflecting different scientific papers that have been put forward. I think that even the Lord Chief Justice has commented on this ongoing debate. It is something of which I am very much aware. A degree of caution needs to be exercised, if only because the age of 18 is when we deem people mature enough to enjoy certain rights and benefits. If we were to look at whether it should be 18 or 25, would that lead to a wider debate? If we are saying that someone is not criminally mature, what other rights and benefits come with a particular age? I am not setting out a particular view on that, but it does lead to a wider debate. We should not be afraid to engage in that, but we should be conscious of the wider implications.
As hon. Members have mentioned, the Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in the case of P and others, which considered the disclosure regime. On the most fundamental point, the Court found—for the Government—that it was proportionate and practicable to make disclosure decisions in accordance with a clearly defined and unambiguous system, through the operation of legislative rules agreed by Parliament. However, as has been set out, the Court went on to find that two key features of the filtering regime are disproportionate as framed: the multiple conviction rule and the disclosure of youth reprimands and warnings. I will not recount the detail of how they operate, because hon. Members have already done so.
My Department is working closely with the Home Office to give proper consideration to the judgment. The Justice Committee’s report touched on something that is relevant. It highlighted the fact that responsibility in this area is split between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. Indeed, in some of the issues we have touched on, which I will turn to later, other parts of Government also have a relevant interest, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government being an obvious example.
I saw the Committee’s suggestion that placing responsibility on a single Department could enhance coherence. We did not accept that recommendation for a simple reason: we come back to the balance at the heart of the system, that balance between a focus on rehabilitation—giving people a second chance—and an element of public protection. Part of that sits with the Home Office and part sits with the Ministry of Justice, which can lead to a creative and hopefully positive tension and balance. Where we must strive to avoid problems is when that balance and those counter-positions or counter-interests can lead to things taking a lot longer than they might do otherwise. In a few moments I will turn to the matter of timing, because the Chairman of the Justice Committee is a deeply patient man but does not have infinite patience.
We work closely with the Home Office to give these things proper consideration. Although that judgment has been handed down, the order behind it has not yet been sent over to us. We await that order. When it is received, it is important that we are speedy and timely in addressing it.
Robert Neill
One thing that might be able to speed these matters along is for the issue to be discussed by the Criminal Justice Board, a mechanism that is there precisely to give an overview across the whole criminal justice system, and which involves the two principally concerned Departments and others. Will the Minister undertake to have it raised on the board’s agenda?
Edward Argar
I will raise that very good point with the Secretary of State, who sits on that board. Although I cannot go into the details in advance of that order, I can say, and Members can read into this what they will, that I generally find justices to be wise and sensible in their opinions. They consider what they say extremely carefully and open-mindedly. I believe, from my experience in this role so far, that when one receives a judgment from the Supreme Court, there are often opportunities to look at it in broad, rather than narrow, terms. I will endeavour to reflect on that when the order comes through.
We previously committed to considering the Committee’s recommendations for reform of the criminal records system on receipt of that judgment, and we remain committed to that, because it is appropriate for us to consider any recommendations about the disclosure regime in the light of that authoritative ruling. The Committee’s recommendations sit neatly alongside it, so it makes sense to consider them in the round.
I now turn to a number of issues that came up in the debate. I am grateful to the Committee for highlighting such a wide range of issues in its report, particularly on access to housing, travel and insurance. I recognise the acute impact that lack of access to those things can have, as well as the cumulative impact on children who have offended. I will take each of the points in turn, but before I do so, I pay tribute to the speech made by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who rightly highlighted the need for us to understand not just the requirements of a regime but the context for each individual. She highlighted the impact on the behaviour of young people who have been looked-after children, who have had adverse childhood experiences and who may even have been victims of child sexual abuse or other forms of abuse. That should be a consideration, and she was absolutely right to raise the issue. Those individuals have a passionate advocate in her. She made her point forcefully and well, and I will certainly reflect carefully on what she said.
The Committee’s report concluded that the criminal record system undermines the principles of the youth justice system. Although we do not share that view, the Committee’s work highlights further opportunities not yet taken that can enhance the principles and the work of the criminal justice system if we reflect on how the disclosure regime operates more broadly. Children who come into contact with the police and youth offending teams are some of the most vulnerable children in our societies, as the hon. Lady highlighted. We all agree that rehabilitation is important in improving their life chances. Society has a right to expect that we will do everything possible to ensure that all people with convictions desist from crime. Those who offended as children are no different. We have a particular responsibility to children who fall into the categories that the hon. Lady highlighted.
We know how important employment, education and other factors raised by the Committee are in enabling rehabilitation. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) highlighted that issue and touched on some powerful examples. We are committed to supporting children to turn their lives around. In 2013, the coalition Government changed the law so minor offences no longer needed to be disclosed. It takes significantly less time now for offences committed by children, as opposed to those committed by adults, to become spent, after which they no longer need to be disclosed for most purposes. Those features of the disclosure regime all relate to the fact that children who offend are often highly vulnerable and might not be as mature as adults who do so. There has been progress, and the hon. Lady would expect me to say that, but given her comments about pre-emptive action, I will not say, “That’s progress. That’s job done. We are in the right place,” because I believe that there is clearly more to do.
The Committee raised concerns about equality and disproportionality. I am committed to reducing disproportionate outcomes for BAME children in the youth justice system, and I share the concerns voiced by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) in his 2017 report. I reassure the shadow Minister that we take that report incredibly seriously. Since I was appointed to this role last summer, I have met the right hon. Gentleman a number of times. We announced last November via the Cabinet Office the cross-Government “one year on” update on the progress that has been made in that area. I have regular roundtables with those with an interest in this issue to chase up progress. We have a director general in the Department who is directly responsible for bringing officials from a range of parts of the Department together to drive forward progress on reducing disproportionality and implementing the recommendations in the right hon. Gentleman’s report. That reflects the fact that I recognise the need for systemic change. A key focus is on explaining or changing disproportionate outcomes for BAME children in the justice system.
I am also aware of the over-representation of vulnerable groups with multiple and complex needs—particularly looked-after children, excluded children and those with mental health issues. Again, it is a fundamental priority for the youth justice system to ensure that those children receive the support and intervention they need to fulfil their potential.
A number of Members touched on the disclosure of police evidence. In our response to the Committee’s report, we noted that disclosure of police intelligence can be an important aspect of the regime. That was a key finding of the Bichard report after the Soham murders. It plays a vital part in ensuring that children and vulnerable adults are protected. The police cannot automatically disclose all intelligence. Disclosure of non-conviction information is subject to a statutory relevance test, so the chief officer has to consider whether the information is relevant and ought to be disclosed. That includes consideration of the individual’s age at the time of the offence, its seriousness and how long ago it occurred, but once again, as hon. Members have emphasised, the key is proportionality and relevance.
My Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) touched on housing. Social housing is a precious resource, so ensuring that it is allocated fairly, as he set out, is crucial. We recognise the need to understand better how the allocation system is playing out in local areas, so we know whether it is striking the right balance between fairness, support and aspiration. In the social housing Green Paper, the Government propose an evidence collection exercise to help us to understand how the allocations framework is working across the country in different areas. Following that exercise, we will consider whether changes to legislation, regulations or statutory or best practice guidance are necessary, but we believe that making changes prior to having a clear evidence base would be premature. My Department continues to work closely with MHCLG colleagues to ensure that the points that my hon. Friend and others made, which are directly relevant in this space, are considered in that broader piece of work.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive dialogue that we can have. In carrying out that evidence exercise, will he particularly bear in mind the evidence that we received from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice? Like me, the Minister comes from a background in London local government, and that organisation’s findings were that some 13 of the 30 London local authorities it looked at had housing policies that tended to have an unreasonable impact on the allocation of housing to former offenders. If, as he said, a pay cheque is one way of stopping offending, secure accommodation is another.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend alludes to our shared past in London local government, where I first met him many years ago, when I had a little more hair and it was not quite so grey. He is absolutely right: I meet with the Standing Committee on Youth Justice and consider its reports and input with great care. It is for local authorities to ensure that their allocation schemes are lawful, taking account of any relevant decisions made by the courts. No authority may breach section 4 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which requires that a person who has a spent conviction be treated as if the offence was not committed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley also touched on education. As we set out in our response to the report, most higher education institutions are autonomous, independent organisations, and as such admissions are a matter for each individual institution. They are best placed to decide which applicants are the most suited for their organisations and the courses that they offer. Similarly, further education providers, including colleges, are independent organisations that can set their own entry criteria for qualifications, in line with those published by the qualification owner.
That said, we expect providers to take account of the Committee’s recommendation as part of a transparent admissions process. On universities, I am happy to say that for the 2018-19 cycle, UCAS has dropped the automatic requirement for all applicants to declare unspent convictions, regardless of whether they are relevant to the course for which the applicant is applying. The eligibility for Disclosure and Barring Service standard or enhanced certificates applies to work placements in the same way as other paid or voluntary employment. If a course does not involve a work placement that is eligible for a check, the university can only ask about unspent convictions.
Hon. Members raised the matter of insurance, the Association of British Insurers and other matters. The ABI published a good practice guide in 2011—it was updated in 2014—that sets out high-level standards of how insurers should treat people with convictions or related offences. The guide makes it clear that insurers should not ask for spent convictions. When an insurer is unable to provide full or any cover because of a consumer’s unspent conviction history, the insurer should provide information about alternative sources of help.
The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston touched on the UN convention on the rights of the child and similar. As stated in our response, the Government consider that the disclosure regime is compatible with the convention. It treats convictions and cautions received by those under the age of 18 differently from those incurred by an adult and, although I hear that hon. Members feel that those people should be treated more differently, we believe that we are compliant with the convention. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment, any future changes to the regime will take the convention into account.
I want to touch on the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and her passionate campaigning work. I am very pleased that she was able to dash from the main Chamber to deliver her speech. I know that she is a passionate advocate for the Ban the Box campaign. She speaks with eloquence and with great knowledge and experience, having worked on this issue for some time. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss that campaign more broadly if she feels that that would be helpful. If the right hon. Member for Delyn and others wished to join us, I would be very happy for them to do so.
There is always a balance to be struck between giving the employers the information that they need to make informed recruitment decisions and having a criminal records system that enables rehabilitation. I look forward to our bringing forward proposals both in response to the Supreme Court judgment and to formally address the issues set out in the Committee’s report. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is a patient man, but not infinitely patient—nor is his Committee. Hon. Members quite rightly highlighted that although words are important, and this place uses an awful lot of them, they must lead to action.
I am clear that we must, and will, act to address the issues raised and the Supreme Court judgment when the order comes forward. I hope that we can all believe and support a system that believes in redemption, rehabilitation and a second chance. More than ever, that should apply to children who, at a young age, make a simple mistake that should not blight the rest of their lives. I commit to working closely with the Committee in the coming months to respond to and address its points as well as those raised by the Supreme Court judgment. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to speak on this subject.
Robert Neill
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David.
This has been an extremely well-informed and constructive debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members, Committee members and others, who have spoken. I am particularly grateful for, and warmly welcome the contribution of, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), whose work in this field we all pay tribute to and who recently engaged with us as a Select Committee. My colleagues from the Committee spoke powerfully and persuasively in this debate.
This is an area on which there was a good deal of agreement between the two Front Benchers, and so it should be. In such important matters of not only criminal justice policy but social justice policy, we ought to seek and are well able to achieve a broad cross-party consensus in this place.
This welcome the tone of the Minister’s response, because I know that he is genuine, and also welcome his constructive engagement with the debate and the Committee. I look forward to that continuing. There is compliance not just with the letter of the convention but with its spirit and the ability to take that further, and I know that he and the Secretary of State—both genuine reformers—will seek to do that.
I thank all our Committee staff who worked on the report—some of them are in the Public Gallery today. They did an excellent piece of work. I also thank all those witnesses who gave evidence to us, including those who brought their own experience of the system—it is not always easy to talk about—to assist us directly.
There is an opportunity to consider some of these matters in the other place as well. As the Minister knows, the noble Lord Ramsbotham has a private Member’s Bill—the Criminal Records Bill—which awaits Committee in the other place. If the Bill progresses further, the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord Keen, will probably deal with it. I hope he will look as favourably as he can at the changes. It is a broader Bill, but includes specific provisions on rehabilitation periods for childhood and young person offences, which I hope that the Ministry will look at constructively. I am sure we would all want to recognise Lord Ramsbotham’s work in this field over very many years.
The Minister has been constructive, and I look forward to engaging further with him, as do all the Committee. He is right that I have a measure of patience—you, Sir David, will know more than anyone that a lifelong West Ham supporter has learnt to be patient over many years, although even our patience in that respect is not inexhaustible. However, I take the Minister’s comments in the generous and constructive spirit in which they were made. I again thank all Members who have participated in an important and constructive debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the First Report of the Justice Committee, Disclosure of youth criminal records, HC 416, and the Government response, Cm 9559.
Written Statements
Historic England Tailored Review
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)
I am today announcing the start of a tailored review of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (more commonly known as Historic England). As a non-departmental public body (NDPB), Historic England is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in each Parliament. This is the first review to take place since the organisation was split into two separate, though related, bodies in 2015: an arm’s-length body operating under the name Historic England, and a charity called the English Heritage Trust (trading as English Heritage).
The review will be conducted by my officials and will comprise two stages. The first stage will be a robust challenge to the continuing need for the functions performed by Historic England and, if there is a continuing need, whether some or all of these functions should be delivered by alternative delivery models or continued to be delivered by NDPB. It will also assess the current model and relationship with the English Heritage Trust to ensure it remains fit for purpose. This will include assessing the robustness and long-term sustainability of the current financial and governance arrangements following the split of English Heritage from Historic England in 2015.
If the review finds that the functions should continue to be delivered by NDPB, the second stage will review the structure, efficiency and effectiveness of Historic England. It will also consider the organisational control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that they are compliant with the recognised principles of good corporate governance and delivery of good value for money.
The findings of the review will be examined by a challenge panel, chaired by a DCMS non-executive director, which will rigorously and robustly test and challenge the assumptions and conclusions of the review.
In conducting the review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders across the UK from heritage, culture, planning and development sectors as well as a selection of local government authorities.
The review will follow guidance published in 2016 by the Cabinet Office: “Tailored reviews: guidance on reviews of public bodies”. The terms of reference for the review and a survey seeking evidence about HE can be found on the DCMS website at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/tailored-review-of-historic-england
I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1465]
General Affairs Council March 2019
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr Lidington), represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting on 19 March in Brussels. A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2019/03/19/
Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027
The presidency presented a progress report outlining the latest developments on MFF-related sectoral proposals, which Ministers agreed to send to the European Parliament.
Ministers discussed the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. Ministers agreed that funding migration policy should be a priority in the next MFF. However funding for the internal and external aspects of migration policy was still to be decided. Member states broadly agreed the Commission’s proposed 25% target of EU expenditure on climate objectives across all programmes. The new proposal aims to build on the last MFF by having 25% of the Union budget expenditures supporting climate objectives, instead of the 20% from the last MFF, in order to implement the Paris agreement and achieve the United Nations sustainable development goals. Some member states stated that higher targets within the common agricultural policy (CAP) and cohesion policy programmes would be more difficult to achieve under proposed cuts for these programmes.
The Commission encouraged member states to be adaptable in their positions in order to reach an agreement on the negotiations in autumn 2019. The shared goal was to provide a simplified draft position in preparation for leaders to discuss at the June European Council.
Instrument for pre-accession assistance
Ministers were presented with the partial general approach on the regulation establishing the instrument for pre-accession in assistance (IPA III). The IPA III is part of the MFF and supports EU enlargement policy by providing funding and support for implementing key political, institutional, social and economic reforms to comply with EU values, rules, standards and policies. The beneficiaries of the IPA III are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Turkey. After formal adoption of the mandate at a future Council, discussions are expected to begin between the Council, European Commission and European Parliament under the Finnish presidency.
Preparation of the European Council 21-22 March 2019: Conclusions and European Council follow-up
The Council discussed preparations and draft conclusions for the 21-22 March European Council. These included climate change, the upcoming EU-China summit, tackling disinformation and strengthening the European economic base. Member states were unanimous in calling for a wide-ranging discussion on the single market and industrial policy. As such, there were broad calls from member states for the Commission to produce an integrated 2030 industrial strategy by March 2020.
Member states welcomed the recent Commission - European external action service communication on China. Member states also welcomed the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the fifth anniversary of the annexation of Crimea, and many member states highlighted the need to counter the threat of disinformation, especially in the run up to the European Parliament elections.
The UK welcomed the joint communication on China, supported the addition of language on Crimea and restated our commitment to the policy of non-recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. We also welcomed the inclusion of the issue of disinformation on the agenda and highlighted the need to build resilience against hybrid threats.
European semester
The presidency presented a report on the discussions and main political messages from the different Council configurations on 2019 European semester package. The Council noted that although the European economy had entered its sixth year of growth, further action is needed to tackle global instability and economic challenges. The Commission welcomed the presidency’s report and the emphasis on country-specific recommendations.
[HCWS1460]
Foreign Affairs Council 18 March 2019
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 18 March. It was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Brussels.
Commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the illegal annexation of Crimea
The High Representative and Foreign Ministers marked the fifth anniversary of the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by holding a short livestreamed session. The HRVP reiterated the key elements of the EU position; the EU did not, and would not, recognise this violation of international law, and stood in full solidarity with Ukraine, supporting its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Current affairs
HRVP Mogherini expressed shock and solidarity with New Zealand over the attacks in mosques in Christchurch.
The High Representative and Ministers welcomed the results of the third Brussels conference on supporting the future of Syria and the region, which reaffirmed EU support for the UN-led political process and Syrian people by successfully mobilising aid from the international community
The High Representative briefed Ministers on the international contact group’s ongoing work on Venezuela. Foreign Ministers expressed their concern at the continuing deterioration of the humanitarian situation. They reiterated the urgent need to find a way towards a political process.
The High Representative and Ministers also noted the signature of the peace agreement in the Central African Republic and the recently announced US measures on the International Criminal Court.
China
The Council held a wide-ranging and comprehensive exchange of views on China and EU-China relations, ahead of its discussion with Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The discussion fed into the 21-22 March European Council meeting and EU-China summit on 9 April, in Brussels.
The discussion was informed by the joint communication by the High Representative and the Commission entitled “EU-China: A strategic outlook” which had been adopted on 12 March. Ministers welcomed the assessment made in the joint communication and the proposed actions. While the 2016 China strategy remains the basis for EU co-operation with China, the joint communication provides useful guidelines on how to refine Europe’s approach to China to be more realistic, assertive and multi-faceted.
Republic of Moldova
The Council discussed the Republic of Moldova following its 24 February Parliamentary elections.
Foreign Ministers agreed that the formation of a Government should be a transparent and credible process that respected the outcome of the election. EU co-operation with Moldova will continue to be based on the implementation of the 2014 association agreement, with financial support conditional upon Moldova’s progress. The Council reaffirmed that the EU would continue to work to provide tangible benefits for the Moldovan people and support for civil society.
Yemen
Ministers recalled that there can be no military solution to the conflict in Yemen and that the only way forward was the full implementation of the Stockholm agreement. They stressed the need to keep up the political momentum and to push the parties to fulfil urgently their commitments, as well as the need to see immediate progress on the ground.
The Council reiterated the EU’s full support for the UN special envoy Martin Griffiths and his efforts in finding a lasting, sustainable, enforceable, inclusive and negotiated political solution within a UN-led framework. Foreign Ministers highlighted in particular the importance of fully involving Yemeni women in the political process, and expressed concern at the lack of improvement in the dire humanitarian situation, especially access for humanitarian aid. The Council reiterated that the EU and its member states would continue their humanitarian assistance efforts and lend political support as necessary.
Lunch with Chinese State Councillor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi
Over lunch, Foreign Ministers held an open and wide-ranging discussion with Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.
Council conclusions
The Council agreed a number of measures without discussion:
The Council adopted conclusions on the EU guidelines on non-discrimination in external action.
The Council adopted conclusions on the European Court of Auditors special report 35/2018: “Transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs: more effort needed”.
The Council adopted conclusions on the first European topical peer review for nuclear safety.
The Council reviewed the sanctions regarding the situation in South Sudan, and agreed to maintain the restrictive measures currently in place against one person.
The Council approved the specifications for the 2019 military crisis management exercise (MILEX 19).
The Council established the EU’s position for the 15th meeting of the EU-Republic of North Macedonia Stabilisation and Association Council, which will take place on 19 March 2019 in Brussels.
[HCWS1463]
Leasehold Market Reform
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
The Government are committed to tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market and to promoting transparency and fairness for leaseholders.
It is vital that we have a leasehold market that is transparent, fair and affordable for all those involved; where people know in advance what they are going to have to pay, are not saddled with mounting or unaffordable costs and are able to challenge fees if they feel they are unjustified or unfair.
Today I am announcing a package of measures to further support existing as well as future owners of leasehold homes.
This includes clamping down on unjustified legal costs for leaseholders, an industry pledge to tackle doubling ground rent charges and reforms to provide greater consumer protections and transparency around the use of event fees in retirement leasehold properties.
Under current rules, leaseholders may be liable to pay the legal costs of their landlord regardless of the outcome of a legal challenge. This has led to cases of leaseholders being forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees, even when the court or tribunal has found in their favour. This can lead to leaseholders facing higher bills than the charges they were seeking to challenge in the first place. It can also deter leaseholders from taking their concerns to a tribunal.
We will bring forward legislation to close these legal loopholes that allow freeholders to unjustifiably recoup legal costs from leaseholders.
I am also pleased to unveil industry’s leaseholder pledge, which we have worked on closely with them. This will mean that developers, freeholders, lawyers and managing agents are committing to taking steps to help leaseholders, especially those who are affected by rapidly doubling ground rents. I would like to take this opportunity to commend all those who have already signed up, and to urge those who have yet to do so to do the right thing. We expect all those who are involved to help put right problems for people who are affected.
Today I am also announcing the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s 2017 report on “Event Fees in Retirement Properties”.
Implementation of these recommendations will help older people and their families to be better protected from hidden costs and unfair fees charged in some leasehold retirement properties, where owners are required to pay an event fee on certain events, such as sale, sub-letting or change of occupancy. A new statutory code of practice will ensure that these fees cannot be charged unexpectedly, while fees that breach it will be regarded as unenforceable. Developers and estate agents will be required to make all such fees crystal clear to people before they buy, so prospective buyers can make an informed decision before forming a financial or emotional attachment to a property.
I am committed to reforming the leasehold market so that it is fit for purpose and works for everyone and today’s package of reforms builds on our wider leasehold reform programme to reaffirm this commitment.
[HCWS1466]
Troubled Families Annual Report
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
As required by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, section 3(1), my Department has published the third annual report, setting out how the troubled families programme (2015-2020) has been supporting disadvantaged families. We are laying this report today and will place a copy in the House of Commons Library.
This notice details what the report covers, for the period up to the end of March 2019, as well as for the next financial year, including setting out which families are eligible for the programme and how the progress of families will be measured.
“Building Resilient Families: Third annual report of the troubled families programme 2018-19” details how the programme is spreading whole family working across local services so more families get access to the early, practical and co-ordinated support they need to overcome their complex problems.
This programme of whole family working has achieved significant progress over the past 12 months:
Local authorities have been funded to work in a whole family way with 380,426 families in most need of help as part of the programme. However, we know that local authorities are working in a whole family way with a far greater number of families.
Some 171,890 families have achieved significant and sustained progress against the problems that were identified when they entered the programme. This is up 79,645 on the previous year.
Of all families worked with since the beginning of the programme, in 20,366 families one or more adults have succeeded in moving into continuous employment. An increase of 6,459 since last year.
When compared to a matched comparison group, the programme of targeted intervention was found to have:
reduced the proportion of children on the programme going into care by a third;
reduced the proportion of adults on the programme going to prison by a quarter and juvenile convictions by 15%;
supported more people on the programme back in work with 10% fewer people claiming jobseekers allowance.
Families classed as “relevant households” on the programme, as defined by section 3 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, are tackling at least two of the following challenges:
Parents or children involved in crime or anti-social behaviour;
Children who are not attending school regularly;
Children who need help; that is children of all ages who need help, are identified as in need or are subject to a child protection plan;
Adults out of work or at risk of financial exclusion or young people at risk of worklessness;
Families affected by domestic violence and abuse;
Parents or children with a range of physical and mental health problems.
The rationale for these eligibility criteria and an explanation of the way in which local authorities should identify families using a range of indicators, suggested referral routes and information sources were set out in the refreshed version of the financial framework, published on 8 December 2017. The financial framework also sets out how the progress of families supported will be measured.
[HCWS1464]
Fixed Recoverable Costs in Civil Cases
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
The Ministry of Justice is today publishing a consultation paper Extending Fixed Recoverable Costs in Civil Cases: Implementing Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposals. We are seeking views on implementing the proposals in Sir Rupert Jackson’s report on fixed recoverable costs (FRC) in civil cases in England and Wales, published on 31 July 2017.
In civil litigation in England and Wales, the winning party is generally entitled to recover their costs from the losing party. The legal costs of civil cases have, however, been too high and too uncertain for a long time, making litigation riskier and less accessible than it should be and thereby undermining access to justice.
FRC are a way of controlling the legal costs of civil litigation in advance by prescribing the amount of money that can be recovered by the winning party at set stages of litigation. They reduce overall costs, keep them proportionate and enhance access to justice. They are already an important part of our justice system in lower value personal injury cases and the time is right to consider their extension.
The consultation will run until 6 June 2019.1 have placed a copy of the consultation in the libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1462]
Maritime and Coastguard Agency Business Plan
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am proud to announce the publication of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (MCA) business plan for 2019-20. The MCA does vital work to save lives at sea, regulate ship standards and protect the marine environment. The agency does not just affect those working on the coast or at sea, it upholds the legacy of our great maritime nation.
The business plan sets out:
the vision for a future aviation strategy, including the next phase of helicopter contracts;
improvement to the already first class HM Coastguard; and
the next phase of the survey and inspection transformation programme.
At the international level, MCA will work alongside the Department and with the input of other Government Departments to represent the UK’s interests at the International Maritime Organization, and at other relevant bodies.
Domestically, MCA will continue to work collaboratively to grow the maritime sector in the UK so that it continues to contribute positively to the economy. They will also provide a valuable contribution to the delivery the ambitions set out in “Maritime 2050” and its accompanying route maps.
This plan allows service users and members of the public the opportunity to see how the agency is developing and using new technologies to improve its services and performance.
The key performance indicators will assess how the agency is performing in operating its key services, managing reforms and the agency finances throughout the year.
The business plan will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The attachment can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-03-28/HCWS1459/.
[HCWS1459]
Motoring Agencies: Business Plans
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I am pleased to inform the House of the publication of the 2019-20 business plans for the Department for Transport’s motoring agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).
The business plans set out:
the services each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make;
the resources they require; and,
the key performance indicators, by which their performance will be assessed.
These plans allow service users and members of the public to understand the agencies’ plans for delivering their key services, implementing their transformation programmes, and managing their finances.
The business plans will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-03-28/HCWS1458/.
[HCWS1458]
Households Below Average Income Statistics
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
I will be making an Oral Statement on this subject later today.
[HCWS1461]
House of Lords
Public Service Broadcasters
(5 years 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 speech of the Chief Executive of Ofcom on 28 November 2018 in which she encouraged public service broadcasters to collaborate to compete with global giants such as Netflix and Amazon in producing high-quality original content.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter and with her permission, 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 recognise many of the issues and new challenges facing our public service broadcasters, highlighted by the Ofcom chief executive in her speech on 28 November last year. The Government are committed to supporting the PSBs to ensure that they continue to meet audience needs in future and remain at the heart of our world-class TV industry. This may mean PSBs collaborating to compete and forming new partnerships to achieve greater reach and impact. The BritBox proposal recently announced by the BBC and ITV is an example of this, and we look forward to seeing more detail on this service as it develops.
Lord Foster of Bath
I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he agree that in this fast-changing world—with US-based on-demand video streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and now Apple increasingly penetrating the UK market—we need an agile regulatory regime that does not act as a brake on UK innovation? Netflix updates its platform once a week, yet it could take up to eight months for Ofcom to approve very modest changes to the BBC’s iPlayer. Should we not find a quicker way to approve BBC initiatives that benefit UK audiences and new proposals—such as the joint venture proposed by ITV and the BBC for BritBox—that could provide additional investment for new British content?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we should have nimble and agile PSBs and therefore a regulatory system that is capable of dealing with that. The analogy he draws is not quite correct. Netflix can change its platform overnight because it has to consider only Netflix, whereas Ofcom has to consider the whole regulatory landscape. It is therefore important that it takes into account what effect it has if the BBC changes something such as the iPlayer. I take the point he makes about being nimble and agile and moving with the times. The chief executive of Ofcom made that point exactly when she said that it needed to be,
“a forward-looking regulator that supports the future success of UK TV, firmly rooted in the online world”.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, collaboration obviously brings opportunities, but will my noble friend comment on the importance of ensuring, and indeed what is being done to ensure, that PSBs carry on making programmes that the UK viewer wants to watch—as opposed, perhaps, to what the American viewer wants to watch?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My noble friend is absolutely right. This is one problem with US subscription services. They spend a huge amount on content. Netflix spent £4.6 billion on content in 2017 and Amazon spent £3.4 billion, but only £150 million of that was UK-made TV, whereas the public service broadcasters spent £2.6 billion on UK content.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s replies to questions thus far put, but in the speech that occasioned the Question the Ofcom commissioner talked about competition and collaboration between the public service broadcasters and the great platforms that we are talking about—the FANGs. In other words, this is not just about competition between public service broadcasters and these various bodies; collaboration needs to happen between them. She points to certain instances such as “King Lear” and “Dracula” that are evidence of such collaboration already taking place.
I must not outlast my welcome, but I have one tiny thing to finish. Apart from BritBox—this thing that is coming between ITV and the BBC—I have recently been made aware of other boxes that are the result of piracy and people taking the market away from all the bodies that we have thus far discussed. What kind of eye are we keeping on such activities in this ever-emerging field?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord is right that there has already been a lot of collaboration. Collaboration exists between Netflix and other subscription video on demand services and the public service broadcasters. That will continue and is being encouraged. Illegal boxes are illegal. They will be prosecuted within the law because they take away the benefits that public service broadcasting brings to ordinary citizens and consumers in this country.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, one protection for public service broadcasters in the 2003 Act was prominence in the listings, yet now both the FANGs that have been described and the manufacturers are calculatingly getting around the listings to shunt public service broadcasting into the sidings. It will need from the Government and the regulator more than passive observation. Active action will be needed if the PSBs are to be protected.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree with that. That is why we promised to legislate when Ofcom gives us its recommendations for the online prominence regime. If it needs legislation, the Secretary of State says that we will do that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that Ofcom found that RT had breached the regulations seven times? Is he concerned that the appeal by RT is taking a very long time? Meanwhile, it is continuing to pump out Putin’s propaganda all over the United Kingdom, with polemic programmes fronted by people such as George Galloway and Alex Salmond.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
One difference between this country and Russia is that there is a rule of law. The legal process is being followed, which includes regulation that Parliament has given to Ofcom, independent of government. That will be followed, and I trust that something useful will happen from it.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, will BritBox be available to British holidaymakers in Spain, France and so on, and to British expats who are resident there? I ask because I was approached on holiday in Spain some years ago by a local provider of British television who wanted to negotiate a legitimate fee-paying service with freeview suppliers, including the BBC and ITV. But when he approached the heads of the BBC and ITV, they were not interested. That does not seem sensible.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The difference with BritBox is that it is a commercial service and therefore that it will be in its interest to get as many people to pay as possible. It already exists in America. I cannot answer precisely on whether it will be available in Europe, but there will be different motivations for the BBC and ITV, as this is a commercial service and they will want as many subscribers as they can get.
Economy: Productivity Measurement
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to modernise the way productivity is measured in the economy.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the independent Office for National Statistics measures productivity and has increased the volume and timeliness of productivity data, which can now be accessed by region, with detailed breakdowns of region by industry. We are the only country in the world to produce quarterly, rather than annual, multifactor productivity reports, which take account of capital. We now also have the UK’s first official estimates of aggregate infrastructure and intangible assets, such as research and development.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it is not the quantum of data that we need but up-to-date data. The Government’s industrial strategy—if noble Lords remember that—is directed towards raising our productivity by developing the so-called intangible economy and the digital economy. Yet the way we measure productivity is still biased towards traditional industry. It is the same with GDP. As they say, what gets measured gets done. Will the Government show some urgency and speed up, encourage, publicise and conclude the work of modernising these measurements so that we may get a better understanding of exactly what is going on in our economy today?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord has a long-standing interest in productivity data, perhaps inspired by the book Capitalism Without Capital by Professor Jonathan Haskel, with whom he has a relationship that is statistically significant. The noble Lord is quite right that intangible assets such as software, research and development and intellectual capital are now just as important as tangible assets. In fact, the annual investment in each is about the same. The ONS regularly engages with leading academics and government departments to ensure that its work meets their needs; there is an annual productivity user forum. Over the next two years, the ONS is investing in improving information, particularly on public service productivity, and I will ensure that it takes the noble Lord’s injunctions on board tomorrow morning.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, would it be a good idea if the good Professor Haskel turned his attention to productivity in your Lordships’ House, and compared it with productivity in what is fast becoming the House of Chaos at the other end of the Corridor?
Lord Young of Cookham
It is certainly the case that cost per Member is much lower in your Lordships’ House than in another place, although of course there are reasons for this. So far as productivity in your Lordships’ House is concerned, one possible measure would be the number of questions we get through in 30 minutes adjusted for quality.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, without bringing the analysis down, it is a fraction; it comes down to that in the end. The denominator is something that the Government like to talk about a lot. Employment levels are high and that is a good thing. However, the numerator is GDP. Last year, we saw GDP grow at only 1.4%—the worst performance since 2009—and the ONS predicts that the figure this year will be 1.2%. Clearly, the chaos we are seeing is driving down GDP growth. How can we ever have the productivity levels that the Government aspire to when the chaos around us prevents investment and confidence in business?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord goes back to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, which is the industrial strategy. Its main thrusts were driving up productivity, backing businesses with high-quality and well-paid jobs, and investing in skills, growth industries and infrastructure. Investment in infrastructure is up 3%. Private sector investment totalled over £358 billion in 2018, combined with public sector investment. We also have long-term partnerships in 10 key sectors, so we are making progress. One reason that productivity has not been as good as it might have been is that, after the downturn, industry tended to keep people on, but at the same time, investment fell. Of course, that had an impact on productivity.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to see the noble Lord in his place, particularly when he is straying off-piste. He mentioned some of the issues raised in Professor Haskel’s book but he did not touch on the key point raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel, which is that the new technologies do not rely on physical goods but on a different type of trading, which involves platforms, brands and algorithms. What work is being done to try to make sure that that aspect of the new technologies is being caught? The second point made in that excellent book is that people measuring productivity seem to ignore the productivity of which we in this country are very proud of, in making real progress in education and health. Those things are not even counted in GDP.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord is quite right to say that productivity in education and health has gone up. Over the past few years, productivity growth in the public sector, which had been 0.2% for the past 19 years, grew to 1.4% in 2016. We have had six successive years of improving productivity in the public sector, and health and education lead the field. The noble Lord is quite right in his other point about intangible assets. We are putting a lot of work into measuring intangible assets. This has a key impact on productivity, for example, in the information and communications sector and in the science sector. Along with investment in software and R&D, intellectual capital training is also an important intangible. It is one of the most important ones, followed by organisational capital.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare a statistically very significant interest as chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority. If productivity and competition levels in the British economy are in decline—and there is a good deal of evidence to support that—it probably follows that competition policy is not robust enough at the moment and needs a shot in the arm, so does the Minister support the proposals designed to achieve that which I sent to Ministers last month?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord, whom I have known for 35 years, brings to your Lordships’ House his ability to propose and then drive through major economic reform. The proposals he refers to are indeed detailed, trenchant and robust, and they will inform the competition policy that the Government are working on. Not only can it benefit consumers by promoting better-quality goods and services at lower prices but it can help the economy by promoting innovation and productivity. The Government welcome his report and will be consulting on the competition review shortly, including his proposals.
Meat: Ritual Slaughter and Religious Freedom
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of developments including the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 February Œuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (C–497/17) that meat prepared according to the rules of religious slaughter cannot be classed as organic, what plans they have to encourage a wider debate about the space for practice in accordance with religious rights that respects human rights and equalities laws.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the Government note the judgment that EU law does not authorise the placing of the EU organic production logo on products derived from animals that have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites without first being stunned. The ruling will apply in the UK but, in any event, since January all UK organic control bodies ceased to certify meat from non-stunned animals as organic.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. This ECJ judgment effectively means that those in the Jewish and Muslim communities who wish to purchase kosher or halal meat legally slaughtered without pre-stunning will be unable to buy products with the organic label. I am secular, but I think it is important that religious communities have the right to practise their religion, not just the right to religious belief, as long as human rights and equalities laws are respected. We are seeing not only attacks on places of worship but on matters of dress, male circumcision and time off for religious observance as well as animal slaughter. Room for religious practice is being squeezed. How will the Government promote an honest, open debate in our society about where this is going and where a reasonable settlement lies?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The first point I make to the noble Baroness, which I made in my Answer, is that prior to the judgment it was already not possible to buy organic halal or kosher meat from un-stunned animals. That was the practice from January. On her general point about religious freedoms, in this country we have some of the best protections in the world with the Equality Act and the convention on human rights. It is something of which we can be justly proud.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to yesterday’s Hansard, where the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is reported as saying that,
“if the Prime Minister’s deal goes through … rulings of the European Court of Justice will be directly applicable in this country … So we had better get used to it”.—[Official Report, 27/3/19; col. 1854.]
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend has already drawn the noble Baroness’s attention to that point. As I have said, this was the pre-existing practice in this country anyway, and there is no proposal to change the law in this regard.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, in the UK a substantial amount of meat and meat products from animals killed without stunning and meant for the consumption of certain religious groups finds its way into the general food chain. What are the Government doing to prevent that or to ensure that there is adequate labelling of meat and meat products so that consumers can make an informed choice about what to eat?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has indicated that it will look at labelling in the round to ensure that we take account of consumer demand. Therefore, that is something that we can ensure. It has been perfectly legal to sell kosher and halal meat since the 1930s and that position remains unchanged. The only change is that since January this year—this is not to do with the judgment—it has not been possible for it to be classified in this country as organic.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I would like to register an interest in that I eat only kosher meat. I understood that labelling meat as organic is about how the animal is reared or fed, not about how it is killed. However, does the Minister agree that mechanical stunning methods are not fool-proof? Why does he think that campaigners often concentrate on shechita, for example? According to Defra, mis-stunning, which can cause an animal distress, affects about 1% of the total poultry slaughtered per annum—9.5 million—when the total number of poultry for the kosher market is just 1 million a year.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I note what my noble friend says and he is absolutely right: the number of mis-stunning incidents in abattoirs is very low, and that has been the case over a period of time. As I said, there is a delicate balance to be struck here between what might be desirable from an animal sentience point of view and what is desirable from a religious rights point of view. It is a very delicate balance but I think that we have it right in this country. Certainly, my department has had very few representations on this issue; I do not think that it is a major issue with the public.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s Question is about much more than meat. It was Lord Acton who wrote that religious freedoms are the foundation of political freedoms. Is it not true that the debate for which the noble Baroness is calling is very relevant, despite the record to which the Minister has drawn attention and of which we can be proud? Religious groups are feeling caught between the views of the majority in all sorts of situations and their own religious observance and conviction.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes a relevant point about the general issue and about having a debate. A debate may well be something that we should have, although I find it difficult to have it on a question of this nature. I draw the right reverend Prelate’s attention to the report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2015—some three years ago—which indicated a general satisfaction with the balance that we have at the moment. However, I accept that there are issues to be addressed and I personally would welcome such a debate.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the organic farming of animals has nothing to do with religious slaughter. I take on board what the Minister has said but, when he goes round mosques and synagogues, how will he explain to the worshippers that this Government and this country have agreed with European legislation that is both illogical and unfair?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I have the utmost respect for him, but I have already made the point that this judgment does not alter practice in this country; that was altered in January when the last organic body indicated that it would not certify as organic products that were not pre-stunned. I have to say to the noble Lord that I have been to hundreds of synagogues and mosques over the last three years and this has not been raised once.
Cyclone Idai
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current humanitarian situation in the countries affected by Cyclone Idai.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, Cyclone Idai is one of the most severe cyclones ever to hit southern Africa. Approximately 129,000 people have been displaced in Mozambique, 87,000 in Malawi and 4,000 in Zimbabwe. Some 2.6 million people have been affected across the three countries.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I am grateful for that response and for all that the department has already done, including UK Aid Match, which has helped the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal reach over £21 million in less than a week. I remind the House of my interest as a trustee, and that the appeal is still very much open for those who have yet to donate. Does the Minister agree that the scale and effect of this disaster is devastating and still unfolding with, as he said, more than 2.5 million people in need of urgent humanitarian assistance and the threat of a secondary emergency from diseases such as cholera and malaria? Could he tell the House of the department’s longer-term plans to help these countries recover and what the Government are doing to encourage other countries to match this country’s generosity, both private and public?
Lord Bates
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work with the Disasters Emergency Committee. The amount of money raised—£21 million—is phenomenal, thanks to the generosity of the British people. The UK Government contribution is some £22 million so far. The appeal launched by the UN is for some $289 million. The UK contribution, from overseas development assistance alone, is way ahead of that of any other country. The next nearest is the United States at $10.8 million and then Germany at $3.5 million. Rightly, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister for Africa have been putting great emphasis on getting other countries to step up to the mark and realise the severity of the situation faced by these people.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I was struck even at the time of the last significant flooding that there were no preparations in place to try to avoid a similar catastrophe affecting so many communities in the future. Will the Government, as part of these international discussions and through our own ODA, look to build better disaster resilience facilities and mechanisms for the future in Malawi and Mozambique in particular, including early warning systems and the construction of homes and facilities that can withstand some of these extreme weather events?
Lord Bates
Absolutely—I am happy to give that commitment. The UK Met Office has a significant relationship in Mozambique as far as that is concerned. We have commitments already on the ground there from previous instances of providing resilience support. We have a £150 million DfID package of programmes which is supporting building resilience, and we will build that up further as we move to the UN climate summit in September.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
As we are chair-in-office of the Commonwealth, will my noble friend the Minister encourage the Government to encourage the richer Commonwealth countries to work closely together now and rally round to help a stricken member of the Commonwealth family?
Lord Bates
I am happy to do that in relation to Mozambique and Malawi. Canada has contributed some $2 million, but the scale and response internationally is just not meeting the level of crisis that we are seeing on the ground.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can I return the Minister to the Question that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked him in connection with the spread of cholera? Did he see that the first reported cases of cholera were confirmed overnight in Mozambique? Did he see the comment of Ussene Isse from the Mozambique Health Ministry, who said:
“When you have one case”,
of cholera,
“you have to expect more cases in the community”—
and that health workers are already battling 2,700 cases of acute diarrhoea, which could be a symptom of cholera? Given that the World Health Organization has said that it will deliver some 900,000 oral cholera vaccines, can the Minister tell us when they are likely to arrive?
Lord Bates
Yes, I can give the noble Lord an update from the situation report that I received just an hour before coming to the House today. Five cases were confirmed at a laboratory in Beira. There is a high risk of an outbreak. Vaccinations are already under way but this is a very worrying situation, which is another reason why the scale of the response and facilities from the international community needs to be stepped up.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, in response to my Oral Question yesterday, we heard the extent to which the Government in the UK support the export of fossil-fuel infrastructure. Shockingly, 40% of those exports go to developing countries. Does the Minister recognise the policy incoherence between, on the one hand, support for fossil fuels and, on the other, the millions that DfID is deploying to alleviate the awful suffering caused by extreme weather events such as Cyclone Idai?
Lord Bates
On the co-ordination that we are responsible for, we have committed some £5.8 billion to international climate finance. We are taking a leading role in resilience, ensuring that the ambitions set out in Paris are actually met and putting resources behind that. So we are doing all that, but this is a complex situation and international co-operation is needed to address it.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister may recall that some 20 years ago there were images in our newspapers of a woman giving birth to a baby in a tree in Mozambique. The disaster then was made worse by a shortage of helicopters and large Antonov aeroplanes that could get helicopters to the area. Has this been corrected? Are there enough helicopters to help people in south-east Africa at the moment?
Lord Bates
We could not say that there were enough, but what the international organisations are doing is quite remarkable. The Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs at the UN, led by Sir Mark Lowcock, formerly of DfID, has been doing an incredible amount of work in this area. The UNFPA is dealing with that particular point but so is the WFP, the IOM and UNICEF. They are all working to ensure that people get the help that they need.
Liaison Committee Report
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Committee New special inquiry committees 2019-20 (4th Report, HL Paper 309) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the ad hoc committees that the House set up last spring have now started to report. In anticipation, last autumn I invited Members of the House to put forward proposals for what we are now calling special inquiry committees.
I am once again very grateful to all the Members of the House who put forward proposals for special inquiry committees in the next Session. The Liaison Committee has had an excellent range of topics to choose from, and the proposals underline the range and breadth of expertise that is in your Lordships’ House. The committee always has a difficult task in choosing which committees to recommend and, with 27 proposals to choose from, this year was no exception. I hope noble Lords will all agree that the committee’s recommendations cover a wide range of subjects that will make excellent use of Members’ talents and contribute to debate and policy-making in a range of topical and cross-cutting areas.
We agreed the following proposals for special inquiry committees: democracy and digital technologies, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve; food, poverty, health and the environment, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott; and the social and economic consequences of the gambling industry, proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
As the report states, food, poverty, health and the environment all intersect. That inquiry would examine key issues, including how food can be made both sustainable and affordable. The gambling inquiry would be a wide-ranging study of both the social and economic consequences of this industry, bearing in mind that, with the rise of the internet, gambling is much more accessible than was the case 20 or so years ago.
On the proposed inquiry into democracy and digital technologies, the Political Polling and Digital Media Committee, which reported in April 2018, recommended that a further committee be established to scrutinise issues around digital media and politics that it had not had the opportunity to undertake in detail. Establishing this special inquiry is a response to that recommendation, as well as to the growing prominence of debates around democracy and digital technologies.
Since the appointment of the first House of Lords post-legislative scrutiny committee in May 2012, the House has established a strong reputation for this relatively new aspect of its work. Therefore, we agreed to recommend a post-legislative scrutiny committee to consider the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.
We considered all the proposals we received against our published set of four criteria, namely: making best use of the knowledge and experience of Members of the House; complementing the work of Commons departmental Select Committees; addressing areas of policy that cross departmental boundaries; and, lastly, whether the inquiry proposed could be confined to one Session. The committee took care and time in coming to its conclusions. I hope the House will agree that our recommendations will provide a timely and manageable set of inquiries for the coming year.
I end on a note of gratitude for the work of all our committees. The enthusiasm with which Members from all sides of the House approach this aspect of our work is exemplary. We should all be proud of the work. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, Members might recall that this time a year ago anxieties were aired in this House, not so much about the subjects chosen, which seemed interesting, but about too much government control over membership and a lack of input from Members of the House over the subjects chosen. Indeed, I believe reform of the method of selection of members and subjects was aired; I think I gave evidence. Could the Senior Deputy Speaker tell us whether any reforms have taken place?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s comments. Indeed, I recall her intervention last year.
I need to place on record once again, on behalf of colleagues, our concern and regret that the decisions taken by the committee did not include an inquiry into national identity cards. This is certainly the third year, perhaps even the fourth, that this committee has refused to entertain the idea of such an inquiry. It has been blocked again by the usual coalition of Liberal Democrats, who historically have opposed the introduction of national identity cards, and Conservative members of the committee. When the coalition was running the country, the Conservatives were forced by the Liberal Democrats to back down and abolish Labour’s programme.
I am also told that members of the committee are advised—indeed, I think it is some members’ view—that it is not necessary for Members to indicate the scale of support in the House for inquiries that they are suggesting. I challenge that; I believe that is quite wrong. I believe it is for Members, when submitting subjects for inquiry, to be able to indicate the scale of support. In the case of national identity cards, support came from right across the political spectrum, from left to right. It came from those with more liberal views on social issues as against those of a more conservative disposition. It came from Brexiteers and remainers. Brexiteers were particularly interested as they see ID cards as important in conditions of restrictions on free movement and management of entitlements, which are at the heart of much of the Brexit debate. Equally, remainers call in aid experience of the benefits of the introduction of these cards in other European states. The stats are very interesting. Of a European population of 742 million across 28 states, only four states have resisted their introduction: Switzerland with 8.5 million, Denmark with 6 million, Liechtenstein with 37,000 and the United Kingdom with 66 million, a total resistance of just over 10% throughout Europe.
Next year, we will try again, but I do not live in hope any more. Persistence simply is not paying, and it is very hard to know how to proceed. Right across this House, people often ask me when we will get this inquiry. This political resistance within the committee—which is now obvious to everybody—requires the reforms suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, although it is perfectly natural for anyone who submitted an application to the committee—as I did on the issue of genocide—to feel disappointed if it does not succeed, I would like to say a word in support of what my noble friend Lady Deech said about the process itself.
I have very high regard for the Chairman of Committees and the members of the committee. This is no criticism of them. It is a positive suggestion about how we might deal with applications in the future. It would add to the life of the House if we had a hustings. People could argue their particular proposals, if they have made it to the shortlist—there would have to be a sifting process in advance. Why could Members of the House not then have the opportunity to vote on that shortlist? Certainly, there is proper debate and a vote taken with my noble friends on the Cross Benches in deciding what issues we place before the House. That is a very good precedent. This is something which engages the House, which is a merit in itself—that these are subjects we care about and want to see looked at properly by committees. The fair way to do that would be to look at the process itself. Therefore, can the noble Lord say whether it would be possible for the committee to look at ways to engage the House more widely, after the sifting for the shortlist, in choosing the topics that then go forward for inquiry by Select Committee?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that although I am a member of the committee I am not a political member at all. When I look at the subjects, politics simply does not come into my choosing. I confess that I did my best for him to enable the subject to get some kind of an airing—in a way that he did not accept—by trying to put it into post-legislative scrutiny. It was very much second best, but I was trying my best in the atmosphere I was party to. Politics did not come into it. If you look at the successful candidates, they were of very high merit. I am afraid that the problem is that it is always a competition. There may be other ways of handling that competition but, in the end, no subject has priority over the others: they compete according to the rules set out by the Senior Deputy Speaker.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it may not have escaped the notice of some Members of this House that I can be awkward from time to time. I am a member of the Liaison Committee and I ask some awkward questions sometimes, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, can confirm. However, I think that the Senior Deputy Speaker has conducted this whole exercise in an impeccable way, has always been willing to look at changes, and I am sure will be willing to consider the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I certainly want to look at it. We changed the system this year to allow wider consideration and more input from Members. The staff carried out a very detailed scoping exercise in a very professional and fair way to make reports to us.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours knows that I, personally, support his proposal. However, the committee had 27 different proposals and they were all very good, including that from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. My noble friend Lord Williams also put forward a good proposal, which I supported. At the end of the day, we had to come down on three on them and it was a very difficult decision. If my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours puts his proposal forward again next year, I will again support it. But I hope that he and others will understand that this is not an easy exercise and accept a view from a member of the awkward squad: that a member of the establishment, namely the Senior Deputy Speaker, did a very difficult job in an exemplary manner on this occasion.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, it has been my instinct over 40 years in both Houses that whenever the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, rises to his feet I stand up and disagree with him. However, I am also a member of the Liaison Committee and I agree with every word that he has said, which is so surprising that I find myself on my feet again. I emphasise to the House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that—largely thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—his case was carefully, extensively and thoroughly considered in committee. It had to be considered against the quality of all the other submissions that the committee had. I have heard nobody criticise the quality of the submissions that have been chosen and recommended in the report and, on that basis, I hope that the House will be content to support the Senior Deputy Speaker on this Motion.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, it is almost 55 years since I was first elected to work in this building, and one of the biggest changes over those years has been the rise of the Select Committees. I did the original negotiations through the usual channels on the setting up of the departmental Select Committees in another place, way back in 1979-80. They have become a much more important part of the work which Members do in both Houses. I suggest to the Senior Deputy Speaker that his committee might look at whether having just three of these sessional committees is enough. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talking about identity cards, I cannot see why we could not have an extra committee or even more than that. I cannot help feeling that three is not enough. While I have never been on the committee, I sometimes wonder whether the staff are not too much of an influence in the decisions of these committees.
I also point out that the European Union committees have an uncertain future. How long they will last we do not know, but there are a large number of noble Lords on the European Union Committee and its sub-committees. I hope that if those European committees come to be fewer and fewer, if at all, then something will be done to replace the work which they do; obviously, it would not be to do with the European Union but in other ways. I hope that the Liaison Committee will look at the prospect of expanding the work of Select Committees, as we have in the situation now and as it would be if the European Union committees came towards the end of their lives.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, perhaps I may support what the noble Lord has just said and go a little further. Given that these committees are perhaps your Lordships’ House’s most valuable contribution to life in modern Britain, it is disappointing to see that we can afford to have only three of them. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has just said, dare we hope that if Brexit ever happens we will no longer need seven EU committees? As noble Lords know, I regard them as largely a waste of time anyway, because Brussels has never listened to anything that they have put forward.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, before everyone gets carried away about ID cards, perhaps we should remember why we burnt them a few years after the Second World War.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I, too, am a member of the Liaison Committee and want to echo what other noble Lords have said in tribute to the work of the members of staff who support the committee. They do so in an extraordinarily professional way. The scoping reports that they produce on the various suggestions that have been made are of an exemplarily objective character. I get no sense of any attempt to lead the committee. If one gets any sense from reading the briefing papers in advance of the committee that their reports tend in a particular direction, I can only say that it is not uncommon to be disabused of any initial impressions one might have gathered from reading the papers as soon as one turns up to the committee. There is very lively debate on the proposals made and the supporting reports produced by the members of staff, which often leads to a change of view. We should not worry on any account that the staff have any undue influence over the conclusions that the committee reaches.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. If any Member is exercised by this, it is me, because I am always conscious that from however many submissions there are—be it 27, 35 or whatever—I can select only three, so I leave the vast majority of people disappointed as a result.
The points made have been very constructive. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others that politics did not come into this in any remote way—I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on that. Indeed, at the end of it, Members may recall that I specifically asked whether everyone had been content with the process, and everyone agreed that they were. The staff do a fantastic job of engaging on this and the members take it very seriously. We are unanimous in our approach.
Reform is important—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made that point. I am exercised by that as well. Other members of the committee will be able to tell you of my desire to increase Member engagement. At the moment, we are undertaking a review of committees. It has been extensive to date, but I am happy for it to be more so. I would like there to be not just more Member engagement but more Member submissions. We could achieve that with the review of committees. It is the first review for 25 years. Therefore, we have an obligation not only to understand the environment we are in but to ensure that the reputation of the House of Lords is enhanced. There is no better way of doing that than through the work of our committees. We are at one on that. If the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or any noble Lord wishes to engage with me on that point, I am happy to do so at any time; my door is open.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker really believe that 11 people, some of whom are taking political positions—that is certainly the case with the Liberal Democrats and the government representatives on the committee, which I have always objected to—should take decisions on their own which command so much of the resource of this place? Why does the committee resist seeing lists of people in support of particular recommendations when it knows that those lists reflect views right across the House? Those views will surely influence decisions taken by the committee on the subjects that they pick.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord and I are at variance on this. He is, in fact, at variance with every other member of the committee too. I will go over the noble Lord’s case because it is an important aspect. The committee and I were very mindful of the proposal for national identity cards and we were careful in our consideration of it. As the noble Lord knows, his proposal did not make it on to the shortlist, but it was considered for post-legislative scrutiny as part of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. I know that when that was conveyed to the noble Lord he was almost immediately not content with it and expressed his lack of support for it in subsequent discussions with officials.
The scoping note was prepared for the committee and therefore focused principally on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. As an alternative, the noble Lord proposed post-legislative scrutiny of the Identity Cards Act 2006, which is no longer in force. The committee considered that alternative proposal and agreed not to recommend it, on the basis that the Act itself was no longer on the statute book and that, in this instance, scrutiny would be further hampered by the fact that some records had been destroyed shortly after the repeal of the Act.
The Identity Documents Act 2010 introduced a range of measures which provided for the repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006, the cancellation of all existing ID cards and prohibition of issuing any further ones on or after the date on which the Act was passed, and the destruction of information contained within the national identity register within two months from the date on which the Act was passed. So a lot of that information was no longer available. The Act was repealed and the committee said it was not worth pursuing the matter. When I conveyed that decision to the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked me whether, in these circumstances, we would consider the identity card proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. We had 27 submissions and eliminated all but eight. However, the entire committee and I accepted the request from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. So, rather than a short leet of eight, we had a short leet of nine. The submission from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, went to the final hurdle as one of the nine, but it failed at that point because the majority of the committee was not in favour of that inquiry.
I agree that we need to reform. The review of committees is there; I am happy to take things forward. With the will of the House, we can change this; we can have more submissions. That is for the longer term; I appreciate the constructive comments that have been made today and am willing to listen to more Members’ comments so that we have greater engagement.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
May I press the noble Lord on the point I put to him? If Brexit ever happens we really will not go on needing seven EU committees: much resource is available there. Will he address the fact that Brussels has never paid the slightest attention to any of our suggestions, because the EU is designed precisely to ignore the views of national Parliaments? Is there not a resource waiting to be used if we ever get Brexit?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I have to say that all my problems are concerned with this House and my vision does not extend to Brussels. With that, I beg to move.
Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the draft Order laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, this order is necessary as a consequence of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, which received Royal Assent on 1 May 2018, having been passed by the Scottish Parliament on 20 March 2018. I will refer to this as the 2018 Act. Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 allows for “necessary or expedient” legislative provision in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, a Section 104 order is required in consequence of the 2018 Act. Both the UK and Scottish Governments have agreed to this order being taken forward, following an initial request from the Scottish Government.
The 2018 Act is the final stage in a programme of work to devolve responsibility for the management of forestry, which started with the Scotland Act 1998. The 2018 Act, which will commence on 1 April, provides for the powers and duties that are held by the forestry commissioners, in so far as they relate to Scotland, to be transferred to Scottish Ministers. Two orders must be laid by the Government following the 2018 Act to transfer the relevant powers. One order is subject to the negative procedure, and was made under Sections 90 and 93 of the Scotland Act 1998. The order we discuss today has been made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 and is subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
As the Minister knows, we have devolved other powers to the Scottish Government and Parliament, particularly over welfare. Having demanded these powers, and we having spent time considering and delegating them, they are not exercising them. They have said, “No, we cannot do it; we cannot carry out these powers because we just do not have the facilities or the ability to do it”. They have wasted our time, disillusioned the Scottish people and created tremendous problems. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Scottish Parliament and Government are ready to deal with these forestry powers, because they certainly were not ready to deal with the welfare powers that we devolved to them?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord makes a point of some interest regarding the Scottish Government. One might almost say they could not see the wood for the trees—sorry, it has been a long day. I will come back to some related points once I have completed my opening speech.
Some functions will continue to operate across Great Britain in relation to forestry science and research, tree health, and common codes and standards. When the 2018 Act comes into force, the forestry commissioners will no longer have a role in Scotland. Management of forestry will instead become the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government. This order enables the 2018 Act to be implemented in full. It provides new powers to Scottish Ministers and makes several consequential amendments to UK legislation, with a particular focus on the Forestry Act 1967.
Articles 3 and 4, along with similar provision in the Section 90 order, will enable cross-border arrangements to be entered into between the Scottish Ministers, the forestry commissioners and various other bodies. While forestry functions and management of the national forest estate will be fully devolved, the order will allow Scottish Ministers to enter into arrangements with the other bodies so that each may deliver certain functions on the other’s behalf.
Article 5 will confer powers upon Scottish Ministers to promote, develop, construct and operate installations for or in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity produced from renewable sources and to use electricity produced by virtue of those powers. These powers are currently exercisable by the Forestry Commission in Scotland. When the Forestry Act 1967 is repealed as it relates to Scotland, it will be necessary to transfer these functions to the Scottish Ministers to ensure they have the same powers as the forestry commissioners have under the current arrangements.
Finally, the order makes a number of consequential amendments to the Forestry Act 1967, related statutory instruments and other primary legislation to reflect the removal of the forestry commissioners’ functions in or as regards Scotland.
We have worked closely with the Scottish Government at all levels to ensure that this order makes the necessary amendments to relevant UK legislation in consequence of the 2018 Act. It represents the final stage of devolving forestry to the Scottish Government. I commend the order to the House, and I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will ask the Minister a few brief questions. First, what would be an example of practical co-operation on cross-border matters such as plant health or infection? What would be the practical steps? The Minister mentioned that steps would be taken for administrative connection—I think this was covered in the Commons. Could the Minister provide a little more clarity on the powers on electricity generation? There was also some discussion of this in the Commons, but exactly what sort of wood production or forestry by-products will be used in this generation? There was discussion about biomass; a little bit of clarification there would not hurt. Other than that, there is not much else to be said. The Commons took 21 minutes on this—let us see whether we can shave a moment off that.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation, and I declare my interests as set out on the register. In particular, I am chairman of the UK Squirrel Accord, a body of 35 entities—the four Governments, the four nature agencies and the principal voluntary and private sector bodies—that are trying to deal with the problem of grey squirrels killing broad-leaved trees. The problem is extremely serious and is preventing commercial forestry planting such trees at the moment in large tracts of our country.
I have two questions for the Minister, arising from the Explanatory Memorandum. First, to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I note that paragraph 7.1 says:
“Selected functions continue to operate across Great Britain including functions relating to forestry science and research, tree health and common codes and standards”.
Where squirrels and tree diseases are concerned, a line in an atlas makes no difference at all to the problems; it is vital that things continue to be co-ordinated across the border. I think that sentence means, “Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, not just “Great Britain”. Could the Minister confirm that? Also, does it mean that various functions will remain at the UK level? That would be very helpful, given the necessity of moving forward on a co-ordinated basis, particularly in science.
My second question is on paragraph 7.3, which refers to Articles 3 and 4. It talks about maintaining,
“a coordinated approach to issues such as the management of plant-based pests and diseases”.
Does the Minister agree it is vital to make sure that takes place? No individual bit of Great Britain has all of the intellectual power or money—or even necessarily a research institute—to do these vital things. It is so important that things remain co-ordinated. There is pretty much chaos at the moment, and staff morale is not good in some of the new bodies which will replace the current arrangements. If I have a fear, it is this: if the ball is dropped, the net result will be a big problem in plant health and broad-leaved trees.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)
My Lords, the forestry sector is a significant contributor to the Scottish economy, to the extent of some £1 billion. It also imposes opportunity costs resulting from the tax treatment of forestry and from the externalisation of costs pursuant to the effects on the rural road network during harvesting. So an important responsibility is given to Scottish Ministers and, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes observed, it is important that this is exercised sensibly.
Article 3 deals with Scottish Ministers and cross-border arrangements. Given that there will be mixed responsibilities where, for example, a single forestry unit straddles the border, will the Minister identify the extent and distribution of responsibilities between Scottish Ministers and their English counterparts? As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, identified, this may also affect other matters such as squirrels. I understand that a memorandum of understanding is envisaged, but what is to be the guiding principle for the division of responsibilities, and how would any differences between the authorities be resolved? One notes the reference to arrangements as between Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Natural Resources Body for Wales. What is to be regarded as the content of any such arrangements, and how will arrangements with Northern Ireland be governed? There is already an allusion to that point.
In Article 4, on forestry commissioners and the cross-border arrangements, what is envisaged as being the new relationship between Scottish Ministers and the forestry commissioners? Specifically, what arrangements are envisaged? Given that the forestry commissioners’ functions will no longer be exercisable in Scotland, this may be a significant issue.
In Article 5, on renewable energy installations, the Scottish Ministers’ functions will extend to promoting electricity produced from renewable sources. There is concern in Scotland that biomass energy, which was originally hoped to be substantially dependent on forestry thinnings, has now become dependent on using mature trees as the raw material for pelletisation. Beyond the order, will there be any guidance or control that Scottish Ministers may deploy to discourage this practice? In the same context, will recently expressed concerns over the health effects of wood smoke be subject to Scottish Ministers’ guidance, so far as the Minister is aware?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I am very grateful for the detailed questions that have been asked today, and I will do my best to do justice to them.
I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Addington. On the question of what practical co-operation and co-ordination will look like—this also touches on the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—the purpose here is not to undo established relationships, particularly at the research level and where the co-operation is based on intellectual engagement with the various challenges facing either the health of the forest or indeed the welfare of the forest inhabitants. There are established relationships, and it is not anticipated that these will be interrupted or disturbed. They will reach not just between—to be frank—the current commissioners and Scotland but also where information can be shared between Wales, Scotland and England. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked whether this applies to Northern Ireland, and I have been told that the answer is no, it does not. It focuses only on Great Britain in that context.
The issue around renewables is important. The current powers exercised by the commissioners will transfer as they are. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, asked about guidance, particularly with reference to mature trees. I believe that he and I share exactly the same view—that we should not in any way be looking at mature trees for renewable electricity generation. Again, I hope that the current guidance will be operated in exactly the same fashion: namely, that mature trees should not form the basis of wood chips or wood pellets to create renewable electricity. That would defeat the purpose of the overall ambition. The guidance exists, and I hope that it will continue to be applied in that wider context.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked an important question about squirrels. I know that he is a passionate advocate of the red squirrel—I am fully aware that I come from a part of the country, in Perthshire, around Alyth, which has a well-established red squirrel population. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, knows what I am talking about—he knows the squirrels of Perthshire. Again, it is important that we recognise that we have established information about the squirrel communities, and we cannot lose that simply because we create different separations of powers. There needs to be a sharing of our understanding around squirrel movements, and we need to do that at the level of the island of Great Britain as a whole: that will remain absolutely essential to moving forward here.
We must be cautious—this touches on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—that, as we move toward a new arrangement, it cannot be a diminution of where we are now: it must be an improvement, or certainly no worse. We must be cognisant of and attentive to each aspect, particularly where sharing relates to plant or tree health and where we have pests and various types of wood-borne disease. We cannot take any chances: our forestry estate is too important. Noble Lords will be fully aware of the challenges experienced just now with regard to ash trees, and the wider issue of contamination—how quickly it can spread if we are not careful. We must continue to co-ordinate and collaborate at a UK-wide level, because our forestry estate is too important not to.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, touched on the issue of the rural road network. That is integral and the Scottish Government have the responsibility to take this matter forward sensitively and carefully. I hope that they will continue to do that, because it is critical to the well-being of often remote areas.
There is one block of forestry which straddles the border. It is currently managed as a block by Forest Enterprise England on behalf of Forest Enterprise Scotland, and it has been agreed that this block will continue to be managed by Forest Enterprise England on behalf of Forestry and Land Scotland—so the current arrangements will roll forward.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Before the Minister concludes, I wonder whether he can help me. I should know the answer to this and apologise if it has been made public and I have missed it. What is happening to the staff in the Forestry Commission building in Corstophine and what is happening to the building itself? As I understand it, it has been the headquarters of the Forestry Commission for the whole of the United Kingdom, run from Corstophine in Edinburgh by some excellent staff. As I said, perhaps I should have known this or asked about it earlier, but I want to make sure that they are being looked after and that something sensible is being done with the building.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord speaks of Silvan House. He is absolutely right about the value of the work undertaken by the staff of the Forestry Commission in Scotland, and I understand that this will have no material effect on their well-being or conditions. I do not know about the building itself, but if the noble Lord will permit, I shall write to him once I have an answer, because I am not familiar with the situation there.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I want to ask him a little more about treating Northern Ireland separately from the rest of the United Kingdom in these matters. It is surely one thing to treat the Irish Sea as an effective border for the movement of animals, but that has not proved true for the movement of plant pathogens. When one looks at the map of the distribution of both ash dieback and phytophthora ramorum across the island of Ireland, one sees that it would be a fiction to regard Northern Ireland as separate from the rest of the UK.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness makes an important point. It would be very difficult for us to look at the islands of the British Isles as a whole as anything other than one biogeographic unit. We cannot lose sight of that: the borders themselves are broadly meaningless, including the sea borders. I suspect, however, that that question requires a more detailed answer than I can give just now. If the noble Baroness will permit me, I will commit to writing with a very detailed answer to her question.
I am conscious that my opening remarks were slightly waylaid by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asking a very sensible question: are the Scottish Government ready to exercise these powers? We have assurances that they are, but this House and the other place must be vigilant in our scrutiny of this: we cannot take our eye off it for a moment. We must make sure that there is no diminution whatever in the way that we treat our forestry estate and our forestry more widely. I am conscious that the noble Lord will remain vigilant, and we can rest assured that he will not let anything slip by. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will allow this to move forward.
Households Below Average Incomes Statistics
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Amber Rudd. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on the poverty statistics published today. These statistics cover a range of poverty indicators. In a year where inflation was relatively high, average incomes were flat but still remain at a record high. These numbers show that between 2016-17 and 2017-18, relative poverty, after housing costs, decreased by one percentage point; absolute poverty, after housing costs, was unchanged in percentage terms; and absolute poverty and relative poverty, before housing costs, increased by one percentage point.
Since we entered government in 2010, income inequality has fallen and we have lifted a total of 400,000 people out of absolute poverty, but no one in government wants to see poverty rise. After all, we all came into politics to help people plot a path to a better life. That has driven me since I entered this place in 2010, in the midst of a national economic crisis, because I know that it is vital that government supports its citizens and provides them with the opportunities they need to succeed. I sit in a department that has huge power to do this. I have seen what a force for good universal credit can be—and will continue to be when we roll it out further. I know how committed my jobcentre colleagues are up and down the country, having had the privilege of visiting so many of them over recent months. They truly change lives for the better, no matter what the party opposite may say.
Colleagues on this side of the House are rightly proud that this Government have cleared up Labour’s economic mess and helped more than 3.5 million people into work since 2010. Behind every employment statistic is a person or family whose mental health, well-being and life chances are improved by being in the workplace and having the security of a regular pay packet. It means that 665,000 fewer children will grow up in workless households, providing them with the support of an income, meaning that they are less likely to grow up in poverty and giving them a role model in work. It means that this Government have supported almost 1 million more disabled people into work; I want to be more ambitious to support even more disabled people into work. It means that millions more receive a well-earned pay increase, with wages now growing at the fastest rate in a decade.
This is the record of a Conservative Government who provide opportunities for all, rather than trapping people on welfare. Remember, every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than they inherited. Under the last Labour Government, 1.4 million people spent most of the previous decade trapped in out-of-work benefits, meaning that spending spiralled out of control, with benefits increasing by 65% in real terms. Trapping people on benefits does not help them; it holds them back and it costs those dearest to them, who do the right thing: get up early and go to work. Every household paid an extra £3,000 a year to cover Labour’s welfare splurge, including the lowest earners, who were paying income tax. It was vital that, in these circumstances, the Government brought spending under control.
Colleagues know that our careful management of the economy means that we continue to improve our support for the poorest and the lowest paid. Today’s statistics capture household incomes up to April 2018. Since then we have had nearly a year of real wage growth. This Government have made significant changes to increase the incomes of the poorest since then, injecting £4.5 billion into universal credit alone in the 2018 Autumn Budget.
Next month these changes begin to take effect. We will also give the country’s lowest earners the biggest pay rise in 20 years. From this April we will be increasing work allowances by £1,000 for families with children and disabled people; increasing the national living wage, which will rise to £8.21 an hour from next week; and increasing the personal allowance to £12,500, taking millions of the lowest paid out of paying income tax altogether. But I know we can do even more and I want to do more.
Since coming into post, I have been determined to deliver a compassionate welfare system that supports the most vulnerable. In January I announced that we will no longer be extending the two-child policy to apply to children born before 6 April 2017, costing £250 million and helping 15,000 families a year. We will trial supporting upfront childcare costs with the flexible support fund, allowing parents to start work before paying for childcare through universal credit. We committed to building an online system to enable private landlords to request that a UC tenant’s rent is paid directly to them, supporting the most vulnerable to manage their money. We are looking at how we can ensure that it is the main carer in the household, usually a woman, who receives the UC payment.
This month I further pledged to scrap PIP— personal independence payment—reassessments for 280,000 disabled pensioners; to introduce a personalised and streamlined assessment service to improve the experience for people claiming health-related benefits; to pilot a single assessment for UC and PIP; and to consider how we can best reduce the number of claimants who appeal decisions on PIP and WCA, by ensuring we do more to make the right decision first time around. In addition, the Chancellor has already announced our aspiration to end low pay, starting with a new review into the future of the national living wage.
I will continue to work with colleagues across the House to further improve our support for those on the lowest incomes, because I know that no one in Britain should have their future determined by the circumstances they are born into. Every single boy and girl born in this country should be able to reach their maximum potential, escape any societal constraints, dream big and reach the highest heights. Every single man and woman should be able to go into the workplace knowing that a better future awaits them and their family, and that endless possibilities and ambitions are within their grasp. Every town and city in this country needs to know that this Government are on their side, that we match their aspirations and that by working together we will make every community a better one to live in. These are ideals that are at the heart of this Government and at the heart of the work I do every day. We will not stop until we have completed this mission. I am determined to tackle poverty, in particular child poverty, and I will look at what more can be done in the spending review.
This is what it means to be a compassionate Government who support work, let dreams become reality and help those in need. We will work tirelessly to deliver this. We will act to support the lowest paid and the most vulnerable. We will deliver a country that works for all. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement and for advance sight of it, but, not for the first time, I rather wish Lords Ministers were allowed to make their own Statements. I do not blame the Minister for the rather partisan nature of that; I suspect it may be aimed more at the Secretary of State’s Back-Benchers than at this House. None the less, since she has had to put that on the record, I am now obliged to repudiate it before we can get on to talking about poverty figures. Bear with me while I do that briefly, then we can talk about what was actually in the Statement.
Since the Secretary of State chose to attack what she called “Labour’s welfare splurge” and what we called lifting children out of poverty, I have to put to rest once and for all that old canard that the Government were forced to cut spending on the poor because of Labour’s record. A detailed study, by Ruth Lupton et al, of the coalition Government found that,
“the poor bore the brunt of its changes to direct taxes, tax credits and benefits”.
Meanwhile, with the exception of the richest 5%, those in the top half of the distribution were net gainers from the changes.
“Perhaps surprisingly, overall the ‘welfare’ cuts and more generous tax allowances balanced each other out, contributing nothing to deficit reduction”.
Those coalition austerity cuts were not needed to reduce the deficit or to do anything about Labour’s spending in the past; they were to pay for tax cuts. The benefits of those tax cuts are felt primarily by higher earners. If you increase the personal allowance, someone earning £80,000 a year benefits from all of it. A single mum working 35 hours a week during term time at the minimum wage does not earn enough to benefit at all.
I have now taken a deep breath and will move on to today’s Statement. One thing that the HBAI—households by average income—does is to give us an interesting sense of perspective, and I want to remind us of that today. It tells us that, to lie in the top half of the income distribution, a single individual last year needed a net income over £17,700. A single individual with an annual net household income of over £34,900 would be in the top decile. In other words, he or she would have an income higher than 90% of the population. We all tend to assume that other people earn similar amounts to us and that is a really good reminder that, if that is what the average is, think what the poor are living on.
The Minister mentioned relative poverty today. Normally, Ministers in this Government end up talking about absolute poverty because it is the only figure they can find that does not appear to be rising. Under these figures, they have not looked at the international measure, which is relative poverty, but even today’s figures show that the number of children living in absolute poverty before housing costs increased by 300,000 and after housing costs by 200,000. It is staggering to see absolute poverty rising in our country.
But that is inevitable. Ministers may not wish to come into politics to make people poorer, but I am afraid that if one wills the ends one must will the means. It is inevitable that, if you keep cutting benefits to children, families with children will get poorer. The benefit freeze alone will now save the Government some £4.4 billion a year. That is £4.4 billion that has gone into the Treasury and come from the pockets of some of the poorest families in our country. That means that the Government have cut the value of all the main means-tested working age benefits—all the classic ways in which people keep body and soul together, including personal allowance, income support, jobseeker’s allowance, ESA, housing benefit, universal credit, lower disabled child addition—I could go on. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the effect of the benefit freeze carrying on for yet another year next year means that families will lose another £560 a year on average.
Perhaps even more surprising is that these figures show that the number of pensioners living in poverty actually rose by 100,000 last year, which means that it has increased by 400,000 since 2010. What are the Government planning to do about that?
I have three questions for the Minister. The last Labour Government set out to reduce and eventually eliminate child poverty. They had a clear strategy. What is now the Government’s strategy? Do they aim to reduce child poverty? If so, by how much, by when and on what measure? Or do they think it acceptable that 30% of British children are growing up below the poverty line, half of whom are under five?
Secondly, given that the Government repeatedly stress the importance of people being in work, what will they do about the fact that the proportion of poor children who are in working families has risen again, to 70%?
Finally, will the Government please rethink the benefit freeze? If they would invest just enough to stop it now and not continue it for another year, that could make a real difference to some of the poorest families. These families have suffered enough. When food bank use is at record levels and we keep reading about teachers having to bring in food and clothes to schools simply to help children be well enough, clothed enough and fed enough to learn, surely something has to be done. Please will the Government act?
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am a very inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, who is unavoidably absent today. I am a very poor stand-in—or rather, sit-in.
Today’s figures come as a result of a deadly combination of high inflation, weak pay growth and big cuts in benefit support for working-age households, as we have heard. The most shocking figure is that there are 200,000 more children in absolute poverty. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in asking the Government to use the upcoming spending review to restore the remaining £1.3 billion taken out of universal credit work allowances in 2015 and consider introducing a work allowance for second earners to help get both parents into work.
As for getting more disabled people into work, which was mentioned in the Statement, the National Audit Office report which is out today is pretty critical of the department, saying that it cannot assess, for example, whether disabled people receive a consistent service between jobcentres or over time. It also says that the department underspends its budgets by overestimating the take-up rate of some of its programmes. Will the Minister say whether the department will undertake to look seriously at the recommendations from the National Audit Office?
Finally, disabled people themselves are very keen to help the Government to get this right. There are a lot of brilliant disabled people who would be very keen to engage with the department on employment.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I will do my best to respond to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Thomas of Winchester, without repeating what I have already said in the Statement. It is important to make clear that these statistics focus on household income only, and are based on a survey of households which took place in 2017-18. It is important to recognise that the vast majority of people who were part of this survey were trapped on legacy benefits at that time, as only 10% of the universal credit programme had been rolled out. I make that point because it is important to recognise that we believe that one of the most important ways of lifting people out of poverty is through the universal credit system, which is encouraging many more people to go into full-time work.
It is true that many of those trapped in poverty are the lowest paid or are part-time paid, and those on very low, self-employed incomes. I want to make that clear. Unfortunately, inflation was also high in 2017; it was 2.8% but that has now come down. Lone parents were not incentivised to work full-time due to the 16 and 30-hour cliff edges on legacy benefits. In other words, the tax credits were a disincentive to work, and there was no incentive to work more than a 16 or 30-hour week. Universal credit is changing all of that. Indeed, in 2017-18, there was also stagnant wage growth following the financial crisis.
It is important for me to articulate to your Lordships’ House, to the best of my ability, where we are now. We believe we are in a better place: it is getting better and we want to make it even better. The taper rate is being reduced; work allowances are being increased by £1,000 next week; we have the run-on of housing benefit for those transferring to universal credit; transitional protection has been budgeted for next year; and our fiscal position has improved. We are looking to reduce fraud and error—hugely important to affordability and our ability to inject more into the welfare system—which costs more than £3 billion at the moment. I reassure all noble Lords that an amazing team in the Department of Work and Pensions is improving the way we can track it, with the support of amazing technology, so that will make a real difference.
Money has been reinvested elsewhere in the system. It is important that we look at the bigger picture. Much of overall public spending is not included in these stats. For example, we are now spending more than £6 billion a year on childcare; we have had enormous additional investment in the NHS; we have free healthcare; and we have a free education system. None of that is reflected in these poverty stats. It is also important to recognise that the poorest households receive 70% more in public spending than the richest households. Income distribution is not just about benefits; it is also about the labour market. We now have record employment figures. It is about wages—we need to look more at low wages—taxes and the housing market. Other support across government needs to be considered as part of the jigsaw.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, that the Chancellor has injected £10 billion into the universal credit system since 2016—I think the figure she used was rather less than that. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, referred to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Its analysis shows that universal credit will reduce the number of people in working families in poverty by 300,000.
There is much to say. From next month, we will start to inject £4.5 billion into universal credit to give the country’s lowest earners a pay rise. We want to help the vulnerable through world-class public services, and we want to deliver a sustainable, long-term solution to poverty. We need a strong economy and a welfare system that works with the tax system and the labour market to support employment and higher pay, and we will continue to reform the system so that it supports work. We know that a child in a household where all the adults work is five times less likely to be in relative poverty, hence my reference to part-time workers. We need to encourage more people into work. A household where everybody works makes a huge difference.
On the NAO report, we are committed to improving employment outcomes for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. We have seen 930,000 more disabled people in work over the five years to the fourth quarter of 2018. The disability employment rate increased by one percentage point over the same period. In 2017-18, that number rose, and then the disability employment rate increased by a percentage point over the same period to 51.5%. However, we want to be more ambitious. That is our response to the NAO report. We can be more ambitious if we set our hearts on it, and we are working incredibly hard at the department to do as the noble Baroness asked and deliver a consistent system for universal credit across the UK. Our work coaches and case managers do fantastic work.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that we have gone further than previous Governments to support those on low incomes. Income inequality has fallen under this Government. The national living wage is expected to benefit up to 2.4 million people. With the rise this April, a full-time worker’s annual pay will have increased by over £2,750 since it was introduced. However, we need to do more and we are absolutely on course. Noble Lords will have heard what my right honourable friend in another place has said—that it is our ambition to further reduce the number of those in poverty. We take this issue incredibly seriously and our reforms have made sure that our welfare system encourages people into work and is fair for taxpayers and sustainable for the future. Tackling poverty will always be a priority for this Government.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and much of what the Minister said regarding achieving high rates of employment, with its benefits to mental health and the importance of children having the role model of parents in work. However, I am very concerned at the rise in the number of children in poverty where the parents work. I highlight the two reports of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children on the funding of children’s services in local authorities. Cuts to local authority funding have reduced early intervention to support vulnerable families, and I hope that the Minister will take that into account when considering the pressures that these families are under.
I particularly welcome the reference in the Statement to a new review of the future of the national living wage. What is the likely timescale for that? When will it start and when might it end? Might there be an interim report? The Low Pay Commission has been asked to produce recommendations on the national living wage and the national minimum wage in October 2019, and it will clearly need the report from that review well before then to be able to make good recommendations. I look forward to the Minister perhaps writing to me on those points if she cannot answer in detail now.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, in many ways we are approaching our support and the welfare system slightly differently from how we did it in the past in terms of where the money goes. We do not necessarily agree that just reinjecting into the system money that might have been saved is the right thing to do. Obviously we want to support people to the best of our ability, but part of that should be practical support. Therefore, although we are putting money into the welfare system with the £1.7 billion a year boost announced in the last Budget, enabling 2.4 million households to keep more of what they earn, our focus is on how much more we can do to help children out of poverty.
As I said, children in workless households are around five times more likely to be in poverty than those in working households. We are supporting people into full-time work where possible—for example, by offering 30 hours of free childcare to parents of three and four year-olds. However, importantly, in addition we are trying to deal with the practical barriers. For example, following a speech in January by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, we will trial paying mothers their first childcare costs up front so that they can start work with their children looked after. Importantly, we want to be more practical in our support but, as the economy has continued to grow, we have been able to share the proceeds of growth to support some of the most vulnerable in society. We have seen increases to the income tax threshold, which will reach £12,500 this year, taking 4 million of the lowest earners out of paying any income tax at all, and that will of course help children. Whereas spending on children was £4 billion in 2010, it will be £6 billion by 2020, which is a 50% increase in the last nine years. However, more can be done.
On the national living wage, this is an important review. We must be careful in increasing the national living wage to ensure that jobs are still sustainable. This review will be very much a cross-government task. I take the risk of saying at the Dispatch Box that I suspect it will be led by the Treasury, which the noble Earl will not be surprised to hear. That is quite right, because we have to balance the degree to which we can increase wages, which is crucial, while keeping people in jobs. We are very proud of our employment rate and we want to keep it. Of course, low wages are across the piece—not only in the private sector but in other sectors.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, might the Minister apply herself succinctly to the points raised? We are using up all this valuable time.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, instead of talking about “welfare splurge” at the end of the last Labour Government, the Minister should have given credit to the enormous success of that Government in tackling child poverty. I thought that we had established a national consensus in 2010 that we were all striving to overcome child poverty. Does she now accept that there are deep flaws in this Government’s approach and that, when then Chancellor George Osborne said that the way to deal with child poverty was to increase minimum wages while cutting government spending on welfare, this led to a crisis for poor families?
It is no good just talking about reductions in worklessness, which I acknowledge the Government have achieved. The real problem is that the lives of poor working families have got a lot more difficult. Do the Government acknowledge this failure, and that it should be a central objective of their policy in future to correct that failure?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, of course nobody wants to see poverty rising, and we take these statistics extremely seriously. But I hope the noble Lord heard me when I made it very clear that the statistics relate to two years ago. The reality is that we have done a huge amount to inject more money into the system as well as making a great difference in practical support terms. We do not want people trapped on legacy benefits, which have been a disincentive to their working full-time to support their families and give them life chances. We are looking across the piece on how we can help families out of poverty. The best ways are through work and a good education system for all children. My department is an important part of the jigsaw, but we want as a Government to be much more joined up in how we approach poverty.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, there is much to commend in the Statement but the Government say they want to do more. Is it not time to recognise—and this applies to the thinking in both political parties—that the whole process of new wealth creation produces benefits that go almost exclusively to those who already have savings and wealth, and to people who are personally accumulating capital on a scale they could never conceivably use, whereas the vast majority of households do not gain at all? They must rely only on wages income or, in the case of the poorest households, on income from welfare in the way that my noble friend has described. Is it not time to think of ways in which we can get more dignity and status from the ownership of resources and capital to millions of households who presently struggle with no benefit from the growth of wealth in the economy? Is it not time that our own party and the party opposite thought much more about ways in which wider ownership of capital and resources could be spread to millions of households, so that they benefit from the new wealth rather than see it grow among fewer and fewer people—in a tiny number of hands—creating social tension and denying the vast majority of people any benefit from the growth in capital and wealth that our system can now produce?
Baroness Buscombe
I entirely agree with my noble friend. Of course this is very important. It is why I welcome a review of low wages. That is why I want to talk about the big picture; we talk in silos, across different departments, about what each department is trying to do to support those who need support, but the reality is that we can do this only if we take time to stand back and talk across the piece. Obviously, much of this rests with the Treasury, which has an incredibly difficult job to do in deciding who receives what from each budget, but the reality is that we need to turn this on its head rather than just trying to increase by increment what people receive to lift them out of poverty.
Attacking the key causes of poverty is terribly important through a good education system and a welfare system that gives people sufficient support so that they can focus on improving their lives, rather than on getting by week to week. All the evidence shows us that the universal credit system will help; indeed, it is already helping—look at the record reduction in unemployment. Under the last Labour Government one-fifth of all UK households in the UK were entirely workless, but we have brought that down to somewhere below 13.9%, although I do not have the latest figure.
The reality is that we believe in having households where people are working and children are in school, and which have the right support systems in place. Focusing on those who are unable to work is of course hugely important, but we are spending more than £100 billion a year on benefits for people of working age. Think what we could be doing with much of that if we could lift those people out of the need to turn to support. My noble friend is right: it is a tough challenge.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I wish I could believe all the things that the Minister has claimed the Government are doing about poverty at the moment. I declare an interest as a trustee of Feeding Britain and of the Food Foundation. I do not know how many people saw the recent ONS figures about life expectancy, which are completely up to date. They show that the gap between the richest and the poorest in terms of years of life lived with health has widened yet again. In fact, if a woman in this country is poor, she will have 18.4 years of ill health. The richer the person, the longer they will live with health.
Is there any reason for that? Right now—not two years ago or whenever—the poorest 10% of UK households have to spend 74% of their disposable income after rent to afford the Government’s “eatwell plate”. That is not even up to the level of the House of Lords canteen; it is very basic food. If you do not have that food, you are 2.2 times more likely to be obese by the time you are five, and that gets worse. Recent material has shown that children who are badly fed, who get so little, are actually a centimetre shorter. We are sentencing a generation of children, the poorest 20%—one in five of our kids—to a lifetime in which they will not thrive or be equal unless we deal with some of the underlying causes.
I believe there are things that the Government could do. For instance, we could allow universal, free, healthy school meals to all children. We could also bring back meals on wheels for seniors who are struggling. I ask the Minister to think about this.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that we spend hours and hours crafting what we will say at the Dispatch Box because it is hugely important that what we say is accurate. I can confirm to the best of my ability that the noble Baroness should believe what I have said, because I can say categorically that life is tough if we get it wrong.
The noble Baroness is right, of course, that we need to do more to ensure that people are able to feed themselves well and live a full life in terms of their life chances, their life expectancy and their health and welfare. That is exactly what we are focused on, and it is why we are running all sorts of programmes within the department relating to healthy lives, along with work programmes to encourage people who have not felt able to join the workforce. We want not only to give people the right financial support but to see that they have dignity and the ability to live their lives fully and reach their full potential. It is important to say that we absolutely believe in helping the vulnerable through our world-class public services, and we are injecting more and more money so that we can help disadvantaged pupils in schools, help people through the NHS system and help people through what we do at the Department for Work and Pensions.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, what does the Minister consider to be the veracity of the statement that the previous Government just dumped people on inactive benefits and required nothing from them? Is the case not actually the reverse—that it was Mrs Thatcher’s Government who moved people from unemployment benefit on to incapacity benefit in order to massage the unemployment figures? Was it not the Labour Government who introduced proactive programmes such as New Deal that required conditionality and engagement for people to get them into work, which were successful? We cannot allow that rewriting of history to continue any longer.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I remember well, when I was a shadow Minister, sitting where the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, sits, listening to history being written on an almost daily basis. I respect the noble Lord’s question but I have to say to him: if that is the case, why were 20% of all households in this country entirely workless back in 2010? I think that is a disgraceful figure, and we are doing everything that we can to bring it down.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, could I press my noble friend on her points about childcare? I welcome the Government’s support package but I worry about the practicalities. I declare an interest in that my own children have benefited from free hours in nursery, and I am fortunate in that clearly I do not have any money worries. It does not take a massive leap of imagination to realise that if you are trying to get into work and you go through what is actually quite a complicated and baffling system to work out the different ways through the patchwork of services, that is not conducive to an easy transition back into work. So my first question is on guiding people through that. Secondly, my noble friend mentioned up-front costs. Is that to all mothers, and will it be immediate?
Baroness Buscombe
I thank my noble friend for that question. Funnily enough, this was one of main reasons why I came into politics in the first place. I thought it was appalling that for women wanting to work and support their households, but also needing to consider caring responsibilities, childcare was the big stumbling block. I could not get anyone in government to understand that so I came into politics myself. I have since discovered how difficult that is to change, but we are making changes.
With both the current Secretary of State and the immediately preceding one, Esther McVey, we have been focusing a lot on this issue and looking at the practicalities, as I referenced earlier. We are committed to helping mothers into jobs that fit around their caring responsibilities. There are now more than 1.2 million lone parents in work. To support parents into work we need to have the right fiscal support in place, so we are spending £6 billion on childcare each year, which, as I said earlier, is not reflected in these stats. We are doubling free childcare to 30 hours a week for nearly 400,000 working parents of three and four year-olds. We are introducing tax-free childcare worth up to £2,000 per child per year. With universal credit, parents can claim back up to 85% of their childcare costs, compared with 70% under the legacy benefits system.
The important thing is that we are piloting a more flexible approach to claimants reporting childcare costs, which will allow people to be reimbursed for childcare when they are not able to provide evidence within their assessment period. In cases where people need to pay for childcare up front, work coaches can use the Flexible Support Fund to meet these costs—because, of course, how can you start work if you do not have childcare in place, and how can you have childcare in place unless you can be confident that you can pay for it? We are looking at some of these things with great care at the moment. By the way, this childcare can be claimed up to a month before starting a job. For families with two children, this could be worth up to £13,000 a year.
To answer my noble friend’s question about how we approach the system, work coaches in jobcentres are there to support and explain. We are training and have trained our work coaches and our case managers to support mothers and fathers who want to make sure they can go out to work, knowing that their children are properly looked after and that they can afford it.
Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 December 2018 be approved.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, as well as the Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, I will also speak to the Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019. These three statutory instruments contain five measures to clarify and extend workers’ rights, taking forward the Good Work Plan—the biggest boost to workers’ rights in over 20 years.
The Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations contain three measures. First, they extend the right to a written statement of employment particulars to workers. Currently, only an employee is entitled to a written statement, and only after a month with the same employer. In his report, Matthew Taylor recommended greater transparency by extending the right to a written statement to workers. We agree that all workers should have the same clarity of information that employees currently benefit from.
The second measure amends the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, lowering the threshold for a request to set up information and consultation arrangements in the workplace from 10% to 2% of the total employees. The Government agree with Taylor that voice and engagement is key to good work. Therefore, we are making it easier for workforces to request that employers be more open about what is happening in their workplace. It is important to note that this statutory instrument does not change the important rights that information and consultation representatives have, including paid time off and protection against detriment, the number of employers in scope of the regulations, which is staying at those with 50 or more employees, or the minimum of 15 employees required for a request to set up information and consultation arrangements. Good employers engage regularly with their workforce. To quote Taylor:
“Well-run companies recognise the importance of the people who work for them. They invest time and effort in good management relationships”.
The third measure increases the maximum penalty available to employment tribunals where there has been an aggravated breach of workers’ rights. From 6 April, a maximum penalty of £20,000 will be available, quadrupling the current amount. The current maximum penalty of £5,000 does not always reflect the higher value awards. The new maximum aligns with the current maximum penalty per worker for non-payment of the national minimum wage. It is important that all parties are aware of this penalty. We are providing guidance to increase awareness and highlight how tribunals can make use of these powers. This measure is targeted at businesses that breach the law in ways that are deliberate or malicious. Compliant businesses will welcome this deterrent against anyone seeking advantage by exploiting workers.
The second statutory instrument—the Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019—abolishes the “Swedish derogation”. At present, agency workers can opt out of the entitlement to equal pay in return for pay between assignments through a Swedish derogation contract. Taylor highlighted that Swedish derogation contracts can be exploitative, and workers sometimes do not receive the equal pay they are entitled to. Our consultation and earlier BEIS research uncovered cases where pay between assignments was not given. We concluded that agency workers are not benefiting from the Swedish derogation and we are therefore taking action. I think that this reform has been welcomed across parties.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the main provisions in this suite of SIs. I have to say, it is a great pleasure not to be talking about Brexit, and to be talking about improvements in employment rights following the Taylor report. I record my thanks to the TUC for its briefing, although I do not necessarily agree with all its conclusions and comments.
It is very important that we move with the times, ironing out some of the unintended consequences of previous legislation and adapting to some of the issues developing through changes in the ways that we work. The Swedish derogation is one of the unintended consequences. I well remember introducing the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 when I was in another place. We introduced the right for agency workers to receive the same employment and working conditions as permanent staff after 12 weeks of service. The Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations seek to remedy this loophole, which meant that some employers were getting out of giving full employment rights to agency workers by using Regulations 10 and 11 to waive the right to the same pay as a permanent worker if they signed a “pay between assignments”, also known as the Swedish derogation, which promised to pay in between assignments. Some employers were abusing this regulation, not paying material pay between assignments by keeping their staff on artificial, minimum hours contracts or deducting their “between assignments” pay from their “on assignment” pay. This Swedish derogation is to be revoked on 6 April 2020. Nothing good is lost—businesses will still be able to contract to pay agency workers between assignments after revocation. However, workers will not be able to opt out of equal pay rights after 12 weeks, which is a welcome protection for potentially vulnerable agency workers—so all good there.
The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019 introduce the welcome reform that employment agencies must give the worker information before a contract is agreed—on pay, benefits, costs, deductions and fees. It must also include the minimum rate of remuneration payable to the work seeker and the nature and amount of any deductions made to their remuneration. It must also include a worked example of a payslip. The first payslip often comes as a bit of a shock to employees, let alone an agency worker, when they see all the deductions. This key information sheet should improve transparency around pay arrangements; it is very welcome.
The final, and also very welcome, SI is the Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019. These increase the maximum level of penalty available for,
“aggravated breach of a workers employment rights",
from £5,000 to £20,000. I am not entirely sure what “aggravated breach” would entail. In his remarks, the Minister talked about the minimum wage. Is it wider than that? I understand that it would persistently be breaching employment law, but how many breaches would there need to be before it becomes aggravated? This opens up the question of how many breaches are happening at the moment. The Explanatory Memorandum says that, since introducing the penalty for aggravated breach, 31 penalties have been issued. Can the Minister confirm that this 31 relates to total time since the Employment Tribunals Act 1996? That would indicate to me that there must have been more persistent breaches of employment law than that. I think it is absolutely fair to raise the limit of fine for an aggravated breach, but this will not be much of a deterrent to an employer if there is very little risk of detection. The Minister may not have the figures relating to how many companies have been inspected since 1996 and what that constitutes as a proportion of the total number of companies, but would he be so very kind as to write to me with the statistics that the Government collect regarding inspections and prosecutions for non-aggravated penalties issued since 1996, or whichever is the correct date of the legislation coming in?
A second welcome part of this SI is the extension of the right to a written statement to “dependent contractors” as well as employees. Here I would appreciate some clarification from by the Minister. I am taking “dependent contractor” to include individuals in the gig economy, but I was hoping for a little more in the explanatory notes. I would be grateful if he could write to me, or point me in the right direction, to help me understand a little better the issues facing dependent contractors. I do understand that the Government are consulting on employment status, and that there has certainly been a lot of controversy over the employment status of employees in the gig economy. Could the Minister inform the House what progress is being made on this?
The third provision was to lower the percentage requirement for a valid employee request for the employer to negotiate an agreement on informing and consulting employees, from 10% to 2% of the total. In his remarks, the Minister said that it was important to consult. I agree, but can he give a little bit of context on this, please? I am not sure if this is a very minor issue or, potentially, a big one. Could he give any examples of what employees might need to be informed and consulted on which they are not at present? The 2004 regulations, which originally imposed this application, related to employers with at least 50 employees. I presume that the same threshold number of employees would apply to this amendment. Can the Minister confirm this?
In conclusion, although the TUC felt that many more protections and issues should have been covered in these SIs, I think there is some good stuff in here. There is always a balance to be drawn between all the partners in any enterprise. More can always be done, and, as the economy develops, more will be needed, but I believe we are at least headed in the right direction.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I raised the issue of care agencies earlier, regarding carers who do one hour in one place, one hour in the next and so on, all of them potentially quite far apart. There was a court decision, at a very high level, that they must be paid for their time travelling between places. I have followed this up, and have been told that, in general, they are not being paid. It is local authorities that pay for carers, but they do not seem to be paying them for this, which is very wrong, as there has been a court decision. Where in these regulations will this be covered? It seems highly relevant. I have had a great deal to do with the people who are not getting this money; when they point it out, their companies say they have no intention whatever of paying it. This is wrong since there has been a trial case. I hope the Minister can tell me where it will be covered in these regulations.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, raises an important point. I look forward to the Government’s response to her very pertinent question.
I give a qualified welcome to these regulations. They certainly aim to alleviate, or eliminate, some weaknesses in British employment law. I particularly draw attention to the proposed end to the so-called Swedish derogation in the agency workers’ directive. This has been a long-standing loophole, allowing employers not to provide equal pay to agency workers if the workers agree to a lower rate of pay when the agency cannot find them work. I am usually an admirer of the Swedish labour market, but I wish we had not taken this import from what is normally a very advanced country on employment rights.
Agency working is now a major feature of the British labour market and is being abused in some cases. I do not want to overstate the case—there are plenty of areas where it works well—but European law designed to regulate this area has been built up over a period. We used to refer to agency workers, and temporary workers in general, as atypical workers. We do not use that term any more, because now agency working is typical; in many parts of the country, it is the main offering. It is a rather insecure method of working, a method which I do not think too many people like. Some it suits, but many it does not. The EU certainly sought to bring atypical workers’ conditions in line with those of regularly employed people, and for them to receive equal treatment. That was a long-standing theme of European employment legislation. It is important that unscrupulous employers do not use agency working to undercut the terms and conditions of regularly employed workers.
The Swedish derogation is one weakness—I repeat that I welcome the action that the Government have taken on it—but one other loophole remains, which these regulations do not cover. An agency worker must work for 12 weeks before they become entitled to pay equal to that of a directly employed worker. There are many agency workers whose assignments never reach 12 weeks, and some employers who make sure they never do by rolling them on to a new assignment and a new contract. I ask the Government to re-examine this weakness in the regulations.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I want to raise three points. The Minister mentioned in his opening remarks that this was the most significant set of changes in employment relations in 20 years. I am quite happy for him to exercise that kind of poetic licence but there will be something really worth celebrating on Monday, because that is the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the statutory national minimum wage. To compare these regulations with that sort of development is, as I say, poetic licence but let us be generous on the last day of the week.
My second point is that when I worked at ACAS, which is of course now quite a long time ago, the helpline used to receive calls which were mainly from employees but also from employers. They showed a very different picture in the real world from what regulations and the law said. I still think that the situation has deteriorated, if anything, simply because—as my noble friend Lord Monks said, and I agreed with his every word—it is sometimes a very different picture on the ground and people are grateful for the small mercies they get. We need to remind ourselves that any change in regulation has to be monitored and any fines implemented. The picture of a whole generation of younger people with very little expectation of a permanent contract, an occupational pension or real maternity leave rights—given the extent to which women are sacked because they apply for it, even though we know that is illegal—is such that if the Government mean business, they will have to take seriously how they promote the existing law and ensure that it is enforced.
That brings me on to my point about employment tribunals and fines. One of the biggest problems was that the employers did not pay the fines, so it is all very well increasing the amount but it would be useful to know from the Minister what the situation is now. What is the proportion of employers who refuse to pay the awards made by the tribunals?
Finally, I accept that a very good step forward has been made regarding written statements, which was one of the biggest issues on the ACAS helpline. People were not being given their statements or, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, they were fed in dribs and drabs so that they would not have a complete picture. For example, an important reference to their rights would consist of, “Please look up the employer’s website”. That is an extremely important move and it would be useful if we could monitor what improvements are made as a direct result of this statutory instrument.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the strengthening of workers’ rights contained in these regulations as a work in progress that begins to address—to use the Government’s words in their own Good Work Plan—the fact that,
“some businesses have transferred too much business risk to the individual, sometimes at the detriment of their financial security and personal wellbeing”.
These regulations, however, are introduced in the context of concerns about the consequences of the UK’s departure from the European Union, when workers will no longer have access to the enforcement mechanisms and decisions that they currently enjoy. Nor will they benefit from future decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union or from ensuring that UK workers will not fall behind in the development of rights in the EU.
Yes, these regulations will increase the maximum penalty from £5,000 to £20,000 where there has been an aggravated breach of a worker’s employee rights, to act as both punishment and deterrent for poor employer behaviour, although that penalty is capped at 50% of any compensation award. But enhanced rights, as captured in these regulations, will be of limited value if workers do not have access to justice when they are breached. If workers cannot enforce their rights, they are rendered meaningless.
We saw a staggering fall of 70% in the number claims brought to employment tribunals when fees were introduced and a disproportionate impact of that fell on women, particularly low-paid and pregnant women. The Government have not ruled out the reintroduction of fees, observing only that there will be a consultation exercise if they are reintroduced. UNISON’s legal challenge to their original introduction resulted in the Supreme Court ruling that the Government had acted unlawfully. Reintroducing fees would undermine again the reforms set out in these regulations. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s current intentions with regard to tribunal fees?
The Government recognised the scale of non-compliance with basic employment rights in their own Statement on the Good Work Plan, when they referred to the Government considering,
“the case for creating a new single labour market enforcement agency”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/18; col. 573.]
Again, can the Minister update us as to the current state of the Government’s thinking on such an agency?
These regulations, while welcome, are not sufficient to tackle the insecurity that many workers face through less job security, the decline in the quality of the employment contract and volatility of earnings. The Government frequently refer to the headline increase in the numbers in employment, but refer less to the changing pattern of employment growth underlying that headline—for example, the distinction between employee and non-employee workers, with the latter missing out on key employment protections applying to employees. Workers who are non-employees are entitled only to a lower tier of employment rights which excludes protection against unfair dismissal, entitlement to statutory redundancy pay or minimum periods of notice on dismissal. They have far less security.
The Labour Force Survey, which the impact assessment relies on to reference atypical work, does not explicitly collect data on the issue of employee and non-employee workers. The Government admit in the impact assessment that they have not established robust figures for the number of workers with the less secure status of non-employee worker.
We have also seen an increase in self-employment, particularly lower-paid self- employment, which now accounts for more than 15% of the labour force, and a rise in the number of zero-hours contracts and other characteristics of the gig economy. Only a minority of the net new jobs created over the recent three-month period measured—November to January—were more traditional, full-time jobs; the others included mostly part-time jobs and full and part-time self-employment.
More than 60% of private sector workers in the UK now work for SMEs, with some 12 million working for small employers. A recent report from the Resolution Foundation revealed the extent of volatility of earnings experienced by workers in today’s world, impacting both low and middle-income earners and challenging the assumption of the steady monthly wage. Two in five workers experience persistent volatility, with significant changes in monthly pay at least six times a year. Of course, extending the right to a written statement of terms and conditions of employment to all workers is very welcome, but those statements will not be sufficient to address the transfer of too much business risk to the individual, to their detriment, when the underlying rights and security remain weak. Much more needs to be done to adapt to the realities of a changing UK labour market.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these SIs. Many of the points that I intended to make have already been made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Gardner, and my noble friends Lady Donaghy, Lady Drake and Lord Monks. The House will be pleased to hear that I shall therefore not repeat everything that has been said as well as the many questions that have been asked. However, there are a couple of issues that I want to highlight and reinforce, and a couple of questions I want to ask.
The greatest concern on this side of the House is that these regulations do not do justice to the, admittedly limited, Taylor report. When first published, my honourable friends in the other place warned that its recommendations did not go far enough, yet it seems that the Government are failing to meet even those basic suggestions.
There is also the issue of the considerable delay. After years of consultation and press releases, what has eventually been published amounts only to some minor tweaks and limited changes to employment laws. Ultimately, this is only further evidence of the Government’s failure to address the growing inequality in the quality of work, and increasing insecurity and low pay, across the UK. It will soon be three years since the review was first commissioned. Before I move on to the specific instruments at hand, can the Minister confirm that all 53 of its recommendations will finally be implemented by that milestone?
The crux of the Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 is to ensure that workers, rather than employees, are given a written statement of certain information relating to their position. The fact that a written statement will be given is welcome, but it is disappointing that that information is contained in separate negatives. Why has it been decided that this information would not be in this instrument? It is also questionable what a statement will achieve without the necessary routes to challenge the information given in the document. Regarding that, what exact mechanisms will exist for workers to challenge the information given in the statements, if they had understood the particulars to be different?
My noble friend Lord Monks has already touched on information and consultation. I support his points on that.
The Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019 seek to amend the loophole in the regulations which has meant that agency workers employed on permanent contracts with recruitment agencies can miss out on the right to equal pay, in return for a promise of pay when the agency cannot find them work. As the House has heard, these are known as payments between assignment contracts, or Swedish derogation contracts. The removal of the Swedish derogation is welcomed by this side of the House. The TUC has previously found that, as a result of this loophole, workers have been earning up to £4 an hour less than directly employed staff, even though they may carry out exactly the same work. Unfortunately, the changes will not come into force until 6 April 2020. Why will workers have to wait another year before they receive equal pay?
As a result of these regulations, there will be a significant burden on the EAS to enforce the changes. Can the Minister confirm that the inspectorate will be fully equipped to ensure that all businesses which exploit agency workers will be taken to task?
As my noble friend Lord Monks said, there is also the issue of other loopholes in the legislation, which could lead to the original purpose of the regulations being undermined. Have the Government considered fully removing the 12-week qualifying period, as that would help remove one of them?
Finally, I come to the conduct of employment agencies regulations. In a similar vein to the other regulations, this SI sets out new provisions in the conduct regulations, meaning that agency workers will be entitled to further key information about their assignments. It ensures that employment agencies provide agency workers with a key information document before signing the terms of employment. Any attempt to address issues of pay confusion are, and will be, welcomed, but it is unclear whether this new document will be in the most appropriate format. Will guidance be given to businesses on how the document should be formatted? In common with the other regulations debated today, it is important that provisions of enforcement have been considered. Unless enforcement is properly resourced, even the limited proposals announced will amount to very little. How does the Minister envisage enforcement taking place?
In conclusion, the limited regulations debated today are welcome and have qualified support, as my noble friend Lord Monks said. The issues that have been raised show that the problems lie largely with the fact that they are too timid. If the Government were serious about improving the lives of workers, they would be implementing a far more transformative set of policies rather than these tweaks, especially in the light of the recent prime ministerial statement attempting to woo the trade unions and Labour MPs to support her deal on Brexit. Are her offers of strengthening workers’ rights now gone, with her threat to resign? If not, how do the Prime Minister’s interventions fit with today’s SIs?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their generally fairly positive response to the regulations. I will start by correcting myself, and trying to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who accused me of poetic licence in describing these as the most significant change in 20 years. I must make clear that I was not saying that these regulations were, in themselves, the most significant change; it was our Good Work Plan that was. I offer a small correction to her and say 19 years and 360 days, to allow her her 20th anniversary of the minimum wage, which the coalition Government and this one have continued. I think all parties agree that the national minimum wage, and the national living wage introduced by the Conservative Government, have made a great difference. The Taylor report was commissioned by this Government, and my right honourable friend came up with the Good Work Plan after it. The noble Baroness will be familiar with it; she will have gone through all the recommendations and noticed the large number for which the response is “Accept, accept, accept”, or “We will consult”, or “We will do this or that”. We have a good record and I will amend the 20 years to 19 years and 360 days. That obviously makes her happy.
It is important to remember that these are just one small part of that package. The Good Work Plan sets out a very ambitious programme of work to do, some of which will require primary legislation, some no legislation at all, and some secondary legislation of this sort. We are committed to bringing forward further legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and others will obviously have to wait until we get that. We will continue in that vein.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, expressed her concern that we were going to fall behind Europe. As I have made clear on other occasions—she knows my views—we are well ahead of European provisions in many areas. One has to look only at paternity pay, which was introduced by this Government, and at where we are on maternity pay. I could go on, but will not because we are debating only these three sets of regulations at the moment. There is a proud tradition, in all parts of the House, of getting workers’ rights right. We regularly surpass UK standards and are leading the way internationally in tackling challenges to modernise the labour market, at a time when it is, necessarily, changing because technology and the way we work change.
Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 December 2018 be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 46th Report. 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A).
Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 December 2018 be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Commonwealth
Baroness Goldie
To move that this House takes note of the continuing and evolving role of the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom’s relationship with it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to see so many noble Lords in their places for this important debate. The Government felt that, ahead of the 70th anniversary of the modern Commonwealth and nearly halfway through the UK’s term as chair-in-office, this would be a timely opportunity to update the House on the progress made since the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London last year. To celebrate this positive anniversary of such an important global organisation, with which we have such a special relationship, is surely an uplifting parliamentary occasion in these somewhat sombre times.
Unfortunately, the timing of today’s debate has conspired against my noble friend the Minister for the Commonwealth, who had intended to move this Motion himself. He sends his sincere apologies to your Lordships for not being able to take part. He is en route to New York—indeed, he may already have arrived—to represent the United Kingdom at the United Nations, but I know he will read today’s exchanges with keen interest.
Seventy years on from the London declaration, the Commonwealth has continued to adapt, evolve and respond to our changing world. It has grown into a global institution, representing more than 2.4 billion people in 53 countries, large and small, rich and poor, developed and developing. Significantly, the fact that it continues to attract new and former members to its ranks attests to its continuing relevance and importance. This time of year is traditionally a moment of celebration for the Commonwealth, but this year, together with our fellow Commonwealth family members, we also celebrate 70 years since the signing of the London declaration and the birth of the modern Commonwealth. We celebrate the bonds between people, organisations and Governments across these 53 countries under the theme of “A Connected Commonwealth”. Celebrations of these unique connections have been taking place across the world this month. As we open today’s debate, I will give a flavour of some of them.
Here in the UK, Her Majesty the Queen attended a Commonwealth Day service of celebration in Westminster Abbey. Her Majesty was joined by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall, many other members of the Royal Family, representatives from all Commonwealth countries, the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, representatives from Commonwealth organisations and over 700 schoolchildren.
Councils across the United Kingdom—from Dorset to Newport to Glasgow; this is global reach—raised the Commonwealth flag, building connections across the Commonwealth at community level. Noble Lords will recall the flags of the 53 nations of the Commonwealth flying on Parliament Square. The flag of the Commonwealth flew at 10 Downing Street, at the Treasury and along Whitehall as a symbol of the UK’s enduring commitment.
Across our diplomatic network, British high commissions and embassies have been celebrating with a variety of events that reflect the diversity of our Commonwealth. In Singapore, our high commission co-hosted with the Royal Commonwealth Society a fashion show that showcased recycled materials. In Zambia, our high commission co-hosted with the Commonwealth Games association a day of activities for schoolchildren. The children took part in a tree-planting exercise and were allocated a tree to take care of. Even embassies in non-Commonwealth countries such as Brazil have been celebrating, by bringing together Commonwealth colleagues to discuss shared values.
These celebrations demonstrate the enduring appeal and attraction of the Commonwealth in its 70th year. It is an organisation like no other. It is rich in diversity but connected by important themes: a common language, common history and common values. Its great diversity and global reach—spanning a third of the world’s population—invests the Commonwealth with enormous opportunity and responsibility.
Commonwealth leaders rightly recognised that responsibility at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, here in London last year. They agreed that the Commonwealth could use its significant influence as a force for good to tackle some of the global challenges of our age, including climate change, plastic pollution and the threat of cyberattack. They agreed that member states should work together to build a world that is more prosperous, more fair, more secure and more sustainable. As chair-in-office and a committed member of the Commonwealth family, we are working hard to achieve those ambitions.
Our approach can be summarised in four words: delivery, voice, solidarity and reform. Delivery means working with the three pillars of the Commonwealth—our 52 fellow member states, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and its organisations and networks—to implement the ambitious commitments made at CHOGM. This work is being supported by over £500 million-worth of projects that enable member states to implement key elements of the Commonwealth blue charter, the cyber declaration, and the connectivity agenda for trade and investment.
I turn to the necessary and important issue of reform. To deliver all these initiatives effectively, the Commonwealth’s unique structures must work in harmony. We are working through all three pillars of the Commonwealth to support improved collaboration, including refreshing the governance of the secretariat so that it is in the best shape possible to meet the needs of its member states as they address the challenges of the 21st century.
On solidarity, our third means of increasing the impact of the Commonwealth, we have strengthened collaboration between member states in international organisations. For example, we have increased information sharing on candidacies in international elections and on issues being discussed in other multilateral organisations.
On voice, not only are we co-ordinating more intensively in international organisations, we are working to ensure that the voice of the Commonwealth is heard in these fora. Aside from the United Nations, no other international body encompasses such a diverse range of nations. When we speak as one, we send a strong message to the rest of the global community about the things we stand for and care about.
These are just some of the ways in which this Government are working to deliver a rejuvenated, dynamic and modern Commonwealth. I look forward to a stimulating debate as we explore these issues in more detail, and to offering the House further information in my closing remarks.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, this is indeed an important debate, and the Chamber is currently peopled by folk who love the Commonwealth and who, on all sides of the House, see themselves as part of what the Minister has described—we will undoubtedly hear this phrase a number of times in the debate—as the “Commonwealth family”.
Having said that, and having appreciated the upbeat, jolly and positive tone of the Minister—that is how she always addresses the House and we are grateful for it—it is important that we strike a note of realism in this debate. The reality of good families is not how they have a jolly good party, although those are important, but how they cope with disasters. That is how you judge whether or not a family is working well. What happens when you have to deal with something unpleasant? What happens when you have to face unacceptable truths within your own family? How the family reacts to that forms the basis of the judgment you make about its current state of health.
I want to draw the House’s attention to two disasters. One is a natural disaster—albeit clearly the result of climate change, in which man has had a hand—in south and eastern Africa, and the other is an entirely manmade disaster in west Africa. The first is Cyclone Idai. We heard this morning during Questions a good response from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, as to how the UK is responding to that disaster. As usual, DfID has stepped up to the plate and responded effectively and promptly, and the British people as a whole have responded with unparalleled generosity through their giving to the Disasters Emergency Committee.
Having said that, the global response has been woefully inadequate. In the face of what is now widely understood to have been the worst climate-related disaster in the history of the southern hemisphere, given the scale of the disaster there has been a remarkably tardy response from the international community as a whole. As we speak, vast areas of Mozambique are still effectively cut off from relief by the waters. There are communities which it has not been possible for the relief effort to touch. Beira has been devastated, and it will take many years to rebuild it. In Malawi, vast areas of the breadbasket of that country, which has faced food emergencies in the past, have effectively been rendered incapable of producing food for at least the next two seasons. In Zimbabwe, which is already wrestling with a major economic crisis, there has also been great devastation, both to infrastructure and to economic capacity in the affected rural areas.
The response to that has to include a concerted global effort. That has not been forthcoming, and I do not see any sign that it will be without more effort. The Minister said, rightly, that we should judge the Commonwealth by reference to four things: delivery, voice, solidarity and reform. In relation to this unparalleled disaster, which is affecting three original members of the Commonwealth—now, sadly, only two, as one is currently not a member in good order—the response of the secretariat in terms of voice has been to issue one press release. That is simply not good enough. I have not heard a Commonwealth Secretariat official say a single word to call for a concerted international response. That is simply inadequate. Questions must be raised about the effectiveness of the secretariat if that is all it can do. So there are certainly failings with regard to voice.
In the past, the Commonwealth Secretariat has spoken about natural disasters and, apparently, has done a bit more than speak. The previous Commonwealth Secretary-General spoke in response to disasters in the Pacific, and the current Secretary-General has spoken on disasters in the Caribbean, calling for a task force on natural disasters to be established,
“to assist with mobilising international assistance to provide protection and assistance with recovery from the impact of violent storms and similar emergencies”.
Whatever happened to that? Where is this task force? Where is it housed, what action followed the call for such a task force, and, if it exists, what support has it asked for and been offered by Her Majesty’s Government? That is my first question for the Minister. If it does not exist, why is that? We were told that it was being called for and that it would operate. We have never heard anything since.
For those of us who are friends of the Commonwealth —that is all of us in this Chamber—our friendship is unconditional. Looking around, I see friends of the Commonwealth whose friendship dates back very many years. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who is chairman of the Council of Commonwealth Societies. No one has done more than him over the years, in so many different capacities, to support the Commonwealth. He deserves credit for that, and I know that all sides of the House deeply appreciate him for the work he has done here. As friends, we must be told what the Commonwealth will do about delivering this; the Minister, rightly, cited that as one of the things she was looking for.
So we want more by way of voice, and we certainly want more by way of delivery. If it takes reform, so be it. We would like to know what that reform will be, and we would like Her Majesty’s Government to make a contribution to that reform because, as we all know, reform needs resources. I do not think that anyone in this House expects there to be reform without resource —we have all been around a long time—but, frankly, we cannot apply resource unless we know that there will be reform. That would simply be wasting money, which we can ill afford to do.
Solidarity has been shown by the people and Government of the United Kingdom, and by the people and Government of South Africa, who stepped up to the plate with logistics support at a time when nothing else was forthcoming—there were no ships or helicopters, and South Africa stepped up to the plate. We hope and expect to see that solidarity shown by the United Kingdom and neighbouring African powers demonstrated in a practical way by the Commonwealth as a whole.
I turn from that natural disaster to the entirely manmade disaster in Cameroon. This House has previously addressed the history of that country, and I do not intend to go over old ground. But it is right that we should look at what is happening there now. As we speak, the United Nations has put out a call for some $184 million to address the immediate crisis, identified by the UNHCR, of some 437,000 people who have been displaced by the situation in Cameroon. They have been driven out of house and home—in some instances into the forests and in others into the towns. As we speak, people are facing absolute disaster in their lives, not knowing where their next meal is coming from or whether they will fall victim to either the separatist insurgents or the Government’s own security forces. Both sides have committed appalling atrocities over the past few years, and it has got worse.
Again, a response is called for and, again, the global response has been patchy, to put it mildly. However, there has been a response. The United Nations Security Council addressed this issue, and the United States has taken an assertive line. It addressed the Security Council on the issue, as did our own permanent representative. You hear a lot of criticism of the State Department but actually it cannot be criticised in this regard. It has been remarkably assertive in its Africa policy, and it deserves credit for that. The United States has instituted sanctions against individual military people and other members of the regime in Cameroon. Just days ago, in the UN Human Rights Council, Her Majesty’s Government made, with Austria, a statement on Cameroon, supported by 39 countries in all, raising concern about the deteriorating human rights situation and calling on the Government of Cameroon to establish a credible dialogue.
Civil society has stepped up to the plate, in this country and globally. The churches have been in the forefront of the work within Cameroon to bring together people from all the faith communities—the Christian churches have worked alongside the imams on this issue. Every attempt they have made to bring people together to create a climate in which it is possible to resolve the issues has been sabotaged, either by the Government or by the separatists.
The question, then, is: what is to be done? Cameroon is a member of the Commonwealth. We have repeatedly called on the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Secretary-General to say something about this issue—voice, as the Minister rightly said—and demonstrate solidarity with a member of the family going through hell: an internal division on an unparalleled scale that threatens the whole integrity of that state and the human rights of the Anglophone community in particular. Where is the voice of the Commonwealth on the situation in Cameroon? Where is the delivery?
The Minister referred to our current position of leadership of CMAG—the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. It is to meet in April. Its purpose is apparently to discuss the extent to which Commonwealth values are being upheld. That is its mandate, sole purpose and reason for existence. It is asked to take into account several things in its action. I will touch on only a couple of them. First, there is the postponement of national elections without constitutional or other reasonable justification. We know that the Cameroonian Parliament has already extended its mandate by some 12 months. A second criterion is whether the electoral process is seriously flawed. We know that the presidential elections were seriously flawed. Those are just two issues. We know that civil society is failing to have its human rights respected. All these things we know. What is being done?
I finish on this note: what is being done? Will it be raised in April? If so, under what part of the agenda will Her Majesty’s Government raise it, and, if not, why not? Delivery, voice, solidarity, reform are all called for if this family we love is to work and to prosper.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest on the register as the co-chair of the Commonwealth All-Party Parliamentary Group. I will pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, about the crisis in southern Africa. It was interesting that the Indian Navy was on hand for immediate relief—not enough, obviously, but there was some. I looked a little further into Commonwealth initiatives and found that in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other Commonwealth countries are working together on humanitarian relief and aid programmes. There is definitely a case here for the Commonwealth Secretariat to take the initiative and see whether there is scope for a united Commonwealth aid package to deal with the needs throughout the Commonwealth. It may not be possible, but we should at least have a scoping study.
Just over a year ago—on 22 March, to be precise—the Minister for the Commonwealth moved the Motion:
“That this House takes note of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018”.
The report of that debate in Hansard runs to 80 pages. More recently, on 7 March this year there was a debate in Westminster Hall moved by James Duddridge MP, the chair of the executive committee of the CPA, followed by a Statement by the Minister for Africa, Harriett Baldwin MP, marking this as the 70th anniversary year of the founding of the Commonwealth.
In many ways these three documents plot the aspirations and course of the themes set out for CHOGM 2018 at the beginning of the process, and the challenges and objectives described in the CHOGM communiqué. They also, by default, highlight issues that appear to have dropped below the radar, which this debate perhaps allows us to highlight.
In introducing the debate on 22 March last year, the Minister stressed the key characteristics of the Commonwealth: it comprises one-third of the world’s population, two-thirds—1 billion—of whom are under 30, and one-fifth of the world’s trade is within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is committed to values founded on democracy and the rule of law embodied in the Commonwealth charter, with members ranging from some of the smallest to some of the largest countries in the world, with climates ranging from tropical to Arctic.
CHOGM 2018 faced the global challenges of the 21st century with an overwhelmingly young population, under the theme, “Towards a Common Future”. The CHOGM communiqué set out the Commonwealth’s priorities for the ensuing two years, coinciding with the UK’s tenure as the chair in office. It was stressed that the UK intended to play a full and active role in the important work of rejuvenating the Commonwealth, which would require collective effort for many years to come. Progress made in London would be sustained over the coming years, and member states would be supported in honouring their commitments. What was agreed at the summit would go beyond just words and be backed by meaningful commitments and financial support.
CHOGM 2018 presented a golden opportunity for the UK Parliament to be at the centre of activities to reinforce parliamentary democracy throughout the Commonwealth. Within the parliamentary forum organised by the UK CPA, 80 parliamentarians attended from 30 different countries as a feed-in to CHOGM. A proposal emerged to establish a virtual pan-Commonwealth monitoring group of parliamentarians to assess the progress of the Commonwealth towards achieving the 2018 to 2020 strategies plan and report back. The ambition was that a Commonwealth parliamentarians forum should become an invaluable feature of future biannual CHOGMs. Can the Minister advise us on progress on what I consider to be an invaluable contribution and ambition?
In March 2018, the Government confirmed that they had launched a Commonwealth education pack for schools across the United Kingdom to inform students and explain the importance of the Commonwealth. At that time, it had been shared with more than 40,000 teachers in the UK and was accessible worldwide. What measures have been taken to assess the impact of this initiative and what do the Government believe were the outcomes?
At this stage, there was talk about potential candidates to join an enlarged Commonwealth, with several cited, including the Republic of Ireland—one of the original members of the Commonwealth before, sadly, it resigned. In recent months, Ireland has become a member of the Francophonie and, bearing in mind the events surrounding Brexit—we had to have Brexit here somewhere, did we not?—does the Minister agree that an application for Commonwealth membership from Ireland is even less likely now?
In her response earlier this month, the Minister for Africa, Harriett Baldwin MP, cited the Commonwealth charter as stating that members are,
“opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”.
Many Commonwealth countries are still dragging their feet in addressing those issues, on the basis that they are bound by 18th century laws enacted when they were colonies. We are now well into the 21st century and the age of the world wide web, with the Commonwealth making an ever more significant impact in world affairs. With members reaping the benefits of a Commonwealth fit for purpose in this modern world, it is surely not too much to ask them to accept the commitments that they entered into in the Commonwealth charter.
I note that in her statement on Commonwealth Day, the Minister for Africa commented that the Equality and Justice Alliance was supported by UK funding in working towards creating a fairer Commonwealth. It was building capacity in civil society and offering technical assistance for legislative development in six countries. Can the Government expand on this important initiative, with details of the anticipated programme and progress by the time we reach the Rwanda CHOGM?
In a similar vein, in answer to an Oral Question on 13 March, I was advised of the supervision structure for the £212 million education programme for girls in nine Commonwealth countries, through our UK Commonwealth envoy. He is a great guy—I am sure that he is doing an excellent job—but I believe that noble Lords would like to have more detail about the conclusions contained in the reports back on the take-up of the programmes, their effectiveness and their quality.
The Minister may be aware that I have recently asked a series of questions on freedom of expression in the Commonwealth, given the commitment in the CHOGM communiqué to strengthen capacity to deliver on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This comes in the appalling context that more than 100 journalists were killed in eight Commonwealth countries between 2006 and 2015 with impunity—not a single person has been brought to book for those offences. I understand that FCO and Cabinet Office officials have been offering advice on the principles of freedom of expression to the Commonwealth Working Group on Media and Good Governance. Can the Minister provide an update on the initiative to hold an international conference in London later this year, with the potential support of UNESCO? The Clooney Foundation for Justice is also active in this field: Mrs Amal Clooney has confirmed to me its concerns over courts increasingly being used as a tool of oppression, and that they have been in discussion with the Foreign Office. Can the Minister provide more detail on these plans?
In November last year, at the launch of the Commonwealth Secretariat’s new report—The Global Human Rights Implementation Agenda: The Role of National Parliaments—the Secretary-General said:
“Commonwealth Parliamentarians have a central part to play in the promotion and protection of human rights”.
She stressed their work to build the capacity of Commonwealth parliaments. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association stressed that it was the role of parliamentarians and parliaments to act as a check and balance on Executive policies. Clearly, Parliaments need to establish mechanisms and oversight committees to do this, yet only 28% of Commonwealth parliaments have established specialised parliamentary scrutiny committees. While chair in office, is the UK giving priority, under the theme of “Building a Fairer Society”, to addressing this deficiency?
The Minister will be aware that paragraph 44 of the CHOGM 2018 communiqué, entitled “Commonwealth Renewal”, notes a request since the Malta CHOGM of 2015 to establish a high-level group to look at the issue. Two high-level reports, which looked at renewal and collaboration with associated and accredited organisations, were issued in late 2018. After four years, high-level reports have emerged, yet there is concern at the apparent lack of application to deepening collaboration, given the UK commitment as chair in office to a strengthened Commonwealth network, working together for the benefit of the people. What are the expectations for deeper collaboration in these reports? What progress is being made to achieve this? How will the outcomes of the high-level report be taken forward in a timely manner, given the significant delay in the start of this work recorded in the CHOGM communiqué?
Noting the importance of the Latimer House group work on the separation of powers described in paragraph 13 of the communiqué, and the funding allocated to these tasks, are the Government confident that the outcomes anticipated by the end of June will be fit for purpose and represent value for money?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I am grateful to the Government for making time for this debate. I was glad to see “evolving” in the Motion on the Order Paper; it brings home to us that the Commonwealth is a vital part of our present and future. It is very much part of the platform for our future, as Her Majesty the Queen observed long ago, and not at all something belonging to the past. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Goldie for her characteristically excellent and clear introduction on the Government’s view of what is happening in the Commonwealth and where we are going.
We should be having such a debate anyway, regardless of the dramas of Brexit—indeed, almost independently of the Brexit event. Why? We are looking at Britain’s position in a totally transformed global context and a new cycle in the history of international relations. This is most visible in east and west Asia, not just because of China but because it embraces half the Commonwealth network, including India and some of the world’s most dynamic countries, such as Bangladesh, which is completely ignored by the British press despite being one of the fastest-growing high-tech economies on earth.
Of course, the Caribbean nations—this side of Asia, as it were—are also vital. Incidentally, almost every one is much-visited by Chinese activity. Canada is a key Commonwealth member, with its great interest in CANZUK, the Canada-Australia-New Zealand-UK network on ideas for a major advance in Commonwealth trade and investment co-operation; again, it is completely ignored by the British commentary but it is vital. In fact, the change of leadership in Ottawa currently being mooted would give a stronger Commonwealth push from Canada than ever.
Then, there is the resurgent Africa, with 19 Commonwealth nations and China as its largest trading partner. It is a continent of huge hope but terrible and severe problems, about which the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, spoke so eloquently. I thank him for his kind personal remarks.
However, the rising, motivated, super-dynamic Asia—both the Asia-Pacific region and central Asia—is shaping our future here in Europe and in Britain. Many areas of the world traditionally considered in the sphere of the West are already turning eastwards and linking up with the emerging Asian system. The Gulf states, Turkey, large parts of Africa, Oman, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, south-east Asia and India, with its Look East policy, all spring to mind. Meanwhile, for those who doubt Asia’s arrival on our scene, we must note Italy’s new deals with China and Asian links all over central Europe. For example, Mr Xi Jinping visited Rome to sign huge new deals with Italy only last week.
Asia produces, exports, imports and consumes more than any other region on earth. It now contains several of the world’s largest economies, most of the world’s foreign exchange reserves, many of the world’s largest banks and industrial and high-technology companies, and most of the world’s biggest armies, with the obvious exception of the United States. It contains most of the world’s new giant cities, many of them with infrastructure unmatched in the West and often a hundred years ahead of anything we have here. Asia is the key to our future. Networks are the key to Asia, and the Commonwealth is by far the biggest network on the planet. A sustainable, prosperous and secure Commonwealth is utterly in our national interest, never more so than now. As chair-in-office, this year is our opportunity to contribute. Given our departure from the European Union—if it happens—and with our alliance with the USA looking increasingly wobbly, this is the clear direction in which our new role and national purpose lies.
A great deal has been done by Her Majesty’s Government, particularly by my noble friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister, who unfortunately cannot be here. He has given real momentum in government, the best he can, to many of the realities we now face, such as the importance of a sustainable, prosperous and secure Commonwealth. He has done very well indeed, and I congratulate him—but there is an enormous amount still to do.
It is not just a question of having a heads of government meeting, black Mercedes cars going here and there, government communiqués and so on. It is not just a question of fulfilling the aspirations and intentions of the communiqués, although many of them are very good. There is a whole list of new goals that we should be working towards to demonstrate and fulfil our commitment to proper engagement in the Commonwealth system: helping to build a new Commonwealth trade and investment agenda; exploiting the enormous digital wealth of the Commonwealth, which is linked to our common language, common law and common standards; fostering more exchange between the creative industries, vastly helped by our common language and part of the new pattern of the soft power age, which we do not fully recognise; making the 70th anniversary a major event, which the Minister rightly said we are getting on with, so that is good; strengthening intelligence, defence, military and naval ties, where there is enormous scope; reducing intra-Commonwealth travel obstacles, both for business—as already occurs among ASEAN businessmen: half of Asia has completely free movement for business—and for dealing with the student situation, which is not at all satisfactory at present. We need a standing body to assess potential new members—of which there are several—and readmissions such as, one hopes, Zimbabwe one day, although clearly not at present and in its present condition. We need to review all DfID and ODA programmes to reverse the shrinking proportion going to the Commonwealth—I think the heads of DfID have grasped this point, but I am not at all sure that that message has reached over to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We need to move forward with our own potential and vastly important membership of the comprehensive, progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, which already includes several key Commonwealth countries.
As with a huge iceberg, the bulk of intra-Commonwealth activity and networking today lies beneath the radar of conventional diplomacy and its media coverage. Experts and opinion-formers, accustomed to looking only at what goes on between Governments and what is fed out at official level, completely miss the new reality: that the world is moving outside the familiar interstate system and that power and influence now flow between new international bodies, networks, interests, professions, businesses, university systems and causes, regardless of national boundaries, on an unprecedented scale. As I hope my noble friend Lord Marland will remind us—he will speak later in this debate, and has done so much to invigorate Commonwealth trade—these are the great, largely non-governmental institutions of the modern Commonwealth. We must work to leave them stronger than when we took them over, when we hand over the chairmanship of the Commonwealth to Rwanda next June.
It is the flexibility and informality of the Commonwealth family that make it so much more resilient than the old, more hierarchical structures of the 20th century that we inherited. Remember that the Commonwealth has no treaties; it is not a treaty-based organisation and is entirely voluntary. This makes it the ideal system for the digital age of massive grass-roots empowerment and connectivity. Of course, all families have their inner tensions and problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, reminded us. All networks have their problem points. The modern Commonwealth needs new kinds of enlightened and sophisticated governance to guide it through these shoals. A specially appointed—and perhaps rather extravagantly named—High Level Group, of which I had the privilege to be a member, was charged last year with adapting the structures of Commonwealth governance to entirely new world conditions.
In Britain’s case it is no secret that our country is struggling to adapt and redefine its role in a revolutionised world. Looking at the scene from an admittedly selfish British viewpoint, it is clear that the modern Commonwealth provides Britain both with the ideal transmission mechanism for the considerable soft power influence we have and with an excellent opportunity to make the contribution to world peace and prosperity to which the better side of the British character has always aspired. To strike a positive note, it really is heartening to see how the British establishment— wandering for a biblical 40 years or so in search of a narrower European destiny—is now returning to the larger Commonwealth fold, re-forging old links and seeking new ties in a transformed international milieu. Let us wind back two or three decades; frankly, few expected the morning would ever come when Britain would need access to the huge new markets and swelling capital resources of key Commonwealth friends, notably the giant and dynamic new India. Yet now that morning has arrived.
Nobody planned any of this; to use the word from the Motion, it was not planned to evolve this way. There were no blueprints. On the contrary, all too many were ready to write off the Commonwealth as a relic of the past. They did not foresee that networks have their own agendas and their own capacities to mesh together, without waiting for higher instruction, official guidance or approval. They did not foresee that the swirl of communications technology would advance the interweaving process in a manner never matched before in human history, thanks to common language, common law, common standards of accountancy and, above all, a great degree of that invaluable element: trust.
I know that many Commonwealth countries may well now be quizzical about the UK’s newfound enthusiasm for working with them, given the sharp downgrading of UK Commonwealth interest from 1972 onwards. As we return to the fold, our policies and approaches must reflect a suitably condign attitude and a clear recognition that this is not in any way a replay of old relationships. Not only has the Commonwealth of 1949 gone, the Commonwealth of the 20th century has gone and been replaced by an assembly of countries that includes some of the world’s fastest-growing economies and middle-income consumer markets. This is the network of friends and democracies with which we must now face a very uncertain future together. We need to be clear in our minds that we are re-engaging with Commonwealth countries not in some kind of post-colonial paternal role but as a key part of the United Kingdom’s new economic and security strategy in a transformed world. The Commonwealth is a key channel through which to exercise our full responsibilities in today’s disturbed and uncertain world conditions. I hope leaders of all parties and of all great institutions in this country have grasped that this is the path we now have to follow.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this important subject and look forward to her response. In addition, I wish the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, well in New York. It is the greatest pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for—one of many reasons—there can be no greater advocate and friend of the Commonwealth.
As regards the situation in Mozambique and the point the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, raised about the need to raise large quantities of resources for that troubled land, the Government might wish to consider knocking on the door of the United States. That country potentially has large interests, and will be a major beneficiary of the gas extractions and LNG, in Mozambique. It really would behove the United States to come to the fore.
The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, raised the desperate situation in Cameroon. I will not comment on the detail, as I recently did so in a debate introduced by the noble Lord, but I wish to register this. I am concerned that, when considering yesteryear, our country on occasions does not have the best record. We must keep our hand in and use all best endeavours to support those who have been adversely affected at independence. The Commonwealth can offer a clear contribution in all such matters, and we might wish to consider calling on President Macron of France to work with us to map out a solution to the situation in Cameroon. France probably has more influence than us on the President in Yaoundé. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, the Minister, could use some of his time at the United Nations in New York to raise that point and generally get more traction.
Standing shoulder to shoulder with our Commonwealth allies must become a necessary and major plank of British relationship building over the years to come; how the UK best contributes to those relationships will be a matter for ongoing discourse. The Commonwealth provides a platform to discuss values and interests. However, we should be sensitive in recognising that on occasions these go counter to cultures and creeds elsewhere. Discussion and implementing changing philosophies should be viewed as activity in progress, whether it be addressing the bane of corruption, advocating decent levels of human rights, the benefits of social change fit for today’s world or the addressing of one of the great challenges of the age—the need for understanding and interaction in relation to religious tolerance. Whichever way one views it, the Commonwealth combines every aspect of life and is a force for good.
The complexity and scale of the interconnected world has brought benefits but also poses immense challenges. Cyber activity, in this world of obfuscation, is a worldwide phenomenon and affects us all. Given the importance of the Commonwealth in a post- Brexit world, the UK should help review the national cybersecurity capacity of Commonwealth members and improve their capabilities in providing mechanisms to monitor, detect, protect against and repel incursions, with an outcomes-based approach to governance and regulation, and in so doing build resilient digital economies. I encourage HMG to underpin action and exert influence by investing in increased Commonwealth partnerships, developing relationships to build on the levels of cybersecurity necessary to protect Commonwealth partners. Kigali’s CHOGM 2020 could offer a milestone for what progress has been achieved and to further outcomes.
There are many benefits to trade in order to enable relationship building, and as the UK advances on trade relationships around the world we should consider our role as strategic partners. The UK has been the advocate and gateway to access for many Commonwealth states into the European Union. What is to become of our ability to continue effectively in this role given, for example, a determined France on the prowl? I await a response to a Question I raised recently, in that there is disquiet in trade policy circles about a lack of co-ordination over how the Commonwealth fits in the overall constellation of EU to UK FTAs. I also seek a timeline from the Government for improving the unilateral preferences that they grant to the Commonwealth in the longer term, with more clarity on the level of access to be provided to less-developed countries. I would be grateful for clarity on this.
At this stage, I draw attention to a declared interest in that I am the architect of a digital platform, SupplyFinder.com, which has as its core providing B2B access for SMEs for cross-border markets. I naturally have the Commonwealth firmly in focus.
Putting trade into context, intra-Commonwealth trade is projected to reach $700 billion by 2020. This will be accommodated in large part by the Intra-Commonwealth SME Association, ICSA, launched in June 2016. What should be emphasised is the imperative to enhance a trade finance facility allowing small states to access finance needed to develop trade and sustain economic and social development with SMEs failing to maximise their potential. Solutions need to be found to the challenges facing small states—Commonwealth criteria place 32 states in that category—which range from weak credit ratings to a reluctance of global providers and financiers’ wariness of untested goods and services.
A plan was first mooted at the Sri Lanka CHOGM, with the support of India, Sri Lanka, Mauritius and Malta, and Malta CHOGM advanced this notion, with India placing an initial contribution of $5 million—currently managed by Standard Chartered Bank, Baroda—to assist in a de-risking exercise, a credit guarantee scheme, that would give access to finance. So the trail is to provide credit guarantee to banks in small states who in turn can then lend to SMEs. This is an excellent initiative of the Commonwealth. However, more needs to be now done to add real teeth. Surely the City of London can see the opportunity, and if not, you would think that it would consider a degree of responsibility and rise to the challenge. If not, then a new financial centre should be devised with this objective as the goal. I am talking to one overseas organisation that has adopted British law and arbitration as the manner of things, all conducted in English.
Before ending with a thought, I draw attention to the second Intra-Commonwealth SME Association trade summit to be held in Nairobi, co-hosted by Kenya, and with expectation that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, the Secretary-General, will participate. The main objective of the summit is to build awareness of existing global standards, as well as to encourage regional and international investments in areas where the countries have competitiveness but lack capacity. Three chapters will be hosted: high-level policy makers; sectoral B2B meetings; and a technology and innovation platform.
As an aside, in my case with SupplyFinder.com to which I have referred, I have built up a research team in Sierra Leone that has the capacity but, frankly, I face a big challenge with internet availability and cost and impediments placed by payment providers to process remittances. With regret, I had this problem with Zimbabwe as well.
For my concluding point, I draw on my experiences in Kazakhstan as the architect of the Aktau Declaration on Joint Actions. That was all about joint ventures and local content, harmonising standards, specifications, organising a single all-purpose pre-qualification data base for suppliers and so negating the need to register multiple times with differing operators and so on. I have little doubt that something of the sort would work well within the Commonwealth and, now I think of it, I might propose that in Nairobi.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, in approaching the debate this afternoon through the prism of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I hope it will not be thought that I am being too narrow or niche. More broadly, I endorse the work being done at all levels, from the Government downwards, to strengthen our links within the Commonwealth.
But history still haunts us to some extent. From my time as chair of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and as international chairman for three years, there is no doubt that there are still colonial resentments in parts of the Commonwealth which we have to overcome. There is also still a tendency on the part of many to refer to “the British Commonwealth”, which is unhelpful in modern times when we are celebrating 70 years of the Commonwealth. The membership of Rwanda, Cameroon and Mozambique is evidence that we are a broader organisation these days. Of course, a network is developing between and within regions which does not necessarily involve the United Kingdom at every turn.
What worries me more than anything else is the general unawareness in the population as a whole of what the Commonwealth is all about. I was shocked when I led a delegation to India in 2012—I think my noble friend Lord Popat will remember the occasion. On meeting the foreign affairs committee of the Lok Sabha, we were informed that India had no great interest in the Commonwealth. Coming from a senior parliamentary spokesman of the largest democracy in the Commonwealth, that was quite a shock. Then I thought to myself, if I went out into the street, whether in my old constituency of Saffron Walden or anywhere in London, and asked people what the Commonwealth meant to them, I would find an astonishing level of ignorance. That is truly worrying.
Despite all that, our parliamentary model is still seen as an important resource. We are always pleased to welcome delegations from other parliaments from all over the world, particularly from the Commonwealth, who wish to discuss their situations. A week ago, I met a group of distinguished Senators from Malaysia who were considering their constitutional arrangements. On behalf of the United Kingdom branch of the CPA, I explained all about our parliamentary model and the resource it was for them—even as our parliamentary model is being somewhat tested by present events. I wondered whether, when they saw the newspaper headlines the following morning, they could credit what I had said against what they read there.
In all these relationships with Commonwealth countries, I believe there is an expanding agenda for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. One of the things that strikes me is that it is all very well to have the Heads of Government meeting every two years, but there has been little opportunity for a relationship with what I would call the next level down in the democratic system. If it is the Executive who meet at the Heads of Government meeting, what about the legislatures? How do we build a relationship with them? That could lead to the decisions taken at CHOGM being followed, monitored and questioned in the ensuing period, with all parliaments facing continual questioning and debates about the matters on the agenda and agreed at CHOGM.
In fact, it is quite difficult to get debates. It is wonderful to have this one and there was a debate in the other place quite recently but, in the House of Commons, one has to beg for time from the Backbench Business Committee. We ought to have a major day in the parliamentary calendar when the affairs of the Commonwealth are discussed. That would send a message not only to our own people but to all our friends in the Commonwealth. CHOGM should attempt to build a structure that enables legislators to have a closer relationship with them.
Through the CPA, a women’s organisation has gradually been built up over the years and great work has been done to lift the position of women in Parliament and deal with many of the serious women’s issues that have cropped up in recent times, involving modern slavery and other matters. We have also created a network of the small jurisdictions and they now have their own chair, who becomes an officer of the association alongside the women’s chair.
What about young people? I remember that a kind of youth forum with the host Minister was held at CHOGM in 2011. Afterwards, the reaction was, “Will that be the last time we have any contact with the Heads of Government for two years?” Everyone resents being consulted one minute and then ignored for the next hour—or decade—and young people feel that in particular. They feel they have been picked up, put in a particular position and then forgotten about. We need to address that when young people represent a formidable proportion of the Commonwealth population. It is difficult to build it up, but there should be some kind of youth assembly or parliament in each of the Commonwealth countries, which would send a delegation to CHOGM. We should also have a leading person or officer for this in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That would demonstrate that we are listening to the future citizens of the Commonwealth regularly and trying to involve them.
Continuity is needed. On Monday, your Lordships’ House will discuss the UK’s future relationship with the Erasmus programme in whatever situation we find ourselves with the European Union in the coming months. This is an enormously valuable programme. I do not want to see it go and deny young British people the opportunity to move to European countries. However, should we not try to do more to boost the numbers of people who go to other Commonwealth countries? It would no doubt be more expensive and more difficult to arrange, but should that not be a main purpose if we want young people to believe in the possibilities that proper democracy can bring them in the future?
IT can make a contribution to the practical problem of bringing people from far-off places together to talk to each other. I once saw a scheme in Kenya where a school was linked with a school in South Africa and one in Southampton and they were doing the same project. Every week, they would compare how they were dealing with it. We ought to be able to set up a buddy system for young people in the Commonwealth through mobile telephony, tablets and so on. We must have these ideas if we are to have full confidence in the future.
There is one niggling matter about the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association that I should like to mention: its legal status. It is registered as a charity in the United Kingdom and that irks many of our partners in the Commonwealth. It caused particular problems for me to overcome when I was international chairman. The British Government hold the key to this and have resisted a change in status for 30 years or more. However, a proposal has been put forward to the Minister and I hope it will be dealt with more favourably and imaginatively, so that we can get rid of this irritant, which has undoubtedly affected diplomacy between parliamentarians.
As we know, and as has been mentioned in this debate, there are many great struggles in the world. The one I—and all of us, I am sure—hope we avoid is an entrenchment of a world with a rich half and a poor half. There are appalling levels of poverty in many Commonwealth countries. Within the Commonwealth, we have a framework which can help to address and overcome this danger, by helping people to engage with people, learn lessons from one another and inspire hope that solutions that have eluded them so far can still be found. It takes time, it takes money and it takes commitment. It is particularly difficult for elected politicians, who always have to be looking at those who elected them in the first place, to find the extra time and dimension to reach out across the Commonwealth, but it is one of the most worthwhile undertakings on which we could embark.
It is right that the word “Commonwealth” and the concepts of continuity and evolution are in the Motion before your Lordships’ House today, but it seems to me that we need not just continuity or evolution, but a proclamation. Above all, we must talk up the Commonwealth and make people in everyday life aware of the benefits of this great organisation and the possibilities it holds, as outlined particularly by my noble friend Lord Howell. It has the potential to be a beacon of hope for a better world, and there are many people who need a sight of that beacon.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for introducing this debate in such a positive manner and so clearly. It is indeed welcome that, nearly a year on from a very successful CHOGM in April 2018, we are debating the continuing and evolving role of the Commonwealth and our relationship with it.
In 2019 we mark 70 years since the London declaration, and it is worth reminding ourselves that this declaration came about because India wanted to become a republic but also to stay in the Commonwealth. India accepted the King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and, as such, the head of the Commonwealth. India’s first Prime Minister, the late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, saw the significance of the Commonwealth as bringing a touch of healing to a troubled world. Seventy years on, India is an important player in the Commonwealth and has the potential to be even more significant. Together, given their respective strengths, the UK and India can be a real force for good for the Commonwealth. It is in our interest and India’s interest to make this relationship more effective and to begin to make sure that modern India and the modern UK develop a positive relationship in the Commonwealth context.
Although the change in 1949 was presented as if it changed nothing, it in fact changed everything, but it was a smooth transition. The Commonwealth became a free association of peoples and Governments, and it is worth emphasising that the association of people came first. Those people were drawn together by history, a common language, common values, and common legal and administrative systems, and were held together by a symbolic head. The declaration provided a new role for the monarchy, independent of the Government, and Her Majesty the Queen has come to epitomise the Commonwealth. Furthermore, as for the countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, a Commonwealth with India in it prevented it becoming a narrow organisation, and marked the birth of the modern Commonwealth of diverse societies and cultures.
For the past 70 years, the Commonwealth has continued to evolve and change. It has remained resilient and dynamic despite predictions of its demise and sometimes denigration, not least in Whitehall and Westminster. In recent years, this has begun to change, albeit very slowly. A lot more needs to be done to make the Commonwealth part of our DNA.
During CHOGM 2018, we witnessed further evolution. In my view, two things were achieved simultaneously. The 2018 CHOGM managed to demonstrate that the modern Commonwealth is truly an association of equals. It focused on some real priorities, and yet it resolved the issue of the succession to the headship without any hitch. This gave it stability and the ability to move forward. The history of the Commonwealth shows its ability to evolve and change without much upheaval.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the Commonwealth of 1949 has gone, and that of the 20th century has also gone. It is now a network of countries which includes some of the world’s fastest growing economies and middle-income consumer markets. It has within it states with new confidence, willing to embrace new ways of working. The modern Commonwealth is massively interconnected, and countries which were not former British colonies have joined, such as Rwanda and Mozambique. Indeed, Rwanda will host the next CHOGM, and I am confident it will bring a very refreshing focus.
To make the best of this new situation, the UK, in its role as chair-in-office, has the opportunity to influence the development and evolution of the Commonwealth, revitalise its relationship with the Commonwealth, build strong links with all member states and re- order its own structures and approach. It is an opportunity to make the most of the modern and expanding Commonwealth for mutual benefit.
The focus on delivering the commitments made in 2018 is commendable. I am aware of the work which is being done to achieve results. I commend the leadership and personal commitment shown by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, which is extremely impressive. But the UK needs to up its game and sharpen its machinery of government to engage more effectively with the Commonwealth. It is vital that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office operates on a pan-government basis, with input from all related Whitehall departments. The Commonwealth should be part of the Government’s overall strategy. We need to think and act Commonwealth; we need to ensure better understanding and knowledge of the Commonwealth.
Our re-engagement with the Commonwealth should be as an equal member of the modern Commonwealth, working to strengthen it and increase its effectiveness, at the same time ensuring that it is a key part of the UK’s new economic and security strategy and a key channel through which we exercise our responsibilities in today’s world. We should not see the relationship with the Commonwealth as purely transactional. The economic and security strategy needs to be underpinned by support for the non-governmental sector. It is the lifeblood of the Commonwealth and a channel for building trust and vibrant democracies, which are fundamental to developing meaningful trade relations and co-operation on security matters. While the reform of the Commonwealth Secretariat is much needed, as mooted by the high-level group, equally important is the role of the non-governmental sector in building trust and co-operation.
First and foremost, the Commonwealth is a Commonwealth of people. It is a huge mechanism for building trust and co-operation and for exchanging good practice. Contact between people is the heartbeat of the Commonwealth, and modern technology has added momentum to this, transforming connections and networks. The Commonwealth’s distinct advantage is that it is made up of many networks of parliamentary, professional and civil society organisations. These bodies are an integral and indispensable part of delivering the aspirations of the Commonwealth as stated in the Commonwealth charter. Many of these organisations existed before the secretariat and before governmental meetings were instituted. It is this network of civil society organisations which will deliver what the Commonwealth will be in the future. Formal institutions must therefore reach out and work with the informal sector. There should be more emphasis on working with and embracing non-governmental organisations and networks. Supporting and strengthening non-governmental organisations should be an integral part of the UK’s strategy. Investment in these institutions is extremely important.
My hope is that in its remaining time as chair-in-office, and beyond, the UK will raise its game and take steps to ensure that we think and act Commonwealth.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate on the Commonwealth, and I thank my noble friend Lady Goldie for her introduction.
As we know, our voluntary Commonwealth is intended to bring about international co-operation and advance economies, social development and, importantly, human rights in its member countries. The Commonwealth is a 70 year-old association and consists of 53 countries. It has—it must have—a future. Its foundation is based on its history, values and common bonds, but today’s Commonwealth connects all the continents, embraces 2.4 billion people and represents all the major faiths.
Its membership includes many of the fastest-growing and increasingly technologically advanced economies in the world. For the smaller nations accommodated within this structure, it is an ideal place to have a voice and to be heard. Of course, with the Queen at its helm, it is a force for good in the 21st century. It is a driver for developing trade and investment opportunities for the UK and for promoting intra-Commonwealth trade. There is a great emphasis on supporting development programmes and bilateral assistance in Commonwealth countries, to the benefit of social cohesion within British society.
The grouping of countries with a similar or the same legal system and democratic outlook means that the Commonwealth is an ideal partnership for—dare I say it?—a post-Brexit Britain. The more free trade we see within the Commonwealth, the more the UK and Commonwealth countries will gain. Although we hope to invest in post-Brexit trade options with the select group of larger Commonwealth economies, the UK strategically must make sure that smaller developing economies do not lose out.
The 53 Commonwealth countries account for one-third of the world’s population, 40% of people under 30, and 14% of global GDP. It is five times as populous as the entire EU. Post Brexit, we want to see an emphasis on a more outward-looking global Britain. We have to hold a positive, optimistic stance on Britain’s future relations with the rest of the world, looking eastwards in particular. These facts make it a significant future market for most competing international powers. Commonwealth members wish to continue their close ties to Britain. We can remember a time when the UK shed its responsibilities towards them when we joined the EU many years ago.
I had the opportunity last year to visit New Zealand with the CPA and to meet many representatives from the Pacific islands. I witnessed their unwavering respect for the UK, which was still undiminished. Areas of discussion obviously focused on the effect of Brexit on UK-New Zealand relations, on trade policy in New Zealand, the status of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the trade and investment relationship between the UK and New Zealand, and the economic prospects of both countries and the Pacific islands. The larger members guarantee that even the smallest member countries continue to have a voice to be listened to in shaping the Commonwealth, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, mentioned.
However, Commonwealth countries are greatly concerned at the deteriorating health of the world’s oceans, which impacts every country and in particular the Pacific islands. This poses an existential threat to many Commonwealth communities, and it was very much in evidence at the conference. Sea-level rise, acidification, biodiversity loss, overfishing and plastic pollution were raised as some of the most significant pressures requiring urgent action.
The geographical spread of the Commonwealth countries is another major advantage, covering, as they do, both hemispheres. Greater Commonwealth trade can be the jumping-off point for the expansion of British economic activity into the regions they inhabit, and that is certainly not to be underestimated.
Moving to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in April last year, the heads made ambitious commitments to build a Commonwealth that is fairer, more sustainable, more prosperous and more secure for all, with a commitment from the Government to allocate more than £500 million towards projects, as we heard from the Minister.
Finally, I will certainly not forget being part of that CPA delegation last year. It is likened to being in a club, working collectively for future trust and prosperity. It is a Commonwealth to celebrate, and long may it flourish.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Minister of State for the Commonwealth, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, whose presence we miss today, said on Commonwealth Day on 11 March:
“The UK has an unbreakable bond with the Commonwealth; a unique network bound together with the ties between people, common values and shared history. Our common vision for the 2.4 billion people who make up this family of 53 nations is the opportunity for all citizens to thrive regardless of race, religion, gender or any other status”.
In her message, the Prime Minister referred, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in her opening speech, to this being the 70th anniversary of the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister said, referring to the theme of a connected Commonwealth:
“In an increasingly interlinked world, the bonds between Commonwealth citizens, organisations and governments provide a uniquely valuable network for international co-operation”.
Her Majesty the Queen talks about it being the “face of the future”. As I will come to later, 60% of the Commonwealth’s population of 2.4 billion are under the age of 30.
Huge thanks, credit and respect should go to Her Majesty for the part she has played over 67 years. She has seen this institution grow and develop in an extraordinarily flexible and fluid manner. The combined GDP of the Commonwealth countries is predicted to reach $14 trillion by 2020. Intra-Commonwealth trade, which was $525 billion in 2015, is set to double to $1 trillion by 2020.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has said that the Commonwealth is vital to the health of the world and the future of humanity. He is now of course the future head of the Commonwealth and has said that it has been the cornerstone of his life. It is serendipity that at the age of 70 he is now the head of a 70 year-old organisation of 53 countries. His Royal Highness is on a tour of the Caribbean and will visit Cuba, which will be an historic first for a member of the Royal Family. He has said that, representing a third of the world’s population, the Commonwealth has real power to tackle the global challenges that impact on all of us.
At the CHOGM that we hosted here last year, the Heads of State were very worried about the risk of protectionism to the global economy, and they underlined the importance of resisting all its forms. They reaffirmed their commitment to free trade in a transparent, inclusive, fair and rules-based multilateral system. This is where intra-Commonwealth trade and investment is so significant.
We now come to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s global Britain campaign. Building on what the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, does the FCO see the Commonwealth as a high enough priority? Is it sufficiently well resourced? I do not think that it is. It could do so much more if it had more finance behind it from all its member countries, including the UK and, in particular, India. It would be able to do so much more than it does at present. It is a great organisation but it is underresourced. To be able to rejuvenate it even further, enabling it to play a role in global Britain, the Commonwealth needs to be better resourced.
On the subject of free trade, we now have the EU trade agreements that need to be rolled over. Can the Minister tell me how many of those agreements exist at the moment? About 17% of our trade is through EU free trade agreements with over 50 countries, depending on how you cluster them; 50% of our trade is with the EU; two-thirds is with or through the EU. How many of these arrangements are ready to roll over should we Brexit?
To put this into context, 50% of our trade—roughly 45% of our exports and 55% of our imports—is with the EU and, as I said, a further 17% is through the EU. Most people do not realise that the whole Commonwealth makes up less than 10% of our trade. That is the reality. It shows how little trade we do overall with the Commonwealth and how much more we could do. There is a Commonwealth advantage, where researchers found that transactions between two Commonwealth countries cost approximately 20% less than those between non-Commonwealth nations. That is of course because of the commonality of our legal systems and English as the language of business that we share.
Today the EU is negotiating trade deals with more than 80% of Commonwealth countries, including India; that has been going on for more than a decade. Deals have just been signed with Singapore and Canada. UK-Commonwealth exports were almost £50 billion with the five larger economies—Australia, Canada, Singapore, South Africa and India—accounting for 70% of our Commonwealth exports and 65% of imports. Of 53 countries, just those five make up the bulk of our Commonwealth trade.
Does the Minister agree that the Commonwealth cannot replace our relationship with the EU? This has been a con. The British people have been sold this myth: “Leave the EU and we will just trade with the Commonwealth instead”. It has never been about “instead” or “either” but always “and”. Generally, what underlines the Commonwealth charter is that it is a force for good. Historically, the accusation was that Britain left the slow-growing Commonwealth countries to join the European Community. Today, we are told that Europe is growing slowly and we should go for the faster-growing countries, many of which are in the Commonwealth, in Africa and Asia. Even if one takes those altogether, one still has to remember the 50% of our trade with the EU, versus less than 10% with the Commonwealth. However much that might grow, there is a big gap that will take a long time to fill.
We have to remember the gravity model of trade, where countries will naturally trade with larger countries close to them. That is why the EU at our doorstep—a trading bloc with 500 million people, the biggest in the world—is where we trade. The same thing goes with countries such as Australia, which are trading more in the Asia-Pacific area using their trade deal. That said, the Commonwealth has always enjoyed strong political, cultural, sporting, family and study links with the UK.
When it comes to studies, our Immigration Rules genuinely hamper our ability to do more trade with the Commonwealth. I speak as president of UKCISA, the UK Council for International Student Affairs—the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, was my predecessor—and as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Students. The APPG produced a report highlighting where we are falling down with our Immigration Rules and how, in particular, if we had reintroduced a two-year post-graduation work visa, we would be able to attract so many more of the brightest students from the Commonwealth, who are now going to Canada and Australia instead.
India of course is the giant of the Commonwealth, making up half the population. This year it will probably overtake the UK in absolute terms as the fifth-largest economy in the world. We have to be real about the position of this country. We have been at the top table of the world, and are still, through the European Union, the Commonwealth and NATO, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and part of the G7, G8 and G20. We punch well above our weight. We are a world player. We are a global power, not a superpower. But being a member of the European Union was never an impediment to carrying on right at the heart of the Commonwealth.
Again, putting things into perspective, Belgium and Germany are bigger trading partners for India than the UK. Italy trades twice as much with Ghana as does the UK. There is a lot more we could do. Going back to history, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, mentioned Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. He said that Commonwealth membership meant,
“independence plus, not independence minus”.
It is so important that countries that belong to the Commonwealth do so voluntarily, and that there is no compulsion. Frankly, there is a queue of countries that would love to be members of the Commonwealth. It is spread over a fifth of the world’s land surface, contains a third of the world’s population and produces 15% of the world’s wealth. It is phenomenal.
I cannot resist mentioning that, in 2010, UKIP’s manifesto promised a Commonwealth free trade area that would account for,
“more than 20% of all international trade and investment”.
That would be brilliant, if it were possible. How realistic is it? Well, UKIP’s then leader Nigel Farage later described the manifesto as “drivel”, so let us move on from that. By the time the referendum came around, several prominent leavers including Boris Johnson and Daniel Hannan were happy to say that the UK “betrayed” the Commonwealth when it joined the European Community in 1973 and that now was the time to “embrace the Commonwealth”—again, this nonsense about either/or.
Australia has 1.6% of UK exports out of the 9.5%. To use a specific example of one region—one part—of the United Kingdom where we want to increase trade with the Commonwealth, what of Wales? Wales currently exports more than three times as much to France as it does to Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa combined. The Commonwealth is not a trading bloc; that is the reality, much as it would be great if it could be. What we have with the EU cannot ever be taken for granted.
The youth of the Commonwealth is also very important. Trade between countries such as India and the 27 other countries of the EU has tripled since 2010. At the same time, UK-India trade has not grown as much as it could and should have; I say that as a founding chair of the UK India Business Council. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that,
“whether the UK was within the EU or without the EU, the Commonwealth [trade] advantage would be and is still there”.
This is what I want to stress: it is not either/or.
Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia, wrote an article recently on Commonwealth Day, entitled: “Think the Commonwealth can save Brexit Britain? That’s utter delusion”. It stated:
“Australians want the UK to do well. But there’s no way free trade with us or others can make up for the hit of leaving the EU”.
He goes on to analyse it in great detail. I know from the horse’s mouth that, to India, the EU-India free trade agreement that he talks about is far more important than any potential UK-India free trade agreement.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Can the noble Lord tell us more about this EU-India free trade agreement, which I do not think exists?
Lord Bilimoria
The EU-India free trade agreement is what has been tried to be negotiated for over 10 years now.
Lord Bilimoria
We have been trying to do it for over a decade.
Let us look at the irony of when we joined the EU 46 years ago. The Daily Mail celebrated by saying: “Now we can lead Europe!” The Sun spoke of,
“an unrepeatable opportunity for a nation that lost an empire to gain a continent”.
How things have changed.
Before concluding, I would like to touch on the Memorial Gates at Constitution Hill, the trust on which I have the privilege of chairing. We celebrate the contribution of 5 million volunteers from predominantly the Commonwealth countries to the first and second world wars. The contribution of these individuals was extraordinary and we need to acknowledge that without it we would not have our freedom today. Yet The Royal British Legion says that the treatment of Commonwealth veterans is atrocious. Hundreds of Commonwealth military veterans, who risked their lives serving in the UK Armed Forces, face spiralling debts, being forced to pay “exorbitant” visa fees to remain in the country after their discharge. The fees have gone up by 127% in five years. Since their introduction in 2003, the fees have risen by 1,441%. If the veterans cannot pay, they face deportation. That is awful considering that, looking ahead, we want to recruit more members from the Commonwealth because of recruitment shortages at the moment.
We have huge and wonderful opportunities with the Commonwealth, but they are not instead of the relationship with the European Union. I conclude with Her Majesty the Queen’s Commonwealth Day message, where she said that,
“many millions of people around the world are drawn together because of the collective values shared by the Commonwealth … We are able to look to the future with greater confidence and optimism as a result of the links that we share, and thanks to the networks of co-operation and mutual support to which we contribute, and on which we draw”.
In the words of the Booker prize-winning author Ben Okri, as inscribed on the Memorial Gates:
“Our future is greater than our past”.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, my speech will be rather brief because I always believe that in these debates most things that can be said about the Commonwealth will be said more eloquently than I possibly could. I declare an interest as a trustee of Commonwealth Walkways, a programme of walkways around cities in the Commonwealth; it is gathering great momentum, and I would like to draw it to the attention of the UK Government as something that they may wish to support—keeping the Commonwealth fit and walking. It is refreshing to be talking not about Brexit but about Brentrance, Brentry or any other phrase that you might like to use. But of course this is re-Brentry, where the UK Government start to man—or woman—themselves up to their role and responsibility within the Commonwealth, which I fear has passed them by for many years.
I also declare an interest as chair of an organisation called the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. Our mandate from the Commonwealth Heads of State is to promote trade and investment in the Commonwealth. I co-chaired the business forum with the UK Government, as the arrangement was, and with Malta previous to that. We attracted 1,500 people, including 25 Heads of State, 25 Trade Ministers and Foreign Ministers, billionaires, multibillionaires and, of course, the Royal Family. There are very few forums that could muster that sort of engagement from such a wide range of people.
During our four and a half short years of existence, we have established six hubs across the Commonwealth —in Lagos, Malta, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Sri Lanka and, soon, India—and the City of London has been a marvellous strategic partner. However, we are one of the few well-funded organisations within the Commonwealth. The secretariat is under great pressure for funding, while the Royal Commonwealth Society, of which my noble friend Lord Howell has been a valiant president, is also suffering from underfunding. The UK talks about “global Britain”, “GREAT Britain” and similar mantras, but I have to say that I am yet to see that in action from the Foreign Office. When one visits one of its embassies, one finds it focused on cost-cutting and reducing its outreach because the Treasury is refusing to fund it. That, by the way, is despite the valiant efforts of those in the Commonwealth; my noble friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister, is a valiant supporter of it, and Mr Parham, the Commonwealth envoy, is doing a valiant job against the restrictions of the Treasury, which as yet has not understood the importance of global Britain for driving finance into our great international outward-looking departments to help them with their cause. I am delighted to see in her place the Minister for International Trade; that is another department that is suffering problems of investment to make us a global Britain.
The news that the UK was becoming Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth was therefore manna in heaven for the UK. Here it was, with one-third of the world’s population at its feet and an opportunity to rebuild bridges with many Commonwealth countries, which it had destroyed when it joined the EU, and to take this matter seriously. There was an announcement of £500 million of funding over two years into various projects, but to date I am totally unaware of any Commonwealth organisation that has been vested by the UK Government to deliver these projects. How on earth are such organisations going to deliver Commonwealth-initiated projects without having the institutions to do it?
To put that into context, the British Council gets £1.16 billion of funding and the African Union gets $416 million a year but the Commonwealth Secretariat gets about £40 million, of which £5.6 million comes from the UK. The CPA, of which the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is of course an excellent co-chairman, received £2 million of funding for its outreach programme. Our own organisation requests only £60,000 a year from the Government to support it but the payment of that has been delayed by nine months.
I am flattered to be able to speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who is the Secretary-General’s appointee to the board of the Commonwealth of Learning. He has been closely involved in the decision on whether the institution should advantageously purchase a permanent site in its hometown of Vancouver. He tells me that the business case has been pored over in tortuous detail and supported by the relevant committees and donor countries. To arrange all this in an orderly manner requires a decision to be ratified ahead of the next annual meeting in June. What is at stake here is HMG joining the major donor nations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand in displaying a firm long-term commitment to the development of education as the central plank of Commonwealth activity. Our present inability to make a decision on this issue can be interpreted in only one way: as representing a lack of conviction, in the sense that we continue to hedge our options when it comes to putting money where we claim our convictions lie. When I say “we”, I am afraid that I refer to the UK Government. I invite my noble friend the Minister to look into this to see whether we can get a decision on whether HM Treasury will fund this £100,000-plus amount to support the Commonwealth of Learning. There have been massive commitments to support it in government announcements.
I do not wish to stand up here and criticise the UK Government any more than anyone else does. They have a lot on their plate at the moment and it is not easy going for them. But unless they take the opportunity of the next year, with the sands of time running out until they pass their responsibilities on to Rwanda, and invest in the Commonwealth institutions, we can talk Commonwealth until we are blue in the face in this House and the other place, but it will not survive without vibrant institutions to deliver what everyone in this Chamber has been talking about so eloquently before I spoiled it by getting to my feet.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, we are all grateful to Her Majesty’s Government for initiating this debate. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is unable to be present, but I welcome his capable last-minute replacement, my noble friend Lady Goldie. I put on record that my noble friend Lord Ahmad, as other noble Lords have said, deserves our great praise for his strong support of the Commonwealth and overseas territories. I must confess to be rather a newcomer on this subject compared with many speakers, such as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who is president of the Royal Commonwealth Society, and my noble friend Lord Marland, of Odstock, who is chair of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council—both marvellous ambassadors for the association.
At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in April 2018, the Prime Minister said, “I agreed concrete steps to achieve a fairer, more secure, more prosperous future for the group’s 2.4 billion people”. As many other noble Lords have said, the themes of the meeting were environmental sustainability, fairness, security and prosperity. Among other commitments in the 12-page communiqué were agreements on the need for democratic, accountable institutions, justice for all and encouraging trade among members.
In March 2018, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, the former chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, talked of,
“the need to distinguish between the Commonwealth of declaration and the Commonwealth of reality”.—[Official Report, 22/3/18; col. 438.]
So does the Commonwealth survive, according to a Guardian article of April 2018, due to its,
“dogged and unlikely persistence as an international grouping, for permitting the British delusion that old imperial patterns of trade can replace the present arrangements with the EU”?
Or is it, as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford recently stated,
“not just about governance and … not a treaty organisation at all? Today, it is just as much a vast network of professions, civic agencies, universities, schools and every kind of professional and scientific or medical interest”.—[Official Report, 13/3/19; col. 1017-18.]
I will look first at a main CHOGM theme—trade. According to the ONS, in 2017 UK exports to the Commonwealth represented 9% of all UK exports. In contrast, exports to the EU were 44.5%. Thus, the UK exported nearly five times as much to the EU as to the Commonwealth that year. According to a Financial Times article of April 2018,
“Most of the countries involved are small; almost all of them are far from the UK … proximity still matters in trade …The Commonwealth … does not function as a trading area”.
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and some commentators place faith in a “CANZUK” bloc emerging, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. I hope that they are right, but Canada’s most important trading partner by far is the USA. Its regulation and trade policy are oriented towards its southern neighbour. Australia and New Zealand are closely aligned with each other, but beyond that they are far more concerned with China and other Asian markets than English-speaking countries on the far side of the world.
The UK’s decision to join the EEC in 1973 dealt a severe blow to the likes of New Zealand, but in truth a global trading bloc anchored on the UK was already disappearing. The “sterling area” of fixed exchange rates that had facilitated trade within the British Empire had been severely weakened when the UK was forced to devalue the pound in 1967. Thereafter, the Commonwealth as a meaningful trading area began to cease to be so important. Poorer countries, especially in Africa, retain access to the UK through preferential EU trade agreements but have relatively little to sell. The UK can do little more than replicate those EU deals. The biggest non-EU economy, India, is emerging only slowly from the protectionist regime it maintained under the Congress (I) for decades since independence in 1947. It certainly dislikes signing trade deals and bilateral talks with the EU have stalled for years. Canada, apart from its NAFTA and Trans-Pacific Partnership commitments, has already signed a bilateral deal with the EU, which the UK will hope to replicate. The same is likely to be true with Australia and New Zealand, which are in the process of talk with the EU. I noted my noble friend Lord Marland’s comments in a TV interview that the UK should consider joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I ask my noble friend Lady Goldie whether this would be possible.
So what were the other three themes the Prime Minister talked about? The first was environmental sustainability. In a Written Answer in November 2018, the Foreign Office Minister stated:
“Twenty countries, over a third of the Commonwealth, have now signed up to the Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance – the Blue Charter Action Group co-chaired by the UK and Vanuatu to tackle marine plastic pollution”.
The Prime Minister announced that the UK would make up to an additional £5 million available to provide technical assistance to developing countries that join the initiative. She also announced a young leaders’ plastic challenge badge, working in partnership with the UN—among others—to help an estimated 50,000 young leaders in Kenya and two further African countries to become leaders in raising awareness about the importance of reducing plastic consumption. Importantly, in a Written Answer last July, the Foreign Office stated that the Indian Prime Minister had announced a ban on all single use plastics from 2022. Vanuatu has also made huge progress in this area. I note that many Commonwealth African countries have been helped financially to gain access to clean water and sanitation.
With regards to the second theme—fairness, democracy, good governance and human rights—I have struggled to find much in the way of progress. I see that £212 million has been given to support nine Commonwealth member states to deliver 12 years of quality education. Can the Minister let me know what other progress and measures have been achieved or are in progress in these areas? I see that £1.8 million has been given to the Commonwealth’s electoral observation programme, but I could not find much else.
On the third theme—security, unity against cybercrime and violent extremism—I note from a Written Answer from the Foreign Office last November that:
“In support of the Commonwealth Cyber Declaration, the UK has partnered with the World Bank to deliver national cyber security capacity reviews in 11 member states. With support from Oxford University’s Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre and Australia’s Oceania Centre, we are now well placed to meet the commitment for every Commonwealth country to voluntarily undertake reviews by CHOGM 2020”.
In total, the UK has given £37 million under the security theme, but the total amount given by the UK Government, of £500 million, as many other noble Lords have said, is absolutely minor compared to our overseas aid budget of £13 billion. The Foreign Office has a budget of over £1.3 billion. These budgets must be increased and, as other noble Lords have said, there must be more co-ordination between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, DfID, the Department of International Trade and trade envoys, rather than all of them being in a narrow silo pursuing their own interests.
Perhaps the most significant outcome of the 2018 meeting, in terms of attendance, was the decision of the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, to attend. When I went to India in 2017 as part of an all-party delegation, we asked him what his views were on the Commonwealth. I remember his words exactly. He said: “Well, they are nice people to have a cup of tea with” —hardly a ringing endorsement. Also, as other noble Lords have said, he was very upset with the UK’s attitude towards limiting numbers of international students studying in the UK—a short-sighted policy supported by almost no one in Government except the outgoing Prime Minister. Therefore, I was mightily and pleasantly surprised that he attended CHOGM. The director of the Royal Commonwealth Society said last year:
“As India cements its status as an economic superpower, it is increasingly apparent that they are starting to see the enormous potential of the Commonwealth as a ready-made soft power network”.
Professor H Pant, professor of international relations at King’s College, London, has stated:
“As a rising power, India too is looking at those avenues where its status as an emerging power is recognised during this period of unprecedented global structural changes and shifts in balance-of-power equations. The Commonwealth … provides India with a platform to engage with a wide array of states across the world with similar political cultures. … it needs its own arenas and platforms, especially ones where China is not a member. Modi’s renewed look at the Commonwealth may well be an indication that New Delhi is eyeing the organisation as a prospective forum for its power projection. To actualise this, however, New Delhi will have to invest diplomatic capital to remould the platform according to its own strategic needs. Modi’s London visit, in this context, could be considered as a step in that direction”.
An Indian official put a slightly different slant on the reason for Modi’s presence, saying:
“The Commonwealth is useful to us because it gives us a chance to talk to fellow Asian countries without China being in the room”.
Finally, what is the soft power aspect that is so important about the Commonwealth? UK Commonwealth envoy David Concar put it very succinctly in a 2015 interview, almost reiterating the words of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. He said:
“there is no other international organisation like this. It is not a military or security organisation... It is not an economic grouping… it’s a soft-power organisation, a network of countries that share the same values, have the same common law heritage. It is also unique as it is not just an inter-governmental organisation. It has very significant networks in Civil Society Networks through the Commonwealth Youth Program and others. … The Commonwealth includes all the world’s major religions and an immensely diverse range of countries. It is well placed to act as a platform to promote tolerance and respect. This can help young people in communities resist radicalisation”.
I think this is a very good summary.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate as the Commonwealth approaches its 70th anniversary. The Commonwealth is something we can all cherish and support and which has, especially through Her Majesty and her work, had a positive lasting impact on the lives of many people around the world. The Commonwealth is, as its name suggests, a wealth of things we have in common: things we can all nurture and sustain such as democracy, the rule of law and adherence to the upholding of human rights.
It is now almost a year since the very successful Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in our country. After that meeting, the Commonwealth Women’s Forum issued an outcome statement outlining its achievements and the work that needs to be done to address some of the issues that are not always on the right side of our shared values and sense of common purpose. These issues, such as empowering women and girls, were addressed by the forum:
“Recognising that despite the concerted efforts to transform the subordinate position of women and girls in many societies and the progress made so far towards gender equality, the advancement of the status of women and girls has been slow and uneven”.
These issues are at the forefront of many agendas across the globe, not just in the Commonwealth; but recognising that inequality and sporadic success highlights a growing disparity between what is needed and what is actually being achieved. It is here I have learned that one of the best ways to make progress is through education and assisting the younger generations, who can make change happen.
If we are truly to make progress, challenge cultural practices and relinquish the chains of male-dominated societies, we need to start at the beginning and ensure that education is key for the new generations; and that women of the future do not face the same issues and limitations that held back their mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers and so on, especially violence, subversion and coercion. These issues are extremely important in the context of the sustainable development goals and achieving 50/50 by 2030.
The Commonwealth Women’s Forum also called on the Commonwealth to:
“lead the world by creating and strengthening an enabling environment for women’s empowerment, for a sustainable, secure, prosperous, and fairer society—that is free from violence and coercion, focuses on actions to mainstream gender in all government programmes, policies and initiatives including gender budgeting”.
Given the UK’s role as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth until the next summit in 2020, we now have the opportunity to grasp the nettle and address these various and serious issues head on, and to make some impact and progress so that all citizens of the Commonwealth feel safe and secure, whatever their standing and beliefs, especially when it comes to human rights abuses and inequality against women.
The women’s forum acknowledged that women face bias along multiple identity dimensions, including gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and age. With an estimated 2.4 billion people making up the Commonwealth, and nearly half the world’s population being female, it is not hard to see that addressing many of the issues that females face and supporting women and girls will bring about enormous and beneficial change for all concerned. With small states making up 60% of the group, it is important that those countries are supported properly in addressing the aim of the Commonwealth of “a fairer future” with gender equality and inclusion at the fore.
While we all recognise the issues that women face—many of them have been debated separately in this Chamber—it is actions more than words that will help. It is here that the work of DfID could be put to better use. If our aid budget were targeted more at Commonwealth countries, we could ensure that our friends and partners gained the best support possible.
It is good to know that we are opening more diplomatic missions in Commonwealth countries to forge better and closer ties with everyone. We can use the time as chair-in-office to bring all the countries closer together, to unite and to show solidarity; indeed, other countries such as Brazil, which has just marked international Commonwealth Day, are realising the importance of the Commonwealth. At a time when there is so much uncertainty in our world, it is comforting to know that there is a group of nations that together can show leadership, express common sense and unite in a sense of purpose that may seem lost in today’s fast-changing world.
I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible to have specific, up-to-date aid spending figures for Commonwealth countries on educational projects targeted at women and girls. What is DfID doing to ensure that 50/50 by 2030 means just that for Commonwealth countries and all their citizens?
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, when you are one of the last speakers in such a debate, there is very little to say because everything you want to say has been said. However, having heard so many speeches, I think we can agree that the case for closer relations with the Commonwealth has rarely been so compelling.
I have always said that the Commonwealth is more than a network. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, described it as a family; yes, it is a family of 53 nations. Like all families, we are much more than the sum of our parts. We have a duty of care to all our members; to people, to hearts and minds, and to the beautiful and diverse cultures and narratives, all of which are united by the shared bonds of history.
I am a child of the Commonwealth: born to Indian parents, raised in Uganda and educated in Britain. My story, and perhaps those of others here today, is not untypical of the journey that many Commonwealth subjects have taken. The different experiences and broad perspectives we have gained have shaped not only our values but our very identities.
It saddens me, however, that people look to the Commonwealth as a relic of a bygone era: as something that is, at best, sentimental, and, at worst, a little shameful—but mostly, as insignificant in the modern day. Such views fail to grasp the strategic importance of the Commonwealth; the incredible economic potential which can provide much comfort in uncertain times; the power of old partnerships to address new challenges; and the boundless opportunities for co-operation in some areas of life. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Marland and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for their outstanding commitment to UK-Commonwealth relations. My noble friend Lord Haselhurst has been a great bridge between us and the Commonwealth for the past four decades.
As head of the Commonwealth, Britain remains an active world player, with our impressive soft power, historic relations and commitment to aid and trade. However, we have many friends within the Commonwealth who have felt let down by us. They have felt, and continue to feel, that we have turned our backs on them; that we—I am ashamed to say this—even look down on them. Try to arrange a visa for an African national to come to the UK and you will understand what I am talking about. Africans are being denied visas at a much higher rate than people from other parts of the Commonwealth. This is having a negative impact, not only on our trade relations, which we claim we want to build, and on tourism, which we claim we want to encourage, but on relations with aid agencies, the clergy, the arts and politics. The Ugandan Prime Minister was even denied a visa at one point. What sort of message are we sending out?
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, mentioned India. UK-India relations is another area that we need to promote. India is the Commonwealth’s biggest democracy, with 1.3 billion people, and an economic powerhouse. Britain and India could play a leading role in helping to realise the Commonwealth’s wonderful potential.
Many noble Lords know that I am a trade envoy to Uganda and Rwanda. Promoting UK exports is my major line of interest, but promoting bilateral trade with these two markets has opened my eyes to the resentment that the UK’s retreat from the Commonwealth platform has caused among our most natural allies. A few months ago, I hosted a business event with President Museveni of Uganda, here in the House of Lords. One of the audience members asked a question about the role of China as a dominant economic player in Africa. President Museveni’s response was very telling. He said: “I do not speak Chinese. I speak English. But the Chinese are the ones who offered to build our factories. The Chinese are the ones who came in with investment. Where was Britain?” This was a powerful point that struck at the heart of the issue: the Commonwealth’s shared history should be used to build shared prosperity. Britain’s great history should thus be our great advantage.
Uganda is a country that has been transformed under President Museveni. It has been through revolutions, dictatorships and civil wars. Today, it is stable and ambitious. In trading terms, there are £20 billion-worth of opportunities in oil, gas and infrastructure. The UK is finally breaking ground, and the Ugandans are happy to see us back there, but there is more work to do to restore good will. If we are serious about taking the Commonwealth to the next level, or even reforming it, we need to take more responsibility. I fear that what we lack is the political will.
I turn to Africa, because I am genuinely passionate about its potential. It has 1.2 billion people and a young, fast-growing and ambitious population. Six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world are there. It has some of the most innovative and largest cities, 60 of which have a population of over 1 million, and is home to a third of the world’s natural resources. As I have said many times in this Chamber, Africa is the new frontier for trade and investment. If you want proof that Africa is the continent to watch, look no further than Rwanda. One of the smallest countries on the continent, with one of the fastest growing economies, Rwanda has achieved success against great odds, in defiance of all predictions and in the face of unspeakable national tragedy.
Next week, I will be travelling to Rwanda with a parliamentary delegation to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the genocide. It will be a sombre and reflective occasion, but it will be a chance to see how, out of that very dark chapter, Rwanda has transformed itself in the most remarkable way. It has democracy, no corruption, a thriving business environment—it is rated 29th for ease of doing business—and modern infrastructure. It is no wonder that it has been selected to host next year’s CHOGM, and I guarantee that it will be a summit to remember. I say to the Minister and to all noble Lords that if Rwanda is a glimpse of what is possible, then Africa has a wonderfully bright future ahead. What is really interesting about Rwanda is that it chose to join the Commonwealth. It chose us—our family. Why? Because it likes us, trusts us and believes in us: Rwanda believes in Britain and in the Commonwealth, and it is time that we believed in ourselves.
For the past 46 years, we have been very insular and too continental. Brexit is an opportunity to transform the Commonwealth into a global trading body that reflects the vast opportunities on offer, but there is a lot of work to do. It is essential to have the right infrastructure in place so we can deliver UK goods to Commonwealth markets. It is on this that the UK needs to focus, and the first priority is aviation. We used to have a bridge between the UK and Africa; today, we can barely catch a direct flight to an African capital. This is problematic, because ease of access is a central consideration for exporters. In the simplest terms, if we want to encourage Britain to do business with Africa, we need to connect British businesses to Africa. British Airways used to fly to Lusaka, Entebbe, Dar es Salaam, Freetown and many other African cities. After 60 years, it will stop flying to all those places. This is problematic, because we need those flights to do more business in Africa. Since I helped RwandAir launch its London-Kigali route, I have struggled to help it secure the slots it needs at Gatwick. Capacity continues to be a major problem. There is no question that we need more runways, but, if we are genuinely outward looking, we need reinstate direct flights to Africa as a matter of urgency.
Further, we need the right financial infrastructure. We are the world’s number one financial centre. Banks, like air routes, are the bridges of which I speak. We should be building bridges, not dismantling them. Further down the line, as I have previously argued, we should consider establishing a Commonwealth bank. For now, I tell noble Lords that the exodus of iconic British brands, such as Barclays and BA, does not inspire confidence in African Commonwealth countries that the UK is fully open for business. Barclays Bank is leaving Africa after nearly 100 years. Such things do not help. It is being replaced by Chinese and Indian banks.
Finally, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, mentioned SMEs. We have 5 million SMEs in the UK, fewer than 1% of which export. There are 30 million SMEs in the Commonwealth; again, less than 1% of these export. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister for Trade is here. One thing we can do which will cost the Treasury no money is to double UK export finance to Commonwealth countries, to encourage more trade and investment. UK Export Finance is an outstanding organisation within government and, frankly speaking, it makes a profit. Two years ago it paid £1 billion in tax, so why not lend more money to Commonwealth countries to encourage more trade and help our SMEs to export more?
I finish as I started. The Commonwealth is our family. Like all good families, it is not without its complications, challenges, differences and disagreements. But also like all good families, we must stick together and work together through the good times and the bad. This is our next great task. The Commonwealth is our past and I believe it is our future.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank noble Lords for giving me permission to speak during the gap. I need to do so to raise an issue that has come to light in a Commonwealth country in the past day.
Many noble Lords have spoken of the Commonwealth as a family. A family supports and nurtures its members and shows love to them, but it also sets out the acceptable values and moral framework within which those members should work. As a family of nations, the Commonwealth does that through its charter, which says that there will be a,
“pursuit of common principles and values”.
In the section on human rights, it says that no discrimination may take place on any grounds. One of the key issues in any family is what happens when one member steps out of that moral framework and does not live up to its values. How do families work to ensure that that important framework is kept?
I will talk about what has happened in Brunei in the last 24 hours. On the website of their attorney-general, a little notice has come to light that from next Wednesday, 3 April, those found guilty of practising gay sex will be stoned to death. Those found guilty of adultery will be stoned to death. This is a backward step. It is not the moral framework which we would expect a member of our family to act within. It is abhorrent, and goes against every value that we hold as a nation. As chair-in-office at the moment, we have a strong moral duty as the head of the family to ensure that everything possible is done to stop this family member going down this road.
Therefore, I ask the Minister what action the Government are taking as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth to rally the members to ensure that this abhorrent approach does not take place and that human rights will not be abused in this way. Also, what international action will the Government take? Brunei wanted to do this in 2014, but when the international community came together it was stopped.
My second question is important. If Brunei decides that it will stone to death those found guilty of practising gay sex or adultery, is that grounds enough for the Commonwealth to say that it should not be a member at the moment? Will the Government support that action if Brunei decides to murder people by stoning them for practising gay sex or adultery?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I thought I had put my name down to speak, but I then discovered that I was not on the list. I was told I could speak in the gap because I was here in the first debate and for a number of other contributions that followed it. As an early Commonwealth person in this House—I have been here since 1981—I have felt as an Australian living here all this time that Britain and Australia are, and have been, so closely linked.
I will comment on the excitement when the Queen first visited Australia. People must never underestimate how important she and the Royal Family are to the Commonwealth. There is a genuine affection for them. Things got quite hysterically excited when the Queen came in, I think, 1954. There were several questions; one was that everyone knew she had glorious skin, but the Australian sun is so bad for producing skin cancers and all sort of nasties that people wondered how she would get around it. The tradition is that her face has to be visible to anyone looking at her. If she wears a hat with a big brim, you will not be able to see her face, and if she wears one without much of a brim, the skin on her face might be quite dangerously cooked. The discussion raged. By the time she appeared at the Government House garden party in Sydney, she had come up with the clever answer of a semi-transparent, broad-brimmed hat, which kept the sun off, and on which three feathers of different bright colours were spread around. She had come up with the answer to the problem in that you could still see her face and yet she was protected.
People were so excited. In Melbourne, when the Queen first arrived—I think it was Melbourne, but I may have the wrong sequence because it was a long time ago—everybody wanted to get a view of her. I had a brother-in-law of six foot three, and when she arrived, someone put a ladder up against his back and ran up the ladder to see her over the top of the crowd. This is how excited people were. When she came to Sydney, at the Government House garden party—I was fortunate enough to be asked to it, because my family had always been very political in New South Wales: Labor, I should admit—people were hanging out of the trees in the grounds of Government House to get a view. There was such a crowd of people who wanted to see her that many could not get a view of her.
I will comment one more thing. This is a long-standing relationship. Last November, I went to the celebration of 100 years since Australia House was built on the Strand. It took five years to build, but it is quite remarkable; I had no idea that it was such an old building. The celebration was very good, and well attended, and the Prince of Wales came to it. Everyone thought that was marvellous, because part of his education was in Victoria, so it was rather good to have him there.
I followed Baroness Trumpington as the UK representative on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, where I heard an interesting comment from an African woman delegate. She said, “The trouble is that they send us money. They shouldn’t send us money. If they sent me soap, I could wash my children, but if they send us money, I never see it; no one sees it”. This is a very important thing, and we have to work out whether it is sustainable.
I will not speak any longer, but I was going to say that the Prince of Wales made a speech and it was the best one I had ever heard him make. Clearly, the Commonwealth means a lot to him, and I am glad that I have had the privilege of being a Commonwealth Member here since 1981.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for putting down this topic for debate, and the noble Baroness for so effectively taking on his mantle. I also thank the Minister for her willingness over this last year to involve parliamentarians in the various events surrounding CHOGM and afterwards. It was astonishing to be able, for example, to sit in a meeting of African leaders and to hear African presidents and Prime Ministers informally discussing among themselves the newly agreed free trade agreements across their continent, and much else besides.
As we have heard, the Commonwealth is currently made up of 53 countries, ranging from the largest and most populous, such as India, to some of the smallest, such as the tiny Pacific island states. It has a population of approximately 2.4 billion—more than one quarter of the world’s total population—and 60% of its population is under the age of 30. That is an astonishing grouping, with much that is shared, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, emphasised. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, there can be no greater advocate for the Commonwealth than the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I pay tribute to him.
The Commonwealth is indeed a potentially powerful alliance. We have heard of wide-ranging aspects of it. My noble friend Lord Chidgey, the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, rightly emphasised parliamentary links. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, emphasised non-governmental and civil society links as being vital to the consolidation of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, rightly emphasised how important it is that we continue to attract students and that visa challenges must be tackled. I love the way that he has a pile of press cuttings, journal articles and charts and gives a lucid speech despite the fact that he has 55 sheets of paper.
The Commonwealth charter, which was adopted in 2012, outlines the core values to which the Commonwealth aspires. These include democracy, human rights protection, good governance, tolerance, non-discrimination, sustainable development and environmental protection—pretty vital, and pretty comprehensive. The general aim of these values is to support,
“the development of free and democratic societies and the promotion of peace and prosperity to improve the lives of all peoples of the Commonwealth”.
And yet, as we have heard, there is a long way to go in this regard. About two-thirds of Commonwealth member states still criminalise LGBT people. These laws date back to the British colonial era and, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said, the Commonwealth charter prohibits discrimination on any grounds. Although that was an important move forward—I remember when people were arguing the case for it—it has not been properly delivered.
There have been some moves forward, which should be welcomed: for example, changes in employment law in Botswana, Seychelles and Saint Lucia; repeal of colonial era laws in Mozambique; Supreme Court judgments upholding rights in India and Pakistan; and new legal provisions in Malta. But there have also been steps backwards in some Commonwealth member states, such as the repeal of same-sex marriage legislation in Bermuda in 2018, which the noble Lord, Lord Collins —my noble friend, as I think of him—has emphasised. My noble friend Lord Scriven just flagged up some horrendous developments in Brunei. Why did the UK Government not follow through on a simple promise to publish a guide on international best practice on sexual orientation and gender identity to coincide with CHOGM in London—although the guide was published later in the year?
On gender rights, we see some positive movement in an area in which, again, there is much to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, emphasised. The SheTrades in the Commonwealth initiative aims to increase the participation of women in international trade. That is to be welcomed. The programme is focused on women living in Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria and Bangladesh. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to provide funding for good quality girls’ education across nine Commonwealth countries through the Platform for Girls’ Education.
It has been suggested that Commonwealth countries could link up more effectively on global issues—something of key importance now that we lack US leadership. I note the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, at the secretariat’s apparent lack of engagement as disaster hits southern Africa.
The Commonwealth Secretariat attends international meetings such as the UN climate change conferences to advocate on behalf of its members. To what extent does it ensure that Commonwealth countries speak with one positive voice in such an important area? The importance of tackling climate change was a high priority for some of the countries attending CHOGM; hence the focus on oceans. The Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance, which the UK co-chairs, is focused on tackling marine plastic pollution. I ask, as did the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook: what specific action is now taking place? To what extent do Commonwealth countries work together through the Commonwealth structure on other international commitments, such as implementing the SDGs?
On trade, it has been argued that Commonwealth countries might make up in trade for what we lose from the EU—if we leave. As my noble friend Lord Chidgey pointed out, it should not be a case of either/or. We should strengthen our relationships with Europe and the Commonwealth; the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, emphasised the same point. However, although the Commonwealth is a potentially significant alliance when it comes to trade, being a member of the Commonwealth has not yet increased trade between its members. In 2017, as the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Northbrook, emphasised, the Commonwealth accounted for only 8.4% of the UK’s total trade. That figure is small compared with our trade with the EU, as other noble Lords have noted. There is no Commonwealth trading bloc: each member state pursues its own national interests in trade. As a result, intra-Commonwealth relations seem to have had little effect on trading partnerships thus far, although I hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Marland, hope to take forward. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it is notable that Germany and Belgium are both bigger trading partners for India than the UK. There seems to be little or no tangible benefit to being a Commonwealth member in terms of trade.
The EU has trade agreements with 23 Commonwealth member states. The UK’s trade relations with many of them are through EU EPAs and the EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences. In the light of Brexit, there are plans to roll over these agreements, at least in the short term, but there is little clarity on the long term. Post-Brexit mechanisms in this area are especially important for a number of developing Commonwealth countries, such as Mauritius, Fiji and Sri Lanka, which rely heavily on the United Kingdom for their exports. What plans are there for our future trading relationships in the longer term? Clearly, we need to encourage trade globally, regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU; good will is a start. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Marland, emphasised, it is vital to promote the City of London as a key centre, given the strength of English law and the use of English language in commerce.
In that context, I want to mention Angola. I am the Prime Minister’s trade envoy from the UK to Angola and Zambia. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marland, for having the foresight to set up the trade envoy scheme; I also thank him for playing a part in my appointment to that scheme. I salute my fellow trade envoy, the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for all he does; he is incredibly dynamic in his markets. For example, we are both battling to get British Airways back into our respective markets.
Angola is the third-largest economy in Africa. As I am sure noble Lords will know, it came out of a long and exceptionally bloody civil war in 2002. It had been a Portuguese colony, is Portuguese-speaking and was orientated towards eastern Europe, Portugal, Cuba, Brazil and China. Since the election of a new President in 2017, there has been a tremendous amount of reform. The change has been very impressive; we certainly hope it continues. UKEF is helping with that even though it is not a Commonwealth country. Angola is now looking to the English-speaking world in trade, investment and education. The President has said that he wants Angola to join the Commonwealth, just as Rwanda and Mozambique chose to do. I realise that admission to the Commonwealth is a collective decision of all countries and is not in the UK’s gift, but how do the UK Government view Angola’s wish to join? I hope that the Minister will be very supportive.
The debate has been wide-ranging, as I expected, reflecting the long and diverse engagement with the Commonwealth represented here. The Minister faces a challenge in covering all the issues raised in her response, but I look forward to her reply.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for tabling this debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her excellent introduction. As she said, this year’s annual Commonwealth theme is “A Connected Commonwealth”, encouraging collaboration among the people, Governments and institutions of the Commonwealth to protect natural resources and promote inclusive economic empowerment so that all people—particularly women, young people and marginalised communities—can benefit equally. I will return to that theme as I progress through my contribution.
We have heard about the size of the Commonwealth —2.3 billion people, a third of the world’s population. That can obviously play a key role in supporting each member in addressing the challenges facing the world. The themes of this year build on the goals agreed at CHOGM 2018, most notably adopting the Commonwealth Blue Charter on sustainable development and protection of the world’s oceans; committing to ratify and implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; adopting the Commonwealth Cyber Declaration with a common commitment to an open, democratic, peaceful and secure internet; and respecting human rights and freedom of expression. All of this is complementary to the United Nations 2030 Agenda, specifically the commitment to leave no one behind.
As we have heard, the UK has the Chair-in-Office role for two years. The Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, laid a Written Statement in January updating Parliament on the Government’s delivery of the goals agreed at CHOGM. He stated that the United Kingdom is determined to work closely with its partners to maintain momentum following CHOGM and to revitalise and reform the Commonwealth. The Statement included updates on supporting education programmes and sustainability projects and building a more secure and prosperous Commonwealth.
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for the involvement of parliamentarians in CHOGM and the side events. I was extremely grateful to him for inviting us to a detailed briefing at the FCO updating us on the specific programmes and projects. As we have heard in this debate, and as Harriett Baldwin said in the other place on 7 March, it is “a huge agenda” with “lots more to do”; the Minister added to that. Harriett Baldwin summarised the Government’s objectives in four words:
“delivery, voice, solidarity and reform”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/19; col. 1218.]
Delivery is about implementing over £500 million of projects and programmes, including £200 million for the support of girls’ education in nine Commonwealth countries, as we have heard from noble Lords. In the debate in the other place, Harriett Baldwin also mentioned,
“collaboration between civil society and Commonwealth countries wishing to address legislation that discriminates on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/19; col. 1219.]
She highlighted the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and paid tribute to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Like the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, I share those sentiments wholeheartedly.
But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, delivery cannot be left to Governments alone. That is why we need to nurture and develop all aspects of civil society. The CPA does amazing work across the Commonwealth to advocate for and provide training to achieve more inclusive and effective Parliaments. It also reaches out beyond that and beyond formal structures, and I had the good fortune to mark Commonwealth Day by meeting young Commonwealth citizens on youth-led climate activism. They did not see the Commonwealth programme as being simply about their Governments. It was also about how they influence everyone within their society, including the private sector, which has a huge impact on things such as climate change and on other areas too. I will return to that issue.
My point is that we need to recognise that the ingredients of a thriving democracy are not limited to Parliaments and parliamentarians. Civil society, from churches to trade unions, remains an important part of democratic life and a guarantor of human rights. I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Boateng in relation to Cameroon, where we have seen evidence of the importance of civil society trying to bridge communities and to ensure that the actions of the majority Government do not tread on the interests of the minority. I hope that the Minister will respond to the specific points made by my noble friend.
One thing we learned from CHOGM was that we would hear about the newly funded work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about how that new work on promoting democratic engagement, particularly in civil society, will engage with trade unions as well. Far too often we talk about civil society and trade unions are ignored.
As we heard in the debate, despite the Prime Minister’s welcome speech at the summit, in which she apologised for the colonial imposition of anti-LGBT laws that still persist in many Commonwealth countries, there was no follow-up agreement among the attendees to do away with those laws. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for raising the case of Brunei. Brunei is a small country but incredibly wealthy. Its sovereign fund owns many luxury hotels. I wonder how many customers of those hotels realise what the owners are doing back in Brunei. Certainly, the hotels hold LGBT events. I find it amazing that we still have these horrendous penalties for simply loving somebody else. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that.
But, as the Minister pointed out recently in the Chamber, CHOGM was an opportunity for civil society on LGBT issues to come together. One of the good things about the four forums is that that engagement was not limited to the democracy forum. We had high attendance of LGBT activists from around the Commonwealth who certainly engaged in all four forums. I very much welcomed the United Kingdom’s support for the Commonwealth Equality Network, which has representatives across the Commonwealth—local LGBT activists who are engaged not just with their Governments but with all aspects of civil society.
The Government have promised to fund and support those countries that wish to change those anti-LGBT laws and get rid of the colonial legacy, and I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on what progress has been made on those projects and whether we can anticipate more countries decriminalising homosexuality.
The noble Lord, Lord Popat, referred to the important work he is doing in Uganda. I completely support his activities. He mentioned the visit of the President of Uganda to this House. I made a public comment at the time that may have been viewed as a criticism of that engagement. I wanted to make sure that the President of Uganda fully understood our views about the increasing homophobic attitude that is leading to not just increased criminalisation but violence against people who happen to be homosexual. When CHOGM took place, I was totally in favour of engagement, but with the support of the TUC I organised a forum on the side of the event, for African trade unionists. About 30 African trade unionists came to a meeting to talk about workplace rights, focusing particularly on diversity and LGBT rights. They may have come to that meeting with a view that it was something that they did not want to be part of, but they left with a better understanding of why equality and diversity are so important to economic success.
Lord Popat
I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is in his place and I hope he recalls that we went to see the Speaker and the President of Uganda during the IPU conference to speak on this subject. Every time I see President Museveni, I mention this. Quite often with African leaders, we have to mention it gradually and more or less educate them and explain to them. Same-sex marriage came up in our Parliament not long ago. Uganda is a young, small democracy and a strict Catholic country. There is no new legislation in Uganda to punish these people; the legislation is what Uganda inherited from the colonial time.
Lord Judd (Lab)
The noble Lord will remember that our visit to Uganda together was very difficult in some ways. There was a profound feeling among British parliamentarians about the treatment of homosexuals in Uganda. We had to handle this very prominently during our visit. When we talk about common values, we must be more honest about what are common values and what are not.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the noble Lord and my noble friend for their interventions. They might mean that my contribution will go on a little longer, so I hope I shall be forgiven for that. The point I am trying to make is that it is not a matter of us simply imposing or even saying that we are right and they are wrong. By engaging in economic activity and making the case for diversity and equality, we are saying that business will do better and people will be more productive. That is what I want to hear every time the noble Lord meets the President of Uganda or anyone else. Certainly there is a strong business case: the United Nations business case for diversity and equality. I hope all our trade envoys are making this case because we want not just the noble Lord to say it but for the private sector and investors to say it. That is when we will see proper change.
At Oral Questions on 13 March, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, sought assurances on whether the $500 million spent on projects and programmes initiated since CHOGM was being spent wisely and effectively. He asked about monitoring and oversight procedures. The Minister responded:
“Each of the four thematic areas identified at CHOGM—fairness, sustainability, prosperity and security—is overseen by the UK Commonwealth envoy. Quarterly steering board meetings assess progress and beneath that is a raft of other structures”.—[Official Report, 13/3/19; col. 1016.]
But what of accountability? Surely we can improve on what the noble Baroness told the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I would hope that, as a minimum, the briefing initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could be put on a regular footing so that we engage with parliamentarians of both Houses on what progress we are making in our position as chair-in-office. Seeing how we succeed will make the Commonwealth more relevant to parliamentarians.
We have heard a lot about trade, and certainly, following the EU referendum, the importance of trade within the Commonwealth has been stressed. I agree with noble Lords: trade with the Commonwealth is something that we should talk up as much as possible, irrespective of the debate about the European Union. It is a vital element for us. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, member states have a “Commonwealth advantage”, where shared values, regulatory systems and language have the potential to increase intra-Commonwealth trade. Incidentally, I do not think we should talk about promoting trade simply in the context of the UK’s interests; we should talk it up more loudly.
I think the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to the fact that at Commonwealth ministerial round tables there has been an agreement to increase intra-Commonwealth trade, with a projected increase to $1 trillion by 2020. A year ago, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland said that the Commonwealth is likely to miss that target. She predicted a figure of around $700 billion. What are we doing to engage on that? What is the Government’s assessment of how to overcome trade barriers facing Commonwealth countries? At CHOGM in London last year—the first since the Brexit vote—I would have liked to hear a louder declaration of that. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, is not in his place, but at CHOGM and today, as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council—I have heard his arguments many times—he talked about the barriers to trade, including abuse of the rule of law, lack of trust in trading partners and so on. He has argued today, as he has before, that we should focus on building the capacity within the Commonwealth to ensure that businesses confronted by such obstacles are supported.
No mention has been made of development and the CDC, for example. I welcome the Government’s potential increase in investment for the CDC, but that leverages more capacity in the private sector. We need to see how its activities are linked to sustainable economic growth and not just one-off investments. That is the problem with a lot of Chinese investment. I was in Zambia before Christmas and witnessed some of the impact of Chinese investment, with fridges being built entirely by Chinese labour. There was no local, sustainable employment. We can do better than that and we should be focused on it.
I conclude by making a plea. We have the anti-corruption strategy and we have had anti-corruption summits. According to the World Economic Forum, corruption is the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development around the world. Every year, $1 trillion is paid in bribes, while an estimated $2.6 trillion annually is stolen through corruption. That sum is equivalent to more than 5% of global GDP. We would not need ODA if we tackled corruption. We could have stronger economies in Africa. I should like to hear from the noble Baroness how we are committed to tackling tax havens and international finance policies that have resulted in developing countries haemorrhaging billions of dollars in taxable financial resources.
I am sorry to have gone on for so long but I was interrupted twice.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, identified a logistical problem. I have notes here equivalent to Bleak House, although much cheerier; I will see what I can do to address the points raised.
First, this has been an uplifting and encouraging occasion. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed their knowledge, views, experience and expertise to this excellent and wide-ranging debate. I want to expand on my introductory remarks to the debate by addressing some of the salient points that have emerged. I will try to group these around the four themes of delivery, reform, solidarity and voice, as many of the contributions touched on one or other of those themes.
On delivery, my noble friend Lady Redfern raised the important issue of our oceans, which she encountered on the CPA visit last year to, I think, New Zealand. This topic was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Northbrook and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Various things are happening to build a more sustainable future, but 25 member states have now joined the Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance and are taking action to eliminate all avoidable single-use plastic waste and reduce the amount of plastic entering our oceans.
To build a more secure future, we are working with member states and international organisations such as the World Bank to help protect our people and businesses from ever-more sophisticated digital threats. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised this point. I say to him that, as we speak, the UK is hosting 19 Commonwealth African countries at a regional workshop on cyber incident response in Ghana. This work will support the development of national cybersecurity reviews, which have already been delivered in Nigeria, the Gambia, Mauritius and Lesotho. UK-funded training and events will directly benefit the cybersecurity of 37 Commonwealth countries.
Regarding a more prosperous future, I turn to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Howell, which I found cogent and compelling on the new economy. If I remember correctly, he said that Asia is key to our future and observed that the Commonwealth has a tremendous capacity to influence and participate in that new horizon. He is absolutely right to say this. We need to recognise the new economic reality, and I know his wise words will be heard.
We are working with partners to boost intra-Commonwealth trade and investment—a point raised by a number of your Lordships. Last week, the UK and South Africa co-hosted the first meeting of the Digital Cluster of the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda in Durban. This new initiative will help more people to join the digital economy as part of our commitment to reducing poverty through trade.
To build a fairer future, we are working to promote inclusive and accountable democracies. My noble friend Lord Haselhurst spoke of the role of Parliaments. In a perverse sense, the tumult that we are experiencing so close to home is perhaps a reminder of how fortunate we are to have parliaments and democracies. We may have our own opinions on how they function from time to time, but none the less they exist as one of our essential freedoms. I say to my noble friend that, last month, the UK-funded Commonwealth Partnership for Democracy hosted a two-day conference at the Malaysian Parliament in Kuala Lumpur to promote women’s political leadership. As part of the same initiative, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s UK branch hosted the first of a series of workshops with the Commonwealth Association of Public Accounts Committees in Fiji. These workshops will enhance the capacity of Pacific Island Public Accounts Committees to scrutinise and oversee public finances.
It is clear that your Lordships take a keen and committed interest in the organisations and institutions of the Commonwealth. Noble Lords are right to do so, and may that continue. Reform was raised particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Chidgey. The UK remains a major contributor to the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation, and is the second highest contributor to the Commonwealth of Learning.
As I have set out, the UK has actively sought to work with Commonwealth organisations as delivery partners for our many programmes, but to achieve more than the sum of their parts, those parts need to be functioning effectively in their own right as well as together. So we agree that there is room for improvement and more effective collaboration.
The Commonwealth Secretariat’s board of governors recently agreed recommendations that will take us towards these goals, and we hope Ministers will approve them soon. I must pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for his significant contribution as a member of the high-level group mandated to report on these issues. His is an authoritative participation. In the same vein, I recognise my noble friend Lord Marland and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who continue to make significant contributions to the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council and the Commonwealth of Learning respectively.
Noble Lords will recognise the Commonwealth’s long history of working with international partners to shape and drive change in response to global challenges. We have therefore sought to strengthen co-operation in international organisations. In practical terms, that has meant more frequent Commonwealth discussions ahead of WTO and Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva, and increased co-ordination at the recent International Telecommunication Union elections in Dubai.
At this point I want to mention what I thought was a very passionate contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, who spoke of the terrible ravage wrought by Cyclone Idai. It has been a desperate experience for so many countries, as he rightly said. I thank the noble Lord for his helpful remarks about the DfID response. He raised the issue of a global response, and made an important observation about the obligation on what he describes as “a family”; a term that some noble Lords have alluded to and something that we can all identify with. The obligation on the family is to speak when other members of the family are affected and when disasters occur. That is a reasonable expectation and an aspect of solidarity. I am sure his powerful call will have been heard by all component parts of the Commonwealth. He also raised the issue of the task force. My understanding is that it is a US-led initiative. I understand that my noble friend Lord Bates is writing to Peers to provide details about the UK and international response to this international disaster, and I hope further information will be available to all your Lordships from that source.
As I said earlier, we are not only co-ordinating more intensively in international organisations but working to ensure that the voice of the Commonwealth is heard in these fora. At the United Nations General Assembly last September, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke as chair-in-office on behalf of the Heads of Government of the 53 Commonwealth countries—and that is one-quarter of the United Nations membership. She spoke to reaffirm their support for the rules-based international system. Significantly, that was the first time that the Commonwealth’s collective voice had been heard in that way at the General Assembly, and I think that is a very positive development. We are committed to ensuring that the Commonwealth is heard more often, clearly and decisively in international fora. The UK is well placed to advance that objective, and I think your Lordships would support such an approach.
On the matter of voice, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, mentioned the situation in Cameroon, as did the noble Lord, Lord Collins. He mentioned the human rights situation in the anglophone regions of Cameron. We are deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in that region. We have raised our concerns with the Government of Cameroon; most recently, the Minister for the Commonwealth did so at the Human Rights Council on 21 March in a joint statement with Austria that was supported by 39 countries.
I look now at my stack of noble Lords’ contributions, and I will try to work my way through it as best I can. If I speak very rapidly, please bear with me. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, raised the matter of the parliamentary forum. The UK Government were delighted to see such strong parliamentary interest in the run-up to CHOGM, to support the CPA UK parliamentarians’ forum in February last year and to support the UK parliamentary delegation. We will continue to work with the CPA while we are chair-in-office, and we have encouraged Rwanda to consider how it can involve parliamentarians at its CHOGM in Kigali next year.
The noble Lord raised the issue of a free and inclusive media environment, which, it goes without saying, is extremely important. The Foreign Secretary is hosting an international conference in July and we will be encouraging Foreign Ministers of every member of the Commonwealth to attend. The UK supports the Commonwealth working group on media and good governance, as it develops Commonwealth principles on freedom of expression. We hope to see a full discussion of these principles ahead of adoption at CHOGM in 2020.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, my noble friends Lord Haselhurst and Lord Northbrook, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, all raised the important issue of young people. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Haselhurst impressed me greatly by talking about some form of digital buddying—I did not realise that he was so down with the kids. It is a very good suggestion. I can say to your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Ahmad recently convened Commonwealth youth leaders for a roundtable discussion that was also attended by the Commonwealth youth ambassador, His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex. We are working closely with the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Youth Council to realise the vision of young leaders.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, raised a number of other important questions, on which I will write to him, if I may.
My noble friend Lord Haselhurst raised a very specific issue relating to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s request to change the status of the Commonwealth from a UK charity to an international organisation, with functional privileges and immunities. I pay tribute to my noble friend’s tireless work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I commend the work it does and continues to do. We received the business case to support this charitable status change, and it is currently being reviewed by our protocol and legal teams; that is where it has got to and I am afraid there is nothing more I can add at this point.
I think it was the noble Lord, Viscount Waverley, who raised freedom of religion and belief. He will be aware that heads of the Commonwealth have recognised freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of religion and belief as cornerstones of democratic societies. The UK-funded Commonwealth Partnership for Democracy is promoting freedom of religion and belief in the Commonwealth during our chair-in-office.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised a very important point about what I think she described as a pan-Whitehall approach to the Commonwealth by the UK Government. Her concept was that this has to be woven into all the activities of government. I know that we try to do that, but I fully accept that perhaps we can do better. I shall take that suggestion back. She said, and I think that I am quoting her correctly, that, “We need to think and act Commonwealth”. I agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, my noble friend Lord Marland, who is no longer in his place, and my noble friend Lord Northbrook raised the whole issue of funding. I will not go over the details, but your Lordships will be aware that the UK is the significant funder of the Commonwealth Secretariat. We provide approximately 33% of total assessed contributions and voluntary contributions of up to £9 million per annum for programmes. As to overall funding, I think the point being made was that there needed to be a broader reach of funding, which might be desirable but is something that only Commonwealth members can resolve, and they need to do that by debates. But I have heard the point clearly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, specifically asked whether the UK is looking to replace EU trade with the Commonwealth. As we are aware, approximately 9% of UK exports of goods and services go to the Commonwealth and 8% of UK imports come from there, so there is a growth potential and it is right to identify it. But is also important to recognise that the Commonwealth is not an alternative to the EU; they are very different organisations that do different things. Many members are also part of other groupings.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked how many EU free trade agreements with Commonwealth countries are ready to roll over on exit. I think I would have to roll over if I tried to reply to that. I will need to find more specific information and write to him, if I may.
The noble Lord also raised an important point about what we are doing to help veterans from the Commonwealth who are living in poverty. From April 2019, UK aid will protect more than 7,000 Commonwealth veterans and widows who have served with the British Armed Forces. We will try to protect them from extreme poverty. The £18.2 million programme, working with the Royal Commonwealth Ex-Services League, will support 4,500 veterans and 2,500 widows of veterans in the countries that are eligible for official development assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, raised the very important issue of women, as did a number of other noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who exemplified what a remarkable woman is by reference to Her Majesty the Queen—though I might say to my noble friend that it takes a remarkable woman to recognise a remarkable woman. The place of women is very important. There is a network of peer-to-peer learning for women peacebuilders across Commonwealth countries, which is supporting women to build their capacity through training and mentoring schemes to secure mediation roles internationally, and building local peace. That has recruited over 30 well-qualified members out of a target of 50 by March 2020, so progress is being made.
The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, raised the issue of UK aid to Commonwealth countries. Our bilateral aid for 2017 was £1.945 billion. In 2017, eight of the top 20 recipients of UK overseas development aid were Commonwealth countries. He wants more specific information; I shall investigate and try to provide that.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook raised the matter of Indian visas. For the last four years, over half of all skilled workers’ visas issued here have been given to Indians, who provide vital and appreciated work across the UK economy. Around 19,000 student visas were granted to Indians in 2018 alone, a rise of 33% from the previous year. I do not have the exact figure, but it was a rise, so that is going in the right way.
More generally, I absolutely agree about the central importance of India in the modern Commonwealth, and it is right that we note Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the UK for CHOGM as an important step. I can update my noble friend: the UK Commonwealth envoy visited New Delhi and Hyderabad in January to encourage continued Indian engagement, and we are already engaging closely with the new Indian High Commissioner, who presented her credentials to Her Majesty the Queen just yesterday.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook raised an issue about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership; I propose to write to him about that. My noble friend Lord Popat, who is the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Uganda and Rwanda, for which I thank him, raised the important matter of intra-Commonwealth trade. As he knows, developments have taken place within the Commonwealth, with the goal of boosting intra-Commonwealth trade to $2 trillion per annum by 2030. He also raised the question of visas, which I think I have dealt with, and of a Commonwealth bank—an idea we are aware has been circulating and which has been discussed with relevant experts at the secretariat. Our judgment is that the Commonwealth is well served by the existing range of multilateral development banks, including those focused on infrastructure.
I want to conclude by addressing the very important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Collins, regarding the development in Brunei relating to corporal punishment. Let me make it clear that these penalties are alien to our British values. They are a stark contravention of human rights and, of course, are banned in the UK. We regularly encourage Brunei, and many other countries, to remove corporal and capital punishment from their statutes, and we will continue to do so. Capital punishment—for any crime— goes against our national values. It has been prohibited in the UK for decades. We are very clear in voicing our utter condemnation of capital punishment, wherever it is occurring in the broader world.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised a number of important issues and I commend him for his work in relation to LGBT rights. He referred to the meeting he held, and I thought his comment that educating to understand equality can lead to economic success was very informative. We all appreciate the link between the two things, and the UK is doing what it can to encourage that work.
I seem to have run out of time and I apologise, because this has been an absolutely marvellous debate. I will look at Hansard and address in correspondence any points that I have not managed to deal with from the Dispatch Box. I think I can speak for us all when I say that this has been a vibrant debate full of positive thoughts and, yes, realistic concerns, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, said. But there has also been an awareness that we are part of something very important, which has a very positive future. We all want to work hard to make sure that that future is realised in the optimal fashion possible.